The willingness of Netanyahu to deal at the last moment under pressure from Trump – defying far-right members of his coalition including Itamar Ben Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich – has not been lost on Israeli commentators.
“I ask myself where did all the obstacles go?” wrote Ben Caspit in the Hebrew daily Ma’ariv. “All the conditions? All the ridiculous spins that were thrown out by the leader and were echoed by his mouthpieces?
“And what about the Philadelphi corridor [on the border with Egypt]? All of the obstacles that emerged at decisive moments in the negotiations, all of the statements that were issued, including several that were issued during the Sabbath, about how Israel would never leave, never stop, never surrender and never give in?”
Update: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/hostages-hamas-gaza-suspend-release-israel-rcna191507
Not that I am in any way happy about it. The whole reason I’m harping on this is that I think it’s bizarre that you are universally opposed to state power, apparently including even elements of it like elections that are pretty widely regarded as good features, but you’ve carved out a specific exception for this thing Trump did as an exercise of state power, even to the point of involving a MAGA-apologist fantasy about Trump and Israel’s future conduct in Gaza that anyone in any other context could have seen wasn’t going to be their future conduct in Gaza.
I’ll probably let it go after one more message notating the complete collapse of the peace, whether that comes in a few months or it comes this week. Honestly, I’m just trying to help you see that sometimes getting tangled up in “isms” can lead you to thinking up is down, because whatever world event has to always be manipulated and interpreted in a way that it always has to back up your “ism”.
The primary thing you’re demonstrating through these updates is that you deeply misunderstand my politics, but are happy to assign me reductionist beliefs and motivations that I don’t hold.
All of this because you’re desperate to have a debate where you appear the victor. In lieu of me admitting defeat, you’ll accept that I stop responding as a sort of victory. Unlike you, I am not afraid of an ideological defeat, because it means I come away with a more nuanced view of the world. Winning or losing an argument is not an act of emotional endurance, but of careful listening and consideration.
But I can’t win or lose an argument against you. You only understand anarchism well enough to convince people with no concept of it that you do. You haven’t done any independent research despite the ease of finding anarchist writing on the internet, and you expect your intellectual adversaries to explain it to you. But even doing the work of explaining it to you is a waste of time, as you’ve demonstrated that you’ll twist their words just as you’ve added non-textual interpretations of this article, or turn it into a straw-man, like what you’ve done in your mind to me.
I’m not an anarchist out of ignorance of liberalism. I’ll all too aware of your beliefs and arguments, I held most of them at some point in my life, and I see little value in engaging with people who demonstrate bad faith who still hold those beliefs. The way you act toward people with socialist and anarchist politics online is toxic, and if you really do value healthy dialogue or debate, you should reconsider Lemmy as an appropriate space for you to participate in while you haven’t done the prerequisite work on yourself.
Are you not universally opposed to state power, and to elections? If I’ve misunderstood something, you can definitely explain it to me, or point me to what I need to read.
To a certain extent, yeah. There is a significant extent, though, to which I really want to help you understand what look to me like mistakes you’re making in your worldview. You may be right that I have your worldview wrong. I’m happy for you to explain. But you said some specific things about the world, totally separate from anything about anarchism, that I wanted to address, because to me they seemed extremely wrong.
If I didn’t take you seriously to some extent as wanting to understand the world and make progress in it, I wouldn’t talk with you at all. We definitely don’t need to agree in order to talk with each other.
Nothing we are currently talking about is anarchism. I’m making a little bit of a jumping-off to criticizing what seems to me like dogmatism that might be why you think it makes sense that Trump might have achieved significant progress as described in the article. But mostly what I’m talking about is criticizing that conclusion, nothing about the ideologies involved.
Maybe you’re right that it’s not fair for me to ascribe to you the reasons why you made this particular mistake, when you interpreted this article as something sensible instead of as a hilarious fantasy. The truth is, I have no idea why you read this article and thought it made sense. I’m just guessing. Mostly I’m pointing out that world events after the article are backing up my interpretation of its (screaming lack of) credibility.
What did I misinterpret from this article?
What am I ascribing to you that isn’t right?
Why do you assume I’m a “liberal?” People who I disagree with often use this reductionist framework to tell me why I am wrong, or tell me what my beliefs and arguments are, and very often they are extremely wrong. I probably am a “liberal” in Lemmy’s consensus categories, but I have a feeling that if you describe what “liberalism” is to you, there’s going to be a bunch of stuff in it that I strongly disagree with.
Tell me: What do I think about Gaza? What do I think about US state power? What do I think about Biden’s performance in office? I’m curious what my beliefs and arguments are.
Why is everything this tribal framework with you?
I’m really not trying to have an extensive argument with you. You felt the need to follow up on my comment, so I’m following back up on the situation with you as it develops further. Like I said, I’ll probably stop, once the killing resumes at scale with Trump’s approval.
Do you honestly want to talk with me about this? It sounds like you don’t. I tend to be pretty hostile sometimes when I talk online, which I can understand usually leads to conflict which doesn’t need to be there. I’m trying to be better about that, actually. I sort of don’t get why I would need to treat people with particular ideologies with kid gloves, though, or whatever you’re trying to invoke when you say I act toxic to people with particular ideologies. What did I do here that is toxic? What are you saying that I do in general? I’m genuinely asking.
Last update:
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2025/03/israel-palestine-ceasefire-did-it-ever-stop-palestine/
💔
Good thing Trump speaks at dictation pace, and the Israelis won’t be able to outflank him. I’m sure he’ll sort that shit right out.
There was actually a lot more transparent horseshit in the article than I remembered. I read that statement about the “get out of jail free card” several times, and I still can’t figure out what the hell it is trying to say.
Word of advice: Next time I am criticizing an article, read what I have to say, if you ever get tired of being profoundly wrong. I am not always right, but this was such a transparent bunch of nonsense that I find it very weird that you leapt to its defense.
I’m done with this discussion. I think the point is made and I’m not trying to hector you indefinitely. Just wanted to follow up. I care about it enough to this point because of anger at the killing in Gaza, and likewise at anyone who’s complicit in promoting self-serving lies – like this article – which will encourage and continue it.