The feds can't force Texas to stop shooting migrants you think they can force Israel to stop doing anything they're set on?
I mean the CIA can kill U.S citizens if needed but I laugh that you think the U.S government can't mobilize when enough motivations appear.
you think the U.S government can't mobilize when enough motivations appear
Can you point to the part where I put forward that argument?
You think they've actually tried? Given that they're still supplying weapons to them?
Look, I'll put it this way: there is no upside to the US in any of this.
Ok, let's run the scenario: the US administration without approval from congress pulls some kind of magic trick and blocks weapon sales to Israel tonight.
What series of events do you think would unfold?
How would local politics unfold in the US, in Israel, in Palestine and in each of the surrounding countries?
Is peace now nearer? A two state solution closer?
Or would Israel, now that the bandaid has been pulled and no further threat remains, would decide that nothing will stop them, that they are on their own and they might as well just finish the job thoroughly?
Would Hamas declare that victory is near without the US involvement and redouble their efforts? Would Israel decide they need to find more reliable partners and turn to China? Or Russia? What would China do? Russia? Iran? Jordan? Egypt? Saudi Arabia?
Do you not think the US would have been much better off geopolitically for this thing to have gone away 6 decades ago? Why have they been trying with summit after summit?
This conflict has been sustained over the decades from different political actors for different reasons, some of them petty and pathetic, some religious and some geopolitical.
There are plenty of hungry sharks around ready to take their pound of flesh and it's not to help the Palestinians - we know the neighbours don't give a shit about them (except rhetorically) by the way they treat refugees within their own borders
There's no magic button to press to solve it.
This is like the 3 body problem, but really it's 20 moving celestial bodies.
I don't care about the weapons. Israel obviously doesn't need more weapons to finish their genocide.
It's just pretty obvious that you don't make a real effort to prevent a state completing it's genocide before you stop supplying them with arms.
Great, but, after that - is there a realistic next day scenario that doesn't hurt Palestinians more? If so, what is it?
You're right there's absolutely no solution remotely possible, and that justifies the complete lack of even trying anything spicier than "Bibi pls"
You're right there's absolutely no solution remotely possible, and that justifies the complete lack of even trying anything spicier than "Bibi pls"
Come on, that's a bit weak - is strawmanning the best you can do?
My guy you're literally saying there's no solution that isn't worse than doing what the current administration is doing, which is more or less nothing.
That's not a straw man. That's just restating your argument at you.
literally saying there's no solution that isn't worse than doing what the current administration is doing
That's the strawman - at no point did I make that argument.
I didn't say all possible actions are pointless, nor that I agree with how the US is handling it - which is increasingly poorly for a very long time.
I merely disagreed with your proposal in detail and asked you to defend it if you were so convinced of it.
Pointing out that cutting our nose to spite our face is a bad policy, and will do worse than fuck all to help anyone, does not equal agreement with the administration, the US or Israel or anyone or doing nothing.
I merely disagreed with your proposal in detail and asked you to defend it if you were so convinced of it.
So you're just strawmanning me? Because at no point have I made a "proposal".
What position do you want me to defend? So far my position has been that the US should be doing more to apply pressure to Israel.
How do you disagree with that WITHOUT taking the stance that any other action would lead to a worse outcome?
Pointing out that cutting our nose to spite our face is a bad policy
Again, what is this hypothetical cutting of the nose?
If you say that doing anything more than what the US is currently doing will "do worse than fuck all", how is that not an endorsement of that policy? You're saying it's the best option.
You are right, "proposal" was overstating it, and a strawman.
Let's see here:
It's just pretty obvious that you don't make a real effort to prevent a state completing it's genocide before you stop supplying them with arms.
Up to now what you put forward twice was a purity test.
I thought the test was tantamount to a specific proposal: to stop the arms supply - but apparently you say it's not, and you want to play the definition game now, or just a frustrated "no you".
So far my position has been that the US should be doing more to apply pressure to Israel.
Maybe that's your underlying motivation, which I agree with.
How do you disagree with that WITHOUT taking the stance that any other action would lead to a worse outcome?
I didn't disagree with doing more.
And I didn't say that any other action will lead to a worse outcome.
You keep on performing the same fallacy and ascribing me motivations I don't have.
I disagreed with the non-proposal of stopping the arms right now as a minimum first step.
Again, what is this hypothetical cutting of the nose?
It's clearly the minimum action you mentioned in the litmus test.
If you say that doing anything more than what the US is currently doing
At this point I'm not sure we understand language the same way.
I'm out.
I'd imagine holding some funds back may be an effective deterrent.
The feds can't force Texas to stop shooting migrants you think they can force Israel to stop doing anything they're set on?
I mean the CIA can kill U.S citizens if needed but I laugh that you think the U.S government can't mobilize when enough motivations appear.
Can you point to the part where I put forward that argument?
You think they've actually tried? Given that they're still supplying weapons to them?
Look, I'll put it this way: there is no upside to the US in any of this.
Ok, let's run the scenario: the US administration without approval from congress pulls some kind of magic trick and blocks weapon sales to Israel tonight.
What series of events do you think would unfold?
How would local politics unfold in the US, in Israel, in Palestine and in each of the surrounding countries?
Is peace now nearer? A two state solution closer?
Or would Israel, now that the bandaid has been pulled and no further threat remains, would decide that nothing will stop them, that they are on their own and they might as well just finish the job thoroughly?
Would Hamas declare that victory is near without the US involvement and redouble their efforts? Would Israel decide they need to find more reliable partners and turn to China? Or Russia? What would China do? Russia? Iran? Jordan? Egypt? Saudi Arabia?
Do you not think the US would have been much better off geopolitically for this thing to have gone away 6 decades ago? Why have they been trying with summit after summit?
This conflict has been sustained over the decades from different political actors for different reasons, some of them petty and pathetic, some religious and some geopolitical.
There are plenty of hungry sharks around ready to take their pound of flesh and it's not to help the Palestinians - we know the neighbours don't give a shit about them (except rhetorically) by the way they treat refugees within their own borders
There's no magic button to press to solve it.
This is like the 3 body problem, but really it's 20 moving celestial bodies.
I don't care about the weapons. Israel obviously doesn't need more weapons to finish their genocide.
It's just pretty obvious that you don't make a real effort to prevent a state completing it's genocide before you stop supplying them with arms.
Great, but, after that - is there a realistic next day scenario that doesn't hurt Palestinians more? If so, what is it?
You're right there's absolutely no solution remotely possible, and that justifies the complete lack of even trying anything spicier than "Bibi pls"
Come on, that's a bit weak - is strawmanning the best you can do?
My guy you're literally saying there's no solution that isn't worse than doing what the current administration is doing, which is more or less nothing.
That's not a straw man. That's just restating your argument at you.
That's the strawman - at no point did I make that argument.
I didn't say all possible actions are pointless, nor that I agree with how the US is handling it - which is increasingly poorly for a very long time.
I merely disagreed with your proposal in detail and asked you to defend it if you were so convinced of it.
Pointing out that cutting our nose to spite our face is a bad policy, and will do worse than fuck all to help anyone, does not equal agreement with the administration, the US or Israel or anyone or doing nothing.
So you're just strawmanning me? Because at no point have I made a "proposal".
What position do you want me to defend? So far my position has been that the US should be doing more to apply pressure to Israel.
How do you disagree with that WITHOUT taking the stance that any other action would lead to a worse outcome?
Again, what is this hypothetical cutting of the nose?
If you say that doing anything more than what the US is currently doing will "do worse than fuck all", how is that not an endorsement of that policy? You're saying it's the best option.
You are right, "proposal" was overstating it, and a strawman.
Let's see here:
Up to now what you put forward twice was a purity test.
I thought the test was tantamount to a specific proposal: to stop the arms supply - but apparently you say it's not, and you want to play the definition game now, or just a frustrated "no you".
Maybe that's your underlying motivation, which I agree with.
I didn't disagree with doing more.
And I didn't say that any other action will lead to a worse outcome.
You keep on performing the same fallacy and ascribing me motivations I don't have.
I disagreed with the non-proposal of stopping the arms right now as a minimum first step.
It's clearly the minimum action you mentioned in the litmus test.
At this point I'm not sure we understand language the same way.
I'm out.
I'd imagine holding some funds back may be an effective deterrent.