I said "oppressor/oppressed", there is a difference. — schopenhauer1

You or someone else might push this "oppressor/oppressed" and think there's some moral competition going around here of blameless underdogs and justified defense. This is basically about a conflict, which both sides have their victims, their reasons and their justifications.

The pre-1967 borders aren't actually disputed here by either the PA or the World in general. You might see the militant group going for the whole of Israel, but this is nonsense as Israel has a nuclear deterrent and militarily dominates it's Arab neighbors.

The issue is about what Israel gained in the Six Day war.

Hence one side is the occupier here. We don't talk of the English occupying Scotland and Wales for a reason. This was just some time ago shown by the Scots voting to stay in the union. Yet Palestine hasn't been integrated to Israel and the annexation hasn't been accepted. Hence the maps we generally use and what Israel uses are different about Israel.

. It turns into something else- a festering hatred. It is an identity defined by its grievance rather than its ideals. — schopenhauer1

Festering hatred is apt to use here. For Palestinians, the Nakba is a central part of their identity. And so is that Israel should be the home for Jews, a Jewish Israel, is also central to many Israelis.

Hence I'm firmly in the view that this conflict has no peaceful solution anywhere near.

I mean, but you did think of the Black Panthers as a counterpoint. Some people thought MLK was too soft. But he wasn't. Strength in peace and non-violence. That is harder, and therefore braver, more courageous. It's also more effective. The other divides, causes friction, causes bad blood. MLK was also proud, so you can't use that argument either. Being proud, doesn't mean being violent. — schopenhauer1

Yet here's the issue: MLK wasn't demanding a new state, he basically was demanding that the people should be treated as the constitution says. Gandhi had the advantage that Britain simply couldn't go on and occupy such large nation. With Israel/Palestine it's different. You are talking about Israelis and Palestinians in the first place, not "Israeli citizens". Who wants to integrate the Palestinians? Do they want to be integrated as Israelis??? Not at all.

And furthermore, assume then the Black Panthers had gone around and killed white people in the US. Do you think that would have made white Americans in the South less racist? Hell no, they would have flocked around the KKK. The US would be really, really ugly. This is what fear and hatred does.

If you think that peace can be obtained easily in the Middle East, I simply disagree. Basically a lot more people should have to be killed. It took two World Wars to pacify the Europeans, and such amounts of blood hasn't been spilled in the Middle East this or the last Century.

Because of the "oppressor/oppressed" framework people seem to be working on in this forum, the focus is on Netanyahu's failure(s) (along with the Israeli right-wing in general). — schopenhauer1

Hold it there. But that is the reality in the framework here. Israel conquered Gaza and West Bank in 1967. Palestinians there are under occupation: they aren't treated as normal Israeli citizens, but are under a different law. And yes, the PLO did use terrorist attacks outside to attack Israel, which lead to fighting between Jordan and the PLO and Lebanon and the PLO. And then to the occupation of Southern Lebanon by Israel.

Yet that there has been a PLO working outside from Israel doesn't erase somehow the fact that the civilian population in Gaza and the West Bank came under Israeli control in 1967.

Then that this civilian population fights an insurgency is again something that everybody understands here.

So what according to you, is here the wrong in describing the situation as occupier and occupied?

However, what is not discussed is Hamas, representing some portion of Palestinian attitudes, is an obvious abysmal failure. The PA is to a large extent a failure as well in terms of trying for peace. — schopenhauer1

Their most abysmal failure was to lose the war, I guess. Once when you lose a war, you are on the mercy of your enemy. And of course as they think of themselves as Palestinians, it's convenient for both Egypt and Jordan then to agree that they indeed aren't either former Egyptians or former Jordanians (as both countries had only a brief stay either in Gaza and the West Bank).

It certainly isn't Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr. level leadership over there anywhere. — schopenhauer1

Gandhi and MLK type leaders using the pacifism might work especially if the focus would be on non-Jewish citizens of Israel of the pre-1967 borders. And the non-violence approach obviously would mean that there wouldn't an active violent insurgency against Israel. That's hard, because Palestinians have been represented by those who have believed in the military solution. Bibi and the far right simply need the bloodshed, need the attacks. And the repression works for Hamas. As I've said, Bibi and the hardliners and Hamas simply embrace each other: both get strength from the violence and hate. And of course, Bibi and the hardliners have literally supported Hamas.

For them the perfect representative of the Palestinians is Hamas.

Sure, we can imagine an alternative reality, but the violence, bloodshed fear and hatred is there. That cannot be changed. A leader like MLK worked with a Civil Rights Movement, but that Civil Rights Movement wasn't looking for a separate country from the US. And the Black Panthers didn't commit such terrorist attacks against white people as PLO did (and later Hamas) against Israel.

SSU, it would be interesting to discuss Palestinian failures and missed opportunities in the same breath, but I fear that side won't be told. — schopenhauer1

We can totally discuss this too. The idea that one has to have the good guys and the bad guys here is naive (or well, typical). My view is that extremists have hijacked the conflict.

Jasser Arafat surely did errors and could have perhaps reached a better solution. The representative of the Palestinians was (is?) the PLO and Fatah's leader Jasser Arafat dominated that position. So it is a quite undemocratic organization. Fatah was formed in 1959 by the Palestinian diaspora and PLO in the 1960's.

And of course there were those on the Palestinian side who opposed the Oslo accords. And surely they did their part alongside Bibi in derailing the Oslo accords.

As I've stated, is see no peaceful resolution to this conflict.

Everyone wants a solution, and wants peace. All except the current Israeli Prime Minister. — FreeEmotion

For a long time the Prime Ministers of Likud have wanted simply to push the Palestinians somewhere else:

(Oct 1988) Then, as recently as 1982, Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir wrote that, “reduced to its true proportions, the problem is clearly not the lack of a homeland for the Palestinian Arabs. That homeland is Trans-Jordan or Eastern Palestine. . . . A second Palestinian state to the west of the river is a prescription for anarchy.”

Ariel Sharon, another minister has followed this idea that for Palestinians do have a land where to go to: Jordan. Naturally the king of Jordan and Jordanians didn't think so and the Oslo peace accord made some problems to this kind of thinking, but I guess it's still popular in the right-wing circles.

Then there's the strategy of "mowing of the lawn". I think that this strategy, basically that the Palestinian insurgency can be contained at such level that only once a decade or so one has to have a bigger military operation (mowing the lawn) and otherwise this doesn't effect too much Israeli economy and the living of Jewish, has been around for quite some time especially when Likud has been in power. And many of the smaller parties of Bibi's administration are simply against any two state solution.

Naturally they want peace. But that peace isn't what Palestinians, or people in general, would accept as peace to this conflict.

Since most people have zero clue about anything — boethius

Of course, @boethius knows, but people for example in the White House had "zero clue". :roll:

Much weaponry and equipment [of Ukraine] remains outdated, however, with large numbers of old vehicles or old technology. The air force is a small fleet of Soviet helicopters and aging fighter jets whose effectiveness is questionable -- and would likely be wiped out quickly in the event of a major new Russian incursion, experts say.

"The Russians have learned a lot. The Russians have learned a lot from their operations in Syria, they've continued to reform their military," said Alexander Vindman, a former U.S. Army officer who served as European and Russian affairs director on the White House National Security Council.

"The Ukrainians have learned an enormous amount, but the advantage is still heavily in Russia's favor," he told RFE/RL. "So you're talking about a scenario where there could be heavier casualties, but the outcome doesn't really change."

and onwards...

(Carnegie endowment for international peace) Publicly available assessments suggest that the Ukrainian military would find it very difficult to defend against any large-scale Russian military operation. Some are downright pessimistic about its capabilities. Ukrainian holdings of systems like U.S. Javelin anti-tank missiles would not necessarily be enough to make the Kremlin more hesitant in calculating the cost of military action. Some analysts have suggested that the Kremlin could stage a rapid military onslaught to break the back of the Ukrainian military and force it to retreat behind the Dnieper River. This would position the Kremlin to control what is commonly referred to as “left-bank Ukraine,” including the historic part of Kyiv, which in Putin’s estimation makes up an inalienable part of the great Russian state. Presumably, the Kremlin might even try to install a puppet government in Kyiv and declare it “mission accomplished.”

Hence you are simply wrong in saying that "people who have no clue" making these pessimistic predictions. People simply thought that the Russian army was way more better than it was in 2022. Actions in Syria looked competent and remember that the perfect military operation was the annexation of Crimea. It was a smashing military victory. Exactly why Putin could be so confident in launching a bigger operation last year.

Well, Trump went to the Ivy League. — RogueAI

:up: :100:

I take media propaganda with a grain of salt, and if I binged on it as much as the average TFP poster then I would be very worried about my salt intake indeed. — Tzeentch

Uhh... wouldn't be it according to your logic, that we lack our salt?

Sodium is an essential nutrient necessary for maintenance of plasma volume, acid-base balance, transmission of nerve impulses and normal cell function.

This is true. As @Punshhh remarked, the media coverage of the US media is quite one sided and pro-Israel, but things like who were the majority of the 9/11 attacks matter a lot.

Of course the adamant and extremely loyal support for Israel whatever it does can make some sense if the objective is to divide and rule in the Middle East and keep the area in turmoil... on purpose.

However true alliance building as happened in Europe, where even the former enemies were given aid and spectacularly so in the Berlin Airlift, is in my view far more better. Also in the case of West Europe, Europeans themselves were listened to, which then created a genuine alliance where the European countries have based their defense on NATO. The failure of similar American defence treaties in the Middle East and in the Far East are telling.

In truth, all the pivoting towards Asia is quite futile as the Asian countries are quite separate from each outher. Only AUKUS has happened, but otherwise any "Quad" is more of a debating club.

ssu is confident Ukraine can last many years. — boethius

I think the total destruction of Ukraine is out of the question now. That Ukraine would defend itself like this wasn't before anticipated, after all the US offered Zelensky a way out (meaning they estimated Kyiv would fall in days). Now that has changed. I think the Western aid will be to at least enough for Ukraine to defend, it won't be enough to push Russia totally out. What basically Putin can do is sit behind the Suvorov-line and the make limited counterattacks.

Yet basically after the Ukraine war either halts or goes truly to the frozen conflict mode, then in few years Russia will have built back it's capability.

The state of Israel has drifted into an apartheid state subjugating the Palestinian population. Her Western allies are perceived as endorsing Israel’s project through their inaction, or failures, in insisting that Israel observe Western protocols.
This would explain why Western leaders feel they have to turn a blind eye to Israel’s genocide. They are impotent, Their populations are being gaslit with Israeli propaganda, lobbying and influence.

The only person who could exercise influence on Netanyahu now is Biden. If he makes a wrong step Trump and Co would launch a campaign labelling him as anti-Semitic etc, weakening him prior to the next election. — Punshhh

This all is so true.

Yet there are many ex-US Presidents that the media simply doesn't listen to when it comes to them saying something critical about Israel. For instance Jimmy Carter has talked himself of Gaza as an open air prison. Would Biden take a too critical stance on Bibi, then he would likely join those ex-presidents that don't matter. I think that Obama is becoming one of them.

It's simply just incredible how a small country can have so much leverage over a Superpower. But it's not AIPAC or the over 7 million Jews in the US, it's the 70 million Christian Evangelicas. The Bible belt is quite important in US domestic politics and elections, hence I think about US-Israeli relations being a domestic political issue in the US, not something that is about foreign policy.

I do tend to take such reports with a grain of salt. — Tzeentch

You take anything negative about the Russian invasion with a grain of salt. Perhaps too much salt for your health?

is it better for the US to give up on Israel and invest on Saudi Arabia/Egypt instead? — neomac

Why not have them all as allies? No?

The proper way would be to act similarly as with Greece and Turkey, which both are in NATO and both have huge disagreements. With these two countries NATO*s 1st Article is actually very important. And if you don't know what is NATO's first article, it's this:

The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

Actually something important and a very clear reason just why NATO is important to Europe.

Yet does the US make one ally far more important than the other one? With the situation on the Greek-Turkish animosity, the US has been quite logical:

The strategy of a great power involves not only tackling threats from enemies, but also dealing with problems that arise between allies. Every time Greece and Turkey threatened to go to war against each other, the United States had to effectively restrain its two strategic allies without straining relations with either one of them.

But with Israel, a special relation unlike anything... Judeo-Christian heritage! Israel is a democracy! etc.

NATO alliance requires from the US a financial and military engagement that has become domestically controversial (and which European democratic countries are reluctant to rebalance).Israel has the benefit to not need the same kind of engagement by the US (Israel is a militarised regime) — neomac

This is simply false because of two reasons. Firstly, no NATO member has ever gotten as much aid than Israel. About 30% of all US foreign aid has gone to tiny Israel! The US has rushed it's weapons straight from it's arsenal's to Israel when it has had it's conflicts with it's neighbors. NATO countries haven't gotten such aid, so what you are saying simply is not true.



Secondly, Europe was the primary front during the Cold War as Soviet tanks were in Central Europe. To this the Middle East was a sideshow. Now there simply doesn't exist that huge presence that the US had in Europe. And even as much Americans desperately want to "pivot to Asia" to face China, Europe still surprises them again and again with wars like with the Yugoslav Civil War and with the Russo-Ukrainian war.

First off, great video of the US military training for soldiers occupying Germany. The problem is the video highlights exactly why the situation is so different- Germany (on the surface appearances at least) seem similar enough to the (Western) US culture that it would make sense the the soldiers might put their guard down. They had to be reminded "Every German can be a source of trouble.. The German people are not our friends.." That was straight from the video. — schopenhauer1

Stephen Ambrose recalls that in mainland Europe the American GI felt most at home in Germany. When you think that many white Americans do have their roots in Germany, that's not actually so incredible.

I think using "Israel" is a huge misnomer there being that Israel and Palestine are supposed to be different states. — schopenhauer1

Are they?

How?

Smaller parties in Bibi's coalition are against the two-state solution and by any means one can say that the Palestine Authority doesn't control it's territory as a sovereign state. As Craig Mokhiber said in the good interview above, even in the corridors of the UN the "two state solution" is a joke. Nobody believes it, not after the 700 000 or so Jews living in the West Bank.

Bibi's administration came into power with the thought they could annex the West Bank. If they annex it, just what then is the state of Palestine?

NATO is not just about military defense but, ideally, about military defense among countries that support “democratic values”. — neomac

Preferring Saudi Arabia and Egypt over Israel could blow back in terms of soft power, — neomac

REALLY?

Uh, when they (Saudi Arabia and Egypt) are already US allies, what here would be the blow back? That mainly Saudi terrorists made the worst terrorist attack on US and killed far more Americans than Hamas achieved killing Israeli soldiers and civilians? The killing of a Saudi journalist in a Saudi embassy? The Yemen Civil War? Has all of it upset Americans? Not much, and not much as supporting Israel's tactics in the occupied lands.

Even this hilarious photo op with the US president and the leaders of Egypt and Saudi-Arabia didn't cause an outcry, simply laughter:


Sorry, but here you can see the how just little the war in Yemen has been in the media than reports of Israel's apartheid system in the lands it has conquered and the fight against Gaza. In one month a lot of children have been killed and 10 000 Gazans in all. Yet in the 9 years that Yemeni Civil war has gone about 150 000 have been killed in the fighting and over 300 000 from disease and malnutrition.

All I'm implying is that if the US would take a stance to Israel as it takes to Canada, UK, Japan, Germany and any other ally, that could start to solve the situation.

Yes, education is key. — schopenhauer1

And simply that the society works at least somehow. The economy has to work in some way. Politicians can be incompetent, that can be, but not criminals. Or simply people who don't have the people's interest at all. Revolts on the ballot box can then become revolts in the streets.

If taking Kiev was the principal Russian objective, how come the fighting around Kiev resembled nothing like we saw in places where actual bitter fighting took place? And how come they only deployed 20,000 troops to participate in the battle and they never made any serious effort to surround the capital let alone capture Kiev? We would expect massed firepower. — Tzeentch

Nonsense. For example, the Russians deployed the 1st Guards Tank Army to take Kharkiv. It didn't take Kharkiv.

According to you that also might been a fake! :blush:

Kinda off topic, but this result is so odd given the history. It seems to me that in many respects, Islam is closer to Judaism than to Christianity (the divine law, the fixed rituals, the rules about food and dress).

And the early Arab invaders were described as a Jewish sect by some contemporary observers. — Echarmion

Yes, who wouldn't be ignorant about some Arab raiders? Islam rose only because both large powers were very weak at that time. In fact, the Roman emperor (or we would say Byzantine emperor) could witness both the final destruction of Erânshahr, the Sassanian Empire and then later the emergence of the Rashidun Caliphate which takes the Middle East and Egypt from the Romans.

Didn't Muhammad tried to persuade Jews that this was God's final instructions and join him?

Ok, so what do you believe those limited objectives were? — Tzeentch

First and foremost, the battle for Kyiv wasn't some kind of fake attack. Yet the fall of Ukraine didn't happened and Putin (correctly) then withdraw. Yet it's obvious, starting from Clausewitz, that this was one of the most important objectives: either take or surround the capital.

Benkei's argument that "a genocide is happening now in Gaza" put very eloquently and convincingly by an UN official and a human rights lawyer, who resigned his post due to the event. Worth watching:

(has a history-review, actually interview starts 3:40)


What is interesting is Craig Mokhiber views is that he views the Oslo peace accords the moment when international law was basically sidelined.

:up:

Which would be incongruent with common military logic: why would Russia deploy a fraction of the troops required to occupy Ukraine? — Tzeentch

They used what they had. Period. In a rapid short war, Ukraine ought to have collapsed and a favorable pro-Russian government would have taken over the rump-state of Ukraine (what was to be left of it). And if it was easy, why not take all of it?

And they had objectives that were not met and occupying everything to the Western border wasn't that. But even those "limited" objective were not met.

And I think it's obvious what those objectives now are as Putin has actually annexed territories that he doesn't occupy in full.

I am not sure the likelihood of anything, but the point you and I were making I think was that Germany and Japan essentially went along with the program after defeat. Will Gazans take up that position as well? Will they hold West German or Japanese style Parliamentary liberal democracies at some point? Will Israel aid them in some sort of Marshall Plan? — schopenhauer1

I think it's pretty obvious that Israel doesn't treat the people that lived in the areas that it has conquered in the same way that US and the (western) allies treated people in the somewhat brief occupation of Germany and Japan.

In fact, the GIs felt so at home in Germany, that the US Army had to make a video to remind them that they were in enemy territory and that the Germans were up to no good and shouldn't be trusted. It's just fascinating how have to dehumanize the occupied, because otherwise the soldier might be too friendly with them:


History has many examples of how nations deal with lands they have conquered. It starts from performing genocide and trying to eradicate all traces of the killed people having existed to giving vast autonomy to the people and leaving them to be themselves. One smart move by the English was simply to create a whole new identity, being British. Since Scotland didn't vote for independence, I guess that idea of being British, and a kind "please stay" campaign made the Scots stick around and be pseudo-English people.

In the case of Israel the fundamental problem is the whole idea of Israel being the place for the Jews. Bibi isn't creating a country for everybody (both Jews and Palestinians). So we have a problem.

But luckily for Bibi, for Americans (and the West) there is Judeo-Christian heritage and the Jews are Gods own children, so everything Bibi does is OK.

The thing is, Russia not gaining more territory is entirely congruent with the view that Russia is pursuing limited goals in Ukraine, — Tzeentch

Equally congruent is that Russia failed to reach it's goals.

Russia takes 20% of Ukraine territory and your conclusions is:

Russia meanwhile has demonstrated the ability to take territory by assaulting a relatively small sector of the front with a large, grinding assault. But the losses this causes are apparently very heavy and it's very slow.
— Echarmion

But the losses this causes are apparently very heavy and it's very slow. Ukraine meanwhile has failed to penetrate heavy russian defenses.
— Echarmion

Apparent to whom? What evidence?

You demand others provide evidence (often of completely obvious things to anyone following the conflict, which is what we do here) and yet provide none yourself. — boethius

Very easy to do. Just look at how much Russia has gained more territory after the initial thrust.
Let's remember that Russia has lost considerable territory as it lost the whole Kyiv front.

And when define "liberal democracy" to be that "justice state" or "Rechtstaat", then the number of democracies decrease dramatically.

The problem is, you have to have systems in place that don't allow an illiberal group to be voted in and then take away all those systems. — schopenhauer1

And simply are:

a) Constitution and limits (majority requirements) on changing the constitution / minority rights
b) separation of powers (Montesquieu)
c) free press
d) the educated voter.

D) is crucial. There is no way to protect democracy from the voters. Hence that the voters are informed and reasonable is essential for the system to work. This happens when the system works for the voters. But if for some reason, the voters are treated like shit and they lose all confidence at the existing institutions, they will simply turn to radicals and "the fringe".

Because in a democracy the voters do get what they want. If a party that thinks red headed women are dangerous witches who have to be detained and gets a 2/3 majority in the elections here, guess what will happen to the few red-headed women in Finland?

A wonderful example of how little we actually now about our impact.

But it's the human way of learning (if learning happens at all): learning from your mistakes and simply learning by doing.

Israel’s failure with Netanyahu doesn’t negate Hamas having to be degraded and pushed from Gaza. Then the debate becomes about how to wage that war. — schopenhauer1

Yes, the problems of an occupier. And yes, it is about how to wage a war. For many decades now.

We would be closer to a solution if the US would treat as a normal country, an ally, but still as it treats allies like the UK or Canada or Germany...

Fair enough. Sorry if carried away Fukuyama and that he would have a point. I'm an optimist and presume that for people will consider the time we are living as dark as we now look at the time Leibniz and Voltaire.

The question ought to be more specific as just referring to being a "democracy", what to do we mean? Is that there are elections every once a while? Usually we are OK with just that narrow definition.

One of the difficulties is that in English there seems not to be a term for what in Finnish is called oikeusvaltio or in German Rechtstaat. Simple translation is "justice state" and closest version in English would be a constitutional state. Here the "justice" isn't only that laws are followed, but the laws are also just. A justice state is nearly the opposite of a police state. Putin might demand that laws are followed and will hold the elections every now and then, but that doesn't Putin's Russia at all justice state. And many democracies usually have a constitution like Russia, so the constitutional state can be misleading.

So why didn't you quote one of the first things I wrote? — schopenhauer1

Here's why:

That doesn’t mean Huntington was right either though. However, it isn’t wrong to want the conflicted war torn countries to attain the peaceful ennui of a post WW2 Western Europe, replete with liberal democracies that respect their heritage, history and culture of the respective region. — schopenhauer1

Because that's the idea behind the neocon delusions. Because it's wrong to assume that if Germany or Japan could make a dramatic change after a disastrous aggressive expansion policy that ended up in total defeat, then just invading a country that isn't democratic can be made democratic.

The hallucination here is that the drive to democracy can be implemented by guns and violence by an invader. It was Germans themselves that didn't want to continue the Nazi resistance by forming Werewolf units, but happily went on as being occupied. In West Germany the leadership wanted to make a dramatic change, whereas East Germany simply regarded itself to be different as a socialist country (and hence the East German army was quite similar to the old Wehrmacht). And so was with the Japanese.

And in general, the US made it's most brilliant foreign policy decision, perhaps unintentionally, by listening to Europeans themselves and supporting European integration. And the end result is NATO, in which the European member countries believe themselves and hence nobody wants the US to get out of Western Europe.

And if Iraq had indeed attacked Iran and Kuwait, the US invasion was because of a non-existent WMD project. And they (Iraqis) had been under sanctions for quite a long time. Besides, just as the Saudis had warned that it was a bad idea to go into Iraq (perfectly understanding what a mess it would be). So once the US came into Iraq, then started the Sunni Shia civil war too.

So wanting to be a "Western democracy" has to come from inside the country, not pushed through by outside powers. Especially with military force. That is the pinnacle of delusional hubris. And we have witnessed that.

That is, the end-point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government." — End of History

Rather, it’s best to acknowledge the End of History is Western and adopt liberal democracy and rights wholesale. — schopenhauer1

Wasn't it Leibniz that said in his time that this is the most perfect of Worlds? At least quite aptly Voltaire ridiculed him with Professor Pangloss in Candide. And I guess something has improved since the time of Leibniz.

And, for (the same?) reason as Voltaire mocked Leibniz, nearly everybody (as it's a low hanging fruit) has criticized Fukuyama. And in the end, Fukuyama is really a simple, foolish man: he went all in with the neocons and then later had to refute joining them in a book.. as he somehow didn't understand what the neocons were up to from the start. And that's why he deserves to be called a fool. Because let's face it: the neocons were utterly insane!

Perhaps Fukuyama was the Peter Zeihan of his time: saying to Americans what they want to hear. And that is that America is great and others aren't. Hence Fukuyama was, for some reason, put on a pedestal. A shaky pedestal, that has to be said.

When the topic here is "Western Civilization", we should discuss when that belief in Western ideas goes off the rocker. Actually Fukuyama and other neocons are a perfect example of this. These idiots really sold this idea that you could create democracies by gunpoint and transform cultures that didn't have the own desire or were not capable to transform after a military defeat (like Germany and Japan).

For the first time, because there was no Soviet Superpower whose reactions would have to be anticipated, since the US-Spanish war United States went to invade countries. And if the neocons would had it, there would have been immediately a lot more invasions. Which actually, many happened after the Arab Spring and the emergence of Al Qaeda part II, ISIS.



Only after Trump, yes, of all people after Trump, this insanity was shown out as he kicked out of the 2016 elections the older (wiser?) brother of George Bush with his little finger simply saying truths about George Bush invasion of Iraq. And that was it! No more of the Bush clan. Because before the insanity was totally looked as something sane: It wasn't only the insane lie that "Bush got bad intel", it was the delirious, crazy statement that it would be logical to invade and occupy a country because a small terrorist cabal whose financier happens to be in that country (Afghanistan) and not in another one (Sudan).

In a way, there is a moment for similar delusionary thinking in Israel now. October 7th was such a horrific attack, that "the gloves come off" and now is the time to settle all the scores. Because why not, the US won't do anything. There is an election coming and if the Biden makes any trouble, Bibi can simply pass him and talk directly not only to the Republicans, but also to Democrats. Just look at Carter and soon perhaps Obama: US presidents telling the truth about the Palestinian question are sidelined.

Fukuyama later with another neocon, Bill Kristol:


And back to the issue of Western culture. First and foremost, when looking at any culture, one has to weed out the hubris that people will often label to actually any culture. If it's some native tribe still living as they lived hundreds of years ago, then that culture is promoted by the idea of the "noble savage" who "have not been tarnished by present consumer culture etc". Because they have a "bond" with nature.

And even if it's a joke, there is a truth to it that those who study cultures in the university are usually excited about all cultures except they own culture, which they despise from the bottom of their heart.

At least, in the West.

Something like that, I agree.

What else? 10 000 killed in a month hardly has shocked the West.

The fighting is far from over. After Gaza City, the northern part, then there is the southern part, the place that Israel demanded a million people to go. Bibi has hinted about occupying Gaza.

As @Punshhh remarked, it can get even uglier. Is the West Bank then to have the similar fate as Gaza?

BTW, I find this whole thread distasteful hubris in its pretension there are monolithic cultures. — Benkei

I would say the distasteful hubris is calling Japan / Japanese culture Western. Or (South) Korean. Or any non-Western country that has developed and prospered to be then Western.

At least capitalism and the consumer society aren't limited to Western culture.

What would be realistic criteria for a state to be considered successful? — Vera Mont

That the people are happy. :smile:

Six-year winning streak for world's happiest nation. For the sixth year in a row, Finland is the world's happiest country, according to World Happiness Report rankings based largely on life evaluations from the Gallup World Poll.

That the society is prosperous... for everybody living there.

Top 10 Most Prosperous Countries (Legatum Prosperity Index 2021):

1. Denmark
2. Norway
3. Sweden
4. Finland
5. Switzerland
6. Netherlands
7. Luxembourg
8. New Zealand
9. Germany
10. Iceland

(Do notice the absence of the US or the rich Arab Gulf States from this list, even if by GDP per capita they ought to be there!)

Perhaps jgill had in mind, something along the lines of the following: — wonderer1

You think the Palestinians here decide the outcome? Hamas can make terrorist attacks

I'm not advocating, only saying that IF a two-state solution is sought the journey starts with how children in the areas affected are taught. Young people have the energies to push hard for a cause. — jgill

Right. So how they are treated (second class citizens, with different laws and limitations what they can do) is the minor issue here? I think that influences quite much how they are taught. Especially with the view that armed struggle is the only way out.

As I've said, politics have been hijacked by religious zealots. The PA was started as secular, while Hamas is a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. And obviously Hamas wants to take the role as representing all Palestinians. In Israel once powerful Labor party, under whose rule the Oslo accords were done (just as the peace deal with Jordan) has only 4 seats and is quite marginalized.

Zealots dominate both sides. Hence I see no reason for a negotiated peace to become reality.

The only possibility is that Gaza gets to be a massacre, and then to improve their image Israel does something. But this is unlikely.

Everybody loses. — Tzeentch

Nah.

There are winners of conflicts and wars. Why otherwise would humans be so eager to fight wars if everybody would lose?

Oh, have children both inside and outside of Israel been taught a Two State Solution is best? — jgill

You think one state solution is best? Ok, so you are for a) a continuation of the Apartheid system or b) integration of Palestinians / non-Jewish people with similar rights as Jews?

Or you just think this is the best solution: perpetual war that sparks up occasionally, that doesn't make life too unbearable for the Jewish people.

Moderates cannot fight extremists almost by definition, because moderates tend to be reasonable human beings who aren't willing to resort to any means necessary to get what they want. — Tzeentch

Nonsense.

Moderates can perfectly fight wars. It's the "bitter enders" that simply lose everything.

Finland was a democracy when fighting Stalin's Soviet Union and stayed as a democracy even after the war. The leaders were moderates: they understood when to accept peace and when to give a Dolchstoss to your former dictator-ally, who just had given us enough weapons to stop the Soviet offensive in it's tracks. And yes, I will call Stalin, a mass-murdering dictator an extremist.

Well, in the rape of Nanjing the usual estimate given is 200 000 civilian deaths (100 000 - 300 000 range). The city had swollen to one million people from quarter of a million. Hence every fifth was killed (yet three quarters had fled the city, so you can count just how many survived of those who stayed).

The real dreadful thought is that if Bibi fucks this up, we actually could really have a two state solution: if the body count becomes too bad, the "international community" really gets upset, then Israel can perhaps make a change correction from the "perpetual limited war every once a decade" solution to the two state solution, because it starts hurting them as the present Apartheid system hurt them like White South Africa.

At some point where there's too many civilian casualties, that Judeo-Christian heritage and Israel's right to defend itself will start looking bad. Even for Americans.

But that's a little chance.

Good point. This makes me wonder. If the latter is the actual case, and the former not, how is it that they come to be fearful of being called racist? — Merkwurdichliebe

Because people, institutions and companies want to be respected and respectful.

And because the United States, just like Germany, does have an ugly past with skeletons in the closet. There is no denying of this. We can debate just how racist present day America is, but there is no denying how racist the US was earlier. If for Germans it's their Nazi past, for the US it's the racism of slavery and segregation.



Irrelevant how profitable some CEO has made a company, if there are accusations of racism or him using the n-word, it's very likely that he loses his position. And then there's the ESG score.

In 2018, Laurence D. Fink, the longtime chief executive of BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, urged corporate leaders to assess the societal impact of their businesses, embrace diversity and consider how climate change could affect long-term growth.

“Companies,” Mr. Fink wrote in his annual letter to chief executives, “must ask themselves: What role do we play in the community? How are we managing our impact on the environment? Are we working to create a diverse work force? Are we adapting to technological change?”

Nearly five years on, those words have put BlackRock on the back foot amid the increasingly acrimonious and politicized debate over investing with environmental, social and governance — or E.S.G. — goals in mind.

Now if the largest mutual funds like BlackRock or Vanguard make diversity or climate change important, it will be important. And I'm sure that Mr Fink didn't have any dark intentions, some evil conspiracy behind such actions. Just ask yourself: what is wrong in large mutual funds making environmental and social issues important? Isn't that something responsible to do?

Then we have to understand how the business world approaches these issues. If there's somehing like diversity or any new term similar to that, that a responsible corporation should take into account, what do they do? They hire a "diversity director", usually who works in the human resources. Guess who apply for that position?

Of course these people, just as people usually do, do take their jobs seriously. And if the diversity director tells that there few if any (or no) black women holding some level positions, do you think that the corporate execs will brush off it as nonsense. Again, Americans don't like racists. Just like self-censorship is very typical, here self-regulation is the driving force, not that there's some underlying conspiracy that first has filled the academia and now is spreading like a cancer to corporations. The people making the real decisions are not some closet Marxists secretly huge fans of the Frankfurt school.

Why does it seem like Britain, France, and Western Europe etc downplay their hand in this and colonialism in general and just are content putting the onus on the US and Israel for problems they generally caused in their imperialism? I don’t see much ownership here.

Where are the mustache men with their tea and maps?
For some reason, I'm reminded of this :lol: — schopenhauer1

But that's simple: it's about here and now!

France isn't anymore the most important ally of Isreal. The US is.
UK isn't anymore actively meddling in the Middle East. The US is.
Yes, the decisions made in the post WW1 era do reflect to this day.
Yet the present is the present.

And let's remember that in the time of Sykes-Picot and post-WW1, Turkey, not anymore the Ottoman Empire, had it's War of Independence as they simply fought back the partition of Anatolia proper. And now Turkey has been in NATO, an ally of both UK and France.

(The idea of post-WW1 Ottoman lands by the Western nations. Yeah, the Turks weren't amused and thought otherwise.)

They really liked to draw those maps, didn't they.

And you are correct: they did have moustaches. Fine moustaches.

(Mr Sykes and Mr Picot)