I've noticed Jewish colleagues tiptoeing around answering a simple question: "in an ideal world what do you wish the lives of Palestinian children looks like?" — Benkei

What are they suppose to say? "Convert them out of Islam?" Jews know Jewish culture, don't ask them what the ideal Palestinian/Muslim culture looks like. Do we want them to be shi'ites or sunnis? Do we want them to be devout muslims? No idea. Do the basics but the rest is up to you.

Germany and Japan did not become occupied territory under blockade, with the allies refusing to acknowledge their elected governments. If that happened, they may have had a problem. Also, there was an outright surrender. — FreeEmotion

When you are recounting the points I made differently as if I wasn’t making those points, that’s a sort of a straw man. Because, similarly I stated:

Well after total war was waged on Germany, the US treats them pretty well once they dropped the Nazi thing. That took a while though. Granted, the difference is you didn't have Germans constantly taking up the Nazi cause once the leaders were dead or had given up. And another thing is, they eventually did give up. But once that happened, the US allowed Western Germany to vote in their democratic government (but with army bases nearby to deter Eastern Germany). They moved on after years of war. But the US helped with something like a trillion dollars in the Marshall Plan (massive amounts of US aide basically). Without a Marshall Plan, you would not see Western Europe flourish post-WW2 as much as it did. The same with Japan. The defeated Japan was still respected. The Emperor was still able to sit in power. — schopenhauer1

When you are recounting the points I made differently as if I wasn’t making those points, that’s a sort of a straw man. Because, similarly I stated: — schopenhauer1

I am sorry if I misunderstood you. The question then remains, what is the likelihood that Israel will treat the Palestinian terroritories the same as Germany or Japan, and why not?

I take the extreme view that under no circumstances is violent resistance permissible, and it is better to continue under oppression than violently resist. — FreeEmotion

So you think the inmates at Sobibor death camp were wrong to rise up?

It all comes down to the question is violent resistance permissible? I take the extreme view that under no circumstances is violent resistance permissible, and it is better to continue under oppression than violently resist. This is a philosophical position, pacifism I think it is called.

The heart of the problem is that many people, almost universally think that violent resistance is not only permissible, but right, for example the American war of Independence. If we accept that, then we have to judge which causes are right and which causes are wrong, which is a personal thing again.

One answer would be to take extreme care to avoid oppression, or overt, visible oppression, to take the cynical view. Buying powerful influence and keeping the populace poor is one peaceful method I would think, or perhaps bribing the population, or some sort of mind control. All sordid stuff. Or a dictatorship.
I believe a statesman wise and intelligent enough could achieve such a thing.

Yes, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) has explicitly affirmed the right of Palestinians to resist Israel’s military occupation, including through armed struggle. This right was affirmed in the context of the right to self-determination of all peoples under foreign and colonial rule. Some of the most relevant UN resolutions on this matter include:

https://www.cjpme.org/fs_236/

Wow. — FreeEmotion

Actually this is a great point. I am for Gandhi, not for (X shitty "freedom fighter"). Means do matter. And repeated use of those means makes the case weaker, not stronger. It's always bad, but using it as a tactic repeatedly, and trying to find sympathy just doesn't seem to make sense to me either. I don't buy "Oh it's out of desperation!" either. It's a shitty argument, for people with shitty morals. Two wrongs don't make a right. This is basic one would think.

The problem is you need to build up a culture of compromise and systems for this to take place. If you can't even agree on the systems, violence becomes the means for which people think is the way to solve it.

But hence my greater point in this current round of shit is that Netanyahu's failure to call for a permanent peaceful two state solution, does not justify X terrorist attack, and those who think so are fuckn morally corrupt and perhaps they can be exposed to living under said terrorist regime. Means do count. And nothing happens in a vacuum. If there were chances to compromise, and you didn't like the terms of the other side, this doesn't mean you get to mow down civilians and such because you are unhappy that you didn't get what you wanted.

I am sorry if I misunderstood you. The question then remains, what is the likelihood that Israel will treat the Palestinian terroritories the same as Germany or Japan, and why not? — FreeEmotion

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?

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.

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:

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. — ssu

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.

As I said, tiptoeing around it. No colleague frames this in terms of religion but safety and happiness where it concerns their own children.

Yes in a perfect world the palestinian children are safe and happy. no one wants harm to come to children. but regarding how palestinian children are actually raised... that question goes to the palestinians. religion/culture is the major divide in the region and the jews will do things their way and the palestinian muslims have their own way. I think this is ok. But to ask a Jew how the ideal Palestinian muslim ought to live is a minefield of a question. But regarding the Palestinians we'd give the same answer we give all gentiles: Follow the 7 noachide laws and you're fine. Beyond that we don't judge as it would not be our place.

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?

And in a single breath you are blaming Palestinians. Interesting reflex. Nothing about Israeli behaviour that could change to bring safety and happiness closer? Nothing coming to mind? Are you that unimaginative or that dishonest with yourself?

My premise is that strategic interest of the US in the Middle East is to prevent the emergence of regional powers that challenge the American hegemony. — neomac

Yes, but does being the most staunch ally of Israel help here?

Both Egypt and Saudi-Arabia are allies of the US. If there would be logic here, that the issue is to prevent emergence of Iran becoming a regional power, wouldn't it then to be more logical to support the Sunni Arab states? The US has already forces in Iraq.

Sorry, but what US needs is a hegemony that it has in Western Europe through NATO. Countries that want it to stay in the continent. Not countries that are just waiting for it to go away, but being friendly when Uncle Sam is around. — ssu

NATO is not just about military defense but, ideally, about military defense among countries that support “democratic values”. Preferring Saudi Arabia and Egypt over Israel could blow back in terms of soft power, not only because Saudi Arabia and Egypt are most certainly not democratic countries (notice that NATO has already problems in dealing with Turkey and Hungary), but also because their population leans toward supporting the Islamic jihad ideologically and financially (Saudi Arabia has also been accused of committing a genocide in Yemen and arguably Al-Sisi too against his own people). Besides Egypt and Saudi Arabia political elites can flirt with authoritarian regimes like China and Russia, something Israel can’t easily do precisely because of the Palestinian issue. So, for the US, courting Saudi Arabia and Egypt at the expense of Israel will likely increase their negotiation power not the American negotiation power, while at the same time alienate a precious ally like Israel (less reluctant to engage in a military confrontation against hostile powers than many NATO countries) by increasing its isolation and therefore its threat perception (likely at the expense of the Palestinians). This in turn will inflame the American domestic conflict also over Israel (better would be for the Democrats to exploit the Republican sensitivity over Israel, to get a greater support over Ukraine from them in exchange of more concessions to Israel). Normalizing the relation between Israel and Saudi Arabia/Egypt may help for both containing Iran in the Middle East (likely also Turkey in the Mediterranean Sea which might benefit the Europeans) and softening the Israeli attitude toward the Palestinian issue. This might be a diplomatic success for the US (like the Camp David Accords) considering that China is working in the opposite direction by trying to reconcile Iran with Saudi Arabia.

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: — ssu

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.

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. — ssu

I think using "Israel" is a bit of a huge misnomer there being that Israel and Palestine are supposed to be different states. Rather, if anything, Israel under Netanyahu did not advance peace talks with moderates. That can be bracketed from anything else we are discussing (like some weird implication thus terrorism is justified.. which if you are subtly suggesting that, then you might be morally suspect and I will say so without hesitation).

Nazis too had a problem with land. They bordered various nations that they thought were more German than not. Yet, they accepted their borders after WW2. They had to at first, but it became second nature after a while. When the US did nothing but send goodwill through economic aid to reconstruct Germany and Western Europe, this was one more sign of good will.

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

These are excellent questions. The question as to whether any nation, forget the Palestinians, would go along with an occupied power indefinitely is a question that answers itself. I think not. Are they under a moral obligation to simply give up and be eradicated? I do not think so.

History has shown that either a brutal military victory or what is commonly caused genocide, can lead ultimately to a peaceful (but unjust) coexistence. Because there is no choice. This gets both sides speaking the same language. We have, as examples, the native Americans, and the aborigines in Australia, and many many other nations and ethnic groups. That was 'conquest'. In the case of Japan and Germany military victories settled the issue.

Speaking of morality, it occurred to me that Gaza can be represented by the classic trolley problem. And it is.

Gaza Is The Ultimate Trolley Problem
And it’s telling us we clearly value some lives more than others

https://aninjusticemag.com/gaza-is-the-ultimate-trolley-problem-72898439f378?gi=2f98b0f64bd8

There is also the morality of not interfering while 10,000 people have been bombed to death without doing a thing. The cost of intervening may be too high, that is understandable. Prevention is better than cure, and much of the world is morally complicit in letting things get this far down the road, when there were clear indications that the responsibility to put pressure on Israel was simply ignored.

To quote Craig Mokhiber

In one of his first interviews since leaving his post, Mokhiber tells Democracy Now! the U.N. follows a “different set of rules” when addressing Israel’s violations of international law, refusing to utilize its enforcement mechanisms and thus “effectively” acting as “a smokescreen behind which we have seen further and worsening dispossession of Palestinians.”

What I see are daily revelations of the ethics and morality of the nations of the world and the people and power. They have surprised me, in fact. Didn't we all expect a better outcome than this, which was predictable to some extent? They took the risk of escalation, that is for sure.

What have also surprised me is the news bias. Fox news, which I used to watch, is disgustingly silent about any of the civilian deaths in Gaza, take sides, that is OK, but report the news, you are news channel are you not? Are people that prejudiced? Insular?

All local news, and this:

Netanyahu tells Bret Baier why Hamas must be totally eradicated
ANTISEMITISM EXPOSED — Fox News

Eradicated, yes, but they have informed the enemy that there will be no shooting from their side for four hours. Feel free to shoot back, though. Do they know what they are doing?

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: — ssu

Much more to it than that. The disease of world domination is alive and well. "They are not your friends"

" some day the German people might be cured of their disease the super race disease the world conquest disease but they must prove that they have been cured beyond the shadow of a doubt"

but there are millions of Germans some
12:07
of those guys must be ok
12:09
perhaps but which ones just one mistake
12:13
may cost you your life trust none of
12:17
them some day the German people might be
12:20
cured of their disease the super race
12:23
disease the world conquest disease but
12:27
they must prove that they have been
12:29
cured beyond the shadow of a doubt
12:31
before they ever again are allowed to
12:34
take their place among respectable
12:35
nations until that day we stand god we
12:42
are determined that their plan for world
12:44
conquest shall stop here and now we are
12:48
determined that they shall never again
12:50
use peaceful industries for warlike
12:52
purposes we are determined that the
12:55
vicious German cycle of war phony peace

While we are concerned, lets not neglect the other areas of conflict: here is an incomplete list:

Special rapporteurs and independent experts addressing human rights situations in the Russian Federation, Ukraine, Belarus, Ethiopia, Burundi, and Eritrea defended their methods and mandates amid a chorus of opposition during interactive dialogues today with the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural), while they warned of severe human rights violations, war crimes and disappearing civic space in those countries.

https://press.un.org/en/2023/gashc4391.doc.htm

Maybe...

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-do-we-end-wars-a-peace-researcher-puts-forward-some-innovative-approaches/

https://theconversation.com/how-to-avoid-war-and-conflict-with-a-little-help-from-social-psychology-83189

There's no evidence the British harboured particular sympathy to zionism. — Echarmion

Plenty of evidence they wanted to get rid of Jews, which is what Balfour intended.

Plenty of evidence they wanted to get rid of Jews, which is what Balfour intended. — Benkei

Perhaps that was a reason, but whatever the exact intentions behind the declaration it was never turned into British policy.

Unfortunately plenty of people have heard about it and thus remember the history as "Britain promised Palestine to the Jews and thus Israel was created". Really the Balfour declaration has very little to do with the actual formation of Israel.

Meanwhile British policy does have a whole lot to do with the history of Islamism and antisemitism in the Arab world.

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.

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:
23orb-superJumbo.jpg

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. — ssu

If we are comparing Israel vs Saudi Arabia/Egypt as allies of the US in the Middle East (that’s what I was doing anyways) and accepting the fact that each country can have its own agency and its own agenda conflicting with the American national interest (that’s true also for Europeans), is it better for the US to give up on Israel and invest on Saudi Arabia/Egypt instead? The primary criterium can’t possible be “the unconditional respect for human rights”, since neither Israel nor Saudi Arabia/Egypt nor the US itself would pass the test in the eyes of many (inside the US too). The criterium doesn’t need to be the fitness for a NATO-like alliance which has proven to be twice problematic: there are NATO countries which do not play along with the US interests to various degrees (on the extreme side authoritarian regimes like Hungary and Turkey) and 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) and at the same time spontaneously play against the emergence of regional powers hostile to the Americans (like the Arab/Islamist world) while having enough common cultural-institutional-economic-technological-security grounds and exchanges with the US to justify the privilege Israel has over Saudi Arabia/Egypt. That’s why I find the American attempt to draw Saudi Arabia and Egypt toward Israel, instead of bypassing Israel, pretty consequential.

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.

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? — ssu

Sure, it is what the US is doing (I stated the same in some previous post “It’s not an aut-aut choice. The more the better.”). However you seemed to question the US support for Israel with a series of objections like:

“Both Egypt and Saudi-Arabia are allies of the US. If there would be logic here, that the issue is to prevent emergence of Iran becoming a regional power, wouldn't it then to be more logical to support the Sunni Arab states? The US has already forces in Iraq.”

“Umm... isn't the US and Egypt in good terms too? Wouldn't geopolitically the stability of Egypt be here more important? The Suez canal is in Egypt. Btw, those gas fields that Israel has aren't so important. And as Israeli is a very wealthy country, I guess it does have a lot of internet cables”

“But why not then do this with the allies that actually come to help the US in it's wars? Why not for example the UK? Give them the aid to make new joint ventures on new weapon systems with the British! They would be very happy if the "special relationship" with the US really would be a special relationship. They have a sound, well function military industrial complex I think better than Israel. Especially after the disaster of Brexit, they need friends. The British have gone with you to into Afghanistan, into Iraq, defended Kuwait alongside the US. Israel has not. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to help and improve the armed forces of your ally that for example can help you all around the World (like with AUKUS), including in the Far East?”

I limited myself to explicit the possible reasons for why the US is so committed to support Israel in the Middle East and those reasons go beyond the idea of the Evangelical support to Zionism or the humanitarian acknowledgment for the Jews' right to self-determination. There is an intelligible and bipartisan strategic interest behind the support of Israel however fallible its pursuit can turn out to be.

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.

26641.jpeg

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. — ssu

Sure, the US provided a lot in military aid to support Israel, because Israel, differently from NATO countries, was under constant imminent threat from Iran and its proxies and because the Middle East has been for a while a hotter arena than Europe until the war in Ukraine. But the American financial and military engagement still remains different, as I said, because the problem is not just how much money the US puts into providing security to NATO countries vs Israel, but how much of this benefits the US interest in return. Over time, after the collapse of Soviet Union (most certainly after the war in Yugoslavia), many NATO countries have been progressively perceived as exploitative consumers of the security provided by the US, investing little in their own security, mostly reluctant to side with the US in the Middle East, getting to close to strategic rivals, like Russia and China, getting overconfident in questioning the American leadership and competing economically against the US (actually the war in Ukraine showed the weakness of the NATO allies in the face of the Russian threat). Israel has been until now in a better spot to the eyes of the US.

I see Israel as the 51st state of the US. But it’s more than that, the Jewish diaspora from all Western nations see her as their homeland and many go to live there. Maybe do some settling. This has resulted in a complex situation in which society in these nations feel a kinship with Israel. See her as “western”, while she is a construct, shaped in the psyche of the Jewish people.

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.

Tonight the IDF is closing the noose on Al-Sheifa hospital. Arabic Twitter etc is watching closely and talking of consequences. Let’s hope they can restrain themselves.

This thread is about the current Israel / Palestine conflict. Off-topic posts and their replies are being and will be deleted. + Anti-semites (and Islamophobes) will be banned. Holocaust deniers will be banned. Thank you.

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. — ssu

Then we agree. Some of my Twitter feeds (following the UN) alert me on Yemen, Sudan.. etc. It is very alarming and really horrific.

Maybe we need to reduce Global Warring before we reduce Global Warming.

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.