If an independent Ukraine really is in an existential fight for survival, why is full mobilization so politically sensitive? And why wouldn’t it be a reasonable precondition for additional Western military assistance? If most young Ukrainians aren’t willing to fight and die for their country’s sovereignty, what’s the point of resisting Putin’s demands?
It’s a good question. I think the idea is that full mobilization guts the civil society and, in particular, guts the economy. The soldiers have to be paid for somehow.
So depressing and pretty much bang on, as usual. But you do know what happens if Israel gets “magnanimous”? She wins back not a single backer and Hamas continues shelling. It’s a lose-lose all round. And I’m an optimist.
Yes, you’re right. There aren’t a lot of good options here. I guess we could imagine it the other way. Israel goes into Rafah. There’s another vast round of casualties. Israel destroys some more tunnels, destroys another battalion or two. America is alienated further and Israel has violated its initial premise of confining fighting to the northern part of the Strip. Speaking politically, not sure that it’s worth it.
I’m just saying that I think the die is cast. Ganz has lost decision-making power and we can only hope they discover the H leadership under Rafah and that Israelis remember to punish the Great Fucker for his fuckery and not reward him. I believe Hamas when they say they will never stop and never make a deal. The great American delusion (shared widely in the West) is that everyone has their price and will deal. It’s absurd.
Experience of reading this at first I failed to read those ten rules for engaging a noxious topic. And was left thinking you were speaking on behalf of special new knowledge abt any of the players and so: was contemplating what were the rational reasons for U.S. participtng in WW2? Which sent me back to reading you because of course the Marshall plan. Premises first, and then you draw the conclusions. Appreciate that, abt the Gaza dsster. King of Jordan too. Now there is a player with dogs in the fight. Jordan accomodates millions of Syrians but forbids them from working in the official economy. It sounds like a give and take. Reasonable government mandates admit of change, and shows of bravery on the stage too, to judge from that speech he gave...
I just saw this post. Like you, I haven't had much to say about the the war in Gaza, because the way it us unfolding feels terribly wrong, but it's also not clear what to do. I was struck be the phrasing of one of you points. You wrote (emphasis mine).
"Implications that Israel *shouldn’t* fight back when attacked — which is the premise of so much of left-wing discourse — are tantamount to saying that the state of Israel is somehow illegitimate."
But "should" feels like a middle ground. On one hand, people are free to opine about what Israel ought to do, or suggest better approaches. But if you had written "isn't allowed" it just makes clear that we don't have an international system which much ability to adjudicating what countries are or aren't allowed to do.
One would hope that the world doesn't operate on the basis of, "the strong do what they will, the weak suffer what they must." But there are limited tools in place to prevent that (there are fairly strong institutions to judge trade disputes, but less so for this sort of conflict).
As far as what would be a reasonable way for critics of Israel to frame their complaints, I would think it is fair to call on them to comply with the International Court of Justice ruling for Israel to do all it can to prevent genocide, including refraining from harming or killing Palestinians, and to act urgently to get basic aid to Gaza.
If an independent Ukraine really is in an existential fight for survival, why is full mobilization so politically sensitive? And why wouldn’t it be a reasonable precondition for additional Western military assistance? If most young Ukrainians aren’t willing to fight and die for their country’s sovereignty, what’s the point of resisting Putin’s demands?
It’s a good question. I think the idea is that full mobilization guts the civil society and, in particular, guts the economy. The soldiers have to be paid for somehow.
So depressing and pretty much bang on, as usual. But you do know what happens if Israel gets “magnanimous”? She wins back not a single backer and Hamas continues shelling. It’s a lose-lose all round. And I’m an optimist.
With optimists like that….lol!
Yes, you’re right. There aren’t a lot of good options here. I guess we could imagine it the other way. Israel goes into Rafah. There’s another vast round of casualties. Israel destroys some more tunnels, destroys another battalion or two. America is alienated further and Israel has violated its initial premise of confining fighting to the northern part of the Strip. Speaking politically, not sure that it’s worth it.
I’m just saying that I think the die is cast. Ganz has lost decision-making power and we can only hope they discover the H leadership under Rafah and that Israelis remember to punish the Great Fucker for his fuckery and not reward him. I believe Hamas when they say they will never stop and never make a deal. The great American delusion (shared widely in the West) is that everyone has their price and will deal. It’s absurd.
Experience of reading this at first I failed to read those ten rules for engaging a noxious topic. And was left thinking you were speaking on behalf of special new knowledge abt any of the players and so: was contemplating what were the rational reasons for U.S. participtng in WW2? Which sent me back to reading you because of course the Marshall plan. Premises first, and then you draw the conclusions. Appreciate that, abt the Gaza dsster. King of Jordan too. Now there is a player with dogs in the fight. Jordan accomodates millions of Syrians but forbids them from working in the official economy. It sounds like a give and take. Reasonable government mandates admit of change, and shows of bravery on the stage too, to judge from that speech he gave...
I just saw this post. Like you, I haven't had much to say about the the war in Gaza, because the way it us unfolding feels terribly wrong, but it's also not clear what to do. I was struck be the phrasing of one of you points. You wrote (emphasis mine).
"Implications that Israel *shouldn’t* fight back when attacked — which is the premise of so much of left-wing discourse — are tantamount to saying that the state of Israel is somehow illegitimate."
The word "should" is an interesting choice. It caught my attention in part because this article from last October -- "What Israel Should Do Know" holds up well and still seems smart -- https://www.vox.com/2023/10/20/23919946/israel-hamas-war-gaza-palestine-ground-invasion-strategy
But "should" feels like a middle ground. On one hand, people are free to opine about what Israel ought to do, or suggest better approaches. But if you had written "isn't allowed" it just makes clear that we don't have an international system which much ability to adjudicating what countries are or aren't allowed to do.
One would hope that the world doesn't operate on the basis of, "the strong do what they will, the weak suffer what they must." But there are limited tools in place to prevent that (there are fairly strong institutions to judge trade disputes, but less so for this sort of conflict).
As far as what would be a reasonable way for critics of Israel to frame their complaints, I would think it is fair to call on them to comply with the International Court of Justice ruling for Israel to do all it can to prevent genocide, including refraining from harming or killing Palestinians, and to act urgently to get basic aid to Gaza.
But it appears that Israel's response to simply to claim that they are complying and dare anyone to prove otherwise: https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-reports-to-icj-on-actions-taken-to-comply-with-court-orders-on-gaza/