Israel/Gaza (Round 3)

[blah the Prussian]

I wasn't talking about merely the US. I mean everybody else in the world with a distaste or worse for Israel, which in any event probably isn't a grouping that has been shrinking recently. Obama has indeed become ticked enough that he's begun to snub Netanyahu a bit more recently, though, which has gotten some analysts worried that he may not be as quick to aid Israel in general, perhaps unless he gets something in return. Like, for example, whether he'll be jumping at the first chance to block Palestinian ICC applications coming up.

Not to say he will or he won't do anything for sure, or that anything will or won't happen to Israel for sure, which I shouldn't neglect to acknowledge is a strongly developed and continually developing country with not a small number of things to like about it. It's to say that it invites uncertainty to believe someone can be as unpopular with as many people as Israel is (though I can't speak for its accuracy, I'm being reminded of an international BBC poll where the only countries that fewer responders had a "positive opinion" of were the likes of Russia and Iran) and keep pissing those people off forever, no matter who their friends (or, maybe more accurately, allies) are.

Obama won't be President forever. If the Republicans win the election, Israel is in for fun times indeed, especially since Netanyahu won the election. I still think that, despite everything, he'll still back Israel. The court of public opinion in general will usually get upset that Israel is doing something that they don't like, not that its violating international law. No matter how low the international opinion of Israel gets, it still has a secret weapon in that its main enemies want to outright destroy it. The only other example I can think of was Nazi Germany wanting to wipe the Soviet Union off the map, and the USSR was even more of a pariah than Israel (and with good reason). The international community supported Russia then, and they'll support Israel now, largely because of the (correct) belief that Israel, no matter its transgressions, shouldn't be thrown to Iran and company for them to have their way. There are also less and less Middle Eastern countries wanting a piece of Israel, with Jordan and Egypt both actually attacking anti Israeli forces in their countries (the PLO and Hamas, respectively). And speaking of opinion polls, most South Koreans apparently hold Japan in lower regard than North Korea, which leads to a reaction of "Holy shit, guys, let it go".

[Rehab]

Yes, it's some strange kind of funny how many administrations of countries in the area with anti-Israel (and pro-Palestine) political rhetoric in fact trade with it under the table. Dunno if I'd have predicted that would become the case, should I have been born some years earlier, but then I'm no expert in the first place.

Who knows what the future may bring, and all that.

[blah the Prussian]

Quite simply, what is moral always takes a back seat to what is politically advantageous and/or possible.

[Irysa]

And speaking of opinion polls, most South Koreans apparently hold Japan in lower regard than North Korea, which leads to a reaction of "Holy shit, guys, let it go".

Well...part of the problem here is that Japan actually teaches it's children complete lies about what went on in WW2. The rest of East Asia heavily resents the fact that a lot of Japanese still don't think they wronged anyone else, and are perpetuating that view. That being said, the kids find out eventually anyway (information age), but it's still pretty messed up, and you'll likely have to wait for another generation before they get over it.

[blah the Prussian]

Japan's denial is despicable, but it was then. North Korea is now.

[Philax]

This is one issue that's hard for me since both pro-Israel people and pro-Palestine people make valid arguments. I wish the two-state solution that was once proposed had been able to go through. If both the Israelis and Palestinians recognized each other's states, the Arab world would probably be a lot less hostile to Israel. The thing is, many Israelis and Palestinians are pretty adamant about their beliefs, i.e. that their side is important and that the other must be destroyed. With such a rotten attitude coming from both Israelis and Palestinians, I feel they're not so different after all. Being someone with both Jewish and Arab friends, I feel like I can get both sides of the story.

Edited April 7, 2015 by Philax

[Rapier]

This is one issue that's hard for me since both pro-Israel people and pro-Palestine people make valid arguments.

Isn't it a false dicotomy to choose between the Palestine or the Israelite side? One may support Israel while still supporting the creation of a separate, Palestine state.

Of course, I don't know much about foreign politics, so I may be terribly wrong.

Japan's denial is despicable, but it was then. North Korea is now.

About Japan's denial, name a country that hasn't thrown their wrongdoings under the carpet. Even Germany tries to do so with Hitler and the Nazi Germany period. I mean, it is not such an unheard practice for us to be so edgy about.

Edited April 8, 2015 by Rapier

[Snowy_One]

About Japan's denial, name a country that hasn't thrown their wrongdoings under the carpet. Even Germany tries to do so with Hitler and the Nazi Germany period. I mean, it is not such an unheard practice for us to be so edgy about.

Liechtenstein maybe?

Anyways, the real problem is that East Asia is so... well... in the past that feuds that happened centuries ago still get brought up today. Japan and South Korea should at least like each other more than North Korea, who is constantly threatening them with destruction, but they hate each other more simply because of things that happened literally generations before. It's not exactly healthy.

[Rapier]

Liechtenstein maybe?

Anyways, the real problem is that East Asia is so... well... in the past that feuds that happened centuries ago still get brought up today. Japan and South Korea should at least like each other more than North Korea, who is constantly threatening them with destruction, but they hate each other more simply because of things that happened literally generations before. It's not exactly healthy.

I confess I don't know about your example. In any case, I did not mean Japan should be excused from their wrongdoings as if nothing happened. I just brought up that every country has their fair share of wrongdoings, so Japan's case isn't all that amazing or special.

Their tradition doesn't help diminish the conflicts. I mean, it is amazing how they see family, honor and duty House Tully?, but they are far too extreme.

[blah the Prussian]

About Japan's denial, name a country that hasn't thrown their wrongdoings under the carpet. Even Germany tries to do so with Hitler and the Nazi Germany period. I mean, it is not such an unheard practice for us to be so edgy about.

Japan goes beyond shoving its wrongdoings under the rug and says that they were JUSTIFIED. The only other people I can think of that do that is the American South. I've been to Berlin as well, and I don't see what your talking about. The Germans have a gigantic memorial, they even have a museum dedicated entirely to the atrocities of the Waffen SS. They have been excellent about addmitting to their atrocities.

[Rehab]

Isn't it like illegal to deny the Holocaust in Germany

[blah the Prussian]

Yeah, it is. We could learn a lot from Germany. As in, we should send cops in to tear down and burn every fucking Confederate flag they can find, and install a curriculum in every school that outs Davis and company for the monstrous traitors they were. God, I wish we'd strung the bastard up.

[Rapier]

Japan goes beyond shoving its wrongdoings under the rug and says that they were JUSTIFIED. The only other people I can think of that do that is the American South. I've been to Berlin as well, and I don't see what your talking about.

Okay, I was wrong about Germany, yet it is a common factor in most, if not all, countries to not speak much about bad episodes where they were involved, or even claim that they were justified as an excuse to legitimate their actions, and that was my point. They'd be throwing their reputation in the trash otherwise.

In Nazi Germany's case, it'd be impossible to cover up Hitler, for obvious reasons. Most other countries can cover up their actions more easily, because they were lesser offenders.

Yeah, it is. We could learn a lot from Germany.

I wish they'd do the same to communists. Communism actually caused more deaths than fascism and nazism together, it is even more atrocious than nazism.

Edited April 9, 2015 by Rapier

[blah the Prussian]

Okay, I was wrong about Germany, yet it is a common factor in most, if not all, countries to not speak much about bad episodes where they were involved, or even claim that they were justified as an excuse to legitimate their actions, and that was my point. They'd be throwing their reputation in the trash otherwise.

In Nazi Germany's case, it'd be impossible to cover up Hitler, for obvious reasons. Most other countries can cover up their actions more easily, because they were lesser offenders.

I wish they'd do the same to communists. Communism actually caused more deaths than fascism and nazism together, it is even more atrocious than nazism.

That's actually an interesting point. I've seen people on the internet defend and outright deny Joseph Stalin's gulags. I've seen people who claim Mao was a hero to China. There's even a guy on another forum I frequent who loudly announces his support of North Korea to anyone who will listen. I'd like to see him try to not get slapped with a ban in a heartbeat if he was saying similar things about Nazi Germany. Then again, the Germans don't really need to apologize for Communism, because they pretty much had it forced upon them. It's the Russians and Chinese who should be ashamed. But let me tell you why they don't have to: they won. No one cares that Stalin killed more than Hitler because Wehrmacht commandos never lifted a Swastika over the Kremlin. History is written by the victors. As a final note, I'd argue that only Stalinism and Maoism are worse than Naziism, though Trotskyism never really got the chance to be implemented, so we don't know for sure. Communism was never as monolithic as Fascism, so that Communism as a whole is worse than Fascism is an inaccurate generalization.

[Rapier]

I've seen people who claim Mao was a hero to China. There's even a guy on another forum I frequent who loudly announces his support of North Korea to anyone who will listen

This happens a lot in Brazil. As a rather serious example, our president's party (the Workers' Party) supports Fidel Castro's communist system and Nicolas Maduro's regime (prior to this, they supported Hugo Chavez). One of its directives, cited on their own official site, is to "implant communism". It makes me roll my eyes, third countries seem to gather all kind of crap that the first world countries have already surpassed.

As a final note, I'd argue that only Stalinism and Maoism are worse than Naziism, though Trotskyism never really got the chance to be implemented, so we don't know for sure. Communism was never as monolithic as Fascism, so that Communism as a whole is worse than Fascism is an inaccurate generalization.

By 'monolithic' I understand that you mean there were many people understanding Communism in many different ways and applying their interpretation rather than what the Communist Manifesto exactly says, so I'll address this point through this understanding of mine (sorry, I'm stupid, but also so curious =P).

But that makes me think, aren't you ignoring the fact that nazism is merely another 'cloth' for fascism? It is not monolithic, because fascism has also been implemented on Portugal and Italy (the examples that I remember), through different interpretations. And yet we do not deny that fascism is universally terrible. So why is the conclusion for communism different if the logic is the same?

I think I can criticize Communism on the basis that the whole theory behind it is faulty. You're more intelligent than I am regarding History, so correct me if I am wrong:

Whether Trotsky, Lenin and Stalin may have had different views about the same ideology, it does not mean they did not share a common denominator, and that denominator is itself abominable: War of classes, death to the enemies of the revolution; centralization of capital and goods in the hands of the State, leading to stagnation in production, famine and deaths; cult of a leader; ideological doctrination etc. Contrary to what people tend to think of Lenin, his regime was also bloody and totalitarian. Communism is an economical, polictical and sociological disaster, however you look at it. Five examples (counting the Soviet Union, Maoist China, Cuba, the Red Khmer's regime and North Korea) are not scientifically enough to say that Communism is a fiasco, yet the lives it has taken should be enough to make us ponder whether we should be really meddling with such an ideology.

I know I am not thinking correctly (I lack these skills), but the evidence is enough to make me see Communism as an abomination.

[blah the Prussian]

This happens a lot in Brazil. As a rather serious example, our president's party (the Workers' Party) supports Fidel Castro's communist system and Nicolas Maduro's regime (prior to this, they supported Hugo Chavez). One of its directives, cited on their own official site, is to "implant communism". It makes me roll my eyes, third countries seem to gather all kind of crap that the first world countries have already surpassed.

By 'monolithic' I understand that you mean there were many people understanding Communism in many different ways and applying their interpretation rather than what the Communist Manifesto exactly says, so I'll address this point through this understanding of mine (sorry, I'm stupid, but also so curious =P).

But that makes me think, aren't you ignoring the fact that nazism is merely another 'cloth' for fascism? It is not monolithic, because fascism has also been implemented on Portugal and Italy (the examples that I remember), through different interpretations. And yet we do not deny that fascism is universally terrible. So why is the conclusion for communism different if the logic is the same?

I think I can criticize Communism on the basis that the whole theory behind it is faulty. You're more intelligent than I am regarding History, so correct me if I am wrong:

Whether Trotsky, Lenin and Stalin may have had different views about the same ideology, it does not mean they did not share a common denominator, and that denominator is itself abominable: War of classes, death to the enemies of the revolution; centralization of capital and goods in the hands of the State, leading to stagnation in production, famine and deaths; cult of a leader; ideological doctrination etc. Contrary to what people tend to think of Lenin, his regime was also bloody and totalitarian. Communism is an economical, polictical and sociological disaster, however you look at it. Five examples (counting the Soviet Union, Maoist China, Cuba, the Red Khmer's regime and North Korea) are not scientifically enough to say that Communism is a fiasco, yet the lives it has taken should be enough to make us ponder whether we should be really meddling with such an ideology.

I know I am not thinking correctly (I lack these skills), but the evidence is enough to make me see Communism as an abomination.

I see what you're saying, but Naziism, Fascism, and whatever the hell Japan had going on were far more monolithic than Communism. Germany, Italy, and Japan got along perfectly well, whereas China and the Soviet Union broke off their alliance because of ideological differences. Now, as I understand it the types of Communism are: Leninism, Trotskyism, Stalinism, Maoism, Titoism, Juche, and whatever Pol Pot had. Vietnam invaded Cambodia because they were sick of Pol Pots shit and thought he was making Communism worse than it looked already (which was probably true, because fuck Pol Pot, but whatever). As another example, Stalin had Trotsky killed because of an ideological difference. Name a time in the history of Fascism where two Fascist countries went to war over an ideological difference. Mussolini's invasion of Greece does not count; it was out of desire for more land. Finally, parts of that common denominator are wrong. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Kim Jong il all caused famines, but under Leninism and Titoism there were no famines, at least not ones caused by Communism. Similarly, only Trotskyism preaches violent spread of the revolution; in particular, Stalinism explicitly advocates for Communism to collaborate with the rest of the world (as it did against Hitler). Leninism and Titoism, in my mind, are not as bad as Fascism. Stalinism and Trotskyism, as well as Juche and Pol Potism are worse than Naziism. Of course, it cannot be overstated how bad Naziism was. If Hitler had succeeded, Naziism would probably have been worse. As it stands, however, every Communist leader so far except Pol Pot and Gorbachev have ended their lives in power.