> MAGA
What's even in it for America? This is "Make Israel Great Again" politics.
replies(1):
What's even in it for America? This is "Make Israel Great Again" politics.
Washington has brokered a peace deal that it’s very proud of and expects a Nobel Peace prize for if it holds. At this point, we’re dealing with one man’s ego more than any policy position of the United States.
That's true for any negotiated, i.e. conditional, armistice. If you want one side to be happy, you have to press for unconditional surrender. Palestine doesn't have the capability to force Israel to unconditionally surrender.
In any case, what we call it is irrelevant. (What the Norwegian Noble Committee calls it is irrelevant.) What matters is what the President thinks. And he thinks it's a peace deal that could make him a Nobel laureate. Which gives him an interest in not letting, as he sees it, an ICC judge mess with his deal.
> Palestinian resistance got nothing out of it
No shit. The October 7 attacks were terrorist attacks. The literature on terrorism is they extremely rarely achieve their political goals.
Is every act of violent resistance against one's oppressor a "terrorist attack", what does the literature say? What distinguishes a terrorist attack from a counter-offensive?
Is it the targeting of civilians? But that didn't start on October 7th, so if that's the case, why isn't Palestine getting everything they want, and why aren't you arguing that Israel shouldn't expect to get anything out of their terrorist attacks against Palestine?
Last one is a rhetorical question, we know the answer by now. Israel and the US have all the power therefore their actions are righteous and any sort of retribution is terrorism, propped up by a million different ways to try to erase and rewrite history.
Objectives. Targeting military infrastructure and symbols of a regime can deplete martial capacity and domestic support. Targeting civilians pretty much always results in unifying the enemy—this goes back to Hitler trying to bomb Britain into submission from afar.
> that didn't start on October 7th, so if that's the case, why isn't Palestine getting everything they want
Huh? Nobody argued that everything except terrorism is a winning strategy.
> why aren't you arguing that Israel shouldn't expect to get anything out of their terrorist attacks against Palestine?
They’re the stronger military. Absent international law or pressure, might makes right.
> Last one is a rhetorical question
Literally answered it. If you’re saying you’ve presumed an answer and don’t wish to hear others, sure.
> Israel and the US have all the power therefore their actions are righteous and any sort of retribution is terrorism
You’re getting lost in your own analogies.
We can construct convincing moral models that indict both sides of this conflict because multiple actors have behaved abhorrently. (One or two have more capability and thus can act on their impulses more fully.) If you’re writing as a historian, sure, apportion blame.
If you’re thinking as a strategist, however, outcomes are what matter. And on an outcome basis, October 7 was strategically stupid (it could has been genius, but Hamas and PJ have no discipline), while the current ceasefire saves lives.
"It didn't work therefore it was stupid to even try" is one hell of a way to judge strategic decisions. When all your options have a near-0% chance of success, everything is going to look "stupid" in retrospect, by that logic.