2016 elections - because it's never too early

[The Minsky Moment]

As opposed to Trump who was 4-F and then got deferred and defended Staten Island from the VC.

[Berkut]

No accusing Malthus of his deep ingrained hatred of all Palestinians was the thing not the anti-Israel thing

"bias against the Palestinian people" was my phrase; I know you pretend to hate nation-states, but I mean PALESTINIAN ARABS LIVING IN WHAT IS NOW ISRAEL.  I think his comments, and history on this issue, shows a bias against those people described in caps.

How is the plight of Jews in the Arab net doing? Ethnic conflict, it ain't pretty. But there are not white hats and black hats. Just nationalists being assholes. Some people just like to pretend one sides shit stinks less than the other. I just wish my country was not one of them.

'Oh the poor innocent Arabs!' Please.

  And I get accused of moral relativism!  There are no Jews in the Arab net, because the (wealthy industrialized) State of Israel airlifted its racial kinsmen out of the (poor rural) Arab countries, and the Jewish/Israeli lobby pressured the Nixon-Ford-Carter presidencies to pressure the Soviet Union to allow some of their Jewish citizens to emigrate to Israel in the 1970s.

To paraphrase Unforgiven, innocent has nothing to do with it.  Look at Gaza.  Look at the West Bank.  Look at the video of Israelis beating to death a completely innocent Eritrean -- you don't see *that* at Trump rallies, to bring this full circle.  Look at 18 months in prison for an Arab who had consensual sex with a Jewish woman but made the criminal mistake of saying his first name was "Daniel."  Tell me that's a country you want to pour billions of dollars of foreign aid into.

I have a pretty simple metric on how I evaluate the relative merits of these groups.

I think "What would the Israelis do if they had complete control of a group of Arabs?" That is an easy question to answer, because they do in fact have direct control of such a group. While there are certainly questionable actions, by and large the Israelis go to radical lengths to avoid harming them more than is necessary, and expend huge amounts of effort to avoid collateral damage. They could probably do more, but by an large the gap between their capability for atrocity and what actually happens is *generally* as large as one would demand from a Western nation under the circumstances they find themselves.

Then I think "What would Hamas or Hezbollah do if they controlled Israel and the Jews who lived their?" That is somewhat harder to answer, since they do not, but we can simply ask them what they would do, and their stated answer is very clear. And further, their actions to the extent that they can in fact express their desires through the power they do have is also clear - they would eradicate them. They state that as their goal, they avow it as what they want, they preach it daily to their followers, and when they have any kind of power, it is expressed in exactly the manner one would expect from their stated goals and intentions. They go out of their way to kill as many Jews as they can, and not only do they make no effort to avoid civilian targets, they go to the other extreme and actually avoid military targets in favor of civilian.

Further, if one looks at how each side treats their own people, it is even more alarming. To the great extent that the Israelis attempt to avoid Arab/Muslim civilians casualties, they obviously expend vast effort to protect their own civlians, including Arabs and Muslims that live in Israel.

Conversely, Hezbollah and Hamas and such not only make no effort to protect their own civilians, they in fact use their own civilians routinely to protect their own fighters. As a matter of course, you can see examples where their fighters use civilians as shields from Israeli military action. The only reason that can actually work is BECAUSE Israeli is hesitant to incur that collateral damage. Could anyone imagine the ridiculousness of an IDF member using an Israeli civilians as a human shield while they shoot at some Hamas "soldiers"?

I find it kind of amazing that people can engage in the cognitive dissonance necessary to decide that the side that actually cares more about their enemies civilians than their enemy cares about their own civilians is the moral "bad guy" in the conflict.

[DGuller]

  Don't get into the details, by all means.  Just wave that American flag and keep on waving it.  If we could stymie Israel's building of new settlements in the West Bank -- which we, as a nation, not as "liberals" (lol at DGuller attacking liberals), oppose -- in even small ways, *that* would be something.

I think I've been pretty consistent about my critiques of contemporary liberal ideology.  Just because I happen to be a liberal doesn't mean I should be incapable of noticing some ideological blind spots.

One critique is that for liberals, truth is no defense against accusations of political incorrectness.  Another critique is that liberals have a tendency to prioritize moral comfort with their policies over actual objective effect of their policies (and the related lack of realization that moral standard in one circumstance is moral luxury in a different circumstance).    This second blind spot is what is responsible for the despicable stance on Israel among so many of the liberals in the western world.

[Capetan Mihali]

I find it kind of amazing that people can't see oppression in front of their own eyes.  That ANC, they were baddies...

[derspiess]

Voted.  Ohio results should be interesting.

[Martinus]

Did something happen recently to trigger this "anti-Zionist" diatribe?

I'm usually the last to claim unwarranted credit but I believe it was triggered by me calling him a cuckold. 

[Eddie Teach]

I didn't know he was married.

[Berkut]

I find it kind of amazing that people can't see oppression in front of their own eyes.  That ANC, they were baddies...

Who said anything about whether one can see oppression or not?

[Capetan Mihali]

  Don't get into the details, by all means.  Just wave that American flag and keep on waving it.  If we could stymie Israel's building of new settlements in the West Bank -- which we, as a nation, not as "liberals" (lol at DGuller attacking liberals), oppose -- in even small ways, *that* would be something.

I think I've been pretty consistent about my critiques of contemporary liberal ideology.  Just because I happen to be a liberal doesn't mean I should be incapable of noticing some ideological blind spots.

One critique is that for liberals, truth is no defense against accusations of political incorrectness.  Another critique is that liberals have a tendency to prioritize moral comfort with their policies over actual objective effect of their policies (and the related lack of realization that moral standard in one circumstance is moral luxury in a different circumstance).    This second blind spot is what is responsible for the despicable stance on Israel among so many of the liberals in the western world.

I guess we have to "agree to disagree."  The despicable stance, for me, is that supposed "liberal" parties and governments are entirely complicit in Israel's outrageous conduct.  The Democratic Party is merely the most extreme, the French Socialists have been totally ineffective at extricating France from support of the current Israeli regime, for example. (Though that may just be an extension of their total ineffectiveness, while the US Democrats actively court extreme Zionists.)

[Razgovory]

Well, that was weird.

[Valmy]

I guess we have to "agree to disagree."  The despicable stance, for me, is that supposed "liberal" parties and governments are entirely complicit in Israel's outrageous conduct.  The Democratic Party is merely the most extreme, the French Socialists have been totally ineffective at extricating France from support of the current Israeli regime, for example. (Though that may just be an extension of their total ineffectiveness, while the US Democrats actively court extreme Zionists.)

I do have to say considering the neighborhood Israel's behavior is pretty par for the course. Ancient communities are being destroyed on a pretty regular basis over there. But I do agree it is pretty tiresome we back one of them. Well actually we back multiple regimes doing this sort of thing. Middle East going to Middle East.

[Martinus]

Would not backing Israel at this point lead to a better outcome?

[Valmy]

Would not backing Israel at this point lead to a better outcome?

Doubtful. But it would save some money.

[Capetan Mihali]

Fellas, it's OK.  I don't like Israel more than I like America.  I don't like Presidents who back Israel to an extreme.  I do like Presidents who treat Israel with caution (e.g. Eisenhower).  Although I'm not a single-issue voter, I will very likely vote for the Presidential candidate (and Democratic caucus candidate) who I believe is most inclined to treat Israel with caution.  That candidate happens to be a Brooklyn Jew, but these things happen.

[Capetan Mihali]

Would not backing Israel at this point lead to a better outcome?

Better for whom?  And you love the civil law, so think about Kantian ethics a little.