Tom seems to think that international affairs can be conducted as if we are all-seeing script writers with future plot-defining powers and complete information on all possible players and motivations. He also has one colonialism viewpoint that filters all information he does have, and he has a lot. But it's all hindsight information.
Knowledge of history IS important, but much of it only becomes widely known much later in time. Instead, leaders are put in difficult situations making decisions with incomplete information and little to no control over how other people respond. Eventually it all gets distilled into a cohesive narrative for our pattern-seeking brains. But until then, it's chaotic, imperfect , and highly emotionally charged.
People mostly make emotion-based decisions, not rational logic based ones. Emotions prod us into action. Reason moderates that action. That is why we must elect leaders who are able to moderate their feelings when making these decisions. Biden is doing that. Trump, and Netanyahu, are not.
Biden is making decisions based on American hegemony. Period.
Your first paragraph above is total crap, nothing but word salad; yet another ‘you don’t live in the real world’ centrist deflection from asking not whether policy is right or wrong, or moral, but rather, does it conform to the DC beltway consensus on foreign policy.
Much of American history becomes known later because it is covered up due to the understanding by operatives and elected officials in the loop that it is mendacious in intent. American ‘leaders’, whether you’re talking about Biden or Trump, do what the ‘intelligence’ agencies and the MIC want.
There is nothing, nothing, nothing, rational or logical about making the decision to be complicit in a genocide by using some absurd rules-based order or geopolitical reasoning.
You ‘seem’ to think it’s regrettable, but OK, and it’s a reprehensible rationalization to make.
You dismissed the book out of hand based on nothing but the author’s name
It’s actually an in depth history of the use of diplomacy through the centuries as it’s adversary, the military, fought for control of nation’s futures
The Irony here is that you have no use for Diplomacy, nor do you have any sense of exploring it as a critical cog in preventing wars initiated by territorial disputes
Your comments appear driven by Greek Mythology that places decisions in the hands of all powerful Gods that can choose to be benevolent or cruel based on whim or some internal dispute where Hera gets back at Zeus by sending an arrow into a human’s heal
Pick any other author on the history of diplomacy. Its gonna read like history
Its easy to see that your checkerboard is one dimensional
The irony here is that you can’t discern the difference between faux diplomacy (Biden/Blinken-Gaza) and the real kind (Mitchell-Ireland). You obviously have no interest in diplomatically preventing war, just like your hegemonic heroes (Biden/Blinken-Ukraine).
My comments are driven by the awareness of three things, empire, narrative, and propaganda, and how all three relate to the twin pillars of truth and justice.
Your checkerboard is without any dimension, as it is illusory in nature.
Don’t care about mythology, I’ll let Omar take care of that for me.
James, anytime I run into an “either/or” or “black/white” pontificator, I think of my days as a negotiator and remember that for a successful result, both sides walk away with something that they want, something they had to give away; pissed off because they had to give something away, but satisfied that they got some of what they wanted
Tom, in previous columns you list all the evils you say were done to the Palestinians. You take every opportunity to do that even if that's not the issue under discussion. Are you saying that Israel should stop existing? Where should all those Israeli citizens go?
I want the Gaza war to end now, too. I also want Hamas to never launch rockets into Israel like it has been doing almost weekly since the took over the Gaza strip after Israeli unilaterally left that area in 2005. I want a 2 state solution.
I want peace, and for the Palestinians not to be oppressed by Israel.
The more I study this issue, the more I come to the conclusion that peace and Zionism are incompatible. Israel has two choices here: Either allow the Palestinians their own autonomous state, by giving up land and territory seized post-‘67 war, or reject the Zionist requirement that Israel be a Jewish state, and have a one-state democracy with the possibility the Palestinians might one day have a political majority.
Should Israel reject both options, yes, I believe it has no right to exist, and continue to oppress the Palestinians via second-class citizenship, apartheid, herding people into an open-air prison/concentration camp, and currently, ethic cleansing and genocide.
And should that happen, the Israeli citizens can go wherever they want, unlike the confined people of Gaza.
What you're really saying is either create a Palestinian state or dissolve Israel. In the first case, there will be no peace because nothing will change. In the second case, Israel will disappear and the territory will be fought over by the surrounding hostile theocratic countries, the worst solution of all, solving nothing. Israel's substantial contribution to modern civilization will be wiped out. The first case might work if Palestinians and their allies embrace democracy, denounce theocracy, and categorically declare Israel's right to exist; I put the odds of that at about zero. The second case must not be allowed to happen. Your understanding of history is wanting, Tom. How old are you?
So Israel isn’t a theocratic country? Israel doesn’t embrace democracy, either. Your understanding of history is worse than wanting, it is flawed.
Your statement that the creation of a Palestinian state will result in no peace because nothing will change is one of the stupidest statements I’ve heard on this issue.
Israel is a secular democracy. The creation of the Palestinian state will probably happen. It will take many many years for things to improve, if things go well. Of course, it's a much greater problem than just these two peoples. If Israel becomes a theocracy, then I would agree that it should not exist as such. But that is not likely. I guess I could have assumed you weren't some college kid; after all, Chomsky has a lot of years on him, too.
Chomsky is brilliant. He’s also capable of being wrong, as he was on Covid, and in regarding Trump as an existential threat.
Israel is not a secular democracy; it is ruled by Zionists, as it has been for most of its existence. That makes it a theocracy in effect, just like Iran. Elections don’t make democracies.
We don’t have a democracy. We have a corporate state. Democracy literally means the people rule. When was the last time legislation that the people overwhelmingly support became law? If the American people ruled, we would have Medicare For All, lower drug costs, higher taxes on the wealthy and corporations, cutting edge transportation and energy efficiency….
We can’t get any legislation passed to benefit working people or the poor without also including tax breaks or subsidies to monied interests, in equal or greater amounts, which results in increasing income/wealth inequality and frustration from the citizenry. The ACA was a classic example, as is the link below.
Well there you have the roadmap of your errors. Chomsky is a linguist by profession and a master of deception in political discourse, evading answers by shifting blame or assigning blame to both sides to focus attention on state actors as the oppressors. And his anarcho-syndicalism is the dead giveaway of his stateless, communistic idealism. Similarly, your political views are so idealistic that you don't operate in the real world. Democracy is damn hard and always imperfect. There are always at least two opposing sides to every issue. Democracies constantly have to deal with conflicting economic and political philosophies -- and unfortunately religious questions that by all rights shoudn't even exist in government. Progress is slow and often painful. But there is no alternative to democracy if the goal is to deny fascism and theocracy. I can't help it if somany voters are so stupid as to follow the insane ravings and policies of the GOP and their wealthy handlers. But elections are the only way to deal with our problems. Otherwise, Trump wins by default, which means that Putin wins, and so do all the other pathetic liars and grifters who follow them. All of the things you listed can be improved only through democratic processes. The struggle is hard and dangerous. It will never be perfect. But allowing full power to the proletariat is a disaster -- for Chomsky as it was for Marx.
It's too bad that you can't see reason. I never said that any state was innocent of oppression; of course states are guilty of oppresssion. That's why I stand in oppostion to fascism and theocracy. I simply said that anarchy and statelessness is not the solution. Only democracy can improve the world. It's hard work. To call me a troll is laughable. I owe allegiance to no one. I am a member of nothing. It's as if you cannot read and cannot think, much less contemplate your own errors. The only purpose in life is to improve things, to correct errors. History is full of such efforts.
I see reason well. There is little to none in your commentary, though it is humorous with the many fallacies and deflections you use in making your argument. Your ‘only purpose’ definition of life is laughable in its cluelessness.
Sure there was another choice. Stop giving Israel bombs to slaughter civilians in Gaza with.
Tom H, “if only the world would abandon Israel, peace will occur.”
“If only the world embraced Hamas, peace will occur”
“If only Iran would stop funding terrorists, peace will occur”
“If only Democracies would stop reacting to International aggression, peace will occur”
“If only the Religious Authorities in “The West”, the Middle East, and the Far East would all agree to be Christian, peace will occur”
“If only Anarchy was embraced as the one true way, peace will occur”
Pick all that apply to your approach
Tom seems to think that international affairs can be conducted as if we are all-seeing script writers with future plot-defining powers and complete information on all possible players and motivations. He also has one colonialism viewpoint that filters all information he does have, and he has a lot. But it's all hindsight information.
Knowledge of history IS important, but much of it only becomes widely known much later in time. Instead, leaders are put in difficult situations making decisions with incomplete information and little to no control over how other people respond. Eventually it all gets distilled into a cohesive narrative for our pattern-seeking brains. But until then, it's chaotic, imperfect , and highly emotionally charged.
People mostly make emotion-based decisions, not rational logic based ones. Emotions prod us into action. Reason moderates that action. That is why we must elect leaders who are able to moderate their feelings when making these decisions. Biden is doing that. Trump, and Netanyahu, are not.
Biden is making decisions based on American hegemony. Period.
Your first paragraph above is total crap, nothing but word salad; yet another ‘you don’t live in the real world’ centrist deflection from asking not whether policy is right or wrong, or moral, but rather, does it conform to the DC beltway consensus on foreign policy.
Much of American history becomes known later because it is covered up due to the understanding by operatives and elected officials in the loop that it is mendacious in intent. American ‘leaders’, whether you’re talking about Biden or Trump, do what the ‘intelligence’ agencies and the MIC want.
There is nothing, nothing, nothing, rational or logical about making the decision to be complicit in a genocide by using some absurd rules-based order or geopolitical reasoning.
You ‘seem’ to think it’s regrettable, but OK, and it’s a reprehensible rationalization to make.
I suggest you read Kissinger’s book “Diplomacy”
Now that made me laugh out loud! Thanks!
What’s next, a book on how I learned to be a diplomatic asshole, by Hillary Clinton?
I charge for laughs. Laughs out loud are double
You dismissed the book out of hand based on nothing but the author’s name
It’s actually an in depth history of the use of diplomacy through the centuries as it’s adversary, the military, fought for control of nation’s futures
How you learn to be an asshole is up to you
You’re damn right I dismissed it out of hand, both because of the author’s name and the sick irony of the title.
Everybody with a pulse, and a smidgeon of good sense knows ol’ Hank spelled diplomacy C… I…. A.
What will you ‘suggest’ next, something like ‘The Art of the Deal’, so I can get an ‘in depth’ look at Trump’s thoughts on leadership?
Stick to your Fake News. You’re out of your element here, Donnie.
The Irony here is that you have no use for Diplomacy, nor do you have any sense of exploring it as a critical cog in preventing wars initiated by territorial disputes
Your comments appear driven by Greek Mythology that places decisions in the hands of all powerful Gods that can choose to be benevolent or cruel based on whim or some internal dispute where Hera gets back at Zeus by sending an arrow into a human’s heal
Pick any other author on the history of diplomacy. Its gonna read like history
Its easy to see that your checkerboard is one dimensional
The irony here is that you can’t discern the difference between faux diplomacy (Biden/Blinken-Gaza) and the real kind (Mitchell-Ireland). You obviously have no interest in diplomatically preventing war, just like your hegemonic heroes (Biden/Blinken-Ukraine).
My comments are driven by the awareness of three things, empire, narrative, and propaganda, and how all three relate to the twin pillars of truth and justice.
Your checkerboard is without any dimension, as it is illusory in nature.
Don’t care about mythology, I’ll let Omar take care of that for me.
Dave, you got him with Anarchy. Tom is all-in Chomsky.
James, anytime I run into an “either/or” or “black/white” pontificator, I think of my days as a negotiator and remember that for a successful result, both sides walk away with something that they want, something they had to give away; pissed off because they had to give something away, but satisfied that they got some of what they wanted
Idealism has no place in real world diplomacy
Tom, in previous columns you list all the evils you say were done to the Palestinians. You take every opportunity to do that even if that's not the issue under discussion. Are you saying that Israel should stop existing? Where should all those Israeli citizens go?
I want the Gaza war to end now, too. I also want Hamas to never launch rockets into Israel like it has been doing almost weekly since the took over the Gaza strip after Israeli unilaterally left that area in 2005. I want a 2 state solution.
What do you want?
I want peace, and for the Palestinians not to be oppressed by Israel.
The more I study this issue, the more I come to the conclusion that peace and Zionism are incompatible. Israel has two choices here: Either allow the Palestinians their own autonomous state, by giving up land and territory seized post-‘67 war, or reject the Zionist requirement that Israel be a Jewish state, and have a one-state democracy with the possibility the Palestinians might one day have a political majority.
Should Israel reject both options, yes, I believe it has no right to exist, and continue to oppress the Palestinians via second-class citizenship, apartheid, herding people into an open-air prison/concentration camp, and currently, ethic cleansing and genocide.
And should that happen, the Israeli citizens can go wherever they want, unlike the confined people of Gaza.
What you're really saying is either create a Palestinian state or dissolve Israel. In the first case, there will be no peace because nothing will change. In the second case, Israel will disappear and the territory will be fought over by the surrounding hostile theocratic countries, the worst solution of all, solving nothing. Israel's substantial contribution to modern civilization will be wiped out. The first case might work if Palestinians and their allies embrace democracy, denounce theocracy, and categorically declare Israel's right to exist; I put the odds of that at about zero. The second case must not be allowed to happen. Your understanding of history is wanting, Tom. How old are you?
So Israel isn’t a theocratic country? Israel doesn’t embrace democracy, either. Your understanding of history is worse than wanting, it is flawed.
Your statement that the creation of a Palestinian state will result in no peace because nothing will change is one of the stupidest statements I’ve heard on this issue.
I’m 71.
Israel is a secular democracy. The creation of the Palestinian state will probably happen. It will take many many years for things to improve, if things go well. Of course, it's a much greater problem than just these two peoples. If Israel becomes a theocracy, then I would agree that it should not exist as such. But that is not likely. I guess I could have assumed you weren't some college kid; after all, Chomsky has a lot of years on him, too.
Chomsky is brilliant. He’s also capable of being wrong, as he was on Covid, and in regarding Trump as an existential threat.
Israel is not a secular democracy; it is ruled by Zionists, as it has been for most of its existence. That makes it a theocracy in effect, just like Iran. Elections don’t make democracies.
We don’t have a democracy. We have a corporate state. Democracy literally means the people rule. When was the last time legislation that the people overwhelmingly support became law? If the American people ruled, we would have Medicare For All, lower drug costs, higher taxes on the wealthy and corporations, cutting edge transportation and energy efficiency….
We can’t get any legislation passed to benefit working people or the poor without also including tax breaks or subsidies to monied interests, in equal or greater amounts, which results in increasing income/wealth inequality and frustration from the citizenry. The ACA was a classic example, as is the link below.
https://www.commondreams.org/news/lawmakers-reach-deal-to-expand-child-tax-credit-in-exchange-for-corporate-tax-cuts
Well there you have the roadmap of your errors. Chomsky is a linguist by profession and a master of deception in political discourse, evading answers by shifting blame or assigning blame to both sides to focus attention on state actors as the oppressors. And his anarcho-syndicalism is the dead giveaway of his stateless, communistic idealism. Similarly, your political views are so idealistic that you don't operate in the real world. Democracy is damn hard and always imperfect. There are always at least two opposing sides to every issue. Democracies constantly have to deal with conflicting economic and political philosophies -- and unfortunately religious questions that by all rights shoudn't even exist in government. Progress is slow and often painful. But there is no alternative to democracy if the goal is to deny fascism and theocracy. I can't help it if somany voters are so stupid as to follow the insane ravings and policies of the GOP and their wealthy handlers. But elections are the only way to deal with our problems. Otherwise, Trump wins by default, which means that Putin wins, and so do all the other pathetic liars and grifters who follow them. All of the things you listed can be improved only through democratic processes. The struggle is hard and dangerous. It will never be perfect. But allowing full power to the proletariat is a disaster -- for Chomsky as it was for Marx.
If you don’t think Israel is a state actor of oppression, we have no need for further discussion. But nice trolling.
It's too bad that you can't see reason. I never said that any state was innocent of oppression; of course states are guilty of oppresssion. That's why I stand in oppostion to fascism and theocracy. I simply said that anarchy and statelessness is not the solution. Only democracy can improve the world. It's hard work. To call me a troll is laughable. I owe allegiance to no one. I am a member of nothing. It's as if you cannot read and cannot think, much less contemplate your own errors. The only purpose in life is to improve things, to correct errors. History is full of such efforts.
I see reason well. There is little to none in your commentary, though it is humorous with the many fallacies and deflections you use in making your argument. Your ‘only purpose’ definition of life is laughable in its cluelessness.