Jump to content

Israeli-Palestinian conflict


ilqx hermolia xpli
 Share

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, Thu Zaw said:

Do you think, in that case, the attention given by the West in the situation of Israel/Palestine is led, not by concern of a potential war and humanitarian crisis, but by vested interests and of Western citizens choosing their side, and by doing so, stoking inter-religious tensions and hatred?

People ignore other international conflicts because they haven't got a vested political or religious interest. The humanitarian fallout isn't of concern. 

I think that's a big assumption to make. People ignore other conflicts for any number of reasons - lack of capacity to process that much information in a meaningful manner, more local issues taking up more of their time, or lack of awareness in the first place. Someone may know about the treatment of Rohyinga in Myanmar, but they may not know much in detail. Or they may not have read about it all, if their reading/information habits are more directed to local issues or issues where they are experts/work. That doesn't mean they are not concerned about the human cost.

With respect to your first point, there are a lot of angles for consideration, some will undoubtedly be vested interest (after all, International Relations are still largely based on realism, and occasionally offensive realism -as an aside, Mearsheimer and Walt's book "the Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy" is a very good read), some will be over concerns of war, some will be involved precisely for humanitarian reasons. Since the division of Palestine can be traced back in the modern era to the Paris Peace Accords (as a rough starting point), that's more than 100 years of context, which will inevitably lead to many positions being taken, some disingenuous, others not. I don't think that putting it in black and white terms such as "being led by vested interests and Western citizens choosing sides" is a very helpful position, because of all that context.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

people running through the cancer ward screaming about aids. 

edit: this is some shit. 

 

Edited by ignatius
  • Like 5
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, chenGOD said:

I think that's a big assumption to make. People ignore other conflicts for any number of reasons - lack of capacity to process that much information in a meaningful manner, more local issues taking up more of their time, or lack of awareness in the first place. Someone may know about the treatment of Rohyinga in Myanmar, but they may not know much in detail. Or they may not have read about it all, if their reading/information habits are more directed to local issues or issues where they are experts/work. That doesn't mean they are not concerned about the human cost.

With respect to your first point, there are a lot of angles for consideration, some will undoubtedly be vested interest (after all, International Relations are still largely based on realism, and occasionally offensive realism -as an aside, Mearsheimer and Walt's book "the Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy" is a very good read), some will be over concerns of war, some will be involved precisely for humanitarian reasons. Since the division of Palestine can be traced back in the modern era to the Paris Peace Accords (as a rough starting point), that's more than 100 years of context, which will inevitably lead to many positions being taken, some disingenuous, others not. I don't think that putting it in black and white terms such as "being led by vested interests and Western citizens choosing sides" is a very helpful position, because of all that context.

I've spent my adult life watching Western audiences comment on global issues entirely inconsequential to their own lives. I've concluded that interest is largely down to two factors:

1) being right in arguments with other Westerners, or

2) appearing virtuous in front of an audience of fellow Westerners. 

Yes, it's cynical, but it's what I see. Either way, it's performative and empty rhetoric.

Edited by Thu Zaw
  • Like 1
  • Burger 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Thu Zaw said:

I've spent my adult life watching Western audiences comment on global issues entirely inconsequential to their own lives. I've concluded that interest is largely down to two factors:

1) being right in arguments with other Westerners, or

2) appearing virtuous in front of an audience of fellow Westerners. 

Yes, it's cynical, but it's what I see. Either way, it's performative and empty rhetoric.

While I'm only really fluent in Korean outside of "Western" languages, I'm relatively* sure this is not a phenomenon unique to the West.

Spoiler

By relatively, I mean 100% completely.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

I'm relatively* sure this is not a phenomenon unique to the West.

Doesn't matter. After what the West did to the rest of the world, it has to conform to an extra strict set of norms for a while to make up for it. See also: nazi jokes are not acceptable when made by Germans, probably acceptable when made by other Europeans, definitely ok (if in poor taste) when made by people from Asia or Africa.

It's very likely Westerners will shortly be joined by the Chinese in this. I watched a documentary about the Chinese expansion into the rest of the world, Africa, Madagascar and Serbia and such, and it was pretty much Heart of Darkness all over again.

But until they, too, have ravaged entire continents and shredded other people's ancient societies to bits, it'll be only us Westerners that are stuck here in this sort of moral time out room. Sucks, but such is life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rhmilo said:

Doesn't matter. After what the West did to the rest of the world, it has to conform to an extra strict set of norms for a while to make up for it. See also: nazi jokes are not acceptable when made by Germans, probably acceptable when made by other Europeans, definitely ok (if in poor taste) when made by people from Asia or Africa.

It's very likely Westerners will shortly be joined by the Chinese in this. I watched a documentary about the Chinese expansion into the rest of the world, Africa, Madagascar and Serbia and such, and it was pretty much Heart of Darkness all over again.

But until they, too, have ravaged entire continents and shredded other people's ancient societies to bits, it'll be only us Westerners that are stuck here in this sort of moral time out room. Sucks, but such is life.

What does this have to do with whether or not people in other countries talk shit about global issues entirely inconsequential to their own lives?

Also, the "West" is not the only entity that has colonized other nations or used its economic might to reduce the status of others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, chenGOD said:

What does this have to do with whether or not people in other countries talk shit about global issues entirely inconsequential to their own lives?

Other people in other cultures are free to do so. We in the West ate not because we’re on probation.

1 hour ago, chenGOD said:

Also, the "West" is not the only entity that has colonized other nations or used its economic might to reduce the status of others.

What other entity are you thinking of that systematically and thoroughly plowed under entire continents for profit? The best I can come up with is rapacious conquerors like Genghis Khan, but those merely pillaged, which is very different from forcing entire societies to work for you as slaves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, rhmilo said:

Doesn't matter. After what the West did to the rest of the world, it has to conform to an extra strict set of norms for a while to make up for it. See also: nazi jokes are not acceptable when made by Germans, probably acceptable when made by other Europeans, definitely ok (if in poor taste) when made by people from Asia or Africa.

It's very likely Westerners will shortly be joined by the Chinese in this. I watched a documentary about the Chinese expansion into the rest of the world, Africa, Madagascar and Serbia and such, and it was pretty much Heart of Darkness all over again.

But until they, too, have ravaged entire continents and shredded other people's ancient societies to bits, it'll be only us Westerners that are stuck here in this sort of moral time out room. Sucks, but such is life.

this makes absolutely no sense to me lol

hey, "the West," you guys are in a time out. not discussions at this time. dude what?

*going to haiti and asking random people there if it's ok if i discuss global affairs on the computer*

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the problem i have with moral framings is that it doesn't point to anything objective. at most it just points to something a lot of people agree on currently. people could theoretically disagree. Hell, there have been many entire cultures where the idea of being an invading warrior barbarian would have been considered dope af.

Which isn't to say that I myself think the west should or shouldn't repent for perceived past sins. I just think it's a bit of a sleight of hand to frame this as something that some kinda universal authority has determined, and not just the consensus of a sufficient number of individuals

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Alcofribas said:

this makes absolutely no sense to me lol

hey, "the West," you guys are in a time out. not discussions at this time. dude what?

*going to haiti and asking random people there if it's ok if i discuss global affairs on the computer*

no harm comes from generalizing human groups negatively. there's no reason not to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, very honest said:

no harm comes from generalizing human groups negatively. there's no reason not to.

if you believe this then surely you can identify the absurdity in assigning a "probation" to "the West" while people from "other cultures" are free to do so. 

on topic: is Israel “the West?”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Alcofribas said:
27 minutes ago, very honest said:

no harm comes from generalizing human groups negatively. there's no reason not to.

if you believe this then surely you can identify the absurdity in assigning a "probation" to "the West" while people from "other cultures" are free to do so.

lol :facepalm:

 

i was hoping it would be obvious that i was not serious

 

Edited by very honest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rhmilo said:

Other people in other cultures are free to do so. We in the West ate not because we’re on probation.

Is this kindergarten? "Naughty west - time out corner for you."

 

1 hour ago, rhmilo said:

What other entity are you thinking of that systematically and thoroughly plowed under entire continents for profit? The best I can come up with is rapacious conquerors like Genghis Khan, but those merely pillaged, which is very different from forcing entire societies to work for you as slaves.

Japan took a pretty good whack at East and Southeast Asia for slightly over 50 years. China proclaimed its superiority over other nations during much of its imperial reign, through the form of suzerain-vassal international relations (extracting "tribute" for profit, and controlling other nations' foreign affairs). Go back further and you'll find western Asian nations colonizing Africa.

The "west" is just the latest in a series of colonizers (or aggressive entities) throughout history, which of course is the theory behind offensive realism (see Mearsheimer and Walt - more so Mearsheimer).

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Then there is the problem of the ambiguousness and lack of clarity of historiography. History is a narration, it's a story we are constantly weaving and changing to make it work in the present. If you believe what you are told is the consensus between leading experts in the academic historiography, then you know that narratives have always existed in the past and almost all of them, especially of the earlier past, have proven to be wrong or inaccurate, or outright crazy by modern "standards" (which again, are something you just have to believe because a teacher or a book told you so, not because you acquired evidence yourself, which is nigh impossible in a lot of cases, and it becomes a political thing rather than an scientific one). Therefore discussing these topics only traps you in one or the other narrative. We should see which narrative is the least of a lie while at the same time should have the most beneficial consequences for humanity and all other beings of this planet, knowing that reality is a lot weirder than the human mind is able to grasp and that no narration can really capture the past as it really was in its entirety and absoluteness.

Edited by dingformung
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Thu Zaw said:

I've spent my adult life watching Western audiences comment on global issues entirely inconsequential to their own lives. I've concluded that interest is largely down to two factors:

1) being right in arguments with other Westerners, or

2) appearing virtuous in front of an audience of fellow Westerners. 

Yes, it's cynical, but it's what I see. Either way, it's performative and empty rhetoric.

"I don't care about things that don't hurt me because I'm a sociopath so it must be that way for others"

pretty ironic that a post you make about performativity is so smug and performative, perfectly calculated to raise yourself above all sides

Edited by cyanobacteria
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cyanobacteria said:

"I don't care about things that don't hurt me because I'm a sociopath so it must be that way for others"

pretty ironic that a post you make about performativity is so smug and performative, perfectly calculated to raise yourself above all sides

No, not sociopath, my dear. Misanthrope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, chenGOD said:

Japan took a pretty good whack at East and Southeast Asia for slightly over 50 years. China proclaimed its superiority over other nations during much of its imperial reign, through the form of suzerain-vassal international relations (extracting "tribute" for profit, and controlling other nations' foreign affairs). Go back further and you'll find western Asian nations colonizing Africa.

The "west" is just the latest in a series of colonizers (or aggressive entities) throughout history, which of course is the theory behind offensive realism (see Mearsheimer and Walt - more so Mearsheimer).

Japan in Korea is a good example, agreed (but note their attempts to create an East Asian Co Prosperity sphere elsewhere  didn't last for more than half a decade) . The others are questionable. China demanding tribute from all over the place is vastly different from what, say, Japan did in Korea. Earlier examples really are just one ruler replacing another one with life for people on the ground remaining pretty much unchanged (apart from a little massacre here and there). This is distinctly different from Western style imperialism. 

But, you know, you can choose to shrug it off. The worst that will happen is that you'll be angry all the time at brown people calling white people off for what seems to you to be no reason at all and those brown people will think you're an asshole. In the greater scheme of things that's probably not too bad.

 

 

Edited by rhmilo
Something went wrong
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, rhmilo said:

Japan in Korea is a good example,

Taiwan, Manchukuo (Manchuria), were also colonized by the Japanese with typical colonial economies (i.e. resources and output went to the colonizer). The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere ran into a little problem called the Second World War, after which you'll note that many of the western colonists also lost their colonies.

Yes Chinese control over client states was different than colonization, but the idea was that those client states only derived any authority through the mandate of the Emperor. There was still an element of use of foreign resources for the Chinese.

17 minutes ago, rhmilo said:

But, you know, you can choose to shrug it off. The worst that will happen is that you'll be angry all the time at brown people calling white people off for what seems to you to be no reason at all and those brown people will think you're an asshole. In the greater scheme of things that's probably not too bad.

What is this even referring to. Do you somehow think that because I acknowledge that other people besides westerners have agency in discussing global issues that have no impact on their lives, I'm somehow shrugging off the very real issues of colonization's legacy? Or the very real issue of Israel being absolutely in the wrong in their relations with Palestine? Why are you using slurs when discussing the issue here?

  • Like 1
  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes I’m having trouble understanding this approach. itt people are criticizing the occupation and destructive domination of the Palestinians by Israel - a western nation backed by Western superpowers. 
 

I don’t get how we’ve segued into how ya westerners are not allowed to chime in on issues impacting “other cultures” or whatever we’re even discussing rn lol

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Thu Zaw said:

No, not sociopath, my dear. Misanthrope.

misanthropy is sociopathic and narcissistic

5 minutes ago, Thu Zaw said:

Not sure I'd call Israel a Western nation

israel is literally a US-backed white ethnostate plopped down in the middle east illegally and through genocide, it's basically western

Edited by cyanobacteria
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

Taiwan, Manchukuo (Manchuria), were also colonized by the Japanese with typical colonial economies (i.e. resources and output went to the colonizer). The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere ran into a little problem called the Second World War, after which you'll note that many of the western colonists also lost their colonies.

My goodness. Perhaps you should read up on your history sometime because you seem to be taking on a bit more than you can chew here, attempting to equate between 200 to 50 years of world wide Western Imperialism to the fairly benign integration of Taiwan into Japan (seriously, look it up),  a 13 year long military occupation of part of China and 4 years of occupying SE Asia during, as you correctly point out, a World War.

45 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

Yes Chinese control over client states was different than colonization, but the idea was that those client states only derived any authority through the mandate of the Emperor. There was still an element of use of foreign resources for the Chinese.

You cannot possibly expect me to believe that that you take the boasts of Chinese civil servants at face value. I assume anyone would understand there flattery of writers at one court have no bearing whatsoever on where another court thinks it derives it’s authority from.

Honestly, you should maybe spend a little more time actually studying history instead of just arguing about it on the internet. This is embarrassing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...