Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank

Quoting neomac

Yet, to distinguish Palestinians as a specific nation within the wider Arab ethnic group, Palestinians should also be able to see themselves as distinct from other Arabs, not simply as Arabs living in Palestine fighting against the Jews.

I still think that their history makes them quite different from Jordanians, Egyptians or the Lebanese. As I said, Swedes and Finns are both Europeans. Both are majority Christians and share a common past. Yet for example the Swedish speaking Finns do not consider themselves Swedes, but Finns who just happen to talk Swedish. (And btw. this has been a huge reason why there isn't any rift between these two ethnic groups in Finland)

And let's remember that Pan-Arabism was tried and it crashed. Just ask the Syrians how well did that experiment go with the Egyptians having a one-Pan Arab state. And the relations between the GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council) member states who all are also members of the Arab League show how brittle these relationships are.

Quoting neomac

This is a poor analogy. Independent Ukraine is 33 years old, Ukrainian nationalism and sentiment has definitely a longer history, much longer than the Palestinian nationalism.

And how was it shown in 1945-1991? Yes, there is a history of Ukraine, but so has Palestine even a longer history. And Ukrainian nationalism emerged only in the 19th Century. And do notice that Palestinians had the Arab revolt in 1936-1939 against the British, where actually the Jewish fought alongside the British and gained military experience and competence (the Haganah just didn't sporadically emerge from refugees from Europe). And prior to that they were part of the Ottoman Empire, just as everybody else.

Quoting neomac

I simply get to the plausible roots of Israelis’ skepticism about Palestinian nationalism.

There is an understandable motive for the Israeli skepticism about Palestinian nationalism. It's quite similar to the skepticism of Ukrainian nationalism by the Russians.Ordinary you don't give credence to the enemy you are fighting and his objectives. Actually it's quite natural. And this goes vice versa: the talk of Israel as an "colonial enterprise" is a way to diss Israel.

Yet as you mentioned about the state of Israel and Zionism, it's actually the Israeli's themselves that give credence to having a very young state. Yet I think the Israelis have the right for their country just as the Japanese or the French have for their own. It isn't about how long your nation has existed.

Quoting neomac

That’s not my argument, though. My argument is that Palestinians and Israelis have to fight for their right to the land if their demands are incompatible, because there is no way to consistently ground both demands on the same justifying narrative.

This is well said. Actually it reminds me of what Noah Hariri said: Israelis and Palestinians could easily live together, but not with the narratives they tell themselves. For a one state solution the problem is basically Zionism and democracy. If the state of Israel has more non-Jews than Jews, what kind of homeland for the Jews is it?

Quoting neomac

What I care to focus on is to what extent Palestinians can see themselves as a distinct nation from the larger Arab community. I think the way they have been treated by other Arab governments and people may have contributed to a reciprocal estrangement which reinforced Palestinian Nationalism.

In 1948 yes, the neighbors didn't care a shit about Palestinians. But now I think it's different: nobody wants to be responsible of 7 million Palestinians. So OK for them to have their own country...as it's Israeli territory, anyway.

Quoting ssu

Yet, to distinguish Palestinians as a specific nation within the wider Arab ethnic group, Palestinians should also be able to see themselves as distinct from other Arabs, not simply as Arabs living in Palestine fighting against the Jews. — neomac

I still think that their history makes them quite different from Jordanians, Egyptians or the Lebanese. As I said, Swedes and Finns are both Europeans. Both are majority Christians and share a common past. Yet for example the Swedish speaking Finns do not consider themselves Swedes, but Finns who just happen to talk Swedish. (And btw. this has been a huge reason why there isn't any rift between these two ethnic groups in Finland)
And let's remember that Pan-Arabism was tried and it crashed. Just ask the Syrians how well did that experiment go with the Egyptians having a one-Pan Arab state. And the relations between the GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council) member states who all are also members of the Arab League show how brittle these relationships are.

Quoting ssu

This is a poor analogy. Independent Ukraine is 33 years old, Ukrainian nationalism and sentiment has definitely a longer history, much longer than the Palestinian nationalism. — neomac

And how was it shown in 1945-1991? Yes, there is a history of Ukraine, but so has Palestine even a longer history. And Ukrainian nationalism emerged only in the 19th Century. And do notice that Palestinians had the Arab revolt in 1936-1939 against the British, where actually the Jewish fought alongside the British and gained military experience and competence (the Haganah just didn't sporadically emerge from refugees from Europe). And prior to that they were part of the Ottoman Empire, just as everybody else.

I have no problems to acknowledge that historical circumstances are often more messy than narratives and ideas about them suggest. Yet to the extent such narratives and ideas inspire collective political consciousness and action they can play some explanatory role. My understanding is that Palestinian nationalism promoting 1. a national identity uniting all Palestinian Arabs in Palestine in a distinctive manner within the rest of the Arab community, and 2. dedicated nation-state institutions to represent such people didn’t become predominant until Arafat. And this didn’t happen just because the pan-arabist project failed and the treatment of the Palestinians prior to 1967 (like the Gazans under the Egyptian rule and the West Bankers under the Jordan rule) wasn’t that brotherly, but also because the USSR was pushing national liberation movements in the Third World to fight American imperialism (Israel being one expression of it). In other words, Arafat with his nationalist narrative managed to emerge thanks to the USSR financial, military, intelligence and propaganda aid. So much so that, back then, it became clear in the West that Arafat accounted for an essential undercover operative for the KGB for years to come (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine%E2%80%93Russia_relations).


Quoting ssu

There is an understandable motive for the Israeli skepticism about Palestinian nationalism. It's quite similar to the skepticism of Ukrainian nationalism by the Russians.Ordinary you don't give credence to the enemy you are fighting and his objectives. Actually it's quite natural. And this goes vice versa: the talk of Israel as an "colonial enterprise" is a way to diss Israel.

I don’t discount the psychological factor you are pointing out, but I’m talking about something else. The historical Ukrainian nationalism is much older than Palestinian nationalism there is no question about it. Here Timothy Snyder: Ukraine has a very old national idea, actually. The idea of Ukraine goes back into the 17th century at least. And one can talk about the history of Ukraine which is much older than that. The Ukrainian national movement comes from the 19th century and really it was a quite typical European national movement - anti-imperial, focused on the people as the subjects of of history.Ukraine, unlike other East European nations, was unable to establish a state in the early 20th century after the First World War. Its statehood only really emerges in a durable way after 1991. https://www.weforum.org/podcasts/radio-davos/episodes/ukraines-history-and-why-it-matters/
Of course the historical Ukrainian nationalism got politically updated when it merged with the Western idea of the nation-state as much as the Jewish national identity which stems from biblical times but got politically updated when it merged with the Western idea of the nation-state. Palestinian nationalism has its historical roots in Arab nationalism, and only after 1967 it redefined itself as a function of a Palestinian nation-state. To the extent people use history as a source of legitimacy for their political claims (Palestinians and Israelis do resort to historical arguments to support their rights to the land) we can’t ignore the history of such political claims either.



Quoting ssu

In 1948 yes, the neighbors didn't care a shit about Palestinians. But now I think it's different: nobody wants to be responsible of 7 million Palestinians. So OK for them to have their own country...as it's Israeli territory, anyway.

Mmm… not sure about that:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bolehland/comments/17939xb/can_someone_explain_why_he_said_palestinians/?rdt=61460

Quoting neomac

In other words, Arafat with his nationalist narrative managed to emerge thanks to the USSR financial, military, intelligence and propaganda aid.

And Israel's first backer was actually the Soviet Union. At the birth of the state it was quite leftist and the US wasn't actually supporting it (the FBI was searching for Jewish arms smugglers, for example). Hence one of the first aircraft IAF had were Czech built Me-109s (Avia S-199).



Quoting neomac

The historical Ukrainian nationalism is much older than Palestinian nationalism there is no question about it.

Much older? At least Ukrainian identity is now molded to a new level. But how much some Bohdan Khmelnytsky was an Ukrainian nationalist is an interesting question (especially when he allied with Russia). Present nationalism is a quite late idea, yet to think that nationalism didn't exist prior to the 19th Century is wrong.

But here's the real question to you. The Zionist idea of Israel is very young. And so is the idea of independent Palestine. But the age of the idea doesn't matter, it's how many people genuinely believe in that cause. There is absolutely no prestige, no larger credibility or justification on this age issue. This is just the nonsensical debate that parties who want to thrash the other side in the Palestine/Israel debate. I don't understand at all the reasoning for this debate or why should it be important. The Palestinians do want an independent state from Israel. The Israelis don't want a two state solution.

We've actually seen just now a coming and going of one idea, an Islamic Caliphate in the form of ISIS/ISIL/IS/Daesh come, emerge and be squashed in the region. This isn't anything new, actually. Hence likely that the region hasn't seen the end of new nation forming. Likely in the year 2424 the map can be totally different from now. And those states will trace their glorious history back to our time and beyond to older history.

All right, so it’s not that you do not see. You do not see anything new. Even though foreign policies can be inherently controversial, especially if motivated by aggressive hegemonic ambitions, maybe the Gulf War was the least controversial among them.

There have been tensions between the US and the EU about economics.
Now we are talking divergence about security needs, military alliance, wars, genocides on top of the economic tensions. That’s the reason of concern especially if power balance wrt aggressive competitors is at stake as you too pointed out.

Reply to neomac
Controversial enough to threaten the alliance, to threaten U.S. support for and trust in a powerful EU.

If Ukraine had joined NATO before now, there would be a war between Russia and NATO now.
— Punshhh

I don’t find this counterfactual evidently true. It can argue that if Ukraine had joined NATO previously, Russia would have not tried to aggress it the way it did

How angry do you think Putin would have been if Ukraine had joined NATO a few years back?

I can appreciate your effort to clarify your views, but I still find your claims a bit misleading. On one side you support the idea that the US will keep its superpower status on the other the vulnerabilities of the US and the power balance against the US may increase for the US if the EU is weak.
So even if the US preserves a superpower status versus other superpowers in a one-to-one comparison, still you are talking about a scenario in which the unipolar world with the US on top of it is over and power balancing alliances are needed. Besides a weak EU would tilt the power balance AGAINST the US.

You seem to be conflating “superpower status” with “the unipolar world”. I haven’t once mentioned a unipolar U.S. I’m working from the assumption that that is over now and we have competing superpowers. Therefore the U.S. will rely on a strong partner in the EU to fend off potential challengers and maintain the status quo.

Besides if one is reasoning in terms of alliance also an alliance between Russia, China and the Middle-Eastern countries can tilt the power balance at the expense of the US and EU alliance

I don’t see this. The Middle Eastern countries are incapable of reaching such a stature and control of the region is not of any importance In the power balance between U.S. and China. The times when gulf oil was of great importance are over, what else do they have to offer?(other than money laundering)

Still I expect the region to become an inhospitable wasteland of failed states once climate change bites.

So I wouldn’t discount this factor when talking about the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Yes, I know, but I’m talking about changes, or pivot here, between superpowers. As you seem to dislike the notion that the Ukraine war is pivotal in Europe, Russia and by extension the U.S. and China.

Quoting Punshhh

If Ukraine had joined NATO before now, there would be a war between Russia and NATO now.
— Punshhh

I don’t find this counterfactual evidently true. It can be argued that if Ukraine had joined NATO previously, Russia would have not tried to aggress it the way it did

How angry do you think Putin would have been if Ukraine had joined NATO a few years back?

Not sure if that’s relevant: Putin may have been furious and still deterred. Especially in the firs years of his Presidential mandate, imagine during the Chechen war.

Quoting Punshhh

I can appreciate your effort to clarify your views, but I still find your claims a bit misleading. On one side you support the idea that the US will keep its superpower status on the other the vulnerabilities of the US and the power balance against the US may increase for the US if the EU is weak.
So even if the US preserves a superpower status versus other superpowers in a one-to-one comparison, still you are talking about a scenario in which the unipolar world with the US on top of it is over and power balancing alliances are needed. Besides a weak EU would tilt the power balance AGAINST the US.

You seem to be conflating “superpower status” with “the unipolar world”. I haven’t once mentioned a unipolar U.S. I’m working from the assumption that that is over now and we have competing superpowers. Therefore the U.S. will rely on a strong partner in the EU to fend off potential challengers and maintain the status quo.

How am I conflating “superpower status” with “the unipolar world”, if I’m intentionally stressing their difference, and what you wrote is again a paraphrase of what I just claimed to have understood from your views?

Quoting Punshhh

Besides if one is reasoning in terms of alliance also an alliance between Russia, China and the Middle-Eastern countries can tilt the power balance at the expense of the US and EU alliance

I don’t see this. The Middle Eastern countries are incapable of reaching such a stature and control of the region is not of any importance In the power balance between U.S. and China. The times when gulf oil was of great importance are over, what else do they have to offer?(other than money laundering)

Other than oil, money, terrorism, control over commercial routes, criminal business, immigration, exporting Islamism in Asia, Africa and the West, good dates, and carpets, maybe not much. That however may be enough to help a Russia-China alliance against a US and EU alliance, even more so with a weak EU.

Quoting Punshhh

Still I expect the region to become an inhospitable wasteland of failed states once climate change bites.

It seems a good location for Mad Max style movies

Quoting Punshhh

As you seem to dislike the notion that the Ukraine war is pivotal in Europe, Russia and by extension the U.S. and China.

Actually I’m more skeptical about the idea that whatever happens in the Middle East, it won’t play any decisive contribution in the power balance of major hegemonic powers.

Quoting ssu

But how much some Bohdan Khmelnytsky was an Ukrainian nationalist is an interesting question (especially when he allied with Russia).

My understanding is that back then Poland was perceived to be the oppressor and Russia the convenient protector. Unfortunately such an alliance didn’t play as expected, i.e. in favour of the Cossack state’s independence, because it lost progressively sovereignty, autonomy and then it got Russified (especially, the local elites), despite following resistance.



Quoting ssu

But here's the real question to you. The Zionist idea of Israel is very young. And so is the idea of independent Palestine. But the age of the idea doesn't matter, it's how many people genuinely believe in that cause. There is absolutely no prestige, no larger credibility or justification on this age issue. This is just the nonsensical debate that parties who want to thrash the other side in the Palestine/Israel debate. I don't understand at all the reasoning for this debate or why should it be important. The Palestinians do want an independent state from Israel. The Israelis don't want a two state solution.

We've actually seen just now a coming and going of one idea, an Islamic Caliphate in the form of ISIS/ISIL/IS/Daesh come, emerge and be squashed in the region. This isn't anything new, actually. Hence likely that the region hasn't seen the end of new nation forming. Likely in the year 2424 the map can be totally different from now. And those states will trace their glorious history back to our time and beyond to older history.

Despite your initial announcement, I don’t see any question.
Besides you are making claims that do not add up to me: if all that matters is what people believe, how is it possible that the age of certain ideas which are part of people’s belief systems and, actually, help justify and identify such belief systems doesn’t matter?
Finally, if Palestinians do want an independent state from Israel while not recognising Israel, then also Palestinians don't want a two state solution.

Quoting neomac

if all that matters is what people believe, how is it possible that the age of certain ideas which are part of people’s belief systems and, actually, help justify and identify such belief systems doesn’t matter?

Perhaps I may have asked the question in a difficult manner.

Do historical aspects justify more or is it the will of the people? Which justifies more?

As having studied history I understand the role of history here quite well: history is usually used to push an agenda by focusing and giving importance to the details that makes the agenda important. Thus history is usually done from a national point of view that justifies the existing state and all little details that have made it so. If history is a tool for this, it still is a tool. Existence of a state and a desire for an independent state is a lot more.

Quoting neomac

Finally, if Palestinians do want an independent state from Israel while not recognising Israel, then also Palestinians don't want a two state solution.

Umm... they did recognize Israel. At least the PA did. (Do you know the Oslo peace accords?)

Following the Oslo I Accord in 1993, the Palestinian Authority and Israel conditionally recognized each other's right to govern specific areas of the country.

This is the reason why Netanyahu just loved so much Hamas that he even financially supported them. For him the Palestinian that cannot be negotiated with is the Palestinian that he wants to have. Far more easy to ethnically cleanse when the other side are "human animals".

(And naturally many Israelis want to uphold the idea that they cannot negotiate with the Palestinians, that Palestinians just want to drive them to the sea. Or something like that.)

Not sure if that’s relevant: Putin may have been furious and still deterred.
Reply to neomac
Are you sure about that?

[quote] Especially in the firs years of his Presidential mandate, imagine during the Chechen war.

That’s unrealistic, you’re taking it back to a point where Russia was weak compared to now. Putin has been agitating in Ukraine for a long time. If Ukraine had been fast tracked into NATO that would have blown up on the eastern front.

How am I conflating “superpower status” with “the unipolar world”, if I’m intentionally stressing their difference, and what you wrote is again a paraphrase of what I just claimed to have understood from your views?

Your whole argument about U.S. looking to weaken the EU, rather than form a constructive alliance, (apart from it being a flawed argument) only makes sense from the assumption that the U.S. is in a unipolar position and doesn’t require that alliance.

I thought it was accepted knowledge that the U.S. isn’t in a unipolar position.

Other than oil, money, terrorism, control over commercial routes, criminal business, immigration, exporting islamism in Asia, Africa and the West, maybe nothing. That’s however may be enough to help a Russia-China alliance against a US and EU alliance, even more so with a weak EU.

Good luck (for this alliance) in holding all that together. Just more failed states. The only reason the Gulf states have their current prosperity and security is due to implicit support from the U.S. (the West) in return for oil. That oil will shortly become less important with the transition to net zero. By the way, Russia has the same problem with oil becoming a stranded asset.

It seems a good location for Mad Max style movies

Now you’re getting the picture.

Actually I’m more skeptical about the idea that whatever happens in the Middle East, it won’t play any decisive contribution in the power balance of major hegemonic powers.

So points 2 and 5, wouldn’t happen? Are you sure about that? Or that on the other side of the picture, that this could happen if Russia had lost in Ukraine and sleeked off with her tail between her legs?
(2, U.S. will be obliged to support EU, and be drawn into EU wars with Russia.)
(5, EU are vulnerable to Russia picking off states, pre-occupying EU while China can threaten U.S. play one off against the other.)

Thousands more dead, protests in Israel itself, and the world easily recognizing how horrid this genocide really is…

And through it all, the apologists on this thread keep fighting the good fight. Because “hamas.” Oh how complicated it all is!

Except when sub-humans do things. That’s easy to condemn, because they have bad intentions.

Unlike real, sophisticated humans, who might kill 100 times more babies, but have very good intentions. Also “Human shields” and so forth. Nothing to condemn there.

Reply to Mikie

This is one of your more reasonable posts.

Question - would you be upset if Israel killed 15k Palestinians but they were all Hamas? What are your thoughts on the dead Hamas fighters?

Also what do you think about the much larger death tolls elsewhere in the world that receive virtually zero attention and zero mass protests?

Quoting Moses

Also what do you think about the much larger death tolls elsewhere in the world that receive virtually zero attention and zero mass protests?

What larger death tolls?

War in Ukraine has larger death tolls, but it hasn't such high amounts of civilian deaths or death of children. And let's remember how few people are in Gaza and that this war has been going on for a shorter period time (aside how long the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been going on). Sudan has 46 million people.

Question for you, Moses: Would you be OK if the Israeli army continued it's fight against Hamas, but did allow freely food to be transported to the civilian population (which would be naturally inspected)?

The US did this in similar battles it fought in Iraq, even if it clearly understood that some of the food would end up in the bellies of the enemy combatants, yet decided that to starve civilians would be more counterproductive. And it tried to kill the insurgents by other means than hunger. As the US fought Al Qaede and Isis, it did also try to look after the civilian population when the battle was still ongoing. Or is there something wrong in the way the US did it?

Quoting Punshhh

Not sure if that’s relevant: Putin may have been furious and still deterred.

?neomac

Are you sure about that?

I’m sure that I’m “not sure if that’s relevant”.

Quoting Punshhh

Especially in the firs years of his Presidential mandate, imagine during the Chechen war.

That’s unrealistic, you’re taking it back to a point where Russia was weak compared to now. Putin has been agitating in Ukraine for a long time. If Ukraine had been fast tracked into NATO that would have blown up on the eastern front.

If you are reasoning in terms of counterfactuals, I can do the same. There were US political advisors pushing for NATO enlargement (including Ukraine) way before Putin (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-105shrg46832/html/CHRG-105shrg46832.htm) and “relations between Ukraine and NATO were formally established in 1992, when Ukraine joined the North Atlantic Cooperation Council after regaining its independence, later renamed the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations). So my counterfactual is not arbitrary.
On the other side if we are talking about starting from the current conflict, it would be certainly problematic for political and strategic reasons wrt NATO and wrt Putin, still I think Putin would have big problems to start a war against NATO if the non occupied part of Ukraine was successfully fast tracked into NATO (like Finland), as Putin is even having problems to end the conflict in South and East Ukraine.

Quoting Punshhh

How am I conflating “superpower status” with “the unipolar world”, if I’m intentionally stressing their difference, and what you wrote is again a paraphrase of what I just claimed to have understood from your views?

Your whole argument about U.S. looking to weaken the EU, rather than form a constructive alliance, (apart from it being a flawed argument) only makes sense from the assumption that the U.S. is in a unipolar position and doesn’t require that alliance.

I thought it was accepted knowledge that the U.S. isn’t in a unipolar position.

First, I was trying to understand your views, so I made explicit what I thought it was left implicit in your argument. And the point is that if the superpower status of the US in one-to-one comparison still holds in the current non-unipolar world, I’m not sure the US will preserve its superpower status so defined in the next decades if certain strategic alliances are necessary for the US to keep its superpower status: technological gap is already decreasing, military projection is already grown unsustainable, monetary dominance is challenged or worked around, and reputational costs are mostly against the US. So the US power projection as world power can be severely damaged in the longer run.
Second, if the US needs a strong EU as an ally to sustain its power projection wrt rival alliances, I don’t think it will evidently succeed either because a strong EU will never materialise, and if it will materialise it still will at best balance not overwhelm rival alliances, even more so, if the contribution of Middle-Eastern regional powers can weigh in.
Third, to be more precise, my whole argument is “the more the European strategic interest diverges from the US national interest and the European partnership turns unexploitable by the US, the more the US may be compelled to make Europe unexploitable to its hegemonic competitors too.” The point is that the combination of persisting EU vulnerabilities plus incumbent weakening of the US leadership, Europe will turn into a more disputable area for hegemonic competition among the US and other rival hegemonic powers, and this could threaten both NATO and EU project.


Quoting Punshhh

Other than oil, money, terrorism, control over commercial routes, criminal business, immigration, exporting islamism in Asia, Africa and the West, maybe nothing. That’s however may be enough to help a Russia-China alliance against a US and EU alliance, even more so with a weak EU.

Good luck (for this alliance) in holding all that together. Just more failed states. The only reason the Gulf states have their current prosperity and security is due to implicit support from the U.S. (the West) in return for oil. That oil will shortly become less important with the transition to net zero. By the way, Russia has the same problem with oil becoming a stranded asset.

Concerning the Middle East, I find at least the leaderships of regional powers like Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia, enough aware of their geopolitical role and strength, despite rivalries and vulnerabilities. They are open to balance the US hegemony in cooperation with Russia and China. They try to develop their sphere of influence even beyond the Middle East in Asia and Africa. And even though they will exploit their oil as a main source of revenues, they are already planning for a post-oil transition (https://www.forbesmiddleeast.com/lists/the-middle-easts-sustainable-100/, https://www.dw.com/en/how-the-gulf-region-is-planning-for-a-life-after-oil/a-67067995, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10668-021-01424-x). Besides, even though they compete for regional hegemony, yet the most acute and local problems they have to face coming from Islamism, environmental challenges, growing population (https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/05/why-the-world-s-fastest-growing-populations-are-in-the-middle-east-and-africa/), plus the mediation of greater powers, like China, may also solicit greater cooperation among them to face shared future challenges, including the threats of a multipolar world like hawkish non-middle eastern hegemonic powers.




Quoting Punshhh

Actually I’m more skeptical about the idea that whatever happens in the Middle East, it won’t play any decisive contribution in the power balance of major hegemonic powers.


So points 2 and 5, wouldn’t happen? Are you sure about that? Or that on the other side of the picture, that this could happen if Russia had lost in Ukraine and sleeked off with her tail between her legs?
(2, U.S. will be obliged to support EU, and be drawn into EU wars with Russia.)
(5, EU are vulnerable to Russia picking off states, pre-occupying EU while China can threaten U.S. play one off against the other.)

There is some logic into the 2 hypothetical scenarios you have described but given the current circumstances I’m less certain about their likelihood. And the end of the Ukrainian war may look more messy than an uncontroversial victory or loss.

[quote=“ssu;895429”]Do historical aspects justify more or is it the will of the people? Which justifies more?

As having studied history I understand the role of history here quite well: history is usually used to push an agenda by focusing and giving importance to the details that makes the agenda important. Thus history is usually done from a national point of view that justifies the existing state and all little details that have made it so. If history is a tool for this, it still is a tool. Existence of a state and a desire for an independent state is a lot more.[/quote]


Your question intrigues me because it’s the kind of core question where apparently meaning looks so intuitive, and yet all sorts of ambiguities show up at a second thought. The shortest answer I feel comfortable to give is that I take “justification” as a normative claim which one appeals to in order to ground beliefs so that they do not appear arbitrary. Therefore, the will of the people needs to be grounded on a justifying system of beliefs, which is what I think we normally refer to when talking about “the narrative”, in order to not appear arbitrary, especially to those who do not share such will or worse have to lose. On the other side, the justifying belief system is also what helps identify whom the people are we are referring to when talking about the will of “the people” (also across generations). And this turns particularly problematic when sovereignty over a territory and the popular representativity of political decision makers are disputed. If a specific narrative justifying the right to land is what politically qualifies Palestinians as Palestinians vs Israelis as Israelis, discounting such a narrative would make the demand for a Israeli and Palestinian nation-state arbitrary. While taking it into account would make both demands incompatible. One might wish to say that both Israelis and Palestinians may find an agreement for a peaceful however unjust resolution (since narratives remain incompatible) but, so far, they didn’t manage to. On both sides there were/are elements strong enough to boycott such a resolution again in light of incompatible narratives. Invoking third party actors as mediators, instead of fixing the conflict, may be useless or worsen the situation, since also third party actors may be in conflict among themselves also due to incompatible narratives.




[quote=“ssu;895429”] Finally, if Palestinians do want an independent state from Israel while not recognising Israel, then also Palestinians don't want a two state solution. — neomac

Umm... they did recognize Israel. At least the PA did. (Do you know the Oslo peace accords?)

Following the Oslo I Accord in 1993, the Palestinian Authority and Israel conditionally recognized each other's right to govern specific areas of the country.


This is the reason why Netanyahu just loved so much Hamas that he even financially supported them. For him the Palestinian that cannot be negotiated with is the Palestinian that he wants to have. Far more easy to ethnically cleanse when the other side are "human animals".

(And naturally many Israelis want to uphold the idea that they cannot negotiate with the Palestinians, that Palestinians just want to drive them to the sea. Or something like that.)[/quote]

We have discussed that already. Whatever agreement decision makers may have found at some point, they weren’t able to enforce them on either sides. The legal implications of such failures are also disputed. What we may still do, before drawing our conclusions in light of our moral standards and political leaning, is to assess the impact of Palestine and Israeli’s approach to their strategic goals in terms of efficacy. What we are seeing is that the Palestinians are bearing the greater material and human costs wrt the Israelis so far. While Israel resisted also foreign pressure and persisting resistance (Hamas keeps firing rockets against Israel, and holding Israeli hostages), so far. Which one is getting closer to its strategic goal?

Quoting Moses

Question - would you be upset if Israel killed 15k Palestinians but they were all Hamas? What are your thoughts on the dead Hamas fighters?

If they were all Hamas fighters who engaged in murder on October 7th? I wouldn’t be upset, no. It wouldn’t change the causes of those actions, however.

Quoting Moses

Also what do you think about the much larger death tolls elsewhere in the world that receive virtually zero attention and zero mass protests?

Like what, exactly? Because I see nothing comparable to what Israel is doing. If you look at Sudan, or Congo, or Haiti, or aspects of China/India/Central America, or Yemen, or repression in Saudi Arabia, etc., there’s a lot we should be paying attention to.

The level of US involvement is what especially motivates me, however — as it’s the country I live in and can perhaps mildly influence. They’re currently providing the weapons and financial support that’s contributing to this genocide. I want that to stop, at a minimum.

Reply to Mikie
https://www.genocidewatch.com/single-post/chinese-genocide-of-uyghurs-in-xinjiang-continues

Reply to RogueAI

Quoting Mikie

aspects of China

:up: Not comparable. China isn’t murdering thousands with US support /weapons.

Still should be paid attention to and condemned.

But really this is just given to divert attention and responsibility from Gaza. “But hey, what about all the OTHER bad things happening in the world?”

Pretty pathetic, really.

Quoting Mikie

Not comparable. China isn’t murdering thousands with US support /weapons.

Ah, I see. So U.S. consumers aren't supporting China when they buy hundreds of billions of cheap Chinese crap every year? You get so worked up about genocide, I would have figured you'd be in favor of a boycott of a country actively engaged in it.

Quoting neomac

The shortest answer I feel comfortable to give is that I take “justification” as a normative claim which one appeals to in order to ground beliefs so that they do not appear arbitrary. Therefore, the will of the people needs to be grounded on a justifying system of beliefs, which is what I think we normally refer to when talking about “the narrative”, in order to not appear arbitrary, especially to those who do not share such will or worse have to lose.

Well said.

And here we find the problem that the narratives diverge so much that they simply don't meet. At all. Nor there's any willingness to listen to other sides narrative.

Quoting neomac

One might wish to say that both Israelis and Palestinians may find an agreement for a peaceful however unjust resolution (since narratives remain incompatible) but, so far, they didn’t manage to.

Actually I think it was really close when the Cold War ended. Palestinians had angered the Gulf states by siding with Saddam and as the Cold War ended, Israel thought once the Cold War ended and the Soviet threat evaporated, the US wouldn't care much of it. Hence all the drive from Madrid talks to Oslo Accords.

But then Likud and Netanyahu understood that the US-Israeli relationship and the very successful lobby it has is also a domestic issue in the US, not a foreign policy issue. And the Arabs came back to give aid like Qatar to Hamas. So why make that "unjust" lousy negotiated peace?

The Israeli Palestinian situation is a reminder that for example in Northern Ireland they really can be happy about the Good Friday agreement. "The Troubles" could have continued even to this day.

Quoting neomac

Whatever agreement decision makers may have found at some point, they weren’t able to enforce them on either sides.

To guarantee peace, you have to have a functioning state. Egypt is one. Even Jordan is one. Yet Lebanon is a failed state. Syria has become one.

Above all, Israel would need a reason to make a peace agreement. It doesn't have any, Likud's objective of a state from the river to the sea is already quite close. And extreme Zionists can believe that they are getting there, settlement after settlement. Hamas can also look at the Oslo Accords as utter failure. Both sides can reassure themselves of the wickedness of the other side.

Quoting Mikie

But really this is just given to divert attention and responsibility from Gaza. “But hey, what about all the OTHER bad things happening in the world?”

Quoting RogueAI

So U.S. consumers aren't supporting China when they buy hundreds of billions of cheap Chinese crap every year?

:ok:

Perfection.

It's downright painful to watch Netanyahu dig Israel's grave with the West's tacit approval.

Quoting ssu

What larger death tolls?

War in Ukraine has larger death tolls, but it hasn't such high amounts of civilian deaths or death of children. And let's remember how few people are in Gaza and that this war has been going on for a shorter period time (aside how long the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been going on). Sudan has 46 million people.

Question for you, Moses: Would you be OK if the Israeli army continued it's fight against Hamas, but did allow freely food to be transported to the civilian population (which would be naturally inspected)?

The US did this in similar battles it fought in Iraq, even if it clearly understood that some of the food would end up in the bellies of the enemy combatants, yet decided that to starve civilians would be more counterproductive. And it tried to kill the insurgents by other means than hunger. As the US fought Al Qaede and Isis, it did also try to look after the civilian population when the battle was still ongoing. Or is there something wrong in the way the US did it?

Congo, Syria, Sudan, Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan. Gaza Health ministry has revised the death tolls downwards to ~22k with 13k of those being Hamas according to the IDF by the way. So roughly 8-9k civilians dead and keep in mind Hamas's rockets often malfunction and end up hitting their own populace.

I don't have any problem in principle with aid. The issue of obviously distribution. It is being taken by Hamas which resells it as a much higher price and will waste much of it. Last time I checked there was a several hundred truck log jam in the region regarding aid trucks. Israel can let the trucks in, which it is has, but distribution run by the UN is a different matter.

I definitely don't think Israel is trying to starve Gaza. Sources internal to Gaza have much more control over distribution patterns than Israel -- an outside government. And if ~70% of Afghani civilians supported al-Qaeda I think the US's treatment would have been very different. I would treat palestinians like an enemy population -- not abusively, but with definite caution. On 10/7 many of the perpetrators were regular palestinian civilians presented with an opportunity. I would be extremely weary of this population.

Reply to ssu

Let’s take the absurd number of Hamas fighters killed at face value. 40,000 - 13,000. I’m no math genius, but 27,000 more to go?

At this rate, given that the total number of innocents dead is probably closer to 100,000 or more, looks like Israel’s goal of ethnic cleansing will be seen through to the very end, international condemnation be damned.

They deserve to be a pariah at this point. Even the dopey US — the provider of the weapons — is slowly waking up thanks to the breaking away from mainstream media propaganda.

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

Gaza Health ministry has revised the death tolls downwards to ~22k with 13k of those being Hamas according to the IDF by the way.

Which is here talking, Gaza Health ministry (the remnants of it) or the IDF?

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

I would treat palestinians like an enemy population.

That tells everything.

For me the enemy is always the enemy combatants, fighters or servicemen. Legal or illegal. Not the civilians.

But I guess some here on even a Philosophy Forum think otherwise.

Quoting ssu

For me the enemy is always the enemy combatants, fighters or servicemen. Legal or illegal. Not the civilians.

True, but Israel can’t always be sure. I think their attitude is exactly the one that’s been adopted for decades: the entire population is the enemy. No need to question why — like the fact that Gaza is a concentration camp. That’s irrelevant history.

October 7th was a blessing for Likud. It finally provided them with a reaction that was hideous enough to use as pretext for their long-desired ethnic cleansing. So it goes.

We smash you over the head for decades, and now we’re going to murder you for lashing out. Lashing out with the wrong intentions in your heart is immoral, after all. Only Israel knows how to APPROPRIATELY murder babies.

Quoting ssu

For me the enemy is always the enemy combatants, fighters or servicemen. Legal or illegal. Not the civilians.

Suppose the Nordon Bombsight actually worked with 90% accuracy and that 90% of bombs dropped on German munitions plants, aircraft factories, oil/ballbearing production, etc. actually hit their targets.

Under those conditions, would you have opposed strategic bombing of German war industries?

Reply to Mikie

Did you hear about the 14 year Israeli shepherd boy abducted and murdered in the West Bank yesterday? Righteous palestinian rage, am I right? Those [s]Jews[/s] Israelis have no right to that land! The Israelis smash us and oppress us for decades, what's the harm in one abduction and murder? Who even cares?

BuT wE aRe OpPrEsSeD

Does Israel have a right to pursue the killers or no? If yes Israeli may end up killing more than 1, if no then you proclaim Israel has no right to self defense. You have no good response to this one.

Are you an American, Mikie? Would you be a fair target for a terrorist angry at America's actions?

Reply to ssu

The Gaza Health ministry only has data -- names, ages, etc. on 22k of the 33k claimed. Israel claims to have killed 13k hamas.

Palestinians are not the enemy, but I do see them as an enemy population in the same way that a highly pro-nazi town in 1945 would have been. The citizens themselves aren't inherently evil and deserving of death, but I would be very cautious of them. This is just based on statistics -- 70% of palestinians sympathize with the 10/7 attacks. Israel still allows the transport of aid and medical treatment to palestinians. Israel can provide aid but the reality leaves one skeptical of "winning hearts and minds." Yet Israel is and should treat them with basic decency. Soldiers who blasted Jewish prayers over a loudspeaker of a defeated city were reprimanded.

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

Palestinians are not the enemy, but I do see them as an enemy population in the same way that a highly pro-nazi town in 1945 would have been. The citizens themselves aren't inherently evil and deserving of death, but I would be very cautious of them.

:100:

Quoting Mikie

October 7th was a blessing for Likud. It finally provided them with a reaction that was hideous enough to use as pretext for their long-desired ethnic cleansing. So it goes.

On October 7th Bibi realised he lost the game: Israel will become a target in the great power struggle between 'the West' and BRICS, there will be no rapprochement in the Middle-East, and it's a matter of time until US power wanes and Arab / BRICS takes over the region, at which point Israel will be at the mercy of its historical enemies.

I think that's why Bibi's initial reaction to the attack was so extreme. This was certainly no blessing.

Reply to Tzeentch Israel is a nuclear power. They're not going to be at the mercy of anyone in the region.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/report-iran-begins-attack-on-israel-launching-dozens-of-drones-thatll-take-hours-to-arrive/

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

Did you hear about the 14 year Israeli shepherd boy abducted and murdered in the West Bank yesterday?

Hey did you hear about the 10,000 children murdered the past few months? Oh yeah, you only care when it’s an Israeli kid. :up:

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

You have no good response to this one.

:lol: Delusional, as always. But great job plugging your ears along with your eyes.

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

Are you an American, Mikie? Would you be a fair target for a terrorist angry at America's actions?

No, see I’m the one against killing innocent civilians.

You’re in favor of it— provided, of course, it’s done with good intentions.

Quoting Tzeentch

I think that's why Bibi's initial reaction to the attack was so extreme. This was certainly no blessing.

A blessing for their long-sought desire. But the reality is clearly different, yes. Like making themselves a pariah.

Reply to Mikie

Quoting Mikie

No, see I’m the one against killing innocent civilians.

Yet when this happens, as it does repeatedly to victims of islamic terror, you put yourself in a bind: Innocents will die when a country responds militarily.

To insist on zero civilian deaths = no military response permitted to murderous attacks.Especially when the attackers place themselves among the populace as they deliberately do.

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

To insist on zero civilian deaths

Nope. Some is expected. 10,000 children? No.

Iran launched a broad aerial attack on Israel from its territory on Saturday, in retaliation for a deadly Israeli airstrike in early April on the Iranian Embassy complex in Damascus, the Israeli military and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps said.

Just before 2 a.m. local time, air-raid sirens sounded across southern Israel. The government sent out dozens of warnings about possible missiles and aircraft arriving in the Negev Desert, where there are several military bases.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/04/13/world/israel-iran-gaza-war-news

This can’t be great. Another bonehead move by Israel.

Reply to Mikie

a) Hamas uses child fighters. Is the IDF allowed to kill a 16 year old firing a gun at it?
b) Hamas's figures are highly questionable.

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

Hamas

Exactly. Just blame Hamas.

We had to turn Gaza into a concentration camp and murder 10s of thousands of innocent people — because Hamas.

Reply to Mikie

Yes, I do deeply hate and blame the organization that murders LGBTQ and tortures its own dissidents and indoctrinates its population with virulent anti-semitism and strives openly and boldly to destroy the Jewish people.

Reply to BitconnectCarlos

Yes, and I do deeply hate and blame the organization that is currently conducting a genocide and has said repeatedly it wants to ethnically cleanse Gaza.

And on and on we go. Maybe one day you’ll wake the fuck up.

Reply to Mikie

When everything is genocide to you, just response to an attack feels egregious.

I suppose the US committed genocide in Iraq. Or in Afghanistan. Innocents did die. Everything is genocide.

Iran attacked with the ferocity of a cornered rabbit. Looks like the status quo is still in place. The rial is trading at 600,000 to the dollar. The last thing Iran wants is a war with U.S./Israel

Of course, if Iran does manage to kill some Israelis it's obviously genocide, and that changes the situation.

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

Everything is genocide

Quoting RogueAI

obviously genocide

10,000 children murdered after decades of living in an Israeli-made concentration camp. But definitely not genocide, because — again — Israel doesn’t do that. :up:

Reply to Mikie

You're guilty of genocide of the English language.

Reply to RogueAI A handful of outdated nukes that may not even be there are no guarantee for anything.

Also, the situation just became extremely worrying.

Israel was clearly trying to provoke Iran into doing something like this in the hopes of dragging the US into a war with Iran. It succeeded in the first part, the second remains to be seen.

However, Iran probably understood this and went ahead with the attack anyway, basically showing it doesn't fear escalation either.

Reply to BitconnectCarlos

https://reliefweb.int/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/palestinians-west-bank-2023-was-deadliest-year-record

I wonder what 2024 will bring.

So Israelis displace, kill, take the land and oppress Palestinians for 75 years, with record numbers of coloniser violence in 2023 in the West Bank and you focus on one poor boy who shouldn't have been on illegally stolen land. Got it.

Reply to Tzeentch The attack was pathetic. Israel killed two Iranian generals, a score of their diplomats, and Iran threw crap weaponry at them that got blown out of the sky.

Reply to RogueAI Ohhh Israel strong! Iran weak!

Am I doing it right?

Reply to Benkei

Yes I will mourn when a 14 year old Jewish Israeli shepherd boy is abducted and stoned to death by knuckle draggers. And again one cannot colonise the land to which one is indigenous to. I understand that for you, as an outsider, everything just starts 75 years ago but not everyone shares your European, state-centered perspective of history.

Reply to Tzeentch
"Israel's military says 99% of weapons fired by Iran intercepted"
https://www.cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/israel-hamas-war-gaza-news-04-14-24/index.html

Did Iran's "attack" do any damage? To anything?

ETA:
The assault severely injured a 10-year-old girl, but otherwise caused no casualties
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/iran-strikes-israeli-targets-rcna147407

IOW, almost a genocide!

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

one cannot colonise the land to which one is indigenous to.

Yeah I’m sure every American will gladly give up their home and property if and when Native Americans declare it to be theirs. (Despite having a much more convincing claim than Zionists).

Quoting RogueAI

IOW, almost a genocide!

Yeah, we all get that you have no clue what genocide means. How hilarious that 10,000 dead children would be considered such. Everything must be genocide— or nothing must be.

Quoting Mikie

True, but Israel can’t always be sure.

In an insurgency naturally you cannot be sure who is the "illegal combatant". But that [i]doesn't make the civilian population an enemy". Are all the children enemies? A teen surely can fire again or be a suicide bomber. So all teens are enemies? Old pensioners? Yes, they can too.

To understand how wrong and in fact dangerous talk by @BitconnectCarlos of referring to "enemy people" is really important. "Enemy people" means that there simply aren't any civilians. This is the way to dehumanize whole people, the way to start speaking of human animals. You don't treat civilians as civilians until shown to be a combatant, but the other way around: a civilian is a combatant unless being really proven to be a civilian. And what would that be? That he or she "works for you"? It's a huge change in the whole mental way you handle the conflict.

This blatantly goes the rules of war, and for me those rules of war are important. I would follow them and I would assume my country would do so too. To think that the rules of war hinder your warfighting ability is simply false. It just stains your on justifications and your military.

Perhaps it's a very American way to think and to handle these issues, just like imprisoning all the Japanese Americans during WW2. Naturally American didn't imprison into concentration camps all the German Americans, perhaps starting from general Eisenhower himself, perhaps because they were white or simply there was too many of them. Yet even if there would have indeed been a dozen traitors among those ranks, just how important would have it been not only for the Japanese-Americans (as two-thirds of the inmates were United States citizens.), but also the US for Japanese-American soldiers having fought and died in WW2. So easily all the ideals of American or Western thought are thrown away, because of fear or the urge for revenge.

(It's no wonder that the admins wanted this thread to put into the Lounge and some complained of it being in the lounge).

And now as the war is escalating, it's just going to be worse.

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

Palestinians are not the enemy, but I do see them as an enemy population in the same way that a highly pro-nazi town in 1945 would have been. The citizens themselves aren't inherently evil and deserving of death, but I would be very cautious of them.

And what do you think the German people fealt about the Nazis themselves in 1945?

How much had the Gauleiters and the Nazi party taken care of them when the Russian Steamroller broke into Germany proper?

Just ask yourself: how many Germans joined the Werwolf and how did this terrorist group to continue the struggle behave?

Just browsing Wikipedia gives an answer:

In the early months of 1945, SS Obersturmbannführer Otto Skorzeny was involved in training recruits for the Werwolfs, but he soon discovered that the number of Werwolf cells had been greatly exaggerated and that they would be ineffective as a fighting force. Knowing, like many other Nazi leaders, that the war was lost, he decided that the Werwolfs would instead be used as part of a Nazi "underground railroad," facilitating travel along escape routes called "ratlines" that allowed thousands of SS officers and other Nazis to flee Germany after the fall of the Third Reich.

Tells enough how credible the threat of "the Werewolves" was in reality.

Yet here's the problem with when thinking too much about "enemy people". If you then continue to treat the German people as your enemies, your own actions create resistance itself, not that people are loyally following orders of a collapsed state that doesn't exist anymore. This is absolutely crucial. This also is so important in understanding just why the US really won also the peace after WW2 with Germany and Japan and that these countries are truly allies. And just why it was in East Germany where the first revolt against the Soviets erupted.

Now I don't have personally anything against you, but I do find talking about an "enemy people" disturbing, even if you likely make a separation with "enemy soldiers" and "enemy people". But the nuance is there. The enemy is a person that literally tries to kill you, if you are a soldier. That's his job and it's not a warcrime for him or her to do that when being a legal combatant. Hence even POWs are treated with the utmost caution. We aren't living in the 19th Century were you could ask an enemy officer if taken prisoner to give his word that he won't try to flee and he would stick to that. Not so now.

With enemy people, then I guess every child, every grandmother, or anyone could be a possible IED carrier or wants to kill me with a knife, so what's there to stop from killing them if they don't understand to stop at 20 meters from me? Hopefully you do understand how damning this kind of attitude towards civilian population is. It really makes a difference how you treat the people when you are the "occupier".

American soldiers and German civilians in September 1944. This and a few other pictures like it provoked the President (Truman's) order against fraternization:

Quoting neomac

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/report-iran-begins-attack-on-israel-launching-dozens-of-drones-thatll-take-hours-to-arrive/

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/jordans-air-defence-ready-shoot-down-any-iranian-aircraft-that-violate-its-2024-04-13/
https://english.alarabiya.net/News/middle-east/2024/04/14/iran-threatens-to-attack-jordan-if-it-cooperates-with-israel-report

Reply to Mikie

Israel will help settle disputes involving families who were displaced in previous wars. Many Jewish families lost their homes in 1948 and Arabs took over so reclaiming that those homes would actually be decolonization. Zionism is decolonization. These cases go to court and the Arab families are compensated but they are treated individually.

Quoting ssu

You don't treat civilians as civilians until shown to be a combatant, but the other way around: a civilian is a combatant unless being really proven to be a civilian.

Again I ask you if you would have strategically bombed German war industries during WW2 if you could do so with 90% precision. If you had been Churchill, what would you have told Bomber Command to do?

Reply to BitconnectCarlos Indigenous my ass. That's a convenient excuse for forcibly removing millions of people from their actual homes and denying their return. If Jews have a right to return then obviously Palestinians do as well. At least Begin was honest about it: there's no Israeli village that hasn't been build on an Arab ruin.

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

Zionism is decolonization.

:grin: Okay buddy.

Reply to Benkei

Jews are indigenous to the region. You would know this if you knew the history of the region before 1948. But none of this apparently matters because you only think in terms of abstract notions like states, not actual, flesh and blood people.

And that's what it comes down to. You don't really appreciate or understand the region or the people. Religion is stupid for you, after all. And you're an intelligent, secular European who is far above any of this.

At least Begin was honest about it: there's no Israeli village that hasn't been build on an Arab ruin.

Israeli or Jewish? Wording is key here. Israel, as a modern state, is new. Israel as an entity is not. And I would remind you that al-Aqsa mosque was built on Jewish ruins. As were those later Arab buildings. The point is not that property shifts hands but rather how is shifts hands.

Reply to Mikie

Read. Your. History.

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

Read. Your. History.

:rofl:

Reply to Mikie

I can guarantee I know history in this region better than you. Jews are indigenous, thus zionism - jewish self-determination -- is decolonization from later colonizers.

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

I can guarantee I know history in this region better than you.

:rofl: Wow! Good job!

Keep the jokes comin’, please.

Reply to Mikie

Thanks! So I guess with recent events you're on team Iran/Hezbollah/Hamas now? Anything to beat Israel. Way to go! :rofl:

Reply to BitconnectCarlos

:rofl:

Yes yes, whatever you say. Now please continue using your “extensive” historical knowledge to justify genocide. :up:

Reply to RogueAI People back then believed the ideas of Douhuet, which was an error. Bombing the manufacturing military base works...just as destroying air fields and other military infrastructure. It does make manufacturing more difficult, even if German simply increased it's production of war material until the end of the war simply by spreading it's manufacturing into coal mines and so on.

But just think about it yourself: assume Hitler had in 1943 some magnificient Ural-bomber aircraft that could from Northern France (perhaps simply the Luftwaffe had mastered air-to-air refuelling) hit the east coast cities of the US. Then sometime at the end of 1943 or in 1944, German bombers would have appeared out of nowhere to bomb New York with all it's lights on. At least the first strike, US cities would have had no defenses.

Yet. Do you genuinely think that kind of attack would have cowed the US not to fight anymore Germany? Do you FDR would have gotten pressure from the opposition to stop the war with Germany? HELL NO! It would have had quite opposite effect:bombings would have just shown how the enemy was real, they did pose a threat were to the US. Mainland US being attacked would simply have increased the American will to fight. It would have made the leadership to increase it's efforst even more to push the Manhattan Project etc. to go ahead. And the bombings would be part of American history and experience, just like the attack Pearl Harbour is now.

The people that would be happy about it would be Hitler and Goebbels. They could say that they are revenging the bombings of Germany and thus give something for the Nazi supporters that wanted revenge. Yet it would be irrelevant to the war and it's outcome.

Hence the idea that Douhuet marketed, that strategic bombing would shorten wars, that if civilians would be bombed would want their governments to have peace simply has the negative effect. Strategic air war on the other hand is part of air war. Just as in tactical air support and intrediction.

So now Iran has had it's revenge after the 1st April attack on the consulate, which the supreme leader promised.

Likely it won't end up here. Bibi can see here an opportunity to broaden the war. At least he'll get the distraction for the Rafah operation.

Reply to ssu I mostly agree with this, but there is a difference between terror bombing, which is probably immoral and doesn't work, and strategic bombing, which is a fair military tactic. I was pushing back against your claim that civilians are not combatants and are supposed to be "off limits". For Dresden, I would agree. But civilians working in armaments factories are fair game. Wouldn't you agree?

Do you think Israel is doing terror bombing? If they were, they would have killed a lot more civilians than they have. They seem to be trying to target Hamas and minimize civilian casualties, which is a fair tactic. Do you agree that Israel is at war?

ETA: In WW2, terror bombing could have been justified because it put a huge drain on German resources to defend their cities, which helped the Soviets.

Quoting RogueAI

I mostly agree with this, but there is a difference between terror bombing, which is probably immoral and doesn't work, and strategic bombing, which is a fair military tactic.

Ah, that is a really fine line in the sand. Because nobody will say that they are trying "terror boming" as a tactic. And it all comes down to targeting.

I remember Chuck Yeager in his memoirs telling about the air war in 1945 as a Mustang pilot that at some time in the end of the war, they got these orders of patrolling some small area (was it 15km to 15km) and simply attack anything that moved. He and the other pilots were disgusted about the order as they didn't think it was their job to hunt and attack some cyclists or civilian people walking on some dirt road in Germany and hence they basically just flew around. But in the huge wheels of what the USAAF someone had come up with this kind of order.

It all comes down to rules of engagement. Those are defined, unfortunately, usually by the political leadership. And for the political leadership things like "revenge" or "giving a strong message" means that sometimes they want that rules of war are interpreted quite loosely. If the politicians want dead enemy soldiers or dead terrorists, the armed forces will give them want they want.

Quoting RogueAI

Do you think Israel is doing terror bombing?

Just look at the scale of the bombing.

In the first six days that Israel started it's bombing of Gaza: It dropped then over 6000 bombs, which is far more than the US coalition when fighting ISIS used bombs in any month of the war.

Then compare this to for example the battle over Mosul (about 1,7 million people). There extensive bombing was used to clear out ISIS. The civilian death toll was 9 000 to 11 000. So you have now at least double, even triple figures. That tells a lot.

MOSUL, Iraq (AP) — The price Mosul’s residents paid in blood to see their city freed was 9,000 to 11,000 dead, a civilian casualty rate nearly 10 times higher than what has been previously reported. The number killed in the nine-month battle to liberate the city from the Islamic State group marauders has not been acknowledged by the U.S.-led coalition, the Iraqi government or the self-styled caliphate.

But Mosul’s gravediggers, its morgue workers and the volunteers who retrieve bodies from the city’s rubble are keeping count.

Iraqi or coalition forces are responsible for at least 3,200 civilian deaths from airstrikes, artillery fire or mortar rounds between October 2016 and the fall of the Islamic State group in July 2017, according to an Associated Press investigation that cross-referenced independent databases from non-governmental organizations.

So as I've said: the US approach to urban combat would be better than the Netanyahu-lead Israeli one.

So think for yourself, when the political leadership of Israel talks of human animals, the evil city, people in Gaza being responsible for the attacks because they voted ages ago for Hamas in an election and so on. Those things do amount to the death toll.

Reply to ssu Good points.

An interesting development: What is Jordan's role in this?

(AlArabiya News) Jordan will be Iran’s “next target” if it “cooperates” with Israel amid Iranian missile and drone attacks against Israel, the semi-official Fars news agency reported early Sunday, while two regional security sources said Jordanian jets downed dozens of Iranian drones flying across northern and central Jordan heading to Israel.

Iran’s military is “carefully monitoring the movements of Jordan during the punitive attack against the Zionist regime, and if Jordan intervenes, it will be the next target,” Fars reported, citing, an “informed source” in Iran’s armed forces.

“Necessary warnings were given to Jordan and other regional countries before the operation,” the agency, which is close to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), quoted the source as saying.

According to the two regional sources, the drones were brought down in the air on the Jordanian side of the Jordan Valley and were heading in the direction of Jerusalem. Others were intercepted close to the Iraqi-Syrian border. They gave no further details.

Naturally shooting down armed drones flying in your airspace is totally legitimate thing to do for Jordan. But likely Jordan doesn't want to be the first line of defense for Israel. The tiny nation has to do quite a balancing act here.

Regional players like Saudi-Arabia and UAE express concerns for any military escalation. The hope would be that Israel would act like Trump now (do nothing). But that hardly isn't goint to happen like that. As now Israel has gotten "the right" to go after Iran, it will likely use this opportunity. At some time of it's choosing.

Quoting ssu

Regional players like Saudi-Arabia and UAE express concerns for any military escalation. The hope would be that Israel would act like Trump now (do nothing). But that hardly isn't goint to happen like that. As now Israel has gotten "the right" to go after Iran, it will likely use this opportunity. At some time of it's choosing.

Israel already attacks Iranian people and assets all the time, including assassinating Iranian citizens within Iran.

Israel has not acquired any "rights" here; indeed, it's Iran that has the right to attack Israel due to blowing up an embassy being a clear and overt act of war.

The purpose escalating to blowing up the embassy was exactly so Iran attacks Israel and the US is "back onside".

The first goal is simply to renew the US backing so Israel can either continue the genocide in Gaza or then stop the genocide in Gaza.

So we'll see.

It could be that Israeli elites have seen they've lost the PR war, lost appetite for the economic cost of the genocide, so doing it this way leaves the last big impression (especially on Americans) that "Israel is under attack" and is the actual victim (in the next news cycle we'll have forgotten all about Gaza).

And that could be the only goal in this tit for tat, that attention is off Gaza.

Iran gets to show strength and measured retaliation for the embassy and Israel is the victim again so that the genocide can continue, so both parties gain in the exchange.

This is certainly what Iran is betting on because Israel has nuclear weapons and probably the Iranian leadership doesn't want to get nuked. Iran's main strategy is to just tolerate Israeli harassment until it too has nuclear weapons. US power is also in decline both globally and particularly in the Middle East, so Iran gains in relative power and can consolidate its power in the ration in playing the waiting game due this also.

That Israel wants to continue the escalation into a regional war to drag in the US to fight Hezbollah and Iran and Syria and a long list of other groups, I think is unlikely due to the simple fact that the US can't win such a war, without resorting to nuclear weapons.

There's no practical way to actually invade Iran. Escalating standoff attacks heavily favours Iran simply because Israel is so much smaller both in territory as well as people. Not that Iranian missiles would likely kill many Israelis if they just start firing missiles and drones at each other, but it's more the economic cost to Israel of the entire population going to bunkers regularly (the low casualties would be due to the bunkers). Israel wouldn't be able to have a similar effect on Iran (without nuclear weapons).

Not to say it won't keep escalating, just in that case Israel is already committed to the use of nuclear weapons against Iran and Hezbollah. Instead of being like "we lost the PR war so we should wind it down" Israeli decision makers (whoever they actually are) could reason "we lost the PR war so we should therefore use nuclear weapons".

Of course this would be pretty horrible and insane, but so too is carrying out a genocide.

Quoting ssu

Now I don't have personally anything against you, but I do find talking about an "enemy people" disturbing, even if you likely make a separation with "enemy soldiers" and "enemy people".

Reply to ssu

I'm not offended, and we can call them what you like, but the unfortunate fact is the majority of Palestinians -- according to polls -- are sympathetic to the events of 10/7. On 10/7, many palestinians civilians stormed in and murdered and raped their neighbors. We can call them "wonderful village people" for all I care, but treatment-wise, if I were a soldier or commanding them, I would advise extreme caution. I will concede that we don't need to use the term "enemy" especially if it leads to bad treatment.

Iran says it gave warning before attacking Israel. US says that's not true

Take note, children.

This is how propaganda works.

The US is, as usual, clearly lying, by the way.

Reply to Tzeentch, my impression was that just about everyone knew early on. Besides, didn't some of those drones more or less fly over Baghdad, some over Syria, some over Jordan? (Did some skirt over Saudi Arabia or close?) Fairly long flight. I imagine they were detected by various systems, but maybe I'm overestimating what's in the area.

Reply to BitconnectCarlos Bullshit. Some jews were indigenous when they relocated recently (eg. before starting a fucking war about it) peacefully to what they believe is their ancestral home due to religious claims but most left centuries ago and married locally or you would have the most inbred, retarded people today that would've gone extinct several centuries ago. What you are - what every person on earth is - is mixed race, who based on religious rules extends jewishness to descendants of female jews. And since religion is made up bullshit, the claim is bullshit and certainly not a claim I have to entertain as a non-jew because I reject the made up reference frame of dumb fucking relligions.

It's been 99 generations since the first diaspora. What assumption do you fancy? Currently 40% intermarries outside of Israel. Let's say this was less throughout the ages, so maybe 1 in 10 married a non-Jew, that means current Jews are only 1/1024th indigenous Jew, so 1023th part is non-indigenous blood. And yet, we get the insance claim you're indigenous when you're more not an original Israelite than anything else. This is equally ridiculous as Warren's claim to being native American and purely a religious claim.

But this is the game Jews like to play all the time: then it's ethnicity, then it's religion and then it's national identity. Being a Jew is politicized by (mostly right-wing) Jews to further whatever political agenda they have - in your case, justifying the war crimes and stealing land from actual indigenous people in the area. It's bloody insulting to Jews who actually have a moral compass and don't want anything to do with these insane claims and defences.

EDIT: Actually, come to think of it, that 10% intermarriage is probably too low since it already started with intermarriage with Joseph to Asenath and Ruth to Boaz. It was fairly common especially since converting to jewishness resolves the issue of intermarriage the xenophobic rabbis still hold today.

Reply to Benkei When people argue over who "rightfully" owns the land, they are indirectly suggesting the other side may "rightfully" be oppressed, expelled, put under an apartheid regime, ethnically cleansed, etc.

In other words, these types of arguments aren't really worth taking seriously, whichever side they are coming from, since they betray a lack of basic humanity.

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

Palestinians -- according to polls -- are sympathetic to the events of 10/7. On 10/7, many palestinians civilians stormed in and murdered and raped their neighbors. We can call them "wonderful village people" for all I care, but treatment-wise, if I were a soldier or commanding them, I would advise extreme caution. I will concede that we don't need to use the term "enemy" especially if it leads to bad treatment.

Yet you are not a soldier and not even in the region.

But on the other hadn, even before Oct 7th, from 2016:

(Times of Israel, 8th March 2016) Nearly half of Jewish Israelis agree that Arabs should be expelled or transferred from Israel, and a solid majority (79 percent) maintain that Jews in Israel should be given preferential treatment, according to a Pew Research Center in Israel survey published on Tuesday.

So firm public support for ethnic cleansing and the apartheid state even years ago!

And now:

a recent study conducted by an Israeli sample and campaign company Direct Polls affirming that the majority of the Israeli settler society is in favor of mass displacement in Gaza.

The study surveys a representative sample of Israeli public opinion on their stance regarding the Israeli authorities' efforts to "encourage the voluntary immigration" of the residents of the Gaza Strip.

The results show that:

68% are very supportive of "encouraging the voluntary immigration of residents of the Gaza Strip";
15% are quite supportive of "encouraging the voluntary immigration of residents of the Gaza Strip"

Wonderful village people on the other side too.

And the conflict will go on... and there's a real possibility that we will see that "voluntary immigration", ethnic cleansing, of Gaza.

Quoting boethius

The first goal is simply to renew the US backing so Israel can either continue the genocide in Gaza or then stop the genocide in Gaza.

Isreal got it's ironclad support automatically from Joe Biden. I think they will continue with the Rafah operation when the time comes.

Quoting boethius

There's no practical way to actually invade Iran. Escalating standoff attacks heavily favours Iran simply because Israel is so much smaller both in territory as well as people. Not that Iranian missiles would likely kill many Israelis if they just start firing missiles and drones at each other, but it's more the economic cost to Israel of the entire population going to bunkers regularly (the low casualties would be due to the bunkers). Israel wouldn't be able to have a similar effect on Iran (without nuclear weapons).

For both Israel and Iran the "war" between them is quite OK, because they don't share a land border. Simple geography limits the war here. What Israel can do is some limited strikes on Iranian territory, and vice versa. And in reality, neither side is willing to use nuclear weapons (even if Iran would have them). And Iran, unlike Iraq or Syria, hasn't build it's nuclear program in one centralized place which can be taken out. It's been preparing for the attack from Israel and the US for decades now.

But as you said, the whole thing starting from the bombing of the Iranian consulate in Damascus got Bibi where he wants to be. He's the wartime prime minister and as you can see, it's the possible replacements of him like Benny Gantz who have to be bellicose against Iran now. And now when Iran has directly attacked Israel, Bibi has can choose the moment when he retaliates back at Iranian targets, which will then get Iran to respond. "Genocide-Joe" will automatically declare support of Israel and participate, just like he did now, with shooting down the Iranian missiles. With bigger and smaller US bases all around Syria and US, it's very easy to get US in this mess. And even if those aren't attack, a larger attack from Israel will get the US President to fight alongside Israel. There's no doubt about it.

The "coalition" that Bibi is now talking about is likely Israel, the US and the UK. Israel will just asses Iran's capabilities as now it has seen them against Nevatim air base and Mt Hermon. What Nevatim had was F-35 fighters, which likely weren't effected. And notice that Iran didn't attack against Sdot Micha air base, where Israel's Jericho III nukes likely are stored.

Quoting ssu

Wonderful village people on the other side too.

Reply to ssu

If the shoe were on the other foot, and Arab muslim armies were prevailing over Israel, I would expect Israel to fight to the last man. Israel would qualify as an "enemy population" from the arab perspective. But I wouldn't expect the arabs to send in aid trucks or coddle the Israelis there. It would truly be genocide.

Sweden is experiencing considerable social upheaval at ~1.5 million migrants entering over the past decades and we've seen the far right take power. Such a thing would have been unheard of in such a civilized country years ago. But here we have it. Their education system has taken a dive and gang violence has shot up. Sweden is maybe 8% muslim? Israel is 20% and has been dealing with the issue for longer. The point being, mass immigration and such demographic differences will cause such attitudes to rise. Ireland is also seeing nativist marches.

It's not that those european countries are inherently superior -- it's that they don't deal with the same types of issues as Israel has, but right now Sweden is getting a taste of it. Try letting in a sizable majority of a population which doesn't accept your history or your claim to your own land and see how it goes. 59% of Israeli Arabs don't believe that a Jewish temple ever stood on the temple mount! The ruins are still standing!!

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/israeli-attitudes-of-israeli-arabs-005-present

Reply to Benkei Quoting Benkei

peacefully to what they believe is their ancestral home due to religious claims

Not due to religious claims. It's due to history. The Arab muslims built their buildings on the ruins of Jewish civilization. Jews are the older strata.

Judaism - as a religion, as an ethnic identity, as a national identity (and yes it is all 3) -- forms in the land of Israel. Archaeology supports it. Anthropology supports it. Linguistic evidence supports it. I don't need to invoke God in this discussion.

Jews were expelled from their homeland under the Romans yet Jewish tradition has never abandoned its ties to it. Take the Shema -- a prayer ushered morning and night by observant Jews in Hebrew (a language formed in Israel) derived from the words of Deuteronomy (a text formed in Judea under King Josiah in the 7th century BC.) It's maintained all this time.

Not trying to be offensive, but where is the Palestinian history? Or they just assumed to be the original inhabitants? It's in the name, after all, guess it has to be true. /s

Quoting Benkei

And since religion is made up bullshit

Judaism predates modern notions of religion. Judaism is an evolving civilization. Its basis is in practice, not creed.

It's funny you say this while in the same post citing Ruth and Boaz as well as Joseph (!). You call it bullshit yet rely on Scripture to make your argument...

Quoting Benkei

mixed race

Which is fine. There are Jews from all over. Judaism is not a race. Genetic testing does bear out certain common markers among Jews. You can convert to Judaism. But could you become a Palestinian, Benkei?

Reply to Benkei

Lapid: Netanyahu government ‘an existential threat to Israel’

Good to see Israeli politicians are starting to wisen up to the large problem Israel is creating for itself.

As I have been stating here numerous times, Israel is in a strategically vulnerable position, and the ultranationalists' inability to make peace with both its neighbors and its own population have set Israel on the road to a gigantic disaster - a disaster which is indeed existential in nature.

The only thing that can avert disaster is for the Israeli population to demand a course change, and make a sincere attempt at creating a sustainable position for Israel in the Middle-East.

The longer it waits, and the more atrocities it commits, the harder this will be.


The US is openly flirting with regime change in Israel, Lapid being the second major opposition leader to be invited to Washington.

How Netanyahu and his hardliners will respond to this remains to be seen.

We know what they are capable of.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

What I find baffling is how certain people cling on the charicatural idea that
- the US is the world’s superpower and that is a major player in shaping world affairs, yet at the same time they keep reminding all foreign failures: Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Ukraine, Palestine, etc.
- the US is the evil mastermind conspiring against states and people around the world through lies and bribes (which everybody non-brainwashed is aware of), and yet systematically failing to achieve strategic goals other than the self-defeating ones by wasting resources and reputation in failed (proxy) wars
- the US is driven by hypocritical and greedy people supported by a gullible majority (still?), lacking basic humanity principles, and which the entire world has to condemn (especially if Westerner) and to hold as the number one responsible for everything wrong there is in this world (including climate change)

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Reply to tim wood It should start by ceasing the apartheid regime. As long as Israel is committing crimes against humanity there will be no peace with its neighbors either.

And I believe Israel should be prepared to make the first move in that regard. Concessions should have made decades ago, because Israel should have foreseen that it was creating an unsustainable situation for itself.

When Israel can foster some form of rapprochement within its own borders, that can be used as a basis to improve relations with its neighbors.

And no, brutalizing the Palestinians in the hopes they will be the ones to come with concessions is not a valid tactic for actual rapprochement. Israel should acknowledge it has been on the wrong side of history in this regard, and that it needs to change on a fundamental level.

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

Not due to religious claims. It's due to history. The Arab muslims built their buildings on the ruins of Jewish civilization. Jews are the older strata.

Judaism - as a religion, as an ethnic identity, as a national identity (and yes it is all 3) -- forms in the land of Israel. Archaeology supports it. Anthropology supports it. Linguistic evidence supports it. I don't need to invoke God in this discussion.

Jews were expelled from their homeland under the Romans yet Jewish tradition has never abandoned its ties to it. Take the Shema -- a prayer ushered morning and night by observant Jews in Hebrew (a language formed in Israel) derived from the words of Deuteronomy (a text formed in Judea under King Josiah in the 7th century BC.) It's maintained all this time.

Not trying to be offensive, but where is the Palestinian history? Or they just assumed to be the original inhabitants? It's in the name, after all, guess it has to be true. /s

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

Judaism - as a religion, as an ethnic identity, as a national identity (and yes it is all 3) -- forms in the land of Israel. Archaeology supports it. Anthropology supports it. Linguistic evidence supports it. I don't need to invoke God in this discussion.

I see you're confused about facts. You're less than 1024th a descendent from an original Israelite. You have more historical claim to other areas of the world than Israel proper. And Judaism is abused as a national identity only recently, certainly since nations are a recent invention. It's also not an ethnicity because there are at least 4 different identified ethnicities within the religious group of Jews, namely Sephardic, Ashkenazic, Mizrahi and Ethiopian.

It is religious rules making you think there's a straight line from you down to those Israelites from the first diaspora. It's bullshit.

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

Judaism predates modern notions of religion. Judaism is an evolving civilization. Its basis is in practice, not creed.

It's funny you say this while in the same post citing Ruth and Boaz as well as Joseph (!). You call it bullshit yet rely on Scripture to make your argument...

Anyway, Judaism is a religion and nothing more. You can convert to it and the Israeli supreme court has determined as much where it concerns rights under Israeli laws. A Jew that converted to christianity is no longer a Jew.

And Judaism is a fucking dumb religion at that, basically waging a religious war in the region. It's devolving and clearly uncivilised when the likes of you think it excuses current Israeli crimes.

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

Which is fine. There are Jews from all over. Judaism is not a race. Genetic testing does bear out certain common markers among Jews. You can convert to Judaism. But could you become a Palestinian, Benkei?

I could if they would have a fucking state now wouldn't I? I wonder why they don't. Oh yes, warmongering assholes like you rather have them blown up.

Reply to Benkei

Quoting Benkei

You can convert to it

And try converting out of it. A Jew who believes Jesus is divine is a heretical Jew. You don't lose your Judaism by accepting Jesus you just invoke the wrath of the community. As you should by accepting a man who walked the Earth as God. Once a Jew, always a Jew.

You can call Judaism dumb, I don't care. Go back to your own worldview where humanity (European humanity, that is) apparently only becomes intelligent during the Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries. Or is it later with the rise of atheism? I guess who needs religious thought when you've got Dawkins and Harris. The Middle East is stupid because they are religious but you are smart because you know there is no God. :up:

If Judaism is a dumb religion can you show me a smart one? If you think all religion is "fucking dumb" just say that :vomit:

You know so little about Judaism, yet judge so much. And surely if Judaism is "fucking dumb" then Islam must be really fucking dumb. So are there smart religions or is only secular atheism smart?

I’m sure that I’m “not sure if that’s relevant”.

It’s relevant if that anger goes beyond the point of rationality. But you take us back to the Chechen war, things have moved on since then. Putin’s megalomania has grown top heavy. The myth that the nuclear deterrent still works has been eroded. Putin may not invade a NATO country by conventional means( as you say yourself). I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Putin had attacked Ukraine if accession to NATO were in the pipeline.

So my counterfactual is not arbitrary.

Quite, however that alliance may have been on Putin’s mind from that time. Putin was around then, just not in power.

On the other side if we are talking about starting from the current conflict, it would be certainly problematic for political and strategic reasons wrt NATO and wrt Putin, still I think Putin would have big problems to start a war against NATO if the non occupied part of Ukraine was successfully fast tracked into NATO (like Finland), as Putin is even having problems to end the conflict in South and East Ukraine.

Yes, Putin is now in a weak position. Going back to where this line of thought started. That there are differences in foreign policy between U.S. and EU, such that U.S. would seek to keep EU down, or weak. Again I’m just not seeing it. The alliance between them is strong and in lockstep. The status of Ukraine, or the expansion of EU and NATO to the east is not a controversial issue between them.

I’m not sure the US will preserve its superpower status so defined in the next decades if certain strategic alliances are necessary for the US to keep its superpower status:

I repeat, I wasn’t talking about U.S. keeping, or not, it’s superpower status. That status is strong. The alliance with the EU is to counterbalance future threats from China

technological gap is already decreasing, military projection is already grown unsustainable, monetary dominance is challenged or worked around, and reputational costs are mostly against the US. So the US power projection as world power can be severely damaged in the longer run.

Yes and this is the threat to U.S. China is winning the economic war and U.S. needs friends, another powerblock in an alliance to shore this up.

Second, if the US needs a strong EU as an ally to sustain its power projection wrt rival alliances, I don’t think it will evidently succeed either because a strong EU will never materialise, and if it will materialise it still will at best balance not overwhelm rival alliances, even more so, if the contribution of Middle-Eastern regional powers can weigh in.

And the alternative? (I don’t need to repeat my comments about the EU in this regard.)
The Middle Eastern regional powers are small fry, Turkey is not far off a failed state and the Arab states just want to hold on to their decadent lifestyles.

The point is that the combination of persisting EU vulnerabilities plus incumbent weakening of the US leadership, Europe will turn into a more disputable area for hegemonic competition among the US and other rival hegemonic powers, and this could threaten both NATO and EU project.

This is the flawed argument I was referring to.
I think the best you’ve got here is some sort of general malaise and internal collapse in the EU, or U.S. The EU is now rearming and stronger as an alliance due to the example of the U.K. (having left the EU). Also as I say if Ukraine joins, it will provide a considerable boost in numerous ways. The U.S. is in a more precarious position, (I see Trump more and more as a busted flush now) but is still strong militarily and can print money to pull itself out of the malaise.

Other than oil, money, terrorism, control over commercial routes, criminal business, immigration, exporting islamism in Asia, Africa and the West, maybe nothing. That’s however may be enough to help a Russia-China alliance against a US and EU alliance, even more so with a weak EU.

Weak argument, unless we are talking of a world slipping into distopia. Climate change might deliver this though.

Concerning the Middle East, I find at least the leaderships of regional powers like Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia, enough aware of their geopolitical role and strength, despite rivalries and vulnerabilities. They are open to balance the US hegemony in cooperation with Russia and China. They try to develop their sphere of influence even beyond the Middle East in Asia and Africa.

I wouldn’t tell that to anyone in Saudi atm. Again more of a liability than an advantage, I would say.

And even though they will exploit their oil as a main source of revenues, they are already planning for a post-oil transition (https://www.forbesmiddleeast.com/lists/the-middle-easts-sustainable-100/, https://www.dw.com/en/how-the-gulf-region-is-planning-for-a-life-after-oil/a-67067995, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10668-021-01424-x).

Yes, however there might be severe climate issues there in a few decades. Saudi has some dubious practices including building ski slopes in the desert and depleting water tables, something they’re doing to U.S. water tables too. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/16/fondomonte-arizona-drought-saudi-farm-water/

Besides, even though they compete for regional hegemony, yet the most acute and local problems they have to face coming from Islamism, environmental challenges, growing population (https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/05/why-the-world-s-fastest-growing-populations-are-in-the-middle-east-and-africa/), plus the mediation of greater powers, like China, may also solicit greater cooperation among them to face shared future challenges, including the threats of a multipolar world like hawkish non-middle eastern hegemonic powers.

Sounds more like a liability for China, Russia etc.. Also it would mean them getting into bed with these Islamists you talk about.

Actually I’m more skeptical about the idea that whatever happens in the Middle East, it won’t play any decisive contribution in the power balance of major hegemonic powers.

The only way I see what happens in the Middle East playing anything approaching a decisive role is if it distracts the coalition of support for Ukraine enabling Putin to make more ground.

There is some logic into the 2 hypothetical scenarios you have described but given the current circumstances I’m less certain about their likelihood. And the end of the Ukrainian war may look more messy than an uncontroversial victory or loss.

Yes, of course, I was talking of the more easily defined outcomes. I would think that if it were not that clear cut, the perception of success, or failure of Putin as a leader would determine how the world see’s it. I could well see an iron curtain following close to the current front line, but I would see this as a win for the West and a failure for Putin. So my points would still hold.

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

If the shoe were on the other foot, and Arab muslim armies were prevailing over Israel, I would expect Israel to fight to the last man. Israel would qualify as an "enemy population" from the arab perspective.

And this just shows how difficult it is to get a negotiated peace in the Middle East.

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

But I wouldn't expect the arabs to send in aid trucks or coddle the Israelis there. It would truly be genocide.

Why not would they? They still need to have relations with European and Asian states. They couldn't do it unnoticed, that's for sure.

Reply to ssu Quoting ssu

And this just shows how difficult it is to get a negotiated peace in the Middle East.

However, as recent events have demonstrated, the entire Arab world is not Israel's enemy. Jordan and the Saudis evidently are not fans of the Iranian regime and the Arab world has its own divides.

Quoting ssu

Why not would they? They still need to have relations with European and Asian states. They couldn't do it unnoticed, that's for sure.

Did the Gazans think this way on 10/7? Or during the second intifada? Their plan is to defeat Israel and then it's onto Europe. Look up the Banu Qurayza. You'll hear "Khybar, Khybar ya Yahud" chanted.

Reply to ssu

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

However, as recent events have demonstrated, the entire Arab world is not Israel's enemy. Jordan and the Saudis evidently are not fans of the Iranian regime and the Arab world has its own divides.

And this just undermines also the idea that all Arab countries are just waiting to get the chance to kill all the Jews and/or push them into the sea. The rhetoric is one thing, the actions are another thing.

Do notice that countries like Saudi-Arabia, UAE and even Russia have all asked both sides to ease tensions, btw.

When it comes to Saudi-Arabia, just ask which country has attacked it last? Israel or Iran? Well, Israel has actually never attacked Saudi-Arabia (that I at least know of). Iran has, just a while ago. And the US didn't come to the help of the Saudis (which they likely remember). Are there real tensions between the Saudis and Israel? Well, The Saudis have deployed some forces to the war theatre at some time, but hasn't been engaged in open war with Israel.

Or just look at Iran.

Notice that this is quite the same playbook as Iran did with Trump: it did attack with ballistic missiles US bases after the killing of the Iranian general in Iraq. At least with the US this didn't follow up with Trump then going another step in the escalation ladder. Iran might hope for this, but perhaps the lure for Bibi is too great now. IDF is already talking of counter strikes.

Quoting Punshhh

I’m sure that I’m “not sure if that’s relevant”.

It’s relevant if that anger goes beyond the point of rationality.

That’s a possibility, sure, but I would need a more solid argument for the likelihood of something happening in a hypothetical or counterfactual scenario. For example, if Ukraine managed to join NATO, would still Putin attack NATO out of anger? I doubt it and, as far as geopolitical actors are concerned, they seem to doubt it too: indeed, the reason for Ukraine to join NATO was to deter Putin from attacking Ukraine, otherwise what would be the point of joining NATO if Putin would attack anyway just out of anger? Putin may attack NATO out of a more hawkish calculus though to the extent NATO countries show lack of resolve (due to economic dependency) and/or fear for escalation (for lack of readiness and will to fight for allies).


Quoting Punshhh

That there are differences in foreign policy between U.S. and EU, such that U.S. would seek to keep EU down, or weak. Again I’m just not seeing it.

First of all, my claim was: “the more the European strategic interest diverges from the US national interest and the European partnership turns unexploitable by the US, the more the US may be compelled to make Europe unexploitable to its hegemonic competitors too.” Secondly, I argued that the conflict in Ukraine and in Palestine are straining Western public opinion and nurturing conflict of interests among allies, to the point that for example a US candidate for the next presidential elections like Trump dared to say “he would encourage Russia to attack Nato allies” if they do not comply with Trump’s demands.
Besides, I do not think EU governments and advisors are downplaying the gravity of such claims, or the US questionable commitment toward the Ukrainian conflict.
https://www.rferl.org/a/trump-nato-russia-attack-white-house-appalling-unhinged/32814229.html
https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-nuclear-warfare-detterence-manfred-weber-vladimir-putin-ukraine-russia-war/
Poland's foreign minister on concerns the U.S. will abandon Ukraine, Europe ?(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHxjutEfhww)
If you do not see that, again do not bother answering me.


Quoting Punshhh

The alliance between them is strong and in lockstep. The status of Ukraine, or the expansion of EU and NATO to the east is not a controversial issue between them.

If it wasn’t a controversial issue between EU and US why didn’t Ukraine join EU and NATO yet?



Quoting Punshhh

The Middle Eastern regional powers are small fry, Turkey is not far off a failed state and the Arab states just want to hold on to their decadent lifestyles.

I think you underestimate the strategic leverages of Middle East regional powers in the international equilibria, considering also the influence they have in the once called “Third World”. And, again, the closer hegemonic powers get in terms of capacity, the greater the impact of smaller powers can be over the power struggles between hegemonic powers.


Quoting Punshhh

The point is that the combination of persisting EU vulnerabilities plus incumbent weakening of the US leadership, will turn Europe into a more disputable area for hegemonic competition among the US and other rival hegemonic powers, and this could threaten both NATO and EU project.

This is the flawed argument I was referring to.
I think the best you’ve got here is some sort of general malaise and internal collapse in the EU, or U.S. The EU is now rearming and stronger as an alliance due to the example of the U.K. (having left the EU). Also as I say if Ukraine joins, it will provide a considerable boost in numerous ways. The U.S. is in a more precarious position, (I see Trump more and more as a busted flush now) but is still strong militarily and can print money to pull itself out of the malaise.

You seem to be grounding your arguments mostly on possibilities, but that’s not enough to assess likelihood. Sure it could be just a malaise that the West will manage to overcome, but it is too soon to see in Western re-arming a new stable trend that will succeed in building collective strategic deterrence, despite all persisting conflict of interests. While the decline of the US deterrence and leadership has just kept notably growing since 9/11.



Quoting Punshhh

Yes, however there might be severe climate issues there in a few decades. Saudi has some dubious practices including building ski slopes in the desert and depleting water tables, something they’re doing to U.S. water tables too. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/16/fondomonte-arizona-drought-saudi-farm-water/

Sure that doesn’t mean they are hopeless vis-à-vis climate change:
https://www.watermeetsmoney.com/saudi-water-investment-showcase-at-the-global-water-summit/

Quoting Punshhh

Besides, even though they compete for regional hegemony, yet the most acute and local problems they have to face coming from Islamism, environmental challenges, growing population (https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/05/why-the-world-s-fastest-growing-populations-are-in-the-middle-east-and-africa/), plus the mediation of greater powers, like China, may also solicit greater cooperation among them to face shared future challenges, including the threats of a multipolar world like hawkish non-middle eastern hegemonic powers.

Sounds more like a liability for China, Russia etc.. Also it would mean them getting into bed with these Islamists you talk about.

It depends if China and Russia perceive Islam as a greater threat than the West. So far it doesn’t seem to be the case, given the support/cooperation China and Russia grant to Iran (the only country in which the islamic revolution thus far succeeded), Hezbollah, Houthi and Hamas.


Quoting Punshhh

This is the flawed argument I was referring to.

Quoting Punshhh

Weak argument, unless we are talking of a world slipping into distopia. Climate change might deliver this though.

Clearly mine is just a speculation. But a principled one because I take into account strategic logic of geopolitical players and historical circumstances to assess likelihood. And the conclusion is that we have reasons to worry about how things may evolve in Ukraine but also in the Middle East given the current predicament.
Your argument seems mostly about downplaying the evidence I bring, insisting on the need for the US to have a strong EU to counter Russia and China, insisting on the fact of European re-arming, and on the incumbent crisis in the Middle East due to climate change.
What I counter is:
1. Downplaying the evidence I bring is rather pointless since what matters is to what extent geopolitical actors take such evidence seriously and act upon it. If Middle East wasn’t important to the US, the US wouldn’t engage in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at the expense of the conflict in Ukraine.
2. Insisting that the US needs something doesn’t imply it will get it. Besides the pivot to China, may lead the US to appease Russia’s hegemonic ambitions in Europe to turn Russia against China (which is the raising power, geographically closer to Russia than the US), as argued by various political analysts including Mearsheimer. Indeed, Trump's approach to Russia can be in line with such view (https://carnegieendowment.org/2017/05/24/donald-trump-s-plan-to-play-russia-against-china-is-fool-s-errand-pub-70067). Russia’s appeasement in Europe on the other side may be costly for EU/NATO/Ukraine, and also turn more destabilising than the US may tolerate (if not to Trump’s administration, to post-Trump’s administrations) , soliciting a hegemonic competition in Europe.
3. European re-arming is a recent phenomenon so it doesn't help much to assess the future and effectiveness of the collective European defence strategy (considering various strategic factors like defence industry, conscription, nuclear, etc.) given its controversial costs for a population vulnerable to populist (and often pro-Russian) rhetoric.
4. Climate change is definitely an incumbent challenge that concerns the entire world, and Middle East governments are aware of its risks and urgency, especially due to how exposed they are. That doesn’t mean they are doomed to succumb to a climate crisis or to geopolitical irrelevance, given how pro-actively and effectively they are already acting wrt climate change and evolving geopolitical challenges.

Reply to Benkei

Whatever it is that you or your ancestors believed in, I want you to know that it's fucking dumb and it's clearly devolved from what it was. Let me explain it to you. Let me tell you what it means to be Dutch. Now go open your borders and welcome in more migrants.

Reply to ssu Quoting ssu

Iran might hope for this, but perhaps the lure for Bibi is too great now. IDF is already talking of counter strikes.

After the attack I figure Israel must respond in some way to save face even if its orchestrated. Yet Israel did not respond militarily within a day or two of the attack so clearly they're taking their time with it. Bibi already has a war with Hamas and I don't see potentially sparking WWIII as something that he'd hope to get involved with, yet he must respond in some way. How - I don't know.

Quoting ssu

And this just undermines also the idea that all Arab countries are just waiting to get the chance to kill all the Jews and/or push them into the sea.

Yeah, this idea is somewhat of a relic of wars of past decades as well as the fact that Israel has no true friends in the region. It is not the case for all the Arabs, but some certain wish for Israel's demise. Israel and Jordan or the Saudis may share common enemies, but I would hardly call them "friends" like the US-UK are or the US and Canada. Even biblically, Israel is described as a nation which often goes at it alone. And Israel is not wrong in being cautious of Islam. The last Jewish state lasted 103 years (2nd and 1st century BC), this current one is at 76 and has had 8 wars so I'd expect a few more over the next few decades.

Reply to ssu

Poor ol' Germans seem doomed to be on the wrong side of history again.

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

Bibi already has a war with Hamas and I don't see potentially sparking WWIII as something that he'd hope to get involved with, yet he must respond in some way.

He would be interested in it if his goal is to stay in power to avoid jail. However given the significance of starting a regional war that literally nobody wants it seems that may be a step too far even for him and that may explain why Israel hasn't responded yet.

Reply to BitconnectCarlos Your beliefs are irrelevant when contradicted by facts. But I'm glad I'm getting a knee jerk emotional response about beliefs instead of an argument and facts as it underscores you don't have either.

Reply to Benkei :smirk: :up:

Jeffrey Sachs providing us with a brutally honest take on the sorry state of US, UK and Israeli foreign policy.

The only point I disagree with him on, is the fact that US foreign policy isn't guided solely by Biden's desperate attempt to salvage his election. Biden's re-election chances are only one of many perverse incentives that rear their ugly heads during this perfect shitstorm.

The US is still guided by its age-old strategy of divide & conquer on the Eurasian mainland, for which it needs conflict and a lot of it.

Iran is set to become regional hegemon if left unchecked (based on population, there is no question). The US can't have that. It just so happens that Israel wouldn't like that either, and that Israel holds a lot of sway in US domestic politics, and that's how we come full shitcircle.

Quoting Benkei

certainly since nations are a recent invention

Hardly so, nations have "always" existed. Countries are much younger but not that young. The oldest nation-State (aka country) with unbroken continuity is perhaps Portugal, formed in 1139.

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

Jews are indigenous to the region

I guess they are, after all they are Canaanites, their nation originated there. But then you have little grounding to say Palestinians are also not indigenous, as they have lived there for over a thousand years, regardless of some Jihad 1400 years ago, to which they have little responsibility over. Not only that, but despite speaking Arabic and being Muslim, their genes also trace back to the region, more than any Ashkenazi or Sephardi, perhaps just as much as many Mizrahim. If a person born from Jewish parents is non-religious and does not know the modern, artificial Hebrew, does that mean he is a Jew or no? If yes, Palestinians are also indigenous to the region, because your criterion is not culture or language, but ancestry.

Consider the following:



Quoting BitconnectCarlos

Now go open your borders and welcome in more migrants.

Did you get that line from the Talmud?

Reply to Benkei

Tbh I mentally checked out when I read Judaism is "fucking dumb." I get it, you think all the religions of the world are "fucking dumb" except, apparently, whatever you follow (which you have not made entirely clear). That belief would be truth and it is that which must be taught to everyone else including those idiots in the Middle East. I'm just not dealing with it today. I'll respond to your bigotry before anything else. So no, you don't get a response from me until I deal with the attitudes/assumptions behind your response. Saying Judaism is a "fucking dumb" religion is a ridiculous statement. Maybe it's that monotheism is stupid? Or all theisms in general are stupid? Then just say that. :roll:

But I suspect that there's something about Judaism in particular that you do not like which is what makes you a bigot. :wink:

Reply to Deleted user

Regardless of whether we call Palestinians "indigenous" or not -- and I've heard all types of theories e.g. that many of them descend from workers imported by the Ottoman empire in the 19th century, that they're genetically closer to Jordan or Egypt.... Whatever it is, I think most Israelis would be fine giving them a state as long as they accepted the existence of Israel which they have not and have instead just engaged in constant violence since Israel's inception. It's a security matter above all else. Israel doesn't want Hamas or the PLO importing nukes or biological weapons.

Quoting Deleted user

Did you get that line from the Talmud?

:roll:

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

Saying Judaism is a "fucking dumb" religion is a ridiculous statement. Maybe it's that monotheism is stupid? Or all theisms in general are stupid? Then just say that. :roll:

Yes they're all dumb but Judaism is obviously dumber. Maybe you didn't get the note on divine dispensation not being an excuse for war crimes. Or claiming you'd be indigenous because some asshat with twirly hair several millenia ago made up you're automatically a Jew when your mother was one. The level of retardness is an insult to actual retards.

Reply to Benkei

You're an atheist who doesn't believe in anything. Reminds me of a quote.

"Born from oblivion; bear children, hell-bound as ourselves; go into oblivion. There is nothing else. Existence is random. Has no pattern save what we imagine after staring at it for too long. No meaning save what we choose to impose. This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It's us. Only us."

Yet you continue to moralize, hate, and judge -- especially the Jews. Why do you even care how a group defines itself? You need a therapist who you can talk with about the Jews who are apparently the worst of all religions, the source of all religious evil.

Come to think of it, isn't a 28 year old Dutch woman due to be euthanized next month for depression? Why is death a bad thing, after all. Why prefer it over life? Why does life even have value? :chin: Death does mean no more pain, after all. Why drudge yourself to work in the morning when you could just euthanize yourself? The muslims will not have a hard time with this country - although you have a potential savoir in Geert.

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

You're an atheist who doesn't believe in anything. Reminds me of a quote.

False dichotomy. It's not either you believe in God or you believe in nothing. But then if you place religious idiocy above common decency you kind of have to go all in I suppose to make it work in your own mind.

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

Yet you continue to moralize, hate, and judge -- especially the Jews. Why do you even care how a group defines itself? You need a therapist who you can talk with about the Jews who are apparently the worst of all religions, the source of all religious evil.

I don't hate Jews. I hate some of them for their actions as baby murdering scum. Bibi is on that relatively short list along with some other Israeli politicians. Then there are Jews like you I feel mostly sorry for for having been brainwashed to the point where you have no moral backbone to stand up to the scum amongst your midst. But nice try trying to make this personal and misrepresenting what I said so you can pretend I'm just another bigoted antisemite.

Your emotional responses are at least a sign of cognitive dissonance so I'm obviously doing something right.

Quoting Benkei

False dichotomy.

Is my quote representative of your beliefs or not? I'd figure it is. You're an atheistic materialist. No? The universe has no real meaning/value save what we choose to impose?

Quoting Benkei

But nice try trying to make this personal and misrepresenting what I said so you can pretend I'm just another bigoted antisemite.

But I really get the sense that you are. You talk about xenophobic rabbis. I can tell you don't like that the Jews stick to their own. You probably think they believe themselves superior. You may not be a Christian, but you're familiar with the New Testament - a massive source of anti-semitism. You routinely criticize Jewish barbarism, yet never really Muslim barbarism. And now you want me to condemn Bibi for waging war on Hamas after murdering 1200 Israelis? The idea that Judaism is the dumbest religion is also anti-semitic and ridiculous. But above all, it would be your attempt to deny and deconstruct Jewish identity that is anti-semitic. Judaism is passed on through the mother and Judaism is indigenous to Israel. It is the historic homeland of the Jews with Jerusalem as the cultic center.

Reply to Benkei

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

You're an atheist who doesn't believe in anything.

:lol:

Quoting Benkei

Then there are Jews like you I feel mostly sorry for for having been brainwashed to the point where you have no moral backbone to stand up to the scum amongst your midst.

:clap:

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

Nor have I been brainwashed.

Oh, well that closes the book on that one I guess.

Reply to Mikie

You don't view intention as morally relevant. :roll: :lol:

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

You're an atheist who doesn't believe in anything.

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

You don't view intention as morally relevant.

You are _____. You do ____. You believe ____.

Always hilarious. :rofl:

Reply to Mikie

What’s wrong with trying to understand the beliefs and worldview of an interlocutor? I like to understand why people think as they do.

Quoting Moses

What’s wrong with trying to understand the beliefs and worldview of an interlocutor? I like to understand why people think as they do.

Yeah, which is why declaring what others believe or think is stupid and embarrassingly funny.

Eh, nevermind.

Quoting Deleted user

Hardly so, nations have "always" existed. Countries are much younger but not that young. The oldest nation-State (aka country) with unbroken continuity is perhaps Portugal, formed in 1139.

Not as it's understood in political history. A country is definitely not a nation-state. Earliest nation-states are usually linked to the treaty of Westphalia although there were a few proto-nations.

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

You're an atheistic materialist. No? The universe has no real meaning/value save what we choose to impose?

:roll: C'mon, dude, for fuck's sake. Atheism =/= nihilism. Materialism =/= nihilism. Anti-zionism (i.e. anti-greater israel fascism) =/= nihilism. Anti-oppressors =/= nihilism. Anti-Netanyahu's regime =/= nihilism.

Opposing systematic military slaughter of an apartheid-corraled, ethnically cleansed civilian population without any Bronze Age religious cult's "promise of eternal reward" (or "promised land"-grab!) exemplifies historically-situated moral goodness (and courage) in contrast to theo-fascist apologia like post-1967 zionism-über-alles. After all, "faith" has always been a blanket rationalization for moral cretinism – in effect, nihilism. :shade:

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

After the attack I figure Israel must respond in some way to save face even if its orchestrated. Yet Israel did not respond militarily within a day or two of the attack so clearly they're taking their time with it. Bibi already has a war with Hamas and I don't see potentially sparking WWIII as something that he'd hope to get involved with, yet he must respond in some way. How - I don't know.

You got the answer today.

Anyway, as Israel did attack the embassy, it's likely that the Netanyahu government did want to escalate this to Iran, as it's likely frustrated to have just the proxies having this tit-for-tat exchanges. Firstly, this moves focus away from the possible Rafah operation and then if Iran (and Hezbollah now respond), then Israel can freely go and fight Hezbollah and also attack the supply lines all the way into Iran. It's been long anticipated that there's going to be a war with Hezbollah (after all, all those tens of thousands Israelis now evacuated from the northern border aren't happy). All better for Bibi if Iran declares the war and Bibi can portray himself not to be the aggressor.

I think Bibi is quite open to have a little war with Iran. And for himself, why not? He can save his political career only by being a great victorious leader of Israel who singlehandedly defeated all of it's last existing enemies.

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

Yeah, this idea is somewhat of a relic of wars of past decades as well as the fact that Israel has no true friends in the region.

But it's propaganda value works well especially for those that aren't informed about the existing realities and people who still only remember and live in the 20th Century (Biden?).

Quoting bert1

Poor ol' Germans seem doomed to be on the wrong side of history again.

It actually shows just how much we truly value things like "freedom of speech". It's very sad.

What was hilarious was the Jewish person that was arrested carrying a sign "Jews against genocide" asking the police if he should then have had a sign "Jews for Genocide". But yes, obviously a gathering of hideous Islamists. As the German interior minister put it:

(Reuters) "It is right and necessary that the Berlin police intervened firmly at the so-called Palestine Congress," Interior Minister Nancy Faeser posted on social media. She earlier had urged police to be on guard for signs of hate speech at the congress.

Ah, onward to the triumph of defeating hate speech and hate speaking Islamists like Yanis Varoufakis. :joke:

Quoting Tzeentch

The only point I disagree with him on, is the fact that US foreign policy isn't guided solely by Biden's desperate attempt to salvage his election.

This is a bipartisan cause. And it's not simply the 7 million Jewish-American votes (of whom many don't like the present right-wing government in Israel), it's the Evangelicals which there are tens of millions, who want to support Israel. It's simply a domestic issue, not something chosen because of foreign policy realities.

Quoting Tzeentch

Iran is set to become regional hegemon if left unchecked (based on population, there is no question).

How?

There's a firm coalition against it on the Arab side. Even Nasser's Pan-Arabism didn't work because it posed a threat to the regions monarchies and utterly failed in creating an unified Arabian state with the attempt of unification with Syria. How on Earth then will Iran, a Shiite non-Arab nation, get to be the hegemon when a) it attacked Pakistan, b) It had a long proxy war with Saudi-Arabia and the UAE and allies, c) Iraqis don't want to be Iranian puppets and d) the Axis of resistance, Mi?war al-Muq?wamah, are non-state actors with one being a side in a civil war that are totally dependent on it's arms.

If you want to be a hegemon, then you should have real allies and at least country that have Finlandization as their policy towards you. That's not happening. I think only Armenia in the region wants the help from Iran in it's dire situation.

Population doesn't matter. Heck, Bangladesh isn't going to become a hegemon. And btw Iranian population isn't growing as it used to before the 1990's, I think the women's fertility rate is just above 2. Hence it will stay as big as it is now.
.

Reply to 180 Proof

The quote I posted was existentialism. Man creates his own values. I thought a comparison of belief systems might be fruitful to the discussion. I sought to understand my interlocutor's belief system. The discussion at this point was about Judaism.

If a minority population of white supremacists under a white supremacist government killed 1200 blacks in an alternative timeline where blacks are the dominant power group, would you appreciate people calling for a ceasefire or to not respond at all? How would you respond to the world telling you that you need to be nicer to them and stop oppressing them. You need to let them import whatever weapons (i.e. grant them statehood) despite their government's stated intention to either murder or subjugate you. Anything else would be apartheid.

Quoting Benkei

Earliest nation-states are usually linked to the treaty of Westphalia

That would make no sense. The treaty involved Spain, which by itself was already a modern nation-State, but there was Portugal before it, and also Georgia before it dissolved. France was also established as a nation-State before Westphalia. Regardless of when the political ideas around nation-States were developed.

Quoting Benkei

A country is definitely not a nation-state

The first dictionary definition for country tells me "a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory", which is a nation-State. If you are using a different definition of country, I am willing to grant your point.

I will note however that I am quite confident most people criticising Israel here were supportive of it before 2023. And that they only started shitting on it after it became the Twitter-approved opinion.

Quoting ssu

This is a bipartisan cause. And it's not simply the 7 million Jewish-American votes (of whom many don't like the present right-wing government in Israel), it's the Evangelicals which there are tens of millions, who want to support Israel. It's simply a domestic issue, not something chosen because of foreign policy realities.

US foreign policy isn't guided by domestic opinion.

The only thing 'the Blob' is interested in domestically, is keeping the American populace docile and ignorant - something they've been quite successful at.

There's nothing bipartisan about the US' forever wars in the Middle-East - all directly linked to Israel and the Israel lobby.

Quoting Tzeentch

Iran is set to become regional hegemon if left unchecked (based on population, there is no question).

Quoting ssu

How?

That's obviously a big topic, but geographically, geopolitically, economically and demographically it is simply the only country that can make a reasonable bid for becoming regional hegemon on the Persian Gulf. It is also in prime position to profit off Iraq's power vacuum.

The only other contender is Saudi-Arabia, which is much smaller than Iran and economically less stable.

Furthermore, Saudi-Arabia is currently in the process of aligning to BRICS, which is probably a long-term mistake for them that will eventually leave them diplomatically isolated and an easy target.

If it wasn't for the Americans/Israelis playing successful divide & conquer and sowing chaos in the region for over half a century, Iran would have already become a regional hegemon.

Why do you think Israel has treated Iran as public enemy #1 for all this time?

Reply to BitconnectCarlos Non sequitur nonsense.

Reply to 180 Proof

Exactly how I feel about the American left turning out en masse on college campuses to support genocidal murderers. Protestors chanting "we are all hamas."

Reply to BitconnectCarlos FOX Noise and other right wing propaganda media are disinforming you, BitC. :mask:

Reply to 180 Proof

"From the river to the sea" is itself a call for ethnic cleansing. A call for a return to dhimmi status. Parents of Columbia students may be questioning their decisions after learning that they've been spending $90k/year to have their children turned into little intifada warriors and while getting lectured & taught by open supporters of terrorist groups.

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

open supporters of terrorist groups

like you, BitC, et al (re: Netanyahu's 'mass murdering + mass starvation strategy for settlers lebensraum' regime).

Quoting Tzeentch

US foreign policy isn't guided by domestic opinion.

Especially with the case of Israel, I would beg to differ.

The Israeli lobby is very powerful, you could read Mearsheimer's book about it, but this should be general knowledge. Why the Israeli lobby is so powerful is because of a certain part of the US electorate Israel is important and both parties want the support of these voters. This is simply how US domestic politics works.

Quoting Tzeentch

The only thing 'the Blob' is interested in domestically, is keeping the American populace docile and ignorant - something they've been quite successful at.

You might argue that for any policy the US has, yet Israel is a very special case for example to let's say the UK, Canada or Australia. None of those countries has such a lobby like Israel that is committed to give US aid to those countries and is vigilant for anybody questioning the American commitment to these countries.

Quoting Tzeentch

There's nothing bipartisan about the US' forever wars in the Middle-East

Really? Make your case then. Is it only the democrat administrations or only the Republican administrations that are fault here? Especially in the case of supporting Israel. I think the support for Israel is a genuinely bipartisan policy.

Quoting Tzeentch

That's obviously a big topic, but geographically, geopolitically, economically and demographically it is simply the only country that can make a reasonable bid for becoming regional hegemon on the Persian Gulf. It is also in prime position to profit off Iraq's power vacuum.

Yet to be a hegemon, it ought to have then a lot of influence over the Gulf States. It hasn't.

Basically it has good relations only with Qatar... which has had huge problems itself with Saudi-Arabia and UAE. Yet at least technically Qatar is a part of the GCC, which considers Iran as a threat.

The only way you would be right would be if basically Iran and Iraq got so close as Russia and Belarus are. That's isn't very likely. Perhaps after (or if) the US withdraws from Iraq.

Reply to 180 Proof

Modern day blood libel. Mass starvation? Seriously? :lol: Israel has let in more aid than those idiots at the UN know what to do with. Doesn't it bother you that there there's never a peep of protest when violence occurs in Africa? Christians getting hacked to death by Islamists in Nigeria, not a peep. Not a peep for Assad or Hussein, but the Jewish nation responds to Islamist aggression in a very civil manner and all hell breaks loose. No Jews, no news.

I'd wager less than 10k civilians killed.

How nice it is to see genocide apologists get so worked about anti-genocide protests across the US. College kids, young people generally, the protest votes during the primary, a small number of voices in congress, etc — they really are having an impact, for the first time in my lifetime have I seen a top-ranking senator — not to mention president — make the slightest suggestion that Israel is in the wrong.

They, along with the rest of the world, can see through the bullshit of those who want to complicate something that’s not at all complicated: stop killing innocent people. You don’t like it done to you, then stop engaging in it yourself. End your genocide, and your illegal occupation, and your illegal settlements in the West Bank, stop blocking UN resolutions, stop the “mowings of the lawn,” and you’d easily have the moral high ground. Until then, expect more October 7ths.

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

I'd wager less than 10k civilians killed.

Of course you would ... just like any other deluded holocaust denier.

Quoting ssu

Yet to be a hegemon, it ought to have then a lot of influence over the Gulf States. It hasn't.

It should be obvious that I am talking about potential, and not the present day.

Even in the present day it would be foolish to understate Iran's influence in the region. It is quite massive, but is mostly targeting players other than the Gulf States - that will change as soon as US power in the region is broken.

Quoting ssu

Perhaps after (or if) the US withdraws from Iraq.

The US either goes to war with Iran in the near-future, to prevent exactly what I am talking about, or it will vacate the region in the near-future, which would open the door for Iran to take things over.

The smaller Gulf States aren't really worth mentioning. They only exist by virtue of US presence in the region, and will be absorbed by the bigger Gulf States (Iran and Saudi-Arabia), however between Saudi-Arabia and Iran, Iran is clearly the one with more potential.

Not to mention the fact that Saudi-Arabia's aligning with BRICS will cause it to be diplomatically isolated in the long run, because BRICS will favor Iran over Saudi-Arabia when it comes to blows (which will be inevitable, unless the US goes to war against Iran).

Reply to 180 Proof

The Gaza Health ministry now reports fatalities at 22k. Israel has killed 13k Hamas, so that brings us to 9k civilians. Then consider that Hamas's rockets will often misfire and hit their own civilians.

And calling it a holocaust is ridiculous and of course only applied to Israel.

Again, much bigger death tolls elsewhere... no Jews, no news. The world has a Jew obsession. Israel is fighting a very humane war here ratio-wise and aid wise.

https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2024/04/09/hamas-run-gaza-health-ministry-admits-to-flaws-in-casualty-data/

Quoting Tzeentch

There's nothing bipartisan about the US' forever wars in the Middle-East

Quoting ssu

Is it only the democrat administrations or only the Republican administrations that are fault here?

Both sides have been elected on platforms of stopping the forever wars, yet they never managed to change anything, because there's nothing 'bipartisan' about them.

Calling it 'bipartisan' imples these wars are fought on the basis of some agreement between the two sides, when they are in fact fought on a basis that's completely disconnected from the democratic process.

The only role domestic politics plays in it, is the question of whether the American people can be kept docile and ignorant enough to accept that the American government keeps going to war without any proper basis for it.

Quoting Deleted user

That would make no sense. The treaty involved Spain, which by itself was already a modern nation-State, but there was Portugal before it, and also Georgia before it dissolved. France was also established as a nation-State before Westphalia. Regardless of when the political ideas around nation-States were developed.

Prior to the treaty of Westphalia sovereignty over territory wasn't mutually recognised. So while you may have consistent borders due to the facts on the ground (like Portugal), they were not recognised by other countries. The treaty of westphalia changed this, resulting in a system of nation-states who had sovereignty over their territory and people. This is also the main difference in understanding nation-states and countries. Just read up on the treaty of Westphalia if you're really interested.

Quoting Deleted user

The first dictionary definition for country tells me "a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory", which is a nation-State. If you are using a different definition of country, I am willing to grant your point.

In common usage people will us the terms interchangeably. In legal theory and history we don't.

Reply to BitconnectCarlos, believing literally ... a few 1000 years ago some people lived 900 years, there was a magical world flood some 1000s years ago, the supernatural Yahweh character spoke commands to the Moses character as a burning bush, Yahweh boomed to His tribe / Moses on Mount Sinai, Moses + 600000 wandered the desert for decades due to Yahweh's trickery ... really isn't smart. Myths, legends, stories, ... But of course anyone is free to believe whatever, that part isn't negotiable. Anyway, stuff for another thread (or not). (And what's with Yahweh being so selective (His special tribe etc) anyway?)

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

Christians getting hacked to death by Islamists in Nigeria

Protestant societies don't care about violence against Christians because they aren't Christian themselves :snicker: :snicker:
I only ever hear of massacre against Christians when I visit a Catholic church and the priest happens to be preaching.

Quoting Benkei

So while you may have consistent borders due to the facts on the ground (like Portugal), they were not recognised by other countries.

Portugal and Spain very much recognised each other's territory, and even as far as stipulating it, such as Tordesillas.

Quoting Benkei

Just read up on the treaty of Westphalia if you're really interested.

I know about it.
Quoting https://www.britannica.com/event/Peace-of-Westphalia

Some scholars of international relations credit the treaties with providing the foundation of the modern state system and articulating the concept of territorial sovereignty.

This seems unimportant to whether a sociopolitical structure actually existed, especially when it affected Central Europe especially — a region which was at the time very behind when it came to centralisation. Not only that, but even after the treaty many nation-States' sovereignity was not respected. If we allow the idea that the Westphalian system is the starting-point of nation-States, that leads to the absurd conclusion that to this day Portugal is not a nation-State.

Reply to jorndoe

It goes from myths to legends to real history and it's not always clear where the line is. That's what fascinates me. Consider the message/big picture themes of these stories in contrast to other stories of the time. That's what it makes it revolutionary. This is just one tribe's experience with the being known as YHWH ofc it could be described as ethnocentric.

Reply to Mikie

Are you concerned about the rise of anti-semitism on college campuses?

Reply to BitconnectCarlos

I’m not concerned with right-wing propaganda, nor with those who believe it.

Reply to Mikie

Are you concerned about the rise of Islamophobia?

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

Are you concerned about the rise of Islamophobia?

Like the kind I see on this thread? Yeah, very much.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting Tzeentch

The smaller Gulf States aren't really worth mentioning.

Now this is something worth debating.

Even if they are tiny, they aren't "really worth mentioning". On the contrary.

Only Kuwait and the "Switzerland of Middle East", Oman, are quite neutral and haven't started to play "The Great Game" in the Middle East of backing various actors.

Just look how Qatar and the UAE throw their weight around ...as they have so much wealth.
UAE is active in Libya, Sudan, Ethiopia and Yemen. Qatar has Al Jazeera, and went on to support the Muslim Brotherhood when it was in power in Egypt. This is why the Saudi's and UAE nearly went to war with Qatar. UAE has intervened directly in Libya and Yemen. Qatar has also supported Hamas.

Qatar is a key financial backer and ally of the Palestinian militant organization Hamas. Qatar has transferred more than $1.8 billion to Hamas.

For example UAE and it's support of Haftar in Libya:



These tiny nations have understood that money talks, money buys weapons, mercenaries etc. This is the one surprising thing that has suddenly happened in this Century. Hence it's not only the Saudi Arabia that can use proxies and intervene in other poorer countries of the region, it's also the smaller Gulf countries too.

Reply to Mikie

Have you considered converting to Islam? I hear they're very welcoming and they've got an imam giving prayers at Columbia right now.

Reply to BitconnectCarlos

Yeah, yeah…shouldn’t you be justifying genocide or something?

.

Reply to Mikie :up:

Reply to BitconnectCarlos :up: :up:

Reply to ssu I don't think you understood my point.

The other Gulf States are clearly artifical states that are a result of US divide & conquer strategy in the Middle-East. After all, the last thing the US wants is for a Arab or Persian state to hold all the strategic areas around the Persian Gulf.

The wealth, power and independence the other Gulf States currently enjoy is indeed artificial and would not have arisen under normal circumstances - they would have simply been incorporated in a greater Arabian or Persian state.

As US power wanes, these states will disappear.

Quoting tim wood

Sorry tp be long in replying. My point was that there is an immediacy and currency to the hostages and accountability for 7 Oct. Do you expect anyone to simply forget them? Would you?

You can't use hostage-taking as an excuse to carry on apartheid.

Reply to Mikie

Shouldn't you be outside chanting "from the river to the sea" with your fellow protestors? Calling for Arab domination of Israel like your keffiyeh-clad friends? We don't want no two state we want all of 48. Go do your activism.

And when you do, make sure to equate the deaths of maybe 8 or 9000 civilians to the 11 million killed in the holocaust because it's like totally the same thing.

Run along now, I hear they're giving free keffiyehs.

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

make sure to compare the deaths of maybe 8 or 9000 civilians to the 11 million killed in the holocaust

:lol:

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Reply to tim wood

What’s even more telling is getting to know a poster by their repeated display of ignorance and genocide apologia. A little more disgusting than an emoji, in my view. And if you’re too stupid to see the context, that’s on you.

Quoting tim wood

To my understanding, the hostages and accountability for 7 Oct. are open, current now issues. In your peacemaking, how do they fit in, and at what point in the process?

Once Israel starts making the 'concessions' that it should have made decades ago (ergo, not committing crimes against humanity), those hostages can likely be released as part of negotiations.

Can they be certain of that fact? No. There are no guarantees in situations like these.

But that's how these sorts of things work: small steps, give and take.

Israel just needs to be prepared to make the first, and real, steps towards reconcilliation.

And that is of course the central problem. Israel is not prepared to do that, because a large portion of Israel's elite still cling to ethno-supremacist fantasies of Israel as a strictly Jewish state, which is completely incompatible with the reality that they themselves have created - namely a reality of an equal amount of Palestinians living on the territory it considers its own; Palestinians who would either have to live under apartheid or be removed through ethnic cleansing (or genocide) to make that fantasy a reality.


Like I have said before, reconcilliation is Israel's only long-term option.

Israel's actions are rapidly turning itself into an international pariah, surrounded by a sea of historical enemies who all have a bone to pick with the little upstart state.

Things will not end well for Israel if it doesn't manage to change course and find a modus vivendi with the Palestinians, and by extension, the rest of the region.

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

like your keffiyeh-clad friends? We don't want no two state we want all of 48. Go do your activism.

And when you do, make sure to equate the deaths of maybe 8 or 9000 civilians to the 11 million killed in the holocaust because it's like totally the same thing.

Honest question. How do keffiyahs and the Nazi Holocaust relate to the current tragedy in the Levant, the Oct 7 terrorist attack and the Israeli Governments reaction? Because you might be making excellent points from a Real Politics perspective (for instance) but the statements quoted above do nothing to advance them. If anything, they detract; they make me (falsely, I hope) think your arguments are only veiled with merit to conceal an underlying emotion, perhaps nagging to be exposed.

This does not only apply to you. I'm surprised by similar things scattered throughout the forum, and not just this prolonged and often mutually hostile thread. But I sense reading between the lines that you have an earnest position, so I thought I'd ask.

Reply to ENOAH

Not much reasoning to be done with the modern day brownshirts. I remember 9/11 when ~3k Americans died and there was no question we were going after al-Qaeda. 180k Afghanis died in that war. A comparable event happens in Israel, but with greater degrees of rape and torture, and Israel is immediately seen as committing genocide despite strict ROEs and letting in hundreds of trucks of aid. "Genocide" accusations are modern day is a modern day blood libel. And it goes without saying if Israel wanted to wipe out the Palestinians it could but has taken a much more careful route.

Israel is ethnically cleansing the area, but doing so “carefully.” And with much better propaganda. Congratulations!

So calling it genocide is just ridiculous. Can’t just look at the numbers dead and the starvation and the rubble. Pay attention to the intentions and carefulness.

Reminds me of Iraq and Afghanistan indeed…apologists for their state’s war crimes often sound similar.

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

And it goes without saying if Israel wanted to wipe out the Palestinians it could but has taken a much more careful route.

Maybe true, but should that be grounds for congratulations? Or are they being dutiful citizens of the world by exercizing restraint (arguably, not enough given the death of so many children)?

That reminds me of an assault case I'm familiar with. A father punched a referee for what he saw as a bad call against the former's son in a hockey game. The judge fined the father $800 and asked him if he had anything to say for himself. The father responded with indignation, "$800, judge?" He shouted, "for $800 I should have killed him!"

Reply to ENOAH

Of course it's not grounds for congratulations per se. I only mention it with regard to the genocide charge. The civilian to combatant ratio is quite humane, historically speaking. We should also remember that Hamas employs child soldiers as young as 14 and will turn areas where children gather as the bases of their military operations. Additionally, around 12% of Hamas's own rockets misfire and land in Gaza and Hamas has fired many thousand of rockets into Israel since 10/7. These rockets will kill their own and are surely included in the fatality count.

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

Hamas employs child soldiers as young as 14 and will turn areas where children gather as the bases of their military operations.

I understand your perspective.

It's a tragedy from all angles.

Quoting Mikie

Pay attention to the intentions and carefulness.

They're not even that careful about stating their intentions.

About their desire to ethnically cleanse Gaza they are completely open. They don't even try to hide it. Same goes for their perception of the Palestinians as animals.

Israeli officials have come out publicly and stated these things.

Netanyahu himself called the Palestinians 'Amalek', which is an Old Testament reference to the Amalekites who were murdered specifically to the last woman, child and ox by the Israelites. He's flirting with genocide publicly.

At least the Nazis tried to hide their deeds, showing that on some level they felt shame and realized their own moral depravity.


Every sane person can see this, and various apologists in this thread are simply digging foxholes for themselves out of unwillingness to admit it.

Their views can safely be disregarded as having fallen victim to a lapse of insanity, brought about by relentless propaganda, herd mentality and cheerleader-syndrome.

I find it hard to imagine such people making a meaningful contribution to a moral discussion, other than serving as an example of how humans can go wrong.

Quoting Tzeentch

The other Gulf States are clearly artifical states that are a result of US divide & conquer strategy in the Middle-East.

Well...it would go back to the British Empire, actually.

And anyway, I'm not exited about calling various states as "artificial". Putin uses rhetoric like that.
For example Oman has a very long history and has been around for a while, even if it has a small population.

Quoting Tzeentch

The wealth, power and independence the other Gulf States currently enjoy is indeed artificial and would not have arisen under normal circumstances

But it did. And these tiny nations, like Qatar and UAE, have been quite active on the international stage. I think the reason is simply that the US has lost it's leadership role with the Arab states that are close to it. If it's not the US, then somebody will be on their side to keep the status quo.

Quoting Tzeentch

they would have simply been incorporated in a greater Arabian or Persian state.

As US power wanes, these states will disappear.

I don't think so. We have small countries all over the world: in the Caribbean, in Asia, in Europe. Someone just coming them an absorbing them isn't so likely. The countries are heavily armed and they have huge importance.

Furthermore, please explain just why Iran would become such a hegemon. It's population isn't rapidly growing, nor is it's economy. The clerical state is very unlikely to be a craddle for technological innovation.

It's typically American thinking that if one Great Power leaves the scene, then some other Great Power fills in the void. Great Powers, or Superpowers, are only thing important, right? Yet the likely outcome is just like after decolonization, no other Great Power will come and colonize the countries ...and the countries can have their fights with themselves.

What is likely that Middle East will be still quite volatile and prone to wars even if the US withdraws from the place.

Now btw. after France, the US is starting to leave the Sahel. Last remnants of the "War against Terror".

(20th April 2024, Al Jazeera) The United States will withdraw its soldiers from Niger as the West African nation is increasingly turning to Russia and away from Western powers.

The US Department of State agreed to pull out about 1,000 troops from the country that has been under military rule since July 2023, US media reported late on Friday.

[quote]US Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell and Nigerien Prime Minister Ali Mahaman Lamine Zeine met on Friday, the reports said, with Washington committing to begin planning an “orderly and responsible” withdrawal of its troops from the country.

The US built a military base in Niger to combat armed groups that pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda and ISIL (ISIS) in the Sahel region, which also includes Burkina Faso and Mali.

The major airbase in Agadez, some 920km (572 miles) from the capital Niamey was used for manned and unmanned surveillance flights and other operations.

Known as Air Base 201, it was built at a cost of more than $100m. Since 2018, it has been used to target ISIL fighters and Jama’at Nusrat al-Islam wal Muslimeen (JNIM), an al-Qaeda affiliate.

Quoting ssu

Well...it would go back to the British Empire, actually.

The British haven't played a role of any significance for decades.

They do what the Americans want them to do, and in return they get to play pretend.

The current status quo is the product of the US Empire, even if meddling by foreign powers happened long before the US got in control.

Quoting ssu

And anyway, I'm not exited about calling various states as "artificial".

Artificial in the geopolitical sense, of course. These little states would, under non-unipolar circumstances, simply be gobbled up by the real contenders for regional hegemony (Saudi-Arabia and Iran). However, during unipolarity they are used by the unipole, the US, to deny strategic resources/territory from the would-be regional players.

I'd argue that Ukraine isn't artificial in the same sense, because both neighboring great powers agreed upon its role as neutral buffer until 2008, so its status as a neutral state gave Ukraine a geopolitical reason for existence. That of course started to change in 2008.

Quoting ssu

And these tiny nations, like Qatar and UAE, have been quite active on the international stage.

If you want to spend your time analyzing the actions of these states in the belief they're significant, be my guest. Personally, I think that's a waste of time.

Quoting ssu

We have small countries all over the world

Well, the world has been living under US-led unipolarity, and the pattern I have just described is visible in many places across the world.

Quoting ssu

Furthermore, please explain just why Iran would become such a hegemon.

It's the largest player in its neck of the woods, sits on a geographically and geopolitically vital area with lots of natural resources, controls half of the Persian Gulf, it has powerful allies (it's actually of gigantic economic importance to China), etc. - I could go on but I'm not going to write an essay explaining this.

What's perhaps interesting to note is the fact that US/Israeli policy vis-à-vis the Middle-East has left a gigantic power vacuum, especially in Iraq, which Iran is gearing up to fill.

This is what the US/Israel have been trying to avoid - a rising Iran, and their foolish policies have achieved just that.

You think the US and Israel would be willing to go to war against Iran if Iran wasn't threatening to become a large regional player?

The proof is in the pudding.

Quoting ssu

Great Powers, or Superpowers, are only thing important, right?

Their influence on world affairs is simply orders of magnitude above the other, smaller countries. Like I said, if you want to analyze the intricate inner workings of Luxembourg to figure out its geopolitical significance, be my guest. I think that's a waste of time.

Quoting ssu

What is likely that Middle East will be still quite volatile and prone to wars even if the US withdraws from the place.

Of course, because the US/Israel have been disrupting the natural way the region should have developed, because the natural way of things trends towards conglomeration, which would in turn create regional hegemons which could have been a threat to the US/Israel.

They have created a giant reservoir of shit, by sowing chaos, creating artificial states, trying to stop states from developing, etc. and now that US power is waning, that dam is going to break.

Oh yea, it's going to be one giant mess - a mess Iran will probably be able to profit from in the long run. And a mess that might spell the end of Israel.

You understand that at this point I'm basically spelling out why US/Israeli policy is what it is, right?

Reply to Tzeentch

I'm looking over Netanyahu's postwars plans and I don't see anything about ridding Gaza of Palestinian Arabs. I do see a strong Israeli security presence at least for a time. The plan also states so that there will be no israeli civilian or settlements in Gaza after the war so.... would why would israel cleanse Gaza if it's just going be empty? Anyway, I don't see anything in here about ethnic cleansing.

As for Amalek, Netanyahu called Hamas Amalek and the comparison is fitting seeing as both groups targeted weak, vulnerable populations and Hamas has fomented Jew hate since day one. They are unmistakably enemies of the Jewish people and they don't try to hide it.

Reply to BitconnectCarlos



Speaks for itself.


Quoting BitconnectCarlos

As for Amalek, Netanyahu called Hamas Amalek [...]

That's not how that Old Testament reference works, unfortunately:

Samual 1 15:3:
Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

It's clearly a call to destroy not just Hamas, but everything, including women, infants and suckllings, and all their lifestock.

There are no multiple ways of interpreting this passage. This is a thinly-veiled call for genocide.

You would do well to condemn it for what it is.

At this point, Bibi is probably hoping his "Einsatzgruppen" - ergo, violent ultranationalist settlers (or maybe SS divisions is a more apt comparison?) - will do the dirty work for him in the West Bank:

‘Nowhere is safe’: Fear and mourning inside the West Bank villages where Israeli settlers went on the rampage

Reply to Tzeentch

I had a response typed out to last post but upon reading this I realized it didn't really matter what I said bc propaganda has convinced you that israelis in the west bank are einsatzgruppen. it's interesting because i consider palestinians in that areas nazis -- they recently abducted and stoned to death a 14 year shepherd boy among others. yet you never hear that condemned. point being, it's back and forth. :roll:

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

they recently abducted and stoned to death a 14 year shepherd boy among others.

Of course, anything to excuse genocide.

As I said:

Quoting Tzeentch

Every sane person can see this, and various apologists in this thread are simply digging foxholes for themselves out of unwillingness to admit it.

Their views can safely be disregarded as having fallen victim to a lapse of insanity, brought about by relentless propaganda, herd mentality and cheerleader-syndrome.

I find it hard to imagine such people making a meaningful contribution to a moral discussion, other than serving as an example of how humans can go wrong.

@ENOAH take note that this is how discussions devolve.

Quoting Tzeentch

The British haven't played a role of any significance for decades.

But they had a significant role in making the region as it is now.

Quoting Tzeentch

Artificial in the geopolitical sense, of course. These little states would, under non-unipolar circumstances, simply be gobbled up by the real contenders for regional hegemony (Saudi-Arabia and Iran).

Isn't that a bit too much assume that kind of Mearsheimerian realpolitik?

Asia has it's share of small nations, and they haven't been gobbled up by regional contenders.

There's no unavoidability or destiny of there forming some Pan-Arabist / Islamic Caliphate / other regional hegemon in the Middle East. With your thinking then in the Far East places like Nepal, Bhutan, Brunei, Singapore, East Timor simply couldn't exist. Why aren't they "gobbled up" by regional powers?

Small countries do exist everywhere.

Let's take for example the UAE. It has a military of 150 000 active members and 180 000 reservists, 137 combat aircraft, 356 Leclerc tanks (which is more than France has in active service),HIMARS and Smerch MLRS, Patriots and THAAD SAM systems. That's actually a rather big armed forces.

It's strange to assume that some regional player would just "gobble up" that kind of a force. If you think that's same as Kuwait when it was invaded by Iraq, well, the Kuwaitis had on paper only 20 000 armed forces, they were basically taken totally unaware, no forces were mobilized and still actually Iraq lost about 100 tanks or so in the initial invasion.

But I guess for you many countries are simply "irrelevant" and somehow just barely existing.

Quoting Tzeentch

t's the largest player in its neck of the woods, sits on a geographically and geopolitically vital area with lots of natural resources, controls half of the Persian Gulf, it has powerful allies (it's actually of gigantic economic importance to China), etc. - I could go on but I'm not going to write an essay explaining this.

Yet for example the tiny UAE has a larger GDP than Iran. It's population isn't growing, it's economy isn't booming and it's hard to believe a theocracy would see an economic miracle somehow. Although the government tries to promote science and technology. It has aspirations to be a Great Power, that is for sure. Especially in the 1970's many predicted Iran to become this kind of great power, but it wasn't to be so.

And btw, technically doesn't have allies, meaning that there exists a defense treaty, except perhaps with it's own "Axis of resistance". It just has cooperation with the CSTO. It was invited to the CSTO, but isn't a member. The agreement with China isn't also a defense treaty. Hence Iran doesn't have a military alliance that would automatically then put an US or Israeli attack on a totally different level.

It's far more about the US wanting to build this picture of an anti-US axis. For example, there's no alliance between China and Russia.

Reply to Tzeentch

I could claim that Palestinian SS abducted that shepherd boy. I could say that Palestinian SS murder Israeli settlers. Every single Hamas rocket fired at Israel is a war crime. You see only black and white.

Amalek in normal jewish parlance is any serious enemy of Israel. But no, I don't think Israel intends to murder their cows and chickens. Or their civilians for that matter, as demonstrated by how Israel provides them with medical aid and humanitarian aid.

Quoting ssu

Small countries do exist everywhere.

Quoting Tzeentch

These little states would, under non-unipolar circumstances, simply be gobbled up by the real contenders for regional hegemony (Saudi-Arabia and Iran).

Note the underlined key word.

And sure, you could come up with an elaborate theory as to why Luxembourg won't be gobbled up. Maybe you'll be proven right, maybe you'll be proven wrong. Again, if that's how you would like to spend your time, I'm not stopping you.

Clearly there are some smallish nations that exist throughout the centuries, but I see no reason why that would be the case for the Gulf States when they are surrounded by two vastly larger states, and sitting on immensely valuable strategic resources.

They have no strategic advantages to speak of. They're completely vulnerable when it becomes clear the international "rules-based" order can no longer be upheld.

Quoting ssu

There's no unavoidability or destiny of there forming some Pan-Arabist / Islamic Caliphate / other regional hegemon in the Middle East.

History has followed that pattern multiple times over, so there is a clear historical trend that points in this direction - that doesn't make it a certainty, sure.

It's just that in recent times, US hegemony/'divide et impera' has prevented this pattern from repeating. Such (in geopolitical terms) "unnatural" situations cannot subsist for very long and indeed they are nearing their end as we speak.

Quoting ssu

Let's take for example the UAE.

Sure. The United Arab Emirates has a population of 9.5 million people. Saudi-Arabia has a population of over three times that number. Iran has a population of nearly ten times that number.

In the long run, the UAE would stand no chance whatsoever, just like how Ukraine never stood a chance against Russia.

Yes, history might produce flukes and outliers here and there, but those tend to postpone the inevitable when the numbers are so skewed.

And it should be noted I am talking about long-term trends, potentials, etc. - and no, I don't pretend such theories are correct 100% of the time.

Quoting ssu

Yet for example the tiny UAE has a larger GDP than Iran. It's population isn't growing, it's economy isn't booming and it's hard to believe a theocracy would see an economic miracle somehow. Although the government tries to promote science and technology. It has aspirations to be a Great Power, that is for sure. Especially in the 1970's many predicted Iran to become this kind of great power, but it wasn't to be so.

What can I say? If I need to explain to you why a country with 9,5 million people has an insigificant chance of becoming a regional player (in non-unipolar circumstances) compared to a country with 88 million, then indeed a lot of explaining is required and I can't be bothered frankly.

The bottomline is, geopolitics is about potential (and population matters a great deal in determining said potential). This is why Israel is worried about Iran, and not about UAE.

Maybe take your case to the Knesset? :joke:

Quoting ssu

It's far more about the US wanting to build this picture of an anti-US axis. For example, there's no alliance between China and Russia.

Surely you see the manner in which China, Russia and Iran are working in unison to strain the US empire?

I'm usually pretty cynical about US intentions, but in this case I would have to be rather blind not to acknowledge that it is indeed being challenged by a form of coalition.

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

I could claim that Palestinian SS abducted that shepherd boy. I could say that Palestinian SS murder Israeli settlers. Every single Hamas rocket fired at Israel is a war crime.

Oh sure, and I could claim that the Polish resistance fighters who carried out the Warsaw Uprising were terrorists and criminals.

I could do that if I wanted to make a total ass of myself, kind of like what you're doing right now.

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

You see only black and white.

Yes, yes. That means an awful lot coming from someone who is spinning apologetics for crimes against humanity.

Reply to Tzeentch Iran is an economic basket case that just got humiliated by Israel assassinating it's generals and diplomats and blasting its impotent weaponry out of the air. The regime isn't going to be doing anything in the medium-term except trying to cling to power.

https://www.voanews.com/a/iran-s-currency-hits-record-low/7540447.html
"Iran's currency fell to a record low on Sunday, plunging to 613,500 to the dollar, as its people celebrated the Persian New Year."

Reply to Tzeentch Quoting Tzeentch

Yes, yes. That means an awful lot coming from someone who is spinning apologetics for crimes against humanity.

Attacking buildings that Hamas operates from is not a crime against humanity.

Quoting Tzeentch

Oh sure, and I could claim that the Polish resistance fighters who carried out the Warsaw Uprising were terrorists and criminals.

Did Polish resistance fighters parachute into German musical festivals and go on a rape and murder sprees? Did they go house to house torturing and raping left-wing Germans for no reason at all? Did they operate from a government that openly and clearly calls for the destruction of Germany and the subjugation of the German people under Jewish rule?

If nothing else, consider this: Israeli Arabs are treated better than Arabs anywhere else in the Arab world. They have full equal rights and participation in Parliament. That would be like if German Jews were the best treated Jews in Europe. This is where things fall apart.

If German Jews were treated well by Germany but Jews elsewhere were not I would need to look further.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Reply to BitconnectCarlos Do you need a history lesson on the Polish resistance? You think the tit-for-tat wasn't absolutely brutal?

Or what about the Viet Cong? They skinned American soldiers alive. How do you like that for brutality?

You think Israel is somehow special in this? That this somehow justifies its crimes?

Israel is just another country on a long list of countries which have resorted to crimes against humanity in order to try and subdue an occupied population, and used their resistance as an excuse to do it.

Anyway, like I said:

Quoting Tzeentch

Every sane person can see this, and various apologists in this thread are simply digging foxholes for themselves out of unwillingness to admit it.

Their views can safely be disregarded as having fallen victim to a lapse of insanity, brought about by relentless propaganda, herd mentality and cheerleader-syndrome.

I find it hard to imagine such people making a meaningful contribution to a moral discussion, other than serving as an example of how humans can go wrong.

No point in discussing with children.

Well there's the Polish resistance and the Jewish resistance and these are different matters. I believe in the Jewish resistance they mostly kept their resistance against military targets or railroads or other infrastructure like that. Regardless, reprisals intentionally directed at innocent civilians are clearly evil and deserving of retribution.

Yes they could be brutal against US soldiers in Vietnam. Hamas and the PLO consider all of Israel occupied land so you'll get brutality anywhere. It would be as if the Vietcong attacked American civilians in Massachusetts and claimed it was occupied land and that their attack constituted resistance because Massachusetts is occupied. If we listen to the actual phone calls of 10/7 perpetrators they're just bragging about killing Jews. I know for westerners it's all about "occupation" and the "west bank" but in the middle east it's a bit different.

I just don't see how targeted bombings constitute crimes against humanity. If so, everyone is guilty of it and the term has little meaning.

Reply to Tzeentch

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

I just don't see how targeted bombings constitute crimes against humanity.

Apartheid is a crime against humanity.

Indiscriminate bombing is a different matter. It is a war crime. On the scale Israel is bombing, it could be considered (a part of) an act of genocide, which is what Israel is currently being investigated for.


Again, these apologetics are just... sad.

If you cannot distinguish between oppressor and oppressed - between VC and imperialist USA - between the Polish resistance and the Nazi occupier, etc. there's no point in conversation.

You need to have your "Are we the baddies?" moment, I suppose. Might take a while.

Reply to Tzeentch

There is no apartheid. Arab muslims who are Israeli have equal rights. Every Israeli has equal rights. No one is owed citizenship.

The charges are spurious and Israel's bombings are targeted. Very humane combatant to civilian ratio.

I can distinguish between powerful and weaker. Israel is currently more powerful than the Gazan or West Bank authorities. Thankfully. The more powerful side isn't inherently in the wrong when it acts against the weaker side. Weak can still be thoroughly evil.

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

There is no apartheid.

Oh, is that so? Then why are Israeli newspapers full of it?

For Decades, I Defended Israel From Claims of Apartheid. I No Longer Can

Why is the Israeli human rights organisation B'Tselem calling it apartheid?

Apartheid

Why is the UN calling it apartheid?

Israel’s occupation of Palestinian Territory is ‘apartheid’: UN rights expert

Why is Amnesty International calling it apartheid?

Israel’s apartheid against Palestinians: a cruel system of domination and a crime against humanity

Why is Human Rights Watch calling it apartheid?

A Threshold Crossed: Israeli Authorities and the Crimes of Apartheid and Persecution

______________________





It brings some hope, at least, that there are some Israelis more sensible than you. But for you little hope is left, it seems.

Educate yourself. You literally have no idea.

Reply to Tzeentch

Because Israel has freedom of press and everyone is able to speak as they like. Unlike in virtually any Arab country including the Gaza or the West Bank. That alone should put Israel on a higher tier, morally speaking. Did Nazi Germany allow free speech? Did they allow Jews in their government and courts?

Which is the lesser evil for you: Israel or the PLO/Hamas? It's unquestionably Israel, for me. And every country has racial/ethnic problems. But not all are free to speak on it. Of course Israel has problems, as does every country.

Hamas believes all of Israel is occupied territory. The Israeli far right like Ben-Gvir believe Gaza and all the West Bank should all be Israel. But Ben-Gvir is not the government, he is the far right. There are no plans to relocate or ethnically cleanse Gaza of Arab muslims that I am aware of. Netanyahu is prepared to aid in the rebuilding Palestinian infrastructure depending on disarmament.

Reply to BitconnectCarlos Is there apartheid in Israel, little man?

Reply to Tzeentch Everything is racist and should be burned to the ground. Everything is a war crime. Got it.

Reply to Tzeentch

For you it's not about what is done but about rather the identity of the victim and perpetrator that determines morality.

Palestinian kills Jew = Resistance. Jew kills Palestinian = war crime. We see it everywhere now. Sign of the times. And surely wherever you're from has no racial problems.

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

Palestinian kills Jew = Resistance. Jew kills Palestinian = war crime.

That's how it works when one party is oppressed and the other is oppressor. That has nothing to do with identity.

Reply to Benkei

According to what standard? Are all members of an oppressed class allowed to murder members of the oppressor class? We can see where that takes us.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Reply to BitconnectCarlos Quite obviously there are limits to how resistance can be executed. 7 Oct was over the line. But as pointed out before: Be prepared for it to happen again and again and again until the underlying reasons for such attacks are dealt with. And the underlying reasons are Israeli crimes. Hamas and PLO didn't exist before the Israeli occupation. They are reactionary.

Reply to tim wood You're an idiot as usual. If it's not that simple then why is every western country blindly supporting Israel?

But of course it is simple. Don't oppress people. Don't collectively punish people. Don't run an apartheid state. Don't commit war crimes. All these things are very well established. It only turns complex for people who think the Israelis are the good guys and confronted with the cognitive dissonance that in fact they're not, they turn into the verbal equivalent of a contortionist. Painful to watch.

Quoting Benkei

Quite obviously there are limits to how resistance can be executed. 7 Oct was over the line. But as pointed out before: Be prepared for it to happen again and again and again until the underlying reasons for such attacks are dealt with.

:up:

Quoting Benkei

And the underlying reasons are Israeli crimes. Hamas and PLO didn't exist before the Israeli occupation. They are reactionary.

Here's where we part. I don't deny that some attacks are retaliatory in nature. But significant attacks on Jews happened before the creation of Israel in the 20s and 30s - these happened because the influx of Jewish immigrants were seen as a threat to the arab muslim population. These attacks were in response to Jewish power which ultimately culminated in the creation of Israel. There would be "peace" if muslims ruled and Jews submissively obeyed as they largely did under the ottomans, but such rule is hardly acceptable now. Jewish control of Jerusalem is an implacable humiliation for them. It comes down to control/power/hegemony over the holy land. It is the existence of Israel (i.e. an independent Jewish polity) that is the crime.

Thus we hear "from the river to the sea Palestine will be free" and "we don't want no two state we want all of 48" among others. 1948 was humiliation. A backwards step theologically.

Reply to Benkei

Reply to BitconnectCarlos What a sad attempt at a smear.

Quoting Tzeentch

Israel is just another country on a long list of countries which have resorted to crimes against humanity in order to try and subdue an occupied population, and used their resistance as an excuse to do it.

Absolutely.

That’s a possibility, sure, but I would need a more solid argument for the likelihood of something happening in a hypothetical or counterfactual scenario. For example, if Ukraine managed to join NATO, would still Putin attack NATO out of anger? I doubt it and, as far as geopolitical actors are concerned, they seem to doubt it too:

Reply to neomac
People doubted he would invade a large country like Ukraine too. It’s a risk, we are talking about risks here.

indeed, the reason for Ukraine to join NATO was to deter Putin from attacking Ukraine, otherwise what would be the point of joining NATO if Putin would attack anyway just out of anger?

Again it’s about risks, probability.

Putin may attack NATO out of a more hawkish calculus though to the extent NATO countries show lack of resolve (due to economic dependency) and/or fear for escalation (for lack of readiness and will to fight for allies).

Yes, he might have a trick or two up his sleeve.

First of all, my claim was: “the more the European strategic interest diverges from the US national interest and the European partnership turns unexploitable by the US, the more the US may be compelled to make Europe unexploitable to its hegemonic competitors too.”

This is a complicated claim, I’m not even sure it’s saying anything.
Surely by helping EU and forming a stronger alliance with them. the U.S. would be making Europe unexploitable to its competitors. By contrast why would U.S. make EU unexploitable to herself and her competitors?

Secondly, I argued that the conflict in Ukraine and in Palestine are straining Western public opinion and nurturing conflict of interests among allies, to the point that for example a US candidate for the next presidential elections like Trump dared to say “he would encourage Russia to attack Nato allies” if they do not comply with Trump’s demands.
Besides, I do not think EU governments and advisors are downplaying the gravity of such claims, or the US questionable commitment toward the Ukrainian conflict.
https://www.rferl.org/a/trump-nato-russia-attack-white-house-appalling-unhinged/32814229.html
https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-nuclear-warfare-detterence-manfred-weber-vladimir-putin-ukraine-russia-war/
Poland's foreign minister on concerns the U.S. will abandon Ukraine, Europe ?(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHxjutEfhww)
If you do not see that, again do not bother answering me.

I’ve already agreed that Trump is crazy and could upset the apple cart. He’s not really a representation of the U.S. position. He’s an anomaly and I doubt he will make it to the election with any chance of winning.

If it wasn’t a controversial issue between EU and US why didn’t Ukraine join EU and NATO yet?

That’s a non sequitur, I doubt that the fact that Ukraine is not now in NATO is due to squabbling between U.S. and EU.

I think you underestimate the strategic leverages of Middle East regional powers in the international equilibria, considering also the influence they have in the once called “Third World”. And, again, the closer hegemonic powers get in terms of capacity, the greater the impact of smaller powers can be over the power struggle between hegemonic powers.

When you say hegemonic powers here, specifically, are you referring to superpowers, at any point? Or are you just referring to hegemonic power players in the Middle East?

Can you point to a regional power who is in a strong position to influence international equilibria, or a coalition perhaps?
As I’ve already said the only critical resource these players have to play with is oil. But the leverage this can exert is waning and I don’t see how this can be in anyway pivotal atm. Putin could play around with this perhaps, I don’t know.

The point is that the combination of persisting EU vulnerabilities plus incumbent weakening of the US leadership, will turn Europe into a more disputable area for hegemonic competition among the US and other rival hegemonic powers, and this could threaten both NATO and EU project.

You repeat this and I agree that there has been some political interference from Russia in these issues. But I don’t see this fatal weakness you keep alluding to in EU, or U.S.

It’s true there has been a complacency in Europe in becoming involved with Russia in various ways since the collapse of USSR. But the Ukraine war has been a big wake up call and this will be corrected. Likewise in U.S., although the political problems in U.S. recently are due more to populist opportunism and hopefully it will be a wake up call there too.

So this weakening you talk about, I agree has happened, but is well and truly now in the past(the wild card of a Second term for Trump excepted), Whereas you are suggesting it’s in the future and that it will deepen. I see a sea change, one in which Europe pulls together and strengthens along with a closer alignment with U.S. and a significant weakening and failure in Russia.
(Again there’s that word hegemonic, it would be useful to distinguish between hegemonic powers who are superpowers and those who are not.)

You seem to be grounding your arguments mostly on possibilities, but that’s not enough to assess likelihood. Sure it could be just a malaise that the West will manage to overcome, but it is too soon to see in Western re-arming a new stable trend that will succeed in building collective strategic deterrence, despite all persisting conflict of interests. While the decline of the US deterrence and leadership has just kept notably growing since 9/11.

Possibilities and risks are all we’ve got in a discussion like this. Yes there has been a decline in U.S. deterrence. This is probably the shift from the unipole to the competing superpowers we see now.

Sure that doesn’t mean they are hopeless vis-à-vis with climate change:
https://www.watermeetsmoney.com/saudi-water-investment-showcase-at-the-global-water-summit/

Desalination will never produce enough fresh water to replace depleted water tables. The quantities required are vast and desalination a trickle.

Besides, even though they compete for regional hegemony, yet the most acute and local problems they have to face coming from Islamism, environmental challenges, growing population

There aren’t any Middle Eastern powers competing for regional hegemony. Yes there are people’s who hate other peoples in the region, or call for their eradication etc. But this is just heated rhetoric. Of the states in the region, some are wealthy and benefit from international commerce travel etc, these states want to hold onto their comfortable lifestyles. There are states with authoritarian leaders like Iran, Egypt and Syria who are struggling with poverty and keeping power and extravagant lifestyles for themselves and their friends. There are poor countries who just bump along the bottom. None of these countries want war, or hegemony.

(https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/05/why-the-world-s-fastest-growing-populations-are-in-the-middle-east-and-africa/), plus the mediation of greater powers, like China, may also solicit greater cooperation among them to face shared future challenges, including the threats of a multipolar world like hawkish non-middle eastern hegemonic powers.

Yes, China does seek to work with many countries like this around the world. This is a risk to the west, because of what it could, but might not lead to.

It depends if China and Russia perceive Islam as a greater threat than the West. So far it doesn’t seem to be the case, given the support/cooperation China and Russia grant to Iran (the only country in which the islamic revolution thus far succeeded), Hezbollah, Houthi and Hamas.

I see this more as a case of “my enemies enemy is my friend”, Russia likes to engage in these ways. But has its own fears of Islamophobia and terrorist attacks in Russia.

Clearly mine is just a speculation. But a principled one because I take into account strategic logic of geopolitical players and historical circumstances to assess likelihood. And the conclusion is that we have reasons to worry about how things may evolve in Ukraine but also in the Middle East given the current predicament.

Agreed, with the added emphasis that Putin has hegemonic designs on neighbouring countries and is actively invading them.

Your argument seems mostly about downplaying the evidence I bring, insisting on the need for the US to have a strong EU to counter Russia and China, insisting on the fact of European re-arming, and on the incumbent crisis in the Middle East due to climate change.

Close, I’m insisting on the importance of U.S. EU coalition and cooperation to counter China (this requires the neutering of Russia) and observing a change in EU to re-arm, which will deliver it.

I don’t seek to downplay what you bring to the table, I just don’t find the suggestions that there are big geopolitical risks in the Middle East compelling. Or that there is not a big geopolitical risk in Ukraine compelling.

What I counter is:
1. Downplaying the evidence I bring is rather pointless since what matters is to what extent geopolitical actors take such evidence seriously and act upon it. If Middle East wasn’t important to the US, the US wouldn’t engage in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at the expense of the conflict in Ukraine.

As I say, I don’t seek to downplay this evidence. I just don’t find it evidence of important geopolitical developments at this time. (I’m happy to explain why if you remind me of some of it)

2. Insisting that the US needs something doesn’t imply it will get it. Besides the pivot to China, may lead the US to appease Russia’s hegemonic ambitions in Europe to turn Russia against China (which is the raising power, geographically closer to Russia than the US), as argued by various political analysts including Mearsheimer. Indeed, Trump's approach to Russia can be in line with such view (https://carnegieendowment.org/2017/05/24/donald-trump-s-plan-to-play-russia-against-china-is-fool-s-errand-pub-70067). Russia’s appeasement in Europe on the other side may be costly for EU/NATO/Ukraine, and also turn more destabilising than the US may tolerate (if not to Trump’s administration, to post-Trump’s administrations) , soliciting a hegemonic competition in Europe.

You refer to Trump again, yes a Trump presidency might well try to go down such a course. It’s madness of course, a fools errand. Even if Trump does win a second term in office, it is an anomaly in U.S. foreign policy, which will be corrected after he has left office.
Yes that route of appeasement may become U.S. policy, although I would say where it may have seemed rational before the invasion of Ukraine, now following the invasion, it’s is entirely irrational. It
essentially takes the deep trust and cooperation between U.S. and Europe, squanders it and then pretends to have trust in Putin’s regime. Only Trump would be so stupid. Putin would take them for whatever he could get, while winking to Xi Jingping.
Besides notions of turning Russia against China faded a long time ago and prior to the Ukraine war, the U.S. and EU had tried on many occasions to cosy up with Putin and it got nowhere, in fact it had the opposite effect. Now we have BRICS.

3. European re-arming is a recent phenomenon so it doesn't help much to assess the future and effectiveness of the collective European defence strategy (considering various strategic factors like defence industry, conscription, nuclear, etc.) given its controversial costs

I only need to refer to one event which in a moment changed the course of EU foreign policy. On the day of the invasion of Ukraine, Putin threatened the EU with nuclear attack, while invading a large country on its border. Putin’s legacy.

for a population vulnerable to populist rhetoric

This is often exaggerated and refers to a populist reaction to levels of immigration.

(and often pro-Russian)

Lol.

4. Climate change is definitely an incumbent challenge that concerns the entire world, and Middle East governments are aware of its risks and urgency, especially due to how exposed they are. That doesn’t mean they are doomed to succumb to a climate crisis or to geopolitical irrelevance, given how pro-actively and effectively they are already acting wrt climate change and evolving geopolitical challenges.

Climate change will result in oil becoming a stranded asset. Also these countries may become dependent on food imports, when the desert cooks.
Interestingly just last week Dubai experienced 18 months worth of rain in one day.

Quoting Tzeentch

Clearly there are some smallish nations that exist throughout the centuries, but I see no reason why that would be the case for the Gulf States when they are surrounded by two vastly larger states, and sitting on immensely valuable strategic resources.

The likely reason is just why Kuwait wasn't going to be let to be annexed by Iraq. This would change dramatically the power balance even globally. Do note just how big the opposing alliance was against Iraq, it had even Egypt, Syria, Morocco, Pakistan taking part in the alliance. Hence it's likely that if a small nation with geostrategic importance, it won't be overlooked. (However if some Senegal wants to take Gambia, likely an international alliance to defend Gambia won't emerge. If done eloquently and peacefully, a Senegambia could easily happen.)

Naturally this is just theoretical speculation, but so is your assumption that the Gulf States could be easily gobbled up without US presence. What I hope we can agree on is that if the US truly withdraws from the region, there will be a reshuffling of the cards certainly. That vacuum creates by itself a little whirlpools automatically. In fact, some could argue that whirlpool has already started as the US allies don't toe the line in similar fashion with the US as earlier.

Quoting Tzeentch

History has followed that pattern multiple times over, so there is a clear historical trend that points in this direction - that doesn't make it a certainty, sure.

And I would be extremely sceptical about historical trends. Especially in the near term (the next 50 to 100 years). As the saying goes, history never repeats, it just rhymes.

Quoting ssu

The likely reason is just why Kuwait wasn't going to be let to be annexed by Iraq.

Kuwait is not a great example to make your point. The Gulf War(s) were exactly the type of wars that were made possible by the unnatural state of unipolarity. They took place during the peak, in fact.

Today it would be unthinkable for the US to let itself get bogged down in a (ground) war in the Middle-East.

Firstly because the actors in the Middle-East are, relatively speaking, much more powerful than they were 30 years ago,
and secondly because the enemies of the US are much more powerful and ready to profit off the fact that the US would be bogging itself down in another war.

This is why the US can't commit, for example to Ukraine, or to a war with Iran. They would be playing directly into the hands of the Chinese if they were to do that.

Quoting ssu

What I hope we can agree on is that if the US truly withdraws from the region, there will be a reshuffling of the cards certainly. That vacuum creates by itself a little whirlpools automatically. In fact, some could argue that whirlpool has already started as the US allies don't toe the line in similar fashion with the US as earlier.

I'm not sure what the significance is of this, but sure with this I can agree.

Quoting Punshhh

That’s a possibility, sure, but I would need a more solid argument for the likelihood of something happening in a hypothetical or counterfactual scenario. For example, if Ukraine managed to join NATO, would still Putin attack NATO out of anger? I doubt it and, as far as geopolitical actors are concerned, they seem to doubt it too:

?neomac

People doubted he would invade a large country like Ukraine too. It’s a risk, we are talking about risks here.

Quoting Punshhh

indeed, the reason for Ukraine to join NATO was to deter Putin from attacking Ukraine, otherwise what would be the point of joining NATO if Putin would attack anyway just out of anger?

Again it’s about risks, probability.

Quoting Punshhh

Possibilities and risks are all we’ve got in a discussion like this. Yes there has been a decline in U.S. deterrence. This is probably the shift from the unipole to the competing superpowers we see now.

Also to assess risks on hypothetical and counterfactual scenarios you need arguments or evidences to support them.
Besides, pointing at a risk is not enough to discourage crossing alleged red lines: motivation is surely one thing, but also means and opportunities need to be taken into account. Indeed, Putin showed his anger in 2008 at the prospect that one day Ukraine would join NATO, as Georgia. But it took Putin 14 years to prepare and find the right opportunity (which include the divisions between EU and the US, with the EU and within the US, and the declining power projection of the US vis-à-vis of its challengers) to aggress Ukraine, differently from what happened to Georgia.
To my understanding, the risk you are referring to is more specifically grounded on Western divisions, decisional weakness, and military unreadiness, than on Putin’s anger. If the West showed a united front, stable resolve and readiness to make the needed military efforts, Putin could have been and could still be very much deterred from pursuing a war against the West over Ukraine. And notice Putin frames this war mainly as a war against the West, but still Western public opinions are far from getting how existential this war can be to their prosperity and security. That’s why Putin can count on the possibility that the West gets tired of supporting Ukraine.



Quoting Punshhh

First of all, my claim was: “the more the European strategic interest diverges from the US national interest and the European partnership turns unexploitable by the US, the more the US may be compelled to make Europe unexploitable to its hegemonic competitors too.”

This is a complicated claim, I’m not even sure it’s saying anything.
Surely by helping EU and forming a stronger alliance with them. the U.S. would be making Europe unexploitable to its competitors. By contrast why would U.S. make EU unexploitable to herself and her competitors?

The logic is analogous to the one compelling military units to destroy their own military equipment, for example during a withdrawal, out of fear it may fall in enemies’ hands. To the extent Russia comes out emboldened and empowered from this war, the West may experience a surge of anti-Americanism which could further weaken the US power projection and leadership in Europe. So the US, along with Russia, will be compelled to try to play such divisions on their favour at the expense of the rival. Europeans experienced something similar during the Cold War: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Years_of_Lead_(Italy)



Quoting Punshhh

I’ve already agreed that Trump is crazy and could upset the apple cart. He’s not really a representation of the U.S. position. He’s an anomaly and I doubt he will make it to the election with any chance of winning.

Such a claim sounds overly bold given the available polls. I get that such polls can be wrong and there is still time for Biden’s campaign, but no chance of winning looks definitely as an overkill.


Quoting Punshhh

If it wasn’t a controversial issue between EU and US why didn’t Ukraine join EU and NATO yet?

That’s a non sequitur, I doubt that the fact that Ukraine is not now in NATO is due to squabbling between U.S. and EU.

Non sequitur?! Doubt because...? These are the facts I’m referring to:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/apr/01/nato.georgia
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/02/09/german-chancellor-merkel-visit-obama/23115859/
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/14/politics/ukraine-nato-joe-biden/index.html
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-06-01/france-and-germany-are-split-over-ukraine-s-appeal-to-join-nato
https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220404-merkel-defends-2008-decision-to-block-ukraine-from-nato
https://washington.mfa.gov.hu/eng/news/why-is-hungary-blocking-ukraines-nato-accession



Quoting Punshhh

I think you underestimate the strategic leverages of Middle East regional powers in the international equilibria, considering also the influence they have in the once called “Third World”. And, again, the closer hegemonic powers get in terms of capacity, the greater the impact of smaller powers can be over the power struggle between hegemonic powers.

When you say hegemonic powers here, specifically, are you referring to superpowers, at any point? Or are you just referring to hegemonic power players in the Middle East?

To me “superpowers” is a shorthand for the US, China and Russia. While Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia are regional powers in the Middle Eastern area which are engaging in a hegemonic struggle in the Middle East. They are hegemonic because they are vigorously supporting military and economic projection beyond their borders to primary control the middle-east, but also in Asia and Africa (example: https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20240312-turkey-iran-morocco-joust-for-greater-role-in-sahel).




Quoting Punshhh

Can you point to a regional power who is in a strong position to influence international equilibria, or a coalition perhaps?

Iran is now military supporting Russia and pressing Israel with its proxies, related to two strategic regions which have compelled, still compel, and risk to compel further the US’ intervention at the expense of pivoting to the Pacific.
https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/117148/witnesses/HHRG-118-FA13-Wstate-StroulD-20240417.pdf





Quoting Punshhh

The point is that the combination of persisting EU vulnerabilities plus incumbent weakening of the US leadership, will turn Europe into a more disputable area for hegemonic competition among the US and other rival hegemonic powers, and this could threaten both NATO and EU project.

You repeat this and I agree that there has been some political interference from Russia in these issues. But I don’t see this fatal weakness you keep alluding to in EU, or U.S.

We are talking risks, right? I argued for the risks I see through historical evidences (which you admit but downplay without any counter-evidence) and strategic reasons potentially appealing to geopolitical competitors (which you conveniently narrow down based on hopes).

Quoting Punshhh

It’s true there has been a complacency in Europe in becoming involved with Russia in various ways since the collapse of USSR. But the Ukraine war has been a big wake up call and this will be corrected. Likewise in U.S., although the political problems in U.S. recently are due more to populist opportunism and hopefully it will be a wake up call there too.

Besides “hopefully” doesn’t mean “probably”, the point is that this wake up call is too recent to have set a stable and compelling trend in Western security.
Furthermore also non-Western and anti-Western powers had a wake up call at the expense of the West: Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Israel are acting accordingly.


Quoting Punshhh

Sure that doesn’t mean they are hopeless vis-à-vis with climate change:
https://www.watermeetsmoney.com/saudi-water-investment-showcase-at-the-global-water-summit/

Desalination will never produce enough fresh water to replace depleted water tables. The quantities required are vast and desalination a trickle.

I didn’t reference that link to argue that desalination will produce enough fresh water to replace depleted water tables. There may be more methods available to tackle water crisis depending on available and evolving technologies. I limited myself to argue that governments in the Middle East show self-awareness wrt climate challenges (as much as geopolitical challenges) and are already making efforts to deal with them. So it’s not evident to me that in the next ten years or so the Middle East will turn into a Mad Max style location because of a water crisis, and will stop playing any significant role in international equilibria.



Quoting Punshhh

Besides, even though they compete for regional hegemony, yet the most acute and local problems they have to face coming from Islamism, environmental challenges, growing population

There aren’t any Middle Eastern powers competing for regional hegemony.

If you have evidences that support your claim, bring them up so we can compare.
I’m talking of evidences such as:
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/iran/irans-order-chaos-suzanne-maloney
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/iran/breaking-out-its-box-washington-tehran-regional-influence
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/REPS-02-2019-0017/full/html
https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/03/20/iran-khamenei-supreme-leader-strategy-middle-east/
https://www.fairobserver.com/world-news/middle-east-news/the-new-middle-east-a-triangular-struggle-for-hegemony/
https://isdp.eu/irans-regional-proxies-reshaping-the-middle-east-and-testing-u-s-policy/
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/30/briefing/iran-proxies-israel-gaza-red-sea.html
https://epc.ae/en/details/featured-topics/navigating-the-iran-challenge-and-regional-instability-de-escalation-and-sustainable-development-strategies
https://thediplomat.com/2024/02/the-iran-factor-in-the-china-taiwan-us-triangle/
https://www.chathamhouse.org/2024/01/us-deterrence-against-iran-damaged-not-dead
https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/pivot-to-offense-how-iran-is-adapting-for-modern-conflict-and-warfare/

Notice that I do not need to argue for the emergence of a superpower in the Middle East. A dominating regional power can be already enough to contain the American power projection on the globe if the US' power projection is already offset by Russia and China's in Europe, Asia and in Africa.




Quoting Punshhh

It depends if China and Russia perceive Islam as a greater threat than the West. So far it doesn’t seem to be the case, given the support/cooperation China and Russia grant to Iran (the only country in which the islamic revolution thus far succeeded), Hezbollah, Houthi and Hamas.

I see this more as a case of “my enemies enemy is my friend”, Russia likes to engage in these ways.

Still that’s possible because the West is currently perceived as a greater threat than Islamism.
Besides the “my enemies’ enemy is my friend” between Russia and Iran is far from being conjunctural given the numerous treatises between them like this one
https://www.reuters.com/world/putin-irans-raisi-sign-new-interstate-treaty-soon-russia-2024-01-17/
And the fact that their strategic alliance is increasing since the end of the Cold War.




Quoting Punshhh

I don’t seek to downplay what you bring to the table, I just don’t find the suggestions that there are big geopolitical risks in the Middle East compelling. Or that there is not a big geopolitical risk in Ukraine compelling.

We didn’t agree on how to measure geopolitical risks. My arguments are based on my understanding of how threats are perceived and acted upon by the actual players. The US intervened in support of Ukraine and in support of Israel. And the latter even happened at the expense of the former. This is not what one would expect if the conflict in Ukraine was evidently of grater strategic importance.
My argument is that, even if the stakes in the Ukrainian conflict may have greater impact in the hegemonic struggle between the US and China, than Israeli-Palestinian conflict one can’t reasonable use the former to downplay the latter for, at least, two reasons: there is a link between the two, and up until now the US never managed to disengage from both areas to pivot to the Pacific (and that, to me, doesn’t depend only on domestic factors like the pro-Israel lobby or the military-industrial complex)




Quoting Punshhh

1. Downplaying the evidence I bring is rather pointless since what matters is to what extent geopolitical actors take such evidence seriously and act upon it. If Middle East wasn’t important to the US, the US wouldn’t engage in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at the expense of the conflict in Ukraine.

As I say, I don’t seek to downplay this evidence. I just don’t find it evidence of importance geopolitical developments at this time. (I’m happy to explain why if you remind me of some of it)

Concerning your reasoning, as long as the West and the Rest runs on oil from the Middle East, the Middle East is strategically important for geopolitical developments.
I think however that their importance goes beyond that since Middle Eastern’s power projection goes beyond the middle-east. So they can play a role on securing/controlling commercial routes (https://newsletter.macmillan.yale.edu/newsletter/fall-2010/american-grand-strategy-middle-east, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belt_and_Road_Initiative), immigration trends and political networking (through Islamism, financial means, military aid, etc.). And not only in the Middle East.




Quoting Punshhh

You refer to Trump again, yes a Trump presidency might well try to go down such a course. It’s madness of course, a fools errand. Even if Trump does win a second term in office, it is an anomaly in U.S. foreign policy, which will be corrected after he has left office.

Some anomalies may be more than conjunctural events. See, also re-arming to face the Russian threat is an anomaly in EU foreign policy, yet it happened under the pressure of historical circumstances. And now you may wish to argue it will grow further into a stable, effective and comprehensive defence strategy. On the other side, the prospect of Trump running for a second presidential term suggests me the possibility that Trump’s political base may be wide, strong and persistent enough to survive him. As much as the burden of the imperial overstretch inducing the US to downgrade its commitments to global hegemony. Even more so, if the EU will remain structurally weak.



Quoting Punshhh

for a population vulnerable to populist rhetoric

This is often exaggerated and refers to a populist reaction to levels of immigration.

(and often pro-Russian)

Lol.

Here some more evidence for you to downplay (while you provided none as usual):
https://ecfr.eu/article/commentary_putins_friends_in_europe7153/
Concerning pro-Russian populist parties also in Western Europe, Italy offers a good case:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/aug/31/a-success-for-kremlin-propaganda-how-pro-putin-views-permeate-italian-media
https://theins.ru/en/politics/268921
https://www.euronews.com/2022/03/09/see-what-your-friend-putin-has-done-salvini-mocked-in-poland


Dude, we clarified our different positions enough. At this point we seem to disagree so much on what constitutes an interesting, if not compelling, argument in support of some claim that I really don’t see the point of dragging this exchange further.

Quoting Benkei

Palestinian [oppressed] kills Jew = Resistance. Jew [oppressor] kills Palestinian = war crime.
— BitconnectCarlos

That's how it works when one party is oppressed and the other is oppressed. That has nothing to do with identity.

:100: :up:

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

It comes down to control/power/hegemony over the holy land. It is the existence of Israel (i.e. an independent Jewish polity) that is the crime.

The crime, in their eyes, is that such land was taken from them by a coloniser (the British) to be promised to another coloniser (zionist Jews, later Israël). The 1948 partition plan was once again enforced by external parties and therefore inherently unjust. Thereafter, Israel has acted as a coloniser by taking even more. Sometimes under the pretense of security but most often simply because they could, without addressing the underlying causes of insecurity (injustice) but instead doubling down on injustice through oppression and apartheid. Various Palestinian groups, including Hamas since 2017, have signalled a willingness to negotiate along the 1967 border, which is a huge concession already over the 1948 internationally recognised borders in favour of Israel. Yet it is insane murderous scum like Bibi that refuse to negotiate because they will ensure from the river to the sea it will be Jewish. The very slogan you complain about is policy for Likud and before that Herut. But only when it's spoken in favour of Palestinians is ie immediately condemned as genocidal intent.

Meanwhile, 700 attacks in the West Bank against Palestinians since 7 oct, half of which the IDF looks at or even participates in. Whatever "significant" attacks you think existed or exist, they pale in comparison both in number of attacks and number of victims the IDF and illegal Jewish settlers cause. All the while being the oppressors. There is no defence for such policy and no respect for those who still support it.

Ceasefire NOW. Free Palestine!

Depose, Arrest, Prosecute & Punish the war criminals Netanyahu & his regime's leaders!

@BitconnectCarlos @tim wood @RogueAI & other zionfascist apologists ...

Quoting Benkei

The crime, in their eyes, is that such land was taken from them by a coloniser (the British) to be promised to another coloniser (zionist Jews, later Israël).

We should keep in mind that there have been Jewish communities living in Palestine (and by that I mean the land) since antiquity. There have also been millions of Jews expelled from surrounding Arab countries like Egypt or Yemen who have had to migrate to Palestine and have lived there for centuries. The policies of the Ottoman Turks encouraged large migrations of Arabs in the 19th century many of whom are today's Palestinians. My point is, demographically things are really mixed up. It's not as simple as Arabs have native and Jews are colonizers. Various groups arrived at various different points. Neither Jews nor Palestinians are a monolith. The Turks were certainly colonizers.

I'm sorry if you think Jewish autonomy in Palestine is unjust but so were the millions of Jews who were expelled from their lands across the Middle East and subject to pogroms and purges under Arab rule including in Palestine before there was a Jewish state. Ancient communities of Jews were oppressed and treated as second class citizens for centuries by foreign Arab powers. We weren't going to return to it. We were prepared to share it with the Arabs who refused to cede an inch. They would not share with their neighbors insisting only on a position of dominance.

Reply to Benkei

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

I'm sorry if you think Jewish autonomy in Palestine is unjust

That's not even close to what I said though. Israel is there to stay. That's not the problem at all.

Reply to Benkei

Israel's existence is very much the issue as we hear the chants "from the river to the sea" and "we don't want no two state we want all of 48." It was an issue in 1948. It is certainly an issue for Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran as well as the protestors here in the US flying their flags and wearing their clothing in our major cities.

If you accept it that's great. I agree there many ways Israel can improve as a country. The US and UK are/were very flawed countries in the 40s and today.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Reply to Benkei

Glad to hear that you’re a Zionist. :)

Reply to BitconnectCarlos That's just an exaggeration. There's no existential threat. Nobody in his right mind is demanding the dismantling of the Israeli state. The extent of its borders and its relations with the Palestinians, its war crimes, its apartheid regime, etc. are an issue.

Quoting tim wood

I don't know enough ...

Yes, that's why i linked you and others to this video Reply to 180 Proof on 'the history' of Israeli oppression of Gazans et al.

Also this (in case you missed or willfully ignored @Tzeentch's) post ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/898196

... representation that Gazans are simply innocent victims and responsibility-free.

Strawman, of course. 'Collective punishment' (e.g. domicide¹) and 'disproportionate retaliatory slaughter' of a several decades-long captive population for "October 7th" by (US client-state) Israel are, at least, ongoing war crimes.

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-01-04/ty-article-magazine/.highlight/amid-israeli-destruction-in-gaza-a-new-crime-against-humanity-emerges-domicide/0000018c-d585-d751-ad8d-ffa5965e0000 [1]

https://fnl.mit.edu/january-march-2024/domicide-the-mass-destruction-of-homes-should-be-a-crime-against-humanity/ [1]

Reply to Benkei

Really? No one?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBwzNAV4sWs&t=218s (It's less than 5 minutes)

When they say liberate Palestine they mean all of it.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting Tzeentch

Today it would be unthinkable for the US to let itself get bogged down in a (ground) war in the Middle-East.

At least if it would be Saudi-Arabia, then yes. Even Trump would defend the Saudi oil fields. And btw this was the major threat that the annexation of Kuwait posed.

Assuming that the belligerent would be Iran. But of course it could be that the Gulf States themselves would have a war. It came really close with Qatar. Then naturally the US would be just looking at a very awkward situation where it's so-called allies fight each other. Not a very good place to be. Already it's "allies" can be found on different sides for example in Libya or Sudan.

Reply to BitconnectCarlos Nobody in this thread.

Edit: in any case, as long as Israel refuses to negotiate Hamas' goal will be the total liberation of Palestine yes. But they have already offered to negotiate on the basis of the 1967 boundaries. So really, your point isn't even accurate.

Quoting tim wood

1) What do you say should be done now about the hostages?

They all should be released asap just as all the Palestinian non-militants held hostage and tortured in Israeli prisons should be released. And the nearly 2 million Gazan hostages should be released asap. Lastly, the Israeli population, who are hostages of several decades of right wing, colonizer-settler "Greater Israel", anti-peace policies, should be released as well.

2) You added to the video you reference above, "Free Palestine!" What exactly do you mean by that?

Exactly what you apologists fear – the aspirational struggle: Palestine free of Israeli occupation & oppression. No doubt, at least since 1967, opposing a free Palestine consequently opposes a free Israel.

Reply to Benkei

You could always negotiate with a hungry lion by giving it your leg.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Reply to tim wood

Funny how they never demand a Palestine free of Hamas’s occupation & oppression. Such a thing is never mentioned. Everything with these people is one sided.

Reply to tim wood :roll: Clearly you are severely allergic – cognitively dissonant due – to the relevant historical and critical information provided most recently by Reply to 180 Proof and others.

Quoting Moses

Funny how they never demand a Palestine free of Hamas’s occupation & oppression.

Not half as "funny" as the apologists for decades of Israeli settler dispossession, Shin Bet apartheid and IDF collective punishment who incorrigibly fail to recognize/acknowledge that Hamas and others "terrorists" are the logical consequence of (US-backed) Irgun/Likudnik *zion-über-alles* fascism. As long as a man is beaten savagely everyday like a dog, the only moral "demand" is for the beatings to stop in order for 'the dog' to learn how to stop trying to rip out 'the dog-beater's' throat. "Eye for an eye", Moses – lose-lose or win-win: oppressor's (Pharoah's), not the oppressed's (Hebrew exiles'), choice. :brow:

Reply to BitconnectCarlos You keep looking at this as if Israel is the victim. They're not. It's both aggressor and oppressor. A coloniser. It would sooner be the other away around, where the leg is land the Palestinians should have owned.

Reply to 180 Proof what about freeing the Palestinian people from being hostages of their own governments and their oppressive policies? Destroy all oppression. Release everybody!

Quoting Moses

Destroy all oppression

The aggressor-oppressor (apartheid) State of Israel first. :up:

Reply to 180 Proof

If we’re serious about destroying all oppression we could all just kill ourselves. But in the meantime I say Hamas first - the aggressor and oppressor.

[quote] If we’re serious about destroying all oppression we could all just kill ourselves. But in the meantime I say Hamas first - the aggressor and oppressor.
Reply to Moses
Hamas is like an amoeba, it can’t be destroyed, or removed. This is the legacy of the Israeli oppression of Palestinians.

Reply to 180 Proof :100:

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting tim wood

I am unaware of any hostages held by the Israelis.

Willful ignorance (my mistake assuming the video, etc I'd offered you upthread would help educate you on this matter) or craven deceit. :shade:

Reply to Moses Obviously, you're not serious ...

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Reply to 180 Proof

I am 100% serious in calling the Palestinian governments oppressors and aggressors. Islam is an expansionist political ideology which Hamas takes very seriously. “First the Saturday people, then the Sunday people.” First the Jews, then the West. But maybe you’d be fine with that.

]Netanyahu Calls Student Protests Antisemitic and Says They Must Be Quelled

War criminal and genocide leader calls anyone protesting the murder of thousands of women and children “antisemitic,” and wants to stifle free speech. Good luck.

Love seeing these amazing people out there. Police pushback and media lies will only lead to more of them. History will judge them well.

Reply to Moses Reply to tim wood :yawn:
Here's a video of an interview with Jewish-American (forensic scholar) political activist Norman Finklestein with the title: Memory Of The Holocaust Is Abused By Zionists As A "Weapon"

@RogueAI @BitconnectCarlos

Quoting Punshhh

This is the legacy of the Israeli oppression of Palestinians.

:100:

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Reply to tim wood a load of text to pretend you think deeply about this issue when your analysis doesn't even begin to scratch the surface. It's ridiculous.

@180 Proof

Here's Douglas Murray interviewing a reformed Hamas militant (Palestinian muslim) who is deeply knowledgeable. It's also age restricted so if you're under 18 do not click the link.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_j2mXvZHTuo

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Reply to Benkei Why are you referring to Israel with they/them pronouns? Zionism seeks a homeland, Islam seeks the world. After Israel, Europe. If defending oneself from a pathogen which seeks to eat you is aggression then Israel is the aggressor, sure. Hamas demands a return to 1967 borders at which point they will continue their "negotiations" i.e. their unwavering fight to destroy Israel through whatever means possible. Yet ofc it's Israel who refuses to negotiate. Hamas is cancer that needs eradication as is fundamentalist Islam.

Quoting tim wood

anti-Jew/Israeli anti-Semitism of the Middle-East runs deep

Ah, and Israeli war crimes, mass slaughter and crimes against humanity somehow changes that situation for the better?

And here I was, thinking that would make the situation much, much worse.

@RogueAI @Moses et al ...

Quoting tim wood

[W]hat monstrous thing is concealed in the shadows beyond this raging bonfire?

Several decades of suffering of the dispossessed – Warsaw Ghettoized – Palestinian people.

https://imeu.org/article/quick-facts-the-palestinian-nakba

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba

And like antisemite Holocaust denial, anti-arab zionists also deny/blame their victims ...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba_denial :mask:

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

Zionism seeks a homeland

... The Promised Land Grab ... Manifest Destiny ... White Man's Burden ... Lebensraum ... Making Apartheid Great Again ...

https://inthesetimes.com/article/jewish-anti-zionism-israel-palestine-colonialism-annexation-apartheid :fire:

Also to assess risks on hypothetical and counterfactual scenarios you need arguments or evidences to support them.

Quite, like words of agressors being backed up by actions.

To my understanding, the risk you are referring to is more specifically grounded on Western divisions, decisional weakness, and military unreadiness, than on Putin’s anger. If the West showed a united front, stable resolve and readiness to make the needed military efforts, Putin could have been and could still be very much deterred from pursuing a war against the West over Ukraine. And notice Putin frames this war mainly as a war against the West, but still Western public opinions are far from getting how existential this war can be to their prosperity and security. That’s why Putin can count on the possibility that the West gets tired of supporting Ukraine.

Of course, the complacency in Europe failed to act as a deterrence against Putin’s expansionism. But the EU along with U.S. attempted to appease Russia following the collapse of USSR and bring her into the fold. Which is something you were suggesting U.S. could do as an anti China policy(appease). An approach which has failed, at least while Putin is in office. Lending weight to my position that Europe will now pull back from cooperation and collaboration with Russia and with help from U.S. weaken Russia and strengthen the boundaries and defence of EU. Thus discredit Russia on the world stage.

The logic is analogous to the one compelling military units to destroy their own military equipment, for example during a withdrawal, out of fear it may fall in enemies’ hands. To the extent Russia comes out emboldened and empowered from this war, the West may experience a surge of anti-Americanism which could further weaken the US power projection and leadership in Europe. So the US, along with Russia, will be compelled to try to play such divisions on their favour at the expense of the rival.

Yes, something an idiot like Trump might do. We see now that under Biden’s leadership $60billion has now been provided to prevent it.
You provide a good reason there for why the U.S. and EU should now form a strong coalition.

Such a claim sounds overly bold given the available polls. I get that such polls can be wrong and there is still time for Biden’s campaign, but no chance of winning looks definitely as an overkill.

I’m thinking ahead to Trump’s name being dragged through the courts throughout the summer. He is currently sitting in a courtroom with a porn star every day for 6 weeks to avoid being arrested for contempt of court.

Non sequitur?! Doubt because...? These are the facts I’m referring to:

I’ve read your links, although apart from them being an interesting read, I don’t see a compelling case for squabbles between U.S. and EU being the cause of why Ukraine hasn’t yet joined NATO. What is often missed in such articles is the complexity of considerations of the political and economic conditions in the countries involved. So what appears as a protracted disagreement on the surface, may just be posturing following negotiations considering these circumstances. While beneath the surface the calculation had been reached and agreed between the players involved.

I think you underestimate the strategic leverages of Middle East regional powers in the international equilibria,

Perhaps, by international equilibria, you are talking about balance between superpowers. I’m not seeing it. The presence, or not of U.S. in the region would make a big difference, otherwise, who’s going to do what?

While Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia are regional powers in the Middle Eastern area which are engaging in a hegemonic struggle in the Middle East. They are hegemonic because they are vigorously supporting military and economic projection beyond their borders to primary control the middle-east, but also in Asia and Africa

I don’t see anything out of the ordinary here. Most states are involved in escapades like this. Get back to me when one is about to invade another. If they did, it would risk them becoming a failed state like Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, or Lebanon.

Iran is now military supporting Russia and pressing Israel with its proxies, related to two strategic regions which have compelled, still compel, and risk to compel further the US’ intervention at the expense of pivoting to the Pacific.

Yes, vocally Iran would conquer the whole region. It’s not happening though. Iran is a weak unstable country. The majority of the population would overthrow the regime if an opportunity arose.
As I say, what I see in the region is lots of small countries either in economic trouble, or wanting to hold onto their wealth, or controlling their countries through authoritarian control. All trying to keep quiet in the hope they won’t become one more failed state. They will be well aware of what has happened in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, Ethiopia, Lybia (this list would be a lot longer if countries in a precarious position were included) in recent years and watching Israel, perhaps becoming a failed state now.

We are talking risks, right? I argued for the risks I see through historical evidences (which you admit but downplay without any counter-evidence) and strategic reasons potentially appealing to geopolitical competitors (which you conveniently narrow down based on hopes).

Perhaps the difference is how we each interpret the available information.

Besides “hopefully” doesn’t mean “probably”, the point is that this wake up call is too recent to have set a stable and compelling trend in Western security.

Oh, so Europe might not rearm now, right oh.

Furthermore also non-Western and anti-Western powers had a wake up call at the expense of the West: Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Israel are acting accordingly.

Yes, perhaps. The whole region is a tinder box, I doubt that will end well.

I didn’t reference that link to argue that desalination will produce enough fresh water to replace depleted water tables. There may be more methods available to tackle water crisis depending on available and evolving technologies. I limited myself to argue that governments in the Middle East show self-awareness wrt climate challenges (as much as geopolitical challenges) and are already making efforts to deal with them. So it’s not evident to me that in the next ten years or so the Middle East will turn into a Mad Max style location because of a water crisis, and will stop playing any significant role in international equilibria.

I’m referring to a fresh water crisis, something which will be widespread in the future. There isn’t a technology that can replace it in sufficient quantities.

Notice that I do not need to argue for the emergence of a superpower in the Middle East. A dominating regional power can be already enough to contain the American power projection on the globe if the US' power projection is already offset by Russia and China's in Europe, Asia and in Africa.

U.S. is just protecting its oil interests in the region. No one is containing their spread in the region and they’re not spreading.

It depends if China and Russia perceive Islam as a greater threat than the West. So far it doesn’t seem to be the case, given the support/cooperation China and Russia grant to Iran (the only country in which the islamic revolution thus far succeeded), Hezbollah, Houthi and Hamas.

Yes, I have said that Russia might play games in the region and China is gradually spreading her economic involvement like an amoeba, like she has been across the world. These things are and will be perceived as a threat to Israel, not so much U.S.
Russia’s deal with Iran is Putin asking for help in a desperate attempt to salvage his catastrophic foreign policy failure in Ukraine.

We didn’t agree on how to measure geopolitical risks.

Well you just seem to be playing the devils advocate. I agree with most of what you say, I just come to a different assessment as to where the risks lie.

My arguments are based on my understanding of how threats are perceived and acted upon by the actual players. The US intervened in support of Ukraine and in support of Israel. And the latter even happened at the expense of the former. This is not what one would expect if the conflict in Ukraine was evidently of grater strategic importance.

It seems now that support for Israel didn’t come at the expense of Ukraine, now that the money has come through ( delayed for internal reasons in U.S.) A couple of days ago PM Sunak described the threat to Europe, NATO, from Putin as existential and that he is putting U.K. arms production on a war footing. Along with similar from Macron yesterday.

than Israeli-Palestinian conflict one can’t reasonable use the former to downplay the latter

I haven’t done this.

two reasons: there is a link between the two, and up until now the US never managed to disengage from both areas to pivot to the Pacific (and that, to me, doesn’t depend only on domestic factors like the pro-Israel lobby or the military-industrial complex)

I don’t subscribe to the pivot ideology. My position is that a pivot is not needed provided Russia is neutered.

Concerning your reasoning, as long as the West and the Rest runs on oil from the Middle East, the Middle East is strategically important for geopolitical developments.

Yes for the foreseeable, on this issue I am talking longer than 10yrs. The U.S. is providing stability here, I don’t see a change in that for now.

I think however that their importance goes beyond that since Middle Eastern’s power projection goes beyond the middle-east. So they can play a role on securing/controlling commercial routes (https://newsletter.macmillan.yale.edu/newsletter/fall-2010/american-grand-strategy-middle-east, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belt_and_Road_Initiative), immigration trends and political networking (through Islamism, financial means, military aid, etc.). And not only in the Middle East.

Yes I’m aware of all these things and U.S. will continue to secure her interests in the region, namely oil and her coalition with Saudi. Isreal is giving them a headache atm. But it is becoming clear now that despite how provocative Isreal is, her neighbours are not going to be drawn into a wider conflagration, as I explain.

Some anomalies may be more than conjunctural events. See, also re-arming to face the Russian threat is an anomaly in EU foreign policy, yet it happened under the pressure of historical circumstances. And now you may wish to argue it will grow further into a stable, effective and comprehensive defence strategy. On the other side, the prospect of Trump running for a second presidential term suggests me the possibility that Trump’s political base may be wide, strong and persistent enough to survive him. As much as the burden of the imperial overstretch inducing the US to downgrade its commitments to global hegemony. Even more so, if the EU will remain structurally weak.

I have listened to a republican yesterday saying that they had not been prepared for how disfunctional Trump was in office and that they will be prepared now, as he is a liability. Also Republicans against Trump are quite vocal.

Here some more evidence for you to downplay (while you provided none as usual):

I’m not disputing this, European countries became complacement since the fall of USSR. Oligarchs snoozing with European politicians has been going on for a long time now. Again things are changing.

[wuote]
Dude, we clarified our different positions enough. At this point we seem to disagree so much on what constitutes an interesting, if not compelling, argument in support of some claim that I really don’t see the point of dragging this exchange further.[/quote]
No worries, it’s been fun.

Arguing that U.S. should, or may, throw EU to the wolves in some sort of power play with China was never going to end well.

The Promised Land Grab

Reply to 180 Proof

Promised to the Israelites by God but only insofar as they uphold the covenant. The right to the land is ultimately behavior based -- not might makes right. In our religion, we don't exonerate murder, rape, and man stealing because one is from an oppressed group.

What does yours tell you? That all oppressed people everywhere have the absolute right to rid themselves of their oppressors by any means necessary?

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

What does yours tell you?

:lol:

Our 'imaginary friend' does not tell us anything because we take our meds everyday as prescribed and do not ever oppress and ethnically cleanse anyone (Hillel the Elder).

[W]e don't exonerate murder, rape, and man stealing because one is from an oppressed group.

Oppression exonerates the oppressed. The best security against terrorism is not to practice it in the first place (re: Israel as well as the US, EU, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia & Iran). :fire:

Reply to 180 Proof

Quoting 180 Proof

:lol:

You can laugh, but you still have a value system. An idea of good and bad that you claim as authoritative. You laugh at mine but what is yours grounded in? Why is it true? Because Marx said it? On what basis should I pay it any heed whatsoever?

Also worth noting that your worldview seemingly rests on a blatant double standard where ethnic cleansing that targeted Jews are apparently not subject to 'justice' or 'repatriation' otherwise jews would be getting back hebron. bethlehem too was jewish where's our justice?

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

You laugh at mine [value system] but what is yours grounded in?

Naturalism.

Why is it true?

Naturalism is internally coherent and consistent with the demonstrable facts of both our species' cognitive limitations and the regularities of the natural world of which we are constituted.

[s]Because[/s] Marx said it?

No. Spinoza (Epicurus, A. Murray, P. Foot, M. Nussbaum ...)

... where's our justice?

Your ongoing injustices forfeits it ... ever since "the shofar blew down the walls of Jericho." :eyes:

It's very rare that a foreign head of state attacks student protests, or more properly the university institutions where the students come from, that are in another country. Naturally the formal way would be one state talking to the other states officials. But this is America and Bibi knows how very well how American politics is played. After all, he has spent a long time in the US and understands that he has to talk directly to his base.



In fact, prior to the Revolution of Dignity and the break up of Russian-Ukrainian relations, Putin would often directly address Ukrainians and talk to his "base" just like Bibi is doing now above. Also then talking in a language that Ukrainians understand well.

Well, I guess meddling in American politics and discourse is quite proper when the US is also doing that in Israel.

Reply to ssu

The war criminal doesn’t like the protests. What a shocker.

They didn’t like Vietnam protests in the 60s either. Plenty of pro-war dullards defending the US invasion of Vietnam and subsequent atrocities inflicted on the Vietnamese people back then too.

Funny to watch it happening again. And once again the students are correct and the dullards will be looked on very poorly in the future.

Reply to ssu

There's viral footage of Jewish students being barred from their college campuses by protestors. The rabbi of an Ivy league school called for Jews to leave campus because it was unsafe and there have been physical attacks. Hezbollah flags are present and protesters are calling for violence and repeats of 10/7. When you see footage and pictures of Jews being barred from campus it's eerie seeing the same poses from Austria 1938 by brownshirts linking arms to do the blocking. The jihadis and the far left are in bed together. Same shit, slightly different language. Still good races and bad races.

One of the student protest leaders at Columbia was recently caught saying "Zionists don't deserve to live." He was luckily expelled, but probably only because it went viral. Khymani James.

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

protesters are calling for violence and repeats of 10/7

What protesters?

Israel’s defense minister was calling for genocide early on. Excused as just “knee-jerk remarks” right after October 7th. So that kind of rhetoric gets a pass— but a few students making remarks in reaction to genocide is a step too far.

Always amazing to watch the selective outrage.

Reply to Mikie

Maybe it was the thugs flying Hezbollah flags. Sure they're an organization that's killed hundreds of Americans, but that's surely not a problem for you. They're totally, like, anti-imperialists.

Reply to Benkei :up:

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

Maybe it was the thugs flying Hezbollah flags

The thugs that have murdered 15 thousand children or university protesters who’ve murdered 0 people? Which thugs are you referring to?

Quoting Mikie

The war criminal doesn’t like the protests. What a shocker.

Netanyahu knows what he is doing. He's talking to his base in the US, those evangelicals who have a special place for Israel in their hearts and at Jewish-Americans. And from @BitconnectCarlos response, you can see that it's going in. After all, the objective here is to make opposing the policies of the state of Israel to be anti-semitism. Straight out of the populist playbook, Bibi isn't interested to approach the larger public that isn't so keen on Israeli actions. Hence what has to be stopped or simply be not covered is especially the protests of any Jewish groups. Kind of takes out essence of the argument, just like Zelenskyi being Jewish yet a Nazi.

And does opposing Netanyahu's government's policies instill anti-semitism? Well, does Putin's actions instill Russofobia? Did the actions of Al Qaeda and ISIS instill Islamofobia? Unfortunately, but not so much as you would anticipate. The majority of people can still perfectly understand the difference between a regime or fringe terrorist groups and entire populations of people. But naturally there are racists who do want to justify their bigotry.

Quoting Mikie

Funny to watch it happening again. And once again the students are correct and the dullards will be looked on very poorly in the future.

Vietnam (and Afghanistan) are actually special cases of the US fighting hopeless wars because it's normalcy to use military force. It would be a good thread to talk just why the US loses wars in a peculiar fashion. (Kind of relevant when the US might do it again in Ukraine, even if Europe in aggregate is supporting Ukraine more)

I wouldn't also underestimate the long term consequences of this. Students now opposing Israel's actions can have long term consequences as that is the future elite of America. Especially the Israeli Lobby can turn into being loved as much as the gun lobby: powerful, but not perhaps well liked by everyone. But notice that the political system in the US did respond with Nixon finally ending the commitment to the Vietnam war. And that was the end of the Vietnam war protests also.

Thus the obvious thing is to think about really what happens after when Netanyahu declares the operations having been over. Will then the protests just fade away like Occupy-Wall Street or BLM? (At least until the next Israeli-Palestinian war after this one)

Quoting ssu

After all, the objective here is to make opposing the policies of the state of Israel to be anti-semitism.

Reply to ssu

We can all oppose Bibi's policies, but opposing an Israeli response to 10/7 is ridiculous. What does any other country do when 1200 of its are murdered by terrorists? According to ChatGPT Netanyahu has not announced any plans to reinstate Israeli settlements in Gaza (who would even want to go back there?)

Bibi also notes the insane rise in anti-Semitism on college campuses - a phenomenon which virtually all Jews have taken note of and at least here in America have led many lose their historic loyalty to the Democratic Party. Like much of America, we're tired of the racist DEI tirades and double standards where violent rhetoric against certain groups is accepted and encouraged, while other groups are treated as a protected, oppressed class.

Police know what's up though and they've started covering up holocaust memorials near the protests because they know these get vandalized. It's a very troubling phenomenon for Jews worldwide.

Reply to Mikie

Mikie, why don't you go punch a few babies? And to anyone who calls you out on it - you just bring their attention to Gaza. So people who go around punching or burning babies aren't necessarily bad people, Israel is much worse after all. And you oppose Israel which makes you good.

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

We can all oppose Bibi's policies, but opposing an Israeli response to 10/7 is ridiculous.

What is wrong with my argument that Israel should fight as Americans fought when fighting Al Qaeda and ISIS and avoid civilian casualties? What is wrong with refraining from rhetoric and actions that easily make the ICJ rule against Israel? What's wrong with refraining from calling Gaza the evil city and the population "Human animals"?

What is so ridiculous about that?

And do notice that actually opposing Bibi's policies is what Israel wants to called to be anti-semitism.

Reply to ssu

Quoting ssu

What is wrong with my argument that Israel should fight as Americans fought when fighting Al Qaeda and ISIS and avoid civilian casualties?

Israel has a very humane combatant to civilian ratio. I don't see what there is to complain about.

Quoting ssu

What's wrong with refraining from calling Gaza the evil city and the population "Human animals"?

Are these from Ben Gvir or Bibi? Ben Gvir is the hard right. Didn't GWB have similar rhetoric after 9/11? What can I say? Emotions run high. Hamas is a very wicked organization and I don't know how else to frame it. What does one say when one's people have suffered the worst massacre since the Holocaust and their neighbors are out on the streets celebrating en masse? Yet we're suppose to be civilized.


Reply to ssu

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

Israel has a very humane combatant to civilian ratio. I don't see what there is to complain about.

Lol.

I would beg to disagree. It's not the worst, of course, but is quite indifferent at civilian casualties. At least when they are Arab / Palestinian. What many Finnish UN blue berets have seen in Lebanon tells this. There really is no true commitment to go to lengths in avoiding civilian casualties. Shooting unarmed Israeli hostages that wave white flags tells this so clearly. To give another example from Lebanon, if there's an orchard next to the road and you might be ambushed from the position, then just fire machine guns at the orchard when you drive passed it. If a small girl is killed (who is in her family's orchard), then make a statement that a terrorist was killed in the fighting. But of course, when you political leadership talks about human animals, then it's quite logical to act this way.

But you can believe Netanyahu's words that the IDF is the "most moral" army ever.

Reply to ssu

Lebanon was 40 years ago. RoEs change. I will not pretend to be familiar with the IDF's RoEs but ChatGPT tells me they're in line with international standards.

It's hard to get accurate casualty counts because the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry does not distinguish between civilian and combatant. Recently it was revealed that they had only had data for 22k of the supposed ~33k dead. And Israel, last I checked claimed 13k Hamas dead. And according to the IDF Hamas's own rockets misfire and land in Gaza 12% of the time.

True information is hard to come back and impossible to verify for the public. But war in Gaza is a very unusual type of war unlike any modern war given the sheer degree of embeddedness of the enemy in the civilian population. Hamas has been seen firing rockets in civilian clothes. Imagine fighting that.

Ultimately, imho, it doesn't really matter. Even before Israel responded to 10/7 there was cheering and protests against it. Once Israel is seen as epitome of injustice and racism there's really nothing Israel can do. They've lost the propaganda war among Gen Z. Israel could be very humane, civilians would still die because that is war, and there would still be protests.

Reply to ssu

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

Once Israel is seen as epitome of injustice and racism there's really nothing Israel can do.

Of course not, they can stop oppression and apartheid any day. They chose not to. And that makes Israeli leadership and those who support their morally vacuous policies immoral.

Reply to Benkei

All states oppress, and even if they didn't the citizenry will have their own biases.

Reply to BitconnectCarlos Vacuous.

Reply to Benkei

You don't understand the people, the culture, or the religions of the region. All you care about is whatever some incredibly corrupt international organization decides which consists of members much, much worse than Israel. Where are the ICC arrest warrants for Hamas leaders in Doha?

Quoting Mikie

The thugs that have murdered 15 thousand children or university protesters who’ve murdered 0 people? Which thugs are you referring to?

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

So people who go around punching or burning babies aren't necessarily bad people, Israel is much worse after all.

So now the people burning babies— Israel— are the good guys, and carrying a flag is the true baby-burning.

Living in opposite-land must be nice. I prefer the real world, but then I’m not a genocide apologist.

Reply to Mikie

10/7 was attempted genocide. But weakness is goodness for you, so you wail against the strong in their response.

Reply to Mikie

There is no genocide but there are modern day brown shirts — the student groups barring Jews from their campuses and who are openly calling for antisemitism violence.

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

10/7 was attempted genocide.

:lol:

Quoting Moses

There is no genocide

There is.

Quoting Moses

but there are modern day brown shirts

There aren’t.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting tim wood

I seem to be the only one (here) mentioning/remembering the hostages

How brave and exceptional. The only one! Wow! Great job!

15,000 children dead…but yeah, good to keep emphasizing the hostages, many of which Israel has already killed. All with good intentions of course.

Self-determination is at the heart of Palestinian nationalism for sure and the belief that Palestinians who voted for Hamas and sided with Iran (both committed to fight Israel), have a right to do so, is a foolish way to think about international politics, people who do not have a properly functioning and acknowledged state and live next to great powers don't have the right to pursue any foreign policy they want. That's what Mearsheimer would say, wouldn't he? Best to listen to someone who’s been right for the last 30 years, right?

As Anger Grows Over Gaza, Arab Leaders Crack Down on Protests

It won’t do any good. People really dislike genocide, which is exactly what this is— all pathetic gaslighting by dullards notwithstanding.

It will continue until the genocide stops.

Reply to Deleted user

Another overtly racist remark. How surprising.

Quoting Mikie

Another overtly racist remark

The hungry dreams of bread.

Reply to Deleted user

And racists like you make racist remarks.

Reply to Mikie Oh no... p-p-please don't call me racist... I am literally not Hitler.

Anyway there was nothing racist about that post. It has more to do that someone calling for people's death looks foldable with one punch — besides being ugly.

Quoting Deleted user

looks foldable with one punch — besides being ugly

In that case, definitely keep your icon a skull. I hear the same is true of racist internet trolls.

:roll:

Anyway, leaving racist incels aside, this is interesting:

Omar draws criticism for suggesting some Jewish students are ‘pro-genocide.’

Fine to call any protest “antiemetic,” but being pro-genocide (which happens to be closer to the truth) is a bridge too far. Such consistency in the genocide apologist logic.

:chin:

Reply to BitconnectCarlos Broken image. Try Google links.

Quoting Mikie

Anyway, leaving racist incels aside, this is interesting:

Don't you think a 35 year old such as you should not be emulating teenage girl vocabulary? You definitely have the testosterone of one but it is still a bad look.

[quote=Omer Bartov, Israeli-American Holocaust scholar][i]There is nothing threatening about opposing occupation and oppression. That is not antisemitism; you can agree with it or not. Even being anti-zionist is not antisemitic. There are hundreds of thousands, if not more, of ultra-orthodox Jews, including some who are in the Israeli government, who are anti-zionist but they are not antisemitic. They see themselves as the epitome of Jewishness and Jewish tradition.

So there is politics and there is prejudice, and if we don't make a distinction between the two, then what we are actually doing is enforcing a kind of silence over the policies that have been conducted by the Israeli government for a long time and that have ultimately culminated now in the utter destruction of Gaza.[/i][/quote]
:fire:

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

... There's been no strong response to these campuses protests which involve vandalism (and apparently now hostage taking) and protestors barring Jewish students from campus [s]in scenes reminiscent of the 1930s in Europe[/s].

Your willful ignorance or disinformation is pathetic, BC, especially since many of the protestors are Jewish students. :shade:


@RogueAI @tim wood @Moses and other Crimes Against Humanity (zion-über-alles!) apologists :eyes:

Reply to 180 Proof

There were naive and weak Jew who sympathized with the Reich and the brown shirts in the 30s as well. It's nothing new. JVP is just a front, nothing more. There is a Jewish community and it has a voice and it's not with JVP.

Reply to BitconnectCarlos :eyes: :rofl:

Reply to 180 Proof

Some blacks were fine with slavery & with their roles under the confederacy. Jews are beginning to realize that all that “racial justice” and DEI only applies to some groups. Jews get barred from campus and not a pipe from that crowd.

Quoting Moses

Some blacks were fine with slavery & with their roles under the confederacy.

How do you know this? (Of course you don't.) Sounds to me like the "happy slaves" trope of white supremacist propaganda. 'Uncle Toms' (e.g. Clarence Thomas) were/are not ever just "fine with their roles" ... But don't worry, Moses, I won't link you again to videos critical of Israeli oppression and atrocities – clearly, you're just fine with your role. :shade:

Reply to 180 Proof

Ah yes, those Jews have been wicked since the time of Joshua yet other groups are just oppressed little angels. But those Jews don't deserve justice due to their own wickedness. They've forfeited that.

You know we have a word for this.

Reply to BitconnectCarlos Colonizer-settler. :shade:

Reply to 180 Proof

Some blacks fought for the Confederacy. May I introduce you to Mr. Jesse Lee Peterson?

Reply to 180 Proof

We are indigenous.

Reply to Moses So what? Non sequitur.

Reply to BitconnectCarlos So what? Besides, modern Ashkenazim certainly were not – they are European invaders and colonizer-settlers.

Reply to 180 Proof

Jews are one family. No Jew would tell you that they are indigenous to Poland. Or do you know better than them?

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

Jews are one family.

:roll: Tell that to the non-Ashkenazim of color (Mizrani Jews, Sephardic Jews, Ethopian Jews, Indian Jews) in Israel who are racially discriminated against and treated as second-class Israelis.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Israel
.

Reply to 180 Proof

Thanks for your insight into Jewish racial issues, rabbi :lol: :lol: :lol: :death:

Please tell us more about the various types of Jews and their oppression levels relative to one another.

Reply to BitconnectCarlos GFY and watch the videos I've linked throughout this thread. Or go troll someone else with your ahistorical apologia and disinformation.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting Deleted user

a 35 year old such as you

Hey thanks!

Now run along little incel girl.

Quoting Mikie

Now run along little incel girl.

Reply to Deleted user

That is what we imagine you looking like, incel. Well done. (Having a cartoon ready on the occasion that someone accurately describes you as an incel definitely shows you’re not one. Guess this happens a lot to you. )

—

Truly amazing that a racist imbecile like this — and likely returned banned member — has lasted this long on this site.

Reply to Mikie

Where did your mod powers go? Did the zionists do this to you?

Reply to BitconnectCarlos

No no, they’re too busy defending a genocide. Oh I’m sorry, I mean murdering thousands of babies.

Demonstrators agreed to dismantle their encampment at Brown, which had been removed by Tuesday evening, and university leaders said they would discuss, and later vote on, divesting funds from companies connected to the Israeli military campaign in Gaza.

That’s how easy it is. :clap:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/30/us/brown-divestment-deal.html

Reply to Mikie

That's right, and don't forgot how those nasty little Zionists stabbed Germany in the back during the Great War in which 2 million Germans were murdered. And don't forgot those Christian children used for their Zionist sacrifices in the Middle Ages. Those Zionists have been at it for a while! Don't you think it's time we did something about them, Mikie?

Reply to BitconnectCarlos

15,000 murdered children and counting. A genocide right before our eyes. I wouldn’t compare it to the Holocaust myself, but thanks for reminding us of WWII and how Nazis could get away with such atrocities thanks to apologists like you. But it’s Jewish guys in government doing it now, so it’s cool. They have good intentions and all.

Reply to Mikie

The number is more than 15,000 if you include the christian children sacrificed in their blood rituals. What do you say we rough up a few of them? Vandalize their businesses? They're pro-genocide zionists what's the problem? I just care so much about the indigenous Palestinian people I can hardly contain it anymore.

Reply to BitconnectCarlos

15,000 children dead. We know you cheer it on, no need to reiterate it. The rest of the world (literally) has moved on from genocide apologia.

Reply to Mikie

I'm on your team now.

I stand with the indigenous Palestinian people of Palestine - a noble people who are indigenous to the land of Palestine and have built great Palestinian civilizations consisting of rich and brilliant Palestinian artwork and architecture. The indigenous palestinian population of palestine who only strive to be free and happy have unfortunately been oppressed by the wicked zionist forces who are opposed to all Palestinian happiness in all ways, shapes, and forms. FREE FREE FREE PALESTINE.

This is actually way more fun than being a Zionist.

It is kind of fun watching genocide apologists rambling on like morons. But in the meantime, 15,000 + children have been murdered. And the world sees it and wants it to stop.

Reply to Mikie

The number is higher if you just include all arab children killed by jews. why limit it to 10/7? the oppression is constant and never ending.

Reply to 180 Proof

Yes, the Jews are racist but the Palestinians are a noble people. Some of the noblest on Earth. You've convinced me.

Reply to BitconnectCarlos

Oh look the genocide apologist is attempting satire. Emphasis on attempting. Too stupid to even do that correctly, but what do we expect?

Reply to Mikie

the brownshirt does not have a sense of humor. some things never change. :zip:

Reply to BitconnectCarlos

Oh cool now the genocide apologist is calling people Nazis! Doing his greatest hits!

Reply to Mikie

300,000 indigenous German children murdered in the Second World War and the Allies think they're the good guys.

So Likud is the US of WWII now. :lol:

Genocide apologist greatest hits volume 1. Cool. :yawn:

—

Anyway:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/642695/majority-disapprove-israeli-action-gaza.aspx#:~:text=%2D%2D%20After%20narrowly%20backing%20Israel's,actions%2C%20while%2036%25%20approve.

Good to see Americans — along with the rest of the world — aren’t buying the pathetic justifications for genocide.

Reply to Mikie

No, I did not make that claim.

I only say 300,000 indigenous German children murdered.

Likud is like the US and murdering 15,000 innocent children is fine because Hamas are the Nazis and 300,000 German children were killed so bada bing bada boom hey look Joe DiMaggio and done. Genocide justified.

Reply to BitconnectCarlos :up: STFU.

Reply to 180 Proof

Why are you mad? I agreed with you. The Palestinians are a noble and peaceful people while those Jews over there are racists who hate Palestinian happiness.

Reply to Mikie

Why do you say German children in WWII were killed but Palestinian children were “murdered?”:chin:

Reply to 180 Proof Did you know that Jesus was a Palestinian?

I don't usually dive into this thread because there are only heated discussions among the members, but:

Quoting Moses

Did you know that Jesus was a Palestinian?

Moses, I don't know if you are actually posting using irony. It is clear that Jesus was not a Palestinian. He was a Jew by descent. Jesus was born in Nazareth, a region of Lower Galilee. The etymology of his name comes from the Hebrew: Yehoshua.

Jesus was considered a rabbi, even called the King of the Jews (John 19:21). As a Jew, He observed Passover and the Feast of the Tabernacles (Jon 2:12 and John 7:2), both Jewish traditions.

In this interview an Israeli soldier speaks out about what he saw fighting in Gaza.
https://x.com/Channel4News/status/1783179575310094524

Two things he said stood out for me. Firstly he said that lots of IDF soldiers would say if you don’t kill the children, then when they grow up they will return to fight us when they are adults. The people we are fighting now were the children from a previous war who have grown up and are now fighting us. They were justifying infanticide.

Secondly they would agree that everyone is Gaza is affiliated with Hamas, so in reality everyone in Gaza is a target.
They were justifying the killing of an entire population, because everyone, including women and children are our enemy.

This is cut and dry evidence of genocide.

A not so gentle reminder to keep the distinction between zionists and Jews, and pro-palestinian/anti-zionist people and anti semites in your head at all times. The same goes for Hamas and palestinian people+Hamas and the Islamic. If you equivocate, you just end up calling each other racist for no reason. Stop it. That goes for you @BitconnectCarlos as well as @Deleted user, and @Benkei should have known better.

The hungry ghost of Nebuchadnezzar The Great (Azazel) has yet to cross the Jordan River again. :fire:

Quoting Moses

?180 Proof Did you know that Jesus was a Palestinian?

Unironically, however, you zionists are wanna-be Roman provincial occupiers entertaining yourselves with mass-crucifixions – "The only good Palestinian is a dead Palestinian!" – your apparent raison d'etre since Auschwitz. :vomit:
.

Reply to 180 Proof

The Palestinians are an ancient and Noble people who desire nothing more than to live in peace and harmony with their neighbors. Some of the most peaceful people on earth. But the Zionist cannot stand the sight of Palestinian happiness, so he oppresses them.

Genocide apologists really can’t do satire. It’s more funny to watch them try though.

Reply to Moses Oppressors forfeit their descendants' lives because the oppressed have nothing to lose but their chains. Lex talonis, bitch. :death: :fire:

Reply to Mikie

Gaza health ministry reports 1700 killed in the NYPD airstrike on Columbia university most of the dead are woman and children.

Reply to Moses

Quoting Mikie

Genocide apologists really can’t do satire.

Just to get it all straight:

- storming the Capitol building in attempt to overturn an election, chanting “Hang Mike Pence,” smashing windows and injuring police officers = perfectly fine tour.

- students protesting genocide on college campuses = threat to the world.

Reply to Mikie

You're seemingly ok with jihadi protestors blocking Jews from campus. Would you be alright if they blew up a synagogue or a Jewish theater? When does it go too far, if ever?

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

jihadi protestors

Nope. Keep trying though.

(Someone’s been watching Fox News.)

Reply to Mikie

Hamasniks.

Peace-loving noble people.

Are you okay with kristalnacht 2.0 if the target was [s]jews[/s] zionists?

Reply to BitconnectCarlos

:rofl:
:clap: Perfection.

Please continue your genocide apologia — it’s clearly doing wonders in the US and around the world.

Hamas are the nazis. Israel is the US and Britain. Children being killed in the thousands is unintended collateral damage, mostly the fault of Hamas (human shields). Never intended, the way Hamas does. No genocide, all defensive. No occupation.

Translation: when we do it, it’s counter-terrorism. When they do it, it’s terrorism. Vintage propagandas for state atrocities. The Turks used it, the Americans used it, the Indonesians, even the Germans. Hamas uses it too.

Reply to Mikie

You get the gist. Both Hamas and the Nazis intentionally murder civilians solely because they belong to a certain ethnic/national group. The highest form of evil. Israel does not murder Palestinians because they are Palestinians. Hamas will murder Jews simply because they are Jews/Israelis (certainly the latter, almost certainly the former). You might not see a difference, but civilization and philosophers do.

If you only view evil through body count your perspective gets really, really weird. Like that would say that the US army from 1941-1945 was much, much worse than al-Qaeda.

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

You might not see a difference, but civilization and philosophers do.

Which is why Israel is now a pariah state.

Sorry, you’re delusional. But carry on…

Reply to Mikie

Israel has always been a pariah. But keep believing body count is the main determinant of morality.

Reply to Mikie

If you were to ask me who's closer to Nazis IDF or Hamas the answer is Hamas and it's not remotely close. You're the delusional one if you think otherwise.

Reply to BitconnectCarlos The Nazi ethnostate had oppressed its neighbors. Hamas terrorizes Israel the ethnostate oppressor of Gaza, West Bank, etc. (At least since 1967) IDF + Shin Bet¹ + Likud = "Nazis". :fire: :death:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gatekeepers_(film) [1]

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

Israel has always been a pariah.

No.

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

who's closer to Nazis IDF or Hamas the answer is Hamas

I’m shocked.

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

You're the delusional one if you think otherwise.

:scream:

Reply to 180 Proof

Hamas murders Jews simply because they are Jews.
Hamas, radical Islam, seeks world domination and to spread Islam far past the Middle East.
Hamas executes homosexuals
They are virulently anti-feminist and suppress women's rights
They routinely arrest and torture their own dissidents

Hamas refuses to accept any independent Jewish political entity in the region and that is what they see as oppression because they consider themselves (Islam) as entitled to everything.

And anti-semitic propaganda is widespread and embedded in children's books. But no, they're oppressed which apparently makes them good. :roll:

Well so are Israelis which are subject to a genocidal neighbor which refuses to accept theirn autonomy.

Here is the google definition of ethnostate:

a sovereign state of which citizenship is restricted to members of a particular racial or ethnic group. "they actively promoted the concept of a white ethnostate"

Israel does not restrict citizenship to Jews. It's neighbors are arab-muslim nations which protect arab-muslim interests but God forbid those Jews have their own state that's racist. :vomit:

Quoting 180 Proof

Hamas terrorizes Israel the ethnostate oppressor of Gaza

Israel doesn't oppress Gaza, it "oppresses" Hamas/the PLO and those Palestinians who bring harm to Israel. Like how a cop oppresses a criminal which seeks social destruction. If the cop acts, it's "oppression." I don't buy it.

The obvious problem is that not every palestinian is a criminal, but the entire population has essentially been galvanized against israel from an early age. so israel must be cautious if it seeks to survive and protect itself.

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

Israel doesn't oppress Gaza

:rofl:

No wonder they’re bleeding support. Their apologists are delusional.

Folks, there's bad more or less across the board, or, let's say on "both sides" here.
Continuing to just point out the bad on "the other side" got repetitive some time ago.

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

You oppress people, not land.

:rofl: “not land” This really did have me laughing.

Moronic apologists. They really should get brighter defenders. Good lord.

Reply to Mikie :monkey:

Reply to BitconnectCarlos :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Reply to 180 Proof

I need a shower and I'm done engaging with race hustlers. :monkey:

Reply to 180 Proof

Honestly, it’s not even using an emoji to be rude— it legitimately made me laugh, which is actually rare. “Gaza isn’t oppressed because you don’t oppress land” — stated seriously. Don’t know whether to laugh or cry…but in the end, it was a laugh.

Anyway, done with genocide apologists.

Quoting Mikie

Anyway, done with genocide apologists.

:up:

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

Well so are Israelis which are subject to a genocidal neighbor which refuses to accept theirn autonomy.

Responsibility sticks to power. I rather suspect anti-Israel sentiment, and the relative downplaying of Hamas's nastiness (at least in this thread - it's not the case in most the media I've come across) has to do with the fact that Israel can, and indeed is, killing a great many people and destroying all the buildings and infrastructure, and Hamas is not. If the boot were on the other foot, I rather suspect we'd all be slagging off Hamas. But each cunt has its day, as someone famous might have said, and today it's Israel who is the cunt.

Quoting bert1

Responsibility sticks to power. I rather suspect anti-Israel sentiment, and the relative downplaying of Hamas's nastiness (at least in this thread - it's not the case in most the media I've come across) has to do with the fact that Israel can, and indeed is, killing a great many people and destroying all the buildings and infrastructure, and Hamas is not. If the boot were on the other foot, I rather suspect we'd all be slagging off Hamas. But each cunt has its day, as someone famous might have said, and today it's Israel who is the cunt.

:100: Typical tactic of the oppressor (and their apologists) to blame the oppressed for mirroring their oppression. Yeah, if only the jackboot was on the other's throat ...

@tim wood (in case you've missed it)
https://youtu.be/J1N93pFcopE?si=btRT5nnIv2VkTmWp

Quoting bert1

But each cunt has its day, as someone famous might have said, and today it's Israel who is the cunt.

If the roles were reversed, sure. If it were mostly Israelis living in a concentration camp and being killed at 10x the number as their occupying oppressors, I for one would be condemning the latter.

Reply to Mikie Indeed. I think power is important. I'm less concerned about who is evil and who isn't (like orcs vs elves) and more about who has power and what are they doing with it.

Quoting Mikie

Kind of like trying to remember the last time you said anything relevant about the Gaza war on this thread. :chin:

Exactly. But now these threads are in the lounge, so it is fair game :starstruck:

In fact, I am having lasagna with a protein shake now and some sleep supplements. After that, I will shower and finish the night with some popcorn and an IPA beer.

Quoting Mikie

your shallow philosophical observations

Actually, my philosophical observations are not shallow. They are thought out and based on referenced material. I even go as far as finishing the draft and not posting for a few hours, to let the ideas marinate.

But speaking of the Levant, we should hand it back to the British, as much as I dislike them.

Whether it's Trayvon Martin, George Floyd, or the Hamas murderer-rapists the left has a clear tendency to sympathize with, elevate, or idolize the absolute dregs of humanity because they take issue with the the force that brings them to justice. Double standards are the hallmark of this ideology, where certain groups are allowed to engage in certain actions or rhetoric and others are not. But there there will be a backlash. America's tolerance has its limits.

I can't help but notice a suicidal impulse within the movement as well as seen through "Queers for Palestine." Such activists take no issue in sympathizing and romanticizing with a murderous and intolerant group which would happily murder their "useful idiots" in a heartbeat if given free reign. Western suicidality at its peak.

And then there's the modern day blood libel of Israel committing "genocide." Such libelous accusations are nothing new.

Quoting Mikie

If the roles were reversed, sure. If it were mostly Israelis living in a concentration camp and being killed at 10x the number as their occupying oppressors, I for one would be condemning the latter.

Quoting bert1

?Mikie Indeed. I think power is important. I'm less concerned about who is evil and who isn't (like orcs vs elves) and more about who has power and what are they doing with it.

:100: :100:

And moral cretins like @BitconnectCarlos are pathetically incorrigible with respect to (our) critique of historical oppressions. Why do we keep casting these pearls before apologetic swine? I suppose we must ... or else risk becoming (or abetting) the oppressors we oppose.

Reply to BitconnectCarlos The double standard is to say colonisation is wrong but to support Israel, to say oppression is wrong but to support Israel, to say human rights are universal but to support Israel, to say self determination is a right but to support Israel, to say war crimes are wrong but to support Israel.

None of that excuses Hamas. The problem is you fail to realise an important segment of Israeli society, the segment currently in power and having been in power for decades, is the absolute dregs of humanity you lament.

Quoting Benkei

?BitconnectCarlos The double standard is to say colonisation is wrong but to support Israel, to say oppression is wrong but to support Israel, to say human rights are universal but to support Israel, to say self determination is a right but to support Israel, to say war crimes are wrong but to support Israel.

None of that excuses Hamas.

:clap: :fire:

Reply to Benkei

moral cretins

Always love to hear it from the explicitly irreligious. :heart:

Reply to Benkei

Zionism is decolonization and self-determination does not apply to terrorists. I fear though that you suffer from Israel Derangement Syndrome where you obsess over one Middle Eastern state to the exclusion of those around it.

As now the dust has settled, seems that Iran-Israel have played well the de-escalatory responses. Neither lost face in the domestic scene. After the initial Embassy attack and Iran's response to it, the Israel counter was so limited that Iran officially simply denied it to be an Israeli attack, but refer simply to the attackers being "unknown".

Iran has now played this de-escalatory (or measured) response with both the US and with Israel. Hence we can see that there isn't this willingness to widen the war. That may be good, but on the other hand now there is a precedent and hence it's quite possible that the two countries lash directly at each other.

But I'll leave the people to continue with the ad hominems...

Did you guys know Israel used to hire OnlyFans porn stars to make thirst trap propaganda? They did some for Ukraine as well. Pretty funny.

As Turkey Cuts Trade Ties, Israel’s Isolation Grows

]Turkey said it would not resume trade with Israel until a “permanent cease-fire” in Gaza. The move came after a number of countries cut diplomatic ties with Israel.

People don’t like genocide.

Reply to Mikie Hypocritical coming from a State that mass murdered Armenians and Assyrians.

Reply to Deleted user

Not one original thought in your little head huh?

I’d put you on the ignore list, but you’re so utterly idiotic it’s worth the comedic value.

Quoting Mikie

Not one original thought in your little head huh?

I thought it was established the tiny one here is you. I heard that if you hang from a bar everyday and drink lots of milk you may grow an inch.

Reply to ssu Iran is definitely not looking to escalate.

The West is weakening in the Middle-East, leaving ample room for Iran to expand its influence. They have no reason to want to go to war with Israel or the United States since the status quo favors them.

It's Israel that stands to lose in the long run and has been looking to drag the US into a war with Iran to avoid Iran from becoming a regional hegemon. Given Biden's weak position there is still a fair chance that it might happen in a desperate attempt at salvaging his re-election chances.

Reply to Moses I already dealt with this nonsense claim and not going to do it again. Nice to see you consider all Palestinians terrorists which means I have zero reason to talk to you.

Gaza (Intifada) = Warsaw Ghetto (Uprising) ...

"Never Again" unless we do it to the goyim! :shade:

Reply to Deleted user

Run along little girl— let the adults talk.

Quoting Tzeentch

It's Israel that stands to lose in the long run and has been looking to drag the US into a war with Iran to avoid Iran from becoming a regional hegemon. Given Biden's weak position there is still a fair chance that it might happen in a desperate attempt at salvaging his re-election chances.

Despite the tough rhetoric, actions now show how the US simply doesn't want end up with a quagmire of war with Iran. Because there's obviously the question "then what?" after a strike on Iran. And this has been a reality for decades.

Bibi showing the UN his bombscare's about Iran ...12 years ago:


Yet Iran did see quite well that nobody would come to it's help. And likely France and UK would side with Israel too ...as happened. And somehow the Saudi's remember Iranian attacks on their oil installations still, so no aid from there either.

Reply to ssu

The US is running itself thin now. The war in Ukraine has helped that— and now in Israel. Billions of dollars spent on weapons, and the population is getting tired of it. On the right and left, there’s growing political opposition. It’s not a good look politically to be fighting two wars, even if boots aren’t on the ground. Then in the background there’s enormous worry about China.

So Iran is just not that important for the US right now. Trump, the idiot that he was, pulled out of the Iran deal, which was a success, and so there’s more tension than there should be — but unless Israel does something even more stupid, we won’t be getting into it with Iran.

Quoting ssu

Despite the tough rhetoric, actions now show how the US simply doesn't want end up with a quagmire of war with Iran.

I agree, they would be shooting themselves in the foot internationally.

But domestically it may look different, and when I talk about Biden's re-election chances I am referring to the domestic factors that may lead the US to declare war on Iran.

If Biden refuses to side with Israel, there is a good chance the Israel lobby will favor another candidate. Trump, or even Kennedy.

Or perhaps they will give no one public support, which will likely result in a Biden defeat as well since his chances are simply that poor.


The problem the US is now running into is that, as things stand, there is no option besides Biden that keeps the neocons firmly in power.

Kennedy and Trump may still be forced to do the neocon's bidding, but they will do so reluctantly.

Both Kennedy and Trump are in their own ways calling for reform - reforms which would be a gigantic threat to the US establishment.


So the US will again be between a rock and a hard place, having to choose between domestic stability and their geopolitical position.


Normally I would argue that their geopolitical position goes before domestic politics, but when it comes to the stability of the country and there is so much on the line, domestic stability basically becomes a geopolitical issue in and of itself.

Quoting ssu

Yet Iran did see quite well that nobody would come to it's help.

I think China and Russia would heavily back Iran if things were to come to blows.

Iran is instrumental to BRICS long-term economic stability as it occupies the geographical pivot between Asia and the Middle-East.

France and the UK would play no role of significance. Iran is well-prepared for modern war, and France and the UK simply aren't. As things stand, even Israel would not be able to hurt Iran to any great degree.

This is why all eyes are on the US when it comes to war with Iran.

Quoting 180 Proof

moral cretins

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

Always love to hear it from the explicitly irreligious. :heart:

Hmm? Maybe you have a topic for Ethics, Reply to BitconnectCarlos?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Reply to Benkei

Just an observation, but whenever Israel is referred to you think the state but when Palestine is referred to you think individual Palestinian civilians. :chin:

Also, in case anyone missed it:

Congress threatens ICC over Israeli arrest warrants

In case the US wasn't done making itself into a complete international joke, it is now threatening the ICC to prevent it from serving justice on the matter of Gaza.

One wonders what the US hopes to gain by disposing of what little credibility it had left, playing directly into the hands of the challenging powers.

How can anyone take the US seriously after this?

Reply to Moses There's no Palestine. Dumb observation as a result.

Reply to BitconnectCarlos And as usual, BC, you don't have a substantial or factual point, only another vapid non sequitur. :roll:

Reply to Moses On the contrary, whenever in recent decades "Isreal" is mentioned I think of that (US-backed) war criminal Netanyahu and mentioning "Palestine" I think of the criminally dispossessed masses suffering under Israeli occupation since 1967 (or 1948).

Reply to Benkei

Those Palestinians went house to house to murder their neighbors and burn babies in cribs. That’s not resistance. Just pure wickedness. I reject Warsaw ghetto comparisons as ridiculous. Hamas rules their own.

Reply to 180 Proof

They would be crying over an inch of Jewish autonomy; there’s your “criminal dispossession.” They want it all and anything less is “occupation.”

Quoting Tzeentch

I think China and Russia would heavily back Iran if things were to come to blows.

Just how much they back will be interesting.

Because do note that this isn't an alliance: attack on Iran doesn't trigger anything, as an attack on let's say Italy would.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Reply to Moses Your reply is unhinged as it doesn't relate in any way to what I said.

Reply to Benkei

Palestine is a place, but it is not a state.

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

the explicitly irreligious

Yeah, we're the ones who do what's right for exigent reasons to do right for its own sake; we're not craven like most of "the explicitly religious" who superstitiously obey "commandments" for the sake of reward or to avoid punishment in some imaginary "afterlife". After all, it's the unholy "parties of god" on both sides committing atrocities that "explicitly" sabotages any prospective (secular) resolution to Israeli-Palestinian hatreds.

Quoting 180 Proof

we're not craven like most of "the explicitly religious" who superstitiously obey "commandments" for the sake of reward or to avoid punishment in some imaginary "afterlife".

Reply to 180 Proof

I'm sorry if you were taught that way. When I read the Tanakh, I noted that obedience to commandments/morality are closely linked to life, not afterlife reward. There's a common theme where when Israel (or other societies) strays from God's commandments destruction follows. It should be intuitive: If corruption and immorality pervade a society that society will likely implode or suffer great upheaval. It's true on a personal and societal level.

There is essentially zero afterlife mention in the Hebrew Bible.

Reply to BitconnectCarlos So what? All Abrahamic sects are the same superstitious nonsense (especially the literalist – e.g. jihadi & ultra-zionist – delusions). Of course you missed my "explicitly irreligious" counterpoint so I'll repeat it here:
Quoting 180 Proof

... it's the unholy "parties of god" on both sides committing atrocities that "explicitly" sabotages any prospective (secular) resolution to Israeli-Palestinian hatreds.

Israeli Cabinet Votes to Shut Down Al Jazeera’s Operations in the Country

I’m sure this will be normalized somehow, but before the parroting of Likud spin: how fucking pathetic.

Quoting 180 Proof

All Abrahamic sects are the same superstitious nonsense

Reply to 180 Proof

Because they believe in God? Or is it the talking snakes?

it's the unholy "parties of god" on both sides committing atrocities that "explicitly" sabotages any prospective (secular) resolution to Israeli-Palestinian hatreds.

Atrocities come from both secular and religious sources. Hamas is religious, PLO is secular. Likud is a mix. Bibi is secular but obviously zionist. Decades of bus bombings and stabbings will lead to the rise of parties like Likud. Israel is an amazing, beautiful place regardless of whether one is religious or not. Resolution will come when the Palestinians renounce their ownership claim over all of Israel. Until then, constant war. Reply to 180 Proof

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

Because they believe in God? Or is it the talking snakes?

The latter follows from the former. Like the principle of explosion: any nonsense follows from contradictions. :pray:
[quote=Voltaire]Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.[/quote]
"Zion" re: Joshua (Jericho) to Netanyahu (Gaza) ...

Reply to 180 Proof

You just believe in a different sort of God.

Addendum to this discussion of only a month ago
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/894404

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

You just believe in a different sort of God.

If that is so, then Deus, sive natura – Spinoza's God¹ (and not "the God of Abraham" or any other Bronze Age tribal / sectarian cult-superstition) – which I contemplate without worshipping-fetishizing (i.e. idolatry) like Albert Einstein et al. As a philosophical naturalist (i.e. Epicurean-Spinozist + absurdist²), I have a speculative, 'irreligious' affinity for pandeism³ which makes me an ecstatic? ... rather than spiritual or religious.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acosmism [1]

https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absurdism [2]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/718054 [3]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecstasy_(philosophy) [4]

Quoting Tzeentch

Congress threatens ICC over Israeli arrest warrants

Quoting Johnson

disgraceful [...] lawless [...]
If unchallenged by the Biden administration, the ICC could create and assume unprecedented power to issue arrest warrants against American political leaders, American diplomats, and American military personnel.
[...] immediately and unequivocally demand that the ICC stand down [...] use every available tool to prevent such an abomination

Quoting Sherman

think of whether we stay a signatory [...]
We have to think about talking to some of the countries that have ratified [the treaty] as to whether they want to support the organization. [...]
I know Congress will ensure consequences for such an absurd decision.

Quoting Torres

strong consequences from both Congress and the President

They don't know the charges (yet), so this ? is about that there may be upcoming charges, regardless of what they may be (and the justification thereof)?

Quoting Kildee

concerns about the prosecution of the war [...] it's always a good idea to get the facts before making a judgment

Quoting McGovern

Why don't we see what happens, and then we can evaluate based on whatever comes out.

Better.

Quoting Jayapal

The ICC is an independent body, and it needs to proceed with what they need to do.

Quoting Pocan

it's not a matter for Congress to be telling them what to be doing

Something for them to quarrel about.

Reply to 180 Proof

If that helps you live your best life then more power to you. I don't really mind as long as you follow the the 7 noahide commandments.

Reply to BitconnectCarlos pfff... Zionists don't take them seriously and obviously you don't either. Don't murder (Palestinian civilians). Don't steal (land). And unlimited administrative detention for Palestinians with no recourse to courts. That's 3 laws continously broken that you're perfectly fine with.

Reply to Benkei

We must eliminate those who are intent on the murder of innocents. Killing them is not murder.

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

I don't really mind as long as you follow the the 7 noahide commandments.

Non serviam – I refuse to "follow" any superstitious "commandments" (re: Plato's Euthyphro, etc) seeing as "following" them did not prevent the Nakba and subsequent Israeli colonizer-settler occupation-oppression of the last several decades. Your zionist "Noahide Commandments", BC, seem as compatible as the nazis were with slaughtering elders women & children and ethnically cleansing, so wtf bother with such tribal "blood and soil" superstitions? :mask:

Derived from the moral reasoning of Rabbi Hillel the Elder (& Kongzi centuries before him), I am committed to

Whatever we know harms humans and nature, I do not voluntarily do to any humans or nature

which for me culminates in aretaic negative consequentialism (i.e. flourishing by actions and/or inactions which effectively prevent or reduce harms and injustices) that, therefore, categorically obligates me to practice solidarity with oppressed communities (e.g. secular Palestinians) struggling to resist their occupiers-oppressors (e.g. Israeli Zionists). Tikkun olam. :fire:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/901665

Quoting 180 Proof

occupiers-oppressors (e.g. Israeli Zionists)

Reply to 180 Proof

What exactly is it that you/your movement want? A return to 1967 borders? A return to the original 1948 borders? Or an end to all Jewish political autonomy in the region because all Jewish political autonomy in Palestine/Canaan/whatever you want to call the region is "OcCuPaTiOn." The latter is the most outspoken position, the most widely adopted by the leaders of the movement. To oppose that is Zionism. The Jewish liberation movement. So how do we stop oppression in a way that guarantees Israel's security? We can have that discussion.

There will very possibly come a day when Arabs once again control Palestine and Jewish political autonomy is lost. I hope if that day comes, you will be sympathetic to Jews burning Arab babies in their cribs, raping & slaughtering Arab women, and slaughtering random innocent Arab men in house to house murders because "resistance by any means necessary" and because Arab hegemony/oppression breeds such behavior. :vomit:

Oppressor vs. Oppressed. Powerless vs. Powerful. Endless war. That's your morality.

How these conversations go:

Them: I oppose Israel because it's an ethnostate.
Me: So you oppose a Palestinian state?
Them: I support a state with a Palestinian majority, but with full rights for a Jewish minority.
Me: Of the two biggest Palestinian factions, though, one promises a real ethnostate, not like Israel with full minority rights, and the other promises an Islamist dictatorship with an expulsion or murder of the Jewish population. So how is this fantasy state of yours going to come into fruition?
Them: I oppose Israel because it's an ethnostate.

So Israel rejecting ceasefire and going to complete its genocide despite international condemnation.

Praying for the IDF in Rafah now. Closing in on the Hamas vermin.

In the ceasefire deal Hamas offered to return hostages dead or alive :lol:

Reply to BitconnectCarlos :clap: Another vapid apologist ranting his non sequitur strawmen. That's all you got, lil' meshuggeneh. Pathetic.

Quoting Moses

Closing in on the Hamas [Gaza] vermin.

Ah yeah, now isn't that just a return of the fuckin' "nazi" repressed in (some) Ashkenazim? – "Sieg Heil! Zion-über-alles!" Fuck you, Bibi & the IDF. :scream:

Reply to 180 Proof

You’d be saying the same thing about murderous white supremacists hypocrite. Like you don’t hate the KKK.

Reply to 180 Proof

1200 murdered and Israel isn’t allowed to hate. One George Floyd dies and buildings go up in flames. Hypocrite.

Reply to Moses Hate who exactly? All Palestinian civilians apparently.

Genocide apologists, apart from being morally repugnant, are also really stupid.

Reply to 180 Proof

You haven't answered what you want from Israel to end the oppression.

Boo hoo can’t believe Israel is going after rapists who murdered over a thousand people and kidnapped children how could they??? :cry: :cry:

Quoting Moses

Israel is going after rapists

Yeah, those 15 thousand babies had quite the assault record.

See above re: genocide apologists.

^ straight from the mouth of the Gaza health ministry if they told you 150k babies murdered you’d be parroting that claim. In Hamas we trust :lol:

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

[s]You haven't answered[/s] what you want from Israel to end the oppression.

Immediate fucking ceasefire! :scream:

Yeah well, since that won't ever happen given the zionfascist status quo, I "propose" a just as far-fetched, three-part, Joint Security Plan:

(1) Israeli citizens need to remove (violently if necessary) the "Greater Israel Zionist" coalition government asap and jail/execute Netanyahu at el along with (tasking Shin Bet & Mossad to assassinate) all of the Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Israeli Zionist extremists & other terrorist combatants (except those murderous fucks who surrender to authorities for judicial processing and internment in UN-monitered, Joint Israel-Saudi, Egyptian, Jordanian administered penal camps in the Negev);

(2) complete cessation of US/EU economic & military aid to Israel immediately until a negotiated withdrawal of the country (removing all Israeli settler communities) back within the pre-1967 borders and the negotiated establishment of a Secular Palestinian State (SPS) recognized as an UN member and guaranteed international economic aid recipient (predominantly from the Saudis & Gulf States); and

(3) simultaneous US-Nato led eradication of Hezbollah in Lebanon & Syria in order to establiah a DMZ along Israel's northern border with significant economic & military support for Jordan that helps secure the West Bank, etc from Iranian-backed terrorist infiltration & incursions asap.

Just my two shekels: if (1) happens, then (2) is possible; if (2) happens, then (3) is absolutely necessary. :fire:

Peace begins with the oppressor State of Israel breaking the intractable cycle of oppression-caused-reciprocal-atrocities that undermines the Jewish state's future existence (which Ariel Sharon, Ehud Barak & Yitzhak Rabin had all acknowledged).

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

We must eliminate those who are intent on the murder of innocents. Killing them is not murder.

Bitconnect, I'm an admirer of your thinking on other threads, outside of this (perhaps personal(?) and understandably so) one.

I'm just saying, I don't know if you're feeling ganged up on, and resorting to an F U response, but it doesn't appear to be helping your cause.

Now, I already know anyone of us could come up with arguments against Hamas, their "mission" and their ideology. But why not admit the tragedy of the death of so many innocents (yes, I mean the victims of Hamas, Palestinian civilians) and abhor it, and then justify the actions with strong reasons presumably demonstrating inevitability? Do you not see the violence in that contradictory statement? "the murder of innocents"

Again, I am sure Hamas is wrongful, and malicious. But a statement like that cannot be made with ease. I can't imagine any human scenario where that statement could be expressed functionally. Sure, you and I might think it absurd in this case, but I always reserve the what if, the just what if the other side thinks they're doing the same thing? Is one right? Who gets to say? Are they both right? Is that not a path to mutual destruction, extinction? Isn't the only functional truth that they are both wrong? That is, that the statement is wrong?

Anyway. This is an excruciating moment in human history. It feels like watching your siblings, who thoroughly despise each other, and likely, on some level, given each of their traumas, despise themselves. And they're no longer arguing, not even just shoving, they're literally plucking eyes, and strangling each other.

Should our conversation really be about who's right, while big brothers everywhere cheer them on to over power each other?

Anyway, I absolutely know this might be personal and please know I am sensitive to that, and if I have not been, it is only out of ignorance.

I'll continue to relish our fruitful dialogue in other rooms!

Reply to ENOAH

:up: This thread has long outlived its usefulness. You roll around in the mud enough dealing with Hamas-sympathizers, antisemites, etc. -- you're going to get dirty and it can drag you down. Thanks for the reminder.

EDIT: But the more I research the more I realize that Hamas is straight from hell. There was a jubilance to the 10/7 murderers. Unfortunately on 10/7 palestinian civilians and even unrwa partook. Comparisons to Nazis or Amalek are warranted. Not even the Nazis were jubilant. Societies can be sick.

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

Societies can be sick.

Yeah yeah, your racism is well documented. But thanks for the reminder.

Reply to Mikie

Don't you have some Jews to bar from campus? Don't forget your armband.

Genocide apologists are not only stupid and unfunny, and fail at satire — but they’re also extremely boring. :yawn:

[quote=Yuval Noah Harari, Israeli historian]Humans don't fight over territory and food. They fight over imaginary stories in their minds.[/quote]
(i.e.) Millennia of slaughtering babies & other innocents in the "Promised Land" ("Holy Land"). Countless human blood sacrifices demanded by the insatiablely jealous "God of Abraham". :eyes:

Quoting Benkei

?BitconnectCarlos pfff... Zionists don't take them seriously and obviously you don't either. Don't murder (Palestinian civilians). Don't steal (land). And unlimited administrative detention for Palestinians with no recourse to courts. That's 3 [Noahide] laws continously broken that you're perfectly fine with.

:100: :fire:

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

?Benkei

We must eliminate those who are intent on the murder of innocents.

Well okay, then why not also "eliminate" the ultra-Zionist leadership of Israel and murderous Israeli colonizer-settlers in the Occupied Territories?

Killing them is not murder.

Yeah, that's just what the Waffen SS and its Einsatsgruppen told themselves too ... gfy, BitCunt. :shade:

There are some vague similarities between Netanyahu and Putin, like their versions of lebensraum and destruction/killing to get it, Putin being heavier on the hitlerjugend style than Netanyahu, ... Either way, expect reactions from other societies.

.

https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/05/onslaught-violence-against-women-and-children-gaza-unacceptable-un-experts

“We are horrified at details emerging from mass graves recently unearthed in the Gaza Strip. Over 390 bodies have been discovered at Nasser and Al Shifa hospitals, including of women and children, with many reportedly showing signs of torture and summary executions, and potential instances of people buried alive,” the experts said.

But but but... Hamas!

The systematic atrocity of Netanyahu's mass murdering with impunity goes on because (A) Israel receives too much US-EU finanvial & military support and (B) Israelis aren't bleeding enough (yet) for the citizenry en mass to rise up and stop Bibi's zionfascist regime from slaughtering any more Gazans et al.

Over 390 bodies have been discovered at Nasser and Al Shifa hospitals, including of women and children

390 bodies? Including women and children? That is horrible.

Does anybody want to talk about the half a million child refugees settled in Bangladesh with no rights or support? No? Ok...

Reply to Deleted user The relevant part was the torture and executions but nice cherry picking I suppose.

I guess still no...

Reply to Deleted user You do love your red herrings.

Reply to Benkei Sorry, I am not acquainted with internet-debate vocab, so I have no clue what that means. But what I am gathering is that you (and many other people here) don't care about refugee children in Bangladesh. Why is that?

Reply to Deleted user You gather wrong. It's also off topic. Unlike Israel nobody here is defending Myanmar either. That would illicit a response in whatever thread that would happen.

Reply to 180 Proof Israel has done more to undermine the US-led world order these past few months than anything Russia and China are doing. If Trump ends up getting elected because of Israel and he goes on to dismantle NATO and hand Ukraine to Russia then we all have Netanyahu to thank for being such an incompetent immoral villainous figure.

Reply to Mr Bee :up: :up:

Objective: eradicate Hamas.

Since Israel is the aggressor and occupier, which has created a murderous prison for 2 million people barely surviving under its vicious regime, the way they can deal with Hamas is to free the territory from their sadistic rule.

More narrowly, they can accept a cease-fire.

There will be no eradication of Hamas. What Israel wants is apparent: cleanse the region of those “barbaric” Palestinians, who are to blame for Hamas’ actions and who don’t really deserve to be there anyway. Barely disguised racism, really. But so it goes…

Reply to Deleted user

Why would we care about Bangladesh unless… is it the fault of the zionists?

Reply to Mikie :up: :up:

Quoting Moses

Why would we care about Bangladesh unless…

For people who portray themselves as caring about human suffering and children, there is awfully little talk about the half a million Bengali child refugees.

As usual, Mearsheimer manages to deliver a lucid take on the Israel-Palestine conflict.

I have echoed similar sentiments in this thread: Israel is paving the way to its own destruction, and apologizing for its misdeeds or cheering it on is simply going to expediate that process.

Israel needs a radical change of course.

Awfully little talk about the suffering of other countries on a thread about Israel/Palestine. How suspicious! It just proves that those discussing Israel/Palestine, on an Israel/Palestine thread, don’t really care about oppression, ethnic cleansing, or genocide.

And pointing this out makes me smart. It definitely doesn’t prove that one is a complete imbecile.

Reply to Tzeentch

Don’t you mean “your guru Mearsheimer”? (Is that goofy ignoramus still around? I lost track after putting on ignore list.)

Anyway— Mearsheimer is spot on, as usual. I’m glad he’s getting a larger audience, thanks mostly to the internet media sidestepping mass media, which ignores him (although he did get 5 minutes on the PBS Newshour a few months ago).

Addendum to the 2012 documentary The Gatekeepers linked in my previous post
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/900701

:scream: THE CALLS FOR HELP AGAINST ISRAELI-JEWISH THREATS TO ISRAEL HAVE BEEN COMING FROM INSIDE THE HOUSE (AT LEAST) SINCE THE KAHANIST – ZION-FASCIST –ASSASSINATION OF PRIME MINISTER RABIN ...

some of the latest articles:

https://m.jpost.com/israel-news/article-801455

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/16/briefing/how-israeli-extremists-won.html

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/extremist-israeli-settlers-are-nonstate-armed-actors/

Ergo, apologists for Netanyahu's recent genocidal operation (against the apartheid-captive, oppressed population of Gaza – à la "Warsaw Ghetto") in a calculated overreaction to Hamas are accomplices in the well-documented, (less and less gradual) right-wing destruction of Israel. No doubt the spectres of Göbbels, the SS and other historical Christian/Muslim/communist antisemites' are pleased. :death:

Quoting Moses

STFU moron.

More projection = confession :lol:

Reply to 180 Proof

Stick to philosophy because history is obviously not your strong suit. Ridiculous, offensive comparison.

Quoting Mikie

Awfully little talk about the suffering of other countries on a thread about Israel/Palestine

Wrong.

Awfully little talk about the suffering of other countries anywhere here*.

Fixed that for you. Let me know you if you need further tutoring in interpretation of texts.

Reply to Deleted user
https://www.unicef.org/emergencies/rohingya-crisis

But there are no Jews involved, so it flies under the radar of the antisemites here.

Yeah, racist genocide promoters love to divert attention from the topic of the thread. Anything to defend the Nazi regime.

Hey look! Suffering in Bangladesh! :lol: — idiocy knows no bounds.

Reply to Mikie :smirk: :up:

Reply to 180 Proof

Funny how I don’t see them creating threads about the topics they seem to care so much about.

Even though they exist already. But no matter.

I really shouldn’t even take imbeciles seriously.

Quoting Mikie

racist genocide promoters

You got me, I am just evil like. rubs hands

Quoting Mikie

Even though they exist already. But no matter.

Two dead threads from years ago, one of which has no central topic. Thank you, Twitter, you are such great people, solving the world's problems selectively.

Quoting Mikie

they seem to care so much about

"No u" :lol:

When was the last time one of the thread's hypocrites visited a child orphanate?
College/work field trips don't count!

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

There is essentially zero afterlife mention[ed] in the Hebrew Bible.

:roll: What about Sheol?

https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13563-sheol

Reply to 180 Proof

Rarely mentioned, and when it is mentioned never really expanded upon. Possibly just means "the grave." Or perhaps some shadowy underworld. Not at all a major concern or topic in the Hebrew Bible.

Quoting Deleted user

Two dead threads from years ago

That don’t exist. Oh wait, they exist but they’re from years ago. Oh wait, not from years ago but 7 months ago.

I really shouldn’t engage with imbeciles. My bad. You’re going on the ignore list. Have fun talking to yourself. Bye.

A bit strange however that he can call others "imbecile" and "moron" while the word 'r*t*rd' is forbidden even in URLs. All three are/were medical terms; it is also "ableism". Why is one not acceptable but the others so ok?

Israel is unlikely to eradicate Hamas, any more than the United States eradicated the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Vietcong in Vietnam or violent militias in Iraq.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/18/opinion/rafah-gaza-israel.html

Funny this even makes it to The NY Times. But of course he’s right. It’s a stupid decision, apart from being genocidal and morally disgusting. But it may get Bibi another few months of power. (Although even that is looking uncertain now, given his thin alliance is getting restless.)

@180 Proof

Just watched the Mearsheimer video in full, BTW. Crystal clear, as always— but the Q&A was especially interesting.

Reply to Mikie

'mon, do you need to insult people like that.

Reply to Deleted user

Same with you.

Reply to fdrake

I can’t help myself sometimes. But no worries— I blocked him. So I’m done. Feel free to delete my comments.

Why would anyone expect the pro-Hamas crew to be civil? Anyone catch the demonstrations in NY lately? Green Hamas flags and protesters decked out in full Hamas garb. It’s really just domestic terrorism at this point with their overt support for terrorist groups which kidnap and rape women & children but it’s fine bc they’re the weaker side and they’re oppressed noble victims.

Quoting Moses

Why would anyone expect the pro-Hamas crew to be civil?

Yeah, like the civil pro-genocide crowd:

Quoting Moses

STFU moron.

:up:

See my prior comments regarding your ilk.

If there was even 10 Palestinians killed the Hamas crew would be crying jennyside. :cry: :scream: :cry:

Pallywood productions in full swing! Blood libels are nothing new. How dare those Jews hit back. :cry:

The genocide apologist tries satire again. Hilarious.

:yawn:

What do you think Israel’s aim is? Kill every Palestinian? Even the ones in Lebanon?

Reply to Moses The same aim as it has always been: remove all Palestinians from Palestine and create a greater Israel from the river to the sea with Apartheid in its borders; where non-Jews will have less rights than Jews and Mizrahi, Sephardic and Ethiopian Jews will be discriminated against by their right wing supremacist AshkeNazi "brothers".

Quoting Benkei

?Moses The same aim as it has always been: remove all Palestinians from Palestine and create a greater Israel from the river to the sea with Apartheid in its borders; where non-Jews will have less rights than Jews and Mizrahi, Sephardic and Ethiopian Jews will be discriminated against by their right wing supremacist AshkeNazi "brothers".

:100: :zip:

The occupation has cultivated a longstanding disregard among Israeli soldiers for Palestinian lives, and similar impulses in the words and actions of commanders can be seen to lie behind the horrors of what we are witnessing today.

Israel has governed a people denied basic human rights and the rule of law through constant coercion, threats and intimidation. The idea that the only answer to Palestinian resistance, both violent and nonviolent, is greater — and more indiscriminate — force has shown signs of becoming entrenched in the Israel Defense Forces and in Israeli politics.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/20/opinion/israel-gaza-idf-palestinians-human-rights.html

Excellent.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/article/2024/may/20/icc-prosecutor-seeks-arrest-warrants-israeli-pm-netanyahu-hamas-officials-war-crimes

Quoting Benkei

The same aim as it has always been: remove all Palestinians from Palestine and create a greater Israel from the river to the sea with Apartheid in its borders; where non-Jews will have less rights than Jews and Mizrahi, Sephardic and Ethiopian Jews will be discriminated against by their right wing supremacist AshkeNazi "brothers".

If the goal is to remove all Palestinians from Palestine then that would mean purging Israel's own Palestinian civilians. Why hasn't Israel done this if that's its goal? Where is Israel going to send them? Are there plans? Will they be building death camps where Ashkenazi Jews will run the selection process regarding who gets to live and who goes to slave labor?

If Israel did expel all of its Arab muslims that would basically put it on par with many of the arab nations.

@180 Proof Looks like someone's found a friend today. Can't resist a shot at the white Jews.

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

If the goal is to remove all Palestinians from Palestine then that would mean purging Israel's own Palestinian civilians. Why hasn't Israel done this if that's its goal? Where is Israel going to send them? Are there plans? Will they be building death camps where Ashkenazi Jews will run the selection process regarding who gets to live and who goes to slave labor?

Your interpretation makes no sense because you simply want to disagree. I said "and". Both these things will happen unless Israel's extreme right wing idiots and their apologists are stopped. So those Palestinians that are not removed will be subject to Apartheid in Israel proper.