This seems like an isolated demand of rigor. Would you say people can't show outrage over the October 7th attack unless they read up and condemn every atrocity that was committed in the region leading up to that date?
Christians in Lebanon are mostly anti-Israel, and a majority of them supported the October 7th attacks. I'm not sure they blame Muslims for their diminishing numbers in Lebanon.
Israel is a strong ally and the main weapon exporter to Azerbaijan.
So the big question is, why are christians in the west so eager to support the country responsible for bombing christian churches in Gaza and help a muslim country ethnically cleanse one of the oldest christian communities in the world? The whole thing has a "chickens for KFC" feeling about it.
"So what happens if Israel stops now?". You, me and the talking heads and the people in the halls of power all know the answer to that question. The answer being that Palestinians will forever continue to launch terrorist attacks for Israel doing anything short of just packing up and leaving the Middle East altogether.
I dont see how potential future terrorist attacks are worse than the carnage we are seeing in Gaza today, unless you value Israeli lives much higher than Palestinians. Which I totally can understand that Israel does, but why is it a given that the US population values the safety of Israelis to that extent where the current situation in Gaza is an acceptable trade-off? We are after all talking about the safety of a nuclear armed country with the near unconditional backing of the worlds most powerful state, against a terrorist group that according to Israelis themselves consists of 40 000 men controlling a piece of land under naval blockade and without an airport.
I am not American, so cant comment on the exact tone of US media. But perhaps they bought in to the whole "only democracy in the Middle-East" and "most moral army in the would" slogans. After all, Hamas is roundly condemned as a terrorist organization by both sides of the political establishment in the US (and nearly the whole of Europe), so perhaps it doesnt really make sense to make moral appeals to them?
I think the really interesting question here is if Hamas would have anything to gain by an unconditional surrender. While I agree that Israel is likely to win a decisive military victory, I think Hamas so far is winning a slight PR victory and a perhaps even bigger political victory. I dont have any illusions about how Hamas value the sanctity of life, either Palestinian or Israeli, so I think the chance of a political victory is much more important for them in the long term.
It would be an understatement to say that the pre October 7th status quo was dire for the Palestinians. With between 700 000 - 800 000 settlers on the West Bank gradually encroaching on more and more Palestinian land, and talk of annexation of the West Bank becoming mainstream in Israel (Netanyahu had this a campaign promise in 2019 and won the subsequent election). This was all happening with the tacit approval of the US (and probably also most Arab countries), the dream of a two state solution was more or less dead. With this as a back drop Palestinians were witnessing Arab countries pursuing a politic of normalization with Israel, while giving lip service to the Palestinian cause. From the ground in Palestine the status quo probably looked a lot like a slow moving ethnic cleansing. Palestinians gradually getting more sympathy in the US and Europe did not seem to help their case at all, and as we saw earlier this year, having the sympathy of western populations did nothing to help the Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh against being ethnically cleansed by a western ally.
Now fast forward a couple of months to today, the plight of Gaza is front and centre again. The US is finding itself increasingly isolated on the global stage as Israels guardian angel. Arab countries had to distance themselves at least optically from anything Israel does. Behind closed doors many of them are probably wondering if a normalization will be possible at all with the current Israeli political scene. We are also in a situation where there is a real chance that Bidens reelection might be in jeopardy due to his support of Israel. Just the perception that this is a possibility is an unprecedented win for the Palestinian cause, and we now have Blinked take some symbolic steps to be seen addressing Palestinian concerns, such as sanctioning violent settlers.
If we assume that there are countries pulling the strings of Hamas, perhaps Qatar, Iran and even Russia, the case for a political win becomes even stronger. Did anyone even notice or care that a female Iranian dissident won the nobel price just now? Does the liberation of Iranian women even register to people when 50 000 pregnant women in Gaza are being bombed daily? However no country has had a bigger PR win over the war in Gaza than Russia. Not only is the attention towards Ukraine diminished, the passion in the "slava Ukraini" camp has been decimated. Many people who thought they where "on the right side of history" and supporting the little guy Ukraine against the bigger aggressor, are having second thoughts about the morals of their side, which is cheering on the Israeli offensive in Gaza. I clearly see this among my normie friends in Norway. People are seeing the Ukraine conflict more in term of realist politics and not absolute morality, and if you are being a realist, perhaps it makes sense to let Russia keep the Russian speaking parts of Ukraine for a ceasefire.
In this scenario the death of many thousands more Palestinian children seems like a small price to pay for what Hamas has achieved.
but the polling that showed 50/50 support for Israel vs Hamas among younger voters, was likely bad polling
This poll, asking people to choose between Israel and Hamas, with no option of "neither" og "dont know" had major "you're with us or you're against us" vibe. I imagine a big chunk of the people who chose Hamas, were just annoyed at the options and decided to say "f*ck it, I guess I support Hamas then".
rudig
1yr ago
There is several things going on here. This is not only about islam, the Uighur situation is geographically/culturally more remote than anything the majority of muslims in the US know or understand. This is a case where optics really matter too. China doesnt broadcast the situation with the Uighurs. They deliberately go out of their way to not frame this in a religious/ethnic sense. You dont have videos of Xi invoking religious imagery of "children of light and darkness". China doesnt try to justify what is going on, they just pretend its not happening. On a global stage, China doesnt seem to have a problem with muslims. Seeing a many middle-easterns dont trust western news sources, its very easy to pretend nothing is happening with the Uighurs.
Both Israel and the palestinians on the other hand have a very active propaganda arms. The picture of Biden hugging Netanyahu will be spread far and wide. Many supporters of Israel invoke clash of civilization rhetoric that is popular on the christian right, but will rile up muslims. The toxoplasmosis of rage is in full effect here.
I reckon the majority of Muslims will show up for Biden out of self interest. However Michigan in particular has a big levantine Arab community who care alot about this conflict. They are also mostly 2/3rd generation so wouldn't be affected by Trumps muslim ban.
With the razor sharp margins Biden got in several swing states, this could make him really vulnerable. He won Georgia with 12 000 votes, and the state has more than 70 000 Muslims.
I also wonder how this focus on Israel will play with other minority groups, like blacks and Hispanics. I think the feeling that your president and government is beholden to a foreign government you don't really care about can be alienating to alot of these voters. Particularly when Biden is not delivering on bread and butter issues.
The LGBT-thing doesnt make the least bit of sense to me. I am probably to the left of the majority of the people here on gay and trans right, but I never use that as a measuring stick for who is morally in the right in a given geopolitical situation. Nor have I ever met another person IRL who does the same. For example, I have no idea who is more socially liberal of Armenia or Azerbaijan, but I dont need to know that to decide that the ethnic cleansing of Nagorno-Karabakh was wrong.
I feel like this is the right-wing version of tankies who cant understand why anyone who is liberal would support Ukraine when they obviously have a massive problem with far-right elements in their country. Ukraine can love and revere Stephen Bandera and the Azov Batallion, while still being in the right in resisting the Russian invasion, and this is no different.
rudig
1yr ago
The total amount of displaced Syrians was much higher though. Over 5 million are still refugees abroad.
rudig
1yr ago
Nr 2 is certainly my impression too. Support for Israel is very bypartisan, whereas Jewish politicians are clustered on the democratic side. I'm not sure LGBT rights actually plays a big part here, more than general geopolitical alignment.
I actually suspect that Anthony Blinken is somewhat unsettled right now. He has no choice but to offer full support to Israel, but I think his idea of what is a proportion response is in this case, is very different to the current Israeli government.
rudig
1yr ago
Israel has repeatedly bombed the Rafah border crossing (the only border crossing to Egypt) in the last few days. There is plenty of international citizens in Gaza who can't get out either because apparently the crossing is not functioning from the Palestinian side.
rudig
1yr ago
This narrative is awfully convenient from a pro-Israeli perspective, but if this was all motivated with holy war and religious bigotry, how come the Palestinian liberation movement was broadly secular before the 1980s? The leader of PFLP was after all a christian born Palestinian communist. And how come Israel had to help Hamas along in its infancy, to counter PLO? If this was all motivated by religious hatred, surely the islamist organizations would be at the forefront since the very beginning?
http://web.archive.org/web/20090926212507/http:/online.wsj.com/article/SB123275572295011847.html
rudig
1yr ago
The picture that have been shared on reddit as "israeli with a blood stain after being raped is this https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1821309/israel-teenager-hamas-attacks-kidnap
But to me it looks more like a stain of feces on her backside, not blood. Loosing control of your bowels would be a very common reaction to extreme stress.
rudig
1yr ago
Egypt had for a short period a democratically elected leadership who was closely allied with Hamas. They were deposed in coup in favor the current president Al-Sisi, a move that almost certainly was supported by both US and Israel. Egypt is also the 2nd biggest recipient of foreign military financing from the USA (after Israel of course), so whatever decision Egypt makes about Gaza will be in lockstep with the US. However there is also the added problem that Al-Sisi knows Hamas is allied with his biggest opponents. Egypt is possibly the country in the ME where Palestinians have the most popular support, so I highly doubt the population seeing them as "psycopaths" is a big reason for blockage.
rudig
1yr ago
Point taken, and I think you are right about the average women. But again, these are not average women, but women who are still single at 35. In my experience they come in 3 groups:
- Hideously ugly/morbidly obese
- OK looking, but go for men who are out of their league.
- Dont mind being lonely, and are therefore not willing to lower their standards to match with a man who will have them.
My friends are a mix of 2. and 3. I think for nr 2 there is a psychological mechanism that keeps people from seing their own shortcomings. For what its worth, I think men who are single at 35-40 also fit into these categories, but with slightly different cutoffs. The typical example would perhaps a short immigrant male with an advanced STEM degree who cant understand why white girls are not attracted to him, because in his mind having a good degree and a well paying job is the pinnacle of male achievement. In the same vein, my friend is an avid runner, but objectively she lacks raw femininity and with skin that has aged quite poorly due to sun damage. She cant see this, because in her mind being a skinny female runner makes a woman very attractive.
I philosophically 100% on board with this.
However, when I step out of the philosophical realm and into the practical world, and when I forget about the rest of humanity, and just focus on my own little family, I think its obvious that some outcomes are a little bit better. All else being equal it is better to be taller and with a lower risk of diabetes and heart disease. This is true even if none of those things will change the course of history.
rudig
1yr ago
I went to university in norther Europe and in my 6 years of being there I can only remember one guys who had the combo of very nice facial aesthetics, stem PHD level of intelligence, athleticism and above 190 height, and he had an alcoholic father who drank himself to death. I think you are overestimating how many men who are actually this attractive and the ease by which a plain 35 yo woman can have unprotected sex with them.
These women have well paying jobs and often extended family who will help and support them. Im not so sure they will need more government assistance than many other "average" families. Granted we are in Europe where the social safety net is wide and parental leave policies are generous and daycare cheap. But again, this is something that all families benefit from.
"With a rather aesthetically displeasing mother it is likely the child will inherit some unfortunate mutations." Well, by this reasoning they would be much worse off if they would have procreated with their "looksmatch" and the children would have inherited twice the amount of unfortunate mutations.
Insemination with sperm does not typically require IVF, but a intrauterin insemination which is much cheaper.
I agree with your assessment of plastic surgery, and it can be very beneficial to many women. A typical nose job can do wonders on some ethnicities. Weight loss, even with the new wonder drugs takes time, and then you have to find and keep a man while approaching your late thirties.
But you have to remember that many women have unrealistic ideas about their own attractiveness. They can attract men, but not keep them. Their friends and family will tell them, they are "cute". Guys who dump them will tell them they were not ready for a relationship. No one IRL is going to sit down and say: "you would be such a catch with some fillers and a nosejob". Instead all they will hear is: " You are a catch, the right guy will turn up one day". I think by the time these women realize they can not compete for the men they want, they are quickly approaching a fertility cliff.
The risks from being raised by a single mother clearly cut through social class and education, and I agree that all else being equal it would be a poor decision. But all else is not equal here. You get to have a child that is likely more attractive and possibly more intelligent than if you have settled for a man that will have you. Surely the risk of criminality is lower in people who are both attractive and smart? If you believe personality traits like conscientiousness are heritable too, the tradeoff looks even better.
And while I agree with your last point, I think these women are at a stage in their lives where they have given up on finding a man. Female sexual drive also falls off a cliff around this age, so the thought of living the rest of their life without a man might not be so daunting any more.
rudig
1yr ago
One of my friends has decided to have children with the help of a sperm donor and I have taken more than a passing interest in her search. This is actually the 2nd woman in my broader group of acquaintances who have have decided to go it alone. They are both highly educated, but lack the physical attractiveness that would make it possible to lock down the type of man they have been interested in. But while commitment from the right man can be hard to come by, sperm is incredibly cheap. We are taking elite sperm here, like entirely clean bill of health for 2 generations back, model good looks, tall, athletic, pursuing an MD or PHD in STEM, comes from a family of inventors, grandparents who lived to the age of 100 etc. Imagine someone like the Swede in Philip Roths American Pastoral. You can get a vial of this sperm for 1000 USD, and why wouldnt you as a single woman?
Im not entirely convinced that the draw backs of being a single mother in this situation cannot be off-set by the benefits of having this superior genetic material. I have sometimes during this time felt a tad bit guilty for procreating with my partner with our comparatively average genes. Yes, we will probably pass on good intelligence, but what about physical traits and health? Is there anything parental love can provide that can compare to the confidence that comes with being a 190cm athletic, but yet very intelligent young man?
All this has made me wonder if "leftover" educated women will produce the new elite of tomorrow. Surely this is a more efficient way of making superior babies than the pre-implantation embryo testing of the Collinses? https://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/life/pronatalists-save-mankind-by-having-babies-silicon-valley/?
rudig
1yr ago
So is Birdbox, where two black men and one asian man sacrifice themselves so that a white lady and two white kids can survive in the end.
rudig
1yr ago
Sorry, didnt specify, but immigrant in Norwegian statistic is someone who immigrated themselves or have 2 parents who have immigrated. Norway does not really have a big non-white population outside of this group
I was somewhat aware of this position of Singer, but still horrified when reading this position out loud.
I entirely agree and feel it is a somewhat departure from the feminism of my childhood, when women wanted to be equal to men also in burdens and responsibility. However I dont necessarily think thats what is going on in this case from Ireland. People generally have a stronger reaction to crime that strikes randomly, and its hard to protect oneself against. Someone murdering their own children, while absolutely horrific, is less likely to make your children less safe.
However that is exactly why Im puzzled this case does not get more attention in the UK. You are rarely more vulnerable than when you or your family need hospital care and you have no choice but to 100% trust the providers. The thought that a intensive care nurse is not just grossly negligent, but is deliberately doing harm is something else...
I always suspected she covers her hair mostly out if vanity (she suffers some form of alopecia based on old photos).
More options
Context Copy link