If people are too dumb to see that to make general claims about the mental state of a group of people isn't close to racism then I look forward to banning them when they do cross the line. — Benkei

Dude, ok let me break it down to you before you keep embarrassing yourself:
- "Close to racism" doesn't mean "racist", does it? So to my education, you'll ban and censor based on how things smell to you? Punsh was talking about the (psychological) trauma of the Jews as a historically persecuted community, not about their greediness for money and usury, so what is racist in that? Even Jews talk about historical traumas when talking about themselves: https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/2023-12-10/ty-article-opinion/.premium/how-the-nakba-has-eclipsed-the-holocaust-in-u-s-media-since-october-7/0000018c-5328-db23-ad9f-7bf8c3be0000
- Have you ever read in this forum people talking about "greedy capitalists", "crazy evangelicals", "murderous idiots"? Do they smell racist to you?
- If you consider "Jewish" to be a race instead of a social/cultural construct, then I can better get why talking about Jewish "psyche" smells as racism to you. Do you?

Regarding the historical record of the inhabitants of the land in question. I am aware of this history, however I was specifically referring to the more recent nation building exercise by the British in 1948 and the fact that it produced an injustice in the minds of the people who were uprooted. The past 75yrs of tension and conflict originated there, as far as I’m concerned. — Punshhh

I asked you 3 questions evidenced in bold, you didn’t answer any. What are your compelling reasons to take your “specifically referring to the more recent nation building exercise by the British in 1948” or the PERCEIVED injustice of ONE SIDE (the Palestinian) as the starting point for an explanation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

I agree that the Jewish people had a pre-existing claim and right to live there, as did the Palestinian people who were living there at the time. But the way it was done was in the superior imperial manner adopted by the British colonialists at the time, which set up this tense situation from the beginning. — Punshhh

Again, what are your compelling reasons to claim that Palestinians or Jews had a “right to live there” or that they have equal rights to land? Those people practically knew ONLY imperial rules and rules until the end of the British Mandate. There was no democratic referenda or elections within the people living in a geographically circumscribed territory in Roman, Byzantine, Muslim/Arab, Ottoman, British empires. There were NO nation-states over there during the imperial rule. “Rights to land” are what those imperial rulers and rules established. So why do you think the PERCEIVED injustice about PEOPLE's right to land of ONE SIDE was a strong argument BACK THEN? Not to mention that the UN resolution at the end of the British Mandate which Israel accepted and Palestinians didn’t BACK THEN, was very much what the Palestinian side may claim to want NOW.

I’m sure if it had been gone about in the right way, a successful settlement could have been reached. — Punshhh

Another counterfactual. Why are you sure? Jews fled from their land ALSO because of the Arab/Muslism colonization and oppression. Arab/Muslism still today massacre civilians belonging to other Christian and Arab/Muslim communities.

Regarding the wider geopolitical situation, I see the other actors around the world as bystanders with bit of influence here and there, the geopolitical situation of the region. But they are in no way instigating this current crisis, but rather seeing it as an opportunity for geopolitical game playing. — Punshhh

Again you didn’t address any of the points I brought up, you keep just repeating what you think it is the case, maybe inspired by a self-serving understanding Hamas’s own declarations (https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/hamas-denies-claim-that-oct-7-anti-israel-attack-was-in-revenge-for-iranian-general-s-death/3093908). Yet, not even pro-Palestinian propaganda ignores the international factors that may very much have MOTIVATED Hamas (https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2023/10/11/analysis-why-did-hamas-attack-now-and-what-is-next)
In any case what I claimed is “the problem of the Israeli is best understood IN RELATION TO numerous others issues around the world (which is what I'm claiming)” and, as elaborated later, there is no need to for me understand the massacre of October 7th as a direct execution of entirely Iranian orders to still make my point. I would even go so far as to say that the “increased tensions between Israel and Gaza and West Bank in the past two years” as the exclusive or far more relevant motivation of Hamas to conduct the massacre of October the 7th, is totally irrelevant wrt its international repercussions of the massacre and Israel’s threat perception.
https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/2023-12-27/ty-article/.premium/irans-revolutionary-guard-oct-7-attack-was-in-response-to-soleimani-assassination/0000018c-abb7-d044-a5fd-ebbf050b0000
https://www.timesofisrael.com/irans-guard-corps-hamas-oct-7-attack-was-revenge-for-killing-of-soleimani-in-2020/
https://www.thejc.com/lets-talk/the-evidence-shows-irans-lead-role-in-october-7-pgzng3q0
https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/iran-israel-hamas-strike-planning-bbe07b25
https://www.memri.org/reports/saudi-journalists-hamas-october-7-attack-was-meant-torpedo-peace-efforts-iran-knew-about-it
https://thehill.com/opinion/international/4407277-oct-7-was-the-opening-attack-in-irans-ring-of-fire-war-against-israel/

Well one can speculate, however we are talking of an occupying force (U.K.) gifting occupied land to a newly introduced occupying force (Israel). Perhaps the Palestinians were already unhappy about the situation beforehand.
So to speculate, if one were to swap the Palestinians for the Israelis and visa versa, we would possibly have the same issue, but with Palestinians as the occupying force. It doesn’t change anything, it’s just on the other foot. — Punshhh

That’s a very questionable way of framing the issue, for several reasons:
1. If you check the demographic of Palestine in recorded history, the first known people to occupy those regions in majority were Jews, not Arabs/Muslims.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region)
Before the end of the 12th century Arabs/Muslims turned to be the majority.
So those lands have been over time occupied by different people and demographic distribution changed over time. But the original people occupying the land of Palestine (and which never completely left Palestine) were NOT Arabs/Muslims but Jews (and notice that the West Bank = Judea+Samaria is the heart of the historical Jewish land). And the main reason why many of the Jews fled from those lands is due to oppression by foreign powers (first the the Roman/Byzantine empire then by that Muslim empire + Arab/Muslim COLONIZATION of lands originally occupied by Jews). So why exactly should we acknowledge historical “occupation” starting from the time the Arabs/Muslims turned to be the majority after oppressive colonisation of lands originally occupied by Jews?
2. Correlating land and population is not enough to establish rights over the land, because such rights are established by rulers. And in ancient history up until the end of the British Mandate the rulers and owners of the land were the leaders of kingdoms and empires not Jewish/Arab people. So why exactly should we acknowledge rights to land to people (Arabs and/or Jews) prior to the end of the British Mandate?
3. Correlating land, population and land rights, is not enough to establish national identity. Indeed, Palestinian nationalism supporting a Palestinian nation-state developed in the last century and in response to Zionism. So why exactly should we acknowledge rights to the land to a nation whose identity is rooted very much in this fight for land ownership with another nation whose identity precedes such conflict?

I don’t see what you take to be “hotting up” but the US as the main hegemon while going through an internal political crisis has to intervene in Ukraine, then ALSO in Israel, then ALSO in the Red Sea is the example of hotting up I was talking about. And the multiplicity of these issues are draining and dividing energies from the main ally of Israel. This is not weakening but increasing (so hotting up) Israeli’s security concerns.

Ok, but these issues, where they affect Israel, occurred after the fact. After the Israel began their campaign in Gaza as a response to 7th October.
Unless you are drawing a link between US involvement in Ukraine and the escalation in Israel/Palestine? — Punshhh

Yes, I find it very much plausible. The massacre of the 7th October (which doesn’t concern illegally occupied lands) can very much be linked to wider international conflicts. Iran and Russia may be very much interested in overstretching the American military engagement, so Iran may help Russia (as it does in the Ukrainian war by supplying drones), to instigate another conflict in Israel and in the Red Sea. Besides Iran may be very much interested to hinder the normalization between Saudis and Israel by reviving the Israel/Palestinian conflict. Both Russia and Iran have ways to do it: Iran is the primary sponsor and supporter of Hamas and Houthis, and Russia can influence the Russian Jewish community who support Netanyahu in Israel. Besides it has been argued that Hamas aggression took years of preparation and required support from foreigners (both Russia and Iran are very much present in the region). It’s even plausible that Hamas itself may have been spontaneously triggered by international events (the normalisation between Saudis and Israel, and the Chinese mediation between Iranians and Saudis were risking to marginalise the Palestinian cause) and took its own initiative which eventually may have served Russia and Iran’s hegemonic ambitions, anyways. So yes, the American military overstretching and the political instability of the US, the internal and external enemies of Israel getting more aggressive, and the international community more vocal against Israel can very much spike Israel’s security concerns.

So you like discussing politics but then when challenged you responded with one line (“Israel is conducting an apartheid state. The responsibility for the outcome lies with them”) which doesn’t even look very much as an argument, nor addresses any of the many objections I previously made to question your views? Indeed, that’s the kind of response I would expect by anybody who wanted to end a political discussion, not engage in one.
But I guess the root cause of this is in my psyche, right?

I gave that response after being requested to steer clear of the word psyche. So I didn’t respond to your detailed post as that would have involved that word. — Punshhh

If the comment of @Benkei was actually an implicit threat of banning or post suppression because they smell as racist, instead of being racist, that’s rather disappointing. Indeed, claiming that the "psyche of a group of people” smells too close to racism smells as dumb as claiming that blaming Israelis for their “rather one sided” conflict with Palestinians smells to close to anti-semitism, doesn’t it?

The “others issues around the world” I was referring to are the ones that I and others kept talking about until now:

Yes, I see this. Perhaps these issues will come into play due to actors in these arenas capitalising on the crisis. Like the Houthi’s for example. But as I say, I don’t see how any of these were causal in the crisis.
It could be argued that Isreal and Hamas have backers, the US and Iran respectively. And that there were some pressures exerted in relation to the efforts to achieve normalisation between Isreal and Saudi Arabia. But I would attribute this far more to the increasing and violent occupation of the West Bank over the past few years. Also tensions between Isreal and Gaza had been increasing over the same period. These are the main drivers of this crisis. — Punshhh

I do not need to question the strength of endogenous MOTIVATIONS to the massacre of October the 7th by Hamas (the nation-state ambition, historical grievances against Israel, and e.g. the need to free Palestinians detained in Israeli prisons) among less endogenous motivations (like the Islamist cause, the competition of other jihadist movements in Gaza with their international sponsors), but motivation is only one factor. One needs to see also all relevant enabling factors/opportunities for such an attack to be carried out. So FINANCIAL/MILITARY MEANS, PREPARATION, TIMING, and DECISIONS of Hamas (whose leaders are based in Qatar, next to Iran), in general, and even in the case of this specific attack are arguably linked to the support/advice of foreign powers (mainly Iran which in the same period of the attack October the 7th is also playing in Ukrainian conflict and in the conflict of the Red Sea) and other related international events (like the normalisation between Israel and Saudis), even if the massacre of October 7th wasn’t strictly/entirely orchestrated from Hamas’ sponsors (I never claimed nor need to claim that Hamas are mere executioners of Iranian orders).
In any case, Israel’s threat perception and reaction to October 7th does not depend simply on Hamas’s motivations. Assuming that Israel genuinely wants to literally exterminate Hamas and Palestinians in Israel, it has all the means to do it, yet the pressure coming from outside to curb Israel and support Palestinian resistance has prevented that from happening for decades. So even if Hamas was completely or mainly indifferent to the repercussions of the massacre of October 7th to the international environment, that doesn’t imply that Israel was compelled to perceive it in isolation from the international situation. Besides, to the extant geopolitical actors calculate there moves based on competitors’ anticipated moves, there is reason to believe that even Hamas may very much have figured out what Israel’s reaction might be to the would-be massacre, if successful, and its impact on the international community (like the international cry for war crimes and genocide due to Israeli’s brutal retaliation). Actually that’s precisely the game Hamas is accused to play when using Palestinian civilians as “human shields”.

I return to my point about Israel, Isreal is conducting an apartheid state with an oppressed population who they treat badly. The blame and responsibility for what results from this crisis lies squarely with the Israeli’s — Punshhh

If you think that with the notion of “psyche” you can explain everything that matters to you and place responsibilities accordingly, I can understand that all there is to see to you in the massacre October 7th is Hamas’ EMOTIONAL REACTION to increased tensions between Israel and Gaza and West Bank in the past two years (even if the aggression of October 7th doesn’t concern illegally occupied lands according to International Law) NO MATTER what the international sponsors' support is nor what international repercussions would be. After all, “if the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail.” (cit.)

And my criticism is on the way Israel is currently handling it's security concerns. Yes, it has to handle them, but perhaps the idea of building more settlements isn't the path to safety. — ssu

West Bank (= Judea + Samaria) is the historical heart of Israel, so it must be really hard for a Zionist political leaders to prevent their people and supporters to voluntarily settle over there. I’m not even sure that the illegal status of the settlements according to international law is legally compelling to Israel, if Israel doesn’t recognize their jurisdiction over their settlements in that areas (also Oslo agreements are claimed to be ambiguous enough about the legitimacy of new settlements) nor has Israel ever acknowledged the confine of a Palestinian state over there.

Notice that the American diplomatic leverage over Israel should arguably be very high since Israel is international isolation is increasing and isolationist trends are growingly popular among Americans. — neomac

Actually it isn't. During the Cold War Israel understood it's role against Soviet leaning Arab nationalism. But that is ancient history now. The US-Israeli connection is far more than than. And Bibi (and likely others) can play the Washington game too. They have the Israeli lobby of whom the most powerful group is the Evangelicals, not the American Jews. Hence actually US leverage is smaller. You can see this easily with for example with Obama. Bibi didn't have to go through the White House or the Secretary of the State, he could easily meet politicians in the Congress directly. — ssu

That doesn’t change the fact that Israel depends even more on such connection if it feels more internationally isolated and part of Biden’s democratic base (like many from the Woke culture https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/563415-poll-one-third-of-voters-identify-as-woke/) is sensitive to the Palestinian cause (https://jstribune.com/bernstein-woke-ideology-in-the-us-poses-a-national-security-challenge-for-israel/). Besides Evangelicals are not the fan base of Biden, so I can see there some diplomatic leverage the US could use against Israel (as already Obama did in the past https://www.wsj.com/articles/obamas-parting-betrayal-of-israel-1482795616)

As I said, I would exclude the Evangelical issue (at least the way you argued it, preserving the support of the Jewish lobby may be enough compelling to Biden), and give more weight to hegemonic concerns that also led the US to get involved in the beef between Russians and Ukrainians. — neomac

It is election year, so I would assume millions of votes do count. Biden can sacrifice the Arab-American vote and some young progressives in the campuses, not millions that would vote for him. — “ssu

Millions of Evangelical votes? Do you have any compelling evidence that millions of Evangelicals would vote for Biden, if only Biden let Netanyahu do whatever he wants in Gaza?
I have evidence that Evangelicals would vote Trump no matter what:
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/4389317-trumps-evangelical-voters-remain-loyal-as-he-violates-the-ten-commandments/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/02/23/trump-christians-evangelicals/
https://www.businessinsider.com/evangelical-christian-voters-support-trump-despite-weak-abortion-stance-2024-1?r=US&IR=T
https://www.npr.org/2024/01/21/1225860255/evangelical-voters-trump-2024
https://www.ft.com/content/fe3fe8df-fa61-402c-b8a6-9966c2a27b25
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/08/30/most-white-americans-who-regularly-attend-worship-services-voted-for-trump-in-2020/

IF it’s matter of fighting as martyrs for pan-Islamism, pan-Arabism, or just as Iranian-proxies Palestinians are an extension of Arab/Islamic/Iranian imperialism which even the West may be compelled to fight (as the West is fighting Russian imperialism), not only Israel. — neomac

That's the more unlikely reason. Various ism's come and go. But naturally Israel hopes it can get this role of being the defender of the West against the Muslims threat. That Israel's fight is your and mine fight too. — ssu

That may plausibly be a more unlikely reason for many Palestinians, not for Hamas though which is governing Gaza (unlikely the Ukrainian Nazis which are not governing Ukraine), conducting attacks on Israeli soil from Gaza and tightly infiltrating/radicalizing Palestinian society in Gaza against Israel. Indeed, Hamas and its Palestinians supporters may very much play their cards also to serve Iran and its Islamist agenda (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_Hamas_charter).

IF it’s matter of peace and safety for civilians, then Palestinians are MORE EASILY compelled to emigrate to more hospitable lands than Ukrainians and Jews (indeed, it’s what Jews did to flee from the Nazis), because their Ummah-brothers in neighbouring Arab/Muslim countries have ALL THE LOVE AND LANDS to host and protect ummah-brother Arab/Muslim Palestinians (unless the Ummah-brother story is all bullshit). — neomac

I think European response to the war in Ukraine here shows that this isn't the case. Even if European countries are OK with refugees (mainly women and children) coming to their lands, they are more eager to give Ukraine weapons. Nobody than Iran is giving any weapons to the Palestinians. And for Palestinians, they have the Nakba as close to heart as the Jews have the Holocaust. — ssu

It seems you are totally missing the implications of my conditional: 1. Diaspora can be an ACCEPTABLE OPTION for Palestinians looking for safety and peace as it was the case for the Jews looking for safety and peace for centuries so if Palestinians refuse to flee, having the chance, they have to be ready to pay the brutal consequences they have experienced for decades 2. The option for a Palestinian diaspora should be EVEN MORE ACCEPTABLE to Palestinians looking for safety and peace than it was for Jews (or Ukrainians), because the Jewish diaspora (or the Ukrainian refugees) took place in lands where there were no identitarian roots comparable to the ones Palestinians could find in Arab/Muslim countries in the Middle East. And if that is not the case because such countries refuse Palestinian refugees, than the ummah-brother rhetoric of Muslim/Arab countries in the Middle East looks EVEN MORE (DISGUSTINGLY?) HYPOCRITICAL than the Western universal humanitarian concerns.

So, in the end, Palestinians genuinely looking for peace and safety over everything else are screwed by their own kin fellows more than they are screwed by the Israelis, since Israelis do the shooting/bombing after being provoked by Hamas (and its Palestinian supporters) but then Hamas and Ummah-brothers keep them there in Gaza to get brutally shot down, instead of letting them flee.

I feel for you, dude. Do you want a hug?

I do understand the security concerns, however I am of the view that Israel’s security would have been secure had Israel not conducted it’s settlement policy and treating of Gaza’s as second class citizens over the last few decades. — Punshhh

I don’t find this counterfactual argument particularly compelling. On one side, it sounds so in the hindsight (back then would have you been able to predict what would have likely happened for decades to come?), yet Israelis might argue that the success they obtained (wars against Arab countries which Israel won and against Palestinians who lost more land and more people than Israel so far) were still worth that much of sacrifice in terms of security. On the other side, one can construe a more compelling counterfactual for the Palestinians: namely, Palestinians would have been safer had Palestinians accepted the terms posed by Israel for a peaceful coexistence since the end of British mandate and, if needed, including the condition of second class citizens (also because Jews would have been likely treated as a second class citizens in a unique Palestinian state run by Hamas or other Arab/Islamist regime).
And, notice, if the latter counterfactual was not more compelling to the Palestinians than the former counterfactual to the Israelis, this would further support Israelis’ aversion to the Palestinians’ cause, because it’s not peace they are looking for.

I don’t see a hotting up of hegemonic competition which would inflame the situation in Israel. One could possibly say something about Russian actions, or Trump’s actions in regard of Iran, or Afghanistan when he was in office. But I don’t see much cause and effect going on here. Islamism has faded into the background recently with the occasional terrorist action in Western countries. Again, little cause and effect. Unless it is code for Hamas. — Punshhh

I don’t see what you take to be “hotting up” but the US as the main hegemon while going through an internal political crisis has to intervene in Ukraine, then ALSO in Israel, then ALSO in the Red Sea is the example of hotting up I was talking about. And the multiplicity of these issues are draining and dividing energies from the main ally of Israel. This is not weakening but increasing (so hotting up) Israeli’s security concerns.
Besides, I question cause-effect reasoning in geopolitics for more reasons. One is that security concerns are not just about single (fac)actual threats but also anticipated threats (because it may be already to late to respond to an actual threat effectively, and because threats can come in combination with other threats). For example, Russia invaded Ukraine allegedly because of the anticipated threat of Ukraine joining NATO.

I’m just someone who likes discussing politics and philosophy on a forum. What you depict here must just be in your head, it’s not in mine. — Punshhh

So you like discussing politics but then when challenged you responded with one line (“Israel is conducting an apartheid state. The responsibility for the outcome lies with them”) which doesn’t even look very much as an argument, nor addresses any of the many objections I previously made to question your views? Indeed, that’s the kind of response I would expect by anybody who wanted to end a political discussion, not engage in one.
But I guess the root cause of this is in my psyche, right?

if the problem of the Israeli is best understood IN RELATION TO numerous others issues around the world (which is what I'm claiming), then we have a compelling reason to not assess Israelis’ actions in isolation from such numerous others issues around the world, don’t we?

Feel free to link this crisis with things happening elsewhere around the world, I don’t see much of it from where I’m standing. But if there is something, I’d like to know. — Punshhh

The “others issues around the world” I was referring to are the ones that I and others kept talking about until now: the political struggle in the US, the American leadership of the Western front challenged by authoritarian regimes with hegemonic ambitions (like Russia, China and Iran supporting Hamas in Israel, Russia in Ukraine, Houthis in Yemen, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Assad in Syria), the weakness and compromised credibility of International Law, the incumbent Islamism (starting with Hamas itself as a branch of Muslim Brotherhood, and it’s not only the Islamist faction active in Palestine), the incapacity of Europeans to play a decisive role, the competition between Iran and Arabs to stabilise the middle-east, the opportunism of all interested parties (like South Africa against Israel).

OK, I'll put it as simple as I can. If the Westerners have to take seriously Israel's security concerns (and I argued why they should, unlike Russia's security concerns) — neomac

Actually stop there as this is a very good point. Because naturally for Putin it's allways about security concerns (even if he cannot stop blabbing about Ukraine being a natural part of Russia as the cradle of the Russian state). And we have to accept that "security concerns" are the reason for war. After all, my country was (and is) a "security concern" for Russia just where it is. — ssu

As I said, one can talk about security concerns all he wants, yet others can question their reasons for making such claims compelling. I do not find Russia’s stated security concerns even remotely as credible as Israel’s.

Or simply do what Ronald Reagan did with the Isrealis after they launched "Operation Peace for Galilee" (which btw created Hezbollah in the first place). Show the red card, put limits. It's easy, has been done in history.

And if you want peace than the present to continue for another 75 years or more, you simply have to put pressure on both sides. That's it. That's the only reason why both Israel AND the PLO chose the Oslo path, but when Israel say it doesn't have any pressure to do anything about it, why would it not opt to put more grind on the Palestinians. IF PLO would have had their Gulf support, I think that Arafat would have been just fine to direct attacks on Israel and try to fight the war. — ssu

We have argued the Oslo path. And the America of Ronald Reagan is arguably not the same as the America of Biden, as much as the Israel of Begin/Sharon is not the Israel of Netanyahu. Notice that now the American diplomatic leverage over Israel should arguably be very high since the international isolation is increasing for Israel and isolationist trends are growingly popular among Americans. Yet Biden hesitates to threaten to withdraw military support or UN veto in support for Israel against a stubborn Netanyahu. So, why Biden is hesitating? Maybe he has compelling reasons rooted in national and international politics which are both unstable and risking to worsen. As I said, I would exclude the Evangelical issue (at least the way you argued it, preserving the support of the Jewish lobby may be enough compelling to Biden), and give more weight to hegemonic concerns that also led the US to get involved in the beef between Russians and Ukrainians.

Bibi is following exactly the neocon playbook that George Bush followed after 9/11. Remember that the Americans loved that so much they voted him to office another time. And the neocons wanted to go other countries than just Afghanistan and Iraq. Perhaps the solution for Bibi too, win a great victory and get the support back. Far more territorial his aspirations. So let's have that war in Lebanon. — ssu

I can get that Bibi and Israelis may be on a rampage, and that Bibi might also exploit Israelis thirst for revenge for more personal political reasons. But Islamist terrorism was arguably far from being an existential threat to the US as Hamas is to Israel.

Ukrainians aren't going to "get the message" and become Russians. And surely Israelis won't either "get the message" and go away from Israel back to Europe, that's for sure. They'll choose fighting over being refugees. Yet somehow Palestinians should here different and get "the message and move on". Of course they won't.

And the conflict will continue... — ssu

You seem to misunderstand my arguments again. So I’ll rephrase some critical alternatives which Palestinians have to face as far as I'm concerned:
IF it’s really matter of nation-state struggle over the same land on both Israeli and Palestinian sides (the war between Ukrainians and Russians is not the same, Russians have their state while threatening integrity and independence of the Ukrainian nation-state), then that’s a dead-lock and they both, Israelis and Palestinians, are compelled to fight it out even at risk of ethnic cleansing on both sides.
IF it’s matter of fighting as martyrs for pan-Islamism, pan-Arabism, or just as Iranian-proxies Palestinians are an extension of Arab/Islamic/Iranian imperialism which even the West may be compelled to fight (as the West is fighting Russian imperialism), not only Israel.
IF it’s matter of peace and safety for civilians, then Palestinians are MORE EASILY compelled to emigrate to more hospitable lands than Ukrainians and Jews (indeed, it’s what Jews did to flee from the Nazis), because their Ummah-brothers in neighboring Arab/Muslim countries have ALL THE LOVE AND LANDS to host and protect ummah-brother Arab/Muslim Palestinians (unless the Ummah-brother story is all bullshit).

OK and prior to the current horror show, what was the morale of Palestinian civilians (the non-Westerners, the Westerners) about Israel exactly? — neomac

Quite similar to the Israeli view. Likely even more demonizing than the Israeli far right.

If Israeli supported the laws of war as you claim (and putting aside the issue that international laws of war do not seem to fix any specific ratio civilian/militant casualties for proportionality assessment) how much Palestinian increased morale and the morale of World of people concerned about Palestinian morale do you estimate would benefit Israeli's security concerns? — neomac

Somewhat confusing statement there. — ssu

OK, I'll put it as simple as I can. If the Westerners have to take seriously Israel's security concerns (and I argued why they should, unlike Russia's security concerns), and the Israeli government has proven to be incapable of dealing with it in ways more digestible to us, then either the West finds a way to appease Israel's security concerns for good (and in a much better way much than it did with Ukraine) or it has to abandon Israel to its fate (which is going to spike Israel security concerns). I don't think either are feasible or convenient for the West at the moment, especially for the US alone. That's the Western impasse.

Let's take a theoretical example:

First of all, just think yourself as being an officer and in command of troops. What would you think about your country if your leaders and superiors would say that it is important that you follow the laws of war or you can face court martial.

Or then what would you think about your country if you wouldn't ever even be told about the laws, your superiors would be after body counts, how many of the enemy have you and your troops have killed and if you kill civilians on the way, doesn't matter so much as they obviously were supporting the enemy.

At least for me I would far more willingly serve a country that truly upholds things like international laws of war. Important to have that when in war killing people still is obnoxious. — ssu

Previously, you showed me to what extent you could empathize with the Palestinians, now you are showing to what extent you could not empathize with the Israelis. That's all. And notice that the threat posed by Hamas or Palestinian resistance to Israel is of different kind of the one posed by Russia to Finland for means (unconventional war vs conventional war) and nature (fighting for statehood over the same land).

Hence all that bullshit of laws of war are somehow viewed as an "obstacle", because the crowd hasn't served itself in the army and doesn't understand that actually upholding the laws of war makes wonders for morale. Body counts don't. — ssu

OK and prior to the current horror show, what was the morale of Palestinian civilians (the non-Westerners, the Westerners) about Israel exactly? If Israeli supported the laws of war as you claim (and putting aside the issue that international laws of war do not seem to fix any specific ratio civilian/militant casualties for proportionality assessment) how much Palestinian morale and the morale of World of people concerned about Palestinian morale do you estimate would benefit Israeli's security concerns? The US and Iraq are not fighting FOR STATEHOOD OVER THE SAME LAND, nor are next to each other like Russia and Finland.

the US will support Israel totally blindly, the rest of the World won't and that rest of the World matters — ssu

OK and what are the costs/benefits you'll see coming for the US and Biden, and for Israel if Biden withdraws military support or UN veto in favor of Israel?

I don’t see the interlocutors you mention failing to appreciate this. I don’t, — Punshhh

What is “appreciate” supposed to mean here? These are two of your one-liners:

“If we distill the issue down to its root cause, we find there is a problem in the psyche of the Israeli’s.”

“Israel is conducting an apartheid state. The responsibility for the outcome lies with them”.

My arguments question such claims, and none of my arguments have even been addressed by you to come to the above conclusions, even though you claim to appreciate them. You talk about Israeli psyche and responsibilities, I talk about Israeli security concerns, dead-lock nation-state struggle by Israelis and Palestinians, wider and hotter international hegemonic competition, the threat of Islamism, the political weakness and compromised credibility of International Law.
It’s like you and others (participating in an internet forum as anonymous nobodies likely from your armchair and in privileged conditions) feel self-entitled to pin down rules of the game and responsibilities, prior to even understanding the game which is actually being plaid by people putting their skin in it for generations. So everybody else has to (kindly?) shut (the fuck?) up and listen.

but I remind you that Israel is and is portraying itself as part of the West. Israeli citizens have strong links with all Western countries and move freely back and forth. This is one of the main reasons why those in the West are exercised over this issue rather than numerous others around the world. — Punshhh

There is more to question in these claims of yours, but I limit myself to question the latter: if the problem of the Israeli is best understood IN RELATION TO numerous others issues around the world (which is what I'm claiming), then we have a compelling reason to not assess Israelis’ actions in isolation from such numerous others issues around the world, don’t we?

:up:

"Russia-Ukraine War: Moscow paid billions in gold bullions to Iran for Shahed drones, leaked documents reveal"
https://www.firstpost.com/world/russia-ukraine-war-moscow-paid-billions-in-gold-bullions-to-iran-for-shahed-drones-leaked-documents-reveal-13704242.html

I don't want to start about Ukraine in this thread but expansion of NATO has deteriorated relations with Russia several times and therefore deteriorated our safety in Europe. It has always been a bad idea for Europe and has more to do with the geopolitical ambitions of the USA and Europe's dependence on its protection. We (the EU) need our own defensive alliance and leave the US and create a fourth power.

More generally, I don't see how anyone can call an expansion of any military alliance as defensive. Expansion is by definition offensive. It is the "trust our blue eyes" we're really a defensive organisation that everyone in the West sincerely believes because it's our guys claiming it - until it isn't. With its expansion into space, expansion into other countries and actions like Libya we already know where this is going to ensure NATO remains relevant. What will worry any country not in the alliance is the capabilities of such an alliance. So it's not so much propaganda on the side of Russia but more realising how our own propaganda works and ignoring it. — Benkei

I do not intend to go off topic nor repeat what I have abundantly argued in the thread about the Ukrainian crisis to question views like yours. So I limit myself to question the claim in bold in general terms. Whose definition are you talking about? You can stipulate the meaning of words as you wish, that doesn’t mean others will accept it. In particular, I too can claim a DEFENSIVE alliance (as NATO) is defensive by definition. Even claiming that the expansion of a defensive alliance is a provocation to X can very much be threatening to those countries which are exposed to hegemonic ambitions of X (Eastern European States, and on top of them, Ukraine can very much be interested in VOLUNTARILY joining a defensive alliance like NATO if they fear Russian imperialism). Again, the perception of offensive/defensive moves can shift depending on the perspective of competing players and perceived actual/anticipated threats, yet from the perspective of the more vulnerable parties, the more compelling question is: who is it worth or less detrimental to ally with in the short/medium/long term?

I don't pick a side the way you do as the only rational position in my view is one that is morally consistent. Picking sides never gets you that. — Benkei

I’m not sure to understand what you are saying. I didn’t claim mine is the only rational position, I simply argued for my understanding of the “self-fulfilling prophecy” issue and questioned the political relevance of your views, roughly the idea that Israel should not do what it does because of international law, war crimes, stealing land, humanitarian concerns. To me, “I don't pick a side the way you do” suggests that you are picking sides just in other ways. But then you seem to question the idea of picking sides as such or that is morally consistent. Not sure. What is the argument? Can you elaborate?

Sorry, but I'm an old reserve officer... so I would fight and die for my country if needed. I cannot know what I would be as a Palestinian, but likely I wouldn't be fleeing my country. That's the best option we Finns know when faced by an overwhelming enemy which we cannot militarily destroy is to defend yourself and hope it's too costly to continue the war and you get a peace deal where you remain independent. Being a refugee and you know how much respect refugees get in this world. Fuck that!

My grandparents were in WW2 and they didn't send their children, my parents, away to Sweden. In fact, those children that were sent to Sweden had far more traumatic experience as the country wasn't occupied by the Russians. I wouldn't have respected them if they would have sent their children away. Children adapt to things and are happy with their parents, even it's just their mother there. — ssu

All right, I can respect that. And, for my education, how representative do you think your views are among Finns today?

Or I get it: The Palestinians simply have stop being a death cult and stop attacking peaceful Israelis. And perhaps just move somewhere else and "get on with it!". I mean it's just a place where you live. One place is as good as another. For nobody the place they live is a "Holy Land", right??? :grin: — ssu

OK let's see how far you can empathize with the Palestinians. Let's say Netanyahu is a psychopath and can/wants to murder ALL Palestinians in Gaza for fun, would you ssu still want to remain in Gaza and risk the life of your entire family to be massacred for Netanyahu's fun or would you try to flee to more hospitable lands of the holy All-Peace&Love Pan-Arabic Pan-Islamic Pan-Brotherhood Islamic Arab Ummah AS FAST AS POSSIBLE (like Jews massively fled to the US when persecuted by the Nazis) at their place?

↪neomac
Many Westerners still refuse to see the threat their governments pose to others and as such create the very conditions for those others to become a threat in turn. — Benkei

Well that’s not my case. Indeed, what you are saying is very much related to the point I made on several occasions in the thread about the Ukrainian crisis: if states/governments are security driven and anticipate threats (because if the threat is imminent, it may be too late to respond to it effectively), then any DEFENSIVE move can be perceived as OFFENSIVE by a competitor states/governments (see Putin’s complaining about NATO expansion and invasion of Ukraine to prevent that, triggered Finland and Sweden to candidate for NATO membership, so NATO expanded). Notice that, by this logic, even Nazis and Christians could see Jews as a threat for what Jews did and had done. BTW this is true also for PROPAGANDA spun by ordinary people like you: any propaganda by political activists can threaten and trigger a counter-propaganda.
That is why one has to look at the wider geopolitical/historical/cultural context (e.g. Islamism vs Zionism) and signaling strategies (like the declared intentions of Hamas or Iran vs the declared intentions of Israeli government, including Netanyahu) to make sense of what constitutes threat perception and threat signaling for all involved parties (because the threat is more in the eye of the threatened, than in the eye of the threatener). And ultimately pick a side as consistently as possible with such understanding, if one wants to be rationality motivated.
Besides I also do not underestimate the possibility that not all human problems can be solved through diplomatic means or for the benefits of all involved parties.

Also nice how you reduce everything anti-zionists in this thread have said about the crimes from Israel as comparing them to Nazis. — Benkei

Not really. In that comment, I wasn’t specifically referring to “everything anti-zionists in this thread have said about the crimes from Israel”, I generically said “many Westerners”. Besides, in this thread, I questioned certain critical views against Israel (like yours, ssu and punsh's ) without making the kind of reduction you are now attributing to me based on a post addressed to another user.

As to your whole spiel about human rights, war crimes etc. not being considerations; they obviously are as all appeals by like-minded individuals, especially former colonies that better understand the oppression of the Palestinians, to higher norms are couched in international law norms, which have been recognised by Western and non-Western countries alike. — Benkei

They obviously are AS other considerations. What I’m questioning and solicit people in this thread to give a more serious thought about is whether the considerations you seem to cherish so much (as many privileged white Westerners) are the main driving motivations of main involved parties’s decision makers with their supporters like Netanyahu with his Israeli supporters, Hamas with their Palestinian supporters. Obviously this is very much questionable, they both can be easily accused of having committed/committing war crimes, being driven by genocidal ideologies, violating human rights, can’t they?
Now you may WISH to say other main parties indirectly involved in this conflict may be driven by such considerations you seem to cherish so much: like the US, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, China, Russia to name the first ones that come to mind. But obviously that's also very much questionable, they all can be easily accused of having committed/committing war crimes, being driven by genocidal ideologies, and/or violating human rights, can’t they? That’s also why international tribunals/councils with these countries’ as representatives can AT BEST express international consensus. They are less credible champions/enforcers of justice according to the international law norms you seem to cherish so much.
Now you may still WISH to say “like-minded individuals” people, “former colonies” people, love&peace people in the World are motivated by such considerations you seem to cherish so much. Is it true? How influential are they? As far as I’m concerned, there are 2 BIG problems here: 1. Such people are not ONE and the same people indeed many (I’d say MOST OF THEM) are driven by IDENTITARIAN principles more than UNIVERSAL principles you seem to cherish so much, so yes they may complain about human rights violations AT BEST when THEIR people suffer from foreign oppression (example, the Muslim Ummah gives a shit about the Palestinian genocide, yet they do not give a shit about inter-Islamic massacres, Christians genocide and all sorts of human rights violation that Islamist countries perpetrate against their own people, besides Islamism in Africa constitutes A FORMER (?!) COLONIAL POWER, yet criticism of Islamic colonialism doesn’t look very much popular in the Muslim world, as far as I can tell) 2. Even if there are people (to me just a minority) GENUINELY motivated by UNIVERSAL principles, they are influential to the extent they support certain political representatives, yet their political representatives do not necessarily act GENUINELY based on such UNIVERSAL principles even if so it seems for predictable propaganda reasons. This is particularly plausible in an epoch where the international order is unstable, and every country may try to assert itself as a player on the international stage ALSO by exploiting current crisis from elsewhere and always in the pursuit of perceived national interest. An example of this is South Africa which appeals to an international tribunal for the alleged genocide of Palestinians committed by Israeli, AND YET it refuses to comply with the ICC issued arrest warrant for President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan for genocide committed in Darfur. South Africa tried to play the same game with Putin but eventually couldn’t afford it.

So that’s the harsh predicament we have to deal with.

When one tries to follow those events more tightly from Euromaidan (which seemed very much an attempted "coup" but by the pro-Russian Ukrainian President Yanukovich), Nuland's call (which, in the context, one can take to be nothing more than a diplomatic pressure within the frame of Yanukovich's proposed solution to the crisis [1] more than evidence for a staged "coup" by the US, indeed even Russian diplomats and European diplomats were there trying to diplomatically work out the Euromaidan crisis and which was ended only by parliamentary decision and wide consensus, also from Yanukovich's own party) and the imperialist Russian Nazis (all afferent to Russian oligarchs) which staged an insurrection in Donbas by their own explicit admission, one can see how much of the Russian propaganda which infiltrated the Western anti-Ukrainian propaganda about coups and Ukrainian nazis is actually an "accusation in a mirror" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accusation_in_a_mirror).
What I think remains more murky though is the actual role of the Russian oligarchs with their militia and imperialist ideology in starting the war. Maybe, at the least in the earliest phases, they had a greater initiative and also support from Putin's entourage (like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladislav_Surkov), than from Putin himself. That also means internal political dynamics (which Putin most certainly nurtured but which he didn't fully control or used for plausible deniability) may have very much concurred, if not prevailed, in driving Putin into war with Ukraine.

[1] https://www.aa.com.tr/en/politics/ukrainian-opposition-turns-down-yanukovych-s-proposal/187670

if taking a critical look at the middle east, it is both necessary and wise to look at it "large-scale." — tim wood

Fully agree on that. Many Westerners still refuse to see the threats coming from Russian imperialism and Islamism and fall for the claim that Israelis and Ukrainians are the real Nazis. Westerners are only provocators while peaceful Russia and Islam are only trying to restore justice. And if we do not see that, it's because of a problem in our psyche or in crazy Evangelical propaganda.

“What we have forgotten in this atmosphere of political correctness is actually the Christians that are being persecuted are some of the poorest people on the planet. In the Middle East the population of Christians used to be about 20%; now it’s 5%.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/02/persecution-driving-christians-out-of-middle-east-report

Footage from security cameras showed the moment armed men seized Simferopol’s Parliament building in Ukraine’s Crimea region.
https://www.nytimes.com/video/world/europe/100000002742154/cctv-shows-crimean-parliament-takeover.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_the_Crimean_Parliament
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medal_%22For_the_Return_of_Crimea%22

Key insurgent admits there was no civil war, just Russian aggression
https://khpg.org/en/1608808721
https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/07/21/7412402/

As we can see from the example of just one single day, the war came not only to Donetsk, but also to other cities of Donbass. However, there were not many people willing to defend their native land. Enough for certain operations and at least some resistance, but nothing more.

According to unofficial statistics, in 2014, 0.28 percent of the total number of men living in Donetsk and the Donetsk region who were old enough to hold a weapon joined the militia. This is not even 1% or 5%, but 0.28%!!! At that time, local militias made up 50% of the total militia, 40% were militias from other regions of Ukraine, and 10% were volunteers from Russia.

I remember how in August 2014 I went to Makeevka, to the center. We were then based on the outskirts, closer to Khanzhonkovo. From there we went on missions. A man, about 35 years old, approaches me in the center with a beer in his hands. He tells us how much he’s rooting for us (probably putting likes on our contacts) and asks when this will all stop. I didn't know what to answer him. I was ashamed of him and others like him. I simply invited him to go on his way in peace.

https://asd-news.translate.goog/articles/voyna/kto-stoit-za-donbass/?_x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en

War In Donbas
Milchakov participated as a volunteer in the war in Donbas from 2014,[2] stating later he wanted "to kill".[6] According to his own account, Milchakov formed Rusich together with Yan Petrovsky in the summer of 2014, after going through a paramilitary training program run by the Imperial Legion, the military branch of the Russian Imperial Movement.[8] He has openly bragged about photographing the bodies of mutilated and burnt Ukrainian bodies from the paramilitary Aidar group in 2014.[2] Milchakov is also reputed to have cut ears of Ukrainian corpses and scratched swastikas on their faces.[9] By 2015, he had been sanctioned by the European Union, United Kingdom and Canada.[2] He has used the call signs "Fritz" and "Serb"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexey_Milchakov

Russian Neo-Nazi, GRU officer Alexei Milchakov (him of puppy torture/killing fame), who fought in Ukraine in 2014, talks about how he cut off the ears of the Ukrainian military (Aidar Battalion) and got high on the smell of burning flesh.
In Russia this pillock is called an "anti-fascist' and "Defender of Donbas".
Milchakov has links to Dmitry Utkin, founder of Wagner Group.
He's a Russian GRU operative and Neo-Nazi - a supporter of Nazi SS formation.
Utkin's career with Putin shows Russian hypocrisy. Moscow falsely accuses others of "Neo-Nazism" while itself using services of true fascists.
Translation of Milchakov's mad ramblings:
-I'm a Nazi. I'm a Nazi. I'm not going to develop this - am I a nationalist, a patriot, imperial direction etc, I'm saying directly I'm a Nazi. I could raise my hand.
- You see, when you kill a person, you experience a hunter's rush of excitement. Those who have not been on a hunt, try it, it's interesting.
- Regarding Aidar (Ukrainian Battalion), the guys have burned. Burnt out at work. It happens. They smelt great. I'll tell you honestly, when we went on to the road, the smell was... my jaws clamped together, we were hungry, we were looting a car with gingerbread and condensed milk, and it smelt great.
- Here are ears, here are guys, burning asses. It's my trophy. Those who judge me can go f**k themselves, this is my trophy. I'm like a hunter. It's mine, I took a photo. What's taken in a fight is sacred and these photos made the necessary impression that I expected. Everyone was laughing at the base, yes, the ears were meant to go as gifts... by the way, the photo of one cut off ear, it's just the one that you have. Yandex and Google had a lot of stuff...
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=648020209618444

The Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) released an audio recording on 5 May that they said was a phone call between a Donetsk separatist leader named Dima Boitsov, and the leader of the far-right paramilitary Russian National Unity group Alexander Barkashov. In the recording, Boitsov said he wanted to postpone the referendum due to the DPR's inability to control all of Donetsk Oblast. Barkashov said that he had communicated with Putin, and insisted Boitsov hold the referendum regardless of the separatist leader's concerns. He suggested that Boitsov tabulate the results as 89% in favour of autonomy.[26][27] Separatists stated that the recording was fake.[28] However, the 89% mentioned in the phone call exactly match the result of the referendum, which took place on 11 May 2014, i.e. several days after the recording had been published.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Donbas_status_referendums#Allegations_of_fraud


On 16 October 1990, Barkashov and a few dozen followers gathered at his home on Moscow's Dubinin Street and founded "the National Unity for a Free Strong Just Russia" (soon shortened to "the Russian National Unity", and informally among the Barkashovtsy [Barkashovites]: "the Unity" [Yedinstvo]). Historian Walter Laqueur writes that Barkashov stated in an interview that he is a Nazi.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Barkashov


The Russian National Unity movement was founded on 16 October 1990 by a splinter group of the National Patriotic Front "Memory" (NPF "Pamyat"). It grew from 1990 to 1991. Members have been reported to wear black and camouflage uniforms. The group also adopted a red and white swastika emblem and openly expressed admiration for German National Socialism and public celebrations of the rise of the Nazis, although the organization officially denied any support for Nazi ideology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_National_Unity

First, I have not forgotten your long post explaining this pick-a-hegemon position, which at least strives to resolve surface level contradictions. I will get to it when I have time.

But, in short, you are describing realpolitik and the justification for supporting the ally in the wrong is going to be ultimately a consequentialist argument that not-doing-so would lead to some worse outcome (losing a war to some fascist state, for example).

I do not mind this realpolitik approach, it is essentially my basic argument in this debate just I have different realpolitik conclusions:

1. That Ukraine very likely cannot win militarily.
2. That the war very likely strengthens, rather than weakens, Russia.
3. That most of the rest of the world is sympathetic to Russia and don't give much of a crap what we Westerners think (most of the rest of the world is authoritarian, anti-gay, anti-trans, and have a long memory vis-a-vis Western colonialism and CIA interference); Russia is "standing up to the West" in this alternative view point.
4. That the war greatly harms the European economy and makes it structurally less competitive over the long term significantly decreasing Western leverage in general (and most ceding it to China).
5. That creating a global economic schism in which Russia is pioneering a totally different economic framework structurally decreases Western leverage over the long term.

So the war isn't good neither for Ukraine nor the West, and the idea that Ukraine is harming Russia is a dangerous myth.

Of the objectives the US achieves:

1. Destroying the EU as a competition to the Dollar.
2. Selling LNG to Europe.
3. Fully subordinating the (current) European political class.
4. Making mad bank in arms exports.

Are terrible for Europe (and I'm European) and I would also caution that they are in the "careful what you wish for" category even for the United States. — boethius

So, if Ukraine could win and Russia was actually an enemy (which I don't buy that it was) then there would be at least the realpolitik case for supporting Ukraine, even if it would be a double standard vis-a-vis plenty other causes as or more just. — boethius

To my understanding, the scenario which I find more compelling for European risk analysis is roughly the opposite of yours:
- If Ukraine can not “militarily win” (in some debatable sense), maybe neither can Russia “militarily win” (in some debatable sense) if the West keeps supporting Ukraine enough. While if the West stops supporting Ukraine, Russia can more likely “militarily win”.
- If the war very likely strengthens, rather than weakens, Russia. Surrender to Russia in Ukraine will strengthen Russia even more.
- The claim that “most of the rest of the world is sympathetic to Russia and don't give much of a crap what we Westerners think”, could sound to Westerners as compelling as “most of the rest of the world is sympathetic to Palestinians and don't give much of a crap what Israelis think” to Israelis, if not less. Yet, the Israelis seem willing to handle it and far from being intimidated by it.
- Concerning the fourth and fifth point, letting Russia win (and indirectly China as its strategic ally), betraying the American leadership which is still (but hardly) policing international commercial routes with its military navies/air force and reasons to refrain from a more aggressive economic competition with Europeans as an ally, while leaving Europeans (in demographic declines) dependent for its input and output on a world contended by more equipped and aggressive powers, could not only destabilise the system of strategic alliances within the West (which NATO and EU are expression) from internal and external pressure, but make more likely democratic backsliding, social unrest and proxy wars inside Europe. And in this case, I deeply doubt that Europeans will be in a better position to compete with China in any meaningful sense.
- Concerning the US, if the US wants to keep its world dominance, it needs Europeans (and other allies) to reduce the burden of imperial overstretch, so plausibly a enough economically and military strong EU. Or give up on world dominance and leave Europe to be contended as Africa and Middle East by other hegemonic competitors (as anticipated in my previous comment https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/872479). In the latter case, the 4 benefits that a predatory US will earn at the expense of Europeans in your scenario, will simply be split among 3 predatory hegemonic competitors STILL at the expense of Europeans in my scenario:
1. Destroying Euro as a competitor to any hegemonic competitor’s currency.
2. Making European countries dependable on any hegemonic competitor’s commodities.
3. Fully subordinating the European political class to hegemonic competitors’ will.
4. Making mad bank in arms exports.

To make your assessment more compelling to me, you should seriously argue for why 3 hegemonic competitors (2 of which are consolidated AND, POSSIBLY, "VICTORIOUS" authoritarian regimes while the third at risk to become more authoritarian and more confrontational e.g. if Trump wins [1]) will give any chance to Europeans (= the ex-Great Satans which turned into the current Great Satan’s lapdogs) individually or, worse, collectively either to economically and democratically prosper in a peaceful limbo safe from power projections and security threats coming from these 3 hegemonic powers (to put it simple, because there is also Islamism that one can add to the scenario), or to grow as a military force capable of power projection (which, notice, may also require nuclear proliferation) and therefore support hegemonic ambitions in a contended world. Alternatively, you could argue in support of European politicians which will peacefully & safely make their countries economically and democratically prosper (and even militarily intimidating) DESPITE the external pressure of powerful and predatory hegemonic powers OUT OF SHEER WILL, MORAL SUPERIORITY, POLITICAL WISDOM, DIPLOMATIC AND ECONOMIC SKILLS, HUMANITARIAN CONCERNS, EGALITARIAN MISSION, EXEMPLAR PATRIOTISM after that an avalanche of WESTERN populist propaganda ALREADY ABUNDANTLY INFILTRATED, BRIBED, LOBBIED by hegemonic competitors kept SHITTING OVER AND OVER AND OVER Western democracies, media, economy, economic/political elites and leaders, EU and NATO ON WORLD STAGE FOR SEVERAL DECADES. And in this case, I’m just looking forward to hearing their names.

Until then, I’m fine with my understanding of the stakes. According to it, the LEAST benefit of the war in Ukraine for Europeans is to BUY TIME for European politicians to figure out their approach in a contended world in order to minimize the damage, and this may very much require greater investment in the Western system of strategic alliances (among European countries and with the US, Ukraine included) and greater effort to do more economically/militarily within greater international constraints (difficult but maybe not unfeasible). Anyways, given the predicament in which we are, I can't ignore that European populists will do their worst to screw that too, though.

[1]
Notice, I don't need to take Trump's words about NATO at face value. It's still arguable that Trump is very much interested in keeping NATO and the US in Europe and/or that the American establishment will make it hard for Trump to really disengage from Europe. Yet the future of the American support for the European security is getting dangerously uncertain while the threats are dangerously increasing.

As the RAND documents makes clear, escalating military conflict between Russia and Ukraine would likely result in Russia winning any such escalation and would significantly harm US prestige and strategic position if Russia were to win. — boethius

What RAND documents?

It's a simple question: had the Soviets some analogous ABM system to Cuba, the US would not (or at least should not have) reacted in anyway because such ABM bases are insignificant? — boethius

As the Multivac, I’d say “Insufficient data for meaningful answer”.
I’m far from being a military analyst, even at an amateurish level. So instead I would argue against the way you framed your question (”my question is to imagine the situation analogous, it would follow that your position is the same if the situation was analogous”) because it looks grounded on either a non sequitur or a tautology. Indeed, I don’t see why I should assume that threat perception would be the same over similar factual/hypothetical military scenarios and, if the same, that the reaction would be the same. On the other hand, if the “analogous situation” already includes also threat perception and response, then of course the position would be analogous by definition. Not to mention that threat perception can be miscalculated or inflated for propaganda reasons.
Besides, as far as I’m concerned, there is no need to make such a convoluted thought experiment, because the Cuban Missile crisis readily offers a historical study case about threat perception and copying mechanism from the US that we can use for comparison. And what this study case suggests is that while the US chose diplomacy to an actual present threat, Russia chose aggression to a hypothetical future threat.
Not to mention that from a political point of view: 1. the US needs Ukraine neither to put its nuclear bases closer to Moscow because Baltic countries could be enough for that, nor to widen the front of nuclear threats since Finland could be enough for that. 2. While the US was the only country to use nukes against a rival which was aggressed by on mainland, the ONLY one which keeps threatening to use nukes, in the current crisis, is Russia after aggressing and annexing part of an acknowledged sovereign country. 3. The US has shown a concern toward perceived nuclear threats by Russia, in at least three significant occasions: Cuban missile crisis, not deploying further east offensive nuclear weapons, Budapest Memorandum in which the Ukrainian nuclear arsenal was returned to Russia (with great disappointment of Mearsheimer himself, go figure).

yes, sir.

For example, feel free to try to explain how if the Cuban missile crisis was about Soviets moving ABM into Cuba, the US would be like "insignificant, we cool with it, soviets already have ships".

It's honestly incredible how deeply people believe the double standard delusions of American foreign policy analysis. — boethius

First, as already argued elsewhere, I don't find the double standard accusation particularly compelling in geopolitics because indeed double standard reasoning can very much be part of the game: namely, depending on the circumstances, one may STILL feel rationally compelled to support an ally who is wrong, precisely because he is an ally, than an enemy who is right, precisely because he is an enemy.
Second, as far as I'm concerned, the Cuban Missile crisis serves better pro-US propaganda then pro-Russian propaganda: indeed, in the Cuban Missile crisis we are talking about an ACTUAL case of medium-range and intermediate-range ballistic nuclear missiles on site [1] not about a prospective deployment of nuclear weapons conditional on Ukrainian accession to NATO (which was far from being imminent while the existence of the NATO alliance itself was challenged by Trump and Macron), yet the US was able to solve the crisis without invading and annexing Cuba, massacring Cuban civilians, deporting Cubans (including kids) in the US, and colonizing Cuba with American beach boys, wasn't it?

[1]
"After the failed U.S. attempt to overthrow the Castro regime in Cuba with the Bay of Pigs invasion, and while the Kennedy administration planned Operation Mongoose, in July 1962 Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev reached a secret agreement with Cuban premier Fidel Castro to place Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba to deter any future invasion attempt. Construction of several missile sites began in the late summer, but U.S. intelligence discovered evidence of a general Soviet arms build-up on Cuba, including Soviet IL–28 bombers, during routine surveillance flights, and on September 4, 1962, President Kennedy issued a public warning against the introduction of offensive weapons into Cuba. Despite the warning, on October 14 a U.S. U–2 aircraft took several pictures clearly showing sites for medium-range and intermediate-range ballistic nuclear missiles (MRBMs and IRBMs) under construction in Cuba. These images were processed and presented to the White House the next day, thus precipitating the onset of the Cuban Missile Crisis."
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1961-1968/cuban-missile-crisis

Yes, why should we care about international law, war crimes, equal rights and humanitarian concerns? All meaningless mystification! Why would we care about these issues when it comes to be the war in Ukraine or in Gaza? Silly nonsense, noble mystification.

Ahhh...the argument of it's all realpolitik, baby. — ssu

What I literally wrote is: “framing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in terms of ‘humanitarian concerns', ‘international laws’, ‘war crimes’, ‘equal rights’ to obfuscate the above considerations is kind of a noble mystification, to be kind”.
In other words, people have a history and historical grievances which may matter very much to them and shape their political identities. The Westerners may have forgotten their colonialist pasts, the ex-colonies didn’t forget it though. As much as Eastern European countries didn’t forget Russian imperialism. And Israelis didn’t forget the persecution and the oppression they have suffered for centuries in the West and in the Middle-East.
My realistic (more than realpolitik?) assumption is that literally nobody can uproot oneself from historical legacies and power struggles in the making of human history: so if there is room for ‘humanitarian concerns', ‘international laws’, ‘war crimes’, ‘equal rights’, there is a compelling reason to believe this will eventually happen ALSO or EVEN MAINLY through blood and coercion more likely than through exclusively diplomacy or economic sanctions, as a peaceful Europe (= a Europe which gave up on security-driven hegemonic ambitions) was made through War religions, colonialism and 2 WWs, a Cold wars’ proxy wars and the dominance/acceptance of the American hegemony (which means American military presence in Europe, economic dependency from the US, persecution/banning/suppression of past undesirable political elites and movements, and re-education of the entire population over generations). But what’s worse is that we are in a backsliding phase where the “peaceful” West is losing grip over its conditions of survival under the pressure of a growing anti-Western forces from the outside and democratic crisis from within (the two trends can reinforce one another). So the power balance is dangerously tilting against the West. In this case, the issue is that far from spreading the culture of international law, war crimes, equal rights and humanitarian concerns the West is risking to lose support in the West too or make itself vulnerable to hostile forces which reject the culture of international law, war crimes, equal rights and humanitarian concerns. Anyways, in this very uncertain and dangerous predicament we have to pick a side on our choosing if we don’t want others to choose it for us.

If there's real mystification, it's the idea of "Israel being the Holy Land", "Judeo-Christian heritage", or Israel being some kind of bulwark of Western values and defender of the West. As I've repeated over and over again, for Evangelists the support of Israel is a matter of faith. Isn't that mystification? The Muslims surely have similar bullshit mystification too. And even more mystification is all the crap importance that three religions put to Jerusalem. It makes the beautiful old city actually repulsive as the people that give it special importance to it (or who in history have wanted to build a new one) are repulsive themselves. — ssu

Still world population’s beliefs, feelings, experiences seem shaped by other faiths way more deeply and reciprocally than by the faith in ‘humanitarian concerns', ‘international laws’, ‘war crimes’, ‘equal rights’ which concerns more a privileged minority of the world population which is less and less influential. Don’t they?

If we distill the issue down to its root cause, we find there is a problem in the psyche of the Israeli’s. — Punshhh

Do you seriously mean that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has just ONE “root cause”?
And why isn’t the “root cause” in the psyche of the Arabs and the Muslims?
Notice that the persecution/oppression in the West by Christians and in the Middle-east by Arabs and Muslims (the prophet Mohammad) lasted for centuries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Jews
Jews have been forcefully expelled or fled from the Middle East (not only from the West):
https://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/news/the-expulsion-of-jews-from-arab-countries-and-iran--an-untold-history
Half Israel is claimed to be constituted by Jews who were expelled or fled from the Middle East:
https://www.oneforisrael.org/holidays/special-days-in-israel/half-israels-jews-came-muslim-countries/

Blame can’t be put on the Palestinians, they are an occupied, oppressed population, of which Hamas is a symptom. — Punshhh

Are you suggesting that blame should be put on the Israelis because they are the oppressor? But if there is a collective blame, shouldn’t there be also collective punishment? And if you can blame the Israelis as the oppressor, why can’t the Israelis blame the Muslims/Arabs (including the Palestinians) as the oppressors which they are defending themselves from?
Hamas can be a symptom of oppressed Palestinians as much as a symptom of oppressive Islam.
Even nazism can be an expression of oppressed Germans or oppressed Ukrainians.
And what about Netanyahu being expression of oppressed Jews in the West and in the Middle East for centuries?
What’s the point of questioning people’s copying/survival mechanism against traumas when the reasons of the traumas are still there and keep being brutally threatening them? How can the West address Israel’s security concerns when it fails to address its own security concerns or it disengages from policing the World theatre?
Talking of collective blame is a political burden and it’s a source of mystifications on its own (e.g. even if there is NOTHING intrinsically antisemite in criticising Netanyahu’s measures in Gaza, yet BOTH antisemite and non antisemite can make the same accusations, even if there is NOTHING intrinsically anti-zionist in having a Palestinian nation-state, yet BOTH anti-zionist and supporters of the Israeli Nation-State can support a Palestinian nation-state).
I have no problems to understand that the current horror show in Gaza has been decided by the democratically elected most right wing Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. And that this has to stop for all those who prioritize humanitarian concerns over whatever REASONS AND CONSEQUENCES. Still, my doubts rest on the conditions and reasons internal to Israel and external to Israel that enabled this horror show to happen and the consequences that may ensue once this horror show is over, especially if they are going to affect us in the West.

If we are going to find a solution to this it is going to be in the minds of the Israeli people and the diaspora which lives in the West and holds Western values. — Punshhh

Then it’s not really “we” who are finding a solution but the Jews who hold Western values. And why not in the Arabs who hold Western values or must embrace Western values?

Israel is an adolescent outpost of the west. — Punshhh

Which may be more scared and senile than wise. Besides, I wouldn't forget that the US, the promising broker of peace in the Middle East, is a country born through colonisation of foreign lands plus genocide/ethnic cleansing of the native American people, and that enough of them got rich also by practicing slavery over African people. Besides the US reached its current political status after a war of independence, civil war, involvement in world wars, including very controversial proxy wars and wars on terror in the Middle East. Not least, the US is also the main historical supporter of Israel, so it is supposed to share responsibilities for the historical oppression of the Palestinians. Now, are you really 100% sure that by brokering peace and given Hamas its nation-state the middle-eastern narrative of the American imperialism will stop? That they are going to wake up next day as "civilised" Western people devoted to prosperity, stability and peace? And all past “mistakes” will be forgotten, if not forgiven? What do you think the implications for other major players in the region, like the Saudis and Iran, would be? What will the Americans allies (like Taiwan under the threat of China) think of it? Will the Western enemies of Western imperialism stop whining about Western imperialism or will they continue anyways?

"DRAMATICALLY" does not equal "dramatically".

"DRAMATICALLY" is significantly more dramatic than merely "dramatically".

A citation should be exact, I do not all-caps words because I can rely on "arguing a point". — boethius


Of all the hilarious of your backtracks this is the best one... You claim that you did not use 'the word'... When I have pointed out that yes, actually you did use the exact same word, you claim that the same word in all caps is not the same word? Seriously, can you get more absurd? Oh, yes, you can: you then argue that your use of the word 'dramatically' was less dramatic. — Jabberwock

:lol:

I trust those posts from twitter even more than the article, for reasons.

If you read the article, he seems to be called the "the butcher" not exactly in a good way: — boethius

That's why I posted it. If you read my links, all of them are criticizing Zelensky's choice of replacing Zalushny with the Butcher.

Opinions over Syrskyi "the butcher":
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/national-security-daily/2024/02/08/zaluzhny-is-out-the-butcher-is-in-00140206
https://twitter.com/Tatarigami_UA/status/1720814139600232737?s=20
https://twitter.com/NeilPHauer/status/1756470879142170805

Ukrainian corrupt Nazi losers and Western lapdogs keep provoking Russian honorable men in the Black Sea and Sudan:
"Ukrainian Special Forces Interrogate Wagner Mercenaries in Sudan"
https://www.kyivpost.com/post/27637
Russian landing ship Tsezar Kunikov hit in Black Sea, it has sunk
https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/02/14/7441777/

So you believe concepts of justice do not motivate these people? You think there's no Islamic theory for just wars? — Benkei

I do believe that Palestinians can sincerely be motivated by their understanding of justice and just war. But I doubt that, deep down, international law, war crimes, humanitarian concerns play a significant role in shaping such motivations. That is true also for Israel.
Roughly speaking, I think one could get closer to their understanding of their predicament, by comparison to nation state formations in Europe, which looked pretty bloody and genocidal. For many Western countries, such wars belong to a remote past, so they can more confidently talk about international order in terms of a “society of states” which can decide policies even based on things such as “humanitarian concerns”, “international laws”, “war crimes”, “equal rights”. For Israel and Palestine the situation isn’t exactly the same since these state-formation wars still belong very much to their present and possibly to their future.
Besides, one may be tempted to see this conflict as an updated version of the historical conflicts between Jews and Arabs from Biblical/Koranic times through a more modern notion of “nation state”. But I think there are some nuances we shouldn’t discount: indeed, while in the case of Israel the diaspora of the Jews in the West has managed to absorb a good amount of secularism and to learn how to effectively play the Western system from within (reason why the Israelis could afford to play the villain role until now), in the case of Palestine, Hamas is just a form of backsliding to Islamism and pan-Arabism (so Western antagonists) where political models are mainly caliphates with their sharia or pre-Islamic tribalism (which still coexist with Islami). So, one should keep in mind that a good part of the Palestinian cultural habitat are things like retaliation in kind (like blood revenge, or Qisas), kin/collective punishments (see the massacres against Christians and takfiris still very trendy), jihadism, dhimmification, etc. way more than “humanitarian concerns”, “international laws”, “war crimes”, “equal rights”. That’s why the notions of justice and just wars that resonate in Palestinians’ hearts may more likely sound something like this:
“Under the wing of Islam, it is possible for the followers of the three religions - Islam, Christianity and Judaism - to coexist in peace and quiet with each other. Peace and quiet would not be possible except under the wing of Islam”
“It is the duty of the followers of other religions to stop disputing the sovereignty of Islam in this region, because the day these followers should take over there will be nothing but carnage, displacement and terror.”
“Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious. It needs all sincere efforts. It is a step that inevitably should be followed by other steps. The Movement is but one squadron that should be supported by more and more squadrons from this vast Arab and Islamic world, until the enemy is vanquished and Allah's victory is realised.”
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp

Now, one may feel tempted to think that even if Palestinians and Israelis haven’t developed the necessary political mindset (based on “humanitarian concerns”, “international laws”, “war crimes”, “equal rights”) to fix their beef on their own from the inside peacefully, then the external international order of the Masters of the Universe can enforce a solution according to such political mindset. Unfortunately, as far as I understand it, even the outside international order of the Masters of the Universe doesn’t reason in terms of “humanitarian concerns”, “international laws”, “war crimes”, “equal rights” deep down. Therefore, as far as I’m concerned, framing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in terms of “humanitarian concerns”, “international laws”, “war crimes”, “equal rights” to obfuscate the above considerations is kind of a noble mystification, to be kind. To conclude, I’m less sure about who will win between Israel and Hamas, than that “humanitarian concerns”, “international laws”, “war crimes”, “equal rights” political mindset could likely lose anyways. And I’d welcome anybody at any moment who would prove me wrong.

↪neomac
So your argument is what exactly? Israel gets to commit war crimes with the intent to steal the land while there's a humanitarian obligation on Egypt to take in Palestinian refugees to allow Israel to steal the land? — Benkei

My argument is that "commit war crimes", "steal the land", "humanitarian obligation" are framing notions more relevant to your understanding of the problem than to Israel, Egypt, Palestinians' understanding of the problem. Reason why, I suspect, "commit war crimes", "steal the land", "humanitarian obligation" haven't helped much fix this tragedy on their own initiative.

a President that came to power in a coup deposing the Muslim Brotherhood from power in Egypt. — ssu

And this is fine with Israel. The last thing they would want is to deal with neighbors speaking with one voice. — ssu

Tell me more about Panarabist and Muslim Brotherhood's grievances, I too miss caliphates, jihadism, and sharia so badly, bro.

the instability isn't just due to the Palestinian — ssu

Reason why I never made such a claim. I take the clusterfuck of international relations in general and the middle east in particular for what it is. And part of this clusterfuck is that the fate of Hamas and Palestinians (at least from Gaza) looks as tightly joint as repellent EVEN to other Muslim Arab leaders.

They sound compelling reasons from an Egyptian perspective, yet they do not add up with the Ummah or humanitarian concerns (even Zionists claim Israel to be home to all persecuted Jews, then why isn't the Arab Ummah home to all persecuted Muslism arabs in Gaza? Why isn't Russia home to all persecuted ethnic-Russians in Donbas/Crimea? They both have LOTS of land they can use to host refugees) and confirm Israel's views on Hamas hiding among Palestinians as a major security threat hard to eradicate from the Gaza community itself and challenging also Arab regimes, not only Israel.

Don't forget all the neighbors who wanted a piece of the land for themselves too. — ssu

Nor that Arab neighbors fear Hamas hiding among Palestinians (who cares about the Ummah!):
https://allarab.news/egyptian-president-el-sisi-evacuation-of-palestinians-to-sinai-means-dragging-egypt-into-war-against-israel/
Welcoming 1.5M desperate brother Palestinian refugees is WORSE than going to war with Israel, go figure!

Question: is there are reason why this thread nor the thread about Ukraine do not seem to appear in https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussions ? Is it happening only to me?