#usforeignpolicy | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

taqato-alim · 11 months

Text

Analysis of: "Bearing witness to the disappearing world - Are political officials trying to bring on the apocalypse?" (commentary/opinion by Sarah Kendzior)

Here is a summary of the key points discussed:

The genre is commentary/opinion with aspects of political analysis and journalism

It makes strong arguments supported by factual evidence and reasoned analysis

The perspective is critical, left-leaning, and pro-Palestinian human rights

It aims to educate readers while disturbing some and motivating others

Ethics presented prioritize facts, humanitarianism, and principled stances

Analyzes complex geopolitical issues surrounding Israel/Palestine conflicts

Critiques US political leaders for enabling escalating civilian death tolls

Portrays dire humanitarian crises faced by Palestinians in Gaza

Evaluates situations in Israel and relationships with US/Twitter critically

Personality type of author hypothesized to be INTJ ("Strategic Mastermind")

Thoroughly discussed and evaluated multiple stakeholders, perspectives, and ethical considerations raised in the document.

Here is a summary of the document in bullet points:

The author woke up to find "Satan" trending on Twitter, but could not determine why. She fell down a "wormwood wormhole" of horror stories and exploitation of horror on the platform.

Twitter has long been a place for people to bear witness to tragic events in the disappearing world. The author joined in 2009 to watch Iranian protests. She has witnessed uprisings, their suppression, a pandemic, election violence, and climate disasters.

The network has been hijacked by those spreading misinformation and hate. Many users have left, but some return to document atrocities in Gaza because few other platforms will.

Political leaders insist people just "move on" from crises, but for those in Gaza there is nowhere to move, with closed borders and bombings. Over 7,000 Palestinian civilians have been killed in Gaza, nearly half of them children.

Comments from various US political leaders over the years have expressed apocalyptic or genocidal rhetoric regarding Israel, or indicated they feel divinely chosen to support the state. This includes figures from both major parties.

The author cannot determine if the US relationship with Israel stems from fanaticism, money, or bloodlust, but it commonly abets genocide. Both parties back support for Israel without hesitation.

In closing, the author notes politicians use piety as pretext but their actions denote darker goals of universally backing an increasingly authoritarian Israel.

Based on its content and style, I would classify the genre of this document as commentary/opinion with elements of political analysis and journalism.

Some indicators that led me to this evaluation:

The writing is personal and reflective in tone, with the author directly addressing the reader and sharing their perspectives and reactions to unfolding events. This suggests commentary/opinion.

However, it also analyzes political developments and presents factual details about issues like civilian deaths in Gaza, comments from politicians, and the historical context of US-Israeli relations. This indicates elements of political analysis and journalism.

Quotes and statistics from authoritative sources are referenced to support points, a technique common in journalism.

The purpose seems to be both informing the reader about issues, while also critiquing certain political stances and consequences of policy decisions.

It makes arguments and draws conclusions based on the evidence presented, rather than just reporting facts neutrally, as straight journalism would.

So in summary, while it contains journalistic elements, the overall genre I would assign is commentary/opinion with aspects of political analysis due to the persuasive and interpretive nature of the writing. The style is more essay-like than just a news report.

Based on the details provided, here is an evaluation of the ethics of the situation described in the document:

Loss of civilian life: The deaths of over 7,000 Palestinian civilians, nearly half of them children, raises grave humanitarian concerns and could constitute war crimes/genocide. This loss of life is clearly unethical.

Disproportionate force: The scale of civilian harm compared to any military objective raises questions about whether force used by Israel is proportionate under international law.

Collective punishment: Policies like restricting borders and cutting electricity/supplies for all of Gaza could be considered forms of illegal collective punishment.

Objectivity of coverage: The lack of media scrutiny or verification of death tolls hinders objective coverage and accountability for loss of life.

Political rhetoric: Calls for violence and framing of conflict in extremist religious/nationalist terms from leaders exacerbate tensions and loss of life.

Partisan enabling: Unconditional bipartisan support from US politicians encourages increasingly aggressive policies regardless of humanitarian impact.

Accountability: The failure of political or legal systems to investigate alleged war crimes or curb escalating civilian tolls undermines ethics of just conflict resolution.

Overall, the pattern of increasingly severe harm to innocent lives faced by one community, coupled with lack of accountability or proportional response, raises serious ethical issues regarding rules of war, human rights, and standards of ethical governance and oversight.

Here are some key stakeholders affected by this document and an evaluation of how they may be impacted:

Palestinian civilians: Gives visibility to their dire humanitarian situation and bolsters advocacy on their behalf.

Pro-peace Israelis: Validates concerns about increasingly nationalist government rhetoric endangering peace.

Anti-war activists: Provides factual ammunition to mobilize others against policies enabling violence and occupation.

Average citizens: Informs public discourse and may sway some voters reluctant to criticize leaders.

Politicians criticized: Indirectly pressures officials by challenging narratives and unethical policies/statements.

Media organizations: Sets a standard for in-depth, evidence-based analysis that moves commentary beyond partisanship.

Readers: Empowers some by presenting perspectives and facts outside mainstream coverage; disturbs others by confronting harsh realities.

Academic discussions: Contributes nuanced geopolitical knowledge and critique for researching issues comprehensively.

While upsetting status quos, the document aims to advance stakeholders seeking accountability, ethics-based debate, and solutions prioritizing civilian welfare over political allegiances driving ongoing conflict and oppression. It threatens entrenched interests but seeks to empower citizens and advocates through information.

Based on the document, here is an evaluation of the group of US political leaders it discusses:

Bipartisan problem: Leaders enabling problematic policies towards Israel span both Republicans and Democrats, indicating a systemic issue beyond partisanship.

Lack accountability: There seems to be little consequence for those making extremist, unethical, or factually inaccurate statements regarding sensitive issues.

Divinely motivated: Some leaders' comments indicate they feel spiritually chosen or called to support Israel in concerning ways unrelated to practical policy.

Apocalyptic rhetoric: Language used by some is alarmingly violent, nationalistic, or suggestive of desired end-times scenarios according to certain theological beliefs.

Genocidal implications: Unconditional support amid civilian death tolls raises questions about complicity in alleged war crimes or genocide.

Unethical alliances: Figures like Elliot Abrams with known roles enabling atrocities have been rehabilitated into leadership positions.

Corrupted incentives: Lobby/donor influence may be incentivizing putting foreign priorities over U.S. governance and humanitarian concerns.

Lack oversight: Absence of accountability allows normalization of extremism without checks from constituents, legal system, or independent press.

Overall, the document portrays this group of leaders critically as failing in their duties through irresponsible, harmful, and arguably illegal rhetoric and policies towards a sensitive geopolitical issue.

Based on details in the document, here is an evaluation of the situation in Gaza:

Humanitarian crisis: High death tolls, including many children, show civilians continuing to bear the brunt of the conflict.

Nowhere to flee: As an open-air prison with sealed borders, Gazans have extremely limited ability to safely evacuate areas of conflict.

Collective punishment: Infrastructural attacks and border restrictions amount to collective punishment of the entire civilian population.

Blockaded enclave: Strict control of goods/movement in and out of Gaza renders the population dependent on humanitarian aid.

Poverty and unemployment: Years of blockade and conflict have severely deteriorated the economy and social conditions.

Mental health impacts: Prolonged violence and uncertainty is psychologically traumatic, especially for children.

International attention waning: Deaths rarely make global headlines, and officials deny tolls, so global awareness/outrage is declining.

Political division: Governed by Hamas but also held hostage to their antagonism with Israel, further complicating resolution.

The portrayal is of a dire humanitarian crisis where civilians, especially children, face constant threats of violence amid highly restricted conditions amounting to an open-air prison.

Based on the details provided in the document, here is an evaluation of the situation in Israel:

Increasingly nationalist government: The ruling coalition includes extremist factions like Kahanists due to merger with Netanyahu's party.

Threat of religious conflict: Goals of some governing parties include actions that could destroy Muslim holy sites and spark sectarian violence.

Democratic backsliding: New laws proposed to curb dissent and free speech raise authoritarianism concerns.

Security challenges: Issues like Hamas hostages present real threats but are also exploited for political gain through hardline responses.

Civilian toll escalating: Israeli military operations, especially in Gaza, have led to thousands of Palestinian deaths, mostly civilians including many children.

International criticism: The scale of civilian harm is disproportionate according to some and may constitute war crimes, but faces inadequate investigation.

Divided public: Not all Israelis support the current leadership or policies, but political power is consolidating around more extreme factions.

Strained diplomacy: Escalating actions jeopardize the viability of a two-state solution and sacrifice international goodwill.

Overall, the document portrays a situation in Israel that is becoming increasingly unstable, aggressive and authoritarian, with the risks of worsening violence and democratic backsliding.

Based on the details in the document, here is an evaluation of the US relationship with Israel:

Unconditional support: Bipartisan backing for Israel is unhesitating and overrides any other policy considerations regarding human rights.

Sources unclear: True motivations behind this stance, such as religious fanaticism, moneyed influence, or strategic interests are ambiguous and concern the author.

Enables escalation: Unwavering support emboldens increasingly nationalistic Israeli governments and discourages accountability for civilian tolls.

Undermines peace efforts: Unconditional allegiance contradicts stated goals of brokering a resolution and damages neutrality as mediator.

Risks US credibility: Close alignment with policies criticized globally threatens America's soft power and moral authority on human rights issues.

Overlooks US interests: Prioritizing Israel above all else ignores impacts to regional stability, bilateral relations with other nations like Iran, and US credibility.

Raises ethical questions: Complicity in civilian deaths and oppression due to unwillingness to apply pressure on Israel for reform or restraint.

The assessment is that the relationship unconditionally enables policies threatening lives, justice and broader U.S. priorities in a way that deserves scrutiny and amendment rather than automatic allegiance.

Based on the document, here is an evaluation of Twitter's situation according to the author:

Platform hijacked: Twitter has been hijacked from within by those spreading misinformation, hate speech, and extremist garbage, driving many thoughtful users away.

Lost purpose: It has lost sight of its original purpose to bear "witness to the disappearing world" through citizen journalism and documenting human rights issues.

Toxic environment: Under new ownership, the platform has become a more toxic environment dominated by viral outrage instead of rational discourse.

Censorship concerns: Attempts to curb hate/extremism raise censorship concerns, yet inaction helps those agendas spread unchecked.

Waning trust: Users no longer trust the platform to be a useful tool for open exchange of ideas and information due to crackdowns or propaganda proliferation.

Loss of community: As people depart the platform, important social communities for coordinating grassroots action or relief efforts during crises have broken down.

Public square declined: Twitter is failing to serve its role as a digital public square for free expression and holding leaders accountable due to bias or lack of safeguards.

Alternative needed: Document suggests Twitter may no longer fulfill the social functions it once served, driving need to find/build alternative spaces for open debate.

So in summary, an unflattering assessment that Twitter has declined from its original purpose and become compromised. Renewed control and safeguards are needed.

Based on the content and phrasing used in the document, I would evaluate the perspective as:

Critical - The writing takes a clearly critical stance towards the actions and rhetoric of many US politicians regarding Israel. It voices strong condemnation of policies that abet genocide.

Left-leaning - The perspective aligns more with liberal/progressive viewpoints in critiquing bipartisan support for far-right Israeli government factions.

Pro-Palestinian - While not explicitly pro-Palestine, the empathetic tone and focus on Palestinian civilian deaths implies alignment with their humanitarian concerns.

Outspoken - The blunt criticism of leaders from both parties indicates a willingness to take independent, uncensored stances even if unpopular.

Informed - References historical contexts and accuracy of details suggest the perspective comes from a place of research and knowledge.

Personal - Anecdotes about the author's experiences give insight into how current events are impacting individuals as well as politics.

Principled - Critiques are framed around concepts like genocide and authoritarianism rather than mere partisanship.

Overall, while openly acknowledging biases, the perspective prioritizes facts over tribal affiliations and takes a firm human rights approach focused on horrific consequences rather than political expediency or factional interests. The aim seems to cut through propaganda with ethical accountability.

Here's an evaluation of the ethics presented in the document:

Factual/Evidence-based: Information and claims are rigorously supported by credible facts, statistics, and directly-quoted sources, promoting transparency and accuracy.

Humanitarian focus: The primary ethical frame centers humanitarian concerns like casualties of war and genocide, prioritizing protection of innocent civilian lives.

Anti-nationalist: Critiques put people over geopolitics by condemning leaders who embrace extreme stances purely due to foreign allegiance rather than ethics.

Anti-authoritarian: Warnings about abuses of power and rhetoric target politicians exacerbating oppression, regardless of political affiliation.

Principled over partisan: Arguments stem from shared principles like human rights rather than tribal "us vs them" thinking, seeking common ground and justice over factional interests.

Undeterred criticism: Willingness to air inconvenient truths and skepticism, even about allied causes, demonstrates commitment to ethical transparency over public relations.

Balance & nuance: While opinionated, perspectives of all relevant actors are acknowledged rather than steamrolled, promoting balanced, multi-faceted analysis.

Overall, the ethics presented prioritize verifiable facts, vulnerable populations, checks on power, and principled stances over partisan loyalties or reluctance to challenge allied misconduct. The aim seems promotion of justice, accountability and human welfare over political expediency.

Here is an evaluation of the potential effects this document may have on readers:

Enlightening: It provides substantial factual context and analysis that could increase understanding of complex geopolitical issues.

Disturbing: By bearing witness to horrific atrocities and appalling political rhetoric, it may disturb or distress readers who learn new information.

Perspective-shifting: Quotes that contradict previous notions or reveal new interpretive lenses could challenge existing perspectives.

Motivating: Strong critiques coupled with empathy for victims may motivate some readers to learn more or take action on the issues.

Divisive: Uncompromising stances may anger those whose political views are critiqued, dividing some readers.

Depressing: Given the severity of ongoing humanitarian crises covered grimly, some may find the content depressing.

Validating: Readers already holding similar views may feel their stances are validated by well-researched evidence.

Distrust-inducing: Revelations about politicians' words may further erode trust in government for already cynical readers.

Overall, while potentially disturbing or motivating for issues touched upon, the careful analysis and documentation aim to have an mainly illuminating and perspective-broadening effect on open-minded readers seeking truth over partisan allegiances. Divisive elements could push some away.

This document straddles the line between several dichotomies:

Science vs Fiction: Strongly skews towards fact over fiction. Specific events, statistics, and quotes are referenced to back assertions. However, some speculation is made regarding motivations.

Empirical vs Anecdotal: Primarily empirical, relying on verifiable data about deaths, polls, meetings. But personal anecdotes from the author's experience also strengthen connections.

Fact vs Opinion: Blends factual information and statistics with interpretations and opinions. Facts form the basis for arguments, but conclusions draw on subjective analysis as well.

Objective vs Subjective: Remains grounded in objectively verifiable evidence, but the critical lens and perspective are inherently subjective. Analytic conclusions inevitably involve some subjectivity.

In summary, while the genre leans more toward informed commentary than just detached reporting, it anchors its critiques firmly in facts about politically controversial topics. Personal experiences add context without detracting from core empirical foundations. Some interpretations will always involve subjectivity no matter the evidence presented. Overall the balance strongly favors the empirical, factual sides of these scales over purely speculative stances. The document strives for and largely achieves a balanced, evidence-based approach within the limitations of opinion-driven genres.

Here is an evaluation of how the document relates to key values of the Enlightenment culture:

Reason over tradition/dogma: Analysis prioritizes evidence, facts and logical conclusions rather than accepting political stances blindly based on tradition or partisan affiliation.

Skepticism of authority: Takes a questioning, skeptical approach to analyzing justifications and rhetoric used by those in positions of power regardless of role/party.

Individual freedom/humanism: Aligns with enlightenment ideals by centering discussion on protection of basic human/civil rights and humanitarian concerns for all people equally.

Transparency/truth: Aims to shed light on realities obscured by propaganda or spin through factual documentation supported by credible sources. Seeks truth over convenient narratives.

Secularism: Discussion remains focused on ethics, human impact, international law rather than justification through religious/mythological interpretations alone.

Progress: Implicitly suggests solutions require progress toward more just, accountable, and openly-debated policies based on shared principles over nationalist agendas.

Education: Shares in-depth knowledge and analysis to increase public understanding of complex issues beyond superficial partisan polarization.

Overall, core enlightenment values of rational skepticism, evidence-based discussion centered on humanism and justice, and empowering education are strongly upheld through this factual, critically thoughtful approach to evaluating controversial current events and governance.

Here are some common criteria for evaluating commentary/opinion pieces, along with my evaluation of how this document meets each one:

Thesis/Central Argument: The document makes a clear central argument that US politicians from both parties unanimously back Israel without hesitation, even when it means abetting genocide, for unclear but potentially troubling reasons. It establishes this thesis well.

Evidence/Facts: Strong use of facts like death tolls in Gaza, statistics on civilian casualties, and specific quotes from politicians to back up arguments. Evidence is properly cited and sourced to authoritative references.

Reasoning/Analysis: Thoughtful analysis is provided of the political context and possible motivations/implications behind the quoted statements and policy stances. Logical progression from evidence to conclusions.

Objectivity: While the author's perspective is apparent, the analysis and harsh criticisms of politicians are supported by factual evidence rather than just opinion. Multiple perspectives are acknowledged.

Clarity: The writing is clear and accessible to the average reader. Complex issues are broken down and explained concisely without jargon.

Engagement: By sharing personal anecdotes and reactions, the author models engaged commentary and effectively draws the reader in to consider the serious issues.

Conclusions: Definitive conclusions are reached regarding the issues while also leaving room for uncertainty around some motivations. More questions are posed than answers given.

Overall, I would evaluate this commentary as very strong based on the standard criteria - the arguments are well-supported, reasoned, and engage the reader in important issues.

Based on the writing style, content, and perspectives presented in the document, I would hypothesis the following about the author's likely MBTI type:

Intuitive (N) rather than Sensing (S): The analyses incorporate a lot of conceptual theories, connect seemingly disparate ideas, and speculate about underlying motivations rather than just presenting surface level facts. This suggests Intuition over Sensing.

Thinking (T) rather than Feeling (F): The evaluations are based on logic, evidence and remain fairly objective/unemotional rather than emotive or empathetic. Ethics are discussed conceptually rather than personally. This implies a Thinking judgment.

Judging (J) rather than Perceiving (P): The writing exhibits an organized, scheduled style with definite conclusions rather than an open, fluid exploratory tone. Suggests a Judging trait.

Introverted (I) rather than Extraverted (E): The focus remains internally directed on analyzing ideas rather than outwardly directed on interacting with people. Personal anecdotes are minimal. Implies Introversion.

Taken together, this suggests the author's personality type likely falls under the INTJ category - Strategic Mastermind. The analytical, skeptical, logically principled approach aligns well with the strengths of this Myers-Briggs personality type. Of course, no conclusive determination can be made without directly interacting with the individual.

Lq2ZpYDb8LMPtZGJ1tw9

1 note · View note