Not The News

[Starker]

You guys clearly haven't seen the reenactment of the conflict by Monty Python where King Arthur is in the role of Hindu nationalists and the peasant represents minority groups in India.

[Nicker]

But why ignore everything else that's happening, and paint a narrative of Hindu oppressors versus defenceless minorities?

Because it is usually within the power of the majority to bring a meaningful and humane end to the conflict, by recognizing the humanity of the other side, stopping systemic abuse and addressing inequities. The minority only have hitting back as an option (or giving up and being subsumed). The choice to continue these conflicts falls almost entirely on the majority.

Totally exterminating minorities is no longer accepted practice (despite recent attempts). It might have worked for the Greeks and Romans, when ethnic rivals were confined to limited geologies, but today most local minorities exist as isolated populations of a much larger, external population. This is why the sort of violence used by the likes of Netanyahu and Modi is doomed to fail, even if it achieves its local goals.

It demonstrates historical ignorance, moral disease, a lack of humanity and the absence of political imagination. Their strategy is doomed to failure and will inevitably escalate. Yet they stupidly persist in their murderous campaigns.

[Azaran]

Comparing India with Israel is disingenuous.

The choice to continue these conflicts falls almost entirely on the majority.

So all those attacks on Hindus I posted, let's just ignore that, gotcha.

A few years ago I saw a page that tallied religious violence in India over a month, I wish I could find it. There were 20 incidents of attacks on Hindus, and 3 or 4 on minorities; one of them was an evangelical pastor who got attacked by Hindus after going to a temple to disrespect it and insult the Hindus, who then got angry and roughed him up. He then went crying persecution, and of course the big bad Hindus were at fault.

It demonstrates historical ignorance

You mean how Mughals conquered India, forcibly converted Hindus and other religions, destroyed temples, etc?

I love how in the west "colonialism is bad", except when certain groups in some parts of the world do it. Then we look the other way.

The point is, Hindus are judged by a different yardstick than other groups.
Hindus have been nearly wiped out from Bangladesh and Pakistan, hundreds of temples destroyed by people who, but the world only cares about that one mosque that got demolished in India.

And noteworthy while there's anti-Hindu violence in India, there's no instances I know of of the Hindu minority in Pakistan/Bangladesh attacking the Muslim majority.

Islamic nationalism is ok, but Hindu nationalism that's the one you gotta watch out for

If Hindus defend their religion and complain, they're 'fascists' and 'hate mongers'

If Islamists riot after their religion is insulted, they're in their right.

[Nicker]

So all those attacks on Hindus I posted, let's just ignore that, gotcha.

You mean how Mughals conquered India, forcibly converted Hindus and other religions, destroyed temples, etc?

Islamic nationalism is ok, but Hindu nationalism that's the one you gotta watch out for

I never said any of that. You are straw-manning me. I can't defend arguments I never made. Please stop. It doesn't help.

Thanks.

[SD]

It ought to be mentioned that the Babri Masjid was almost certainly built upon the ruins of an earlier, Hindu temple, not dissimilar to how the Al Aqsa Mosque was constructed on top of the Second Temple. One religion supplanting another is nothing new, and Muslims are typically as guilty of it as anyone else, if not more so.

[Starker]

For context, the building of the Babri Masjid happened quite a few centuries ago. The destruction of it, however, happened relatively recently. In the modern world, in most civilized countries, we don't generally tear down religious buildings to replace them with state-approved ones. That's the kind of stuff that happens in China and other totalitarian regimes.

[Sulphur]

That's why I mentioned it was built in the 16th century. But as usual, context is lost when a discussion gets mired in various versions of gotcha. I'd go over Azaran's post line by line, but it's so full of weirdly constructed points, that'd take half a day and I like my weekends a bit freer of rubbish. But I can cover most of the salient issues by saying this: no right-minded person wants extreme nationalism or fascism to take hold in their country regardless of what their religious ideology is. Arguing that nationalism is baseless fearmongering because the majority is being cowed by violence from the minorities is pretzel-shaped logic that eats itself. And attempting to minimise the perception of extremism from any party leads to the direct implication that you're approving of the abuse of power and all the fun stuff that comes with in the long term, simply because it aligns with your ideology.

I'm not okay with zero-sum games, and the way politics and power shape people's lives shouldn't be one.

[Subjective Effect]

Because it is usually within the power of the majority to bring a meaningful and humane end to the conflict, by recognizing the humanity of the other side, stopping systemic abuse and addressing inequities.

I'm not sure this is correct.

Do you really expect Israel to do this with Hamas? I think it's upon Hamas to moderate their position first.

[SD]

I wouldn't profess to be in any position to tell anyone, least of all the Indian people, how they should or should not decolonise their country. I certainly don't buy the idea that there is some game of geopolitical musical chairs, and that the music has stopped because we're in the 21st century and we're all so advanced now.

[Nicker]

I'm not sure this is correct.

Do you really expect Israel to do this with Hamas? I think it's upon Hamas to moderate their position first.

Firstly, despite the vile accusations made by other members in other threads, I do not and never have condoned the attack by Hamas or any acts by either side, targeting civilians in pursuit of their goals of theistic autocracy.

Secondly, it's Likud vs Hamas, not Israel vs Palestinians. The citizens on both sides are victims of their own governments, not of each other.

That said, Yes, has the power to make meaningful change but refuses to do so. I think that Likud's strategy has been to slowly pick at Hamas and drive it to do something stupid and violent, in order to justify massive and hugely disproportionate response.

The more power one side has the more it is responsible for the solution. And since neither side will ever get a One State Solution, the side with the most power should stop trying to exterminate civilian populations, as a first step to a Two State Solution, which, as distant as that hope seems, is the only way there will ever be a lasting peace.

[Subjective Effect]

Yes, has the power to make meaningful change

Sorry, who? Hamas? I would agree with that. They just need to renounce violence and focus on peace and developing their nation and eventually things would calm down for them.

The Israelis are doing all kinds of bs in the West Bank which should stop. The situation in the Gaza Strip is very very different, imho.

[Nicker]

The Israelis are doing all kinds of bs in the West Bank which should stop. The situation in the Gaza Strip is very very different, imho.

The conflict is not restricted to a small geological location or one particular moment in time. It is part of a much larger conflict. If you cannot see the big picture you are missing the point.

Sorry, who? Hamas? I would agree with that.

I said, the side with the most power has the most options to forge a meaningful solution. That's clearly not Hamas.

[Starker]

Hamas is in no position to bring any solutions, because it doesn't have the support of the people. It seized power by force and by killing their opposition, it wasn't able to get recognition by any of the political forces in Palestine, let alone internationally, and has been until the terror attacks quite unpopular with the Palestinian people themselves, even Gazans. There is a reason Israel preferred Hamas to Fatah and other alternatives, because it served to delegitimise Palestinian statehood aspirations (and of course there was this fantasy where Israel would always be able to control them by stick and carrot).

[Subjective Effect]

Hamas won the elections about 20 years ago didn't it?

They do have power - the power to not attack Israel repeatedly, and that's not something to be sniffed at. They've spent millions on war/terror infrastructure instead of on the nation. The Strip would be a VERY different place if they had different ideas.

And polls in the strip always show significant support for them, don't they? Bit difficult to vote openly without risk in such a place though, I imagine.

[Starker]

They tried to form a legitimate government, but everyone basically refused to work with them, so they staged a military coup. As far as the international community or anyone that really matters is concerned, Hamas is not the legitimate government in Gaza. Also, Hamas is a terrorist organisation -- their whole goal, their raison d'etre, is the continuation and, if at all possible, expansion of the conflict. What Israel is doing now in Gaza and West Bank is all they were hoping would happen and more.

Hamas had around 20% popularity after they took power, nearly twice less than Fatah. It was only after Israel invaded Gaza a couple years later that their popularity started to rise and during the next decades this pattern would repeat themselves -- they'd start to lose popularity and then there would be some conflict with Israel which gave them the boost again up to 40% and more. Before the recent terror attacks, Gazans were also deeply unsatisfied with Hamas and their management of Gaza and a significant portion even wanted Hamas to disband their armed units and replace them with those from the Palestinian Authority (who is the one who should govern Gaza on paper). Well, obviously this heavily depends on who is polling and when and how, so a mountain of salt comes even with the most well-meaning polls.

[Subjective Effect]

Odd, then, that protesters never rail against Hamas, isn't it?

[Starker]

I don't really know how to explain that Hamas isn't a "government" that you can "protest".

[SD]

Hamas are the governing party of Gaza in every meaningful way, in that they operate all the functions of government.

To get back to relevant stuff, Columbia University's Taskforce on Antisemitism should be a real eye-opener for people who think these are nothing more than protests. They're pogroms on American soil. The so-called protestors deserve no less scorn than the insurrectionists of January 6th.

https://www.columbiaspectator.com/op...6/we-hear-you/

[Subjective Effect]

I don't really know how to explain that Hamas isn't a "government" that you can "protest".

Hamas are the governing party of Gaza in every meaningful way, in that they operate all the functions of government.

SD just answered you for me. But beyond that, you can protest anything. You make a sign e.g. "Hamas Out, Peace In, Free Palestine" and march. You can even make a new chant requesting they stop being violent. You could do this even if they weren't in charge, couldn't you?

Why did SubjEff come back just to rile up shit?

your arguments are old and lacking substance.

Why not just contribute ideas

Seems like a civil discussion to me. Maybe drink less?

[Starker]

There are no protests, because Hamas is not a real government. Any attempt at protesting in the past has been put down with violence:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_G...nomic_protests
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_G...nomic_protests

I think you guys are confusing "government" with "de-facto rulers".

[Subjective Effect]

Oh, I see what you mean.

My mistake, I wasn't clear. I don't mean protests IN the Gaza Strip! That's suicide, obviously. I mean the protests in the West on the streets of large cities and on university campuses. Hamas thinks it has the support of the woke West because no one says a damn thing about them and just protests Israel. That's what I mean.

[Starker]

From what I can tell, no western government is currently supporting Hamas. But Israel is being supported in its actions.

I mean, certainly Hamas leaders and operators should be brought to justice for their war crimes. I don't think any decent person would have any objections to that. But it's not like a protest would even register on Hamas's radar.

[SD]

The discussion about whether Hamas is a real government or not seems moot anyway, because they're a proxy for Iran, who most definitely are. As distasteful as some may find Israel, I believe they are considerably less of a threat to us and our way of life than the Ayatollahs.

[Subjective Effect]

But it's not like a protest would even register on Hamas's radar.

I think it would if they were as widespread as those against Israel. I get why people are protesting against Israeli actions since I'm in disagreement with them too, just for different reasons I think. I don't get why the same people who protest against Israel don't say anything about Hamas. It doesn't matter if your government is supporting someone - you can still display your disagreement with them. Protesting against Israel is just a gesture - is it actually going to change any government policy? I doubt it.

SD - the weird thing to me about Iran is I have never encountered such a government/people split. I've met a lot of Iranians and they are almost always super chilled and never in support of the Iranian regime nor especially sympathetic to Palestinian "resistance". It's a real contrast to people from a lot of other ME countries or even Pakistan, Indonesia or Malaysia, who (in my experience). I guess they know what it's like to live under nutjobs.

[Starker]

Just as Hamas doesn't care about popularity inside Gaza, as they can enforce their rule at the point of a gun, they sure as hell don't care about appeasing Western populaces either. If there were protests against Hamas, it would only send a signal that their tactics are working and that they are able to make people upset in the West. And conflict is something that they want.

Also, Hamas committed an atrocity, but Israel is committing one right now and has for months. People are protesting Israel, because it's bombing civilians, destroying infrastructure in Gaza and blocking aid, worsening the human catastrophe every day. It's one of the things that is current and pressing because the dead and wounded keep piling up and there is lack of every imaginable necessity, leading to disease and starvation.

Also, I think that the protests and political activism may well have had an effect on US policy. Construction of the pier being high priority, US dropping food via air, pressure on Israel to moderate their response -- this all may have well happened on a smaller scale or not at all if people weren't making noise about it, for example in the Democratic primaries.