I'm not sure that I know what the thesis of the video is. If it's that Western countries should stop sending military aid based on Israel's behavior in Gaza, then I would agree. Israel hasn't...
Exemplary
I'm not sure that I know what the thesis of the video is. If it's that Western countries should stop sending military aid based on Israel's behavior in Gaza, then I would agree. Israel hasn't really lived up to its promises for at least the last 20 years. But the video presents a number of ideas that I find fairly weak or unrelated to that position.
Taking a step back, most third-parties who are knowledgeable of the conflict and its history should be able to separate out different eras where the characteristics of the conflict significantly differed. The nature of the conflict over the last 20 years is very different, than say, the conflict from 1948-1967.
However, his treatment of the history didn't come across as particularly impartial or nuanced, and seemed mostly targeted at the worst arguments presented by Israel's apologists. Which is disappointing in a 1.5 hour video.
I've characterized the history of the conflict as one of victims. Looking narrowly at Israelis and Palestinians, they have over the years been victims of each other, of their neighbors, and the world around them. That their Arab neighbors were also victims of Britain and the league of nations is very true, and feeds into the conflicts history. Lawrence of Arabia famously declined knighthood because he felt Britain betrayed the Arabs. But if anyone bears blame for that today, shouldn't it be Britain?
And yet, in a 1.5 hour video that goes back to the late 19th century, we only saw the smallest snippets of actual history presented, and none of it that I noticed dealing with the harms to Jewish people's in the region.
I've intentionally avoided a bullet list of arguments in the video, because that sort of tit for tat debate isn't particularly productive. But I don't think that the video does a good job of laying out a fundamental premise and supporting it, and strays a little too close to one side bearing all the fault for the entire last 75+ years for my comfort.
Edit: the more I think about it, the more bothersome I find what I feel to be a rebuttal to a reductionist version of the conflict. E.g., the comment about bloodthirsty Arabs. I don't think any credible third party has that view. So I go back to where I started. I don't know that I understand the premise of the video, its thesis, or who the target audience is.
Honestly, I'm disappointed in this video/Shaun. I only watched about 10 minutes of it, but in those 10 minutes it was already made clear that this was not going to be fair, nor trying to convince...
Honestly, I'm disappointed in this video/Shaun. I only watched about 10 minutes of it, but in those 10 minutes it was already made clear that this was not going to be fair, nor trying to convince people on the fence. It's not going after a reasonably strong version of the pro-israel arguments, because I don't think that's what Shaun is going for. Shaun starts from a position of "Israel is the baddie here" and goes from there. I didn't bother with that, and reading your comment sorta confirms to me that that's what the video mostly is.
I'm entirely on board with a 2h deep dive into this conflict, working up the history and probably also a fair amount of assigning blame to various parties. I don't expect Israel to walk away clean from that, not at all. But I think a fair trial will achieve painting Israel in a light thoroughly deserving of criticism all the same.
This video is made by actual historians who always strive for total historical fact and accuracy on their channels. It is in my opinion a very fair, balanced, and objective look at the actual...
I'm entirely on board with a 2h deep dive into this conflict, working up the history and probably also a fair amount of assigning blame to various parties. I don't expect Israel to walk away clean from that, not at all. But I think a fair trial will achieve painting Israel in a light thoroughly deserving of criticism all the same.
This video is made by actual historians who always strive for total historical fact and accuracy on their channels. It is in my opinion a very fair, balanced, and objective look at the actual unbiased history. Highly recommend it as the deep dive you are looking for.
Haven't watched it yet, but yeah, TimeGhost is IMO much better about such things. Have yet to see them embroiled in any notable drama around how they present history, and they've been doing it for...
Haven't watched it yet, but yeah, TimeGhost is IMO much better about such things. Have yet to see them embroiled in any notable drama around how they present history, and they've been doing it for a while.
The answer to that question is a lot more complex than you might think (the following is a copy of the top comment since I noticed that the account is already deleted): It really depends what...
It really depends what we're talking about when we talk about "history." I think there is a very wide gap here between academic history (the kind being done at universities) and history as it is taught in high schools, and then again popular history. There is clearly overlap and the groups are not entirely distinct, but I think these three "kinds" of history that are in our historical discourse are offenders of the "history written by the victors" problem to quite different degrees.
Many academic historians have become increasingly conscious of giving voice to "the losers" of history not just as an imperative towards writing good history, but also towards a more moral history. Although there might be some discomfort with such moralizing, I think the historiographic/theoretical interventions made by historians (and other scholars for that matter) starting in the 1960s and 70s in favor of a more "ground up" kind of history have become well accepted.
It is not to say that academic history has banished any notion of simply reiterating the story or narrative of the victory, but rather than historians are increasingly conscious about how they might be doing so and generally try not to, or to bring attention to it when they might have in order to make it more visible. In large parts things like social history tried to bring to light the historical narratives of less empowered groups. Therefore, social history spawned various offshoots - theories about labor, gender, race, etc. - that are often some of the historian's best tools for engaging with histories of people who may not have left behind the same kinds of documents and records that historians who study "great men" might have used.
One of the landmark titles from this era, one that you can't get a degree in history without knowing well these days, is Edward Said's Orientalism (1978) in which Said takes to task the academic "orientalists" (the word for people who studied "the East" and which has fallen out of favor since the book was written) who fetishized "the East" and therefore contributed greatly to the West's exploitation of it. Said made several critical arguments in this book. I think the most important are the following:
Academics who are studying foreign places have a responsibility to make sure that their work is not contributing to harming the place they are studying. To make sure, for example, that their work might not contribute to arguments or an atmosphere in which political leaders might find it easier to invade or exploit, for example, the geographic region they study.
It is very possible to contribute to such a state of affairs even when you have no intention to do so. This is, I think, one of the most far reaching of Said's observations. In calling out orientalists for this, Said illustrated the point in a general fashion and called on historians and anthropologists to be introspective about the ramifications of their work. To avoid fetishizing a culture, which may be done unintentionally simply because you seem to like it. And why wouldn't that be so? There can be no doubt many scholars choose to study a particular area because they find it interesting and enjoyable. Said says - your good intentions aren't enough. This idea becoming widespread had some of the most profound impact on how historians thought about their work and its impact. You start to see more concern about reifying existing power structures and questioning traditional narratives.
Out of this era you also get work like Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee (1970) by Dee Brown. The work is hardly the be all and end all of historiography of the Native American experience of American expansionism, but it nonetheless helped to shift the narrative about that. The traditional glorification of American settlers was called into question and the victories of the American government over Native Americans in war were not glorified, but rather characterized as brutal. Dee Brown, for the record, was not writing as a Native American himself, but as a white man. (Brown’s work preceded Said’s by nearly a decade, so I’ll just clarify that I placed Said’s work first in this discussion for its historiographical importance rather than chronological significance). So while this history was still, in some sense, being written by the victor, it was acutely aware of the problems associated with traditional historical narratives and went far out of its way to tell the narrative from, as near as he could, the perspective of the Native Americans in question.
Another important book is the often maligned People’s History of the United States by Howard Zinn. The book is not important because it is the definitive version of United States history that everyone should read and accept. (No book is that, by the way. You can’t fully understand any topic by reading one book.) Zinn’s contribution was not in overturning all previous work on the US and providing us with a replacement, but rather putting the histories of “the losers” on full display as the central subject of his work. Indeed, Zinn says as much in his first chapter.
Thus, in that inevitable taking of sides which comes from selection and emphasis in history, I prefer to try to tell the story of the discovery of America from the viewpoint of the Arawaks, of the Constitution from the standpoint of the slaves, of Andrew Jackson as seen by the Cherokees, of the Civil War as seen by the New York Irish, of the Mexican war as seen by the deserting soldiers of Scott's army, of the rise of industrialism as seen by the young women in the Lowell textile mills, of the Spanish-American war as seen by the Cubans, the conquest of the Philippines as seen by black soldiers on Luzon, the Gilded Age as seen by southern farmers, the First World War as seen by socialists, the Second World War as seen by pacifists, the New Deal as seen by blacks in Harlem, the postwar American empire as seen by peons in Latin America. And so on, to the limited extent that any one person, however he or she strains, can "see" history from the standpoint of others. (10)
He goes on…
I don't want to invent victories for people's movements. But to think that history-writing must aim simply to recapitulate the failures that dominate the past is to make historians collaborators in an endless cycle of defeat. If history is to be creative, to anticipate a possible future without denying the past, it should, I believe, emphasize new possibilities by disclosing those hidden episodes of the past when, even if in brief flashes, people showed their ability to resist, to join together, occasionally to win. I am supposing, or perhaps only hoping, that our future may be found in the past's fugitive moments of compassion rather than in its solid centuries of warfare. That, being as blunt as I can, is my approach to the history of the United States. The reader may as well know that before going on. (10-11)
Whether you like Zinn’s work or not, you can hardly argue that it isn't a very deliberate attempt to avoid writing a history of or by the victors.
I think this stands in contrasts to the history that people tend to learn in in high school or that they see on television, or perhaps on the shelves at Barnes and Noble (do people still shop at Barnes and Noble?).
In this first case, you have history curricula that are not being decided by historians at all. Those curricula and the text books used to support them are by far more the result of local politics than anything else. You might remember a recent flare up from 2014 about precisely this issue in Colorado when a school board tried to change the way history was being taught. A resolution by the school board said the curriculum should, for example, promote “patriotism and the benefits of the free-enterprise system” and I think also had some language about making sure the curriculum didn’t encourage “social disorder.
THIS is history by the victors. It is not merely about telling a particular narrative of from, in stark opposition to what Zinn did, the perspective of the victors. It is also a modern day attempt to reify the structures which have been passed down as a result of that victory. It was precisely this kind of thing that prompted the kind of scholarly backlash that produced Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, A People’s History of the United States, and Said’s Orientalism. Although I think some of the work from that era is regarded as too “biased” (other discussion that I feel strongly about but will keep to a bit of a minimum here), I think this back and forth makes sense in the context of understanding, like Said understood so well, that history plays an important social and cultural role.
Lastly, popular history comes somewhere in the middle. There is a lot of good popular history out there, but it is largely not as steeped in the kind of historiographic and theoretical frameworks that explicitly frame more academic works. The kinds of things that help historians to tell more than just the story of the victors. Popular history is such a broad category that you can’t say too much about it as a genre, so I’ll leave it at that. The degree to which theoretical frameworks to influence those books, explicitly stated or not, is usually the degree to which I find them to be good history.
So where does that leave us? Well, I think its fair to say that academic historians are very very aware of this problem and have done a lot over the last 40-50 years to try to combat it. Sometimes this has come from perspectives that deliberately seek to rehabilitate and emphasize the perspectives of the “sub-altern,” but it has also come from a general theoretical and methodological shift that has changed the focus on the kinds of sources that historians use, where they look for them, and how they engage with them. Nonetheless, and this is one of my great problems with academia, is that all of those insights and perspectives are outside of the public view. The best work is published in academic journals that require absurdly expensive subscriptions or access to libraries that have a subscription. The best books are published by university presses on small print-runs that make them expensive. Only the ones that turn out to be the most outlandishly popular ever get read by anyone who isn’t going well out of their way to find it. It’s a mix of forces. Academia’s insularity meets the public’s interest in being presented with a more simplistic narrative that doesn’t challenge their worldview too much.
The sides of this are hardly as clear as I've drawn them here, as another responder mentioned. The lines between "victor" and "loser" are hardly ever as clear as they seem and the agendas of school boards and historians are likewise neither so straight forward.
I think this is the big takeaway from the nearly 2000 words I’ve just hammered out on the topic is as follows: The kind of history that the average person is exposed to is far more by “the victors” than history the way that academic historians try to practice and write it.
I worry a little that perhaps I've painted academic historians as "the good guys" here without exception and that clearly isn't so.There’s also the issue that there are a lot of institutions and historians around the world that simply don’t have the kind of integrity to write and promote the kind of history that tried to avoid it. Indeed, there are plenty of people out there who have something personal to gain by reinforcing victor narratives. A mere association with academia is not evidence of one's good intention. That being said I think that the vast majority of good historical work that has been done to address the problem has been done by academic historians.
I think it’s plenty clear by now where my opinion lies here. I think including the voices of the oppressed and downtrodden is an important task for history as a profession. That does not mean that history should only be that and that historians should study nothing else. It is to say the following: A history that is not introspective and self-critical can never be complete. The degree to which the field of history has gotten better, as a whole, doing this over the last 50 years is quite staggering. But historiography isn’t a static thing and it isn’t something that only the whole experiences “progress” – so history is, as always, provisional and up for discussion.
Wow, thank you for enabling my procrastination regarding some challenging work tasks..! Without having yet read that, I'll take this as a 'No, an objective look at the actual unbiased history is...
Wow, thank you for enabling my procrastination regarding some challenging work tasks..!
Without having yet read that, I'll take this as a 'No, an objective look at the actual unbiased history is not a thing'.
It is a very detailed account of saying "It depends". I think the last sentence is a decent TL:DR; for the whole post:
It is a very detailed account of saying "It depends". I think the last sentence is a decent TL:DR; for the whole post:
A history that is not introspective and self-critical can never be complete. The degree to which the field of history has gotten better, as a whole, doing this over the last 50 years is quite staggering. But historiography isn’t a static thing and it isn’t something that only the whole experiences “progress” – so history is, as always, provisional and up for discussion.
Israel being the conqueror in this case? Do you really think they are succeeding in writing their history..? Zero historians worth listening to will take what the "conqueror" says at face value....
Israel being the conqueror in this case? Do you really think they are succeeding in writing their history..? Zero historians worth listening to will take what the "conqueror" says at face value.
As for your question, yes, history is inherently unbiased and factual. They specifically address this in the first few minutes of the video, where they very clearly state that they are trying to present history as it really happened. This is a field of study and it's their job to get to the bottom of things. They do not have an agenda.
Conquerors may have tried to do write their history, and maybe they have swayed their population for a time. But the facts of what happened will come out, whether or not a conqueror tries to write whatever version of history they personally prefer. War crimes or genocides for example are things that conquerors have tried to cover up or hide throughout history, countless times, and yet the truth often eventually comes out.
What they cover in the video is recent history and there is an abundance of sources for it. This isn't ancient history where it's out of living memory or where records might have been destroyed forever. And they are not jumping to conclusions or interpreting anything. On their channels, they only present what really happened. And if they aren't sure what happened, they present different sides of the argument and say what they think happened. And if they don't know what happened, they say they don't know. They do have a few different series, like the on on the holocaust where they do get into the how's and why's, and that is of course open to interpretation, but this one is purely a "what" video.
They are very open about their goals, and like most historians they seek to simply get to the bottom of what happened, when did it happen, what happened next, etc. Pure historical fact. So yes there definitely is such a thing as objectively presenting history as it happened.
I'm not suspecting that they have an agenda. I'm just saying that it isn't really humanly possible to be completely objective and unbiased. If these people claim to have that ability, I would...
As for your question, yes, history is inherently unbiased and factual. They specifically address this in the first few minutes of the video, where they very clearly state that they are trying to present history as it really happened. This is a field of study and it's their job to get to the bottom of things. They do not have an agenda.
I'm not suspecting that they have an agenda. I'm just saying that it isn't really humanly possible to be completely objective and unbiased. If these people claim to have that ability, I would question their reliability.
Based on your description, it does seem like they're trying to do a really good job. However, even the "what happened" is always a biased take, because things must be edited out for other things to fit in, and the sources that get used or not already have in-built bias one way or the other. In your opinion, are these guys using a balanced set of source material that represents the viewpoint of at least two of the main "sides" in this conflict?
I feel like you should just watch the Shaun video if you haven't already. Yes, over time the bad deeds of the colonialists come to light, people are appalled, and the government at the time will...
Conquerors may have tried to do write their history, and maybe they have swayed their population for a time. But the facts of what happened will come out, whether or not a conqueror tries to write whatever version of history they personally prefer. War crimes or genocides for example are things that conquerors have tried to cover up or hide throughout history, countless times, and yet the truth often eventually comes out.
I feel like you should just watch the Shaun video if you haven't already.
Yes, over time the bad deeds of the colonialists come to light, people are appalled, and the government at the time will say 'Oops, our mistake! So sorry about that!' But by then the culture, values and mindset of the colonialists have become dominant and the damage done to the culture that was eradicated is irreversible. Everyone who has a voice in that culture is now speaking and writing from that dominant perspective, and if they aren't, they get singled out as a contrarian.
'I'm sorry that I treated these people violently' is still the perspective of the oppressor, even if an ostensibly compassionate one. In that sense, every history book is written from the perspective of the victor/oppressor.
I don't understand why you seemingly dismiss history (and historiography) so I don't know how to have a sober discussion about much of anything if your presumption is that actual historians are...
I don't understand why you seemingly dismiss history (and historiography) so I don't know how to have a sober discussion about much of anything if your presumption is that actual historians are more untrustworthy than a Youtuber. I don't think we're going to find common ground in this so please forgive that I won't continue the discussion.
Fair enough. I'd like to clarify that I wasn't dismissing history at all and I'm a little surprised that what I wrote has been interpreted that way. I was simply pointing out that beliefs in any...
Fair enough. I'd like to clarify that I wasn't dismissing history at all and I'm a little surprised that what I wrote has been interpreted that way. I was simply pointing out that beliefs in any human being's pure objectivity are unrealistic - be they a historian or not. I do agree that it's still valuable to try to be as objective as one possibly can, and that some people certainly are able to achieve better objectivity than others.
As well, I was definitely not comparing the historians with Shaun. Like he said himself in the video, he isn't even attempting an accurate historical recount.
Thank you, that was an interesting read. I get the impression that maybe Shaun is a well intentioned humanist, but maybe not great at presenting history.
Thank you, that was an interesting read. I get the impression that maybe Shaun is a well intentioned humanist, but maybe not great at presenting history.
That's increasingly becoming my problem with these Youtube essayists. They don't stick to their lane and therefore eventually end up spreading misinformation, accidental or not. Another example of...
That's increasingly becoming my problem with these Youtube essayists. They don't stick to their lane and therefore eventually end up spreading misinformation, accidental or not.
Another example of this is Philosophy Tube. She has a masters in philosophy, which is all fine and great, but she then went and talked about psychiatry with such confidence that you would think she was an authority on the subject. I'm not an authority on it either, but I have had enough therapy throughout my life that I do know more than most. People corrected her in the comments, which was something at least, but it just kind of made me laugh that a person with one degree thinks she can speak on another subject that has nothing to do with her actual field of study. That said, I have no idea what Shaun's background is.
But it's similar to reading a news article about subject X that you are an expert on, and being able to instantly see things that they got wrong or misrepresent through a simple lack of understanding - like Shaun and Philosophy Tube ended up doing. And you realise... if this person/journalist was wrong about subject X, are they then also wrong about subject Y and subject Z and all sorts of other topics that you just so happen to not know anything about? Their credibility instantly falls of a cliff (at least for me).
I think Shaun has always been particularly bad for this sort of thing - I don't think he has any real background in most of the topics he talks about, and he's talked about this before. In all...
I think Shaun has always been particularly bad for this sort of thing - I don't think he has any real background in most of the topics he talks about, and he's talked about this before. In all fairness, he puts a lot of effort into researching things, but I think the medium encourages him to make more in-depth videos than his research allows for.
I think that's why, of all the BreadTube channels, the one I've stuck with the most is probably Hbomberguy, just because his video essays tend to be more about subjects he knows a lot about already, or at least where expertise is less relevant. Contrapoints for me also mostly fits into this category.
I also recommend Unlearning Economics, who works in academia specifically in economics, and tends to stay mostly in that economics lane.
Interestingly, I found another r/badhistory criticism of Shaun (from when he tweeted about the atomic bombings). This one is, in my opinion worse, for two reasons: He uses quotes from American...
He uses quotes from American generals and admirals downplaying the effectiveness of the bomb. These have to be taken in context though, because the military was facing a major postwar drawdown. There were proposals to eliminate the Marine Corps as a branch, ships were getting cancelled, personnel counts in the army were going down with demobilization, and there was real concern that the military would be drastically scaled down in favor of a shitload of nukes.
I have a hard time following the criticism presented in that Reddit thread. They seem to conceptualize racism as some crime which must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, rather than as a...
I have a hard time following the criticism presented in that Reddit thread. They seem to conceptualize racism as some crime which must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, rather than as a foundational and pervasive part of American ideology. When you see racism as part of the ideology of the Truman administration, it comes across as bizarre to suggest that it did not play a role.
The use of the word “undoubtedly” is very strong. It implies a certain definitiveness in motive which isn’t there. While the Japanese were discussed vis-a-vis targeting in 1943, this was a very...
The use of the word “undoubtedly” is very strong. It implies a certain definitiveness in motive which isn’t there.
While the Japanese were discussed vis-a-vis targeting in 1943, this was a very early, brief discussion in a meeting on other issues/topics. This was at a time when there were concerns about the bomb being a dud, and that if was used against Germany, they’d have had sufficient fissile material and technical knowledge to reconstruct a weapon. Note that the target proposed at the time wasn’t in the Japanese home islands, but in Chuuk, in Micronesia, home to a significant Japanese naval force.
By my reading, the crux of this is that Shaun was a little over eager in calling something (that does have a lot of supporting evidence) ‘obvious’ (edit: I think undoubtedly was the exact word)...
By my reading, the crux of this is that Shaun was a little over eager in calling something (that does have a lot of supporting evidence) ‘obvious’ (edit: I think undoubtedly was the exact word) when in fact there is a lot of dispute (doubt) about it. Shaun’s ‘crime’ here, to me, is that he apparently did not make it clear enough that he was stating his opinion, how it seems to him, rather than necessarily stating a complete synthesis of the academic debate on the matter. He probably could have acknowledged that there was more diversity of thought on the matter and I do think in terms of argumentation forms like ‘obviously‘ or ‘undoubtedly’ are lazy shortcuts and can be used as argument by abuse rhetorical devices.
(Also: Given the evidence in the BH article I must say it ‘feels’ pretty obvious to me that it was a major influence, especially with respect the public support. I am by no means any kind of expert in this area though)
Further, the extent to which he even blurred that line depends on how the person receiving the video is interpreting it. YouTube essayists fall on some spectrum between entertainment and journalism, and I think in most cases taking it as a piece of academic literature is v. silly - whether that means swallowing it whole or applying the rigours of academic scholarship to it. I get that this kind of interpretation is most of badhistory and friends’ shtick. It can be interesting at times, but it often just comes across as pedantic inversion of charity principle played for haughty elitist laughs to me…
His video on the nuclear bombings has a bibliography and he often refers to sources. I don't think it's a stretch to apply a bit more academic rigor here, both because Shaun himself does it, but...
His video on the nuclear bombings has a bibliography and he often refers to sources. I don't think it's a stretch to apply a bit more academic rigor here, both because Shaun himself does it, but also because -due to him applying at the very least a veneer of academia- people will take what he says for fact; it's all written down in historical literature after all. Except where it isn't written down, and he's just making it up. Crossing that line is never a good thing and always deserves criticism, if only to keep viewers alert and their critical thinking engaged.
The other direction is less problematic. If I make an opinion piece that is clearly perceived as such, and I make a well-sourced statement of facts, the worst thing that's going to happen is that people think it's opinion when it's fact. That's quite ok. But that's not what this is, or at least, that's not how Shaun's nukes video presents itself.
Interestingly, and IMO fittingly, the Palestine video has no listed sources, instead just listing charities.
I think it’s v. fair to discuss in more depth what the sources referred to are saying. I guess it’s mainly that the whole thing seems to be predicated on intentionally not understanding that Shaun...
I think it’s v. fair to discuss in more depth what the sources referred to are saying. I guess it’s mainly that the whole thing seems to be predicated on intentionally not understanding that Shaun is saying his opinion, how the evidence he referred to seems to him (and like I said, it still ‘seems’ that way to me too even after reading the BH article. Edit: which is presumably the process Shaun went through too).
I don't begrudge him having an opinion or stating it, obviously not. But establishing legitimacy on one issue and then spouting (unmarked) opinions on other issues is exactly how we got faux...
I don't begrudge him having an opinion or stating it, obviously not. But establishing legitimacy on one issue and then spouting (unmarked) opinions on other issues is exactly how we got faux intellectuals like Jordan Peterson. My patience for such nonsense is limited. It is of course entirely appropriate to talk about your opinions as long as you ensure they are understood as such. But I think Shaun hasn't made that distinction clear to an extent that I'm happy with. Of course reasonable people can disagree about where the line is; mine is informed by a minefield of opinion-and-legitimacy-havers both good and bad and a lot of people in the general public who are misled by them.
My concern is that fans of him on YouTube/Reddit/Discord/Lemmy will watch it, and think it is a definitive history, and go no further. When you put out a video like that, you have a responsibility...
My concern is that fans of him on YouTube/Reddit/Discord/Lemmy will watch it, and think it is a definitive history, and go no further. When you put out a video like that, you have a responsibility to ensure it is as accurate as possible.
Given this conflict is as polarizing as it is, I think this is super important. I see so many conflicting statements of fact about this conflict online, a lot of outright disinfo, and a staggering...
Given this conflict is as polarizing as it is, I think this is super important. I see so many conflicting statements of fact about this conflict online, a lot of outright disinfo, and a staggering amount of toxicity to anyone who dares have a differing opinion. This conflict desperately needs in-depth accurate information. Not people ingesting more of opinions they already agree with, that's what got us into this polarized mess to begin with.
I think that the metaphor that Shaun gives by saying that this is less a cycle of violence where A hits B and B hits A and more an invasion where A breaks into B's home, chains them up and then A...
And yet, in a 1.5 hour video that goes back to the late 19th century, we only saw the smallest snippets of actual history presented, and none of it that I noticed dealing with the harms to Jewish people's in the region.
I think that the metaphor that Shaun gives by saying that this is less a cycle of violence where A hits B and B hits A and more an invasion where A breaks into B's home, chains them up and then A hits B and B hits A indicates pretty clearly where he stands on this. By framing Israel as a colonial project, it will always be inherently violent in its expansion and thus the Arab struggle against Israel itself can be framed as struggle for freedom (that logically, should be supported morally). Israel is to blame because by declaring statehood, it pushed out the people who lived there originally.
I think the thesis definitely gets lost a bit in the later parts of the video when he gets into the antisemitic parts of Zionism and to be honest I think cutting that part out would have done the video well.
I think ignoring the fact that Israel is the closest thing to a democratic state that the middle east has achieved ever does the video no good, but since he hammers the point home at the start that since bombing children cannot be justified, nothing that Israel does can, I think that with that argument, he would probably argue in a similar fashion; i.e. it's an apartheid state that is not actually living "western morals" because they only apply to some people and because of Israel's settler policy.
I suppose the crux of my criticism comes down to this: the video presents a very one-sided view of the history while presenting itself as more objective than it feels to me. Even the metaphor that...
Exemplary
I suppose the crux of my criticism comes down to this: the video presents a very one-sided view of the history while presenting itself as more objective than it feels to me. Even the metaphor that Israel broke into the home doesn't land well because it glosses over all of the nuance.
But let's set aside the nuance for a moment and take as an assumption that the UNSCOP plan to partition Palestine and UN Resolution 181 enacting the partition was flawed and shouldn't have happened. Let's also take the (more tenuous and opinionated) assumption that the acceptance of the UN partition plan by Jewish organizations was a calculating tactical step towards the complete annexing of all of Palestine. Let's go even further and assume that Azzam Pasha's promises were true. Namely:
We are fighting for an Arab Palestine. Whatever the outcome the Arabs will stick to their offer of equal citizenship for Jews in Arab Palestine and let them be as Jewish as they like. In areas where the predominate, they will have complete autonomy.
I hope you would agree that I am making an extremely favorable set of assumptions on the Arab Palestinian side.
Even taking those assumptions, the partitioning did happen. The boundaries were accepted by the Jewish organizers and rejected by the neighboring Arab countries. A civil war broke out from 1947 to 1948, and after the final withdrawal of the British and the declaration of independence by Israel, five Arab armies entered the territory of Mandatory Palestine. These are some of the statements made by Arab leaders leading up to the invasion:
We will sweep them [the Jews] into the sea.
Personally I hope the Jews do not force us into this war because it will be a war of elimination and it will be a dangerous massacre which history will record similarly to the Mongol massacre or the wars of the Crusades.
We shall eradicate Zionism.
Jews illegally in Palestine would be expelled and the future of many of those legally in the country without Palestine citizenship would need to be resolved by the future Arab government.
Given all of the above, it feels fair to characterize the 1948 Arab-Israeli war as a war of survival of both the state of Israel, but also of the Jewish peoples living in the region. Which feels a lot different and more complicated than A broke into B's home and started hitting them. Characterizing the founding of Israel as a colonial act perpetrated by the Jewish peoples doesn't hold up for me. I would characterize it more as a bungled intervention by the UN, amongst others. I would even tend to agree with the main line of the Arab argument against the partitioning, which is that it subverts the notion of self-determination of the people living in the region. But that doesn't make it right to embark on a campaign of extermination or make a complicated situation simple.
And the partitioning did happen. And so did the 1948 war, the Armistice of 1949, the 1967 war, the recognition of borders by Egypt and Jordan, and on and on. But what does that have to do with the current war in Gaza? If the premise of the video is that we should denounce the indiscriminate killing of Palestinian civilians, then what is the point of 90% of the video? In the causal way of history, I suppose one event did lead to another and informed and suggested subsequent events along the way. But you don't need to go back to the founding of Israel and try and reshape history to denounce what is happening today. Israel can be in the wrong now and not be in the wrong before. Isreal bombing civilians today isn't right. But neither was an Arab army invading 1948 Israel with a stated goal of pushing them into the sea.
And yet, in the video, all I get from it was Israel was in the wrong from the beginning, while also not discussing many other factors or things like the expulsion of Jews from Arab countries following the 1949 Armistice. It feels very much like an attempt to make an unambiguous villain in a more nuanced story.
I'll end with one final idea. The narratives and the myths built by Arab Palestinians and Israeli Jews have diverged since 1949. Each side claims an unambiguous moral high ground due to actions that happened largely during the 1948 war, and each side has cause to claim persecution at one point or another. Before wading into history and deciding that we need to make one side "right" and one side "wrong," let's ask the question of whether it matters in terms of our ability to assess the moral landscape confronting us today. I don't think it does. It may matter in terms of diplomacy and negotiating long-term peace. But we, as bystanders, can denounce the wrongful actions of both sides without massaging or misrepresenting history.
Both sides have done wrong. And both sides have been victims and been victimized. By each other, by their neighbors, and by the world around them. That doesn't mean I can't criticize individual actions today or recognize the general intractableness of the problems in the region.
I don't understand how relevant that is at all. This assumption is not required because the people that have gotten Israel in the predicament it is now have done so out of geopolitical...
Exemplary
Let's also take the (more tenuous and opinionated) assumption that the acceptance of the UN partition plan by Jewish organizations was a calculating tactical step towards the complete annexing of all of Palestine.
I don't understand how relevant that is at all. This assumption is not required because the people that have gotten Israel in the predicament it is now have done so out of geopolitical calculations rather than anything else, and are also not the same people that founded Israel. The population of Gaza and the West Bank is not just a political bargaining chip of Israel, but of the surrounding Arab states as well.
The plan was celebrated by most Jews in Palestine and reluctantly accepted by the Jewish Agency for Palestine with misgivings. Zionist leaders, in particular David Ben-Gurion, viewed the acceptance of the plan as a tactical step and a stepping stone to future territorial expansion over all of Palestine. The Arab Higher Committee, the Arab League and other Arab leaders and governments rejected it on the basis that in addition to the Arabs forming a two-thirds majority, they owned a majority of the lands. They also indicated an unwillingness to accept any form of territorial division, arguing that it violated the principles of national self-determination in the UN Charter which granted people the right to decide their own destiny. They announced their intention to take all necessary measures to prevent the implementation of the resolution. Subsequently, a civil war broke out in Palestine, and the plan was not implemented.
Since I am arguing the point of someone else (Shaun) here, let me reiterate that I don't view it like him as well and there's a fair chance that us two would agree (like for example the Arab argument against the partitioning) on more about this subject than me and Shaun. He basically condems the entire country from start to finish due to its founding, because the movement of Zionism had elected then Palestine as the target and after WW2 countries felt obligated to give something to the Jews (and because Zionists had smartly lobbied the allies during the war).
I don't know where I stand on the colony argument, because by definition a colony needs a power that sends out settlers, which in this case does not exist. Still, Jews moved in throughout the 19th century and got their own country despite being significantly in the minority all throughout. Is that fair? Probably not. Does that make it colonialism? I have no idea either.
Principally I agree with you that seeking morality in the conflicts surrounding Israel since its founding is a futile exercise. Whever it's right or not, the people are there now, and something has to be done to stop the carnage. I think what draws Shaun's ire is that in "The West" Israel is seen to be morally right in defending itself, which is what he argues against. He does state at the start of the video that he is not looking to find a solution to the conflict. I do think that he could have made the argument he wanted to make in a much shorter fashion and I agree with you that he presents it very one-sided. Even the occurences of the murder of Israeli children by Hamas during their 7th October attack goes unmentioned, which goes against the entire theme of the video.
The ultimate issue with the Middle East is that it is one of those shade of grey situations where everyone has blood on their hands and everyone is to blame in escalating the conflict. All parties involved are still in the middle of the fight and the typical war tiredness required to even start finding peace has not set in yet.
I would like to stress that by "parties" I mean primarily governments. Of course the actual people living around Israel can and often do harbor antisemitic thoughts, but I will cut the people inside Gaza slack in doing so because they have been living in a ghetto for decades. No government is interested in helping. Israel (at least the current government) is looking to create an ethnostate, but it's also important to note that the goal of Hamas is not the betterment of the Palestinians; it is the destruction of Israel. It's like 2 people playing chess, except the pieces on the board are the mangled corpses of children. Still, multiple parties on the Arab side, namely Iran and Quatar, have been supporting Hamas for years instead of trying to find a solution that leads to lasting peace. I think that a major portion of the Arab states is still hoping for a destruction or significant weakening of Israel to carve up its territory again.
Again, I don't think Shaun is very interested in exploring those ideas because his main criticism (at least how I view it) is the West and Israel claiming moral superiority while the latter bombs the absolute living fuck out of civilians. We are supposed to be the good guys, and so are our allies, but then look at this shit. I think that is his crux of the issue.
Thanks for the reply and interesting discussion! I hope I haven't made you feel like I'm pinning the content of the video to you, and if I have, you have my apologies. In going back to the...
Thanks for the reply and interesting discussion! I hope I haven't made you feel like I'm pinning the content of the video to you, and if I have, you have my apologies.
In going back to the founding and making certain assumptions, I wanted to show how difficult it is to make any one party in this history the unequivocal good guy. I very much agree with you that it doesn't matter; however, the video covered a lot of history that I don't feel matters or really supported what I could ascertain of the video's goal.
Given your comments, I suspect we do agree on quite a bit. The video on the other hand, I still remain skeptical of, for a reason I hinted at in my first comment. It's not that I take some academic umbrage at history not being represented accurately. If I did, going anywhere online would be an exercise in madness. What I found bothersome was the video's need to keep going back to either the founding or even before the founding to ostensibly talk about the current issue in Gaza.
I don't really know of any reason to go back that far to make the case that Israel doesn't have the clear moral high ground. Really, starting at the events following the end of the 1967 six-day war should be sufficient. The failure to honor the districting agreement in the West Bank, the state turning a blind eye to settlers in Gaza and the West Bank, the de facto occupation of Gaza in the form of blockades, the continued annexing of the Golan Heights, and the growing conservative movement in Israel that pushes territory expansion are all fertile ground, and far more relevant to today's conflict. Recognizing that it is complicated, there is still plenty of material to make the case that "The West" should rethink its military support for Israel, and could better use that as leverage to support Palestinian rights. (I would also say that the Arab world could maybe stop coopting the Palestinian suffering for 5 minutes and actually help them build a state, but I digress.) In contrast, the video seemed more intent on cherry-picking history to vilify Israel.
I agree with you that, from a pragmatic standpoint, the people are there now. We don't have a time machine, and we can't undo the past. So, what practical remedies exist? This is usually where I ferret out whether the other person agrees or disagrees that Israel has a right to exist (not you; in this case, I would be talking about Shaun) and pinning them down on that point. From the video, I get the sense that Shaun would not agree with me that Israel today has a right to exist, or would at least hedge, though I could be wrong. That is just the sense I get after my own observations about when commentators feel the need to keep going back to the founding, or the chants like 75 years of occupation, again, going back to the founding. That one-sided obsession with ancient history is really what makes me side-eye the video.
And frankly, if someone feels that the remedy to the current situation is the forced destruction of Israel, well, I don't have much to discuss with them. I don't accept that; I think there are other practical remedies that better balance the issues, etc.
So, if Shaun's goal in the video was only to assert that:
We are supposed to be the good guys, so why is there a pile of 30,000 civilians over there, 15,000 of which are children under the age of 18, and killed with weapons we gave Israel,
The problem is the Zionist fundamentalist movement in Israel and not the actual Jewish people,
Then he picked a really weird way to spend 90 minutes.
Anyway, I really don't mean to pin this video to you, and I appreciate the discussion and the keeping it all civil. I hope we can have more discussions on the site. And if I did anything that made it sound like I was putting Shaun's content on you, I am sorry. It's been a great discussion. Have a great night!
This should be the starting point of any discussion on Israel, or you quickly get lost in an ultimately irrelevant contest of historical immorality. I don't think it's wrong to acknowledge but...
I agree with you that, from a pragmatic standpoint, the people are there now. We don't have a time machine, and we can't undo the past. So, what practical remedies exist?
This should be the starting point of any discussion on Israel, or you quickly get lost in an ultimately irrelevant contest of historical immorality. I don't think it's wrong to acknowledge but ultimately it's very unproductive. It would be a bit like starting a conversation on American foreign policy with the idea that America ought not to exist at all because it's built on the genocide and displacement of indigenous peoples. Perhaps not entirely wrong, but not at all useful. Israel exists today, and short of ethnic cleansing or genocide, it will exist tomorrow.
Not that I think there are many good options from present time. Israel has chosen some of the worst possible paths forward in responding to the October 7th attack. The chances of now achieving any sort of positive outlook seems incredibly small.
It is easy to be discouraged. I remember the optimism of the 90s and how it all slipped away. That said, I do think there are practical, incremental remedies, and I am optimistic that in the long...
It is easy to be discouraged. I remember the optimism of the 90s and how it all slipped away.
That said, I do think there are practical, incremental remedies, and I am optimistic that in the long arc of history, they will be taken up. Enforcing the 1949 armistice borders, removing settlers from the West Bank, the return of the Golan Heights in exchange for the recognition of Israel's borders, etc. are all things that I can see happening at some point. If anything, the events now could be priming the pendulum of world opinion to swing far enough actually to force some of these things to happen. Of course, I would also love to see a proper international fund to help build a Palestinian state with infrastructure and an economy.
I know it is all a ways off, but the first step is continuing to insist that solutions do exist and should be pursued rather than despaired of or calling for continued fighting.
This, in my opinion, is what Shaun's video seems to be intended for. From a psychological perspective, any solution must begin with acknowledging the truth. Let's draw an analogy to interpersonal...
I do think there are practical, incremental remedies, and I am optimistic that in the long arc of history, they will be taken up. --- I know it is all a ways off, but the first step is continuing to insist that solutions do exist and should be pursued rather than despaired of or calling for continued fighting.
This, in my opinion, is what Shaun's video seems to be intended for. From a psychological perspective, any solution must begin with acknowledging the truth.
Let's draw an analogy to interpersonal relationships, such as a marriage. If you have problems in a marriage, especially to the extent where both people are violently destructive towards each other and even taking pleasure in seeing each other's pain, how can you solve the situation? Whatever else you do, it won't work unless both people can agree on what is true about the relationship.
If the marriage was arranged and one person was forced to enter it against their will, this needs to be acknowledged, even if it's really hard to think about and speak of. If that person was also sexually assaulted by their spouse, if they became unable to maintain a job and earn a salary due to the suffering that all this caused, and so on, this must be clearly stated as a fact that both people acknowledge.
Sometimes the point where things started to go wrong isn't easy to determine and it was more of a gradual trickling of small acts of irresponsibility on both sides that eventually led to an overall collapse of trust. Other times there is a clear power imbalance that one party has started exploiting to abuse the other, which then instigated violent defensive actions on the abused person's part. If the person who holds the power doesn't admit to having it and abusing it, these two people can never reconcile and find peace.
'Tough luck that you got coerced into marrying me, but it's our parents' fault, not mine, and what's done is done.' 'I didn't rape you. You were already my spouse by then and it's my right to get my needs met, especially after living in that dead bedroom situation for so long with the ex.' 'Dear friends, I hope you don't take my spouse's crazy talk too seriously. I may have made some mistakes along the way but she isn't an angel either. Let me show you some [fabricated] texts where she's flirting with a colleague.'
(Using gendered pronouns for simplicity.) This person can't participate in a functional relationship unless he gets called out for the manipulation and entitlement and realises he needs and wants to change. Until then, it doesn't matter what his partner is or is not doing, because the relationship would be dysfunctional even if she were a saint - which most likely she isn't, as very few people are. If the original oppressor changes his behaviour, admitting to the mistakes he made, then the onus will be on his partner to work with the hatred this oppression created in her and learn to not take it out on her partner - or a subsequent partner, in case they divorce. But that can't realistically happen before the oppressor stops oppressing, or they divorce so that she isn't actively being oppressed anymore.
I think Shaun's intention with the video is just to do his share of calling out the oppression. The above applied to the conflict at hand, whatever else is done, first and foremost the truth must be acknowledged. Currently, the truth is that the Israeli government is trying to eradicate the Palestinians while gaslighting the international audience into believing that it's a battle of two equals, and oppressing any domestic voices that say it isn't okay. The video shows enough examples of this that it's hard to deny. For anyone who does not support this goal, the first thing to do is to speak the truth and encourage others to do the same. Going 'Well, both sides have hurt each other' all but enables the gaslighting and Israel's current pursuit, because it leads to conversation getting side tracked from that most important goal.
Of course, oppressors don't usually emerge from thin air and jewish people have certainly had their share of being victims to that, as you've pointed out in your comments here. Obviously this has played a part in why many of them have now turned into oppressors themselves, but that doesn't justify the oppression, which is why speaking of it isn't relevant to the scope of Shaun's video. As they say: what happened to you is not your fault, but healing from it is your responsibility. The first step towards healing is to stop lying.
I don't disagree that it is important to establish the truth of a situation when seeking to address it and empower change. What I disagree with is the video's attempt to do that. Shaun is taking...
I don't disagree that it is important to establish the truth of a situation when seeking to address it and empower change. What I disagree with is the video's attempt to do that. Shaun is taking versions of reductionist arguments that most people don't agree with or support or are not relevant and arguing against them as if those were the major issues.
Currently, the truth is that the Israeli government is trying to eradicate the Palestinians while gaslighting the international audience into believing that it's a battle of two equals,
I don't think anyone in the international community truly believes for a single moment that Israel and Hamas are evenly matched. In fact, I've seen the opposite: people making the claim that Israel isn't attempting genocide because if they really wanted to, they would already be done. Which is a terrible argument for reasons unrelated to our discussion.
I'm all for practical remedies and pushing to stop the violence. And I am the first person to denounce the disproportionate response in Gaza, the settlers in the West Bank, the de facto occupation of Gaza in the form of blockades, and the failure to broker the return of the Golan Heights in exchange for border recognition.
I also recognize that the charter of Hamas calls for the destruction of the Israeli state, along with Hezbollah, the Houthis, and other Iran-backed militias in the region. The problem with characterizing one side as a victim and the other as an abuser is that they both feel like victims. Israel is surrounded on multiple sides by militias and pseudo-states pushing their destruction, while at the same time, Israel is committing their own harm in Gaza and the West Bank. It complicates the diplomacy.
Shaun's video didn't address any of that. He cherry-picked history to vilify Israel, not level set on power imbalances that have materialized over the last quarter century, or to try and reboot the framing of the conversation to reflect contemporary events. He dredged deep into history to call out dead people for the reason of painting Israel in a particular light from its inception.
I could name many changes I would like to see that would curtain Israel's abuses in Gaza and the West Bank. But I don't support the destruction of Israel as a practical remedy, nor do I see how dredging history for a one-sided narrative helps call out the current violence.
To be clear, neither do I. I’ll respond properly once I get the time, but would you mind clarifying whether or not you have any doubt that Israel is aiming to wipe out the Palestinians? Not what...
I don't support the destruction of Israel as a practical remedy
To be clear, neither do I.
I’ll respond properly once I get the time, but would you mind clarifying whether or not you have any doubt that Israel is aiming to wipe out the Palestinians? Not what you think others believe and not whether it’s feasible or not. Do you believe it’s what they are trying to do?
I think the only honest answer here is I don't know. I've watched the South African led charge of genocide and the documents they have presented, along with the counter argument. I also think the...
but would you mind clarifying whether or not you have any doubt that Israel is aiming to wipe out the Palestinians? Not what you think others believe and not whether it’s feasible or not. Do you believe it’s what they are trying to do?
I think the only honest answer here is I don't know. I've watched the South African led charge of genocide and the documents they have presented, along with the counter argument.
I also think the question as posed needs clarification, re: Israel versus people in Israel.
Do I believe there is a segment of people in Israel seeking to wipeout or fully expel Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza? Yes.
Do I believe that the Israeli government is prosecuting their war in a way that is absolutely indifferent to the loss of Palestinian life? Yes.
Do I believe there are soldiers who are shooting indiscriminately and not adhering to professional war time standards? Of course; just look at those hostages who were shot waving white flags.
Do I believe that Israel is prosecuting this war to intentionally maximize Palestinian loss of life, or to the extent they can get away with on the international stage? Which would effectively be equivalent to the charge of genocide? I don't know. I've seen conflicting documents in the UN case. Statements made by government officials seemingly supporting the charge, and documented communications from the prime minister pushing for the delivery of more aid.
Do I think that the war as prosecuted in Gaza is immoral? Yes.
Do I think all Israelis want to wipeout Palestinians? No.
I hope that helps clarify.
Edit: I also wanted to add that proving intent is so hard and can often only be done after the fact. In my mind, the way the war is being prosecuted is immoral (actually, my beliefs are such that violence is never moral in some absolute sense, and merely justified in certain situations), and should stop. There is no justifiable military solution to a political and diplomatic problem. Whether enough evidence comes to light to prove genocide or intent and policy of the state is an open question, and matters, but shouldn't be the emphasis (imo) right now. It is enough to know that the war isn't being handled appropriately, and all diplomatic efforts and leverage should be used to halt the violence.
Thank you for adding necessary granularity to my question. This is what I intended to ask: Your response to that is that you don't know, and/or that proving intent is hard. I'm specifically asking...
Thank you for adding necessary granularity to my question. This is what I intended to ask:
Do I believe that Israel is prosecuting this war to intentionally maximize Palestinian loss of life, or to the extent they can get away with on the international stage? Which would effectively be equivalent to the charge of genocide?
Your response to that is that you don't know, and/or that proving intent is hard. I'm specifically asking what you believe, not what you would be able to prove. So is your answer that you don't know what to believe, or that you believe the Israeli government is aiming to eradicate the Palestinian people but you don't know if it can be shown to be true following such standards that would ideally be to your liking?
One more question, if I may: in your opinion, can there be any reasonable justification for the US government publicly stating (through John Kirby) that the White House sees no indications of war crimes in Gaza?
To the first question, my answer is that I don't know. I don't have the necessary information to make that determination. I think my more relevant answer was whether I think the war is moral, and...
To the first question, my answer is that I don't know. I don't have the necessary information to make that determination.
I think my more relevant answer was whether I think the war is moral, and my answer is no. That doesn't require me to satisfy questions of intent, or resolve nuances between official government policy and individual misconduct. There is a reason the international court of justice moves slowly and that is because getting factual accounts in order is difficult.
In contrast, on the topic of morality, the "just war" framework is helpful and damning of the Israel campaign, and can be quickly applied.
The most prominent moral framework that applies is “just war” theory, which has guided Western thought for centuries and forms the intellectual framework for international law on the use of force. Based on works by thinkers ranging from Roman philosophers to modern-day jurists, just-war theory offers a time-honored set of criteria to consider whether and how force should be used — though it is admittedly impossible for any analysis to be absolutely impartial.
The standard elements used in assessing whether a war is just are just cause, right intent, legitimate authority, net benefit or likelihood of success, last resort, proportionality of means and noncombatant distinction. Ideally a state should meet all of the criteria, but the case for a just war can still be made even if a few of the benchmarks are weak.
While Israel easily has just cause and constitutes a legitimate authority, its case is far weaker regarding the other five criteria. In addition, the fact that Hamas has violated these principles does not absolve Israel from an obligation to live up to higher moral standards.
With regards to John Kirby, my answer is two fold. First, war crimes have very specific definitions that I am not enough of an expert to determine, but many experts say that the situation isn't clear.
The international laws governing war are unfeeling. They give more precedence to military advantage than to civilian harm. They do not consider comparative numbers of dead or wounded. They ask commanders in the field to judge, often very quickly, the military advantage of an attack, the nature of the threat they face, what means they possess to counter it and what feasible measures they can take to reduce the expected damage to civilians and civilian infrastructure.
That complicated calculus, known as “proportionality,” is deeply flawed, lawyers say, because it balances essentially incompatible things. And each attack must be judged separately, to decide if it is within the boundaries of a legal act of war.
“The law of war is cold,” said Emanuela-Chiara Gillard, an associate fellow at Chatham House, the London think tank, who previously worked as a lawyer for the Red Cross and the United Nations. It does not, she added, “address our concerns and moral outrage over civilian death.”
I wouldn't be surprised if John Kirby and his chain of command truly believe that the technical definitions of war crimes haven't been satisfied.
The second part is diplomacy. Publicly supporting Israel in the hope of convincing them to change course in private.
The relationship between the two men has been complicated these past four months. While they hugged on an airport tarmac in Tel Aviv when Mr. Biden came to visit just days after the terrorist attack that killed 1,200, their telephone calls have grown increasingly edgy as they quarreled over the Israeli military operation that has claimed nearly 30,000 lives in Gaza.
At one point in December, the conversation grew so heated that Mr. Biden declared that he was done and hung up the phone, an episode previously reported by Axios. In public, Mr. Biden has resisted a more open break, continuing to back Israel’s right to defend itself and still describing himself as a Zionist, as he did again on Monday, even as he complained that “there are too many innocent people that are being killed.”
I think the traditional calculus is that it is easier to influence allies than enemies or jilted allies. But we are starting to see things fray between Biden and Bibi. So we will see how long that lasts.
Let me know if you need gift links. Have a great night.
Thank you again for your responses. I’ll try to better describe what I felt was valuable in the video and why I think that the criticism regarding cherry-picking history is out of place. I’ve...
Thank you again for your responses. I’ll try to better describe what I felt was valuable in the video and why I think that the criticism regarding cherry-picking history is out of place. I’ve bolded out the key elements for cursory reading.
Summary
From a system’s analysis point of view, this geopolitical situation is rigged to fail, given how it was brought about. We can’t reverse history, and personally I don’t think it’s realistic to believe that these governments as they are now could be convinced to play ball to the extent that a genocide would be averted while Israel could simultaneously continue to exist.
Logically, then, it’s about impacting how the governments themselves are. The one we culturally western-oriented people can more realistically impact is Israel and its Zionism. Up to a certain point, this can be done by engaging with people on an individual level, like Shaun is doing with the video. If the majority of the voters in Israel a) realise that their government is pursuing genocide and b) withdraw their support, then the government will inevitably change and the entire playing field along with it.
There’s a tipping point somewhere, where blind Zionism will have gained so much traction that the opposing voices will be silenced using any means possible even if it means violating the human rights of your own people, and the above mentioned democratic structure will cease to function. We all know the historical reference situation here. It’s alarming to see some signs of this in the video, but I’m nevertheless hopeful that this point hasn’t yet been reached. It is exceedingly important though to try to steer people away from facilitating that development, intentionally or unintentionally.
More broadly speaking
As a way to frame my perspective, an anecdote from a college professor who teaches an unrelated subject in the US. She said her course is in shambles because students who are unaffected by the conflict are trying to turn classes into rallies, while those students whose loved ones are in danger - or in some cases have already lost their lives - are doing the best they can to hang on to a normal daily routine and obtain their degree. They certainly don’t need daily reminders of the political opinions of the unaffected people taking the same class, but the constant voicing of those opinions has been difficult to curtail.
Becoming invested in some conflict as an outsider does serve a purpose psychologically. It allows us to process painful topics in a way that isn’t directly impacting ourselves, which makes it emotionally much easier, and we can use the resulting realisations and fresh ideas for developing our values and determining objectives for personal growth. Sometimes it’s a way for us to soothe our internal feelings of guilt (related or unrelated to the conflict itself). It’s important to realise, though, that this process is an exploitative one: we use another person’s severe situation as a tool to gain something positive for ourselves.
This is not always a bad thing. Where it becomes problematic is when the person who is acutely suffering is put in an even worse position so that we can keep extracting what we want out of the situation for ourselves. In the example case, it would be fine for the unaffected students to talk about the conflict among themselves, but it’s not okay that they bring it up in class where affected students are present (not to mention that it’s not part of the curriculum, but that’s not the point here).
How does this relate to Shaun’s video? I think it would be healthy for everyone who is very invested in this conflict, while practically an outsider, to consider their internal motives. Are we actually attempting to forge a path forward for these troubled nations from behind our keyboards? Or are we perhaps, at least partially, trying to soothe our own psyche and find a way to think about the events that would not too starkly conflict with our beliefs: that we’re the good guys, that our nations are fair and democratic, and so on.
I think what Shaun was saying was that he is just one regular person. So are we all. We don’t know all the ins and outs of any conflict, especially one that we aren’t directly a part of. Pretending that we do is patronising. What we can always do is hold ourselves accountable. When push comes to shove, that’s really the only thing anyone can ever do - and conversely, anyone who refuses to do that will lose the right to call himself a good guy. That is regardless of what the adversary is doing. When considering whether or not I’m living true to my values, it does not matter what the historical nuance and details are and if the other side is behaving worse than I. What matters is how I behave. I think Shaun wanted to focus on that point of view, given how little attention it’s been getting.
I’ve grown up to believe in values such as fairness, equality, honesty, transparency, etc. As a kid, I viewed these things in black and white. If someone lied or put another person down, or in any way failed to respect others, they were the bad guy. Adults have a more nuanced view, which you demonstrate in your response when you say that going all-in with accusations and blame isn’t effective. I agree with you. Even if someone lied to me, I can take a look at their background and see how the lying wasn’t designed to hurt me but rather a way to keep themselves safe - something they learned to do at some point in time, and that they can unlearn if they so choose. If they demonstrate willingness and ability to not lie to me again, they’re not necessarily toxic or someone I should permanently shut out. Not “the bad guy”, in immature terms. If I treat them as such, they will be less likely to come around.
However, there comes a point after which leniency becomes a way to enable someone’s bad behaviour, rather than a way to establish constructive collaboration. It’s entirely possible that you’re dealing with someone who will see your leniency as a weakness and an opportunity to extract as much benefit for herself as possible, with no intention to reciprocate or genuinely collaborate with you. Calling attention to nuance and details, for someone like this, is one way to temporally extend the other party’s graceful interpretation, so they can carry out their exploitation for as long as possible while the people around them are getting lost in the weeds, discussing ever smaller details that won’t actually make a difference when it comes to the big picture: that the abuser is an abuser.
I asked you (essentially) whether or not you believe the current Israeli government is one (with a deliberate colonialist cause), and you say you don’t know. To me it seems quite clear that they are. Intentionally targeting journalists and facilities for children and pregnant mothers, not prioritising saving hostages, their politicians openly saying online to a domestic audience things like ‘I do deny a Palestinian state. Always!’, and the government playing the DARVO game as soon as called out on any of these is enough evidence for me. Again, irrespective of what the other side may be doing.
When it comes to war crimes, I’m also not an expert, but I should hope that some of the above are unambiguously defined as such, and if they aren’t, they should be. When you deliberately target those who can’t defend themselves (children, pregnant people and their yet unborn children) and those who are in key positions to preserve their culture (journalists, teachers, intellectuals), it is clear that you aren’t simply just defending your physical/geographical safety. You are intending to tear down another culture. Of course a bad actor will attempt to carry this out in such a way that it would be maximally difficult for a court to deliberate on, but I personally do not need a court order to see that it’s happening and that it’s against my values.
Shaun’s video does seem to be impactful, not as an attempt to present a historically nuanced view of the events - which it was not intended for - but as a reminder that what looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck is most likely a duck. As we can see in the video's comments, there is a place for such content, because many people have gotten side tracked by the nuance avalanche, which is an understandable and tempting reaction to the looming realisation that human rights aren’t a given even in this ostensible moral high ground that many of us are lucky to have born into. Putting it simply: we feel guilty, and we look for ways to assuage the guilt, and focusing on nuance lets us turn away from the obvious oppression our ally is perpetrating with our blessing and support.
Facing reality is incredibly hard, and not everyone can realistically do so at all times. This is a fact of life and I'm not holding it against anyone to be human in this way. However, some of us are in the position to rise to the challenge, attain better moral clarity and change their views. That is the target audience of Shaun's video.
Here's a quote from someone whom the video served well:
I am Jew and I’m ashamed to say I used to be a zionist. It was never to a crazy degree but I believed some of the talking points and didn’t believe that the actions in Palestine were a genocide.
Ever since Oct 7 I rode the fence. I clung onto the dregs of Zionist talking points, tried to see the nuance, fixated on the people who maybe did perpetuate an anti-Semitic bias. I tried to see both sides so hard. I just didn’t want to believe that my own people were capable of doing what was done to my grandparents and great grandparents. But you can only bury your head in the sand for so long.
The last straw for me was Rafah. How could the IDF tell all the civilians to flee there? How could they tell them it was a safe zone? How could they do all of that and bomb them afterwards? There was not a thing I could think of to justify any of it. It was at that point I realized that this is a genocide.
This video could have not come at a better time. Reconciling my Jewish identity with what is going on right now is physically painful. I literally feel sick. This video helped a lot and I think was the final nail in the coffin for any Zionist views I was holding onto.
I hope that other Jews wake up to the reality of what’s going on. It can be so hard when your whole community are zionists. It’s very isolating. My own parents, who are normally very progressive people, have bought into all the Zionist propaganda. I hope that I can start to slowly change their minds too. It won’t be overnight but maybe if I start asking the hard questions I had to ask myself, they’ll come around.
To my fellow Jews going through the same painful process, you’re not alone and you’re doing the right thing. The guilt and shame is a lot to reckon with but be grateful that you feel it at all. It’s better to wake up late than not at all.
I've read your post twice, and I appreciate the effort and thought that went into it. However, I don't know that there is room for productive discussion on this issue between us. I feel as though...
I've read your post twice, and I appreciate the effort and thought that went into it. However, I don't know that there is room for productive discussion on this issue between us. I feel as though I've staked out a fairly simple position and unambiguously answered questions, but I feel from your post that you are more focused on changing my mind on specific technical points than understanding the principal thrust of my position.
I do want to say that I agree that there are points where leniency gives way to enabling. I posted a link above that I think addressed that regarding Biden hanging up on Bibi, which is showing the shift in strategy.
I also agree that the current government has adopted an expansionist set of policies, especially in the West Bank, though I'm not sure I would call it colonial. Not because I think colonial is worse than what is happening, but rather different. If anything, what is happening in the West Bank is ethnic cleansing though unfortunately that is not a codified war crime.
I'm also glad that some people find Shaun's video helpful. My criticism is that if it's intent is as you say, then I think it could have been done better and in a way to cause less harm. Even in this thread I discussed with someone, an outsider to the conflict, who said that it had them questioning Israels right to exist as a state. I think that is directly a cause of how Shaun presented the materials and failed to frame his narrative, and simply breeds the kind of emotionally charged views that undermines efforts to influence and call out Israel, because it lets them hide behind claims of antisemitism.
My personal view is that by presenting the worst version of Israel and the past, he makes it easy for critics to dismiss his arguments or skeptics to bury their heads in the sand. My personal strategy would be to present Israel in the best light, and then deconstruct how even in that version of events, what they are doing is wrong. Wrong in Gaza; wrong in the West Bank; and that there is a clear fault in how Israel is extending the conflict and suffering through their policies.
Different ways of thinking I suppose. I'll also say while I don't like his method, and have already cited at least a couple concerns about the harms it could cause, if it ends up helping people, well, who can argue results? I do think it is fair to raise concerns and be critical, and that counterpoints are important for people who don't respond well to his style, and to mitigate any harms caused by his video.
I think I understand your position, which is that Shaun's video is calling out abuses, that by showing the worst of Israel it might shock some folks awake, and encouraging individuals to question the status quo with his analogy using those who walk away. And I think those are good things to do.
Where it looks like we differ is that I think the way he went about it is easy for people to reject because it comes across as a very one sided presentation, and uses a number of reductionist tactics. Using your argument about ducks, well, Shaun's video also quacks like a certain kind of duck, whether he intended it or not. However, these are just differences in our subjective assessments of the video. Neither can be proven more or less valid through technical argumentation.
To that point, I've made many specific and direct statements on what I feel are clear Israel abuses in the West Bank, that I think the war in Gaza is immoral, etc. I just read another article about what is happening in the West Bank while the world is watching Gaza, and it is infuriating. And rather than accept that we seem to have moral or conceptual agreement, I feel we keep equivocating over technical definitions of war crimes or substituting terms like genocide with colonialism.
Which is why I don't see a productive path forward in the discussion. I didn't get a sense from your reply that you acknowledge my moral stance on Israel, because I disagree (more accurately, I have uncertainty) with certain technical applications of international law.
I appreciate the time you took to respond, understand that you have a different view on the video, and that we have different approaches to framing the wrongs committed by Israel. I'm glad that we both seem to be in principal agreement regarding the moral landscape, even if we differ in specific aspects of our views or strategy.
Have a great weekend!
Edit: final note.
When it comes to war crimes, I’m also not an expert, but I should hope that some of the above are unambiguously defined as such, and if they aren’t, they should be.
This was why I linked the articles above that I did, which included interviews with a former UN lawyer. That isn't how war crimes are defined. Which is why I separated the legal from the moral.
Thank you for reading, re-reading and responding even when the exchange doesn’t feel productive to you. I’m sorry that I’ve been unable to convey interest in your perspective and I won’t expect to...
Thank you for reading, re-reading and responding even when the exchange doesn’t feel productive to you. I’m sorry that I’ve been unable to convey interest in your perspective and I won’t expect to see further responses even though they are welcome, of course.
I didn't get a sense from your reply that you acknowledge my moral stance on Israel, because I disagree (more accurately, I have uncertainty) with certain technical applications of international law.
This is likely because I was still trying to understand what your stance actually is. I am slow and uninformed on the basic terminology and definitions, such as what legally constitutes a war crime or not, so when you say you believe there can be legitimate ambiguity on whether or not those have been happening here, I wasn’t able to quickly evaluate if my definition for war crime is quite simply inaccurate/false, or if, as it seemed to me at first, you’re refusing to accept that the things illustrated in the video are actually happening (sorry).
If your initial criticism of the video had been ‘Needs fact-checking’, I would have embarked on that mission proactively. Saying instead that it’s one-sided, reductionist and too long seemed unfair to me, when the reason for it being one-sided has been justified in the video and a lot of the running time is dedicated to constructively taking in and processing the complex emotions that arise when we admit to having held beliefs that are in conflict with our values, and/or beliefs that do not align with reality. Something that is very valuable to the people who actually attempt to do this, but threatening to those who wish people would just stay in the trenches that have been dug out for them.
Those emotions and access to them are what keeps us from reverting to the short-sightedness of colonialist and ethno-fascist regimes. Criticising this work for falling short of something that it doesn’t try to provide did seem to me like an attempt to divert attention away from its value, and I could not legitimately tell whether it was intentional or not. People who verbally state having one opinion/perspective but whose actions show more alignment with the opposing ideals aren’t too uncommon, unfortunately. My apologies for whatever harm I may have caused by suspending judgment while gathering sufficient information to make that call.
Even in this thread I discussed with someone, an outsider to the conflict, who said that it had them questioning Israels right to exist as a state.
I’ve seen that. And is it not a completely normal response to what is happening, if indeed we allow ourselves to feel things? Our base level emotional reactions are not very sophisticated and they cannot be expected to comprehensively adapt to complex political landscapes. I myself have questioned Israel’s right to exist again and again, and I’ll probably continue to do so for as long as I live, provided that the conflict outlives myself, which I believe likely.
However, every time I do question it, I come to the same conclusion: I can’t legitimately deny some people’s right to exist on account of their doing the same to others. That would lead to a clearly worse outcome. This is a feeling that I occasionally have, but feelings are not always aligned with our desired long term outcomes and thus, they should not be blindly followed. The way I ensure I won’t end up being directed by that feeling is to allow myself to feel through it, as many times as needed, while suspending taking action until I’m again on top of myself. If I tried to shut down these feelings, they would start accumulating within and eventually burst out in a much more uncontrollable form than they are now.
My personal view is that by presenting the worst version of Israel and the past, he makes it easy for critics to dismiss his arguments or skeptics to bury their heads in the sand.
I agree that there are ways where this type of presentation may cause harm, and the same goes for any other type of presentation that I’ve seen, except perhaps for the ones that end up not saying anything at all. And to be fair, even those are harmful from the perspective of the affected people as they can come across as discounting their plight.
My personal strategy would be to present Israel in the best light, and then deconstruct how even in that version of events, what they are doing is wrong.
In my opinion, this would be absolute perfection in terms of concept! When you’re done, please send me a link and I’ll make sure to go easy on you on Tildes. :)
To conclude, I understand and accept that the video didn't do it for you, personally. You seem highly informed, discerning, independent, measured and multi-faceted in terms of your thought process, so excuse me when I say that there are swathes of people in the world who need videos on this topic more acutely than you do. Nevertheless, your criticism of its shortcomings, namely the superficial treatment of history and deliberately dropping nuance, is valid, and you are most likely correct in that for some people who indeed are in need of material, this isn’t a good fit for those reasons.
I very much appreciate your participation in this conversation. Rest assured, I have no doubt that your moral stance on Israel is at least as solid as my own, most likely more, and that there is little to no value-based contradiction in our opinions. The differences seem to be more on which perspective each person uses as a starting point (you: broad scale geopolitics and international law, me: intrapersonal psychology and self-leadership) and potentially what type of flow chart should be employed. I think that there’s room for several different types of those here, given the complex nature of the conflict.
Thanks again for your responses and all the references that will help me become more informed. Wishing you a great weekend too.
Thank you for the thoughtful response; I have enjoyed our discussion. I do understand the difficulty in trying to establish a common set of facts on an issue, especially one so fraught with denial...
Thank you for the thoughtful response; I have enjoyed our discussion.
I do understand the difficulty in trying to establish a common set of facts on an issue, especially one so fraught with denial and what-aboutism. I will think about writing the sort of argument I mentioned, and if I post it, I'll DM you the link. I can't do it in video form; my job prevents me from making public statements without prior review.
I did want to leave a final few thoughts from my own experience observing battles for public opinion, whether regarding wars, laws, politics, etc. In my experience, it tends to follow something like the following:
Side A mischaracterizes side B's position, history, involvement, etc.
Side B uses that mischaracterization to justify ignoring legitimate elements of side A's position.
Each side uses each others refusal to recognize the legitimate elements of their positions as reason to condemn or reject whole-cloth the other sides views.
The public segments into echo chambers and is radicalized as the sides have an ever-shrinking agreement on common facts or characteristics of the issue.
I've seen over and over how the heightening of emotions around issues of debate usually leads to an escalation of tensions and violence, not a reduction.
In the Israel-Palestine conflict, I've become especially exasperated with one-sided narratives because they are trivial to ignore and refute both by the people in power and by the divided public. Worse, these narratives offer fuel for each side to point out how unfair the other side's treatment of them is.
That doesn't mean that it can't be productive to do a deep dive into the behavior or conduct of one side in this or other issues. We've already discussed how different people respond to different messages, and we don't need to re-debate that. I do think there is a need to set the stage and frame the presentation in the first few minutes or opening paragraphs to at least acknowledge the limitations of the presentation and that setting the groundwork is the responsibility of the author, not the audience.
In terms of delving into history, I also find it helpful in limited situations. When you are faced with deniers on either side, a discussion of historical events can be helpful to build common ground or refute one-sided views. Offering general education to people wondering why this problem is so complex can also benefit from looking at the diverging narratives and traditions that have come to be since 1948, as well as concepts like the Right of Return.
Outside of that, going into the deep history has been of limited value to me and doesn't seem to lend itself well to practical solutions to the current conflict. E.g., the war in Gaza is immoral regardless of the harm Israel suffered in the past. Israel does have a right to defense, but not to prosecute a war with no chance of success and devastating loss of civilian life. I don't need to discuss the Zionist motives of Jewish organizations from the 1930s to make a strong case against today's actions. In fact going back that far, seems counterproductive, because it begs for the what-aboutism that haunts the history of this conflict. (Note: the counter-argument to the above is that Israel learned the importance of a disproportionate response when dealing with Hezbollah in 2006. The counter-counterargument is an exercise for the reader. :) )
In terms of practical, relevant facts for discussing the current situation, I personally look at the following:
Eqypt and Jordan recognized the 1949 armistice borders of Israel.
That recognition was granted in exchange for land occupied by Israel that was captured in the six day war of 1967, when the Arab nations threatened to close the Tiran straights and amassed forces on Israel's border.
These agreements included Palestinian rights to Gaza and the West Bank. However, the West Bank was broken into districts (A, B, & C) that were supposed to be gradually transferred to Palestinian control, which Israel has not honored (for different reasons each decade).
Most international bodies recognize or at least tacitly accept that Israel has a right to its 1949 borders and that the Palestinians have a right to the West Bank and Gaza (and that the Golan Heights should be returned).
In addition to these facts, the Just War framework I linked to above, and the expert military assessments that there is no military solution to this political problem, provides a sufficient framework to argue that Israel should not be conducting a war in Gaza for the purpose that it claims and that the war is immoral. Any more legalistic claims I leave to the ICJ because the application of international law is so hampered by precedent that it is hard for a layperson to become well versed. None of this requires making the argument that Israel can't defend itself (just not this way), nor does it require extensive history or a complex tit-for-tat.
Most everything outside of the above is just part of the tortured history of the region, at best explanatory to the mindset of different peoples, and at worst the shackles that bind the people of today to the horrors of the past in a cycle they refuse to break. While true diplomats need that history to negotiate an actual treaty, the public is mostly misled by them.
You asked what my position is, and in terms of what I think is a practical solution, it is:
Israel would stay within their 1949 borders.
All control of Gaza and the West Bank would go to the Palestinians.
The Arab Nations would sign a treaty agreeing not to fund organizations dedicated to the destruction of Israel (Iran won't sign, but Egypt, Jordan, and Saudia Arabia might, in exchange for international recognition of a Palestinian state).
There would be a UN-managed DMZ between Israel and Palestine.
An international fund would be established to fund the development of a Palestinian government, infrastructure, and economy.
Anyway, I'll digress there. I hope I have clarified my position and conveyed that I appreciate the discussion. I suspect we will continue to see different value in different messaging styles around the conflict, but I remain hopeful that the public attention will result in some change. But I remember seeing hope dashed in the 90's when at the 11th hour the agreement to establish a Palestinian state was dashed. So we will see.
I completely agree, and no worries you didn't imply anything or pin Shaun's content on me, I just kinda got in the habit of trying to clarify his points and realized I needed to pull the breaks...
I completely agree, and no worries you didn't imply anything or pin Shaun's content on me, I just kinda got in the habit of trying to clarify his points and realized I needed to pull the breaks and make that statement or I'd be put on the defensive, and when I end up there I have a habit of thinking about defending and not about what I am defending.
Thank you very much on the discussion. I was swayed by Shaun's arguments when I listened to the video so far as to almost step away from my opinion that Israel has a right to exist, which tells you a lot about how confidently presented information can carry you in a video essay. I'm still uncertain what Shaun's opinion on the state's existence actually is, because I'm sure he isn't going to advocate its destruction and the resulting genocide and mass displacement. I think that by conflating all these moral arguments against war with literally zero counter-points and even going as far as to present the extreme sides of Zionism however, it is easy to walk away with that opinion. But showing the antisemitic parts of it was still very interesting.
Our discussion more centered around historical facts rather than moral arguments has helped me find back to a more nuanced position. Thank you very much. I'd be interested in continuing the discussion, but I do also respect that not everyone wants to throw giant walls of text at each other for days/weeks.
It's been a pleasure, and I'm more than happy to continue discussing. I don't know that I have anything left to say about the video, but I'm happy to dig into anything you want to flesh out further.
It's been a pleasure, and I'm more than happy to continue discussing. I don't know that I have anything left to say about the video, but I'm happy to dig into anything you want to flesh out further.
How do you get over the absolutist/defeatist attitude that the only way out of the conflict right now is that one side wins? The US is not gonna keep Israel in check and the surrounding states...
How do you get over the absolutist/defeatist attitude that the only way out of the conflict right now is that one side wins? The US is not gonna keep Israel in check and the surrounding states don't seem too interested in solving the Palestine problem either. No one, to me at least, wants to actually help the people, everyone is simply looking to improve their current position geopolitically.
It's difficult. Some of it is simply the experience of seeing past diplomatic situations unfold and the time it takes to happen. There are a few things that inform my perspective. I believe that...
It's difficult. Some of it is simply the experience of seeing past diplomatic situations unfold and the time it takes to happen. There are a few things that inform my perspective.
I believe that diplomacy isn't a binary set of conditions. The reason we don't use all diplomatic options in disputes is that we want to leave something on the table to negotiate with. The US and others are keeping Israel close for two reasons. 1) you can influence allies better than enemies, and 2) politically, the US leaders want to support the state of Israel without supporting its actions in Gaza. This means sustained, and yes, slow diplomatic pressure over time to scale back the offensive and put pressure on a plan for post-invasion Gaza.
In the long arc of history, the 20th century was an amazing period of declining violence, liberalization of policies, and settling of animosities. A good book on the general subject is Stephen Pinker's, The Better Angels of Our Nature. Now it appears that the pendulum is swinging the other way, and we are seeing an increase in conservative, nationalistic views, and a resurgence of old-world attitudes towards border expansion. However, I don't see this as a long-term trend but rather as a natural swing of a pendulum that spent 60 years going the other way. It will swing back.
Hamas attacked because they were desperate. Their cause was losing steam. As damaging as this conflict will be to relations in the Middle East, it isn't a complete reset. Egypt, Jordan, and Qatar are still engaged in negotiations precisely because, despite the bluster, they don't want war on their doorstep. We've also seen more political and diplomatic focus on an actual Palestinian state now than we have since the 90's. As terrible as the conflict is, it is a flashpoint of violence and anger caused by a terrorist attack, like the US response to 9/11. And like the US response, this will fade.
I had family who served in the Pacific in world war 2, and were treated terribly at the hands of the Japanese. One came home, a farm boy from a dairy farm in Wisconsin who grew up without electricity, with a lifelong hatred of Japanese people. Another came home from the same experiences with a calm measure of understanding that was truly amazing to see. As far as I could tell, they never held a grudge or showed any sign of outward animosity to the Japanese people. I've also read quite a bit about conflict. In particular, the Forgotten Highlander and Man's Search for Meaning are two books that chronicle atrocities in WW2, with very different outcomes for the author. Violence doesn't always beget violence, and cycles can be broken. But it requires all of us to avoid escalation and divisive rhetoric.
So, I believe that we are seeing a flare-up in violence due to macro factors in the global environment and that diplomacy will slowly bring about an end to the current conflict. With a renewed focus on the issue, when the fighting stops, we may have our best chance since the 90s to actually get a two-state solution. I also believe that people can rise up and overcome their environment, and if even a single person in the conflict can call for peace instead of just more violence, then the least I can do, safe a world away, is not escalate things either.
I do think the world needs to ratchet up calls to end the fighting, and applying pressure for aid delivery, and hostage exchanges. It sounds like that might be on the horizon. I don't want to minimize the acute suffering happening day in and day out. When I see pictures of the violence, especially involving children, I am gutted. As a parent, hearing about what families are going through is horrific. It will come to an end, though that is cold comfort for the people living through it.
I don't know if that helps. I suppose the short summary of my answer is "perspective." Namely, that these conflicts have happened before, and ended, and things have improved, and we have the opportunity to improve them further.
I don't know if 1) is true. So far, the US has only urged Israel to bomb more precisely, not to stop the bombing entirely. I don't know what kind of pressure is being applied behind the scenes,...
I don't know if 1) is true. So far, the US has only urged Israel to bomb more precisely, not to stop the bombing entirely. I don't know what kind of pressure is being applied behind the scenes, but given Israel's reliance on the US, it could step up the pressure a lot more.
I suppose, you are right on the rest. Our view on the conflict is coloured by decades of peace post WW2 while at the same time, this conflict appeared and never got solved. We were so close with Rabin at one point, but then he got assassinated.
These aren't the sorts of things I would try and convince someone of, aside from providing reading material, because I think it requires each of us making our own interpretations of events. These...
These aren't the sorts of things I would try and convince someone of, aside from providing reading material, because I think it requires each of us making our own interpretations of events. These are things I believe based on past experiences and watching and reading investigative pieces on past crisis diplomacy.
I'd suggest two things and make a prediction but otherwise won't try and convince you.
I predict that in two years we will have a few really good investigative journalism pieces that explore the things happening in private, that we will only learn about when all is said and done. I predict we will see stronger demands have been happening behind closed doors than is publicly visible. I would suggest you keep an eye out for these pieces and give them a read, and see what you believe then. You can learn that more was happening, but still be dissatisfied, and that is ok.
There does seem to be push from the Biden administration to recognize a Palestinian state. (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/08/briefing/israel-us-gaza.html ) let me know if you would like a gift link. I suspect we will see an announcement in the next few months for a variety of reasons.
Again, I encourage you to make up your own mind. So much of this is subjective and whether you are happy with a response or have the same predictions as me is your own person decision to make.
It also doesn't help that a not-insignificant portion of American voting population supports Israel primarily because it will help bring the prophecy of the end times. If that's not enough to give...
If that's not enough to give pause about America's fervent support of Israel, I don't know what will.
The LifeWay poll found that 80 percent of evangelicals believed that the creation of Israel in 1948 was a fulfillment of biblical prophecy that would bring about Christ’s return.
There's also how non-Jews advocating for Zionism reeking of "send the blacks back to Africa," which is just segregation by another name (at best).
This is a point touched upon in the video. He presents a historic quote from a supporter of the founding of Israel who basically says "They are foreign and do not wish to integrate and the...
There's also how non-Jews advocating for Zionism reeking of "send the blacks back to Africa," which is just segregation by another name (at best).
This is a point touched upon in the video. He presents a historic quote from a supporter of the founding of Israel who basically says "They are foreign and do not wish to integrate and the surrounding society has been unable to absorb and assimilate them. If they get their own place far away it'll solve everything" except of course it's just pushing the problem somewhere else because it's not an empty desert, people live there.
You need an accepting society and a well functioning education system, or people like Jews (or any minority really) which are easily identifiable to the majority will almost always be ostracized. Since the former also carry thousands of years of shared heritage, culture and customs which they practice and which further makes them "different" they will always be a target for anyone looking for a common enemy to paint as the problem. The reason so many conspiracy theories find their way back to Jews is not because they are correct, it is because they are the easiest to alienate.
Also about that evangelical comment, what the fuck lol.
I can't help but find it depressing that, in almost every case of a pro-Palestinian individual speaking out, there lies waiting in the crowd at least one person ready to shame them if they do not...
I can't help but find it depressing that, in almost every case of a pro-Palestinian individual speaking out, there lies waiting in the crowd at least one person ready to shame them if they do not first fervently disavow Hamas. People talk of the crimes Palestinians endure, only to face immediate reprisal if they do not immediately say "Hamas is just as bad," as though it needed to be said; as though the evil of Hamas weren't already obvious; as though the individual’s lack of explicit condemnation of child-murder is in some way an implicit declaration of support for it; as if said individual were aligned with Hamas by default and needed to first distance themselves before being allowed to speak.
I can't say for certain that this is what you're trying to do, as I do not know you. I apologize in advance if I have misinterpreted, but your comment has reminded me of a trend that I find deeply painful, and which given that pain, I felt I needed to say something about. With this in mind, let me make it clear that much of what I've said above is meant to speak against the trend in question, and not at you specifically.
To suffice, I suppose: I do not think Shaun should have to say that he is against the deaths of Israeli children, as to assume he feels otherwise would be to baselessly assign bad faith to an obscene degree. We already know the crimes Hamas has committed, and they are already condemned.
Primarily I agree with you, and I think Shaun focuses on Israel as the perpetrator because that is the ally of "The West" in the region. I don't think that he is pro-child-murder as long as they...
Primarily I agree with you, and I think Shaun focuses on Israel as the perpetrator because that is the ally of "The West" in the region. I don't think that he is pro-child-murder as long as they are Israeli. People who are venting and frustrated should be allowed to do so without being chastised for it.
The problem remains that a not insignificant amount of people cheered for Hamas in the aftermath of October 7th. In Berlin there were numerous cases of people handing out Baklava and candy as a celebration of rampant murder, rape and kidnappings. Shaun touches upon this in the video with the JFK quote, and I were asked who is responsible for the rise of Hamas I would say Israel more than the people of Gaza.
However, he made a feature-length movie video about this topic which is not a rant or an airing of frustrations, he is making a calm argument in his typical style, and it's clear that he is not worried abour runtime when making his argument, so I would have like to see him cover it. I think by stating at the start that he is not looking to even propose solutions, he absolves himself of any requirement to be even-handed in his approach and the video suffers for it. I suppose as a 90 minute explanation of his own view on the matter and how he came to view it that way, it makes sense, but in that case he could have made that argument in a shorter amount of time.
Definitely not what I'm trying to do. I also find it depressing that I can't have a sober discussion anywhere without posting walls of texts to explain the entirety of where I stand morally and...
Definitely not what I'm trying to do. I also find it depressing that I can't have a sober discussion anywhere without posting walls of texts to explain the entirety of where I stand morally and what my opinion is on every single nuance of the topic (two-state solution and pro-Palestinian for sure). It's why I rarely engage in discussions like this outside of Tildes.
But when you make a 90 minute video, it seems like you should at least mention it, just a single sentence would do. That's what I found absurd and why I posted that (admittedly low effort) comment which was just my reaction to what that person above said since I haven't seen the video myself. But by accounts in other comments, the video is a biased presentation of the history. And he is no longer discussing or approaching the subject matter in a measured way when he omits things like this. I mean, you learn pretty early on in school to discuss the arguments of both sides, and to grant each side as fair and accurate a representation as you possibly can - whether or not you fervently disagree with their point of view.
In regards to your first paragraph though, let me just digress a little and point out that there have been countless pro-Palestine protests on a weekly basis throughout Europe, and people even celebrated on the street following 7/10. I saw cars with Palestinian flags driving around with men sitting in the windows, cheering and honking, and some of the protesters back then chanted Hamas slogans and burned Israeli flags. And when journalists pressed the issue, or when right-wingers were provocative, there were only ever vague statements by organizers. So it's not a given that the crimes committed have already been condemned. No, they shouldn't have to condemn both sides equally every single time they (rightfully) criticize the apartheid state of Israel, but when it comes to movements like these weekly protests, it seems like it should be pretty easy to just one time say "oh, yeah, Hamas sucks too" and then that's that, and their position would never again be inferred. But they haven't done this, because some people in these marches really do applaud the 7/10 attack.
I'm not saying that I think Shaun applauds Hamas' murdering of children. Having watched many of his other videos, it's pretty clear that he's a level headed person. But pointing out that he doesn't even mention it a single time in such a long video is not, I think, in bad faith - certainly not to an obscene degree.
It doesn't attempt to offer an accurate presentation of the history of this conflict, which Shaun very clearly mentions in the video, as well as why he made that choice.
the video is a biased presentation of the history
It doesn't attempt to offer an accurate presentation of the history of this conflict, which Shaun very clearly mentions in the video, as well as why he made that choice.
I thought the thesis was pretty clear. He repeated it a few times. He argued that a thorough understanding of the history of the conflict is not necessary to see that Israel is in the wrong. He...
I thought the thesis was pretty clear. He repeated it a few times. He argued that a thorough understanding of the history of the conflict is not necessary to see that Israel is in the wrong. He also shared how he personally came to that conclusion.
Thank you for mentioning this! I've been impressed by Shaun's research and reasoning before, and while I've hesitated to consume content on this particular topic, a video from him felt safe enough...
Thank you for mentioning this! I've been impressed by Shaun's research and reasoning before, and while I've hesitated to consume content on this particular topic, a video from him felt safe enough to view. I was not disappointed.
The key takeaway for me was that Zionism and being jewish are two completely different things. Many Zionists are anti-semitists.
I'll attempt a brief summary for anyone who doesn't feel like watching the whole thing:
Israel was founded via a colonialistic undertaking where 80% of the Palestinian population were expelled from their homes and thousands were massacred. There is no example in known history where colonialism would have been carried out in agreement with the native population. It is known to lead to violence, and the only possible ways to end this type of violence are known to be as follows: 1) colonisers stop colonising, or 2) the native people are eliminated to the extent that they are no longer able to resist. This was well known and discussed at the time, and the Zionists along with their supporters decided to go for it anyway.
It is therefore logical to conclude, as well as evident in the actions themselves, that Israel's current goal is not geared towards the above-mentioned option 1 (co-existence and finding peace). Their actions represent option 2, to deliberately eliminate the Palestinians. Carrying out actions like these is only possible for people who have taught themselves (or been taught by others) to see their target as sub-human, distinctly different from themselves. Nazi Germany saw jews that way and the Israeli Zionists see Palestinians that way. Curiously, many outside forces that support Israel's colonialism also see jews this way, which is motivating the support, because ostensibly it is a way to get the jews out of these people's sight/country.
Equally curiously, those jews who are against colonial Zionism are also being othered by the Zionists. The divide seems to be between nationalist/racist colonialists and everyone else, rather than simply between jews and muslims or Israelites and Palestinians.
Unfortunately, being othered, abused and violently shunned, as the jews have been (and are), does not automatically make us less inclined to direct similar cruelty to others, even if that's what we'd like to believe. As for what to think and possibly do about it, there is obviously very little one person can do. We can donate towards the organisations and causes we believe in. We can also try to join forces in ways that have more direct impact than simply voting in national elections. An example of this: an Indian port worker's union who refuses to handle weapon shipments to Israel.
so.... is it fair to say, the Zionists and the Hamas suck, the Palestinian State and the Israeli State also suck when they are supporting Zionists and Hamas, but the Palestinian People and the...
so.... is it fair to say, the Zionists and the Hamas suck, the Palestinian State and the Israeli State also suck when they are supporting Zionists and Hamas, but the Palestinian People and the Jewish people are just hurting?
What if we went for a zero-state solution: every country in the world take in Palestinians AND Jewish people, and we're going to let the entire geographical area be completely barren and emptied of people. No one is to supply anybody left there with aid or concrete and water and food and arms: it's going to be a dead zone. Both Palestinians and Jewish people will be provided asylum and new homes and new lives as sojourning diasporas for the foreseeable future, protected by the laws of where-ever they settle next.
Then everybody who doesn't want to support war, doesn't want to support either state, doesn't want their humanitarian aid going to questionable "sides" can rest satisfied knowing it's only going to displaced persons, new citizens among their countrymen. People who don't support "refugees from both sides" can suck on a lemon: they won't have any more moral high grounds to "whatabout" on.
Then countries can provide humanitarian aid without helping war; they don't even have to call for a ceasefire -- just leave whoever is left to throw rocks at each other.
Is it terrible to displace so many people? Absolutely. I don't see how it's a place that is livable as it is, though. It's either going to end with one side completely killing every single last child from the other side, or else fighting will continue with many-but-not-all dead children.
Sure. The people who were born in Israel and know it as their only home are effectively not different from those who were originally displaced from the region, in that they didn't choose to be...
so.... is it fair to say, the Zionists and the Hamas suck, the Palestinian State and the Israeli State also suck when they are supporting Zionists and Hamas, but the Palestinian People and the Jewish people are just hurting?
Sure. The people who were born in Israel and know it as their only home are effectively not different from those who were originally displaced from the region, in that they didn't choose to be born there, nor did they massacre anyone in order to live there. What's happening isn't their fault. I can imagine that if I were one of these people, I would be suffering immensely, realising what my government has done and is doing, while not having any reasonable way to stand against it in practical terms. The resulting cognitive dissonance must be excruciating to deal with, and we know that people in such situations tend to develop psychological defence mechanisms - some of which then enable inhumane treatment of others.
What if we went for a zero-state solution: every country in the world take in Palestinians AND Jewish people
As the video points out, part of the problem is exactly that other countries are unwilling to take in jews (most likely the same would go for Palestinians, too). That's part of the reason why Israel was created in the first place. The same problems regarding othering (racism and nationalism) are everywhere, not just in that region. The only difference is that this region's nation states have been severely tampered with in a way that caused irreversible damage and isn't as easy to gloss over today as it used to be when regular people didn't have direct access to information - for example, when native Americans got displaced. We could be more easily convinced that the rulers know what they're doing and are only trying to do good. Today, the same stories won't fly because they can be immediately contrasted with stories told by the other side, and humans have an innate capacity to tell which side is being more authentic - at least when our judgment isn't severely clouded by the aforementioned defence mechanisms.
The other obvious issue is that acquiring this "barren land" would be supremely tempting for the overlords of every capable nation state who believe in colonialism/nationalism/etc. People who see life as a quest to command as many people and as much resources as possible, and the ultimate purpose to win. At the moment, those people exist in every country, and as well: most if not all countries are governed by people like this. Western democracies included.
Then we'll regularly test nukes there I'm only 10% joking. Sometimes if there's a house fire we gotta evacuate. Civilians staying just eventually become innocent victims and or combatants. My...
Then we'll regularly test nukes there
I'm only 10% joking.
Sometimes if there's a house fire we gotta evacuate. Civilians staying just eventually become innocent victims and or combatants.
My proposal has the advantage of pushing governments into either putting up or shutting up: don't defend "both sides", dont demonize one side, don't say your hands are tied and do nothing, don't hide behind facade of waiting for peace talk - either put down money and accept refugees, or get called out for being the unhelpful racist jerkwad that they are.
Essentially that's what's happened to my people living in HK: no one is going to fight China on our behalf, but they are giving us a life boat.
As odd as it feels for a post on this particular topic to get six minutes of screening before sharing a video 15x that length, it'd be nice to have some context on who Shaun is or why his video is...
As odd as it feels for a post on this particular topic to get six minutes of screening before sharing a video 15x that length, it'd be nice to have some context on who Shaun is or why his video is worthy of the quick share?
Shaun is a British video essayist who makes videos about topics ranging from media analysis to documenting a particular issue on society. An example would be his review about the Harry Potter...
Shaun is a British video essayist who makes videos about topics ranging from media analysis to documenting a particular issue on society. An example would be his review about the Harry Potter books or his analysis of why Andrew Tate is so popular. His videos feature very little video though beyond the occasional quote shown, and are much closer to a podcast than to a video essay.
This video in question describes the Israeli-Palestine conflict from a Palestinian perspective. It goes into the history of Zionism and Israel a bit to establish context and then describes the contrast of historical complexity to moral simplicity. Sure, the Israel-Palestine conflict is complex from a historical perspective, but morally, the Israeli Defense Force is still dropping bombs on children. By framing Israel as a colonial state, it lays the blame for the bloodshed at the feet of Israeli decision makers, because it is not just a cycle of violence, it is a cycle of violence that begun with the invasion of a population's (Palestinians) homeland (I am approximately an hour in now).
My reason for posting is that Shaun's stuff is usually good, well argued and researched and because the Youtube algorithm sucks for actually notifying subscribers of uploaded content of their creators.
I'll put in an expanded "^this", because I truly believe this guy deserves all the attention he can get. For example, I thoroughly enjoyed Shaun's review of the Bell Curve (book), as well as his...
Shaun's stuff is usually good, well argued and researched
I'll put in an expanded "^this", because I truly believe this guy deserves all the attention he can get.
For example, I thoroughly enjoyed Shaun's review of the Bell Curve (book), as well as his response to Lauren Southern regarding traditional family values, where he uncovers some deliberately misleading research results promoted by The Heritage Foundation, among other things.
I'm no writer, so I can't write a compelling review of this video. But I can say, i thought the video was great, but the thesis does lack, but understandably so- we are living in a period where...
I'm no writer, so I can't write a compelling review of this video. But I can say, i thought the video was great, but the thesis does lack, but understandably so- we are living in a period where genocide is happening live, we can see it with our eyes, and the wheel or racism continues to crush. Perhaps the essay is an exasperated summary of how it feels to be so armed and prepared with knowledge, as a civilian, yet helpless to dismantle entire systems of racial disparity on our own
I'm not sure that I know what the thesis of the video is. If it's that Western countries should stop sending military aid based on Israel's behavior in Gaza, then I would agree. Israel hasn't really lived up to its promises for at least the last 20 years. But the video presents a number of ideas that I find fairly weak or unrelated to that position.
Taking a step back, most third-parties who are knowledgeable of the conflict and its history should be able to separate out different eras where the characteristics of the conflict significantly differed. The nature of the conflict over the last 20 years is very different, than say, the conflict from 1948-1967.
However, his treatment of the history didn't come across as particularly impartial or nuanced, and seemed mostly targeted at the worst arguments presented by Israel's apologists. Which is disappointing in a 1.5 hour video.
I've characterized the history of the conflict as one of victims. Looking narrowly at Israelis and Palestinians, they have over the years been victims of each other, of their neighbors, and the world around them. That their Arab neighbors were also victims of Britain and the league of nations is very true, and feeds into the conflicts history. Lawrence of Arabia famously declined knighthood because he felt Britain betrayed the Arabs. But if anyone bears blame for that today, shouldn't it be Britain?
And yet, in a 1.5 hour video that goes back to the late 19th century, we only saw the smallest snippets of actual history presented, and none of it that I noticed dealing with the harms to Jewish people's in the region.
I've intentionally avoided a bullet list of arguments in the video, because that sort of tit for tat debate isn't particularly productive. But I don't think that the video does a good job of laying out a fundamental premise and supporting it, and strays a little too close to one side bearing all the fault for the entire last 75+ years for my comfort.
Edit: the more I think about it, the more bothersome I find what I feel to be a rebuttal to a reductionist version of the conflict. E.g., the comment about bloodthirsty Arabs. I don't think any credible third party has that view. So I go back to where I started. I don't know that I understand the premise of the video, its thesis, or who the target audience is.
Honestly, I'm disappointed in this video/Shaun. I only watched about 10 minutes of it, but in those 10 minutes it was already made clear that this was not going to be fair, nor trying to convince people on the fence. It's not going after a reasonably strong version of the pro-israel arguments, because I don't think that's what Shaun is going for. Shaun starts from a position of "Israel is the baddie here" and goes from there. I didn't bother with that, and reading your comment sorta confirms to me that that's what the video mostly is.
I'm entirely on board with a 2h deep dive into this conflict, working up the history and probably also a fair amount of assigning blame to various parties. I don't expect Israel to walk away clean from that, not at all. But I think a fair trial will achieve painting Israel in a light thoroughly deserving of criticism all the same.
This video is made by actual historians who always strive for total historical fact and accuracy on their channels. It is in my opinion a very fair, balanced, and objective look at the actual unbiased history. Highly recommend it as the deep dive you are looking for.
Haven't watched it yet, but yeah, TimeGhost is IMO much better about such things. Have yet to see them embroiled in any notable drama around how they present history, and they've been doing it for a while.
I will watch this.
Is there such a thing? History is written by the conqueror.
The answer to that question is a lot more complex than you might think (the following is a copy of the top comment since I noticed that the account is already deleted):
It really depends what we're talking about when we talk about "history." I think there is a very wide gap here between academic history (the kind being done at universities) and history as it is taught in high schools, and then again popular history. There is clearly overlap and the groups are not entirely distinct, but I think these three "kinds" of history that are in our historical discourse are offenders of the "history written by the victors" problem to quite different degrees.
Many academic historians have become increasingly conscious of giving voice to "the losers" of history not just as an imperative towards writing good history, but also towards a more moral history. Although there might be some discomfort with such moralizing, I think the historiographic/theoretical interventions made by historians (and other scholars for that matter) starting in the 1960s and 70s in favor of a more "ground up" kind of history have become well accepted.
It is not to say that academic history has banished any notion of simply reiterating the story or narrative of the victory, but rather than historians are increasingly conscious about how they might be doing so and generally try not to, or to bring attention to it when they might have in order to make it more visible. In large parts things like social history tried to bring to light the historical narratives of less empowered groups. Therefore, social history spawned various offshoots - theories about labor, gender, race, etc. - that are often some of the historian's best tools for engaging with histories of people who may not have left behind the same kinds of documents and records that historians who study "great men" might have used.
One of the landmark titles from this era, one that you can't get a degree in history without knowing well these days, is Edward Said's Orientalism (1978) in which Said takes to task the academic "orientalists" (the word for people who studied "the East" and which has fallen out of favor since the book was written) who fetishized "the East" and therefore contributed greatly to the West's exploitation of it. Said made several critical arguments in this book. I think the most important are the following:
Academics who are studying foreign places have a responsibility to make sure that their work is not contributing to harming the place they are studying. To make sure, for example, that their work might not contribute to arguments or an atmosphere in which political leaders might find it easier to invade or exploit, for example, the geographic region they study.
It is very possible to contribute to such a state of affairs even when you have no intention to do so. This is, I think, one of the most far reaching of Said's observations. In calling out orientalists for this, Said illustrated the point in a general fashion and called on historians and anthropologists to be introspective about the ramifications of their work. To avoid fetishizing a culture, which may be done unintentionally simply because you seem to like it. And why wouldn't that be so? There can be no doubt many scholars choose to study a particular area because they find it interesting and enjoyable. Said says - your good intentions aren't enough. This idea becoming widespread had some of the most profound impact on how historians thought about their work and its impact. You start to see more concern about reifying existing power structures and questioning traditional narratives.
Out of this era you also get work like Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee (1970) by Dee Brown. The work is hardly the be all and end all of historiography of the Native American experience of American expansionism, but it nonetheless helped to shift the narrative about that. The traditional glorification of American settlers was called into question and the victories of the American government over Native Americans in war were not glorified, but rather characterized as brutal. Dee Brown, for the record, was not writing as a Native American himself, but as a white man. (Brown’s work preceded Said’s by nearly a decade, so I’ll just clarify that I placed Said’s work first in this discussion for its historiographical importance rather than chronological significance). So while this history was still, in some sense, being written by the victor, it was acutely aware of the problems associated with traditional historical narratives and went far out of its way to tell the narrative from, as near as he could, the perspective of the Native Americans in question.
Another important book is the often maligned People’s History of the United States by Howard Zinn. The book is not important because it is the definitive version of United States history that everyone should read and accept. (No book is that, by the way. You can’t fully understand any topic by reading one book.) Zinn’s contribution was not in overturning all previous work on the US and providing us with a replacement, but rather putting the histories of “the losers” on full display as the central subject of his work. Indeed, Zinn says as much in his first chapter.
He goes on…
Whether you like Zinn’s work or not, you can hardly argue that it isn't a very deliberate attempt to avoid writing a history of or by the victors.
I think this stands in contrasts to the history that people tend to learn in in high school or that they see on television, or perhaps on the shelves at Barnes and Noble (do people still shop at Barnes and Noble?).
In this first case, you have history curricula that are not being decided by historians at all. Those curricula and the text books used to support them are by far more the result of local politics than anything else. You might remember a recent flare up from 2014 about precisely this issue in Colorado when a school board tried to change the way history was being taught. A resolution by the school board said the curriculum should, for example, promote “patriotism and the benefits of the free-enterprise system” and I think also had some language about making sure the curriculum didn’t encourage “social disorder.
THIS is history by the victors. It is not merely about telling a particular narrative of from, in stark opposition to what Zinn did, the perspective of the victors. It is also a modern day attempt to reify the structures which have been passed down as a result of that victory. It was precisely this kind of thing that prompted the kind of scholarly backlash that produced Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, A People’s History of the United States, and Said’s Orientalism. Although I think some of the work from that era is regarded as too “biased” (other discussion that I feel strongly about but will keep to a bit of a minimum here), I think this back and forth makes sense in the context of understanding, like Said understood so well, that history plays an important social and cultural role.
Lastly, popular history comes somewhere in the middle. There is a lot of good popular history out there, but it is largely not as steeped in the kind of historiographic and theoretical frameworks that explicitly frame more academic works. The kinds of things that help historians to tell more than just the story of the victors. Popular history is such a broad category that you can’t say too much about it as a genre, so I’ll leave it at that. The degree to which theoretical frameworks to influence those books, explicitly stated or not, is usually the degree to which I find them to be good history.
So where does that leave us? Well, I think its fair to say that academic historians are very very aware of this problem and have done a lot over the last 40-50 years to try to combat it. Sometimes this has come from perspectives that deliberately seek to rehabilitate and emphasize the perspectives of the “sub-altern,” but it has also come from a general theoretical and methodological shift that has changed the focus on the kinds of sources that historians use, where they look for them, and how they engage with them. Nonetheless, and this is one of my great problems with academia, is that all of those insights and perspectives are outside of the public view. The best work is published in academic journals that require absurdly expensive subscriptions or access to libraries that have a subscription. The best books are published by university presses on small print-runs that make them expensive. Only the ones that turn out to be the most outlandishly popular ever get read by anyone who isn’t going well out of their way to find it. It’s a mix of forces. Academia’s insularity meets the public’s interest in being presented with a more simplistic narrative that doesn’t challenge their worldview too much.
The sides of this are hardly as clear as I've drawn them here, as another responder mentioned. The lines between "victor" and "loser" are hardly ever as clear as they seem and the agendas of school boards and historians are likewise neither so straight forward.
I think this is the big takeaway from the nearly 2000 words I’ve just hammered out on the topic is as follows: The kind of history that the average person is exposed to is far more by “the victors” than history the way that academic historians try to practice and write it.
I worry a little that perhaps I've painted academic historians as "the good guys" here without exception and that clearly isn't so.There’s also the issue that there are a lot of institutions and historians around the world that simply don’t have the kind of integrity to write and promote the kind of history that tried to avoid it. Indeed, there are plenty of people out there who have something personal to gain by reinforcing victor narratives. A mere association with academia is not evidence of one's good intention. That being said I think that the vast majority of good historical work that has been done to address the problem has been done by academic historians.
I think it’s plenty clear by now where my opinion lies here. I think including the voices of the oppressed and downtrodden is an important task for history as a profession. That does not mean that history should only be that and that historians should study nothing else. It is to say the following: A history that is not introspective and self-critical can never be complete. The degree to which the field of history has gotten better, as a whole, doing this over the last 50 years is quite staggering. But historiography isn’t a static thing and it isn’t something that only the whole experiences “progress” – so history is, as always, provisional and up for discussion.
Wow, thank you for enabling my procrastination regarding some challenging work tasks..!
Without having yet read that, I'll take this as a 'No, an objective look at the actual unbiased history is not a thing'.
It is a very detailed account of saying "It depends". I think the last sentence is a decent TL:DR; for the whole post:
Israel being the conqueror in this case? Do you really think they are succeeding in writing their history..? Zero historians worth listening to will take what the "conqueror" says at face value.
As for your question, yes, history is inherently unbiased and factual. They specifically address this in the first few minutes of the video, where they very clearly state that they are trying to present history as it really happened. This is a field of study and it's their job to get to the bottom of things. They do not have an agenda.
Conquerors may have tried to do write their history, and maybe they have swayed their population for a time. But the facts of what happened will come out, whether or not a conqueror tries to write whatever version of history they personally prefer. War crimes or genocides for example are things that conquerors have tried to cover up or hide throughout history, countless times, and yet the truth often eventually comes out.
What they cover in the video is recent history and there is an abundance of sources for it. This isn't ancient history where it's out of living memory or where records might have been destroyed forever. And they are not jumping to conclusions or interpreting anything. On their channels, they only present what really happened. And if they aren't sure what happened, they present different sides of the argument and say what they think happened. And if they don't know what happened, they say they don't know. They do have a few different series, like the on on the holocaust where they do get into the how's and why's, and that is of course open to interpretation, but this one is purely a "what" video.
They are very open about their goals, and like most historians they seek to simply get to the bottom of what happened, when did it happen, what happened next, etc. Pure historical fact. So yes there definitely is such a thing as objectively presenting history as it happened.
I'm not suspecting that they have an agenda. I'm just saying that it isn't really humanly possible to be completely objective and unbiased. If these people claim to have that ability, I would question their reliability.
Based on your description, it does seem like they're trying to do a really good job. However, even the "what happened" is always a biased take, because things must be edited out for other things to fit in, and the sources that get used or not already have in-built bias one way or the other. In your opinion, are these guys using a balanced set of source material that represents the viewpoint of at least two of the main "sides" in this conflict?
I feel like you should just watch the Shaun video if you haven't already.
Yes, over time the bad deeds of the colonialists come to light, people are appalled, and the government at the time will say 'Oops, our mistake! So sorry about that!' But by then the culture, values and mindset of the colonialists have become dominant and the damage done to the culture that was eradicated is irreversible. Everyone who has a voice in that culture is now speaking and writing from that dominant perspective, and if they aren't, they get singled out as a contrarian.
'I'm sorry that I treated these people violently' is still the perspective of the oppressor, even if an ostensibly compassionate one. In that sense, every history book is written from the perspective of the victor/oppressor.
I don't understand why you seemingly dismiss history (and historiography) so I don't know how to have a sober discussion about much of anything if your presumption is that actual historians are more untrustworthy than a Youtuber. I don't think we're going to find common ground in this so please forgive that I won't continue the discussion.
Fair enough. I'd like to clarify that I wasn't dismissing history at all and I'm a little surprised that what I wrote has been interpreted that way. I was simply pointing out that beliefs in any human being's pure objectivity are unrealistic - be they a historian or not. I do agree that it's still valuable to try to be as objective as one possibly can, and that some people certainly are able to achieve better objectivity than others.
As well, I was definitely not comparing the historians with Shaun. Like he said himself in the video, he isn't even attempting an accurate historical recount.
Wishing you a good day.
I haven’t had a chance to watch the video yet (because I’m at work). But Shaun got some flack for his video on the atomic bomb.
Thank you, that was an interesting read. I get the impression that maybe Shaun is a well intentioned humanist, but maybe not great at presenting history.
That's increasingly becoming my problem with these Youtube essayists. They don't stick to their lane and therefore eventually end up spreading misinformation, accidental or not.
Another example of this is Philosophy Tube. She has a masters in philosophy, which is all fine and great, but she then went and talked about psychiatry with such confidence that you would think she was an authority on the subject. I'm not an authority on it either, but I have had enough therapy throughout my life that I do know more than most. People corrected her in the comments, which was something at least, but it just kind of made me laugh that a person with one degree thinks she can speak on another subject that has nothing to do with her actual field of study. That said, I have no idea what Shaun's background is.
But it's similar to reading a news article about subject X that you are an expert on, and being able to instantly see things that they got wrong or misrepresent through a simple lack of understanding - like Shaun and Philosophy Tube ended up doing. And you realise... if this person/journalist was wrong about subject X, are they then also wrong about subject Y and subject Z and all sorts of other topics that you just so happen to not know anything about? Their credibility instantly falls of a cliff (at least for me).
I think Shaun has always been particularly bad for this sort of thing - I don't think he has any real background in most of the topics he talks about, and he's talked about this before. In all fairness, he puts a lot of effort into researching things, but I think the medium encourages him to make more in-depth videos than his research allows for.
I think that's why, of all the BreadTube channels, the one I've stuck with the most is probably Hbomberguy, just because his video essays tend to be more about subjects he knows a lot about already, or at least where expertise is less relevant. Contrapoints for me also mostly fits into this category.
I also recommend Unlearning Economics, who works in academia specifically in economics, and tends to stay mostly in that economics lane.
Interestingly, I found another r/badhistory criticism of Shaun (from when he tweeted about the atomic bombings). This one is, in my opinion worse, for two reasons:
He uses quotes from American generals and admirals downplaying the effectiveness of the bomb. These have to be taken in context though, because the military was facing a major postwar drawdown. There were proposals to eliminate the Marine Corps as a branch, ships were getting cancelled, personnel counts in the army were going down with demobilization, and there was real concern that the military would be drastically scaled down in favor of a shitload of nukes.
He implies a strong Japanese willingness to surrender before Hiroshima. The peace faction of the War Council was a minority, and their feelers (not formal proposals) were conditional. Even after both bombings, there was an attempted coup prior to the Emperor announcing surrender.
I have a hard time following the criticism presented in that Reddit thread. They seem to conceptualize racism as some crime which must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, rather than as a foundational and pervasive part of American ideology. When you see racism as part of the ideology of the Truman administration, it comes across as bizarre to suggest that it did not play a role.
By my reading, the crux of this is that Shaun was a little over eager in calling something (that does have a lot of supporting evidence) ‘obvious’ (edit: I think undoubtedly was the exact word) when in fact there is a lot of dispute (doubt) about it. Shaun’s ‘crime’ here, to me, is that he apparently did not make it clear enough that he was stating his opinion, how it seems to him, rather than necessarily stating a complete synthesis of the academic debate on the matter. He probably could have acknowledged that there was more diversity of thought on the matter and I do think in terms of argumentation forms like ‘obviously‘ or ‘undoubtedly’ are lazy shortcuts and can be used as argument by abuse rhetorical devices.
(Also: Given the evidence in the BH article I must say it ‘feels’ pretty obvious to me that it was a major influence, especially with respect the public support. I am by no means any kind of expert in this area though)
Further, the extent to which he even blurred that line depends on how the person receiving the video is interpreting it. YouTube essayists fall on some spectrum between entertainment and journalism, and I think in most cases taking it as a piece of academic literature is v. silly - whether that means swallowing it whole or applying the rigours of academic scholarship to it. I get that this kind of interpretation is most of badhistory and friends’ shtick. It can be interesting at times, but it often just comes across as pedantic inversion of charity principle played for haughty elitist laughs to me…
His video on the nuclear bombings has a bibliography and he often refers to sources. I don't think it's a stretch to apply a bit more academic rigor here, both because Shaun himself does it, but also because -due to him applying at the very least a veneer of academia- people will take what he says for fact; it's all written down in historical literature after all. Except where it isn't written down, and he's just making it up. Crossing that line is never a good thing and always deserves criticism, if only to keep viewers alert and their critical thinking engaged.
The other direction is less problematic. If I make an opinion piece that is clearly perceived as such, and I make a well-sourced statement of facts, the worst thing that's going to happen is that people think it's opinion when it's fact. That's quite ok. But that's not what this is, or at least, that's not how Shaun's nukes video presents itself.
Interestingly, and IMO fittingly, the Palestine video has no listed sources, instead just listing charities.
I think it’s v. fair to discuss in more depth what the sources referred to are saying. I guess it’s mainly that the whole thing seems to be predicated on intentionally not understanding that Shaun is saying his opinion, how the evidence he referred to seems to him (and like I said, it still ‘seems’ that way to me too even after reading the BH article. Edit: which is presumably the process Shaun went through too).
I don't begrudge him having an opinion or stating it, obviously not. But establishing legitimacy on one issue and then spouting (unmarked) opinions on other issues is exactly how we got faux intellectuals like Jordan Peterson. My patience for such nonsense is limited. It is of course entirely appropriate to talk about your opinions as long as you ensure they are understood as such. But I think Shaun hasn't made that distinction clear to an extent that I'm happy with. Of course reasonable people can disagree about where the line is; mine is informed by a minefield of opinion-and-legitimacy-havers both good and bad and a lot of people in the general public who are misled by them.
My concern is that fans of him on YouTube/Reddit/Discord/Lemmy will watch it, and think it is a definitive history, and go no further. When you put out a video like that, you have a responsibility to ensure it is as accurate as possible.
Given this conflict is as polarizing as it is, I think this is super important. I see so many conflicting statements of fact about this conflict online, a lot of outright disinfo, and a staggering amount of toxicity to anyone who dares have a differing opinion. This conflict desperately needs in-depth accurate information. Not people ingesting more of opinions they already agree with, that's what got us into this polarized mess to begin with.
I find that for myself it's super useful to present conflicting sources. After all, history is full of interpretation.
I think that the metaphor that Shaun gives by saying that this is less a cycle of violence where A hits B and B hits A and more an invasion where A breaks into B's home, chains them up and then A hits B and B hits A indicates pretty clearly where he stands on this. By framing Israel as a colonial project, it will always be inherently violent in its expansion and thus the Arab struggle against Israel itself can be framed as struggle for freedom (that logically, should be supported morally). Israel is to blame because by declaring statehood, it pushed out the people who lived there originally.
I think the thesis definitely gets lost a bit in the later parts of the video when he gets into the antisemitic parts of Zionism and to be honest I think cutting that part out would have done the video well.
I think ignoring the fact that Israel is the closest thing to a democratic state that the middle east has achieved ever does the video no good, but since he hammers the point home at the start that since bombing children cannot be justified, nothing that Israel does can, I think that with that argument, he would probably argue in a similar fashion; i.e. it's an apartheid state that is not actually living "western morals" because they only apply to some people and because of Israel's settler policy.
I suppose the crux of my criticism comes down to this: the video presents a very one-sided view of the history while presenting itself as more objective than it feels to me. Even the metaphor that Israel broke into the home doesn't land well because it glosses over all of the nuance.
But let's set aside the nuance for a moment and take as an assumption that the UNSCOP plan to partition Palestine and UN Resolution 181 enacting the partition was flawed and shouldn't have happened. Let's also take the (more tenuous and opinionated) assumption that the acceptance of the UN partition plan by Jewish organizations was a calculating tactical step towards the complete annexing of all of Palestine. Let's go even further and assume that Azzam Pasha's promises were true. Namely:
I hope you would agree that I am making an extremely favorable set of assumptions on the Arab Palestinian side.
Even taking those assumptions, the partitioning did happen. The boundaries were accepted by the Jewish organizers and rejected by the neighboring Arab countries. A civil war broke out from 1947 to 1948, and after the final withdrawal of the British and the declaration of independence by Israel, five Arab armies entered the territory of Mandatory Palestine. These are some of the statements made by Arab leaders leading up to the invasion:
Given all of the above, it feels fair to characterize the 1948 Arab-Israeli war as a war of survival of both the state of Israel, but also of the Jewish peoples living in the region. Which feels a lot different and more complicated than A broke into B's home and started hitting them. Characterizing the founding of Israel as a colonial act perpetrated by the Jewish peoples doesn't hold up for me. I would characterize it more as a bungled intervention by the UN, amongst others. I would even tend to agree with the main line of the Arab argument against the partitioning, which is that it subverts the notion of self-determination of the people living in the region. But that doesn't make it right to embark on a campaign of extermination or make a complicated situation simple.
And the partitioning did happen. And so did the 1948 war, the Armistice of 1949, the 1967 war, the recognition of borders by Egypt and Jordan, and on and on. But what does that have to do with the current war in Gaza? If the premise of the video is that we should denounce the indiscriminate killing of Palestinian civilians, then what is the point of 90% of the video? In the causal way of history, I suppose one event did lead to another and informed and suggested subsequent events along the way. But you don't need to go back to the founding of Israel and try and reshape history to denounce what is happening today. Israel can be in the wrong now and not be in the wrong before. Isreal bombing civilians today isn't right. But neither was an Arab army invading 1948 Israel with a stated goal of pushing them into the sea.
And yet, in the video, all I get from it was Israel was in the wrong from the beginning, while also not discussing many other factors or things like the expulsion of Jews from Arab countries following the 1949 Armistice. It feels very much like an attempt to make an unambiguous villain in a more nuanced story.
I'll end with one final idea. The narratives and the myths built by Arab Palestinians and Israeli Jews have diverged since 1949. Each side claims an unambiguous moral high ground due to actions that happened largely during the 1948 war, and each side has cause to claim persecution at one point or another. Before wading into history and deciding that we need to make one side "right" and one side "wrong," let's ask the question of whether it matters in terms of our ability to assess the moral landscape confronting us today. I don't think it does. It may matter in terms of diplomacy and negotiating long-term peace. But we, as bystanders, can denounce the wrongful actions of both sides without massaging or misrepresenting history.
Both sides have done wrong. And both sides have been victims and been victimized. By each other, by their neighbors, and by the world around them. That doesn't mean I can't criticize individual actions today or recognize the general intractableness of the problems in the region.
I don't understand how relevant that is at all. This assumption is not required because the people that have gotten Israel in the predicament it is now have done so out of geopolitical calculations rather than anything else, and are also not the same people that founded Israel. The population of Gaza and the West Bank is not just a political bargaining chip of Israel, but of the surrounding Arab states as well.
Not that it matters, but at least the founder and first prime minister of Israel did view the UN partition plan as a first step to eventual expansion over Palestine:
Since I am arguing the point of someone else (Shaun) here, let me reiterate that I don't view it like him as well and there's a fair chance that us two would agree (like for example the Arab argument against the partitioning) on more about this subject than me and Shaun. He basically condems the entire country from start to finish due to its founding, because the movement of Zionism had elected then Palestine as the target and after WW2 countries felt obligated to give something to the Jews (and because Zionists had smartly lobbied the allies during the war).
I don't know where I stand on the colony argument, because by definition a colony needs a power that sends out settlers, which in this case does not exist. Still, Jews moved in throughout the 19th century and got their own country despite being significantly in the minority all throughout. Is that fair? Probably not. Does that make it colonialism? I have no idea either.
Principally I agree with you that seeking morality in the conflicts surrounding Israel since its founding is a futile exercise. Whever it's right or not, the people are there now, and something has to be done to stop the carnage. I think what draws Shaun's ire is that in "The West" Israel is seen to be morally right in defending itself, which is what he argues against. He does state at the start of the video that he is not looking to find a solution to the conflict. I do think that he could have made the argument he wanted to make in a much shorter fashion and I agree with you that he presents it very one-sided. Even the occurences of the murder of Israeli children by Hamas during their 7th October attack goes unmentioned, which goes against the entire theme of the video.
The ultimate issue with the Middle East is that it is one of those shade of grey situations where everyone has blood on their hands and everyone is to blame in escalating the conflict. All parties involved are still in the middle of the fight and the typical war tiredness required to even start finding peace has not set in yet.
I would like to stress that by "parties" I mean primarily governments. Of course the actual people living around Israel can and often do harbor antisemitic thoughts, but I will cut the people inside Gaza slack in doing so because they have been living in a ghetto for decades. No government is interested in helping. Israel (at least the current government) is looking to create an ethnostate, but it's also important to note that the goal of Hamas is not the betterment of the Palestinians; it is the destruction of Israel. It's like 2 people playing chess, except the pieces on the board are the mangled corpses of children. Still, multiple parties on the Arab side, namely Iran and Quatar, have been supporting Hamas for years instead of trying to find a solution that leads to lasting peace. I think that a major portion of the Arab states is still hoping for a destruction or significant weakening of Israel to carve up its territory again.
Again, I don't think Shaun is very interested in exploring those ideas because his main criticism (at least how I view it) is the West and Israel claiming moral superiority while the latter bombs the absolute living fuck out of civilians. We are supposed to be the good guys, and so are our allies, but then look at this shit. I think that is his crux of the issue.
Thanks for the reply and interesting discussion! I hope I haven't made you feel like I'm pinning the content of the video to you, and if I have, you have my apologies.
In going back to the founding and making certain assumptions, I wanted to show how difficult it is to make any one party in this history the unequivocal good guy. I very much agree with you that it doesn't matter; however, the video covered a lot of history that I don't feel matters or really supported what I could ascertain of the video's goal.
Given your comments, I suspect we do agree on quite a bit. The video on the other hand, I still remain skeptical of, for a reason I hinted at in my first comment. It's not that I take some academic umbrage at history not being represented accurately. If I did, going anywhere online would be an exercise in madness. What I found bothersome was the video's need to keep going back to either the founding or even before the founding to ostensibly talk about the current issue in Gaza.
I don't really know of any reason to go back that far to make the case that Israel doesn't have the clear moral high ground. Really, starting at the events following the end of the 1967 six-day war should be sufficient. The failure to honor the districting agreement in the West Bank, the state turning a blind eye to settlers in Gaza and the West Bank, the de facto occupation of Gaza in the form of blockades, the continued annexing of the Golan Heights, and the growing conservative movement in Israel that pushes territory expansion are all fertile ground, and far more relevant to today's conflict. Recognizing that it is complicated, there is still plenty of material to make the case that "The West" should rethink its military support for Israel, and could better use that as leverage to support Palestinian rights. (I would also say that the Arab world could maybe stop coopting the Palestinian suffering for 5 minutes and actually help them build a state, but I digress.) In contrast, the video seemed more intent on cherry-picking history to vilify Israel.
I agree with you that, from a pragmatic standpoint, the people are there now. We don't have a time machine, and we can't undo the past. So, what practical remedies exist? This is usually where I ferret out whether the other person agrees or disagrees that Israel has a right to exist (not you; in this case, I would be talking about Shaun) and pinning them down on that point. From the video, I get the sense that Shaun would not agree with me that Israel today has a right to exist, or would at least hedge, though I could be wrong. That is just the sense I get after my own observations about when commentators feel the need to keep going back to the founding, or the chants like 75 years of occupation, again, going back to the founding. That one-sided obsession with ancient history is really what makes me side-eye the video.
And frankly, if someone feels that the remedy to the current situation is the forced destruction of Israel, well, I don't have much to discuss with them. I don't accept that; I think there are other practical remedies that better balance the issues, etc.
So, if Shaun's goal in the video was only to assert that:
Then he picked a really weird way to spend 90 minutes.
Anyway, I really don't mean to pin this video to you, and I appreciate the discussion and the keeping it all civil. I hope we can have more discussions on the site. And if I did anything that made it sound like I was putting Shaun's content on you, I am sorry. It's been a great discussion. Have a great night!
This should be the starting point of any discussion on Israel, or you quickly get lost in an ultimately irrelevant contest of historical immorality. I don't think it's wrong to acknowledge but ultimately it's very unproductive. It would be a bit like starting a conversation on American foreign policy with the idea that America ought not to exist at all because it's built on the genocide and displacement of indigenous peoples. Perhaps not entirely wrong, but not at all useful. Israel exists today, and short of ethnic cleansing or genocide, it will exist tomorrow.
Not that I think there are many good options from present time. Israel has chosen some of the worst possible paths forward in responding to the October 7th attack. The chances of now achieving any sort of positive outlook seems incredibly small.
It is easy to be discouraged. I remember the optimism of the 90s and how it all slipped away.
That said, I do think there are practical, incremental remedies, and I am optimistic that in the long arc of history, they will be taken up. Enforcing the 1949 armistice borders, removing settlers from the West Bank, the return of the Golan Heights in exchange for the recognition of Israel's borders, etc. are all things that I can see happening at some point. If anything, the events now could be priming the pendulum of world opinion to swing far enough actually to force some of these things to happen. Of course, I would also love to see a proper international fund to help build a Palestinian state with infrastructure and an economy.
I know it is all a ways off, but the first step is continuing to insist that solutions do exist and should be pursued rather than despaired of or calling for continued fighting.
Have a great night!
This, in my opinion, is what Shaun's video seems to be intended for. From a psychological perspective, any solution must begin with acknowledging the truth.
Let's draw an analogy to interpersonal relationships, such as a marriage. If you have problems in a marriage, especially to the extent where both people are violently destructive towards each other and even taking pleasure in seeing each other's pain, how can you solve the situation? Whatever else you do, it won't work unless both people can agree on what is true about the relationship.
If the marriage was arranged and one person was forced to enter it against their will, this needs to be acknowledged, even if it's really hard to think about and speak of. If that person was also sexually assaulted by their spouse, if they became unable to maintain a job and earn a salary due to the suffering that all this caused, and so on, this must be clearly stated as a fact that both people acknowledge.
Sometimes the point where things started to go wrong isn't easy to determine and it was more of a gradual trickling of small acts of irresponsibility on both sides that eventually led to an overall collapse of trust. Other times there is a clear power imbalance that one party has started exploiting to abuse the other, which then instigated violent defensive actions on the abused person's part. If the person who holds the power doesn't admit to having it and abusing it, these two people can never reconcile and find peace.
'Tough luck that you got coerced into marrying me, but it's our parents' fault, not mine, and what's done is done.'
'I didn't rape you. You were already my spouse by then and it's my right to get my needs met, especially after living in that dead bedroom situation for so long with the ex.'
'Dear friends, I hope you don't take my spouse's crazy talk too seriously. I may have made some mistakes along the way but she isn't an angel either. Let me show you some [fabricated] texts where she's flirting with a colleague.'
(Using gendered pronouns for simplicity.) This person can't participate in a functional relationship unless he gets called out for the manipulation and entitlement and realises he needs and wants to change. Until then, it doesn't matter what his partner is or is not doing, because the relationship would be dysfunctional even if she were a saint - which most likely she isn't, as very few people are. If the original oppressor changes his behaviour, admitting to the mistakes he made, then the onus will be on his partner to work with the hatred this oppression created in her and learn to not take it out on her partner - or a subsequent partner, in case they divorce. But that can't realistically happen before the oppressor stops oppressing, or they divorce so that she isn't actively being oppressed anymore.
I think Shaun's intention with the video is just to do his share of calling out the oppression. The above applied to the conflict at hand, whatever else is done, first and foremost the truth must be acknowledged. Currently, the truth is that the Israeli government is trying to eradicate the Palestinians while gaslighting the international audience into believing that it's a battle of two equals, and oppressing any domestic voices that say it isn't okay. The video shows enough examples of this that it's hard to deny. For anyone who does not support this goal, the first thing to do is to speak the truth and encourage others to do the same. Going 'Well, both sides have hurt each other' all but enables the gaslighting and Israel's current pursuit, because it leads to conversation getting side tracked from that most important goal.
Of course, oppressors don't usually emerge from thin air and jewish people have certainly had their share of being victims to that, as you've pointed out in your comments here. Obviously this has played a part in why many of them have now turned into oppressors themselves, but that doesn't justify the oppression, which is why speaking of it isn't relevant to the scope of Shaun's video. As they say: what happened to you is not your fault, but healing from it is your responsibility. The first step towards healing is to stop lying.
I don't disagree that it is important to establish the truth of a situation when seeking to address it and empower change. What I disagree with is the video's attempt to do that. Shaun is taking versions of reductionist arguments that most people don't agree with or support or are not relevant and arguing against them as if those were the major issues.
I don't think anyone in the international community truly believes for a single moment that Israel and Hamas are evenly matched. In fact, I've seen the opposite: people making the claim that Israel isn't attempting genocide because if they really wanted to, they would already be done. Which is a terrible argument for reasons unrelated to our discussion.
I'm all for practical remedies and pushing to stop the violence. And I am the first person to denounce the disproportionate response in Gaza, the settlers in the West Bank, the de facto occupation of Gaza in the form of blockades, and the failure to broker the return of the Golan Heights in exchange for border recognition.
I also recognize that the charter of Hamas calls for the destruction of the Israeli state, along with Hezbollah, the Houthis, and other Iran-backed militias in the region. The problem with characterizing one side as a victim and the other as an abuser is that they both feel like victims. Israel is surrounded on multiple sides by militias and pseudo-states pushing their destruction, while at the same time, Israel is committing their own harm in Gaza and the West Bank. It complicates the diplomacy.
Shaun's video didn't address any of that. He cherry-picked history to vilify Israel, not level set on power imbalances that have materialized over the last quarter century, or to try and reboot the framing of the conversation to reflect contemporary events. He dredged deep into history to call out dead people for the reason of painting Israel in a particular light from its inception.
I could name many changes I would like to see that would curtain Israel's abuses in Gaza and the West Bank. But I don't support the destruction of Israel as a practical remedy, nor do I see how dredging history for a one-sided narrative helps call out the current violence.
To be clear, neither do I.
I’ll respond properly once I get the time, but would you mind clarifying whether or not you have any doubt that Israel is aiming to wipe out the Palestinians? Not what you think others believe and not whether it’s feasible or not. Do you believe it’s what they are trying to do?
I think the only honest answer here is I don't know. I've watched the South African led charge of genocide and the documents they have presented, along with the counter argument.
I also think the question as posed needs clarification, re: Israel versus people in Israel.
Do I believe there is a segment of people in Israel seeking to wipeout or fully expel Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza? Yes.
Do I believe that the Israeli government is prosecuting their war in a way that is absolutely indifferent to the loss of Palestinian life? Yes.
Do I believe there are soldiers who are shooting indiscriminately and not adhering to professional war time standards? Of course; just look at those hostages who were shot waving white flags.
Do I believe that Israel is prosecuting this war to intentionally maximize Palestinian loss of life, or to the extent they can get away with on the international stage? Which would effectively be equivalent to the charge of genocide? I don't know. I've seen conflicting documents in the UN case. Statements made by government officials seemingly supporting the charge, and documented communications from the prime minister pushing for the delivery of more aid.
Do I think that the war as prosecuted in Gaza is immoral? Yes.
Do I think all Israelis want to wipeout Palestinians? No.
I hope that helps clarify.
Edit: I also wanted to add that proving intent is so hard and can often only be done after the fact. In my mind, the way the war is being prosecuted is immoral (actually, my beliefs are such that violence is never moral in some absolute sense, and merely justified in certain situations), and should stop. There is no justifiable military solution to a political and diplomatic problem. Whether enough evidence comes to light to prove genocide or intent and policy of the state is an open question, and matters, but shouldn't be the emphasis (imo) right now. It is enough to know that the war isn't being handled appropriately, and all diplomatic efforts and leverage should be used to halt the violence.
Thank you for adding necessary granularity to my question. This is what I intended to ask:
Your response to that is that you don't know, and/or that proving intent is hard. I'm specifically asking what you believe, not what you would be able to prove. So is your answer that you don't know what to believe, or that you believe the Israeli government is aiming to eradicate the Palestinian people but you don't know if it can be shown to be true following such standards that would ideally be to your liking?
One more question, if I may: in your opinion, can there be any reasonable justification for the US government publicly stating (through John Kirby) that the White House sees no indications of war crimes in Gaza?
To the first question, my answer is that I don't know. I don't have the necessary information to make that determination.
I think my more relevant answer was whether I think the war is moral, and my answer is no. That doesn't require me to satisfy questions of intent, or resolve nuances between official government policy and individual misconduct. There is a reason the international court of justice moves slowly and that is because getting factual accounts in order is difficult.
In contrast, on the topic of morality, the "just war" framework is helpful and damning of the Israel campaign, and can be quickly applied.
Measuring Israel by the Just-War Yardstick
With regards to John Kirby, my answer is two fold. First, war crimes have very specific definitions that I am not enough of an expert to determine, but many experts say that the situation isn't clear.
Under Rules of War, ‘Proportionality’ in Gaza Is Not About Evening the Score
I wouldn't be surprised if John Kirby and his chain of command truly believe that the technical definitions of war crimes haven't been satisfied.
The second part is diplomacy. Publicly supporting Israel in the hope of convincing them to change course in private.
After 4 Months of War, Biden and Netanyahu Are on Different Timetables.
I think the traditional calculus is that it is easier to influence allies than enemies or jilted allies. But we are starting to see things fray between Biden and Bibi. So we will see how long that lasts.
Let me know if you need gift links. Have a great night.
Thank you again for your responses. I’ll try to better describe what I felt was valuable in the video and why I think that the criticism regarding cherry-picking history is out of place. I’ve bolded out the key elements for cursory reading.
Summary
From a system’s analysis point of view, this geopolitical situation is rigged to fail, given how it was brought about. We can’t reverse history, and personally I don’t think it’s realistic to believe that these governments as they are now could be convinced to play ball to the extent that a genocide would be averted while Israel could simultaneously continue to exist.
Logically, then, it’s about impacting how the governments themselves are. The one we culturally western-oriented people can more realistically impact is Israel and its Zionism. Up to a certain point, this can be done by engaging with people on an individual level, like Shaun is doing with the video. If the majority of the voters in Israel a) realise that their government is pursuing genocide and b) withdraw their support, then the government will inevitably change and the entire playing field along with it.
There’s a tipping point somewhere, where blind Zionism will have gained so much traction that the opposing voices will be silenced using any means possible even if it means violating the human rights of your own people, and the above mentioned democratic structure will cease to function. We all know the historical reference situation here. It’s alarming to see some signs of this in the video, but I’m nevertheless hopeful that this point hasn’t yet been reached. It is exceedingly important though to try to steer people away from facilitating that development, intentionally or unintentionally.
More broadly speaking
As a way to frame my perspective, an anecdote from a college professor who teaches an unrelated subject in the US. She said her course is in shambles because students who are unaffected by the conflict are trying to turn classes into rallies, while those students whose loved ones are in danger - or in some cases have already lost their lives - are doing the best they can to hang on to a normal daily routine and obtain their degree. They certainly don’t need daily reminders of the political opinions of the unaffected people taking the same class, but the constant voicing of those opinions has been difficult to curtail.
Becoming invested in some conflict as an outsider does serve a purpose psychologically. It allows us to process painful topics in a way that isn’t directly impacting ourselves, which makes it emotionally much easier, and we can use the resulting realisations and fresh ideas for developing our values and determining objectives for personal growth. Sometimes it’s a way for us to soothe our internal feelings of guilt (related or unrelated to the conflict itself). It’s important to realise, though, that this process is an exploitative one: we use another person’s severe situation as a tool to gain something positive for ourselves.
This is not always a bad thing. Where it becomes problematic is when the person who is acutely suffering is put in an even worse position so that we can keep extracting what we want out of the situation for ourselves. In the example case, it would be fine for the unaffected students to talk about the conflict among themselves, but it’s not okay that they bring it up in class where affected students are present (not to mention that it’s not part of the curriculum, but that’s not the point here).
How does this relate to Shaun’s video? I think it would be healthy for everyone who is very invested in this conflict, while practically an outsider, to consider their internal motives. Are we actually attempting to forge a path forward for these troubled nations from behind our keyboards? Or are we perhaps, at least partially, trying to soothe our own psyche and find a way to think about the events that would not too starkly conflict with our beliefs: that we’re the good guys, that our nations are fair and democratic, and so on.
I think what Shaun was saying was that he is just one regular person. So are we all. We don’t know all the ins and outs of any conflict, especially one that we aren’t directly a part of. Pretending that we do is patronising. What we can always do is hold ourselves accountable. When push comes to shove, that’s really the only thing anyone can ever do - and conversely, anyone who refuses to do that will lose the right to call himself a good guy. That is regardless of what the adversary is doing. When considering whether or not I’m living true to my values, it does not matter what the historical nuance and details are and if the other side is behaving worse than I. What matters is how I behave. I think Shaun wanted to focus on that point of view, given how little attention it’s been getting.
I’ve grown up to believe in values such as fairness, equality, honesty, transparency, etc. As a kid, I viewed these things in black and white. If someone lied or put another person down, or in any way failed to respect others, they were the bad guy. Adults have a more nuanced view, which you demonstrate in your response when you say that going all-in with accusations and blame isn’t effective. I agree with you. Even if someone lied to me, I can take a look at their background and see how the lying wasn’t designed to hurt me but rather a way to keep themselves safe - something they learned to do at some point in time, and that they can unlearn if they so choose. If they demonstrate willingness and ability to not lie to me again, they’re not necessarily toxic or someone I should permanently shut out. Not “the bad guy”, in immature terms. If I treat them as such, they will be less likely to come around.
However, there comes a point after which leniency becomes a way to enable someone’s bad behaviour, rather than a way to establish constructive collaboration. It’s entirely possible that you’re dealing with someone who will see your leniency as a weakness and an opportunity to extract as much benefit for herself as possible, with no intention to reciprocate or genuinely collaborate with you. Calling attention to nuance and details, for someone like this, is one way to temporally extend the other party’s graceful interpretation, so they can carry out their exploitation for as long as possible while the people around them are getting lost in the weeds, discussing ever smaller details that won’t actually make a difference when it comes to the big picture: that the abuser is an abuser.
I asked you (essentially) whether or not you believe the current Israeli government is one (with a deliberate colonialist cause), and you say you don’t know. To me it seems quite clear that they are. Intentionally targeting journalists and facilities for children and pregnant mothers, not prioritising saving hostages, their politicians openly saying online to a domestic audience things like ‘I do deny a Palestinian state. Always!’, and the government playing the DARVO game as soon as called out on any of these is enough evidence for me. Again, irrespective of what the other side may be doing.
When it comes to war crimes, I’m also not an expert, but I should hope that some of the above are unambiguously defined as such, and if they aren’t, they should be. When you deliberately target those who can’t defend themselves (children, pregnant people and their yet unborn children) and those who are in key positions to preserve their culture (journalists, teachers, intellectuals), it is clear that you aren’t simply just defending your physical/geographical safety. You are intending to tear down another culture. Of course a bad actor will attempt to carry this out in such a way that it would be maximally difficult for a court to deliberate on, but I personally do not need a court order to see that it’s happening and that it’s against my values.
Shaun’s video does seem to be impactful, not as an attempt to present a historically nuanced view of the events - which it was not intended for - but as a reminder that what looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck is most likely a duck. As we can see in the video's comments, there is a place for such content, because many people have gotten side tracked by the nuance avalanche, which is an understandable and tempting reaction to the looming realisation that human rights aren’t a given even in this ostensible moral high ground that many of us are lucky to have born into. Putting it simply: we feel guilty, and we look for ways to assuage the guilt, and focusing on nuance lets us turn away from the obvious oppression our ally is perpetrating with our blessing and support.
Facing reality is incredibly hard, and not everyone can realistically do so at all times. This is a fact of life and I'm not holding it against anyone to be human in this way. However, some of us are in the position to rise to the challenge, attain better moral clarity and change their views. That is the target audience of Shaun's video.
Here's a quote from someone whom the video served well:
I am Jew and I’m ashamed to say I used to be a zionist. It was never to a crazy degree but I believed some of the talking points and didn’t believe that the actions in Palestine were a genocide.
Ever since Oct 7 I rode the fence. I clung onto the dregs of Zionist talking points, tried to see the nuance, fixated on the people who maybe did perpetuate an anti-Semitic bias. I tried to see both sides so hard. I just didn’t want to believe that my own people were capable of doing what was done to my grandparents and great grandparents. But you can only bury your head in the sand for so long.
The last straw for me was Rafah. How could the IDF tell all the civilians to flee there? How could they tell them it was a safe zone? How could they do all of that and bomb them afterwards? There was not a thing I could think of to justify any of it. It was at that point I realized that this is a genocide.
This video could have not come at a better time. Reconciling my Jewish identity with what is going on right now is physically painful. I literally feel sick. This video helped a lot and I think was the final nail in the coffin for any Zionist views I was holding onto.
I hope that other Jews wake up to the reality of what’s going on. It can be so hard when your whole community are zionists. It’s very isolating. My own parents, who are normally very progressive people, have bought into all the Zionist propaganda. I hope that I can start to slowly change their minds too. It won’t be overnight but maybe if I start asking the hard questions I had to ask myself, they’ll come around.
To my fellow Jews going through the same painful process, you’re not alone and you’re doing the right thing. The guilt and shame is a lot to reckon with but be grateful that you feel it at all. It’s better to wake up late than not at all.
link
I've read your post twice, and I appreciate the effort and thought that went into it. However, I don't know that there is room for productive discussion on this issue between us. I feel as though I've staked out a fairly simple position and unambiguously answered questions, but I feel from your post that you are more focused on changing my mind on specific technical points than understanding the principal thrust of my position.
I do want to say that I agree that there are points where leniency gives way to enabling. I posted a link above that I think addressed that regarding Biden hanging up on Bibi, which is showing the shift in strategy.
I also agree that the current government has adopted an expansionist set of policies, especially in the West Bank, though I'm not sure I would call it colonial. Not because I think colonial is worse than what is happening, but rather different. If anything, what is happening in the West Bank is ethnic cleansing though unfortunately that is not a codified war crime.
I'm also glad that some people find Shaun's video helpful. My criticism is that if it's intent is as you say, then I think it could have been done better and in a way to cause less harm. Even in this thread I discussed with someone, an outsider to the conflict, who said that it had them questioning Israels right to exist as a state. I think that is directly a cause of how Shaun presented the materials and failed to frame his narrative, and simply breeds the kind of emotionally charged views that undermines efforts to influence and call out Israel, because it lets them hide behind claims of antisemitism.
My personal view is that by presenting the worst version of Israel and the past, he makes it easy for critics to dismiss his arguments or skeptics to bury their heads in the sand. My personal strategy would be to present Israel in the best light, and then deconstruct how even in that version of events, what they are doing is wrong. Wrong in Gaza; wrong in the West Bank; and that there is a clear fault in how Israel is extending the conflict and suffering through their policies.
Different ways of thinking I suppose. I'll also say while I don't like his method, and have already cited at least a couple concerns about the harms it could cause, if it ends up helping people, well, who can argue results? I do think it is fair to raise concerns and be critical, and that counterpoints are important for people who don't respond well to his style, and to mitigate any harms caused by his video.
I think I understand your position, which is that Shaun's video is calling out abuses, that by showing the worst of Israel it might shock some folks awake, and encouraging individuals to question the status quo with his analogy using those who walk away. And I think those are good things to do.
Where it looks like we differ is that I think the way he went about it is easy for people to reject because it comes across as a very one sided presentation, and uses a number of reductionist tactics. Using your argument about ducks, well, Shaun's video also quacks like a certain kind of duck, whether he intended it or not. However, these are just differences in our subjective assessments of the video. Neither can be proven more or less valid through technical argumentation.
To that point, I've made many specific and direct statements on what I feel are clear Israel abuses in the West Bank, that I think the war in Gaza is immoral, etc. I just read another article about what is happening in the West Bank while the world is watching Gaza, and it is infuriating. And rather than accept that we seem to have moral or conceptual agreement, I feel we keep equivocating over technical definitions of war crimes or substituting terms like genocide with colonialism.
Which is why I don't see a productive path forward in the discussion. I didn't get a sense from your reply that you acknowledge my moral stance on Israel, because I disagree (more accurately, I have uncertainty) with certain technical applications of international law.
I appreciate the time you took to respond, understand that you have a different view on the video, and that we have different approaches to framing the wrongs committed by Israel. I'm glad that we both seem to be in principal agreement regarding the moral landscape, even if we differ in specific aspects of our views or strategy.
Have a great weekend!
Edit: final note.
This was why I linked the articles above that I did, which included interviews with a former UN lawyer. That isn't how war crimes are defined. Which is why I separated the legal from the moral.
Thank you for reading, re-reading and responding even when the exchange doesn’t feel productive to you. I’m sorry that I’ve been unable to convey interest in your perspective and I won’t expect to see further responses even though they are welcome, of course.
This is likely because I was still trying to understand what your stance actually is. I am slow and uninformed on the basic terminology and definitions, such as what legally constitutes a war crime or not, so when you say you believe there can be legitimate ambiguity on whether or not those have been happening here, I wasn’t able to quickly evaluate if my definition for war crime is quite simply inaccurate/false, or if, as it seemed to me at first, you’re refusing to accept that the things illustrated in the video are actually happening (sorry).
If your initial criticism of the video had been ‘Needs fact-checking’, I would have embarked on that mission proactively. Saying instead that it’s one-sided, reductionist and too long seemed unfair to me, when the reason for it being one-sided has been justified in the video and a lot of the running time is dedicated to constructively taking in and processing the complex emotions that arise when we admit to having held beliefs that are in conflict with our values, and/or beliefs that do not align with reality. Something that is very valuable to the people who actually attempt to do this, but threatening to those who wish people would just stay in the trenches that have been dug out for them.
Those emotions and access to them are what keeps us from reverting to the short-sightedness of colonialist and ethno-fascist regimes. Criticising this work for falling short of something that it doesn’t try to provide did seem to me like an attempt to divert attention away from its value, and I could not legitimately tell whether it was intentional or not. People who verbally state having one opinion/perspective but whose actions show more alignment with the opposing ideals aren’t too uncommon, unfortunately. My apologies for whatever harm I may have caused by suspending judgment while gathering sufficient information to make that call.
I’ve seen that. And is it not a completely normal response to what is happening, if indeed we allow ourselves to feel things? Our base level emotional reactions are not very sophisticated and they cannot be expected to comprehensively adapt to complex political landscapes. I myself have questioned Israel’s right to exist again and again, and I’ll probably continue to do so for as long as I live, provided that the conflict outlives myself, which I believe likely.
However, every time I do question it, I come to the same conclusion: I can’t legitimately deny some people’s right to exist on account of their doing the same to others. That would lead to a clearly worse outcome. This is a feeling that I occasionally have, but feelings are not always aligned with our desired long term outcomes and thus, they should not be blindly followed. The way I ensure I won’t end up being directed by that feeling is to allow myself to feel through it, as many times as needed, while suspending taking action until I’m again on top of myself. If I tried to shut down these feelings, they would start accumulating within and eventually burst out in a much more uncontrollable form than they are now.
I agree that there are ways where this type of presentation may cause harm, and the same goes for any other type of presentation that I’ve seen, except perhaps for the ones that end up not saying anything at all. And to be fair, even those are harmful from the perspective of the affected people as they can come across as discounting their plight.
In my opinion, this would be absolute perfection in terms of concept! When you’re done, please send me a link and I’ll make sure to go easy on you on Tildes. :)
To conclude, I understand and accept that the video didn't do it for you, personally. You seem highly informed, discerning, independent, measured and multi-faceted in terms of your thought process, so excuse me when I say that there are swathes of people in the world who need videos on this topic more acutely than you do. Nevertheless, your criticism of its shortcomings, namely the superficial treatment of history and deliberately dropping nuance, is valid, and you are most likely correct in that for some people who indeed are in need of material, this isn’t a good fit for those reasons.
I very much appreciate your participation in this conversation. Rest assured, I have no doubt that your moral stance on Israel is at least as solid as my own, most likely more, and that there is little to no value-based contradiction in our opinions. The differences seem to be more on which perspective each person uses as a starting point (you: broad scale geopolitics and international law, me: intrapersonal psychology and self-leadership) and potentially what type of flow chart should be employed. I think that there’s room for several different types of those here, given the complex nature of the conflict.
Thanks again for your responses and all the references that will help me become more informed. Wishing you a great weekend too.
Thank you for the thoughtful response; I have enjoyed our discussion.
I do understand the difficulty in trying to establish a common set of facts on an issue, especially one so fraught with denial and what-aboutism. I will think about writing the sort of argument I mentioned, and if I post it, I'll DM you the link. I can't do it in video form; my job prevents me from making public statements without prior review.
I did want to leave a final few thoughts from my own experience observing battles for public opinion, whether regarding wars, laws, politics, etc. In my experience, it tends to follow something like the following:
I've seen over and over how the heightening of emotions around issues of debate usually leads to an escalation of tensions and violence, not a reduction.
In the Israel-Palestine conflict, I've become especially exasperated with one-sided narratives because they are trivial to ignore and refute both by the people in power and by the divided public. Worse, these narratives offer fuel for each side to point out how unfair the other side's treatment of them is.
That doesn't mean that it can't be productive to do a deep dive into the behavior or conduct of one side in this or other issues. We've already discussed how different people respond to different messages, and we don't need to re-debate that. I do think there is a need to set the stage and frame the presentation in the first few minutes or opening paragraphs to at least acknowledge the limitations of the presentation and that setting the groundwork is the responsibility of the author, not the audience.
In terms of delving into history, I also find it helpful in limited situations. When you are faced with deniers on either side, a discussion of historical events can be helpful to build common ground or refute one-sided views. Offering general education to people wondering why this problem is so complex can also benefit from looking at the diverging narratives and traditions that have come to be since 1948, as well as concepts like the Right of Return.
Outside of that, going into the deep history has been of limited value to me and doesn't seem to lend itself well to practical solutions to the current conflict. E.g., the war in Gaza is immoral regardless of the harm Israel suffered in the past. Israel does have a right to defense, but not to prosecute a war with no chance of success and devastating loss of civilian life. I don't need to discuss the Zionist motives of Jewish organizations from the 1930s to make a strong case against today's actions. In fact going back that far, seems counterproductive, because it begs for the what-aboutism that haunts the history of this conflict. (Note: the counter-argument to the above is that Israel learned the importance of a disproportionate response when dealing with Hezbollah in 2006. The counter-counterargument is an exercise for the reader. :) )
In terms of practical, relevant facts for discussing the current situation, I personally look at the following:
In addition to these facts, the Just War framework I linked to above, and the expert military assessments that there is no military solution to this political problem, provides a sufficient framework to argue that Israel should not be conducting a war in Gaza for the purpose that it claims and that the war is immoral. Any more legalistic claims I leave to the ICJ because the application of international law is so hampered by precedent that it is hard for a layperson to become well versed. None of this requires making the argument that Israel can't defend itself (just not this way), nor does it require extensive history or a complex tit-for-tat.
Most everything outside of the above is just part of the tortured history of the region, at best explanatory to the mindset of different peoples, and at worst the shackles that bind the people of today to the horrors of the past in a cycle they refuse to break. While true diplomats need that history to negotiate an actual treaty, the public is mostly misled by them.
You asked what my position is, and in terms of what I think is a practical solution, it is:
Anyway, I'll digress there. I hope I have clarified my position and conveyed that I appreciate the discussion. I suspect we will continue to see different value in different messaging styles around the conflict, but I remain hopeful that the public attention will result in some change. But I remember seeing hope dashed in the 90's when at the 11th hour the agreement to establish a Palestinian state was dashed. So we will see.
Have a great day!
I completely agree, and no worries you didn't imply anything or pin Shaun's content on me, I just kinda got in the habit of trying to clarify his points and realized I needed to pull the breaks and make that statement or I'd be put on the defensive, and when I end up there I have a habit of thinking about defending and not about what I am defending.
Thank you very much on the discussion. I was swayed by Shaun's arguments when I listened to the video so far as to almost step away from my opinion that Israel has a right to exist, which tells you a lot about how confidently presented information can carry you in a video essay. I'm still uncertain what Shaun's opinion on the state's existence actually is, because I'm sure he isn't going to advocate its destruction and the resulting genocide and mass displacement. I think that by conflating all these moral arguments against war with literally zero counter-points and even going as far as to present the extreme sides of Zionism however, it is easy to walk away with that opinion. But showing the antisemitic parts of it was still very interesting.
Our discussion more centered around historical facts rather than moral arguments has helped me find back to a more nuanced position. Thank you very much. I'd be interested in continuing the discussion, but I do also respect that not everyone wants to throw giant walls of text at each other for days/weeks.
It's been a pleasure, and I'm more than happy to continue discussing. I don't know that I have anything left to say about the video, but I'm happy to dig into anything you want to flesh out further.
How do you get over the absolutist/defeatist attitude that the only way out of the conflict right now is that one side wins? The US is not gonna keep Israel in check and the surrounding states don't seem too interested in solving the Palestine problem either. No one, to me at least, wants to actually help the people, everyone is simply looking to improve their current position geopolitically.
It's difficult. Some of it is simply the experience of seeing past diplomatic situations unfold and the time it takes to happen. There are a few things that inform my perspective.
I believe that diplomacy isn't a binary set of conditions. The reason we don't use all diplomatic options in disputes is that we want to leave something on the table to negotiate with. The US and others are keeping Israel close for two reasons. 1) you can influence allies better than enemies, and 2) politically, the US leaders want to support the state of Israel without supporting its actions in Gaza. This means sustained, and yes, slow diplomatic pressure over time to scale back the offensive and put pressure on a plan for post-invasion Gaza.
In the long arc of history, the 20th century was an amazing period of declining violence, liberalization of policies, and settling of animosities. A good book on the general subject is Stephen Pinker's, The Better Angels of Our Nature. Now it appears that the pendulum is swinging the other way, and we are seeing an increase in conservative, nationalistic views, and a resurgence of old-world attitudes towards border expansion. However, I don't see this as a long-term trend but rather as a natural swing of a pendulum that spent 60 years going the other way. It will swing back.
Hamas attacked because they were desperate. Their cause was losing steam. As damaging as this conflict will be to relations in the Middle East, it isn't a complete reset. Egypt, Jordan, and Qatar are still engaged in negotiations precisely because, despite the bluster, they don't want war on their doorstep. We've also seen more political and diplomatic focus on an actual Palestinian state now than we have since the 90's. As terrible as the conflict is, it is a flashpoint of violence and anger caused by a terrorist attack, like the US response to 9/11. And like the US response, this will fade.
I had family who served in the Pacific in world war 2, and were treated terribly at the hands of the Japanese. One came home, a farm boy from a dairy farm in Wisconsin who grew up without electricity, with a lifelong hatred of Japanese people. Another came home from the same experiences with a calm measure of understanding that was truly amazing to see. As far as I could tell, they never held a grudge or showed any sign of outward animosity to the Japanese people. I've also read quite a bit about conflict. In particular, the Forgotten Highlander and Man's Search for Meaning are two books that chronicle atrocities in WW2, with very different outcomes for the author. Violence doesn't always beget violence, and cycles can be broken. But it requires all of us to avoid escalation and divisive rhetoric.
So, I believe that we are seeing a flare-up in violence due to macro factors in the global environment and that diplomacy will slowly bring about an end to the current conflict. With a renewed focus on the issue, when the fighting stops, we may have our best chance since the 90s to actually get a two-state solution. I also believe that people can rise up and overcome their environment, and if even a single person in the conflict can call for peace instead of just more violence, then the least I can do, safe a world away, is not escalate things either.
I do think the world needs to ratchet up calls to end the fighting, and applying pressure for aid delivery, and hostage exchanges. It sounds like that might be on the horizon. I don't want to minimize the acute suffering happening day in and day out. When I see pictures of the violence, especially involving children, I am gutted. As a parent, hearing about what families are going through is horrific. It will come to an end, though that is cold comfort for the people living through it.
I don't know if that helps. I suppose the short summary of my answer is "perspective." Namely, that these conflicts have happened before, and ended, and things have improved, and we have the opportunity to improve them further.
I don't know if 1) is true. So far, the US has only urged Israel to bomb more precisely, not to stop the bombing entirely. I don't know what kind of pressure is being applied behind the scenes, but given Israel's reliance on the US, it could step up the pressure a lot more.
I suppose, you are right on the rest. Our view on the conflict is coloured by decades of peace post WW2 while at the same time, this conflict appeared and never got solved. We were so close with Rabin at one point, but then he got assassinated.
These aren't the sorts of things I would try and convince someone of, aside from providing reading material, because I think it requires each of us making our own interpretations of events. These are things I believe based on past experiences and watching and reading investigative pieces on past crisis diplomacy.
I'd suggest two things and make a prediction but otherwise won't try and convince you.
I predict that in two years we will have a few really good investigative journalism pieces that explore the things happening in private, that we will only learn about when all is said and done. I predict we will see stronger demands have been happening behind closed doors than is publicly visible. I would suggest you keep an eye out for these pieces and give them a read, and see what you believe then. You can learn that more was happening, but still be dissatisfied, and that is ok.
There does seem to be push from the Biden administration to recognize a Palestinian state. (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/08/briefing/israel-us-gaza.html ) let me know if you would like a gift link. I suspect we will see an announcement in the next few months for a variety of reasons.
Again, I encourage you to make up your own mind. So much of this is subjective and whether you are happy with a response or have the same predictions as me is your own person decision to make.
Take care!
Edit: typos and found a better link showing Biden and Bibi fighting. After 4 Months of War, Biden and Netanyahu Are on Different Timetables
It also doesn't help that a not-insignificant portion of American voting population supports Israel primarily because it will help bring the prophecy of the end times.
If that's not enough to give pause about America's fervent support of Israel, I don't know what will.
There's also how non-Jews advocating for Zionism reeking of "send the blacks back to Africa," which is just segregation by another name (at best).
This is a point touched upon in the video. He presents a historic quote from a supporter of the founding of Israel who basically says "They are foreign and do not wish to integrate and the surrounding society has been unable to absorb and assimilate them. If they get their own place far away it'll solve everything" except of course it's just pushing the problem somewhere else because it's not an empty desert, people live there.
You need an accepting society and a well functioning education system, or people like Jews (or any minority really) which are easily identifiable to the majority will almost always be ostracized. Since the former also carry thousands of years of shared heritage, culture and customs which they practice and which further makes them "different" they will always be a target for anyone looking for a common enemy to paint as the problem. The reason so many conspiracy theories find their way back to Jews is not because they are correct, it is because they are the easiest to alienate.
Also about that evangelical comment, what the fuck lol.
That's outright embarrassing in a video like this.
I can't help but find it depressing that, in almost every case of a pro-Palestinian individual speaking out, there lies waiting in the crowd at least one person ready to shame them if they do not first fervently disavow Hamas. People talk of the crimes Palestinians endure, only to face immediate reprisal if they do not immediately say "Hamas is just as bad," as though it needed to be said; as though the evil of Hamas weren't already obvious; as though the individual’s lack of explicit condemnation of child-murder is in some way an implicit declaration of support for it; as if said individual were aligned with Hamas by default and needed to first distance themselves before being allowed to speak.
I can't say for certain that this is what you're trying to do, as I do not know you. I apologize in advance if I have misinterpreted, but your comment has reminded me of a trend that I find deeply painful, and which given that pain, I felt I needed to say something about. With this in mind, let me make it clear that much of what I've said above is meant to speak against the trend in question, and not at you specifically.
To suffice, I suppose: I do not think Shaun should have to say that he is against the deaths of Israeli children, as to assume he feels otherwise would be to baselessly assign bad faith to an obscene degree. We already know the crimes Hamas has committed, and they are already condemned.
Primarily I agree with you, and I think Shaun focuses on Israel as the perpetrator because that is the ally of "The West" in the region. I don't think that he is pro-child-murder as long as they are Israeli. People who are venting and frustrated should be allowed to do so without being chastised for it.
The problem remains that a not insignificant amount of people cheered for Hamas in the aftermath of October 7th. In Berlin there were numerous cases of people handing out Baklava and candy as a celebration of rampant murder, rape and kidnappings. Shaun touches upon this in the video with the JFK quote, and I were asked who is responsible for the rise of Hamas I would say Israel more than the people of Gaza.
However, he made a feature-length movie video about this topic which is not a rant or an airing of frustrations, he is making a calm argument in his typical style, and it's clear that he is not worried abour runtime when making his argument, so I would have like to see him cover it. I think by stating at the start that he is not looking to even propose solutions, he absolves himself of any requirement to be even-handed in his approach and the video suffers for it. I suppose as a 90 minute explanation of his own view on the matter and how he came to view it that way, it makes sense, but in that case he could have made that argument in a shorter amount of time.
Definitely not what I'm trying to do. I also find it depressing that I can't have a sober discussion anywhere without posting walls of texts to explain the entirety of where I stand morally and what my opinion is on every single nuance of the topic (two-state solution and pro-Palestinian for sure). It's why I rarely engage in discussions like this outside of Tildes.
But when you make a 90 minute video, it seems like you should at least mention it, just a single sentence would do. That's what I found absurd and why I posted that (admittedly low effort) comment which was just my reaction to what that person above said since I haven't seen the video myself. But by accounts in other comments, the video is a biased presentation of the history. And he is no longer discussing or approaching the subject matter in a measured way when he omits things like this. I mean, you learn pretty early on in school to discuss the arguments of both sides, and to grant each side as fair and accurate a representation as you possibly can - whether or not you fervently disagree with their point of view.
In regards to your first paragraph though, let me just digress a little and point out that there have been countless pro-Palestine protests on a weekly basis throughout Europe, and people even celebrated on the street following 7/10. I saw cars with Palestinian flags driving around with men sitting in the windows, cheering and honking, and some of the protesters back then chanted Hamas slogans and burned Israeli flags. And when journalists pressed the issue, or when right-wingers were provocative, there were only ever vague statements by organizers. So it's not a given that the crimes committed have already been condemned. No, they shouldn't have to condemn both sides equally every single time they (rightfully) criticize the apartheid state of Israel, but when it comes to movements like these weekly protests, it seems like it should be pretty easy to just one time say "oh, yeah, Hamas sucks too" and then that's that, and their position would never again be inferred. But they haven't done this, because some people in these marches really do applaud the 7/10 attack.
I'm not saying that I think Shaun applauds Hamas' murdering of children. Having watched many of his other videos, it's pretty clear that he's a level headed person. But pointing out that he doesn't even mention it a single time in such a long video is not, I think, in bad faith - certainly not to an obscene degree.
It doesn't attempt to offer an accurate presentation of the history of this conflict, which Shaun very clearly mentions in the video, as well as why he made that choice.
I thought the thesis was pretty clear. He repeated it a few times. He argued that a thorough understanding of the history of the conflict is not necessary to see that Israel is in the wrong. He also shared how he personally came to that conclusion.
Thank you for mentioning this! I've been impressed by Shaun's research and reasoning before, and while I've hesitated to consume content on this particular topic, a video from him felt safe enough to view. I was not disappointed.
The key takeaway for me was that Zionism and being jewish are two completely different things. Many Zionists are anti-semitists.
I'll attempt a brief summary for anyone who doesn't feel like watching the whole thing:
Israel was founded via a colonialistic undertaking where 80% of the Palestinian population were expelled from their homes and thousands were massacred. There is no example in known history where colonialism would have been carried out in agreement with the native population. It is known to lead to violence, and the only possible ways to end this type of violence are known to be as follows: 1) colonisers stop colonising, or 2) the native people are eliminated to the extent that they are no longer able to resist. This was well known and discussed at the time, and the Zionists along with their supporters decided to go for it anyway.
It is therefore logical to conclude, as well as evident in the actions themselves, that Israel's current goal is not geared towards the above-mentioned option 1 (co-existence and finding peace). Their actions represent option 2, to deliberately eliminate the Palestinians. Carrying out actions like these is only possible for people who have taught themselves (or been taught by others) to see their target as sub-human, distinctly different from themselves. Nazi Germany saw jews that way and the Israeli Zionists see Palestinians that way. Curiously, many outside forces that support Israel's colonialism also see jews this way, which is motivating the support, because ostensibly it is a way to get the jews out of these people's sight/country.
Equally curiously, those jews who are against colonial Zionism are also being othered by the Zionists. The divide seems to be between nationalist/racist colonialists and everyone else, rather than simply between jews and muslims or Israelites and Palestinians.
Unfortunately, being othered, abused and violently shunned, as the jews have been (and are), does not automatically make us less inclined to direct similar cruelty to others, even if that's what we'd like to believe. As for what to think and possibly do about it, there is obviously very little one person can do. We can donate towards the organisations and causes we believe in. We can also try to join forces in ways that have more direct impact than simply voting in national elections. An example of this: an Indian port worker's union who refuses to handle weapon shipments to Israel.
so.... is it fair to say, the Zionists and the Hamas suck, the Palestinian State and the Israeli State also suck when they are supporting Zionists and Hamas, but the Palestinian People and the Jewish people are just hurting?
What if we went for a zero-state solution: every country in the world take in Palestinians AND Jewish people, and we're going to let the entire geographical area be completely barren and emptied of people. No one is to supply anybody left there with aid or concrete and water and food and arms: it's going to be a dead zone. Both Palestinians and Jewish people will be provided asylum and new homes and new lives as sojourning diasporas for the foreseeable future, protected by the laws of where-ever they settle next.
Then everybody who doesn't want to support war, doesn't want to support either state, doesn't want their humanitarian aid going to questionable "sides" can rest satisfied knowing it's only going to displaced persons, new citizens among their countrymen. People who don't support "refugees from both sides" can suck on a lemon: they won't have any more moral high grounds to "whatabout" on.
Then countries can provide humanitarian aid without helping war; they don't even have to call for a ceasefire -- just leave whoever is left to throw rocks at each other.
Is it terrible to displace so many people? Absolutely. I don't see how it's a place that is livable as it is, though. It's either going to end with one side completely killing every single last child from the other side, or else fighting will continue with many-but-not-all dead children.
Sure. The people who were born in Israel and know it as their only home are effectively not different from those who were originally displaced from the region, in that they didn't choose to be born there, nor did they massacre anyone in order to live there. What's happening isn't their fault. I can imagine that if I were one of these people, I would be suffering immensely, realising what my government has done and is doing, while not having any reasonable way to stand against it in practical terms. The resulting cognitive dissonance must be excruciating to deal with, and we know that people in such situations tend to develop psychological defence mechanisms - some of which then enable inhumane treatment of others.
As the video points out, part of the problem is exactly that other countries are unwilling to take in jews (most likely the same would go for Palestinians, too). That's part of the reason why Israel was created in the first place. The same problems regarding othering (racism and nationalism) are everywhere, not just in that region. The only difference is that this region's nation states have been severely tampered with in a way that caused irreversible damage and isn't as easy to gloss over today as it used to be when regular people didn't have direct access to information - for example, when native Americans got displaced. We could be more easily convinced that the rulers know what they're doing and are only trying to do good. Today, the same stories won't fly because they can be immediately contrasted with stories told by the other side, and humans have an innate capacity to tell which side is being more authentic - at least when our judgment isn't severely clouded by the aforementioned defence mechanisms.
The other obvious issue is that acquiring this "barren land" would be supremely tempting for the overlords of every capable nation state who believe in colonialism/nationalism/etc. People who see life as a quest to command as many people and as much resources as possible, and the ultimate purpose to win. At the moment, those people exist in every country, and as well: most if not all countries are governed by people like this. Western democracies included.
Then we'll regularly test nukes there
I'm only 10% joking.
Sometimes if there's a house fire we gotta evacuate. Civilians staying just eventually become innocent victims and or combatants.
My proposal has the advantage of pushing governments into either putting up or shutting up: don't defend "both sides", dont demonize one side, don't say your hands are tied and do nothing, don't hide behind facade of waiting for peace talk - either put down money and accept refugees, or get called out for being the unhelpful racist jerkwad that they are.
Essentially that's what's happened to my people living in HK: no one is going to fight China on our behalf, but they are giving us a life boat.
I am only six minutes in, but it seems pretty good so far.
As odd as it feels for a post on this particular topic to get six minutes of screening before sharing a video 15x that length, it'd be nice to have some context on who Shaun is or why his video is worthy of the quick share?
Shaun is a British video essayist who makes videos about topics ranging from media analysis to documenting a particular issue on society. An example would be his review about the Harry Potter books or his analysis of why Andrew Tate is so popular. His videos feature very little video though beyond the occasional quote shown, and are much closer to a podcast than to a video essay.
This video in question describes the Israeli-Palestine conflict from a Palestinian perspective. It goes into the history of Zionism and Israel a bit to establish context and then describes the contrast of historical complexity to moral simplicity. Sure, the Israel-Palestine conflict is complex from a historical perspective, but morally, the Israeli Defense Force is still dropping bombs on children. By framing Israel as a colonial state, it lays the blame for the bloodshed at the feet of Israeli decision makers, because it is not just a cycle of violence, it is a cycle of violence that begun with the invasion of a population's (Palestinians) homeland (I am approximately an hour in now).
My reason for posting is that Shaun's stuff is usually good, well argued and researched and because the Youtube algorithm sucks for actually notifying subscribers of uploaded content of their creators.
I'll put in an expanded "^this", because I truly believe this guy deserves all the attention he can get.
For example, I thoroughly enjoyed Shaun's review of the Bell Curve (book), as well as his response to Lauren Southern regarding traditional family values, where he uncovers some deliberately misleading research results promoted by The Heritage Foundation, among other things.
Thank you, I had none of that context and very much wondered who Shaun was and what sort of video it was.
No worries, I probably should have waited more before posting to give more context. :]
I'm no writer, so I can't write a compelling review of this video. But I can say, i thought the video was great, but the thesis does lack, but understandably so- we are living in a period where genocide is happening live, we can see it with our eyes, and the wheel or racism continues to crush. Perhaps the essay is an exasperated summary of how it feels to be so armed and prepared with knowledge, as a civilian, yet helpless to dismantle entire systems of racial disparity on our own