4 ms·

Yes, the world is a very simple, non-complex system. People can be either child killing monsters or complete saints.

cess11 2y ago
Ami Luttwak apparently liked the first category enough to become a Talpiot program graduate and hence deepen his ties to it.
- Protostome 2y ago
  I struggle to see the issue here. Your perspective remains extremely polarized, regardless of the individual involved. You fail to grasp the conflict’s complexity and, as a result, demonize everyone associated with it. Just because someone joins the Israeli army doesn’t mean they endorse every action taken by Israel; They enlist because they understand that, Israel being such a small country won't exist without an army. Now you may not care, or even endorse such a development. But you can't blame someone who lived there all their lives and has families and friends all over the country to think and act the same.
  - cess11 2y ago
    Maybe if you explained that supposed complexity and didn't stop at an ad hominem argument your first parapgraph might have had some weight, but you didn't. There is very little complexity to the "conflict". A political movement supported by antisemites wanting to get rid of jews at home established a state through displacement and eradication of the indigenous population. This state has continued applying these kinds of policies to the indigenous population and neighbouring states, and is dependent on foreign aid and the atrocious pillage of other countries, e.g. to support israeli diamond exports. After the second world war there was an informal consensus that states that participate in genocide do not deserve sovereignty, a position that has since been eroded, in part by the main supplier of the israeli occupation. I understand how people that grow up in fiercely chauvinist and expansionist societies that are groomed since preschool to participate in military apartheid activities have trouble resisting these, which is why I don't believe israeli society can be a part of the solution to its occupation in the short term.
    - Protostome 2y ago
      You literally went after someone just because they’re Israeli-could be my friend, coworker, or even me. If you single someone out like that, don’t be shocked when you get called out in return. And honestly, I’m not convinced my previous comment even counts as a real ad hominem-though sure, if it makes you feel better, let’s call it that. But let's get one thing straight: calling the Arabs in Israel/Palestine "indigenous" while dismissing the Jewish people’s claim to that land is laughable. The very name "Jew" comes from Judea—this same strip of land-where Jewish history stretches back millennia. I’m not saying Arab families who lived there never had rights; of course, they deserve their own country too. But the idea that they’re the only "indigenous" group is just another cheap piece of propaganda, right up there with labeling the whole situation as "genocide" or "apartheid". People have moved in and out of Israel/Judea for centuries. Plenty of folks calling themselves Palestinian today came around the same time as the Zionists or later-just look at the family names that point to places like Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and beyond Al-Baghdadi, Al-Masri (the Egyptian), Halabi (Haleb = Allepo, Syria), Hourani (from Houran in southern Syria), Tzurani (from Tyre in southern Lebanon), Hijazi (from the Hijaz province of the Arabian peninsula), Mughrabi (from the Maghreb). Hell, Arafat was born in Egypt. My basic point is this: both sides do actually have claims. But one side made it pretty clear they weren’t interested in compromise and resorted to terror against civilians, starting way back in the ‘60s. Naturally, the other side fought back, and things escalated. As for calling Israeli society "chauvinist", give me a break. Israel had a female prime minister in the ’70s, has had women on its Supreme Court since forever, and meanwhile the U.S. is still waiting on its first female president. So, yeah-save the grandstanding about "chauvinism". It’s not as black-and-white as you’re painting it, and if you’re going to throw punches, don’t whine when you get punched back.
      - runarberg 2y ago
        > The International Labour Organization's (ILO) Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (ILO Convention No. 169), states that the convention covers: >> peoples in independent countries who are regarded as indigenous on account of their descent from the populations which inhabited the country, or a geographical region to which the country belongs, at the time of conquest or colonisation or the establishment of present state boundaries and who, irrespective of their legal status, retain some or all of their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples > Several states do not recognize indigenous ethnic minorities within their territories as being indigenous peoples, and simply refer to them as ethnic minorities. Many of these ethnic minorities are marginalized from the majority ethnic population in relative social, economic and political performance measures, and their indigenous rights are poorly protected. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_on_the_Rights_of_Indigenous_Peoples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_on_the_Rights_of_I... Note that Israel merely abstained from voting on the latter, rather then voting against like Canada, The US and Australia did (while 143 voted in favor). The case here is pretty clear cut. By most measures which actually matter for the rights of indigenous people, Palestinians are indigenous to Palestine, while most Israelis are settlers, or close descendants of settlers who gained control over the lands through conquest and colonization. It is in fact very reasonable to dismiss the (European) Jewish people’s claim to the land if we are talking about legal claims to indigenous peoples. Even though no clear definition has been widely adopted (perhaps for the better) most of the umbrella terms capture Palestinians, and hardly any captures Israelis. Denying the Palestinian claims to their indigenous lands is very much the behavior that the Decleration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples sought to stop.
ignoramous 2y ago
> People can be either child killing monsters or complete saints. That's not OP's claim? Although, I'd expect anyone who claims to be G-d's chosen people (religious fundamentalists pretty much anywhere) to anoint themselves saints. The corner stone for the kind of supremacist race/culture theories popular not so long ago. No one's fault that a nation conscripts all its adults into what some (I don't) perceive as "killing machine" (especially, post 1967). Those adults could refuse, but most don't, for whatever reason. Post WW2, there's a general disgust for war and its proponents, regardless of who or where; except these folks who are even celebrated in tech / US. > the world is a very simple, non-complex system "I hated the notion of occupation since the very beginning. My first memories from after the 67 war are travelling with my children in the occupied territories. There were awnings over groceries stores with Hebrew lettering advertising Osem noodles. I couldn't bear it. I thought that was dreadful because I remembered German lettering in France. I have very strong feelings about Israel as an occupier." And that scathing (Nazi Germany's occupation of France) comparison comes from Danny Kahneman (who, ironically, played his part in the "killing machine" himself). https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jul/18/daniel-kahneman-books-interview https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jul/18/daniel-kahnema...

Ami Luttwak apparently liked the first category enough to become a Talpiot program graduate and hence deepen his ties to it.

Protostome 2y ago
I struggle to see the issue here. Your perspective remains extremely polarized, regardless of the individual involved. You fail to grasp the conflict’s complexity and, as a result, demonize everyone associated with it. Just because someone joins the Israeli army doesn’t mean they endorse every action taken by Israel; They enlist because they understand that, Israel being such a small country won't exist without an army. Now you may not care, or even endorse such a development. But you can't blame someone who lived there all their lives and has families and friends all over the country to think and act the same.
- cess11 2y ago
  Maybe if you explained that supposed complexity and didn't stop at an ad hominem argument your first parapgraph might have had some weight, but you didn't. There is very little complexity to the "conflict". A political movement supported by antisemites wanting to get rid of jews at home established a state through displacement and eradication of the indigenous population. This state has continued applying these kinds of policies to the indigenous population and neighbouring states, and is dependent on foreign aid and the atrocious pillage of other countries, e.g. to support israeli diamond exports. After the second world war there was an informal consensus that states that participate in genocide do not deserve sovereignty, a position that has since been eroded, in part by the main supplier of the israeli occupation. I understand how people that grow up in fiercely chauvinist and expansionist societies that are groomed since preschool to participate in military apartheid activities have trouble resisting these, which is why I don't believe israeli society can be a part of the solution to its occupation in the short term.
  - Protostome 2y ago
    You literally went after someone just because they’re Israeli-could be my friend, coworker, or even me. If you single someone out like that, don’t be shocked when you get called out in return. And honestly, I’m not convinced my previous comment even counts as a real ad hominem-though sure, if it makes you feel better, let’s call it that. But let's get one thing straight: calling the Arabs in Israel/Palestine "indigenous" while dismissing the Jewish people’s claim to that land is laughable. The very name "Jew" comes from Judea—this same strip of land-where Jewish history stretches back millennia. I’m not saying Arab families who lived there never had rights; of course, they deserve their own country too. But the idea that they’re the only "indigenous" group is just another cheap piece of propaganda, right up there with labeling the whole situation as "genocide" or "apartheid". People have moved in and out of Israel/Judea for centuries. Plenty of folks calling themselves Palestinian today came around the same time as the Zionists or later-just look at the family names that point to places like Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and beyond Al-Baghdadi, Al-Masri (the Egyptian), Halabi (Haleb = Allepo, Syria), Hourani (from Houran in southern Syria), Tzurani (from Tyre in southern Lebanon), Hijazi (from the Hijaz province of the Arabian peninsula), Mughrabi (from the Maghreb). Hell, Arafat was born in Egypt. My basic point is this: both sides do actually have claims. But one side made it pretty clear they weren’t interested in compromise and resorted to terror against civilians, starting way back in the ‘60s. Naturally, the other side fought back, and things escalated. As for calling Israeli society "chauvinist", give me a break. Israel had a female prime minister in the ’70s, has had women on its Supreme Court since forever, and meanwhile the U.S. is still waiting on its first female president. So, yeah-save the grandstanding about "chauvinism". It’s not as black-and-white as you’re painting it, and if you’re going to throw punches, don’t whine when you get punched back.
    - runarberg 2y ago
      > The International Labour Organization's (ILO) Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (ILO Convention No. 169), states that the convention covers: >> peoples in independent countries who are regarded as indigenous on account of their descent from the populations which inhabited the country, or a geographical region to which the country belongs, at the time of conquest or colonisation or the establishment of present state boundaries and who, irrespective of their legal status, retain some or all of their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples > Several states do not recognize indigenous ethnic minorities within their territories as being indigenous peoples, and simply refer to them as ethnic minorities. Many of these ethnic minorities are marginalized from the majority ethnic population in relative social, economic and political performance measures, and their indigenous rights are poorly protected. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_on_the_Rights_of_Indigenous_Peoples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_on_the_Rights_of_I... Note that Israel merely abstained from voting on the latter, rather then voting against like Canada, The US and Australia did (while 143 voted in favor). The case here is pretty clear cut. By most measures which actually matter for the rights of indigenous people, Palestinians are indigenous to Palestine, while most Israelis are settlers, or close descendants of settlers who gained control over the lands through conquest and colonization. It is in fact very reasonable to dismiss the (European) Jewish people’s claim to the land if we are talking about legal claims to indigenous peoples. Even though no clear definition has been widely adopted (perhaps for the better) most of the umbrella terms capture Palestinians, and hardly any captures Israelis. Denying the Palestinian claims to their indigenous lands is very much the behavior that the Decleration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples sought to stop.

ignoramous 2y ago

> People can be either child killing monsters or complete saints. That's not OP's claim? Although, I'd expect anyone who claims to be G-d's chosen people (religious fundamentalists pretty much anywhere) to anoint themselves saints. The corner stone for the kind of supremacist race/culture theories popular not so long ago. No one's fault that a nation conscripts all its adults into what some (I don't) perceive as "killing machine" (especially, post 1967). Those adults could refuse, but most don't, for whatever reason. Post WW2, there's a general disgust for war and its proponents, regardless of who or where; except these folks who are even celebrated in tech / US. > the world is a very simple, non-complex system "I hated the notion of occupation since the very beginning. My first memories from after the 67 war are travelling with my children in the occupied territories. There were awnings over groceries stores with Hebrew lettering advertising Osem noodles. I couldn't bear it. I thought that was dreadful because I remembered German lettering in France. I have very strong feelings about Israel as an occupier." And that scathing (Nazi Germany's occupation of France) comparison comes from Danny Kahneman (who, ironically, played his part in the "killing machine" himself). https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jul/18/daniel-kahneman-books-interview https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jul/18/daniel-kahnema...