7 ms·

And he is a minister in Israel's government, not some rando. Israeli governments and actions in the last many years are simply indefensible.

A_D_E_P_T 29d ago
It's legitimately weird to see anybody defend them, as the immorality is out in the open. The past few years have really opened my eyes to the nakedly tribal nature of democratic politics. Polybius was largely correct when he said that it inevitably degenerates into oligarchy or mob-rule -- but what's especially unfortunate is that the US and Israel appear to be getting both at the same time: A naked oligarchy with just enough mob rule to keep the animal spirits of the populace sated.
- pydry 29d ago
  It really disturbed me discovering how many nominally liberal people who would react in horror at casual use of the n word are quite comfortable with genocidal racism.
  - buellerbueller 29d ago
    Hell, those folks react in horror at literally quoting the n-word as written in "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn."
    - throw10920 29d ago
      Use-mention distinction is lost on a lot of people. It's a useful test for whether someone is reacting to a word (e.g. "damn") out of pure emotion and conditioning, or whether they're acting rationally.
      - buellerbueller 29d ago
        Never heard the name of that concept before (though obviously am aware of it). Thanks for enlightening me today!
        throw10920 29d ago
        You're welcome! There's nothing quite like finding the phrase that labels a concept you've been aware of for a long time.
    - Forgeties79 29d ago
      Unfortunately there will always be people across the political spectrum who pearl clutch over media they personally find distasteful. The question is do any of them care when the rubber meets the road in reality. Christian conservative, progressive atheist, all are capable of failing that test.
  - A_D_E_P_T 29d ago
    And, with a perfectly straight face, they'll say: "B-but ackshually it's NOT genocide! They're not all dead yet!" Beyond disturbing, I think.
  - sp527 29d ago
    Why should it surprise? It was never about values, it was about signaling. This is commonplace.
  - thrance 29d ago
    As you said, nominally liberal. What Israel is doing is deeply illiberal, and actual liberals, if there are any left, don't support the Zionist project. That's why support for Israel is such a good wedge issue that leftists keep hammering on. If a nominally liberal politician is willing to support such an obviously illiberal position, then what other fundamental liberal values are they willing to give up?
- hightrix 29d ago
  I’m genuinely surprised they aren’t here in this thread doing exactly that. The defenders pop up in every corner of Reddit any time anything related is mentioned. That there isn’t a similar effect here is quite interesting. Edit: I should have scrolled down more first.
  - patcon 29d ago
    paul Graham is a very brave and vocal critic of apartheid policy of Israel. I legit almost cried when I saw one of this posts... Honestly it was just so unexpected. This place tows no line, and weeds out the bots
- datsci_est_2015 29d ago
  I don't view Ben Gvir's rise to a position of powers as a product of democracy, as much of a product of artificial states, neocolonialism, ethnostates, and apartheid. More directly, his rise to power is a direct result of the financial support of Israeli settlements over the past century which could not have existed in the absence of such financial support: settlers were paid to live in a specific strategic locations, in a specific way that would further the Zionist mission (first exclusionary, later apartheid). Any power structure will be twisted and corrupted in the presence of these state systems to give people like Ben Gvir (or Stephen Miller, if you'd like) the platform and power to unleash their naked evil on the world. This is not unique to democracy. I think it's upon us - all of humanity - to denounce artificial states, neocolonialism, ethnostates, and apartheid. They are founded on principles that are misanthropic, asocial, and unhumanitarian. They have always led to an immense amount of suffering. But they are not inevitable, termination mode of democracy.
  - giov4 29d ago
    illuminating thanks for sharing this point of view. funny that recently I came to a similar conclusion regarding power structures being corrupted anyway at the end, independently from the starting political form, is like we humans tend to be corrupt and violent at the end. how many "democracies" are currently at war? or are doing violent covert or non covert operations/strategies? who controls that? "I think it's upon us - all of humanity - to denounce artificial states, neocolonialism, ethnostates, and apartheid. They are founded on principles that are misanthropic, asocial, and unhumanitarian. They have always led to an immense amount of suffering. But they are not inevitable, termination mode of democracy." this is gold, we can close the conversation here :)
    - lyu07282 29d ago
      > we humans tend to be corrupt and violent at the end On a big picture "we" the west are perpetuating a type of colonialism. On the invisible "other side" in the global south, the outlook on a statement like "every conceivable political system always leads to corruption and violence" is quite different, better things are imaginable to them because it means liberation, freedom from oppressive forces, and so on. In the west it is the opposite, its unimaginable because an end to the oppressive forces means "we", means history literally ends, it's circular it's why the west views itself as the peak of civilization nothing that came before or after is even conceivably better than us.
dragonwriter 29d ago
Not just “a minister”, but the Minister of National Security. I mean, yeah, the “you can’t judge the intent of Israel’s security policy by Ben-Gvir” would maybe hold some water if he was, say, Minister of Tourism (though if a Tourism minister was telegraphing genocidal intent that wasn’t that of the government, you still wouldn't expect them to stay around long, either) but...

A_D_E_P_T 29d ago

It's legitimately weird to see anybody defend them, as the immorality is out in the open. The past few years have really opened my eyes to the nakedly tribal nature of democratic politics. Polybius was largely correct when he said that it inevitably degenerates into oligarchy or mob-rule -- but what's especially unfortunate is that the US and Israel appear to be getting both at the same time: A naked oligarchy with just enough mob rule to keep the animal spirits of the populace sated.

pydry 29d ago
It really disturbed me discovering how many nominally liberal people who would react in horror at casual use of the n word are quite comfortable with genocidal racism.
- buellerbueller 29d ago
  Hell, those folks react in horror at literally quoting the n-word as written in "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn."
  - throw10920 29d ago
    Use-mention distinction is lost on a lot of people. It's a useful test for whether someone is reacting to a word (e.g. "damn") out of pure emotion and conditioning, or whether they're acting rationally.
    - buellerbueller 29d ago
      Never heard the name of that concept before (though obviously am aware of it). Thanks for enlightening me today!
      - throw10920 29d ago
        You're welcome! There's nothing quite like finding the phrase that labels a concept you've been aware of for a long time.
  - Forgeties79 29d ago
    Unfortunately there will always be people across the political spectrum who pearl clutch over media they personally find distasteful. The question is do any of them care when the rubber meets the road in reality. Christian conservative, progressive atheist, all are capable of failing that test.
- A_D_E_P_T 29d ago
  And, with a perfectly straight face, they'll say: "B-but ackshually it's NOT genocide! They're not all dead yet!" Beyond disturbing, I think.
- sp527 29d ago
  Why should it surprise? It was never about values, it was about signaling. This is commonplace.
- thrance 29d ago
  As you said, nominally liberal. What Israel is doing is deeply illiberal, and actual liberals, if there are any left, don't support the Zionist project. That's why support for Israel is such a good wedge issue that leftists keep hammering on. If a nominally liberal politician is willing to support such an obviously illiberal position, then what other fundamental liberal values are they willing to give up?
hightrix 29d ago
I’m genuinely surprised they aren’t here in this thread doing exactly that. The defenders pop up in every corner of Reddit any time anything related is mentioned. That there isn’t a similar effect here is quite interesting. Edit: I should have scrolled down more first.
- patcon 29d ago
  paul Graham is a very brave and vocal critic of apartheid policy of Israel. I legit almost cried when I saw one of this posts... Honestly it was just so unexpected. This place tows no line, and weeds out the bots
datsci_est_2015 29d ago
I don't view Ben Gvir's rise to a position of powers as a product of democracy, as much of a product of artificial states, neocolonialism, ethnostates, and apartheid. More directly, his rise to power is a direct result of the financial support of Israeli settlements over the past century which could not have existed in the absence of such financial support: settlers were paid to live in a specific strategic locations, in a specific way that would further the Zionist mission (first exclusionary, later apartheid). Any power structure will be twisted and corrupted in the presence of these state systems to give people like Ben Gvir (or Stephen Miller, if you'd like) the platform and power to unleash their naked evil on the world. This is not unique to democracy. I think it's upon us - all of humanity - to denounce artificial states, neocolonialism, ethnostates, and apartheid. They are founded on principles that are misanthropic, asocial, and unhumanitarian. They have always led to an immense amount of suffering. But they are not inevitable, termination mode of democracy.
- giov4 29d ago
  illuminating thanks for sharing this point of view. funny that recently I came to a similar conclusion regarding power structures being corrupted anyway at the end, independently from the starting political form, is like we humans tend to be corrupt and violent at the end. how many "democracies" are currently at war? or are doing violent covert or non covert operations/strategies? who controls that? "I think it's upon us - all of humanity - to denounce artificial states, neocolonialism, ethnostates, and apartheid. They are founded on principles that are misanthropic, asocial, and unhumanitarian. They have always led to an immense amount of suffering. But they are not inevitable, termination mode of democracy." this is gold, we can close the conversation here :)
  - lyu07282 29d ago
    > we humans tend to be corrupt and violent at the end On a big picture "we" the west are perpetuating a type of colonialism. On the invisible "other side" in the global south, the outlook on a statement like "every conceivable political system always leads to corruption and violence" is quite different, better things are imaginable to them because it means liberation, freedom from oppressive forces, and so on. In the west it is the opposite, its unimaginable because an end to the oppressive forces means "we", means history literally ends, it's circular it's why the west views itself as the peak of civilization nothing that came before or after is even conceivably better than us.

dragonwriter 29d ago

Not just “a minister”, but the Minister of National Security. I mean, yeah, the “you can’t judge the intent of Israel’s security policy by Ben-Gvir” would maybe hold some water if he was, say, Minister of Tourism (though if a Tourism minister was telegraphing genocidal intent that wasn’t that of the government, you still wouldn't expect them to stay around long, either) but...