It seems relevant to the Israeli argument re antisemitism. The question is:

- Given that there has been no shortage of wars in the region in the past 50 years; and
- Given basically every country in the region has participated in said wars to some degree; and
- Given most countries in the region have suppressed internal unrest using extreme measures (Syria, Iraq, Egypt, etc.); and;
- Given these military actions have generally involved significantly looser rules of engagement than Israel (e.g., both Syria and Egypt have hosed down large crowds of protestors with belt fed heavy machine guns in the past decades), and significantly higher death tolls (e.g. the Siege of Mosul involved 40,000 civilian fatalities despite being in a significantly smaller city against a significantly smaller occupying force);
-Why is Israel such a lightening rod for criticism?

Certainly, they are not exceptional for the region in how they treat a minority group, nor in their rules of engagement.

I think this argument has some limited merit. It seems fairly obvious that, historically, Israel has been used as a boogeyman to distract from the regional powers' own serious rights abuses and wide scale use of force against their people (often on significantly more intense scales than Israel). This does have something to do with the widespread antisemitism in the region that caused them to expell and expropriate all their Jews in the first place. And to the extent that Western media coverage gets guided by this as well (which it certainly does to some extent), there is a valid critique here. After all, would people have such passionate opinions about this conflict if it was occuring in Azerbaijan or Tajikistan and had similar dimensions? Obviously not. None of the much larger conflicts in the world over the last decade have produced marches (both for and against each side) on the scale we've seen in the West recently. The wars in Syria and Yemen produced no riots in Europe's relevant ethnic neighborhoods, no attacks on Sunni/Shia mosques to parallel attacks in synagogues, etc.

But not all of the elevation of the conflict in public discourse has to do with this phenomena. Part of it has to do with the religious salience of Israel for Jews, Christians, and Muslims in the West — and this phenomena also has the effect of boosting support for Israel, particularly in the US

Second, Israel claims to be a liberal democracy. This claim forces it to live up to a higher standard, and that has nothing to do with antisemitism.

Third, people often over estimate the gap between the the capabilities of the Israeli and Egyptian or Saudi armed forces. When Egypt just erases villages in the Sinai or the Saudis level areas of Yemen, people tend to think: "well they don't have the same precision capabilities." This actually isn't true. Egypt receives a massive amount of American military aid and has plenty of PGMs. They just don't choose to "waste" them in situations where leveling the entire community comes with minimal pushback. The Saudis spend a phenomenal amount on defense and have all sorts of high end American and Chinese precision weapons.

But perceptions are what matters, and people generally view these militaries as inept and corrupt (for good reason). The IDF has a much better reputation, which in turn increases perceived culpability for civilian losses and damaged infrastructure.

The "whataboutism" is relevant for an entirely different question then: why do people care so much more (one way or the other) about Palestine?

This is a question worth exploring because public opinion does shape the conflict. Would Hamas really think baiting Israel into destroying its own infrastructure and people was a worthwhile strategy if world and Arab opinion would be on a par with how people respond to other similar conflicts in the region? Absolutely not. Their strategy is in part predicated on the special resonance of Israel, and so it shapes their decisions in what seem to be fundemental ways.

Why is Israel such a lightening rod for criticism? — Count Timothy von Icarus

There are a few reasons situations like this happen.

1. Like I said, awareness. People are generally more aware of some conflicts than others, and more knowledgeable about them.

2. Western support. It may be perceived that Israel is doing all their nastiness with support and resources from Western countries, in ways that the other countries are not. The average American may think (whether right or wrong), my country is more involved in this conflict, which means my voice matters more than it would in some conflict my country is a lot less involved in

3. Responsiveness to reason. Israel may actually be seen as a country that is more fundamentally reasonable than other countries. In other words, if you said "hey, what you're doing is evil and you have to stop" to the Israeli government and also to the Saudi government, which one do you think is more likely to listen? Some countries, there's no point criticizing them much, because they're evil, they know they're evil, everyone knows they're evil. Other countries, especially more Western-seeming countries, provide space for the idea that if you criticise them hard enough, there may be enough sway within their society to stop the evil.

The last reason is why I criticise leftists more than conservatives. Conservatives are pretty much hopeless, criticism wouldn't do much good. People on the left can do better

Agreed.

2. Western support. It may be perceived that Israel is doing all their nastiness with support and resources from Western countries, in ways that the other countries are not. The average American may think (whether right or wrong), my country is more involved in this conflict, which means my voice matters more than it would in some conflict my country is a lot less involved in

This ties into (selective) awareness. Support for Israel is top of mind in part due to the powerful Arab reactions against it (e.g., the oil embargo, 9/11 was carried out ostensibly for this reason, etc.).

Egypt is also a huge beneficiary of US aid, as is Jordan and Iraq. The Gulf States pay for their hardware from the US, EU, and UK with their oil wealth, but as customers they are far larger than Israel. The Saudi defense budget alone is more than three times the size of Israel's, and they operate comprably far more European hardware (Typhoons, Tornados, Rafales, and Grippens). They're getting more US hardware as well and were recently involved in a long war that killed over a quarter million people. Not only this, but US intelligence was actively assisting their efforts and US assets were actively hitting targets in Yemen, flying recon, etc., a level of support Israel has not received in any of its wars.

This is not generally reflected in public understanding, and I think that ties back into the other factors we've both mentioned.

Not only this, but US intelligence was actively assisting their efforts and US assets were actively hitting targets in Yemen, flying recon, etc., a level of support Israel has not received in any of its wars.

This is not generally reflected in public understanding, — Count Timothy von Icarus

Absolutely.

failed state like Syria, or Iraq. — Punshhh

Just curious. What “made” them a state?

This is a question worth exploring because public opinion does shape the conflict. Would Hamas really think baiting Israel into destroying its own infrastructure and people was a worthwhile strategy if world and Arab opinion would be on a par with how people respond to other similar conflicts in the region? Absolutely not. Their strategy is in part predicated on the special resonance of Israel, and so it shapes their decisions in what seem to be fundemental ways. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Really good post, especially this part :up:. I’ve been trying to make all the same points in various ways, but you coalesced them really well there.

Just curious. What “made” them a state?

The usual suspect.

I’m not a fan of the empire.

The most important reason Israel is "singled out" is because it enjoys widespread western backing, and its special relationship with the United States ensures it is never held accountable. Western-sponsored crimes against humanity.

Furthermore, the United States and Israel are responsible for many of the dumpster fires that litter the Middle-East. The dictators, they themselves have put in power. The extremist groups, they themselves have created and supported. The moderates, they themselves have deposed or assassinated.

So yea, I'm not buying these crocodile tears.

It's America's fault MidEast countries treat women and minorities like shit? How do you figure that?

That’s a bit reductionist. Nasserism and Baathism were internalized versions of Marxism that failed on its own. There’s only a few countries that came out of the British and French carving of Ottomons relatively better off, Turkey being maybe one of the only ones (though not as recently).

US screwed up trying to invade Iraq but it’s not like it took down a wonderful system. A better case can be made with CIA operation that took down the democratically elected socialist Mossadegh in Iran which led to all sorts of problems with the Shah that led to the Ayatollah.

A heartening, yet sad essay about a Kibbutz near Gaza:

https://lawliberty.org/scenes-from-a-kibbutz/

Excuse me, who put Nasser in charge in Egypt? Who started the string of coups in Syria? Uncle Sam's greasy fingerprints are all over the Middle-East, and wherever it got involved things got worse. Much worse. They're closing in on a century of sowing chaos in the Middle-East, much of it directly tied to protecting Israel's position in the region.

Oh, and if you do a bit of digging around the Ba'ath party coming to power in Iraq, guess what you find?

The whole thing is so ironic it would be a nice joke were it not for the fact that the United States has the blood of millions on its hands in the Middle-East alone.

Their strategy is in part predicated on the special resonance of Israel, and so it shapes their decisions in what seem to be fundemental ways.

Quite the Israel Palestine problem is the touch stone for movements in geopolitics. Quite literally at the wailing wall and the temple of the mount.

Although, I suspect that it’s importance will wane as the Global South and Far East become more active on the global stage.

Excuse me, who put Nasser in charge in Egypt? Who started the string of coups in Syria? Uncle Sam's greasy fingerprints are all over the Middle-East, and wherever it got involved things got worse. Much worse. They're closing in on a century of sowing chaos in the Middle-East, much of it directly tied to protecting Israel's position in the region. — Tzeentch

I'm not sure of the US putting Nasser in charge. In fact, he seemed pretty antagonistic overall to the US and West in general.

It's a known trope that many of the people the US put in power through regime change turned towards communism on their own initiative.

This of course convinced the US that the Soviets were everywhere and that they needed more regime change.

It's an incredibly cynical game the US played. The abuse of power and the toying with the fates of nations on a global scale. I don't think it has any precedent in history.

It's a known trope that many of the people the US put in power through regime change turned towards communism on their own initiative.

This of course convinced the US that the Soviets were everywhere and that they needed more regime change.

It's an incredibly cynical game the US played. The abuse of power and the toying with the fates of nations on a global scale. I don't think it has any precedent in history. — Tzeentch

Certainly America (and Britain and others) favored various policies before and during the Cold War, but I don't think the US would ever want Nasser or the Baath ideology to take charge. Generally speaking the British and then the US wanted to keep the more moderate stabilizing force of the original Hashemite and hereditary monarchs in power (Faisal, Abdullah, Hussein, Saud, etc.). This did not last for many of them. The ones that remained are still tenuously allies of the US (Saudi Arabia, Jordan, UAE, etc.).

Certainly America (and Britain and others) favored various policies before and during the Cold War, but I don't think the US would ever want Nasser or the Baath ideology to take charge. — schopenhauer1

It might not have been what they wanted, but that's what they got.

They were like children playing with fire, but it was someone else's house that burned down.

But for what it's worth, the US put these people in charge because they thought it would keep the communists/socialists out, often to no avail.

It's might not have been what they wanted, but that's what they got.

They were like children playing with fire, but it was someone else's house that burned down. — Tzeentch

Again, I'm not sure it is that simplistic, and feeds into "oppressor/oppressed" framework that I am questioning on these forums. Much of the politics in the oil countries early on revolved around oil. Britain actually shut the US out for example, and this caused various moves of alliances in places like Iran and Iraq early on. However, it can't be discounted that the Soviets were also trying their best to promote their people, as well as the simple fact that various internal coups inspired by European style ones, took place that didn't always involve America. It's more what the US did in reaction that caused problems. Afghanistan (fighting the Soviets), invading Iraq (various poorly conceived ends) and Iran (perceived communism alignment) were egregious examples of the US making it worse. However, out of all of those, it was Iran that actually was the worst of them because that could have been a democracy, even if not quite aligned with interests.

However, out of all of those, it was Iran that actually was the worst of them because that could have been a democracy, even if not quite aligned with interests. — schopenhauer1

A lot of countries in the Middle-East had undemocratic forms of government, but for a lot of those countries that's what worked. It kept those countries stable and gave them prosperity. Countries like Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, even Somalia, used to be genuinely modern (or well on their way towards modernity).

Prosperity is ultimately what brought Europe and the United States out of despotism, so in my mind there's no reason to assume the same wouldn't have happened in the Middle-East were it not for constant US meddling.

Sadly, wealthy countries are also powerful, and that's the one thing the United States and Israel could not tolerate in the region. Wealthy communist countries? Even worse!

A lot of countries in the Middle-East had undemocratic forms of government, but for a lot of those countries that's what worked. It kept those countries stable and gave them prosperity. Countries like Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, even Somalia, used to be genuinely modern (or well on their way towards modernity). — Tzeentch

Again, Iraq fell to Baathists.. The US and Britain rather have had their monarchy there (I guess constitutional?). The coup against Mossadegh was concocted by the British under Churchill because they were nationalizing the longstanding British oil companies there. They pressed Eisenhower who eventually relented and had the CIA join their M16 operation. Afghanistan's history was largely shaped by Soviet interference, and then reaction to that to reactionary forces. It's hard to say the US was the "bad guy" there.

*I don’t like to talk in these blunt terms and would prefer to believe that this could return to the 2 state solution as has been outlined numerous times. — Punshhh

Any reasonable person would think so too, but as I've said, extremists have taken over there. They will continue to dehumanize the "enemy" and basically argue for war, either "Jihad" or "Mowing the lawn" to be the only answer here.

What would be then the reasons why the extremists would fall from favor?

Well, in the case of Europe you finally got European integration after millions being killed in WW1 and it's continuation, WW2. Great example!

So a true genocide of Palestinians in Gaza? Not just 11000, but let's say 110 000? Or every tenth human being killed in Gaza? That would be 220 000 people. I think that could be a "biblical" enough to 'wake up' people from their apathy. It would then would 'look bad' enough for Israel to come up with a two state solution. If Israel continues to limit humanitarian assistance, we can be there. It actually would 'look bad' for the US too, so perhaps there would be some effective diplomacy, not the futile 'bearhugs' that the US now gives to Israel. Or let me backtrack: Israel I guess has accepted 4 hours of not boming. Quite quick those giving humanitarian assistance have to be...

And then you immediately have the following problem: only efficiently strong countries can keep peace. Lebanon and Syria are on brink of being failed states. How does the PA suddenly become a strong country? Egypt is strong enough, even if the 'Arab street' hates the peace with Israel. Yet Palestinians aren't Egyptians. Far easily populists in the Palestinian side could pose this as just a part of throwing back the crusaders. After all, it took 192 years to throw out the Crusaders.

Yeah, seems extremely bleak.

Again, Iraq fell to Baathists. — schopenhauer1

Which the US supported.

The coup against Mossadegh was concocted by the British under Churchill because they were nationalizing the longstanding British oil companies there. — schopenhauer1

Exactly. Countries becoming modern, rejecting colonialism, etc.

Churchill was no less a scumbag. Perhaps even the worst of them all.

It's hard to say the US was the "bad guy" there. — schopenhauer1

I'd say that goes without saying. They armed the Taliban and subsequently put them in charge. I don't think I need to remind you who the Taliban were. It's one of many extremist groups that rose to power as a direct result of US interference.

That isn't to say the US was the only bad guy in Afghanistan.

I'd say that goes without saying. They armed the Taliban and subsequently put them in charge. I don't think I need to remind you who the Taliban were. It's one of many extremist groups that rose to power as a direct result of US interference. — Tzeentch

I think the Taleban was of Pakistani origin, not the US. And uh, yeah, the Pakistanis holding on to the Taleban and being an ally (somehow) of the US brought them victory in the end. The US did go away and didn't punish them. They can tap each other on the back in the offices of the Inter-Services Intelligence.

Again, don't forget the little guys, the regional players, and insist everything happens because of the US.

Which the US supported. — Tzeentch

I believe only in so far as they fought Iran in the 80s. That makes sense somewhat. However, they rather have not had the Baathists at all. That was who was there, and they were next to an even worse enemy (Iran hostage crisis, etc.).

Again, don't forget the little guys, the regional players, and insist everything happens because of the US. — ssu

Exactly. The US rather have had the Northern Alliance or something not Taliban. It's not all black-and-white? Were the Soviets "good guys"? No one's hands were clean there, but Soviets were still trying to "colonize" them if you will, (at least imperially control them).

That makes sense somewhat. — schopenhauer1

In the end, it makes as much sense as Bibi supporting Hamas!

I think the former Israeli prime minister Ehdu Olmert makes this clear quite well:

"Netanyahu is responsible for the build-up of Hamas capabilities … Netanyahu personally and directly responsible for deal with Hamas… and 80 per cent of the people want him out," the leader, who initiated his political career within the ruling Likud party but transitioned to Kadima in 2006, a party founded by moderates under the leadership of former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, remarked. Olmert also suggested that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should be held responsible for the attacks.

Olmert held the PM responsible for the policy that marginalised the moderate Palestinians, "we should have been negotiating with," and led to the rise of Hamas.

He explained that the reason behind this was because Hamas "was supposed to be safe since they were not a candidate for negotiations, so he (Netanyahu) would not have to make concessions for them."

He further stated that Netanyahu was also directly and personally responsible for the agreement with Hamas, which resulted in the release of "1,000 Hamas members in exchange for one Israeli soldier."

But if you really think that supporting the enemy of your enemy is allways 'makes sense', I have to disagree.

These myriad tricks usually blown in the face of these politicians who think that they can juggle with live grenades.

Exactly. The US rather have had the Northern Alliance or something not Taliban. It's not all black-and-white? Were the Soviets "good guys"? No one's hands were clean there, but Soviets were still trying to "colonize" them if you will, (at least imperially control them). — schopenhauer1

I would say that the Americans were better guys than the Soviets!

They stayed in Afghanistan far longer, yet killed far less people! :grin:

And now Afghanistan isn't controlled by rival factions and isn't as chaotic as after the Soviet backed government fell! :grin:

And you had an epic disaster movie in the end when Kabul fell, not a Soviet style parade with little girls giving flowers to the last Soviet troops. :blush:

Last Soviet in Afghanistan soil, general Gromov walking with his son out of Afghanistan:



Last American soldier in Afghani soil, general Donahue leaving Kabul walking to the transport aircraft:

Short & sweet from a Rabbi to a fool:

More to the point, though, can the moral argument for supporting the right of both sides to exist, with a permanent ceasefire, be opposed? — FreeEmotion

Suppose Hamas says it'll commit to a ceasefire, but then it'll build its forces and tunnels back during that lull in the action, and then it'll send people on parachutes over to rape and kill children like it did the last time it broke a ceasefire on October 7?

Then it'll operate out of a hospital and subject its own wounded and dying to more misery so it can blame the Israelis of violating the rule that says you can't attack your enemy when it hides behind an incubator filled with premies.

So sure, I'm in favor of the Garden of Eden you envision. It's unfortunately a myth.

And then you immediately have the following problem: only efficiently strong countries can keep peace. Lebanon and Syria are on brink of being failed states. How does the PA suddenly become a strong country? Egypt is strong enough, even if the 'Arab street' hates the peace with Israel. Yet Palestinians aren't Egyptians. Far easily populists in the Palestinian side could pose this as just a part of throwing back the crusaders. After all, it took 192 years to throw out the Crusaders.

I don’t want to be the party pooper, but if the hat fits…

These failed states are spreading, along with extremism. The large power blocks really should hunker down now and prepare for climate breakdown.

It is a tragedy that the Arab world has failed to mesh with western values, for whatever reasons. I’m not blaming them, the blame stands more with the duelling between the US and the Soviets.
Even the rich Arab states, who were spared due to their oil, are living on borrowed time.

Likely the power blocks, North America, Europe, China, will build metaphorical walls and even real walls eventually. Whether any other blocks can form quickly enough to build stability, we will have to see. If not they will probably join the failed states.