Why do people still bother with this bollocks?
1 Like
Yes. Why are we here? 
1 Like
I have a lot of time for Harari (I loved his book Sapiens, really recommend everyone to read it) , and itâs heartening to see that he was part of the movement which tried to get rid of Netanyahu and his gang before the Hamas attacks, but here, I donât quite understand what he means: each and every western country has officially condemned the Hamas attacks, and reiterated that Israel has âthe right to defend itself against Hamasâ.
The US are providing help as always and ensuring that conflict doesnât spread further, which is surely a sensible thing to do.
So, what is he going on about here? Surely, he doesnât think that it isnât right for Israelâs allies, while supporting them, to ask them at the same time to look for some proportionality in their response, and also to spare as much civilian lives as possible?
1 Like
With the veto power for the five nations at the UN, Israel will continue to do what it likes and not feel censure. The UN looks toothless to me, or at least, not consequential enough for Israel to care what they think.
1 Like
Yeah, anyone wanting a lasting peace for the region would hold that position. Thatâs why Iâm a bit puzzled to read this somewhat whiny statement.
Edit: having read the whole article, it comes across as much more balanced than the title suggests. That is a shitty title job by a newspaper I usually respect for its independent and objective reports.
Here is a quote from Harari towards the end of the article:
Harari said that for the people in Israel and Gaza who âhave suffered tremendously ⌠your mind is so full of your own pain that any attempt to even draw your attention to the pain of somebody else feels like a betrayalâ.
So, he said, âin a moment like this, we entrust the possibility of peace to outsidersâ.
âWe cannot hold it right now, but we hope that outsiders hold it for us and help de-escalate the current situation,â he said. âThe job of intellectuals, artists and scholars is to try and go deeper. [It is] to try and see the complexity of reality, especially in todayâs climate of post-truth. It feels intellectually and emotionally lazy to just pick a side.â
Harari said he believes âthe idea that Israel should just destroy Gaza is unacceptableâ.
âWe donât see a campaign of just obliterating Gaza,â he said. âThe situation of the Palestinian population is horrific but at least it is clear that Israel is not intending to kill as many civilians as possible. This is not what the Assad regime did in Homs and Aleppo. The only solution will come when not only is Hamas disarmed but the Palestinian people have some kind of alternative future.â
The SC needs urgent reforms especially in the veto clauses if itâs to be relevant.
Otherwise all they are good for is sending UN Peacekeeping forces to some country in Africa that no faction gives a shit about
I donât describe myself as a left or a right in terms of political views. But any person whoâs sensible has to take this view.
3 Likes
I have shared an article on Guardian by a Bosnian writer and she something very similar. It goes like if one has to oppose fascism, they have to oppose fascism in all its forms, otherwise, itâs just hypocrisy.
3 Likes
I understand where heâs coming from, as being let down by people âon your sideâ is often going to generate more of a response than people you had zero expectations of doing things youâd normally condemn. But look at who he explicitly calls vs the people he doesnt mention.
Criticizes
- A harvard student group, a group with no power (other than their hold on the US media) and self selected for their precociousness and thinking they knew better than everyone else
- Actors who condemn all acts of violence against civilians, but donât so in enough of an anti-hamas way for his liking
- Exceedingly fringe DSA loonies who have been condemned by even their own fringe organization
No mention
- Actual politicians and policy influencers on the right calling for vengeance and satisfaction of their blood lust
- Anyone on the left voicing essentially the same
It is exactly this sort of discourse policing that was raised and warned against in the commentary by Ezra Klein I posted here a week or so. And itâs that its existence and where the lines that get drawn in ârespectable circlesâ is so predicable that makes some people âon the leftâ so reflexively jump towards comments that some people find goes to far with respect to its proactive defense of the Palestinian people and the pressure applied to Israel over its own conduct. That becomes grounds for a fair conversation, but it tends to take on a few characteristics
- internecine squabbling among otherwise aligned people occurs at the expense of holding people to account who have actual power and are pushing agendas both parties find objectionable
- these squabbles get jumped on by those people to distract from their own objectionable agenda
- False associations get made between cunts flying hamas paratrooper flags with people calling on Israel to use restraint and try another tactic than the militaristic one that has got them no where over a multi decade period. The result is those who want to use the discourse police to give them cover to the things they want to do, people who are actually in power to make decisions, make it harder to raise objections to them that get heard.
Itâs just this awful circle where people respond to the existence of people policing discourse in a way that will result in the most marginalized get hurt further, but in doing so the discourse police then jump in and create the exact distractions and enforcement of âacceptable lines of discourseâ that were previously predicted.
4 Likes
I donât think that sophisticated weaponry can do very much for a struggle that is essentially urban guerilla warfare. Precision bombs and cruise missiles would cause similar damage to what is creating an outcry anyway. If the goal is the elimination of the Hamas hierarchy in the sort of time frame necessary to essentially destroy the organization, I donât think there is much choice but a nasty fight through tunnels - and likely thousands of âcollateral deathsâ.
However, you do put your finger on something. It isnât at all clear what Israelâs objectives are, let alone whether or not they are achievable and in what time frame. The hostages are being invoked as causus belli, but is their liberation at all an objective reflected in the operational planning? When they drop bombs in Syria to disrupt Hezbollah logistics, they are inherently broadening the conflict to some degree - at what point do they see themselves stopping? Whatâs the end game for Israel? What is the end game for the people of Gaza?
My suspicion is that there are deep divisions within Israeli political and perhaps military circles, that are somewhat subordinated to the need to just do something in retaliation. The pause/build-up is presumably in part for logistical and other planning reasons, but it may also reflect a lack of consensus on what Israel should be doing next. The airstrikes are just a placeholder.
5 Likes
Yeah, Iâve read that article. Itâs a one-sided hit piece the Guardian should be ashamed for having published. Fabrication by omission, leaving out absolutely necessary context, cherry-picking anecdotal evidence to fit a narrative.
1 Like
Relevant insight to the article above.
25 journalists killed since October 7th. Some with direct strikes on their house. Ensuring that war crimes arenât reported
From the bbc website:
Benny Gantz, Israelâs war cabinet minister, says restoring security to the south of Israel will take years after the Hamas attack on 7 October.
He says this will involve military and other measures.
âWe will not be destroyed, but our enemies may face such a fate,â he says.
Women, elderly people and innocent children. Are they your enemy, Benny, and will you really destroy them?
2 Likes
Watching the BBC report on this at the moment.
The only winners here are the warmongers. Hamas, the Israeli settlers and their tools in the government.
Ordinary people all over the region just suffer and die. Thatâs all they get to do.
3 Likes
1 Like
Good signs. An army invasion would mean a massacre. The main issue that Israel leaders especially Netanyahu would be worried about is how to save face.
That probably means more bombing and airstrikes which as bad as they are , have much lesser casualties than an armed invasion