You gather wrong. It's also off topic. Unlike Israel nobody here is defending Myanmar either. That would illicit a response in whatever thread that would happen.

It's very simple. You tend to teach your kids this: two wrongs don't make a right.

So no. I would never commit to war crimes or torture for that matter. If a gas attack could defeat them, then there are also other ways available. Those may cost more lives on our side but at least e survive with our humanity in tact.

You're confusing law with morality.

You do love your red herrings.

The relevant part was the torture and executions but nice cherry picking I suppose.

https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/05/onslaught-violence-against-women-and-children-gaza-unacceptable-un-experts

“We are horrified at details emerging from mass graves recently unearthed in the Gaza Strip. Over 390 bodies have been discovered at Nasser and Al Shifa hospitals, including of women and children, with many reportedly showing signs of torture and summary executions, and potential instances of people buried alive,” the experts said.

But but but... Hamas!

Funny how some here say 'the end justifies the means' and then complain about Hamas in another thread.

War crimes are never justified.

1. All religious people are idiots invariably holding beliefs that are unwarranted (eg. there's no proof for the existence of god(s)) or are contradicted by fact (flat-earthers) or think their particular assumed divine dispensation to be assholes is the only right way (leading to injustice).

That happened a while ago already. There were several decisions that have resulted in me categorically refusing the application of any US state law when negotiating contracts. And I'm not the only European lawyer who has started to take that stance.

Let's not confuse two threads. The imperialist interpretation I'm referring to has been mostly forwarded by @ssu, which I'm replying to. I take it as a given others have read that interpretation, so I don't need to set it out.

And nowhere have I given justification, only explanation. I think most countries largely act immoral, driven by real politik considerations. I condemn Western's needless fanning of the flames in Ukraine, increasing their own "security concerns" as a result, raising Russia's security concerns in return. But I note that the facts I raised do not concern Western security at all. Only Ukraine could be affected by the "near abroad" doctrine and we can hardly complain about economic integration. So we can wonder in what sense Western security concerns were protected by expanding eastwards.

Those considerations can only be of a geopolitical nature and not a direct military threat for which NATO is in principle the answer. For existing NATO members there never was a reason to expand NATO after the cold war when the threat had actually largely dissipated. And yet we did it any way. Attempts at de-escalation repeatedly failed and that's not just the Russian's faults.

My main problem with "real politik" views towards geopolitics is that they a) ignore the international legal framework (but of course it will be whipped out when it supports an argument) and b) a predisposition towards conflict that must be won if it materialises, instead of fundamentally aiming at avoiding conflict. But the West (particularly US) will pursue conflict if it furthers their geopolitical agenda even if facts don't support their position (Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.).

If then historically we've seen the most successful roads to peace have been extensive integration and co-operation then these decisions are consequences of us-them divisions, maintaining status quos (to stay top dog, you have to kick down the competition) and projection of power. So to me, the very methodology of framing international relations in real politik terms is an important driving force towards conflict, instead of avoiding it.

And yes security concerns can justify some action. Not all and certainly not war crimes. But again, I think that mixes geopolitical theory and international law. I think I've said before in this thread:

1. from a geopolitical/international relations point of view both Russia and the West are equally to blame for the war in Ukraine
2. from an international law perspective Russia is an aggressor

But since 2 is in any case an optional argument (pace every "humanitarian" intervention ever and western-led wars) it should be ignored in favour of 1 - as much as that goes against the grain of what I studied and worked for for decades as a human rights trained lawyer. 2 is more about how the world should be and could've been if international law hadn't been applied in such a double standard way.

I think it's clear Ukraine has been a focal point of geopolitical tensions between Russia and the West for at least two decades.

A few key events:

• NATO Enlargement (1999, 2004): Russia expressed opposition to NATO's expansion eastward, viewing it as a threat to its security. Russian officials argued that NATO enlargement undermined the balance of power in Europe and encroached on Russia's sphere of influence. However, Russia's ability to influence these decisions was limited, especially considering that the newly independent states in Eastern Europe were eager to join NATO as a means of enhancing their own security and sovereignty.
• Missile Defense Plans (2007): Russia strongly opposed the US plans to deploy missile defense systems in Eastern Europe, particularly in Poland and the Czech Republic. Russian officials argued that these missile defense installations would undermine Russia's nuclear deterrent capabilities and upset the strategic balance in Europe. In response, Russia threatened to deploy Iskander missiles to its western enclave of Kaliningrad and warned of potential military countermeasures.
• "Reset" of US-Russian Relations (2009): While the "reset" of relations between the United States and Russia initially led to a thaw in tensions, Russia remained skeptical of US intentions, particularly regarding missile defense plans. Russian leaders continued to express concerns about the potential threat posed by the missile defense system to Russia's security interests.
• New Missile Defense Plan (2010): Russia reacted cautiously to the announcement of the European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA) and the revised missile defense plans. While the EPAA was seen as a somewhat more flexible and mobile approach compared to the previous plans, Russia continued to express reservations about the deployment of missile defense systems near its borders.
• NATO-Russia Missile Defense Talks (2011): Russia engaged in discussions with NATO on missile defense cooperation but ultimately failed to reach a breakthrough. Despite some attempts at dialogue, Russia remained suspicious of NATO's intentions and continued to view the missile defense system as a potential threat.
• Deployment of Missile Defense Elements (2013): Russia criticized the deployment of missile defense elements under the EPAA, particularly the Aegis-equipped ships in the Mediterranean and radar installations in Turkey. Russian officials argued that these deployments increased the proximity of missile defense systems to Russia's borders and could potentially undermine its security.
• Ukrainian Presidential Election (2014): Russia expressed skepticism about the legitimacy of the Ukrainian presidential election, particularly in the context of the ongoing conflict in Eastern Ukraine. Moscow criticized the Ukrainian government's handling of the election and raised concerns about the treatment of Russian-speaking populations in Ukraine.
• War in Eastern Ukraine: Russia denied direct involvement in the conflict in Eastern Ukraine, despite accusations from Ukraine and Western countries that it was providing support to the separatist forces. Moscow portrayed the conflict as a civil war fueled by grievances among Russian-speaking populations in Eastern Ukraine and emphasized the need for a political solution to the crisis.
• MH17 Plane Crash: Russia initially denied any involvement in the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 and suggested alternative theories about the cause of the crash. Moscow criticized the investigation into the incident, alleging bias and lack of transparency. However, subsequent investigations by international authorities, including the Joint Investigation Team (JIT), implicated Russian-backed separatists and pointed to the use of a Russian-supplied missile system in the downing of the plane.
• Minsk Agreements: Russia publicly supported the Minsk Agreements as a framework for resolving the conflict in Eastern Ukraine and called for their full implementation. However, Moscow also accused Ukraine of failing to fulfill its obligations under the agreements and highlighted alleged ceasefire violations by Ukrainian forces. Russia's support for the Minsk process was seen by some as a way to shape the terms of a potential settlement while maintaining leverage over Ukraine.
• Sanctions Against Russia: Russia condemned the imposition of economic sanctions by the United States, the European Union, and other Western countries in response to its actions in Ukraine. Moscow characterized the sanctions as unjustified and illegitimate and retaliated with its own countermeasures, including restrictions on food imports from Western countries and bans on certain individuals and entities.
• Continued Tensions and Ceasefire Violations: Russia called for renewed efforts to implement the ceasefire agreements in Eastern Ukraine and emphasized the importance of dialogue and diplomacy in resolving the conflict. However, Moscow also criticized what it perceived as provocative actions by Ukraine and its Western allies, such as military exercises and deployments near Russia's borders.

Given the above, from Russia's perspective, NATO's expansion eastward, including discussions about Ukraine's potential membership, posed a direct security threat to Russia's interests (regardless of whether we agree; that's their view as the capability's of NATO can also be used aggressively). Russia views NATO enlargement as encroaching on its traditional sphere of influence and potentially undermining its security by bringing the alliance closer to its borders. The prospect of Ukraine joining NATO was particularly sensitive for Russia due to Ukraine's historical, cultural, and strategic significance.

Russia's actions in Ukraine can be seen in the context of its previous intervention in Georgia in 2008. Following Georgia's aspirations to join NATO and escalating tensions in the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, Russia intervened militarily, leading to a brief war with Georgia. Russia's actions in Georgia demonstrated its willingness to use military force to prevent former Soviet republics from aligning with NATO and assert its influence in the region.

The annexation of Crimea occurred against the backdrop of discussions about Ukraine's potential membership in NATO. While NATO had not made a formal commitment to Ukraine's membership, discussions and signals of support from some NATO members may have heightened Russia's concerns and contributed to its decision to annex Crimea as a preemptive measure to prevent Ukraine from moving closer to the alliance. Such support was again expressed prior to the war even via official NATO statements.

The lack of a significant reaction from Russia to Finland and Sweden joining NATO can be attributed to several factors. Finland and Sweden are not former Soviet republics, so their potential membership in NATO does not carry the same historical and geopolitical significance for Russia as Ukraine's membership. Additionally, Finland and Sweden joining is not a sudden shift in geopolitical dynamics but entrenches what we basically already knew: they are part of the Western/US-led sphere of influence.

I continue to find the storyline about "imperialist" ambitions weak and too much relying on over-interpretation of facts. The only facts supporting that interpretation are the following:

• Eurasian Economic Union (EEU): In 2015, Russia played a central role in establishing the Eurasian Economic Union, a regional economic bloc comprising former Soviet states such as Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia, and Kyrgyzstan. The EEU would allow Russia to exert economic and political influence over its neighbors and to promote integration among post-Soviet states under Russian leadership.
• Georgia and Moldova: Prior to 2022, Russia had been involved in conflicts with Georgia and Moldova over the breakaway regions of South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Transnistria, respectively. Russia's support for these separatist regions has been seen as a way to maintain influence and leverage over these countries and prevent them from aligning too closely with the West.
• Crimea and Eastern Ukraine: The annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the ongoing conflict in Eastern Ukraine have been widely interpreted as manifestations of Russia's efforts to assert control over parts of its former Soviet territory. Russia's actions in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine have been viewed as attempts to prevent Ukraine from drifting closer to the West and to maintain Russian influence in the region.
• "Near Abroad" Doctrine: Russian leaders have articulated a doctrine that emphasizes Russia's special interests and responsibilities in its "near abroad," referring to the former Soviet republics. This doctrine suggests that Russia sees itself as having a legitimate role in shaping the political and security dynamics of the region.
• Military Buildup and Exercises: Russia has conducted military exercises and deployed troops near its borders with former Soviet states, signaling its readiness to defend its interests in the region. These actions have raised concerns among neighboring countries and the broader international community about Russia's intentions.

But an interpretation of these actions as "imperialist" isn't necessary where Russian security interests suffice to explain their actions.

DISCLAIMER: I had ChatGPT provide me with a list of geopolitical events relevant to Ukraine.

I was looking for threads on Glyphosate and this is the only thing. It's huge in the Netherlands and EU currently.

The answer is a resounding; "yes". Apart from our dependency on pollinated food that is being destroyed by poisons glyphosate now also turns out to be neurotoxic. and most poison (e.g. pesticides) is not tested as part of summation tests. Farmers are urged to use several different pesticides but the regulatory agencies for poisons don't test cocktails. Meanwhile, Parkinson's disease is a fucking pandemic among farmers in the Netherlands and is a recognised occupational hazard in France. Or more general: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6311367/

Nevertheless, it was approved for another 10 years of use in the EU.

Some things we can pay attention to: if you buy plants and put them in your garden, you are killing the insects unless you go out of your way to buy biologically raised plants. See this excellent photography report:

https://marlonnekewillemsen.com/en/invisible-threat-2/the-effect-on-insects/

There are special seed mixtures available for native plants and flowers that go a long way towards creating an oasis for insects. See initiatives like this: https://arboretum.ucdavis.edu/seeds

If everybody reserves a few borders in their garden to grow wildflowers, most insects will be saved.

It also reduces temperatures by 25% in summer time compared to lawn-mowed grass, which simply makes everybody's life more comfortable.

Hate who exactly? All Palestinian civilians apparently.

pfff... Zionists don't take them seriously and obviously you don't either. Don't murder (Palestinian civilians). Don't steal (land). And unlimited administrative detention for Palestinians with no recourse to courts. That's 3 laws continously broken that you're perfectly fine with.

Your reply is unhinged as it doesn't relate in any way to what I said.

There's no Palestine. Dumb observation as a result.

I already dealt with this nonsense claim and not going to do it again. Nice to see you consider all Palestinians terrorists which means I have zero reason to talk to you.

The double standard is to say colonisation is wrong but to support Israel, to say oppression is wrong but to support Israel, to say human rights are universal but to support Israel, to say self determination is a right but to support Israel, to say war crimes are wrong but to support Israel.

None of that excuses Hamas. The problem is you fail to realise an important segment of Israeli society, the segment currently in power and having been in power for decades, is the absolute dregs of humanity you lament.

Vox isn't a source. — Lionino

Q.e.d.

The rest is a red herring.

Excellent rebuttal. Oh wait, it isn't. As a European this idiotic tribalism to discount sources is really funny.

Vacuous.

Once Israel is seen as epitome of injustice and racism there's really nothing Israel can do. — BitconnectCarlos

Of course not, they can stop oppression and apartheid any day. They chose not to. And that makes Israeli leadership and those who support their morally vacuous policies immoral.

a load of text to pretend you think deeply about this issue when your analysis doesn't even begin to scratch the surface. It's ridiculous.

:100:

You keep looking at this as if Israel is the victim. They're not. It's both aggressor and oppressor. A coloniser. It would sooner be the other away around, where the leg is land the Palestinians should have owned.

Nobody in this thread.

Edit: in any case, as long as Israel refuses to negotiate Hamas' goal will be the total liberation of Palestine yes. But they have already offered to negotiate on the basis of the 1967 boundaries. So really, your point isn't even accurate.

That's just an exaggeration. There's no existential threat. Nobody in his right mind is demanding the dismantling of the Israeli state. The extent of its borders and its relations with the Palestinians, its war crimes, its apartheid regime, etc. are an issue.

I'm sorry if you think Jewish autonomy in Palestine is unjust — BitconnectCarlos

That's not even close to what I said though. Israel is there to stay. That's not the problem at all.

It comes down to control/power/hegemony over the holy land. It is the existence of Israel (i.e. an independent Jewish polity) that is the crime. — BitconnectCarlos

The crime, in their eyes, is that such land was taken from them by a coloniser (the British) to be promised to another coloniser (zionist Jews, later Israël). The 1948 partition plan was once again enforced by external parties and therefore inherently unjust. Thereafter, Israel has acted as a coloniser by taking even more. Sometimes under the pretense of security but most often simply because they could, without addressing the underlying causes of insecurity (injustice) but instead doubling down on injustice through oppression and apartheid. Various Palestinian groups, including Hamas since 2017, have signalled a willingness to negotiate along the 1967 border, which is a huge concession already over the 1948 internationally recognised borders in favour of Israel. Yet it is insane murderous scum like Bibi that refuse to negotiate because they will ensure from the river to the sea it will be Jewish. The very slogan you complain about is policy for Likud and before that Herut. But only when it's spoken in favour of Palestinians is ie immediately condemned as genocidal intent.

Meanwhile, 700 attacks in the West Bank against Palestinians since 7 oct, half of which the IDF looks at or even participates in. Whatever "significant" attacks you think existed or exist, they pale in comparison both in number of attacks and number of victims the IDF and illegal Jewish settlers cause. All the while being the oppressors. There is no defence for such policy and no respect for those who still support it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, so what you need is tip top relationships with the Netherlands because of ASML. The rest is all secondary. :joke:

Except of course subsidies are terrible and should only be used where it concerns critical infrastructure or services.

Trump has also talked about imposing more tarriffs, including 60% on imports from China, and 10% on all others. This will increase the costs of many things, and likely lead to a trade war. — Relativist

This is the only thing he's right on. Western dependence on Chinese production that undercuts our own industries because of Chinese subsidies, lack of environmental protections and labour conditions is ridiculous. If human rights would actually matter, we wouldn't be buying Chinese products to begin with. We're basically funding a fascist state in its ability to oppress its own people.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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