Israel/palestine conflict, worsens.

[UndercoverElephant]

There are plenty of prominent thinkers saying it.

Not many people I know IRL (or on facebook) are willing to say it. A lot of people just don't want to get involved. Don't want to speak up, presumably for fear of being accused of "anti-semitism".

You think this is because they media isn't telling them the truth, but why can't they see it for themselves? Why can't they do their own thinking?

[northernmonkey]

There are plenty of prominent thinkers saying it.

Not many people I know IRL (or on facebook) are willing to say it. A lot of people just don't want to get involved. Don't want to speak up, presumably for fear of being accused of "anti-semitism".

You think this is because they media isn't telling them the truth, but why can't they see it for themselves? Why can't they do their own thinking?

Most ordinary people don't "do their own thinking" Instead, they get their opinions (or lack of opinions) from the legacy press. The legacy press is owned by people whose interests are served by Israel's actions.

[UndercoverElephant]

There are plenty of prominent thinkers saying it.

Not many people I know IRL (or on facebook) are willing to say it. A lot of people just don't want to get involved. Don't want to speak up, presumably for fear of being accused of "anti-semitism".

You think this is because they media isn't telling them the truth, but why can't they see it for themselves? Why can't they do their own thinking?

Most ordinary people don't "do their own thinking" Instead, they get their opinions (or lack of opinions) from the legacy press. The legacy press is owned by people whose interests are served by Israel's actions.

You say we "don't live in a democracy". In reality we do, but you don't even believe in democracy. You don't believe in the thing which makes democracy worth something, which is the capacity of the electorate to choose who should govern them. You don't believe the public even has that capacity. What's the point in democracy if the majority of the public are so stupid/ignorant/brainwashed that they are incapable of holding an opinion that's actually their own?

[Ralphw2]

The traditional model of western democracy is the separation of offices of state, parliament, elected by the people, to set the rules, the constabulary to police the rules, the judiciary, to guide a jury of fellow commoners in prosecuting offenders, backed up by a free press to educate the commons on and the church to give moral guidance. Each was to hold the others to account within the limits of their remit. The military was to be fully subservient.

In reality it never worked that way in most countries, either the electoral system is rigged, or the press is either censored or owned by a tiny elite, or the branches are stuffed with yes men for the ruling clique, or something similar.

In the UK the church has lost almost all power and most moral authority. Most of the press is owned by a tiny elite, not even UK nationals.

However, we now have the internet and social media. Initially this gave true freedom for the people to speak to anyone who would listen, and self organise to repair the democracy in same cases like the Arab spring, although states quickly learned to either censor the internet, or turn the tables on the people to turn it into a police state, or open it up so much that all voices were equally drowned out. Very quickly big corporations evolved to organise and profit from this resource, Google to guide people and sell their views to the advertiser's, or the state, or anybody prepared to pay. Facebook to link people into groups and turn them into self reinforcing Ghettoes, and darker forces who will set up fake identities to influence their target audiences into believing whatever their paymasters want.

Most people are now wallowing in the dopamine hit of this social media glare, where everyone is a celebrity of their peers, as long as they can keep up their online one up man ship. Mental health is taking a huge hit, as the glittering lights contrast ever more with the harsh reality of civilisation entering terminal energetic decline.

It is true that the level of general education in the UK had not advanced to the point where the majority have learned critical thinking. It is now declining. In the US it has been declining for 50 years.

All this under the noses of the traditional offices of state.

[northernmonkey]

Not many people I know IRL (or on facebook) are willing to say it. A lot of people just don't want to get involved. Don't want to speak up, presumably for fear of being accused of "anti-semitism".

You think this is because they media isn't telling them the truth, but why can't they see it for themselves? Why can't they do their own thinking?

Most ordinary people don't "do their own thinking" Instead, they get their opinions (or lack of opinions) from the legacy press. The legacy press is owned by people whose interests are served by Israel's actions.

You say we "don't live in a democracy". In reality we do, but you don't even believe in democracy. You don't believe in the thing which makes democracy worth something, which is the capacity of the electorate to choose who should govern them. You don't believe the public even has that capacity. What's the point in democracy if the majority of the public are so stupid/ignorant/brainwashed that they are incapable of holding an opinion that's actually their own?

I have indicated no such thing.

A minority are capable of independent thought as a matter of inherent ability irrespective of environmental impediments.

Equally, a minority, no matter what, will never be capable of independent thought no matter what the environmental inputs.

A significant majority, however, are, in principle, capable of independent thought. But, only in the presence of a necessary set of environmental facilitations. The two most obvious being (a) an educational system that teaches logical thinking and (b) a free and fair press and other lines of informational transmission that give accurate and comprehensive information.

These cultural facilitators are, however, absent or largely absent. This, coupled with the many forms of cultural/intellectual siloing and distractions as mentioned by Ralph, above, means that a majority of people do not, in fact, think for themselves.

[northernmonkey]

The traditional model of western democracy is the separation of offices of state, parliament, elected by the people, to set the rules, the constabulary to police the rules, the judiciary, to guide a jury of fellow commoners in prosecuting offenders, backed up by a free press to educate the commons on and the church to give moral guidance. Each was to hold the others to account within the limits of their remit. The military was to be fully subservient.

In reality it never worked that way in most countries, either the electoral system is rigged, or the press is either censored or owned by a tiny elite, or the branches are stuffed with yes men for the ruling clique, or something similar.

In the UK the church has lost almost all power and most moral authority. Most of the press is owned by a tiny elite, not even UK nationals.

However, we now have the internet and social media. Initially this gave true freedom for the people to speak to anyone who would listen, and self organise to repair the democracy in same cases like the Arab spring, although states quickly learned to either censor the internet, or turn the tables on the people to turn it into a police state, or open it up so much that all voices were equally drowned out. Very quickly big corporations evolved to organise and profit from this resource, Google to guide people and sell their views to the advertiser's, or the state, or anybody prepared to pay. Facebook to link people into groups and turn them into self reinforcing Ghettoes, and darker forces who will set up fake identities to influence their target audiences into believing whatever their paymasters want.

Most people are now wallowing in the dopamine hit of this social media glare, where everyone is a celebrity of their peers, as long as they can keep up their online one up man ship. Mental health is taking a huge hit, as the glittering lights contrast ever more with the harsh reality of civilisation entering terminal energetic decline.

It is true that the level of general education in the UK had not advanced to the point where the majority have learned critical thinking. It is now declining. In the US it has been declining for 50 years.

All this under the noses of the traditional offices of state.

Well, there is a first time for everything I suppose Ralph. I agree with pretty much all of that.

[Lurkalot]

This is genocide. Why are so few people willing to say it?

Let me just say I don't move in very wide or influential circles but from what experience I have the simple answer to that question would be that many people simply don't care that much. There seems to be a feeling that to a degree the Palestinian people have brought this on themselves allowing and even voting for Hamas. From a pragmatic view some see that they have "contibuted " little to the world , taking in aid and only exporting rockets and terrorism.
It might sound callous but I find myself having little empathy with the Palestinians . Hamas seems to be the problem and I can't see how stopping now will allow anything other than for them to survive and rebuild. We didn't rid the world of nazism by having a ceasefire in 1944 but by continuing. I do wonder why we have calls for a ceasefire but no calls for Hamas to surrender. Wouldn't that save lives just as equally?

[clv101]

How do people come to those conclusions and not alternatively see how the Palestinian people have, for decades been persecuted by western backed Israel? Their land has been occupied - legally folk are allowed to fight against occupation. Israel hasn't complied with UN resolutions. Who gets to decide if the Palestinians are terrorists or freedom fighters?

[Lurkalot]

How does anyone come to any conclusion ? How does one person decide socialism is a good form of government while another rejects that idea ? Some I have spoken to have seen opposition to Israel since day one and the intransigence ever since. The Arab league started an openly genocidial war against Israel in 1948 and got their arses kicked in the process and some have said that continually being agressive towards Israel hasn't done them any favours although to be fair Yasser Arafat did make strides towards a negotiated settlement but that all seems to have been thrown away by the likes of Hamas.
To be honest while I have said I have little empathy with the Palestinians I don't have much with the right wing government of Israel. It's rather like watching the two bullies in the playground punch it out . While they're doing that they're not picking on others. And to be pragmatic about it the one bully isn't likely to pick on me and would be better as an ally and therein lies the choice.

[northernmonkey]

How does anyone come to any conclusion ? How does one person decide socialism is a good form of government while another rejects that idea ? Some I have spoken to have seen opposition to Israel since day one and the intransigence ever since. The Arab league started an openly genocidial war against Israel in 1948 and got their arses kicked in the process and some have said that continually being agressive towards Israel hasn't done them any favours although to be fair Yasser Arafat did make strides towards a negotiated settlement but that all seems to have been thrown away by the likes of Hamas.
To be honest while I have said I have little empathy with the Palestinians I don't have much with the right wing government of Israel. It's rather like watching the two bullies in the playground punch it out . While they're doing that they're not picking on others. And to be pragmatic about it the one bully isn't likely to pick on me and would be better as an ally and therein lies the choice.

What on earth has the merits of socialism got to do with any of this? The conflation you have made there makes no sense whatsoever.

Do you believe it is at the very least understandable, even if you may consider it pointless, for a people to resist the occupation and theft of the land they hitherto owned? Yes or no?

If the answer is no, then fine, that is a position. But, be sure not to complain if it happens to you. Otherwise, you know, that would make you a teensy weensy bit of a rank hypocrite wouldn't it

If the answer is yes, then please explain the exception you appear to be making with regards to the Palestinians.

If, on the other hand, you simply don't give a damn then, again, fine, that is also a position. In which case, please, spare us all the cod moralizing about both sides being equally in the wrong. Oh, and it goes without saying, don't complain if no one gives a damn if it happens to you.

[Lurkalot]

Meaning that one person will view "facts" as different to another person. History is open to interpretation and people often come to different conclusions.
Of course anyone can understand resistance to occupation and theft. The issue of who has stolen what is another question. When did the Palestinian state exist as a separate entity and who stole it ,the UN, the Isrealis , the British , the Ottomans ? Position of some is that it's never actually been owned by the Palestinians then it can't have been stolen.
If as you say I should have a position and not moan if anything adverse happens to me then I thought I was clear. If two lots of foreigners want to knock the shit out of each other I don't give much of a damn but I'd rather see Isreal come out on top. When was the last time Isreali terrorists attacked the UK and when is it next likely to happen ?

[Default0ptions]

Lurkalot:

“The issue of who has stolen what is another question. When did the Palestinian state exist as a separate entity and who stole it ,the UN, the Isrealis , the British , the Ottomans ? Position of some is that it's never actually been owned by the Palestinians then it can't have been stolen.”

Are you serious?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba

“The Nakba (Arabic: النكبة an-Nakbah, lit. 'The Catastrophe') was the ethnic cleansing[1] of Palestinians in Mandatory Palestine during the 1948 Palestine war through their violent displacement and dispossession of land, property and belongings, along with the destruction of their society, culture, identity, political rights, and national aspirations.[2] The term is also used to described the ongoing persecution and displacement of Palestinians by Israel.[3] As a whole, it covers the shattering of Palestinian society and the long-running rejection of the right of return for Palestinian refugees and their descendants.[4][5][6][7]”

[adam2]

America have announced that they intend to build temporary military port on the coast of Gaza in order to deliver aid without being subject to delays at congested land borders.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-68506356
Not aware of anything like this being done since the British Mulberry harbours of the last war. One which was largely destroyed by a storm, but the other survived well and was of great assistance in the Liberation of Europe.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulberry_harbour

[clv101]

It's a weird one. Are US relations with Israel so bad they can't simply facilitate aid though Israeli infrastructure? Or is this the first step to a permanent US presence (peacekeeping?) in Gaza?

[Default0ptions]

It’s going to be a nightmare scenario - the very few aid deliveries are mobbed in desperation as it is.

Is America going to take and hold a beachhead by force of arms to unload and distribute aid?

I really can’t see this working out well