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?
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.
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?
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.
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/