A German foundation has said it will no longer be awarding a prize for political thinking to a leading Russian-American journalist after criticizing as “unacceptable” a recent essay by the writer in which they made a comparison between Gaza and a Jewish ghetto in Nazi-occupied Europe.
I wonder if in 100 years we’ll be looking at Israel like we look at Nazi Germany nowadays.
Well, if history is indeed cyclical, then in a 100 years Palestinians will have their own ethnostate and oppressing a different peoples. My guess is Kurds. /s
Not likely. Conjuring new nations out of former colonies isn’t really doable anymore.
In a 100 years it might, after our current world order has been consumed by the effects of unimpeded climate change. There’s hope yet for the Palestinians to have a go. /s
Damn, I forgot about climate change. I don’t do that often these days.
You’d think supporting the west supporting Nazi’s comitting genocide would never be doable anymore yet here we are.
In a couple decades we’ll pass a non binding resolution condemning the genocide of Gaza and pat ourselves on the back for doing the right thing. Then we’ll pass another military aid package for Greater Israel.
100 years from now the MENA region will be uninhabitable due to climate heating and I doubt that anyone will want to visit it in some spacesuit.
That’s not what any of the worst case scenario in climate studies I’ve seen seem to think, what are you basing it on?
Pliocene and Eocene provide best analogs for near-future climates | PNAS
An astronomically dated record of Earth’s climate and its predictability over the last 66 million years | Science
Toward a Cenozoic history of atmospheric CO2 | Science
Environmental changes during the Cretaceous-Paleogene mass extinction and Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum: Implications for the Anthropocene - ScienceDirect
…
Greatly enhanced risk to humans as a consequence of empirically determined lower moist heat stress tolerance | PNAS
Projected Air Temperature Extremes and Maximum Heat Conditions Over the Middle-East-North Africa (MENA) Region | Earth Systems and Environment
Climate change projections for the Middle East–North Africa domain with COSMO-CLM at different spatial resolutions - ScienceDirect
Climate Change and Weather Extremes in the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East - Zittis - 2022 - Reviews of Geophysics - Wiley Online Library
For the lazy, it’s their 6th, 7th, and 8th links.
Projected Air Temperature Extremes and Maximum Heat Conditions Over the Middle-East-North Africa (MENA) Region | Earth Systems and Environment
Climate change projections for the Middle East–North Africa domain with COSMO-CLM at different spatial resolutions - ScienceDirect
Climate Change and Weather Extremes in the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East - Zittis - 2022 - Reviews of Geophysics - Wiley Online Library
This one also is relevant: Greatly enhanced risk to humans as a consequence of empirically determined lower moist heat stress tolerance | PNAS
We’re going to start seeing that in about a decade. You should imagine scale and intensity growing over time.
You should also consider migration at least within the region. That’s not easy to model, but you can start by looking at the role of climate heating and drought in Syria.
Just posting a whole big pile of stuff and saying ‘the answers probably in there somewhere and you can’t disagree until you’ve been thought it all’ is something conspiracy theorists and idiots do.
The first paper doesn’t agree with your claim so it’s pretty obvious you didn’t even read it yourself.
This is not a big pile, these are only 8 peer-reviewed papers. This is a tiny snack on a coffee-cup plate.
I read many papers every day, and I intentionally posted some that don’t 100% back up what I said so you can have more nuance.
You intentionally made the first one disagree with your argument to add nuance.
Thank you, I will be laughing about this for years to come.
Oh, I doubt that you’ll be laughing. Tell me, how do you think avoiding confirmation biases and sampling biases looks like?
Your links don’t support your claim, and in fact contradict it. No doomerism please.
I highly doubt that you’ve read them or comprehend the implications. The models have various outputs. Good luck with your optimism, but don’t expect me to work to keep your hopes up.
I skimmed a few, but I took your dozens of seemingly barely relevant links as a deliberate attempt to keep people from scrutinizing your claim. So no, I didn’t read all of them and I doubt you did either. If you did then please point to specifically where any of that supports your claim that Gaza will be uninhabitable.
Most seemed completely irrelevant to your claim but one paper showed a projected lethal heat map. It did not show any such heat in Israel/Palestine. This makes sense because west-facing coastal regions are protected from extreme temperatures by marine weather.
They have long been at the point where the heat seems to impact their thought processes negatively. It will only get worse with more heat, I’m afraid.
The difference is that this time USA supports the fascists
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_American_Bund
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_non-interventionism#Non-interventionism_before_entering_World_War_II
https://www.history.com/news/how-the-nazis-were-inspired-by-jim-crow
This time?
America supports whoever we think will benefit us the most geopolitically lol. Israel is a centerpiece in the MENA which can’t really be ignored for how much pressure they put on their neighbors.
There hilarious thing is we’ve got way more invested in Iraq these days.
I’ve got some bad news.
The US was fully prepared to support the Nazis right up until it looked like they’d probably lose the war.
Do you have a source for that? I tried searching but didn’t seem to find what you’re referring to.
I think they’re talking about American Nazi party involvement in the 1930’s (sources in the comment below the question) at the time leading up to America’s involvement, not necessarily official American foreign policy.
it’s certainly an interesting revisionist question (i.e. if America had been on the axis side of the war), but it’s definitely a-historical.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Committee is about all I can find in a few minutes.
Apologies, for not having more or better.
That talks about a group of around 800,000 in a population of over 132,000,000. That’s not exactly “the US”.
I call bullshit. Why was the US supplying weapons to all of Germany’s enemies starting in 1941 (months before Pearl Harbor)?
Americans mainly wanted to avoid siding with anyone because they saw the war as a European conflict they didn’t need to be involved in.
You’re right to call BS: I provided no supportive evidence. I’ll try to do so.
The US “dealers of death” '(a precursor name of the military industrial complex) were happy to sell to anyone who was buying. Commercial support is only relevant as a source for lobbying.
The (strictly non-interventionalist at the time) US government officially wanted to avoid involvement in a war as a belligerent. That doesn’t preclude sympathy within Congress or amongst the people for either side. The popularity of “America First” and Lindbergh in particular demonstrate that.
Germany was compelled to declare war against the US because of Pearl Harbour, the US’ declaration was just reciprocation. The US, now busy in the Pacific, entered the European theatre only after operation
barbossabarbarossa, noting that Germany had already made its fatal strategic blunder and was weakened from its battle of Britain defeat.The Wikipedia articles have good sources and are well edited. They’re a good place to find entry points into the histories.
Everything you just said is correct as far as I know, but I don’t think it supports your original statement. The US was acting like Switzerland, which is scummy as hell when one side of a conflict is clearly in the wrong, but that doesn’t mean the US waited until Germany looked like it was losing. I’m not that much of a WWII scholar, but I was as a kid, and I wouldn’t say Germany was clearly losing until after the D-day invasion in mid 1944. That’s certainly the position assumed by popular portrayals of WWII, such as Jojo Rabbit and Downfall, to pick a US example and the one German one I know.
I wouldn’t use Hollywood as a source. What sells well to the American public? America winning the war.
In British media, it’s the battle of Britain.
I imagine Soviet media would show it as operation
barbossabarbarossa.But yes, scummy as hell.
Barbarossa. It’s Operation Barbarossa. And again, you continue to ignore the political reality that at least two giant constituencies in the US had very good reasons for not wanting to get into the European war. In a democracy, their views could not be ignored, no matter what others may have thought was the right thing to do. As I constantly find myself repeating to people on lemmy, winning an election doesn’t mean that you get to do anything you want, it means that you can probably do some of the things you want and will have to compromise on others.
That’s me falling afoul of auto correct. I’ll edit.
True, it’s not a real source. But I think it says something when media from both sides of the conflict paint the same picture.
My point was that the allied countries’ media doesn’t present the same picture.
Of course axis media will paint the picture of their defeat as a late as possible, new player introduction; rather than incompetence in high command.
One must evaluate the source’s Providence, motivation, etc.
I have more chances of going out with emma watson than the nazis had chances of winning that war.
There’s a pre/post battle of Britain and pre/post harry potter thing in there somewhere.
My chances go getting out with emma* went down the hill after harry potter, i get your point and I think its pretty valid
*point of reference is 2023
They would have had a pretty damn good chance if they had stayed neutral with the soviet union. I don’t think even American involvement could have stopped them.
Bullshit. The pro-Nazi elements in the US were never anywhere close to being a majority and were never close to implementing pro-Nazi policies. At worst, the US government was guilty of remaining neutral and continuing to do business with Nazi Germany, but that’s a far cry from supporting the Nazis. This is pure revisionist tripe.
It’s also worth mentioning that at that time the two largest ethnicities in the US were Irish and German immigrants or their immediate descendants. With the famine still in living memory and Irish independence still relatively recent, Irish-Americans were very leery of joining the war on the side of the UK, while German-Americans obviously weren’t necessarily keen on fighting the country from which they’d immigrated. These two constituencies were far too important to be ignored politically, and that’s a huge part of why it took the attack at Pearl Harbor for the US to do the right thing.
If they end up losing.