So we should abandon diplomacy precisely when it is needed most? When we withdraw our support and Iran and Egypt join the conflict, will it be easier to stomach the killing of even more children in more nations? After we cede our influence in the middle east and China expands its influence to fill the vacuum, we will be able to honor our treaty with Taiwan after an emboldened China begins bombing and killing their children?
This is the macabre calculus of geopolitics. This is the risk of reactionary policy. All of this is a hypothetical worse case scenario, but one thing is certain: if we withdraw our support, Israel will lose any incentive to stop the killing. More will die. And that would be the best case scenario.
diplomacy
To send israel government "whatever it needs" and additional aid is the opposite of diplomacy. The really reason they are getting away with a genocide is because they have the west backing.
There's a genocide happening right now under your nose where thousand of kids are getting killed, this is already the worst case scenario.
They are doing exactly what they want to do, they are not seeking diplomacy they want war.
I think...this is more complicated than a clear cut black and white choice. Not killing is clearly the correct response. Thing is how do we get there? Do we attempt to send in troops to police a location half a planet away? You know people will support that while also pointing out other conflicts we should be "dealing with" and pointing casually to situations we've made usually worse by stepping into.
That's not really the point though. The point is the support being given.
I agree that the sales of arms to any institution inflicting harm on another is, at the absolute best, a grey area on a good day. It seems to me though that in a conflict that is powered by ideology, this legitimately makes no real difference. It will happen whether we break off the relationship or not. Because of this, it is best to attempt to utilize that relationship to attempt to diplomatically stop the conflict. The alternatives are send in forces which will increase regional political strain and possibly ignite a larger conflict, or do absolutely, irrefutably nothing.
If there is a fourth decision that leads to a better outcome I am not wise enough to see it. What I do understand is that all relationships require some give in order to have some take. I don't agree with any weapons being sent over, though I do believe they made zero real impact on the result. This was going to happen and I feel attempting to stop it without escalation was the right choice, because it usually is the right choice.
Anyway, chances are the situation is far more complex than we realize. 50/50 on me being wrong, which is fine, opinions can change. Diplomacy should always take precedence over added conflict though.
Diplomacy should always take precedence over added conflict though.
Then we should start doing diplomacy and actually put pressure on Netanyahu to stop the genocide.
Until then we aren’t doing diplomacy we are appeasing a genocide of at this point probably ~50,000 Palestinians.
When Israel kills all Palestinians the problem is diplomatically solved!
This would be funnier if it wasn't unironically what some are advocating.
I'm probably more ignorant than I realize, though I am under the understanding that there has been increasing levels of pressure. Netanyahu just doesn't care.
Its ok to be ignorant, but you have to understand we are talking about this like it is an unpaid loan or some material bullshit.
This is an entire people and their landscape being erased. Every moment of "increasing pressure" that doesn't create material policy change is horrifically extending hell on earth.
Imagine being so psychotic that you pretend 10/7 didn't happen.
Why do you think it happened?
Right and next Satan is going to tap dance on your kitchen counter.
So we should abandon diplomacy precisely when it is needed most? When we withdraw our support and Iran and Egypt join the conflict, will it be easier to stomach the killing of even more children in more nations? After we cede our influence in the middle east and China expands its influence to fill the vacuum, we will be able to honor our treaty with Taiwan after an emboldened China begins bombing and killing their children?
This is the macabre calculus of geopolitics. This is the risk of reactionary policy. All of this is a hypothetical worse case scenario, but one thing is certain: if we withdraw our support, Israel will lose any incentive to stop the killing. More will die. And that would be the best case scenario.
To send israel government "whatever it needs" and additional aid is the opposite of diplomacy. The really reason they are getting away with a genocide is because they have the west backing.
There's a genocide happening right now under your nose where thousand of kids are getting killed, this is already the worst case scenario. They are doing exactly what they want to do, they are not seeking diplomacy they want war.
I think...this is more complicated than a clear cut black and white choice. Not killing is clearly the correct response. Thing is how do we get there? Do we attempt to send in troops to police a location half a planet away? You know people will support that while also pointing out other conflicts we should be "dealing with" and pointing casually to situations we've made usually worse by stepping into.
That's not really the point though. The point is the support being given.
I agree that the sales of arms to any institution inflicting harm on another is, at the absolute best, a grey area on a good day. It seems to me though that in a conflict that is powered by ideology, this legitimately makes no real difference. It will happen whether we break off the relationship or not. Because of this, it is best to attempt to utilize that relationship to attempt to diplomatically stop the conflict. The alternatives are send in forces which will increase regional political strain and possibly ignite a larger conflict, or do absolutely, irrefutably nothing.
If there is a fourth decision that leads to a better outcome I am not wise enough to see it. What I do understand is that all relationships require some give in order to have some take. I don't agree with any weapons being sent over, though I do believe they made zero real impact on the result. This was going to happen and I feel attempting to stop it without escalation was the right choice, because it usually is the right choice.
Anyway, chances are the situation is far more complex than we realize. 50/50 on me being wrong, which is fine, opinions can change. Diplomacy should always take precedence over added conflict though.
Then we should start doing diplomacy and actually put pressure on Netanyahu to stop the genocide.
Until then we aren’t doing diplomacy we are appeasing a genocide of at this point probably ~50,000 Palestinians.
When Israel kills all Palestinians the problem is diplomatically solved!
This would be funnier if it wasn't unironically what some are advocating.
I'm probably more ignorant than I realize, though I am under the understanding that there has been increasing levels of pressure. Netanyahu just doesn't care.
Its ok to be ignorant, but you have to understand we are talking about this like it is an unpaid loan or some material bullshit.
This is an entire people and their landscape being erased. Every moment of "increasing pressure" that doesn't create material policy change is horrifically extending hell on earth.
Imagine being so psychotic that you pretend 10/7 didn't happen.
Why do you think it happened?
Right and next Satan is going to tap dance on your kitchen counter.