- Pronouns
- he/him
Discuss this article by @SpanishSpy here
-
Hi Guest!
The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress
Israel, Palestine, and Malleability versus Accuracy in Alternate History
- Thread starter Gary Oswald
- Start date
Histories of the conflict are fucking grim, because violence ends up inevitable as soon as a Jewish state is being set up and then you're down to "how do you end the violence", and every historical event closes off another avenue. You see a lot of people finding peace a more existential threat than the ongoing conflict because peace would mean Not Winning after decades of sunk-cost and it would mean changes they can no longer accept; ongoing low-level conflict (as it usually is) means kicking that can down the road and anyway, someone else is usually doing the dying.
Unfortunately I haven't been able to get away to post this one, rather than have it at an odd time I'll delay it till tomorrow on social media.
I think that's rather SpanishSpy's point.
***
Do like Plutarch and instead of Parallel Lives, find Parallel Situations. See how some conflicts were progressively or abruptly deprived of oxygen and what was done differently. And sometimes acknowledge that there is no answer to some crises that we would find satisfying or moral.
I think a lot of the lack of malleability in dealing with Israel-Palestine AH is because, arguably, the most plausible scenario has taken place. The Nazis embarked on one of the worst genocides the Jews have ever faced, and many non-German Europeans either collaborated with it or looked the other way - and thus, the European Jews no longer felt a connection to the continent that they have resided in for millennia. In a way, that was the final straw. Then they went to Palestine to finally find a place of refuge, but the Palestinian Arabs weren't just going to give up their land to a bunch of foreigners. They, along with their Arab allies fought and arguably the 1948 Arab-Israeli War was rather close, but in the end the Jews won. But again, the Arabs weren't just going to give up a land which was considered theirs for millennia as well, especially not land that contains one of the holiest cities for both Arab Muslims and Arab Christians. They fought again, but the Israelis prepared for it and so they lost more land. Eventually a lot of the Palestinians began to take up arms to fight for their liberation in non-conventional, more insurgent means. And so the cycle of violence continues, in that the Jews won't give up land which they considered theirs but neither would the Palestinian Arabs give up their ancestral land as well. The Arab states are mainly dictatorships but if they were to become democracies they would probably even be more anti-Israel (quite a conundrum for Western liberals, there, dictatorships are more likely to make peace with Israel than democracies). However way you look at it, whoever you support, it makes sense. It could not have gone any other way. And arguably it will remain this way unless either a) Israel's enemies finally manage to match up to them military-wise and embark on a much more brutal war against Israel (regardless of who ends up winning, it would set the stage for a new era in the crisis), b) climate change manages to shake up the crisis, or c) Israel manages to lose the good will in the West for one reason or another and the dream of Palestinian activists of Israel being treated like Apartheid South Africa (no participation in sporting events, no conferences held there, disinvestment, an overall academic boycott etc.) is achieved, though I think Israel will prove a much harder nut to crack than the Afrikaner government mainly because, again, the Holocaust and persecutions before that mean that Israeli Jews most likely won't be willing to share power with Palestinians regardless of sanctions and boycotts.
And on the topic of Apartheid South Africa, I think the discussion on malleability can apply there as well. Back in the 1980s most people either believed that South Africa will continue to be an Apartheid state or that it will collapse and have a race war. Indeed Larry Bond's Vortex deals with the latter. The idea that the Afrikaners will crack under pressure and implement full democracy was not one that many people seemed to believe was plausible. But it did end up happening. If we lived in a world where Apartheid persists to this day then we would probably be talking about malleability vis a vis South Africa as well - the Afrikaners won't give up the government to those whom they consider inferior, whereas the blacks won't acquiesce to being second-class citizens especially when they are the majority. The idea of a peaceful transfer of power would be one of those scenarios which don't require violating scientific laws or theories but would be considered ASB nevertheless. You see this with the Soviet Union as well. Many people did not think that the Soviet Union would collapse as it did. If it was so fragile - why would the US and her allies spend so much resources just to contain its influence? And even so, why would ethnic groups which were part of even the Russian Empire gain their independence? But it did collapse as it did, though if it did not it wouldn't have been considered a plausible scenario. To use a more recent example, arguably Trump's election seems to have changed the way people write AH about American politics especially post 1945. Prior to Trump's election you'd see few AH which actually did something creative with a post-WW2 American politics POD. It was a given that Democrats and Republicans will forever remain in opposition to each other, a few third parties will pop up but will eventually fade, maybe the country becomes more liberal or more conservative (though not by a lot) than OTL. But Trump's election proved that US politics is actually a lot more malleable than expected. He had violated pretty much every single norm as a candidate and he had still won. And I think that one of the outcomes of this is that, on both sites (though on this site especially) people have begun to explore more creative ways in dealing with US politics after the Second World War.
There are some other things as well I'd like to say but they relate more to Israel and Palestine in general and will probably derail the thread into an argument about that. Of course you did not use the article as a commentary on the crisis but rather Israel-Palestine was used as a framing for commentary on the genre of alternate history.
And on the topic of Apartheid South Africa, I think the discussion on malleability can apply there as well. Back in the 1980s most people either believed that South Africa will continue to be an Apartheid state or that it will collapse and have a race war. Indeed Larry Bond's Vortex deals with the latter. The idea that the Afrikaners will crack under pressure and implement full democracy was not one that many people seemed to believe was plausible. But it did end up happening. If we lived in a world where Apartheid persists to this day then we would probably be talking about malleability vis a vis South Africa as well - the Afrikaners won't give up the government to those whom they consider inferior, whereas the blacks won't acquiesce to being second-class citizens especially when they are the majority. The idea of a peaceful transfer of power would be one of those scenarios which don't require violating scientific laws or theories but would be considered ASB nevertheless. You see this with the Soviet Union as well. Many people did not think that the Soviet Union would collapse as it did. If it was so fragile - why would the US and her allies spend so much resources just to contain its influence? And even so, why would ethnic groups which were part of even the Russian Empire gain their independence? But it did collapse as it did, though if it did not it wouldn't have been considered a plausible scenario. To use a more recent example, arguably Trump's election seems to have changed the way people write AH about American politics especially post 1945. Prior to Trump's election you'd see few AH which actually did something creative with a post-WW2 American politics POD. It was a given that Democrats and Republicans will forever remain in opposition to each other, a few third parties will pop up but will eventually fade, maybe the country becomes more liberal or more conservative (though not by a lot) than OTL. But Trump's election proved that US politics is actually a lot more malleable than expected. He had violated pretty much every single norm as a candidate and he had still won. And I think that one of the outcomes of this is that, on both sites (though on this site especially) people have begun to explore more creative ways in dealing with US politics after the Second World War.
There are some other things as well I'd like to say but they relate more to Israel and Palestine in general and will probably derail the thread into an argument about that. Of course you did not use the article as a commentary on the crisis but rather Israel-Palestine was used as a framing for commentary on the genre of alternate history.
Avian Overlord
Mystical American Freedom Bird
I see we're both sidesing "the Jews should be allowed to live in their homeland, pray at their holy sites and have the right to vote on their government" and "the Jews are filth whose very presence is intolerable" again. I wish I could say that was a surprise.
Death's Companion
General Ugg Apologist.
I'd suggest not doing so tbh. Here is only likely to end in tears. Out in the real world we're certainly going to attract awful attention.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
This is a disgusting allegation not even remotely upheld in the article, and you should withdraw this accusation at once
- Pronouns
- he/him
He's not accusing alex of thinking that about jews.
He's characterising that as the palestinian position "the Jews are filth whose very presence is intolerable" vs the israeli one "the Jews should be allowed to live in their homeland, pray at their holy sites and have the right to vote on their government".
In Avian overlord's opinion the violence within Israel can be put entirely at the hands of arab racism.
Thus an article which view both sides at fault, which this one does, is unfairly both siding a black and white issue.
Now I disagree with Avian Overlord on his analysis of the conflict but he is entirely correct in what he says about the article.
The article does view the Israel government as part of the reason for the violence rather than just a victim. From avian Overlord's point of view we are both siding a conflict with one aggressor and one victim by blaming the victim for complicity in the violence. From my point of view he is one siding a conflict which the Israeli government have very much played their part in escalating.
But he is not accusing this article of anything that isn't true, (that it believes the Israeli government had some part in the violence in Israel) so I wouldn't ask him to withdraw anything. (The people he is accusing are the Palestinian authorities who aren't likely to be reading this.)