7 Oct. 2023 simply made clear and explicit the bestiality of Arab intentions and practices. — tim wood

We've discussed this in the mod forum and we agree it is unacceptable and to put you on a ban warning. Goes for both sides. Everyone, please restrict your criticism to the organizations involved and not the ethnic groups they happen to be members of. Negative generalizations from events in this conflict to chracteristics of Jews or Arabs etc will not be tolerated.

How is this language, and the poster who posts it, even tolerated on the forum? — boethius

The language is not tolerated. The poster gets a chance to show he can restrain himself in future.

Everyone, please restrict your criticism to the organizations involved and not the ethnic groups they happen to be members of. Negative generalizations from events in this conflict to chracteristics of Jews or Arabs etc will not be tolerated. — Baden

:up:

Hamas will be genocided and the world will be better for it. — Moses

They’re not being genocided; the Palestinian people are.

At this point Israel has no choice but to go into Rafah. — Moses

They certainly do have a choice.

Who only puts out 80% of a fire? — Moses

Decimating Rafah won’t put out the fire. It’ll only create more of it.

New polls show that Americans overwhelmingly (79-80%) support Israel over Hamas — Moses

You’re like a Likud PR associate. Get some new material.

Yes, Israel over Hamas — not what Israel is doing to Palestinians. Or can you not separate the two?

Four stupid statements in only one paragraph. Too bad.

During the 1936-1939 Arab Revolt the Palestinians fought against the British, hence then you could argue that the ideology was “anti-British”. — ssu

Yes, I would argue that. However, differently from the British empire, Israel is fighting for its own nation state in Palestine, not to preserve an empire. Both Israelis and Palestinians want to build their nation state in Palestine arguably at the expense of the other and are both locked in a vicious circle of retaliations that still is instrumental to their ideological goal. The Israelis are in relative advantage over the Palestinians in terms of casualties, suffering, means of subsistence and territorial losses.
Now, one may want to say that since Palestinians and Israelis are locked in a brutal conflict, other international players may press Israel, the stronger side, to tread more lightly. But the predicament which Israel and Palestinians are stuck in can occur at the international level in an analogous form: i.e. the international supporters of Israel may be compelled to not abandon Israel if supporters of Hamas are not abandoning Hamas either. So my conclusion is that the US may STILL be compelled to support Israel against Hamas because Israel is a strategic ally either for power balance in the Middle East and/or for domestic power balance. What I conceded is that Biden has now greater leverage over Israel, given the domestic pressure from his base, and he’s trying to use it as we are seeing.

The "stuck in a war it cannot win" is basically because the Netanyahu government hasn't any policy what to do after the military operation. Here what is forgotten is that war is the continuation of policy. Just saying "destroy Hamas" isn't enough when you have no idea, no political objective what to do afterwards. It is as simplistic and stupid as Bush going to Afghanistan to destroy Al Qaeda and then declaring that he won't do anything else and isn't interested in nation building. Well, it didn't go so and it's naive to think that once the IDF declares that it has destroyed the last Hamas battalion, then it can go home and everything is back to normal. — ssu

You are making it all about Netanyahu. To me it isn’t. Even though Netanyahu is politically hawkish, and willing to exploit the current conflict for political convenience, STILL he has the support of the Israelis.
The same for Bush, after Bush the US didn’t pull out immediately from Afghanistan (no matter how problematic the nation building prospects were). Israel is still supported by an American and bipartisan anti-Islamist front. Even more so if religious extremism (both Christian and Judaic) is pushing the US foreign policy and the Zionist agenda in the Middle-East.
What you keep discounting is that people may not pursue peace, if that means WHATEVER peace. That’s what Palestinians (and Israelis (and Ukrainians)) are teaching us. And if this is true for Palestinians why shouldn’t it be the same for Israel? If everything is not going back to normal for the Israelis, the same goes for the Palestinians. Yet, the Palestinians are the ones to lose the most in terms of material and psychological damages.
Gaza will turn into another West Bank, that’s the policy Netanyahu probably aims at pursuing. And others (Israeli and pro-Israel politicians) could likely let him execute his dirty job long enough, so that any post-Netanyahu’s Israeli regime (and other potential partners in the peace process) can more easily take the initiative into relying on Palestinian authorities (other than Hamas) and have a greater appeal than Netanyahu in any peace settlement to the Palestinians.

This isn't an anti-Israeli view. I think who makes this quite clear and obvious is former prime minister Ehud Barak. He states that the military side of might go as now, yet what is lacking is the political side of what to do. Many have stated similar thoughts, but Barak I think gives the most straight forward analysis (even if his English isn't the best). If you have time, you should listen to the former prime minister says here: — ssu

Thanks for the link. It was interesting and it seems to support your views more than mine, until it doesn’t. At min 37:49, the former prime minister says: so people tell me, Barack I got convinced that you are convinced but you're not the only person around, what do I and the other said citizen know that Gantz doesn't know, Eisenkot doesn't know, president Herzog doesn’t know, head of opposition Lapid doesn't know, Lieberman doesn't know? AS LONG AS ALL OF THEM ARE QUIET, me the ordinary citizen thinks that probably TIME HAS NOT YET COME, that's tragedy because there is urgent need to stop this drift to the abyss and the public doesn't see a personal example, energy, focus and determination. Even in political worlds you have first of all to clarify to yourself what you want to achieve so it's not easy.
So again the problem is not Netanyahu, but the surrounding domestic (and I’d add international) political environment that let Netanyahu do what he is doing. I find these circumstances intelligible to the the extent they are also significantly driven by the kind of geopolitically reasons and security concerns I discussed.

And btw many of your links look at states like Syria (prior Iraq) and their WMD projects. Understandably the objectives of these countries has to do a lot with having some kind of parity and deterrence towards Israeli WMDs. — ssu

Yes, understandably. The same goes with the Iranian nuclear program. That’s why I wouldn’t disentangle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from the wider hegemonic conflict in the Middle-East. And threats do not need to be actual to guide policies, because when they are actual it may be already too late (also because intelligence failures can happen). We have seen how Hamas and Houthis managed to upgrade their military threats against Israel and the West, and how they want to have a role in the international arena, so we can’t underestimate how their threat can evolve in future scenarios.

Your arguments don’t sound consistent to me: on one side you readily concede that “Deadly terrorist strikes are usually made to get a complacent actor to lash out in revenge and get itself stuck in a war it cannot win”, on the other side you seem to refuse to accept the consequences of such logic. — neomac

I'm not seeing anything inconsistent here. Terrorist want that their target governments lash out in anger and thus show how evil they are. That's their thinking.

Or you don't understand how Al Qaeda or ISIS work? Or how fringe terrorist groups of twenty people think they can change things and move millions of people in their favor?

Al Qaeda and ISIS aren't states, even if the latter insists being the Islamic State. They want publicity for their cause and anticipate the crackdown on themselves and hope that the crackdown will create itself support for their cause. They want an Islamic Caliphate to rise allover, hence their objectives are quite messianic (and really out there). It's quite consistent, so I'm not understanding what is so confusing to you.

Hamas and the PLO have the objective of creating an independent Palestine. The PLO has used similar terror tactics, until it choose to attempt the peace process way. Hamas is still using terrorism. — ssu

First, the distinction you draw between Hamas and Al Qaeda/Isis is disputable, even though the former pursues a nation state while the latter pursue a Islamic caliphate. Indeed, Hamas is a Islamic jihadist group (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism_in_the_Gaza_Strip) branching out from another Islamic jihadist group pursuing an Islamic caliphate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood) and heavily supported by Iran which pursues its hegemonic goals in the region. So it looks more as if the secular demand for a Palestinian nation state from PLO has been hijacked by the Islamist cause of Hamas. This is a source of ambiguity that doesn’t help the Palestinian cause at all. Hamas is part of an Islamist network which may strategically fail the pursuit of a Palestinian nation state. So it is myopic to not recognise the agency of Middle Eastern actors and their strategic failures too.
Second, you didn’t get my objection. You seem to claim that Hamas/PLO terrorism is a trap to an endless war and this would be a Israeli failure. But if that is true for Israel, then that is evidently more true for the Palestinians because they are the ones losing the most in terms of life, suffering, means of subsistence and territory. And if that’s not enough to call embracing terrorism a Palestinian strategic failure, or demand a Palestinian surrender at the expense of their nation-state ambitions, then why should it be enough to call the brutal repression of Hamas a strategic failure of Israel, or demand for Israeli mercy at the expense of their own nation-state ambitions?

Well the difference in outcomes is enormous for the EU and Russia. It is important for the balance of power between the U.S. and China because if Russia wins, it will bolster Russia’s position on the world stage and become a serious threat to European security. This would weaken the EU and probably lead to another European war in a decade or so. Where as if Russia loses in Ukraine, it will likely result in Russian collapse, splintering of her client states etc, strengthen and clearly define the EU to include Ukraine. This will likely put the EU on course for superpower status and a strong ally of the U.S. The U.S. and EU working together in coalition through NATO would be a formidable foe for China. — Punshhh

I find your scenario questionable on two grounds. First, I doubt that it’s the more likely than a frozen conflict scenario where victory and loss remain uncertain, controversial and exploitable at the expense of Russia and/or EU. Second, the US likely doesn’t want Russia to win (too much), but maybe not to lose (too much) either, because China could profit from Russia's weakness to increase even more its hegemonic influence in Central Asia, at the expense of the US. Russia may be reluctant to lean too much on China as well. Besides the US can exploit the Russian threat to keep its grip on the EU, to prevent it either from becoming a competing hegemonic power or serving another competing hegemonic power, a the expense of the US. In short, there is some balance to be found between competing interests which may not be one where the EU is likely the kind of superpower you are suggesting. This balance however may still serve the US hegemonic interest.

I already answered that question. Russia and the US are the first ones to come to mind. Both may have strong incentives to play divide et impera strategies in Europe to preserve their supremacy.

Nonsense, the U.S. is most powerful working alongside a powerful successful EU. If the U.S. were to go down this line you suggest, it would lead to the break up of the EU, the advance of Russia, and a generation of wars in Europe, which would try to draw the U.S. in many times and which would guarantee China’s hegemony with Russia as her side kick. Regarding Russia, she has been trying to meddle in Europe for a long time, nothing has changed in that. — Punshhh

The isolationist trend in the US politics which Trump likely aims at representing doesn’t seem to worry much about the fate of the EU and NATO, even less motivated to push European hegemony. In this predicament, Europe can very much turn into an arena for hegemonic conflict. Better to not confuse expectations with wishes about the outcome of this hegemonic race. Meanwhile, France shows some intent or velleity to replace the US in safeguarding/leading the EU, we will see.

What act are you talking about? The massacre of October 7 is the act carried out by Hamas. This act can be accused of being genocidal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_genocide_in_the_2023_Hamas-led_attack_on_Israel . Is such act genocidal or not, to you? If not, what DEMONSTRATES that it is not, to you?

Yes the supporters of Israel and the Jewish lobby etc will naturally claim October 7th as genocide. But if we set the bar so low it will bring thousands of small conflicts around the world into the definition. My bar is very high and I have heard numerous legal specialists on the media casting doubt on what is a genocide in this situation. As I say, for me it is the deliberate starvation of probably now 1 million Palestinian citizens, happening as we speak. — Punshhh

So bombing and killing more than 30K Palestinians is not a genocide according to your very high bar, but the starvation of probably now 1 million Palestinian citizens is, right? And such predicament trumps whatever security concerns Israel may have, right? Yet you didn’t clarify in a principled way what your very high bar is, nor offered evidence that “the deliberate starvation of probably now 1 million Palestinian citizens” is a direct consequence of Israel’s decision.

Every time a Hamas fighter dies an angel gets its wings and the state of the world is improved. It’s like Nazis dying. No one says “oh but won’t killing nazis just lead to more nazis??” because that would be stupid. Israel is doing Gods work in destroying the Hamas rapists. You should be rooting for Israel’s success unless you want Israel’s destruction and radical Islam to prevail. Is that what you want?

It’s like Nazis dying — Moses

Not one original thought in your little head, eh?

. No one says “oh but won’t killing nazis just lead to more nazis??” — Moses

In this case, that’s exactly what I’m saying — because that’s what’s happened. The more the occupying force oppresses and murders a population, the more radicalized it will become.

The Nazi comparison also works very well for Likud. They’ve killed far more people than Hamas ever has. And now conducting a genocide before our eyes while buffoons on the internet talk about World War 2, their one historical reference.

You should be rooting for Israel’s success unless you want Israel’s destruction and radical Islam to prevail. — Moses

:rofl:

Political analysis: Hamas bad. Saw Indiana Jones, so Nazi bad.

Hamas = Nazis.

Perfection.

Don’t fight Al-qaeda it’ll just lead to more terrorists. Don’t fight ISIS they’ll just get more recruits. That’s the sort of logic that’s being employed.

I/P is a religious issue and you haven’t seemed to have wrapped your head around that yet. Dumb westerners think it’s all about the occupation of the West Bank or Gaza and whenever I hear that I know they’ve never visited the conflict zone.

I/P is a religious issue — Moses

No, it isn’t.

I know they’ve never visited the conflict zone. — Moses

Yes, because you’ve proven such a valuable expert on this topic so far.

The Nazi comparison also works very well for Likud. They’ve killed far more people than Hamas ever has.

American police kill more people yearly than Bundy or Dahmer did. Are they the bad guys?

Sgt York killed more than Bundy. Is York more evil than Bundy?

Are they the bad guys? — Moses

They are also bad, yeah.

But don’t tell me: Israel kills more people, but accidentally or with good intentions. So they get a pass.

:yawn:

Political analysis:

When they do it, it’s grotesque terrorism.
When we do it, it’s counter-terrorism.

Meanwhile, 15,000 dead children and counting. (But it’s definitely not terrorism— it’s done with high-tech equipment, after all. Much more civilized way to murder and maim incident children. With good intentions sprinkled on top.)

I’m curious, can you name me a government, a political party, or group that has been in an armed conflict that isn’t evil or bad? What is the principle at play? Which ever side kills more is the evil side?

group that has been in an armed conflict that isn’t evil or bad? — Moses

Fortunately for me, I don’t belong to the simplistic Nickelodeon morality crew.

—

For others:

What you do, as an educated adult with a semblance of rationality, is look at the specific situation, the context, the power dynamics, the decisions and actions, and the justifications— you then make a moral assessment.

Taking all this together, this situation is very clear. This war is an outcome of a brutal, protracted occupation by a US-backed state with overwhelming financial and military power. The history is very clear for anyone willing to look at it, and today’s actions are also very easy to understand. This is why Israel is becoming a pariah state and world opinion, including the US — where over half the country disproves of Israel’s actions — has completely turned on them.

True, it’s impossible to see if you presuppose everything Israel does is defensive. Same is done by US jingoists.

A people cannot occupy land to which they are indigenous to. Jews are indigenous to Israel. It’s like saying the native Americans occupy America. Makes no sense.

Oh and btw virtually every legal code and religious systems distinguishes between intentional murder and unintentional death. You could say it’s a deeply rooted idea inherent to civilization but given your hamas sympathies I’m not too sure how much of a “civilization” supporter you are.

It’s a major concept and somewhat disturbing that you don’t see the difference between these two scenarios:

A) fighters of group A fighters attack Bs territory and find a residential home which they know a family of 5 is in. They board up the home, surround it with armed gunmen, and then throw grenades in the home until it is clear the family is dead.

B) fighters of group B strike an arms depot of group A. They take precautions to strike at a time when there will be few civilians around, but it just so happens that 5 maintenance workers are present at the location. Nonetheless it is a valid military target.

All death is not equal and to view it as such reveals a moral blind spot.

It’s like saying the native Americans occupy America. Makes no sense. — Moses

Yeah, I’m sure if a Native American came to your home that has been in your family for a couple hundred years and told you it’s now his, you’d have no problem with it.

What a stupid argument.

intentional murder and unintentional death — Moses

Yeah, it’s easy: when Israeli does it, it’s unintentional. When Hamas does it, it’s intentional.

Got it. :ok: Brilliant, groundbreaking analysis once again.

All death is not equal and to view it as such reveals a moral blind spot. — Moses

Yes, 1,400 and 30,000 are by no means equal. I’m not too interested in whose pathetic justifications you accept or reject. You swallow Israel’s but very easily reject Hamas’. I reject both— but they’re by no means equal…Hamas has a stronger case.

Scholars have compared October 7th to the Nat Turner Rebellion…the analogy is apt. The atrocities were awful, but when you drive people to such actions, there’s a lot of blame to go around.

we’re not going to see eye to eye because apparently to you there’s no moral difference between 1200 civilians murdered execution style because of their ethnic background and 1200 killed in bombing raids conducted against legitimate targets while attempting to minimize casualties.

But it’s not surprising that one thinks this way when one has no real basis on which to draw morality from.

And no it wasn’t done out of “desperation” you goon. It was coordinated by billionaires. The heads of Hamas who coordinated 10/7 live in unbelievable luxury. Gaza had some of the finest homes, resorts, cars, and restaurants around.

Palestinians should surrender before they lose whatever they have left. What a shame it didn’t happen years ago. So many lives could have been saved.

It’s frustrating that Israel will win this and seemingly get away with all the crimes it has been accused of. I feel for the Palestinian people being caught up in this proxy war between Iran and Israel.

I feel so Mikie now. Sigh.

Got it. :ok: Brilliant, groundbreaking analysis once again. — Mikie

Hey, Israel's doing Gods work! You should be rooting for Israel, or otherwise you want Israel’s destruction and radical Islam to prevail.

That's says it all of this member and his contribution to this discussion.

No wonder they changed this thread to the Lounge.

But it’s not surprising that one thinks this way when one has no real basis on which to draw morality from. — Moses

Correct— it’s not surprising that one accepts the flimsy justifications for murdering and maiming children because it comes from one’s team, like you do.

while attempting to minimize casualties — Moses

They’ve done a wonderful job so far.

Because it’s done with fancy equipment from a distance, with nothing but noble invisible intentions in their hearts, we’ll give them a pass. Then lecture about the “morality” of others.

It’s as funny as taking an ethics class taught by a Nazi sympathizer. Not really funny at all— but ironic.

And no it wasn’t done out of “desperation” . — Moses

I never said “desperation”, so don’t put it in quotes.

That's says it all of this member and his contribution to this discussion. — ssu

Crawling out of the woodwork to repeat, line for line, the standard excuses for genocide.

No wonder the world isn’t buying it.

Yes, I would argue that. However, differently from the British empire, Israel is fighting for its own nation state in Palestine, not to preserve an empire. — neomac

And Palestinians are continuing to fight for independence. But yes, this ought to be obvious that Israel isn't a colonial venture where "the Europeans" can just go home. Algeria had roughly 1,6 million ethnic French many of whom had been born in Algeria, the Pied-Noirs. Yet it wasn't only them fighting the Algerian war. The example of Algeria might have been an example that Palestinians hoped to repeat, but they are not fighting the US.

But naturally this goes both ways: Palestinians haven't either a place to go back. But if some Palestinians have illusions or fantasies that the Israelis would migrate back to Europe (or likely to the US), there are many people who have similar illusions about the Palestinians. You have even in this thread many examples of people believing the Palestinians being something "artificial" construct, and that Palestinians simply should move to somewhere else in the Arab world.

You are making it all about Netanyahu. To me it isn’t. Even though Netanyahu is politically hawkish, and willing to exploit the current conflict for political convenience, STILL he has the support of the Israelis. — neomac

The obvious thing here is that there's not just one way to fight a war. There are many ways. Starting from the way you approach the civilian population. I've made the point right from the start in October last year that Israel should approach the fighting just like the US approached it's fight against Al Qaeda and ISIS in Iraq: to take into consideration the civilian population. But it didn't. It went with no political goals, hopes of "voluntary transfer" of Palestinians somewhere else and the creating a famine. This has been a strategic mistake in the long run, but this government isn't thinking in the long run. It's thinking about the next day and it's popularity among the voters.

So my conclusion is that the US may STILL be compelled to support Israel against Hamas because Israel is a strategic ally either for power balance in the Middle East and/or for domestic power balance. — neomac

As long as the Arab side seems to be so vulnerable to simply collapse, this is true. Prior it was the influence of Soviet Union that was the reason why the US fervently supported Israel. And when the Cold War ended, Israel thought for a while that they had to go with the peace process because the US was losing interest. Not so, as there are plenty of Christians in the US for whom Israel isn't just a country, but part of their religion and who hence are adamant supporters of Israel. As one PF member who has only prior discussed religious matters in the forum, declared that Israel was dong God's work. So it's not AIPAC and the American jews (who many oppose Netanyahu's administration), it the Bible belt Evangelicals.

Hence even if Egypt is an ally of the US, Saudi-Arabia is the ally of US (and Iraq was occupied and should have a Pro-US government), the US does feel cautious about how strong this relationship is. Iran and the fall of the Shah and the present relations with the country tells a lot. So could it happen in Saudi-Arabia? Or Egypt?

If the Arab states could integrate more and speak more like the EU, then that could change. But that would also change Israel's position too.

We have seen how Hamas and Houthis managed to upgrade their military threats against Israel and the West, and how they want to have a role in the international arena, so we can’t underestimate how their threat can evolve in future scenarios. — neomac

Iran has here learnt the hard way to use proxies. They learnt it from operation Praying Mantis. Hence the use of proxy forces. It should be noteworthy that to attack the supporter of a proxy is truly an escalation. Just think of it if Russia would act the same to countries that support Ukraine. Just to give weapons and training isn't enough to be a real belligerent in a war.

The miniwar that the US fought with Iran during Operation Praying Mantis:

You ever notice how the pro-pali protests frequently involve violence, vandalism, or intimidation especially of Jewish spaces? It’s bigger than just a regional issue. The protestors lack civility. The only thing that matters in their minds is the absolute righteousness of the cause. They are zealots who never cared about much larger amounts of muslim suffering elsewhere.

Palestinians should surrender before they lose whatever they have left. What a shame it didn’t happen years ago. So many lives could have been saved.

Presumably you mean Hamas should surrender?

Sure. But maybe you didn't get the sarcastic intent of my comment.

First, I doubt that it’s the more likely than a frozen conflict scenario where victory and loss remain uncertain, controversial and exploitable at the expense of Russia and/or EU.

I was talking about the stakes, big stakes. Yes the war could grind on, could result in some sort of negotiated settlement. I did point out earlier and in the Ukraine thread a while back that the big shift here, the ground breaking change initiated by Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. Is that Europe will now re-arm, the post WW2 settlement in which the U.S., the U.K. and to a lesser extent France would provide the security for Europe under the umbrella of NATO, has ended. Now the EU will re-arm and likely create a European army. What happens in Ukraine won’t change this and this will be Putin’s legacy.

Second, the US likely doesn’t want Russia to win (too much), but maybe not to lose (too much) either, because China could profit from Russia's weakness to increase even more its hegemonic influence in Central Asia, at the expense of the US.

Yes, I agree that a long drawn out war is fine for the U.S.
But I really don’t see this talk about the U.S. wanting to keep the EU weak. Or that she would not see the benefit of an alliance with a strong EU?

The isolationist trend in the US politics which Trump likely aims at representing doesn’t seem to worry much about the fate of the EU and NATO, even less motivated to push European hegemony. In this predicament, Europe can very much turn into an arena for hegemonic conflict. Better to not confuse expectations with wishes about the outcome of this hegemonic race. Meanwhile, France shows some intent or velleity to replace the US in safeguarding/leading the EU, we will see.

Trump is an idiot and a populist, so he will certainly destabilise the situation in his personal interest. But if you look at what he said about NATO, it was just him playing hardball to get EU countries to stump up their fair share to NATO funds. This is not an issue now, as these countries will be making these investments, care of Putin. Also he says he will end the Ukraine war in one day. I doubt he will succeed short of somehow handing Ukraine to Putin on a plate, something which isn’t in his gift. If he just withdraws U.S. support to Ukraine, he will be giving Putin a green light to move on Kiev. This will result in the outcome I was talking about where Putin will bring the war to Europe now, or in the future.

Anyway I don’t see Trump getting his hands back on power, he is currently drowning in a sea of litigation and sleaze, not to mention his signs of dementia.

even less motivated to push European hegemony.

Better to not confuse expectations with wishes about the outcome of this hegemonic race.

You are introducing the idea of a race to world domination, or something, we’re not playing a game of Risk here. Why would U.S. “push European hegemony”, more like U.S. would work with EU as a partner and friend.

So bombing and killing more than 30K Palestinians is not a genocide according to your very high bar, but the starvation of probably now 1 million Palestinian citizens is, right?

You seem to be shouting here, I’ve given my take on this.

Sure. But maybe you didn't get the sarcastic intent of my comment.

I did find it amusing.

But I really don’t see this talk about the U.S. wanting to keep the EU weak. Or that she would not see the benefit of an alliance with a strong EU? — Punshhh

You are introducing the idea of a race to world domination, or something, we’re not playing a game of Risk here. Why would U.S. “push European hegemony”, more like U.S. would work with EU as a partner and friend. — Punshhh

I limit myself to point out that Europeans can’t give for granted the U.S. partnership, if that means equal partnership, especially in matter of security, as history has shown, starting with NATO (“created to ‘keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down’”) and all other examples of unilateralism in Middle East or toward Russia. Concerning NATO, the US is currently struggling between a historical intent “on preserving a 70-year-old framework that lets Washington call the shots and put its interests first” (https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-nato-problem-defense-procurement-training-research/) at the expense of American tax-payers, represented by Biden, and Trump’s America first approach (https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trumps-foreign-policy-puts-america-first/) which arguably aims at preserving NATO but more at the expense of European tax-payers (while threatening to withdraw from NATO otherwise).

Trump is an idiot and a populist, so he will certainly destabilise the situation in his personal interest. But if you look at what he said about NATO, it was just him playing hardball to get EU countries to stump up their fair share to NATO funds. This is not an issue now, as these countries will be making these investments, care of Putin. — Punshhh

We will see what Trump’s game about NATO and Ukraine is, if he gets another chance, but for Europeans it is risky to rely on Trump’s leadership on security matters, so better for them to prepare for the worse. There is however a strategic issue here one may overlook: the problem is not just how much the Europeans spend for their defence and NATO, but how much they buy from the US defence industry at the expense of the European defence industry.

So bombing and killing more than 30K Palestinians is not a genocide according to your very high bar, but the starvation of probably now 1 million Palestinian citizens is, right?

You seem to be shouting here, I’ve given my take on this. — Punshhh

I’ve also given my take on your take: “you didn’t clarify in a principled way what your very high bar is, nor offered evidence that ‘the deliberate starvation of probably now 1 million Palestinian citizens’ is a direct consequence of Israel’s decision”.