Since it's been a while since we had an Israel/Palestine thread...

[Clinamenic]

Is it a kind of post-ironic hip thing to like something as emblematically boomerish as Monty Python among your age group?

I don't think its seen any sort of resurgence in that sense, its more that I just like what Monty Python I've seen, and this is the one place where I can be sure people will get my references.

But recuperating boomer cultural artifacts is an interesting prospect.

 

[Clinamenic]

What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow? modeling numerical judgments of realistic stimuli - Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

Research on processes of multiple-cue judgments usually uses artificial stimuli with predefined cue structures, such as artificial bugs with four binary features like back color, belly color, gland size, and spot shape. One reason for using artifical stimuli is that the cognitive models used in...

link.springer.com

What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow? modeling numerical judgments of realistic stimuli​

Research on processes of multiple-cue judgments usually uses artificial stimuli with predefined cue structures, such as artificial bugs with four binary features like back color, belly color, gland size, and spot shape. One reason for using artifical stimuli is that the cognitive models used in this area need known cues and cue values. This limitation makes it difficult to apply the models to research questions with complex naturalistic stimuli with unknown cue structure. In two studies, building on early categorization research, we demonstrate how cues and cue values of complex naturalistic stimuli can be extracted from pairwise similarity ratings with a multidimensional scaling analysis. These extracted cues can then be used in a state-of-the-art hierarchical Bayesian model of numerical judgments. In the first study, we show that predefined cue structures of artificial stimuli are well recovered by an MDS analysis of similarity judgments and that using these MDS-based attributes as cues in a cognitive model of judgment data from an existing experiment leads to the same inferences as when the original cue values were used. In the second study, we use the same procedure to replicate previous findings from multiple-cue judgment literature using complex naturalistic stimuli.

 

[DannyL]

Even calling for a ceasefire is a sacking offence now:

Tory ministerial aide sacked over call for Gaza ceasefire

Paul Bristow is first frontbencher to lose job over calling for an end to hostilities in Israel-Hamas war

tinyurl.com

Oz Katerji was saying earlier how absolute the polarisation is.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Oz Katerji was saying earlier how absolute the polarisation is.

I get it that Starmer had to make being Mr Anti-Antisemitism a big part of his personal brand to make the party electable again after the Corbyn era, and it's clearly worked, but fucking hell, there's such a thing as knowing when to stop, isn't there?

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

IDF do a sweep of Gaza, find maybe 20 hostages, move out and leave it in an even deeper state of ruin and deprivation playing it as a generous return to ‘peace’ ie handing its civic administration to an alt-alliance group and the whole disgrace rumbles on long past our lifetimes

depressingly, I find something like this to be the most likely outcome

again, the response - both physical response and rhetorical - to previous attacks has left Israeli leadership with very few options, especially this group of far-right Israeli leadership which is largely beholden to religious settler extremism. in a larger sense, Israeli policy since 67 - some would say 48 but that's a matter of much historical debate, whereas post-67 it's undeniable - has left them with few options, amplified by not only the total unwillingness of Netanyahu to make any kind of good faith effort to negotiate, but his active efforts to undermine his potential partners in any negotiation. the only options they've left themselves are military, for a problem which ultimately cannot be solved militarily.

a true solution will require some kind of tidal shift in Israeli domestic politics which seems demographically unlikely. Israel's founders, whatever else can be said about them, were overwhelmingly secular and above all pragmatic. Current Israel has a large and vocal minority of religious Zionists, and going forward it's only to going to increase. They make up 1/6 of the Knesset. We're talking about stone crazy mfers like Ben-Givr, Smotrich, and Avi Maoz. they combine Avigdor Lieberman level racism (and Westboro Baptist Church level homophobia) with religious fanaticism. What deal can be made with such people?

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

this is certainly the worst it's ever been. apartheid has always accurately described the situation of Palestinians in the territories but I would've always, with the possible exception of Sabra and Shatila, strenuously disputed "genocide" before this terrible siege. idk what else to call potentially starving an entire population to death tho. I think I said yunno, Stalingrad with tens of thousands dead and that looks entirely possible. and while certainly image pales in comparison to the destruction and death, it also looks awful and Israel has done a terrible job of selling it as any kind of appropriate response. as the saying goes "worse than a crime, it is a mistake". they've squandered whatever goodwill Oct 7 generated. every major govt minister from Netanyahu down sounds like a lunatic, their official govt Twitter accts are out here beefing with random celebrities, it's absolutely surreal.

 

[version]

The Financial Times' editorial board have called for a ceasefire. Not that I think it'll do much, but seems notable in such a charged environment.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

I don't think anything will help tbh. I don't even know if the unthinkable, a public American govt disavowal, would stop it.

not that it's forthcoming, either way

strangely enough, U.S. military aid might get held up at least temporarily by House GOP infighting

 

[maxi]

I still think US withdrawal of military/political/financial support would put an immediate stop to it. Israel have never defied US orders in the past 50 years as far as I'm aware. Not since they've been dependent on US support. Previous Gaza assaults have been halted when the US pulled the plug. It's probably how this one will end too, though who knows how long it will take to get there.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

Even calling for a ceasefire is a sacking offence now:

Tory ministerial aide sacked over call for Gaza ceasefire

Paul Bristow is first frontbencher to lose job over calling for an end to hostilities in Israel-Hamas war

tinyurl.com

This is why free speech absolutism is important: if you generally proscribe people from expressing so-called extreme opinions, then they are forced to express themselves using less extreme opinions but in so doing making it more likely that those who genuinely hold the less extreme opinions are assumed to actually hold the extreme opinions i.e. the 'dog whistle' charge: those who call for ceasefire are actually censored and/or self-censored Hamas supporters. This is one of the drivers to polarisation.

 

[Mr. Tea]

I still think US withdrawal of military/political/financial support would put an immediate stop to it. Israel have never defied US orders in the past 50 years as far as I'm aware. Not since they've been dependent on US support. Previous Gaza assaults have been halted when the US pulled the plug. It's probably how this one will end too, though who knows how long it will take to get there.

This is the only thing that would make a real difference, I think. You can still make the case that even supposedly progressive bodies with exactly zero real sway on what Israel does - such as the UK Labour Party - ought nonetheless to be signalling that this is unacceptable to them, without the expectation of it making any concrete difference.

 

[maxi]

This is why free speech absolutism is important

There was a good discussion of the hypocrisy of so-called free speech advocates yesterday here. Their apparent principles have completely gone out the window when it comes to Israel.

I don't mean all of them - Glenn Greenwald himself opposes cancel culture and limits on free speech to a large extent (as would I). But some of the right-wing and liberal critics of cancel culture have exposed themselves as completely disingenuous if that wasn't clear already.

those who call for ceasefire are actually censored and/or self-censored Hamas supporters. This is one of the drivers to polarisation.

Those calling for a ceasefire are doing just that - calling for a ceasefire. Even if your top priority is Israeli security and defeating Hamas, a ceasefire is the only sane position. Every time Israel blows up another civilian building or kills another entire family, it creates more potential recruits for Hamas or whichever group might replace it. More desire for revenge. A totally human and understandable reaction.

There's also virtually no mention made in these public discussions of Israel's own role in creating and strengthening Hamas. Do they condemn Israel for its support of Hamas? https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news...ng-hamas/0000018b-1e9f-d47b-a7fb-bfdfd8f30000

Yet calling for a ceasefire is being cast as an extreme opinion - even when proclaimed alongside unambiguous condemnation of Hamas anyway. It's just a naked attempt to suppress public opposition to the massacres in Gaza.

 

[droid]

 

[mixed_biscuits]

There was a good discussion of the hypocrisy of so-called free speech advocates yesterday here. Their apparent principles have completely gone out the window when it comes to Israel.

I don't mean all of them - Glenn Greenwald himself opposes cancel culture and limits on free speech to a large extent (as would I). But some of the right-wing and liberal critics of cancel culture have exposed themselves as completely disingenuous if that wasn't clear already.



Those calling for a ceasefire are doing just that - calling for a ceasefire. Even if your top priority is Israeli security and defeating Hamas, a ceasefire is the only sane position. Every time Israel blows up another civilian building or kills another entire family, it creates more potential recruits for Hamas or whichever group might replace it. More desire for revenge. A totally human and understandable reaction.

There's also virtually no mention made in these public discussions of Israel's own role in creating and strengthening Hamas. Do they condemn Israel for its support of Hamas? https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news...ng-hamas/0000018b-1e9f-d47b-a7fb-bfdfd8f30000

Yet calling for a ceasefire is being cast as an extreme opinion - even when proclaimed alongside unambiguous condemnation of Hamas anyway. It's just a naked attempt to suppress public opposition to the massacres in Gaza.

Exactement! Free speech means free speech. Keine Ausnahmen.

 

[maxi]

This is the only thing that would make a real difference, I think. You can still make the case that even supposedly progressive bodies with exactly zero real sway on what Israel does - such as the UK Labour Party - ought nonetheless to be signalling that this is unacceptable to them, without the expectation of it making any concrete difference.

Yes it's important in principle alone, but I would argue it does make a concrete difference because everything has a knock-on effect. If the entire Labour party unambiguously opposed Israel it would put more pressure on our actual government which is one of the major suppliers of Israeli military support. If UK withdrew support, it puts more pressure on Europe generally, and more pressure on the US. Less apologetics from any prominent politicians also makes the public less confused about the whole issue.

 

[version]

Yes it's important in principle alone, but I would argue it does make a concrete difference because everything has a knock-on effect. If the entire Labour party unambiguously opposed Israel it would put more pressure on our actual government which is one of the major suppliers of Israeli military support. If UK withdrew support, it puts more pressure on Europe generally, and more pressure on the US. Less apologetics from any prominent politicians also makes the public less confused about the whole issue.

Starmer won't dare because of the issues with Corbyn. He's called for a humanitarian pause but says a permanent ceasefire would risk more violence.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

 

[Mr. Tea]

Yes it's important in principle alone, but I would argue it does make a concrete difference because everything has a knock-on effect. If the entire Labour party unambiguously opposed Israel it would put more pressure on our actual government which is one of the major suppliers of Israeli military support. If UK withdrew support, it puts more pressure on Europe generally, and more pressure on the US. Less apologetics from any prominent politicians also makes the public less confused about the whole issue.

A nice idea, but wishful thinking, I'm afraid. Israel imports only 4% of its arms from the UK. You can say that number ought to be 0%, and I'd agree, but if it went to 0% overnight, it'd hardly cripple their capabilities, and they'd no doubt just make up the shortfall by buying more from the US (which supplies 70% by itself) instead.

CAAT - Israel’s arms suppliers

Campaign Against Arms Trade

caat.org.uk

 

[chava]

amplified by not only the total unwillingness of Netanyahu to make any kind of good faith effort to negotiate, but his active efforts to u

Exactement! Free speech means free speech. Keine Ausnahmen.

even here on consensus.com?

 

[version]

consensus.com

It's true. The forum's never seen an argument.