5 ms·

> Realpolitik is a defense. Outside of a courtroom, and ignoring all international law and externalities, sure. Within the Hague, or the parts of the world whe

> Realpolitik is a defense. Outside of a courtroom, and ignoring all international law and externalities, sure. Within the Hague, or the parts of the world where international justice is respected, not so much. > the court of the carrier strike group is superior to the court of the ICC. Until your 10 carrier strike group gets fucked up by Yemeni drones, or Iranian swarms. Or no country wants to trade with you any more, because you can't be trusted and their citizens are furious. Or until China utterly dominates you economically and geopolitically, because they invested in growth instead of carrier groups. Or until you're stretched too thin on too many fronts and no one wants to help any more, or any of the other unintended (possibly world-ending) consequences of our wilful and belligerent disrespect of long established international law. ... But the claim that "Biden actually saved lots of Palestinians from dying" because of the "realpolitik" of the situation is silly. The claim that Kissinger actually saved lives by coordinating assassinations so that South America didn't need to be bombed into submission would be farcical, and so is this.

_3u10 2y ago
[flagged]
- runarberg 2y ago
  You are advocating for extrajudicial killing, which is a war crime, and you are advocating for targeting civilian groups based on the believes that they are destined to do crime in the future? This is an extremely racist opinion. And I would go so far as call it genocidal speech. This post needs to be removed from HN.
  - tptacek 2y ago
    The killing of combatants and combatant support personnel without judicial authorization is not in fact a war crime. The term you're looking for here is hors de combat, which was coined specifically to separate out the people who can't be extrajudicially killed during a war. I don't understand the preceding comment well enough to defend it or to see the racism in it; there is context I am probably missing.
    - runarberg 2y ago
      > From the river to the sea what is the only flag you see? In it’s most favorable interpretation is a call to keep Palestinians subjugated and stripped of political and civil rights. This speech has been used to promote a Jewish ethnostate, which is in fact racist, and in the worst cases this speech is used to advocate for the expulsion of Palestinians from their land. At best this is an advocacy for a racist policy, at worst this is genocidal speech. > Well, the IDF is executing lots of war criminals, even future ones in Gaza ;) I can’t take this any other way then the author is stating that killing of innocent civilians in Gaza is justified because otherwise they were destined to become war criminals. This kind of speech was very common among people justifying police brutality and neighborhood crackdown against black people in the USA. It is extremely racist as it stipulates that Palestinians, by merit of being Palestinians, are inherently bad people and deserve to die.
      - _3u10 2y ago
        There is no jewish ethnostate, Israel is a modern day democracy with Arabs / Muslims elected to the Knesset. The real question is if everyone loves the peace loving Gazans so much, why has Egypt built a wall to keep the peaceful refugees out? Perhaps maybe they don't want the Gazans to start a civil war in their country like in Jordan, Lebanon, etc. Realpolitik.
        tptacek 2y ago
        The "kisnet"?
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - tptacek 2y ago
        Oh, I didn't see "future" war criminals. Yeah, not good.
    - racional 2y ago
      There is context I am probably missing. It was the precious reference (backed by a smiley no less) to how the good the current operation is at killing "future" war criminals -- obviously referring to minors. Who are also just as obviously being collectively subject to air strikes for the crime of being you-know-what. It was a truly disgusting comment, actually. Unfortunately "frank" and deeply revelatory expressions of this sort are by no means unusual in the sphere of public discourse that supports the current operation in Gaza. From the highest levels down.
  - _3u10 2y ago
    The reality of life is my dads apartment was bombed by the US when he was growing up. War sucks. It’s not racist but you can’t let Hamas run things, that’s just the way it is. Sometimes it sucks when your apartment is in the same town as a ball bearing factory. The Air Force didn’t give anyone a weeks heads up either, what the IDF is doing is so far from a war crime it’s not even funny.
ronjobber 2y ago
This still is not quite grappling with the fundamental issue imo Realpolitik, in the sense Morgenthau and Kissinger understood it, absolutely takes into account management of public opinion and risks related to violation of international standards. It just does not only take those into account in decisions related to national interests. > But the claim that "Biden actually saved lots of Palestinians from dying" because of the "realpolitik" of the situation is silly. The claim that Kissinger actually saved lives by coordinating assassinations so that South America didn't need to be bombed into submission would be farcical, and so is this. This is stated as a fact and dismissed on the basis of a tacit moral argument rather than reasoning. Why would the claim be silly? I see no reason for those statements to be cast aside as un-addressable or 'farcical'. On the other hand... > 10 carrier strike group gets fucked up by Yemeni drones, or Iranian swarms If this were possible Houthi drones would have done it already (against a single carrier). > because they [China] invested in growth instead of carrier groups China has been investing heavily in their military for three decades [0]. And we will see about that growth part... it is not looking so rosy for Xi currently. 0 - https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/CHN/china/military-spending-defense-budget https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/CHN/chi...

_3u10 2y ago

[flagged]

runarberg 2y ago
You are advocating for extrajudicial killing, which is a war crime, and you are advocating for targeting civilian groups based on the believes that they are destined to do crime in the future? This is an extremely racist opinion. And I would go so far as call it genocidal speech. This post needs to be removed from HN.
- tptacek 2y ago
  The killing of combatants and combatant support personnel without judicial authorization is not in fact a war crime. The term you're looking for here is hors de combat, which was coined specifically to separate out the people who can't be extrajudicially killed during a war. I don't understand the preceding comment well enough to defend it or to see the racism in it; there is context I am probably missing.
  - runarberg 2y ago
    > From the river to the sea what is the only flag you see? In it’s most favorable interpretation is a call to keep Palestinians subjugated and stripped of political and civil rights. This speech has been used to promote a Jewish ethnostate, which is in fact racist, and in the worst cases this speech is used to advocate for the expulsion of Palestinians from their land. At best this is an advocacy for a racist policy, at worst this is genocidal speech. > Well, the IDF is executing lots of war criminals, even future ones in Gaza ;) I can’t take this any other way then the author is stating that killing of innocent civilians in Gaza is justified because otherwise they were destined to become war criminals. This kind of speech was very common among people justifying police brutality and neighborhood crackdown against black people in the USA. It is extremely racist as it stipulates that Palestinians, by merit of being Palestinians, are inherently bad people and deserve to die.
    - _3u10 2y ago
      There is no jewish ethnostate, Israel is a modern day democracy with Arabs / Muslims elected to the Knesset. The real question is if everyone loves the peace loving Gazans so much, why has Egypt built a wall to keep the peaceful refugees out? Perhaps maybe they don't want the Gazans to start a civil war in their country like in Jordan, Lebanon, etc. Realpolitik.
      - tptacek 2y ago
        The "kisnet"?
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
    - tptacek 2y ago
      Oh, I didn't see "future" war criminals. Yeah, not good.
  - racional 2y ago
    There is context I am probably missing. It was the precious reference (backed by a smiley no less) to how the good the current operation is at killing "future" war criminals -- obviously referring to minors. Who are also just as obviously being collectively subject to air strikes for the crime of being you-know-what. It was a truly disgusting comment, actually. Unfortunately "frank" and deeply revelatory expressions of this sort are by no means unusual in the sphere of public discourse that supports the current operation in Gaza. From the highest levels down.
- _3u10 2y ago
  The reality of life is my dads apartment was bombed by the US when he was growing up. War sucks. It’s not racist but you can’t let Hamas run things, that’s just the way it is. Sometimes it sucks when your apartment is in the same town as a ball bearing factory. The Air Force didn’t give anyone a weeks heads up either, what the IDF is doing is so far from a war crime it’s not even funny.

ronjobber 2y ago

This still is not quite grappling with the fundamental issue imo Realpolitik, in the sense Morgenthau and Kissinger understood it, absolutely takes into account management of public opinion and risks related to violation of international standards. It just does not only take those into account in decisions related to national interests. > But the claim that "Biden actually saved lots of Palestinians from dying" because of the "realpolitik" of the situation is silly. The claim that Kissinger actually saved lives by coordinating assassinations so that South America didn't need to be bombed into submission would be farcical, and so is this. This is stated as a fact and dismissed on the basis of a tacit moral argument rather than reasoning. Why would the claim be silly? I see no reason for those statements to be cast aside as un-addressable or 'farcical'. On the other hand... > 10 carrier strike group gets fucked up by Yemeni drones, or Iranian swarms If this were possible Houthi drones would have done it already (against a single carrier). > because they [China] invested in growth instead of carrier groups China has been investing heavily in their military for three decades [0]. And we will see about that growth part... it is not looking so rosy for Xi currently. 0 - https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/CHN/china/military-spending-defense-budget https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/CHN/chi...