Idk, I guess I really just don't get you. I am trying to understand. Dropping untargetted bombs on civilian centers is already against the rules of war. They have responsibility there too. And I can't see how we can ever get to two states when Israel is winning their war to totally subjugate one of the two. And we are aiding them at doing that. Or I guess put another way, surely it is uncontroversial that we have historically sided almost exclusively with Israel against the Palestinians, for proxy war and geopolitical reasons, or because evangelicals like it, or whatever. What's different now? Because our behavior seems exactly the same. Palestine has offered an exchange of all hostages for an indefinite ceasefire. Israel rejected it and said that it will just allow Hamas time to regroup. They propose a temporary ceasefire (weeks) and then a return to the genocide. They will accept nothing other than total military control of Gaza. We're backing that plan at the UN. I cannot understand how you believe that we are doing everything we can to save Gazan lives and to ensure they will be able to keep an independent state. Edit: Even NYT agrees Biden is not doing much: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/02/24/world/israel-hamas-war-gaza-news#us-takes-a-harder-line-on-israel-in-words-but-not-in-deeds And other articles list UN Human Rights experts begging to stop arms exports. None of Bidens messaging has been about how their bombs are safer or more targeted, it has always been about ensuring Israel has enough weapons.
CHECK YOUR ASSUMPTIONS. Every conversation we've had around this has been some form of "the information you are presuming is undisputed and universally accepted is actually anything but that." Yet even now, every conversation we have starts with you going "here's an unassailable maxim" and me going "well actually." You'd be in much better shape, mentally and philosophically, if you started out with "why hasn't anybody figured this shit out" instead of "this intractable problem has been solved by Zoomers and it's grownups who suck." However, they have been arguing since October 8 that they're not doing that. Whether or not they are bombing legitimate targets is controversial and, personal opinion here, pretty laughable but whatever they're hitting, they're hitting on purpose. "Ooopsie, guess we blew up your embassy by mistake" is a lot harder pitch when you're using guided weapons. Cut a despot off cold turkey and things get ugly. The Oslo Accords were a two-state solution. They were also what Netanyahu used to get Rabin assassinated. The Obama administration also proposed a two-state solution. The singular force against a two-state solution going back to Partition has been Israeli hard-liners and since 1991, Benjamin Netanyahu. "Israel winning against Palestinians" is nothing new; Israel has historically won against four, seven, or ten nation-states at once. What's new is that Israel is getting sick of the hard-liners. why do you think that is? Let's focus on something for a minute - NOBODY WANTS THE PALESTINIANS. Much of the Middle East is united in wanting the destruction of Israel, but also united in turning away Palestinian refugees. Jordan doesn't want them because they started a civil war there. Lebanon doesn't want them because they started a civil war there. Kuwait doesn't want them because they tried to start a civil war there and Egypt doesn't want them because they're afraid they'll start a civil war there. The Israelis are guilty of extreme fuckery by any metric but one thing they've never done to the US is blown up 300 peacekeepers. A half dozen different flavors of Palestinian political parties have been designated as foreign terrorist organizations for decades and yet the prevailing Zoomer consensus is "israel/palestine same/same." Gotta say - I'm with the Israelis on this one. Right - the current Israeli plan is untenable and nobody takes it seriously. This is simply false. What we've done at the UN is veto the Palestinian plan, not support the Israeli plan. Because I know more about this situation than you do. And I'd have a lot more patience if you didn't phrase every response in terms of "no matter what you say you're just wrong."Idk, I guess I really just don't get you. I am trying to understand.
Dropping untargetted bombs on civilian centers is already against the rules of war. They have responsibility there too.
And I can't see how we can ever get to two states when Israel is winning their war to totally subjugate one of the two.
Or I guess put another way, surely it is uncontroversial that we have historically sided almost exclusively with Israel against the Palestinians, for proxy war and geopolitical reasons, or because evangelicals like it, or whatever.
Palestine has offered an exchange of all hostages for an indefinite ceasefire. Israel rejected it and said that it will just allow Hamas time to regroup.
They propose a temporary ceasefire (weeks) and then a return to the genocide. They will accept nothing other than total military control of Gaza.
We're backing that plan at the UN.
I cannot understand how you believe that we are doing everything we can to save Gazan lives and to ensure they will be able to keep an independent state.
Gah, I wrote a long detailed response, but my cat pressed the power button on the computer just as I was finishing the conclusion. Hopefully with the second chance to write it it will be a little more edited anyways. The basic gist was that, to me, this has a lot of parallels with the BLM movement, which also tried to solve something incredibly complicated in a What do you mean it's complicated just fucking fix it! sort of way. And while the BLM movement largely failed, as I suspect this one will to, at least it's heart was in the right place. And it does not seem like the government's heart is in the right place currently. Is this another Kony 2012? Maybe. Was BLM another Kony 2012? Also maybe. The first draft was a little more poetic here, but there is something to the idea that with the most powerful government in the world, that we're capable of writing wrongs and making the world better. And it totally didn't work, lol. And was obviously an easy movement to criticize both now and back then, but there is still a bit of beauty to it. I don't think any zoomer claims to have the solution, just like BLM did not claim to know how to solve police brutality. It just demanded that people care, and gave some first steps. Defund the police is pretty comparable to the demand to not give weapons to Israel. Increasing the police budgets to solve brutality seems about as effective as giving unconditional military aid to Israel. And as for "they have been arguing since October 8 that they're not [using untargetted bombs]", Biden himself has denied this. Saying there is ‘indiscriminate bombing’ is the closest Biden has ever come to accusing Israel of war crimes. This is while using our weapons. From the poll you posted earlier, only 13% of the 65+ demographic think Israel is an apartheid state, and only 27% think their treatment of palestinians is analogous to racism in the US. Zoomers do not have the solution, but there can not ever be a solution if you don't agree there's a problem. I know you're not one of those, but a large part of the movement here is just to get Biden to acknowledge it! The closest he comes is calling Israel "over the top," when the rest of the world can at least say "ethnic cleansing," if not "genocide." It made the news when Biden even mentioned the possibility of a "ceasefire" instead of just a "humanitarian pause" (what a term). This is hundreds of days into the war and after being the sole veto on two earlier UN ceasefire votes. Here's another parallel to BLM: Seems similar to the idea that the police are so violent because everyone has guns, and if you just look at the crime statistics, you'll see who the problem really is. Not strictly wrong, but just like in BLM it's doesn't detract from the main point, and also, maybe there are better ways to solve the problem than by giving the oppressor tanks. Anyways, conclusion take 2: It seems to be that Biden would like peace in the middle east in the abstract, just like he would like it if there wasn't police brutality. Any of the obvious steps towards this are not being done, in the same way that none of the steps BLM asked for ever happened. If you think the pro-palistinian movement is a bunch of piss baby dunces who watched one video and threw a tantrum, fine, but BLM was also largely based on watching one extremely horrifying video, and I while I don't know your opinions on that movement I hope you at least sympathize with why people wanted to be part of it. That's all. I'll read and consider anything you reply with, and I promise I have spent a lot of time considering what you've already wrote. No worries if you're tired and done though, I am too, and I don't think I'll be writing any more on this. It's exhausting."this intractable problem has been solved by Zoomers and it's grownups who suck."
Much of the Middle East is united in wanting the destruction of Israel, but also united in turning away Palestinian refugees. Jordan doesn't want them because they started a civil war there. Lebanon doesn't want them because they started a civil war there. Kuwait doesn't want them because they tried to start a civil war there and Egypt doesn't want them because they're afraid they'll start a civil war there.
It's fucking exhausting. Doubly exhausting when you have to do it twice. Your cat was probably trying to do you a favor. I think the BLM analogy fits and doesn't fit in a number of ways, so I question the utility in modeling everyone's turmoil around October 7 on BLM. I'll address it as far as it's useful, though. For example: Defund the police. Your argument is that "defund the police" means to stop "Increasing the police budgets to solve brutality." I agree with this position. I get it. But "defund the police" when shouted from a crowd does not mean "stop increasing police budgets to solve brutality" it means ACAB. it means "we can get along without police at all." It means "dissolve the carceral state." It's a step away from "storm the Bastille" not "let's de-escalate police violence through selective reductions in spending." And when shouted at people with "blue lives matter" stickers on their car, it means "fuck you." There has been an appalling amount of antisemitism in response to October 7. Not anti-Zionism, good ol'fashioned Jew-hating bigotry. There has been a lot of triangulation around how any atrocity committed by Hamas is justifiable, about how any death in Gaza by anyone under any circumstances is a war crime. And while I believe the answer to the correct amount of reprisal for October 7 is zero (0) bombs, I also knew - Hamas also knew - Iran also knew - Russia also knew - that the number would be higher than that. And I also knew - as did Hamas, Iran and Russia - that whenever Israel opens a can of whoopass international hate crimes against Jews skyrocket. that's the point. Black Lives Matter had a very simple cause - stop killing black people. It's a really easy one to agree with on the face of it and the reason it didn't get nearly enough done is the entrenched power of police unions and the political makeup of policing in the United States. And the fact that BLM's position was "defund the police" ie ACAB. Shouting "defund the police" at a bunch of indemnified, entrenched police unions was never going to fucking accomplish a thing. De-escalation training? A drawing down of military hardware? SWAT rotation rather than dedicated squads? All of these things would make a difference. But to the people shouting "defund the police" they were a bunch of ineffectual, quisling half-measures. Nobody wanted to think about it, they wanted to shout slogans. You've got this idea that the government of the United States is all-powerful and that Biden could somehow bring Israel to heel. It's worth pointing out that Netanyahu has never said a single polite thing about Democrats and that the only thing keeping him out of jail right now is his coalition. There's a path forward here - a tricky, game-playing, polticking path - but shouting "defund Israel" is not dissimilar from shouting "defund the police." And I don't think anybody shouting it cares. I think BLM was a spontaneous, loosely-organized movement that - and I hope I'm wrong about this - lacked the vision to push for lasting change and as a consequence, faded out of existence. I think the Left's position on October 7 is a spontaneous, loosely-organized movement that doesn't want the complications of geopolitics to interfere with its anger. And I do - honestly and truly - feel that the butts-in-seats at State and above know more about this than I do, have more experience with this than I do, and feel the violence in Gaza as much or more than anyone else. I was wrong about Garland. I could be wrong about this. But I've done a fair amount of reading on Israel, Palestine and how we got here over the past 20 years and I don't see the slogans as helpful.This is an opinion, but I believe slogans should be immediately obvious. This is, in my opinion, the problem wypepo have with the phrase "defund the police." It requires explanation. "Disarm the police?" That one's obvious. "Demilitarize the police?" equally obvious. Black Lives Matter chose language that spoke to those who already have affinity for them, not those who were on the fence.