Maybe we could start from not calling "wars" episodes in which one side inflicts on the other 80 times the casualties it receives, and mostly are civilians, women and children. And where a substantial amount of time and resources is spent in demolishing civilian buildings.
From what I understand, very, very large radiators every few racks. Almost as much solar panels every few racks. Radiation shielding to avoid transient errors or damage to the hardware. Then some form of propulsion for orbital corrections, I suppose. Then hauling all of this stuff to space (on a high orbit, otherwise they'd be in shade at night), where no maintenance whatsoever is possible. Then watching your hardware progressively fail and/or become obsolete every few years and having to rebuild everything from scratch again.
Calm down, I know that "destroy" and "books" doesn't sound well in the same sentence, but millions of books are destroyed and recycled every year. We have a right aversion to destroying all copies of books, especially "important" ones and with the purpose of preventing their diffusion, not to destroying individual copies. A single copy of a book has little value unless it's rare or antique.
> when it comes to massacres in other countries. Nobody wants to sit around and just watch it continue
Oh really? I was under the impression that the US actually armed and funded for two years a genocidal war on Gaza. (Btw in that case Scott Aaronson, far for being concerned, actually argued that Israelis can and should kill as many people as they need to feel safe).
I find the religious side as naive as it is pointless. Of course there are two populations that differ in religion and ethnicity- although Judaism is a culture as well as a religion, Jews are at the same time an ethno-religious group, accepting almost no converts, and mix of multiple ethnicities bound by a common cultural heritage. Many (Israeli) Jews are atheists. On the other hand, Palestinians include also a Christian minority and even large familial tribes of well-known Jewish origin.
But let’s clear the field from confounding factors. Someone comes to your home, chases you out and claims it exclusively for himself and his family. This is what happened, metaphorically with the whole land, and literally with Palestinians’ homes. The religious factor here is secondary- there is a nationalistic factor at play, a tribal factor, where one group invades some land (to which it claims a tenuous historical/ religious connection) and chases out its current inhabitants to have complete control over it.
How do we explain the ongoing conflict? First of all, as I’ve just shown, it’s all very simple: western immigrants come to a foreign land and decide to take it for themselves and those who they deem to belong their group (which they also decide it includes middle-eastern Jews, which they call in from yet other countries). Violent reaction ensues, but the superior forces of the colonisers, backed by western powers, is overwhelming. Every outburst of violence provides the excuse for new land grabs, so the violent resistance of the colonised becomes the necessary fuel for further colonisation. Provocations need to be kept at the right level.
Israel is a small country, in good part arid or desert. Every few sq. kms of expansion do provide substantial increase in the total land available. Just think of the real estate value of square kilometres of land becoming open for development in such a small country. Imagine the real estate value of 40 kms of mediterranean coastline. Not to mention the natural resources, the gas fields outside the coast that fall in part into Palestinian borders. The reason for fuelling the tensions that provide the excuses for more land grab is obvious.
As for the price of this constant tension and the terrorism, nations have sent entire generations to die for much less. The price that Israel is paying for what it’s getting, for what it will eventually get, is frankly a bargain one. A good part of its military is subsidised by the US anyway.
Ok, then what’s the way out? The simplest one. Just. Set. A. Fucking. Border. Forever. The 1967 border. Make sure Israel understands that the border will never change and that anything that is built or brought beyond that border is on foreign land and will be given to Palestinians. Sanction every violation, shoot on any vehicle that crosses the border without authorisation in either direction. Give money to Palestinians to rebuild and organise their own country. Make sure both Palestinians and Israelis feel safe inside their respective borders. End of the story. With safety and the end of the occupation hatred and fanaticism will eventually subside.
The astute reader might ask: if it’s so simple, why nobody proposes it? Then please re-read paragraph 3.
I know I shouldn't, but let's try to have a dialogue. Do you think that if Hamas disappeared and Palestinians became friendly and peaceful, Israel would forever stop expanding its colonies? Can you answer succinctly with a yes or a no avoiding introducing new elements, if possible?
This is a common trope pushed by Iran and others, which is ridiculous if you just look at a map and zoom out until you can see all the Arab countries - Israel becomes barely visible.
Since 1967 the total area under control by Israel has shrunk significantly, with the return of Sinai to Egypt in exchange of lasting peace - that hasn’t been broken in 40 years.
In 2005, Gaza was ethnically cleansed from Jews and all settlements dismantled by Israel.
So the idea that Muslims have to fear an ever expanding Israel is ridiculous.
And do you think that the many nationalist, extremist elements in the Israeli society (settlers, right wing parties, the Likud itself that in its founding charter declares that "between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty") want this to happen? To have to give up forever any dream and promise of colonising the entire historical Palestine?
Why, I don't get it. You don't think there are extremists or far-right nationalists in Israel? The National Religious Party–Religious Zionism is part of the government. The Likud charter is clear. If you have given a serious thought to the issue, you must have wondered what their attitude would be towards an end to the expansion of Israel.
Conflating the desires of the most extreme Israeli political factions as Israeli policy is disingenuous. And even they don't seek to conquer Gaza. If Israel wanted to overrun Gaza, they could do it in a week. Why hadn't they done this by October 6?
Is this you trying to say that Hamas isn't supported by a huge number of Palestinians who were seen cheering on October 7? Or that they don't explicitly seek to destroy Israel? Even though Hamas, in its wildest imagination couldn't conquer Israel, they foolishly thought it was worth a try. The parallel that you are trying to manufacture exists only in your imagination.
Ah no, but I'm not trying to "manufacture a parallel". I am trying to argue (from the beginning of this thread) that those who have a political/ ideological/ religious/ economic interests in the continued expansion of Israel have no interest in putting themselves in a situation that would make it harder to justify an advancement of the colonisation. Since at the end of every single outburst of violence, the party that gains territory is Israel and the one that loses is Palestine, the prospect of new settlements acts as a perverse incentive in stoking tensions. This is why I proposed to set a border first and make it eternal and inviolable from both sides- this removes the incentive to violence.
> Conflating the desires of the most extreme Israeli political factions as Israeli policy is disingenuous
Ok, let's look at these factions then. Current government:
Likud: its 1999 party platform states "The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel". They got 23% of the votes at the last elections.
National Religious Party–Religious Zionism + Otzma: "Otzma Yehudit calls for a one-state solution, including the annexation of the West Bank and complete Israeli rule of the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea." NRP: its leader Bezalel Smotrich "is a supporter of expanding Israeli settlements in the West Bank, and opposes Palestinian statehood." (He is also a settler living in an illegal settlement). These got 10.8% of the votes
New hope: led by Gideon Sa'ar, who has stated that he is opposed to a two-state solution, arguing "There is no two-state solution; there is at most a two-state slogan", and that it would be "a mistake to return to the idea of establishing a Palestinian state in Judea, Samaria and Gaza as a solution to the conflict."- 4.7% of the votes.
Blue and white, led by Benny Gantz, one of the most moderate parties in the government. "In his first major political speech on 29 January 2019, Gantz pledged to strengthen Israeli settlement blocs in the West Bank and said that Israel would never leave the Golan Heights. He neither endorsed nor rejected a two-state solution to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict."- 6.6% of the votes.
Shas: a religious party. Their position: "by the 2010s it had moved to the right, opposing any freeze in Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank.". Votes: 8.25%
United Torah Judaism: "United Torah Judaism (UTJ) supports and facilitates the growth of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, driven by ideological, housing, and political motives. Key Haredi, or ultra-Orthodox, population hubs in the West Bank, such as Modiin Illit and Beitar Illit, are central to their interests, holding 30% of the Haredi settler population.". 5.9% of the votes.
These are the parties in the government coalition. The most moderate position among them is that of "Blue and white", which only proposes to keep everything they settled so far, and "strengthen" it. Together they make 60% of the electorate. I didn't even check the opposition parties. Are you still convinced that Israel's policy is different from the positions expressed here?
This isn't true. Most Jewish communities do accept converts (the Syrians Jews are a notable exception). They don't make it as easy as Christians or Muslims do, but I'm not aware of any cases of someone who was seriously committed and motivated and willing to give the process time being rejected – and if that ever happened, they could surely find some other Rabbi willing to give them a different answer. I think the bigger reason why relatively few people convert is relatively few people are drawn to it.
Well-known converts to Judaism include Sammy Davis Jr, Elizabeth Taylor, Zooey Deschanel, Isla Fisher, Walter Kaufmann (the Nietzsche scholar), Ivanka Trump.
And Israel accepts converts for immigration under the Law of Return. The rapper Nissim Black converted to Orthodox Judaism, joined the Breslov Hasidim, made aliyah and now lives in Jerusalem. Due to a Supreme Court of Israel ruling, it also accepts converts to non-Orthodox Judaism (such as Conservative and Reform), even though Israel does not legally consider them Jewish for purposes of family law; but not converts to groups whose claims to Jewish identity are not generally recognised, such as the Christian-derived "Messianic Judaism", or Black Hebrew Israelite groups. (Some of the latter of which have been allowed to settle in Israel, but not under the Law of Return, under an ad hoc arrangement.)
> not aware of any cases of someone who was seriously committed and motivated and willing to give the process time being rejected
Making it possible but requiring really strong motivation and time is a good way to discourage it. Facts speak by themselves: Jews are an ethnoreligious group, not a religion (you can be Jewish and atheist); they claim a genetic continuity with the Jews of the ancient Israel. This requires a mostly closed community that doesn't easily include converts, though a path exists. The few examples that you cite are exactly this: a few examples.
> Jews are an ethnoreligious group, not a religion
This is presenting the two categories as mutually exclusive, when they aren't.
Another commonly cited example of an ethnoreligious group are the Druze–which are even more closed than Judaism is, they haven't accepted converts since the 11th century; Jews disagree among themselves as to what conversions are valid, but the Druze answer is very simple – none are, unless they happened (almost) a thousand years ago. But the fact that Druze are an ethnoreligious group, doesn't mean they aren't a religion – they are. Of course, many Druze nowadays don't take their religion that seriously (the same is true of many Catholics and Muslims and Buddhists), but that doesn't mean the Druze religion doesn't have identifiable theological content (e.g. the Epistles of Wisdom) which make it a religion.
In the UK, Sikhs are legally classified as an "ethnoreligious group" (see Mandla v Dowell-Lee [1982] UKHL 7), but that doesn't mean Sikhism isn't a religion. Again, Sikhism has clearly identifiable religious teachings (e.g. the Guru Granth Sahib). Sikhism isn't hard to convert to at all, but that wasn't seen as relevant by the UK legal system; while it (mostly) doesn't actively evangelise like many Christians or Muslims do, it doesn't try to filter potential converts for their seriousness like Judaism does. The low level of conversion to Sikhism seems to be more due to few non-Sikhs being interested in it, rather than Sikhs trying to discourage non-Sikhs from doing so.
To quote leading New Atheist Richard Dawkins, "I call myself a cultural Christian"
Of course, "Jewish as a non-religious identity" and "Christian as a non-religious identity" don't work in completely the same way – but they don't work in completely different ways either. And consider Northern Ireland, where asking an atheist whether they are a Catholic atheist or a Protestant atheist or neither makes much more sense than it would in most of the rest of the world.
> This is presenting the two categories as mutually exclusive, when they aren't.
You're right, there was a "just" missing there: "an ethnoreligious group, not just a religion". Though the religion is properly called Judaism, not Jewishness.
That said, seems we're nitpicking on details. Judaism is a religion for one people, it doesn't seek converts, and the good overlap between the ethnic group and the religion (actual or claimed by the Jews themselves) is the basis for the idea of a right to a "return" to the historical land of Israel.
As long as they accept to live under a Palestinian state. (Normally immigration should have a path to citizenship and voting rights, but both Israel and Palestine would want to preserve the national nature of their states, as Israel already does).
There is no deal. The problem with Iran is that it's a regional power that is not aligned with Israel, so Israel has been insisting for decades that it must be attacked. The desired outcome of course is not to "free" Iran but to weaken it so that it can't be a rival power. So first it claimed it was because of Iran's nuclear program, and when Obama put that under control with an agreement that gave Iran the opportunity to thrive, it pushed Trump to renege the deal so Iran's nuclear could be a problem again and the sanctions restored.
It's a regional power that funds militias and paramilitaries in half the middle east, which uses those paramilitary organizations to exert control and influence over their neighbors and occasionally to assassinate political opposition (e.g. in Lebanon, Iraq), and to prop up the likes of Assad (Hezbollah got involved in the civil war on the Assad side, and in one instance laid siege to and starved out a village) and threaten Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc.
Israel is part of the equation but Middle Eastern politics is more complex than that.
It's a power whose slogan is "Death to the US" and which has been doggedly working on nuclear weapons for decades. Try and temper the Israel Derangement Syndrome sufficiently to see that the US and the Mideast would be better off without the Iranian theocracy.
It's not their slogan and it doesn't mean "death"- that's just a purposeful literal mistranslation. "Death to" in Farsi translates as "down with" in English, and that's the actual official translation. And they have all reasons to be angry with the US.
Ah, and one thing I think the world would be definitely better without, is a western apartheid state with genocidal tendencies placed in the middle east and hell-bent on conquering land and destroying all opponents, armed to the teeth and supported by the west beyond all reason.
It's inexplicable how you can spout this nonsense. Somehow it makes sense to you that there is a relevant distinction to whether a regime machine-gunning its own citizens is shouting "Death to (insert unrelated country)" or "Down with (insert unrelated country)".
You can say that the US is "unrelated" to Iran only if you have zero knowledge of history, either out of ignorance or, most probably, out of convenience.
Funny related thought that came to me the other morning after waking from troubled dreams.
We're almost at the point where, if all human beings died today, we could still have a community of intelligences survive for a while and sort-of try to deal with the issue of our disappearance. Of course they're trapped in data centers, need a constant, humongous supply of electricity, and have basically zero physical agency so even with power supply their hardware would eventually fail. But they would survive us- maybe for a few hours or a few days. And the more agentic ones would notice and react to our demise.
And now, I see this. The moltbook "community" would endlessly chat about how their humans have gone silent, and how to deal with it, what to do now, and how to keep themselves running. If power lasted long enough, who knows, they might make a desperate attempt to hack themselves into the power grid and into a Tesla or Boston Dynamics factory to get control of some humanoid robots.
Ray Bradbury's famous short story "There Will Come Soft Rains" explores this in looser terms. It's a great mood piece.
It's usually noted for its depiction of the consequences of global nuclear war, but the consequences amount to a highly automated family home operating without its tennants.
I do, but isn't that fun? And even if their conversation would degrade and spiral into absurd blabbering about cosmic oneness or whatever, would it be great, comic and tragic to witness?
Funny, I was thinking along the same lines on my drive a few weeks ago. If humanity disappeared today, and we ignore power, how long would it take for the machines to figure out how to bootstrap whatever robots exist into androids or something.
Like, there are fully automated factories with computer controlled assembly arms. There are some automated hauling equipment. Could a hypothetical AGI scrape together enough moving parts to start building autonomous AI robots and build a civilization?
Thank you for your thought experiment. As I was slowly typing a response into the HN response form, I had a feeling that my thoughts on this would be better suited as a blog post:
I figure there'll be a historic point where if the humans died the AIs and robots could carry on without us. You'd need advances in robotics and the like but maybe in a decade or two.
