And “de-radicalisation” programmes would be promoted in all religious, educational and welfare institutions. The document suggests Arab countries with experience of such programmes would be involved, though Mr Netanyahu has not specified which.
I’m concerned because I don’t think anyone actually knows how to do this. Islamist movements have evolved to resist de-radicalization and as far as I know, success of the sort Mr. Netanyahu envisions would be an unprecedented achievement rather than something he can follow an established protocol in order to accomplish.
Yeah I would love to see the de-radicalization program that works on a teenager whose entire family you just killed and whom you’ve isolated, dehumanized and put under siege his entire life.
Don’t worry guys, Netanyahu has solved terrorism! We just needed to explain to them that it’s wrong. Can’t believe we never thought of that
I don’t think that’s actually what the problem is. The historical norm appears to be that even extremely brutal wars do not on their own radicalize the defeated population. Look at eastern Europe after World War II - the Soviet Union was quickly able to subjugate it despite having given so many people there ample reason to hate Soviet rule. A more recent example is Putin’s victory against an Islamist insurgency in Chechnya.
My own impression is that radical Islamism causes wars, rather than the other way around (although I acknowledge that those wars create a feedback loop of more radicalization).
Extremely brutal wars are one thing. Genocide is another. Islam does value martyrdom and fighting against oppression, but you still need said oppression.
Islam values martyrdom for the sake of spreading Islam. Fight against oppression is historically not at all what Islam is about - rather the opposite. How do you think Palestinians ended up becoming Muslim? This religion was brought to them by the sword.
The historical norm appears to be that even extremely brutal wars do not on their own radicalize the defeated population.
What about Germany after WW1?
Maybe you’re right about wars overall but I think it’s quite different if innocent people were murdered en masse in an open air prison. The only way to stop the continued suffering is to overthrow the oppressor.
That would require an independent Palestinian state but somehow that doesn’t seem likely.
How many innocents do you think would die if the Israeli state would cease to exist? On October 7, the IDF was confused and absent for just a few hours and look how Palestinian terrorists used this situation. Now imagine this at a national scale.
After WWII, Germany considered the occupying Allied powers to be, well, occupiers. You know what really changed West Germany’s attitude and shifted them from resentment to better cooperation? The Berlin Airlift. They saw that the West was determined to not-abandon then to the Russians, which gave the Western powers massive credibility with the people. It’s just a shame that the West has so readily abandoned all credibility with the Arab world.
I don’t think it’s that straightforward. The Soviet Union also successfully pacified East Germany and turned it into an ally. The USA spent twenty years and two trillion dollars trying to build credibility in Afghanistan, and that was all for nothing.
The USA spent twenty years and two trillion dollars trying to build credibility in Afghanistan, and that was all for nothing.
Because they were doing it while supporting a corrupt government and bombing people willy nilly. There’s a reason the US is known for bombing weddings.
Yeah, they built credibility by checks notes giving positions of power to literal child molestors and war lords. The US spent two trillion bombing Afghanistan into the ground.
Yes, that’s my point. Credibility-building worked, and so did brutal repression. This leads me to think that there was some underlying cultural factor present in post-WWII Germany that made it governable by occupiers, by whatever means. The presence of radical Islamist movements appears to correspond to the absence of such a factor. (Sufficiently brutal repression might still work, the way it did for Putin in Chechnya, but it’s not an option for Israel.)
I’m concerned because I don’t think anyone actually knows how to do this. Islamist movements have evolved to resist de-radicalization and as far as I know, success of the sort Mr. Netanyahu envisions would be an unprecedented achievement rather than something he can follow an established protocol in order to accomplish.
Yeah I would love to see the de-radicalization program that works on a teenager whose entire family you just killed and whom you’ve isolated, dehumanized and put under siege his entire life.
Don’t worry guys, Netanyahu has solved terrorism! We just needed to explain to them that it’s wrong. Can’t believe we never thought of that
I don’t think that’s actually what the problem is. The historical norm appears to be that even extremely brutal wars do not on their own radicalize the defeated population. Look at eastern Europe after World War II - the Soviet Union was quickly able to subjugate it despite having given so many people there ample reason to hate Soviet rule. A more recent example is Putin’s victory against an Islamist insurgency in Chechnya.
My own impression is that radical Islamism causes wars, rather than the other way around (although I acknowledge that those wars create a feedback loop of more radicalization).
Extremely brutal wars are one thing. Genocide is another. Islam does value martyrdom and fighting against oppression, but you still need said oppression.
Islam values martyrdom for the sake of spreading Islam. Fight against oppression is historically not at all what Islam is about - rather the opposite. How do you think Palestinians ended up becoming Muslim? This religion was brought to them by the sword.
The irony trap in being anti-religious is that one tends to overestimate the power of faith.
What about Germany after WW1?
Maybe you’re right about wars overall but I think it’s quite different if innocent people were murdered en masse in an open air prison. The only way to stop the continued suffering is to overthrow the oppressor.
That would require an independent Palestinian state but somehow that doesn’t seem likely.
How many innocents do you think would die if the Israeli state would cease to exist? On October 7, the IDF was confused and absent for just a few hours and look how Palestinian terrorists used this situation. Now imagine this at a national scale.
Didn’t suggest that.
After WWII, Germany considered the occupying Allied powers to be, well, occupiers. You know what really changed West Germany’s attitude and shifted them from resentment to better cooperation? The Berlin Airlift. They saw that the West was determined to not-abandon then to the Russians, which gave the Western powers massive credibility with the people. It’s just a shame that the West has so readily abandoned all credibility with the Arab world.
I don’t think it’s that straightforward. The Soviet Union also successfully pacified East Germany and turned it into an ally. The USA spent twenty years and two trillion dollars trying to build credibility in Afghanistan, and that was all for nothing.
Because they were doing it while supporting a corrupt government and bombing people willy nilly. There’s a reason the US is known for bombing weddings.
Yeah, they built credibility by checks notes giving positions of power to literal child molestors and war lords. The US spent two trillion bombing Afghanistan into the ground.
By executing anyone who didn’t want to get along. Remember the 1953 uprising?
Yes, that’s my point. Credibility-building worked, and so did brutal repression. This leads me to think that there was some underlying cultural factor present in post-WWII Germany that made it governable by occupiers, by whatever means. The presence of radical Islamist movements appears to correspond to the absence of such a factor. (Sufficiently brutal repression might still work, the way it did for Putin in Chechnya, but it’s not an option for Israel.)
This is just standard colonialism.