theacharnian

joined 1 year ago
[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 4 points 10 hours ago

That's irrelevant.

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 12 points 22 hours ago

A rabid dog.

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 11 points 22 hours ago (3 children)

Lebanon has a right to defend itself.

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I honestly cannot see how the Arab world's arm can be further twisted. Israel is the one doing the ethnic cleansing, if anything it's their arm that needs to be twisted.

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago (3 children)

You were talking about Ukraine and Russia. That's two neighbours. My comparison is reasonable.

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (5 children)

This is raising the bar to a ridiculous and silly level. Are you seriously going to argue for ...Algerians, Indonesians and Afghanis being threats? Their immediate neighbours to the south, west and east have normalized relations and are squarely within the Atlantic system. The Saudis and the Gulf states are almost there, too (had it not been for October 7th, this would have already happened). As the Syrians are basically a failed state, the only ones that are left are quite literally the Lebanese and the Palestinians. The influence of Iran hinges precisely on the legitimate grievances of these peoples. Address those, and you got peace. But you don't have the Greater Israel of the Israeli far right's wet dreams.

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (7 children)

I'm obviously talking about the Palestinians and the Lebanese, duh. And as far as defeat, yes they have defeated also the Egyptians, Jordanians and Syrians, and a few others.

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago

So you're basically saying here is an impossible standard. And then are sad that your impossible standard is not meant.

Say openly what you think is a resolution here buddy. Come on, don't be shy.

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (9 children)

The Arabs have already been soundly defeated and occupied. Multiple times.

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago (11 children)

Yet it's the only way to peace. Germany and France put their faith into each others' guarantees after WW2 and created the EU. Peace is possible.

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 15 points 1 day ago (2 children)

That sounds like a reasonable comparison, until one realizes that we are not talking about WMDs here, we are talking about the occupied Palestinian territories. Then, your comparison not only falls apart, but is also exposed as a bad faith one.

First, if Israel giving up the territories is similar to Ukraine giving up its WMDs, i.e., an existential threat, then Israel should never do that. I.e., peace is impossible and the two state solution is impossible. The only option left is ... ethnic cleansing and genocide. Is that what you are arguing for?? Be clear about what you say. Because I don't think you are arguing for the dismantling of the apartheid regime in all of greater Israel: one state from the river to the sea with equal rights for everyone.

Second, Israel actually has WMDs and would be keeping them after the establishment of a Palestinian state. So, if anything it would be in a stronger position than Ukraine, heaving the guarantee from its neighbours and its own WMDs to fall back to.

Third, you are comparing Israel to Ukraine. This casts Israel as the victim, the one that is subjected to occupation and violation of its integrity. The opposite is true. Israel is the occupier, the oppressor and the violator international law.

So, no, your comment doesn't stand to scrutiny.

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 day ago

noun: failed state; plural noun: failed states a state whose political or economic system has become so weak that the government is no longer in control.

You might be thinking "morally failed" instead?

 

“The Israeli prime minister came here today and said that Israel is surrounded by those who want to destroy it,” Safadi said at a Friday press conference shortly after Netanyahu finished his speech at the UN General Assembly.

“We’re here — members of the Muslim-Arab committee, mandated by 57 Arab and Muslim countries — and I can tell you very unequivocally, all of us are willing to guarantee the security of Israel in the context of Israel ending the occupation and allowing for the emergence of a Palestinian state,” Safadi passionately argued.

Netanyahu “is creating that danger because he simply does not want the two-state solution. If he does not want the two-state solution, can you ask Israeli officials what is their end-game — other than just wars and wars and wars?”

Also, video of the statement.

 

TFW you support Israel so much that you start treating Palestinian children just like they do.

 

Turns out Abbé Pierre was a creep... This is like learning Mohter Theresa was a sexual predator.

14
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by theacharnian@lemmy.ca to c/anarchism@slrpnk.net
 

Discussions about scarcity and anarchism that I've seen online seem to always talk about "scarcity in the large", i.e. how does an anarchist society allocate production, food, labour, materials etc.

I've a question about anarchism and scarcity in the small. Say, a really nice location, eg. a breezy location in a very hot climate, or the room with the nice windows in the community centre, or Bag End at the top of the hill. Say, an anarchist community has decided to use the location for purpose X, but a minority wants to use it for purpose Y. Maybe an even smaller minority wants to do Z, and a bunch of other people have their own little ideas about how to use it. Some are transient and could be accommodated (you get it on Tuesdays 5-7) but others might not be ("our sculpture project needs to dry out in that specific spot for the next 4 months, we know it blocks the view but it's the only place the breeze hits just right!") or could be contradictory (the siesta people vs the loud backgammon players can't both use the spot at high noon) or antagonistic (the teenagers who want to party late vs the new parents who need quiet for the babies). And dis-association doesn't really help here because that's the nice spot for many kilometers around or there is literally no way to create another beach for our small island community because that's literally the only place on the island where sand exists, so we can't just off and leave. (* Many of these examples are imagining a hot summer in an anarchist Greece, sorry it's almost August.)

It looks to me like a simple non-life-and-death scenario like this could potentially completely poison and destroy a community and in the face of that it would be the little death of anti-authoritarian organizing. Like yea, when life and death matters are at hand, anarchists will band together and conquer the bread. But petty small-scale little shit where it's managing annoyances and small grievances, I don't think non-authoritarian decision making can solve. And I suspect it's crap like this that has killed off many intentional communities and experiments or made them veer away from non-hierarchical, anti-authoritarian organizing.

Have anarchist thinkers seriously thought of this?

 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ca/post/23000968

Incapables de trouver du travail en français au Nouveau-Brunswick, ils pensent partir au Québec

 
view more: next ›