For one, because of simple metrics like population and geographics — Tzeentch

Well, they've managed for a good while, almost surrounded by hostiles/unfriendlies in superior numbers on the ground. (Though not exactly all as efficiently as Entebbe 1976.) Looking back, I kind of get the impression that they built out a (modern) society in a desert, however discriminatory/thefty.

and secondly because Israel's treatment of the Palestinian people is giving its neighbors common cause against it. — Tzeentch

The fires have been going for a good while, not new, and those hostiles/unfriendlies have been and remain one reason for their zeal in the first place. But, yes, they're not helping any reconciliation. Third-party (neutral) intervention/involvement may be necessary, though seemingly rejected by both parties.

@schopenhauer1, are you making a case for ...



... ? :)

Living through a genocide happening before our eyes, with 10000+ children dead, and yet apologists think this time it’s an exception.

History will view them poorly — Mikie

:up: :up:

Why didn't the ICJ demand a cease-fire? — RogueAI

C'mon, the ICJ issued a report that's only preliminary and is not a UN policy-making agency.

It's almost like they don't really believe a genocide is going on.
— RogueAI

No. — Mikie

I encourage you to read Judge Sebutide's view.

https://www.icj-cij.org/node/203449

"During the oral proceedings in the present case, it was brought to the attention of the Court that South Africa, and in particular certain organs of government, have enjoyed and continue to enjoy a cordial relationship with the leadership of Hamas. If that is the case, then one would encourage South Africa as a party to these proceedings and to the Genocide Convention, to use whatever influence they might wield, to try and persuade Hamas to immediately and unconditionally release the remaining hostages, as a good will gesture. I have no doubt that such a gesture of good will would go a very long way in defusing the current conflict in Gaza."

What a shocker you choose her. There’s little chance she wrote that anyway.

I encourage you to read what the other 15 judges said.

Well, they've managed for a good while, almost surrounded by hostiles/unfriendlies in superior numbers on the ground. (Though not exactly all as efficiently as Entebbe 1976.) Looking back, I kind of get the impression that they built out a (modern) society in a desert, however discriminatory/thefty. — jorndoe

Yes they have, but mostly on the basis of the supremacy of Western technology and doctrine. Today the power balance is different, and of course most important of all, the United States may be too occupied elsewhere to stage a large intervention in the case things go south.

Many of Israel's regional rivals are no longer militarily naive and backwards. They have figured out the American (and thus the Israeli) way of war, and have found ways to combat it, mostly through asymmetric warfare.

To put it in simple terms, if we compare Israel's population with that of its neighbors, we can only conclude that once those neighbors get even remotely competent Israel will stand no chance in a military engagement.

Three US servicemen killed and 34 wounded.

WASHINGTON, Jan 28 (Reuters) - Three U.S. service members were killed and at least 34 wounded in a drone attack by Iran-backed militants on U.S. troops in northeastern Jordan near the Syrian border, President Joe Biden and U.S. officials said on Sunday.

Jan 28th (Al Jazeera) - The Islamic Resistance in Iraq, an umbrella group of Iran-backed armed groups, claimed attacks targeting three bases, including one on the Jordan-Syria border.

Jordan condemned on Sunday the “terrorist attack” on a military advance post just inside its border with Syria and said it was cooperating with Washington to secure its frontier.

The pro-Iranian group IRI has been already attacking US forces inside Iraq.

Also, the war on shipping is going on, even after the US and UK strikes. Now a UK-based tanker carrying Russian nafta was attacked in the Red Sea by a Houthi ballistic missile. Indian, French and US naval vessels came to the help of the ship.



What I see here is a process of the US slowly but determinedly sucked into the quagmire of a Middle Eastern conflict, which isn't beneficial for itself, but works well especially for Bibi. If Israel (or the US) attacks Iranian assets in lets say Lebanon and Syria (as has been done), Iran let's it "Axis of Resistance" go on with their agenda by giving them materiel.

At some time then Joe Biden has to make counterstrikes, or face the possibility to be viewed upon as a weak dick. Thus you have a perfect vicious circle. Naturally the American population isn't eager for a new (or continued) war in the Middle East, which limits the options here.

It may be so that in the end the US will have to withdraw like France did from the Sahel.

It may be so that in the end the US will have to withdraw like France did from the Sahel.

And Israel too, presumably?

What I see here is a process of the US slowly but determinedly sucked into the quagmire of a Middle Eastern conflict, which isn't beneficial for itself, but works well especially for Bibi. If Israel (or the US) attacks Iranian assets in lets say Lebanon and Syria (as has been done), Iran let's it "Axis of Resistance" go on with their agenda by giving them materiel. — ssu

I agree.

Israel is sensing US overstretch, and realizes that if the US now gets stuck in a conflict elsewhere, say Korea, Taiwan, etc. Israel may be on its own for the foreseeable future.

I wouldn't be surprised if they are trying to make sure the conflict the US eventually gets stuck in is the one that borders on their interests.

And Israel too, presumably? — Punshhh

Nope. Nuclear deterrence works. Especially when the other side doesn't have nuclear weapons. And I guess the Israelis, unlike the Americans who live on another continent, have an incentive to stay in the Middle East. Israel won't go away. Although in their propaganda they say that it's them who are on the verge of being wiped out.

And likely then the US can have it's bases in Israel. And perhaps one in Qatar for some time, because Qatar has made Saudi-Arabia so angry that they might correctly assume that it's good to keep the Americans around.

Perhaps the US can have an actual defence treaty with Israel? Why not, when the policy has gone from CENTO -> Twin Pillars -> to what, "Arab (Muslim) Containment?"

Then the US is just like the UK and France, the past colonial masters are: there to sell weapons to the Arabs, but not anything else. After all, doesn't the US want to pivot to the Far East?

There's ample reasons actually to think that this might happen. It's simply the "fatigue"-factor. Just like the leaving of Afghanistan on it's own was a deliberate policy by both a Republican and a Democrat administration, why then to hang around in Iraq or Syria? Holding there troops just creates an easy target for radical Islamic groups to attack them (as the bases are where they live). What's the purpose? When is the last time you have heard the term War on Terror being said anymore?

It's not the US military. It's the US politicians themselves: they likely don't see anything else than supporting Israel to be beneficial for them in their own political careers.

I see what you were saying now, it was about the US withdrawing their bases from the Middle East. I was thinking more in terms of the US retreating in their support for Israel if there is a wider war.

Anyway, I don’t see a fortress, a defiant Israel feeling secure in the Middle East having ethnically cleansed Palestine. They would be dependent on an umbilical cord to the US and judging by the state of politics in the US at the moment that cord could be severed at some point in the future.

I’m not looking to make a formal moral argument, rather to seek a cause for the Israel Palestine conflict. I see the reality of the Jewish Diaspora over the last 2,000yrs or so having to live as immigrants in other countries, exiled from their homeland with no homeland of their own as a possible cause.
There are examples of other ethnic groups where something similar has happened, including the Palestinians at the hands of the Israeli’s after the formation of Israel. I could list these disposed peoples, but I expect you already know.
It is human nature to feel wronged when dispossessed of their home and often they feel resentful, or seek to regain their home. On other occasions they might internalise the trauma and try to live with it, make the best of it. But what if it were to keep happening every few hundred years for 2,000yrs, culminating in the Holocaust. That would inevitably become internalised and cause those people to behave in a different way to peoples who had not been dispossessed. Even to visit what they experienced on some other group.

Although in their propaganda they say that it's them who are on the verge of being wiped out. — ssu

Antisemitism has once again become normalized; Jews are seen as the oppressors by 2/3 in Gen Z and 1 in 5 in Gen Z believe the holocaust to be a myth. The First Minister of Scotland gave a holocaust address where he never once mentioned Jews. We have seen the erasure of Jewish suffering since 10/7 with everything being deserved because Jews are deemed the oppressors. Hostage posters torn down. Jewish restaurants destroyed and terrorized around the world. Some of the older Jews have compared this environment to the 1930s -- not a second holocaust, but scary.

Antisemitism has once again become normalized; Jews are seen as the oppressors by 2/3 in Gen Z — BitconnectCarlos

This first part has nothing to do with antisemitism and it's simply true if we ignore the convenient conflation nobody here has busied.

All right. I would still add that for both Palestinians and Israelis the problem is not just the idea of being historically wronged and dispossessed but also the pursuit of a political status, that of a nation state (very much a Western idea). And nation state formation has been historically proven to be very bloody, if not genocidal. Besides there is the clash of religious factions that is complicating things from biblical times, so not strictly related to the wrongs that the Jewish people suffered in their recent history or Palestinians suffered from the recent history of the Zionist project.

History will view them poorly. — Mikie

Why wait for history? I already do.

What I see here is a process of the US slowly but determinedly sucked into the quagmire of a Middle Eastern conflict, which isn't beneficial for itself — ssu

A ton of cargo goes through the Red Sea and Gulf, so it is strategic, as with everything in that region. Also, it's good to back up allies, period. The US would indeed look weak if they don't back up allies in a region that also has strategic interests- as they have done in the past, like WW2, But I don't blame certain European attitudes for this I guess. It's nice to sit pretty with small homogeneous populations (except for "immigrants" from which causes their own "populist/nativist" divisions, even within Europe) with budgets for welfare states after WW2 and centuries of the bloodiest of conflicts and massive colonization and imperialistic World Domination projects by the biggest of the states... So I guess, let the Middle East implode in its genocidal project to only be safe for extremist versions of various Muslim sects. It's already failed at trying Western versions of shitty forms of government (Bathists/ Nasserism etc.).

If the US made strange unwise bedfellows with strategic anti-Soviet interests, European Leftists should watch for the same unwise bedfellows with extremist Islamist interests. It is a shame the Mid East is not as non-strategic as most parts of sub-Saharan Africa or Micronesia or something.

I'm not sure where you got that.. Though, I did just mention

o I guess, let the Middle East implode in its genocidal project to only be safe for extremist versions of various Muslim sects. It's already failed at trying Western versions of shitty forms of government (Bathists/ Nasserism etc.). — schopenhauer1

But no, I don't actually think the Middle East should implode.. If you mean my reference to the "Thunderdome" type morality of Hamas and other extremist sects, sure. And Israel has been co-opted by such logic in its need to destroy Hamas at all costs and not having a clear plan for the day after. However, I don't blame Israel for wanting to get rid of Hamas. Hamas said what they wanted, they did what they said, and they have shown that in the past, like the suicide campaigns of the 90s-2000s. Also, when given freedom to actually "govern" some territory, they acted like the belligerents they were and put all the extra money into armaments and not growing a thriving region, or other avenues of peaceful existence, which may have led to different outcomes. I honestly couldn't fathom them doing so, so yeah, Israel is to blame in the sense of cynically thinking they might be better than Fatah. However, I think it was mostly because they didn't want to interfere. Kicking the can down the road has made it that much harder to get rid of them. Of course, if Israel tried to interfere more strongly back twenty years ago, they would have also been criticized for interfering, so Israel just can't win, and which is why they largely just ignore the gaslighting of Leftists, which I get. It works with those who already agree on a philosophy forum though.

I will agree that Israel should never have kept the West Bank and Gaza, but I also get that having strategic land which they could negotiate for peace (since at the time of 1967, no Arab state (including the newly formed PLO), wanted Israel to even exist).. I think the failed negotiations of 25 years+ ago and Hamas' stepped up attacks at that time, had unfortunately killed the Israeli will to vote in more dovish governments, and despite my hardline against the LEFTISTS on THIS FORUM, I actually am on the side of the (diminished) Doves in this whole conflict, DESPITE the hateful/one-sided rhetoric of the Leftists.

That's not how criminal law works though. — Benkei

While I see where you're going, you cannot read across from Criminal law (which is messier than you make it sound - and as a direct analogy, Palestine is hte aggressor here, without any debate and 'criminally' speaking would be the only party liable to be charged - until we look at proportionality).

International Law and Rules of Engagement are not analogous. In criminal law self-defense is both a variable, and messy set of rules. But, there is no occasion (barring a Charles Whitman scenario) on which a court would not find you responsibility for your actions.
We're not arguing about responsibility for death, but actions. If you want to argue about whether or not a particular act comes under 'self-defense'., particularly in war, you're going to need far more specific language and context to make a call than that "self-defense' applies, in any given instance. Which is what I take you to be trying to do here. But you can't.

Israel is sensing US overstretch, and realizes that if the US now gets stuck in a conflict elsewhere, say Korea, Taiwan, etc. Israel may be on its own for the foreseeable future.

I wouldn't be surprised if they are trying to make sure the conflict the US eventually gets stuck in is the one that borders on their interests. — Tzeentch

That is plausible.

Yet what is I think totally clear is that the Israeli government has not much here in long term thinking. Bibi is just hanging there, so I don't think he has his sights in the long term. The right-wing government has seen this as a crisis where they can attempt to do what they want, but likely it's going to backfire.

They would be dependent on an umbilical cord to the US and judging by the state of politics in the US at the moment that cord could be severed at some point in the future. — Punshhh

Actually John Mersheimer said the reality quite well: The Israeli Lobby, just as any successful lobby, is basically part of the US system of lobbying. It's there just like the gun lobby is. Not only are there many Jewish Americans, but also the Evangelical support for Israel that will be there also in the future. Only something really terrible, actually, could make this to change. I don't see that for instance AIPAC would anytime need to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

What this means that the umblical cord goes actually the other way. Bibi can be very confident that the US will do what Israel wants, because of having this lobby group made of Americans supporting his country no matter what. No other country has this kind of influence over the US, which makes the situation quite unusual.

Yes I see this. But I also see an arms race in the Middle East though (on the assumption that Israel continues with the ethnic cleansing and remains defiant). They would become a fortress bristling with weapons. Presumably they would want US bases in Israel too.

A very powerful talk by Chris Hedges. He pulls no punches.

And in Israel, meanwhile...

Settlement Mega-event Calls for Jewish Return to Gaza

A third of Netanyahu's cabinet was present.

Antisemitism has once again become normalized — BitconnectCarlos

Criticism of the actions of the Israeli state gives also the antisemites an opportunity to act. This is unfortunately the way how this goes in other examples too: the opposition of Putin's attack into Ukraine has also brought hostility towards Russians and acts of Russofobia in general. Yet many Russians, especially those outside of Russia, don't at all support Putin. But many will simply generalize their opposition of the actions of the Russian state to being against Russians in general.

This Israeli administration will especially fervently promote the idea that being critical about the policies of the state of Israel is antisemitism.



Yet the question was if Israel will survive. That Israel will survive is a fact, a no brainer: it has a nuclear deterrent (it's neighbors don't), it enjoys military superiority over it's neighbors and it has the unwavering support of the US. But I guess it's convenient to portray Israel as the little guy facing off a huge powerful menace. Remarks like Israel will be forced out as the Crusader states earlier are similar conspiracy bullshit like Europe will become Muslim and the original Europeans will be replaced.

Yes I see this. But I also see an arms race in the Middle East though (on the assumption that Israel continues with the ethnic cleansing and remains defiant). They would become a fortress bristling with weapons. Presumably they would want US bases in Israel too. — Punshhh

One thing we have to remember is that Israel's neighbors are Third World countries, and so is Iran too. They simply don't have the economy to really compete with Israel. That they end up like Iraq or Syria is a far likely possibility than them becoming so powerful to really take on (again) Israel.

Then let's assume the Arabs somehow, get their lines together and having such integration that the Arab league countries can coordinate their armed forces like NATO countries. Put them all together with the ability for the armies to fight together and that would make the situation different. Add even perhaps nukes from Pakistan, so there would be nuclear parity.

Why wouldn't this be an existential threat to Israel? Because the likely outcome would then be a two state solution. Faced with a nuclear balance, true possibility of losing a war, especially if the Israeli lobby would fail creating enough Islamophobia against this new version of the Arab League, then a two state solution would be on the table.

And once that is done, what would be incentive for then this alliance to endanger itself with a nuclear war with Israel? It's a common cause in the Arab realm, but somehow we miss that people still are rational actors, even if they muslim. Yet somehow the idea of "mad mullahs" wanting to blow up Israel (and themselves) is taken as real possibility. It only holds in the realm of propaganda.

One thing we have to remember is that Israel's neighbors are Third World countries, and so is Iran too. They simply don't have the economy to really compete with Israel. That they end up like Iraq or Syria is a far likely possibility than them becoming so powerful to really take on (again) Israel.

But the biggest attack on the US since WW2 was carried out with a camping knife. Yes in terms of conventional weaponry Isreal is far more powerful. But if they are defiant against their neighbours then they will have to be an isolated fortress. A sitting duck bristling with weapons. Any interaction with their neighbours would compromise their security.

Going back to the umbilical chord, is this really what the US wants to be tied to? Especially if the ICJ verdict is that genocide and ethnic cleansing has happened. Look at the power brokers involved, Trump and Netanyahu, Biden is a rational actor in this, but the US political situation is on a precipice and helpless to correct it. Even a civil war may not be far off in the US.

I heard a U.S. general on the radio just yesterday saying that this is our chance to take Iran out. We should go in hard now. Presumably taking their eye off the ball in Ukraine.

I agree that the risk of the Middle East becoming a collection of failed states is high. But then Israel becomes even more isolated and perhaps paranoid (they seem to be paranoid now).

All right. I would still add that for both Palestinians and Israelis the problem is not just the idea of being historically wronged and dispossessed but also the pursuit of a political status, that of a nation state (very much a Western idea). And nation state formation has been historically proven to be very bloody, if not genocidal. Besides there is the clash of religious factions that is complicating things from biblical times, so not strictly related to the wrongs that the Jewish people suffered in their recent history or Palestinians suffered from the recent history of the Zionist project.

Yes it’s a very complex situation, but not at all unique and inevitable when territory is invaded/colonised and the existing population expelled and treated as second class citizens, through some form of apartheid.
Indeed there is another similar conflict in Myanmar happening now. In which the Rohingya ethnic minority for example are suffering a brutal ethic cleansing.

I suppose what is different here is that the ethnic cleansing is being carried out and endorsed by Western forces who are bound by human rights protocols and live by, or so they proclaim the morality of free and fair societies. Or in other words by the US via its client state Isreal and fully endorsed by the U.K. the previous colonial power in the region. Following promises and treaties guaranteeing to a degree autonomy and territory to the population now being cleansed. (I realise that the U.K. has done this before in other territories in the 19th century).

So what has gone wrong in this case?

Well there are two sides, attacks have been going on from both sides for decades, so it didn’t start on 7th October. That was just a point of escalation. The situation has become gradually worse over decades in a situation of apartheid rule by one side. So it would seem to me that the blame, or root of this crisis lies in the rule of the ruling side. The ruling side insists always that it is it’s oppressed population which is the root of the problem. Again this narrative is a symptom of what’s wrong in the rule of the ruling side.

This leaves me in the position where there is a crisis caused by a problem in the rule of Israel. What is going on in Israel which finds itself unable to live in peace and deescalate relations with its oppressed population.

One possibility is that apartheid states always fail. But if this is the case, surely the rulers of Israel would have realised by now that their apartheid rule will eventually fail. But rather than realise this, they have just increased the oppression, in a cycle of repeated conflict and greater increases in oppression. Accompanied by a gradually more extreme politics. With extreme meaning less rational and more oppressive.

So in conclusion I reach the point where the entire responsibility for the situation lies in the psyche of the ruling elites in Israel. With a side order of some osmosis with the US.

A failed attempt at nation building perhaps?

A very powerful talk by Chris Hedges. He pulls no punches.

Good speech, sums it up nicely.

But the biggest attack on the US since WW2 was carried out with a camping knife. — Punshhh

Box cutters. And I think the heavy laden with fuel passenger jets were the actual weapons.

Besides, if the 1990's attackers to the Twin towers had achieved (which is totally possible) even one Twin tower collapsing immediately, the death toll could have been 20 000. Something similar to what now in Gaza have been killed. Yet they didn't, only some people were killed and thus the US justice department, the FBI and the New York court was able to find them (from Pakistan), sentence them and put them into an ordinary prison.

Even so, that isn't anywhere near something being existential. But what it's all about is seeking revenge. And milking that feeling for other objectives.

But if they are defiant against their neighbours then they will have to be an isolated fortress. A sitting duck bristling with weapons. Any interaction with their neighbors would compromise their security. — Punshhh

How so? Arab League countries have come a long way from the Khartoum Resolution. So why this assumption of any interaction being impossible?

It's Bibi's favorite line that negotiated peace is an impossibility. (One that he is proud to have derailed earlier.)

How so?

I did say if the ICJ verdict is genocide and the ethnic cleansing of the people of Palestine people has happened.
I’m thinking in terms of terrorist action. I don’t doubt that eventually the Arab League would be able to reach some sort of peace with Israel. But I think the rubicon has been crossed when it comes to terrorist action.

Israel would be condemned to a future of repeated suicide bombings and other terrorist action. I’m not sure the Israeli people would put up with this, so would become isolated.

One clear headed and sobering interview with a Norwegian diplomat that participated in the Oslo peace process. From the interview comes many interesting insights about the now dead peace process:

a) The Madrid-talks put everything in action, that thanks to the US.
b) When Arafats PLO sided with Saddam Hussein's Iraq, it really angered the Gulf States and cut their support of the PLO and thus Arafat found himself in a tight spot.
c) Norway had relations with the PLO.
d) Norwegian social democrats had very close ties with the Israeli Labor party, hence Norway could act as an intermediary.

1 in 5 in Gen Z believe the holocaust to be a myth. — BitconnectCarlos

Not trying to be facetious - but do you have a source for this? My children are gen Z and this seems laughable to me... Would like to know if something so ridiculous was really going on :)