One side thinks that killing people despite their crimes should never be a solution. These are the people who don’t believe in the death penalty or that we should not have dropped the atomic bomb during WW2. These are people who believe defense budgets are unnecessary and don’t have any understanding of collateral damage or the implications of urban combat. These are the people who believe Israel are the aggressors. These people don’t understand what a proxy war is or that Hezzbollah and Hamas are arms and legs for Iran. These people also probably don’t understand what the Iranian government is and why they should be scared shitless of it, especially if they are liberal, a woman, gay, or poor.
The other party views things differently. In order to protect future lives, terrorist targets are the greatest threat to peace and need to be eliminated. Without being eliminated, terrorism will spread and spiral out of control.
We saw this LITERALLY play out during WW2 during the wests appeasement era with Hitler (1936-1939). The west engaged in the same song and dance it’s doing with the Middle East right now.
Logically, how diplomatic appeasement works is , if we give you what you want, you will stop being a belligerent government, we learned quickly this was not the case. As we appeased hitlers demands he invaded, Czech, Austria, Munich, and finally the redline being Poland. We see this appeasement with Israel and its neighbors over the last 69 years. Israel literally left Gaza in 06 and STILL its failure was blamed on Israel…
https://youtu.be/_uk_6vfqwTA?si=g8DA09thKJFj2je8
I like the way this video explains appeasement in simple terms a 10 year old could comprehend. They paint a clear picture of how the west had SOOOOOO MUCH TIME to stop the WW2 horrors but because of public outcry and a general aversion to war we just continued to let people suffer and die until redlines were crossed. Much like what is happening right now. 10/7 crossed Israel’s redline.
Some of the biggest atrocities in modern history come from natzi Germany and imperial japan. These armies committed unspeakable atrocities. The holocaust. 25 million people died in the pacific due to imperial Japan. The 🍇 of nanking by imperial Japan against China, resulting in upwards of 300k deaths, that’s more casualties than both the atomic bombs. Both imperial Japan and nazi Germany, were willing to sacrifice every citizen and solider to achieve their ideological goals. Nothing would make them stop but force.
The amount of lives that could have been saved in WW2 had we nipped Hitler in the butt before he spread his Nazisme and empowered the Japanese army is a “what if” we will always carry and consequences we can never erase, lives we can never get back.
Logically, had the west allowed Israel to quell this issue years ago the tens of thousands of dead people in Gaza would not be a thing. Much like quelling nazis in Germany post war, total demilitarization, re-education, and sanctions are needed not just on Hezzbollah and Hamas but on Iran. Until this happens this will continue to drag on and tens of thousands more people will unnecessarily suffer.
The “morally superior” thought process is inherently selfish and emotionally charged. You are logically saving more people by engaging targets sooner. You nip it in the butt. Allowing it to drag on is self righteous and will lead to more innocent lives lost. That’s just the reality.
I’m wondering what the Reddit opinion on this is. Do you all see this differently?
The core disconnect in western discourse, in regards to, the current middle eastern conflicts are rooted in 2 conflicting ideologies…
byu/Itsnotfine-555 ingeopolitics
Posted by Itsnotfine-555
5 comments
> Logically, had the west allowed Israel to quell this issue years ago the tens of thousands of dead people in Gaza would not be a thing. Much like quelling nazis in Germany post war, total demilitarization, re-education, and sanctions are needed not just on Hezzbollah and Hamas but on Iran. Until this happens this will continue to drag on and tens of thousands more people will unnecessarily suffer.
Maybe this whole thing wouldn’t have happened if Jews were re-settled and the Jewish state was created in Greenland or somewhere other people were not already living post World War II?
Thank you for this post! It’s always great to hear a position with a clear understanding of world affairs. It’s unbelievable how left leaning liberals sabatoge the ground on which they are standing and root for things that would lead to nothing but their own demise.
I think this is somewhat reductive. It’s true that war is sometimes necessary, but it’s also true that war is sometimes better avoided. Where diplomacy is possible all efforts should be made there. When it isn’t possible then force should be applied decisively and appropriately. And not every threat or misfortune merits a military response. It isn’t worth the US sending troops to Syria every time ISIS take aim at a barracks. But if there’s a pattern of escalation it’s better to act early than let it build to a greater threat. Every situation is individual.
If Western powers are really engaging in this kind of Realpolitik, where strategy and geopolitical posturing take a priority over ethics and morality, then why the need to disguise everything with a coat of moral talk? It’s sickening.
Why set up rules of engagement, ethical standards, international criminal courts, Geneva convention, tout them around the world and say how superior we supposedly are because we set up this whole system, but then disregard everything when it is to our advantage?
Why not just say that we accept civilian casualties, war crimes and indiscriminate attacks, as long as the final goal is noble enough for us? Maybe because that would make us look no different than anyone else? It’s the hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance that most people criticize.
I mostly agree with that, and I believe you summarized this quite well.
But, I guess I would be a little less judgmental on the “appeasement”-view. For example, Europe today is in a relatively good spot, despite all the previous atrocities, because people have decided to move on, rather than trying to punish Germany (and others) as much as possible. So, it’s important to clarify why, exactly, a similar post-war peace does not seem to work in the middle east?
I suppose one significant reason are the relatively large cultural differences between the relatively Western Israel, and the relatively religious-conservative Palestinians. Another issue is that there has never really been a policy for somehow integrating/reforming the Palestinian people with anything, so they have nothing to look forward to, unlike the people in Europe after WW2, and only look back at the land they lost to Israel many decades ago. Also, Israels cultural background itself is a bit… strange, for a better word, as its artificialness also forces them to make relatively strong distinctions between “Jews” and “non-Jews”.
Furthermore, I believe the Israel/Palestinians conflict only partially fits into this appeasement/opposition view anyway – many of the strongest Anti-Israel statements sound a lot more like opposition than appeasement towards Israel. So, I believe it’s more about an “oppressor”/”oppressed” narrative, and Israel is perceived as “strong”, and it is more acceptable to hate “the strong” than “the weak”.
But still, I believe your overall description works well – in particular, I would also similarly explain the relative indifference of the West towards the many Palestinians killed by Israel, because while it is “morally easy” to criticize Israel for that, there is a rather serious cognitive dissonance involved when asking “so what should the West actually do to stop Israel, assuming the West wants to?”, because appeasement basically means doing nothing, while opposition would also indirectly justify Israels own actions, leading to some significant ethical contradictions…