Non Echo Chamber Geopolitical discussions. Listen to opposing voices and ponder!

[ExGingi]

Biobook stated this quite eloquently upthread, but at the risk of being repetitive: what you have repeatedly done in this thread is posted a clip or statement in such a way that it is most certainly true and anyone who even attempts to argue is stupid, brainwashed, or just not capable of critical thinking. Then you've assumed certain members must certainly disagree with said post, and challenged them to argue even though it would make them appear stupid, brainwashed, or incapable of critical thought.

This conversation is you repeatedly asking biobook to defend positions she hasn't staked. You're stating you're trying to exit your echo chamber, in other words listen with an open mind, but set up the conversation that the other person is climbing out of a ditch they never asked to be in with you waving a stick at the top. And when they say they have no desire to fight you out of the ditch you disingenuously look around thinking you're on the (moral) high ground because they're stuck in the mud.

Criticism accepted.

[ExGingi]

There is a video of Bill Clinton talking in Michigan to an anti-Israel crowd (I know some might object to my labeling of the crowd, but I think it's the most accurate one, as I don't know if the entire crowd is Muslim or Arab). I have previously seen clips quoted on X, but came across a more complete clip on YouTube today.

I think that in order to understand the dynamics and the complete picture of the conflict, the "peace" initiatives, and the US role as a player (or arm twister) one must listen carefully to what Clinton describes (YouTube provides quite a good transcript), and use some second order thinking, to juxtapose it with what Moriel Bareli describes in interviews and videos regarding his upcoming book "When a Jew and a Muslim Talk".

Notably, Clinton has some slips, where he says he agrees with the person from the crowd deligitimizing Israeli actions in Gaza, only to retract and hang excuse himself for not being sure of what was said due to his reliance on hearing aids.

First line in image below is from a person in the crowd:


He then goes on to excuse multiple breakdowns of ceasefire agreements on "the same Israeli government for the past 20 years".


To put that in context, one must realize what kind of Israeli government is a "good one" in his eyes (and realize that he is unabashed in implicitly acknowledging meddling with Israeli politics.











So that is the kind of "deal" he was trying to get both sides to sign, and Ehud Barak (who definitely didn't have popular support for this disastrous plan) was willing to sign it! (IMHO in order to create a legacy for himself and get the Nobel peace prize).

It's late now, so I won't bring quotes from Bareli's findings, I will just paraphrase it  as follows: Arabs don't believe Jews have any right to any part of Eretz Yisroel.  This is A KNOW FACT to anyone who cared to actually look into things. The only reason some Israelis are willing to go along with the BS "peace deals" is relying on American guarantees, and not caring about Jewish identity.

For American foreign policies and guarantees just ask Ukraine, Afghanistan, Iraq, and more.

[ExGingi]

I recently found out about Jonathan Haodt's work, and have been going down that rabbit hole.

The YouTube algorithm just introduced me to a "short" of his, which is 100% on target for my purpose with this thread.

[ExGingi]

Concession of land during a comprehensive peace process is a totally different dynamic. If the security assessment is that it will bring about true peace there is nothing in 329 telling you otherwise (irrespective of whether that assessment was terribly flawed or not)

So now we have the two different paradigms tested, and I think the results speak for themselves. "Land for Peace" was based on people's illusions and misunderstanding of the neighborhood's language and rules of engagement. The only way to achieve peace is through decisive victory and unwavering strength.

https://x.com/AmiLivnat/status/1868746439687545153

[ExGingi]

I am posting these two together (I haven't listened to each in the entirety. The Meisels chapter has somewhat of an index so I was able to do some skipping around to parts of interest).

A few interesting points:

1. I don't get the connection of how me briefly mentions Chabad Houses.
2. I see some serious Hashkafic differences (IDK if it's educational gaps, informational gaps, or simply misunderstanding) especially vis-a-vis Zionism, and relating to "non-frum" Jews.
3. He also seems to misunderstand the issues about Rabbanut kashrus supervision.
4. What he says about Bibi is interesting, though here again, I think he is missing the point. He does seem to think like I do that Barkat is a guy with potential.
5. He doesn't seem to understand the full picture of Israeli politics (and other issues).

It took some going out of my comfort zone to listen to a podcast hosted by someone who I don't respect much (possibly because he seems to be following his brother's footsteps into the media), but I think for anyone who didn't grow up there (and by there I mean in the תינוקות שנשבו realm, not necessarily on a Kibbutz, but in general in such kind of an environment that is clueless about Yiddishkeit - deliberately so, as the famous saying goes רצינו לגדל דור של אפיקורסים, וגידלנו דור של עמי-הארצות) this could be eye-opening. One should listen to this guest with proper attention.

[ExGingi]

This could have gone in several threads (not the least of which is the thread about serving in the IDF), but I found here many details that sound shocking (is his depiction of Yeshivish, or more accurately Israeli Litvish, real? I think he misses the point a little with Chabad, though he might be close.

What do you think about this?

[Chuchum Ainer]

This could have gone in several threads (not the least of which is the thread about serving in the IDF), but I found here many details that sound shocking (is his depiction of Yeshivish, or more accurately Israeli Litvish, real? I think he misses the point a little with Chabad, though he might be close.

What do you think about this?

Who are you asking? and are you asking about the entire 51 minutes, or a specific part? I clicked play because you made it sound interesting, but I'm not investing an hour now

[ExGingi]

Who are you asking? and are you asking about the entire 51 minutes, or a specific part? I clicked play because you made it sound interesting, but I'm not investing an hour now

I am asking anyone who would visit this thread to hear outside the box ideas and opinions.

I am mostly asking about the first 15 minutes (after the intro, so starting about 2 minutes in). He presents what he sees as the "Charedi" POV (which he ascribes to the Israeli Litvish "Charedim" and says Sefardim and Chassidim follow, and Chabad are not Charedim).

YouTube provides a somewhat useful transcript if reading works better for you.

I personally think that the problem with army conscription (for those who aren't learning) is that the final word/authority currently lies with the Israeli Supreme Court which cannot be trusted to respect Yiddishkeit, rather than a Torah Authority.

[gozalim]

He has his own negative classification of charedi, which Chabad is outside of
Hard to argue the mindset he describes isn't present on some level, but it isn't the 'official' problem with conscription, but would come up on an individual level if the 'real' problems you describe would be resolved.

[ExGingi]

He has his own negative classification of charedi, which Chabad is outside of
Hard to argue the mindset he describes isn't present on some level, but it isn't the 'official' problem with conscription, but would come up on an individual level if the 'real' problems you describe would be resolved.

Who are you to say so?

I think we need input from someone closer to those circles.

[gozalim]

Who are you to say so?

I think we need input from someone closer to those circles.

same mindset that thinks the primary purpose of a far flung Chabad house is to provide cholent to travelers

[ExGingi]

George Friedman is a brilliant geopolitical analyst. I find the following extremely interesting. I find it most interesting how he admits to not voting for Trump, not liking Trump, yet commending what Trump is doing. @CountValentine and others on the anti-Trump camp might find this enlightening (I think everyone can find this enlightening, regarding Russia, Ukraine, and the Middle East).