And this just shows how difficult it is to get a negotiated peace in the Middle East. — ssu

However, as recent events have demonstrated, the entire Arab world is not Israel's enemy. Jordan and the Saudis evidently are not fans of the Iranian regime and the Arab world has its own divides.

Why not would they? They still need to have relations with European and Asian states. They couldn't do it unnoticed, that's for sure. — ssu

Did the Gazans think this way on 10/7? Or during the second intifada? Their plan is to defeat Israel and then it's onto Europe. Look up the Banu Qurayza. You'll hear "Khybar, Khybar ya Yahud" chanted.

However, as recent events have demonstrated, the entire Arab world is not Israel's enemy. Jordan and the Saudis evidently are not fans of the Iranian regime and the Arab world has its own divides. — BitconnectCarlos

And this just undermines also the idea that all Arab countries are just waiting to get the chance to kill all the Jews and/or push them into the sea. The rhetoric is one thing, the actions are another thing.

Do notice that countries like Saudi-Arabia, UAE and even Russia have all asked both sides to ease tensions, btw.

When it comes to Saudi-Arabia, just ask which country has attacked it last? Israel or Iran? Well, Israel has actually never attacked Saudi-Arabia (that I at least know of). Iran has, just a while ago. And the US didn't come to the help of the Saudis (which they likely remember). Are there real tensions between the Saudis and Israel? Well, The Saudis have deployed some forces to the war theatre at some time, but hasn't been engaged in open war with Israel.

Or just look at Iran.

Notice that this is quite the same playbook as Iran did with Trump: it did attack with ballistic missiles US bases after the killing of the Iranian general in Iraq. At least with the US this didn't follow up with Trump then going another step in the escalation ladder. Iran might hope for this, but perhaps the lure for Bibi is too great now. IDF is already talking of counter strikes.

I’m sure that I’m “not sure if that’s relevant”.

It’s relevant if that anger goes beyond the point of rationality. — Punshhh

That’s a possibility, sure, but I would need a more solid argument for the likelihood of something happening in a hypothetical or counterfactual scenario. For example, if Ukraine managed to join NATO, would still Putin attack NATO out of anger? I doubt it and, as far as geopolitical actors are concerned, they seem to doubt it too: indeed, the reason for Ukraine to join NATO was to deter Putin from attacking Ukraine, otherwise what would be the point of joining NATO if Putin would attack anyway just out of anger? Putin may attack NATO out of a more hawkish calculus though to the extent NATO countries show lack of resolve (due to economic dependency) and/or fear for escalation (for lack of readiness and will to fight for allies).

That there are differences in foreign policy between U.S. and EU, such that U.S. would seek to keep EU down, or weak. Again I’m just not seeing it. — Punshhh

First of all, my claim was: “the more the European strategic interest diverges from the US national interest and the European partnership turns unexploitable by the US, the more the US may be compelled to make Europe unexploitable to its hegemonic competitors too.” Secondly, I argued that the conflict in Ukraine and in Palestine are straining Western public opinion and nurturing conflict of interests among allies, to the point that for example a US candidate for the next presidential elections like Trump dared to say “he would encourage Russia to attack Nato allies” if they do not comply with Trump’s demands.
Besides, I do not think EU governments and advisors are downplaying the gravity of such claims, or the US questionable commitment toward the Ukrainian conflict.
https://www.rferl.org/a/trump-nato-russia-attack-white-house-appalling-unhinged/32814229.html
https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-nuclear-warfare-detterence-manfred-weber-vladimir-putin-ukraine-russia-war/
Poland's foreign minister on concerns the U.S. will abandon Ukraine, Europe 
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHxjutEfhww)
If you do not see that, again do not bother answering me.

The alliance between them is strong and in lockstep. The status of Ukraine, or the expansion of EU and NATO to the east is not a controversial issue between them. — Punshhh

If it wasn’t a controversial issue between EU and US why didn’t Ukraine join EU and NATO yet?

The Middle Eastern regional powers are small fry, Turkey is not far off a failed state and the Arab states just want to hold on to their decadent lifestyles. — Punshhh

I think you underestimate the strategic leverages of Middle East regional powers in the international equilibria, considering also the influence they have in the once called “Third World”. And, again, the closer hegemonic powers get in terms of capacity, the greater the impact of smaller powers can be over the power struggles between hegemonic powers.

The point is that the combination of persisting EU vulnerabilities plus incumbent weakening of the US leadership, will turn Europe into a more disputable area for hegemonic competition among the US and other rival hegemonic powers, and this could threaten both NATO and EU project.

This is the flawed argument I was referring to.
I think the best you’ve got here is some sort of general malaise and internal collapse in the EU, or U.S. The EU is now rearming and stronger as an alliance due to the example of the U.K. (having left the EU). Also as I say if Ukraine joins, it will provide a considerable boost in numerous ways. The U.S. is in a more precarious position, (I see Trump more and more as a busted flush now) but is still strong militarily and can print money to pull itself out of the malaise. — Punshhh

You seem to be grounding your arguments mostly on possibilities, but that’s not enough to assess likelihood. Sure it could be just a malaise that the West will manage to overcome, but it is too soon to see in Western re-arming a new stable trend that will succeed in building collective strategic deterrence, despite all persisting conflict of interests. While the decline of the US deterrence and leadership has just kept notably growing since 9/11.

Yes, however there might be severe climate issues there in a few decades. Saudi has some dubious practices including building ski slopes in the desert and depleting water tables, something they’re doing to U.S. water tables too. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/16/fondomonte-arizona-drought-saudi-farm-water/ — Punshhh

Sure that doesn’t mean they are hopeless vis-à-vis climate change:
https://www.watermeetsmoney.com/saudi-water-investment-showcase-at-the-global-water-summit/

Besides, even though they compete for regional hegemony, yet the most acute and local problems they have to face coming from Islamism, environmental challenges, growing population (https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/05/why-the-world-s-fastest-growing-populations-are-in-the-middle-east-and-africa/), plus the mediation of greater powers, like China, may also solicit greater cooperation among them to face shared future challenges, including the threats of a multipolar world like hawkish non-middle eastern hegemonic powers.

Sounds more like a liability for China, Russia etc.. Also it would mean them getting into bed with these Islamists you talk about. — Punshhh

It depends if China and Russia perceive Islam as a greater threat than the West. So far it doesn’t seem to be the case, given the support/cooperation China and Russia grant to Iran (the only country in which the islamic revolution thus far succeeded), Hezbollah, Houthi and Hamas.

This is the flawed argument I was referring to. — Punshhh

Weak argument, unless we are talking of a world slipping into distopia. Climate change might deliver this though. — Punshhh

Clearly mine is just a speculation. But a principled one because I take into account strategic logic of geopolitical players and historical circumstances to assess likelihood. And the conclusion is that we have reasons to worry about how things may evolve in Ukraine but also in the Middle East given the current predicament.
Your argument seems mostly about downplaying the evidence I bring, insisting on the need for the US to have a strong EU to counter Russia and China, insisting on the fact of European re-arming, and on the incumbent crisis in the Middle East due to climate change.
What I counter is:
1. Downplaying the evidence I bring is rather pointless since what matters is to what extent geopolitical actors take such evidence seriously and act upon it. If Middle East wasn’t important to the US, the US wouldn’t engage in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at the expense of the conflict in Ukraine.
2. Insisting that the US needs something doesn’t imply it will get it. Besides the pivot to China, may lead the US to appease Russia’s hegemonic ambitions in Europe to turn Russia against China (which is the raising power, geographically closer to Russia than the US), as argued by various political analysts including Mearsheimer. Indeed, Trump's approach to Russia can be in line with such view (https://carnegieendowment.org/2017/05/24/donald-trump-s-plan-to-play-russia-against-china-is-fool-s-errand-pub-70067). Russia’s appeasement in Europe on the other side may be costly for EU/NATO/Ukraine, and also turn more destabilising than the US may tolerate (if not to Trump’s administration, to post-Trump’s administrations) , soliciting a hegemonic competition in Europe.
3. European re-arming is a recent phenomenon so it doesn't help much to assess the future and effectiveness of the collective European defence strategy (considering various strategic factors like defence industry, conscription, nuclear, etc.) given its controversial costs for a population vulnerable to populist (and often pro-Russian) rhetoric.
4. Climate change is definitely an incumbent challenge that concerns the entire world, and Middle East governments are aware of its risks and urgency, especially due to how exposed they are. That doesn’t mean they are doomed to succumb to a climate crisis or to geopolitical irrelevance, given how pro-actively and effectively they are already acting wrt climate change and evolving geopolitical challenges.

Whatever it is that you or your ancestors believed in, I want you to know that it's fucking dumb and it's clearly devolved from what it was. Let me explain it to you. Let me tell you what it means to be Dutch. Now go open your borders and welcome in more migrants.

Iran might hope for this, but perhaps the lure for Bibi is too great now. IDF is already talking of counter strikes. — ssu

After the attack I figure Israel must respond in some way to save face even if its orchestrated. Yet Israel did not respond militarily within a day or two of the attack so clearly they're taking their time with it. Bibi already has a war with Hamas and I don't see potentially sparking WWIII as something that he'd hope to get involved with, yet he must respond in some way. How - I don't know.

And this just undermines also the idea that all Arab countries are just waiting to get the chance to kill all the Jews and/or push them into the sea. — ssu

Yeah, this idea is somewhat of a relic of wars of past decades as well as the fact that Israel has no true friends in the region. It is not the case for all the Arabs, but some certain wish for Israel's demise. Israel and Jordan or the Saudis may share common enemies, but I would hardly call them "friends" like the US-UK are or the US and Canada. Even biblically, Israel is described as a nation which often goes at it alone. And Israel is not wrong in being cautious of Islam. The last Jewish state lasted 103 years (2nd and 1st century BC), this current one is at 76 and has had 8 wars so I'd expect a few more over the next few decades.

Poor ol' Germans seem doomed to be on the wrong side of history again.

Bibi already has a war with Hamas and I don't see potentially sparking WWIII as something that he'd hope to get involved with, yet he must respond in some way. — BitconnectCarlos

He would be interested in it if his goal is to stay in power to avoid jail. However given the significance of starting a regional war that literally nobody wants it seems that may be a step too far even for him and that may explain why Israel hasn't responded yet.

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

:smirk: :up:

Jeffrey Sachs providing us with a brutally honest take on the sorry state of US, UK and Israeli foreign policy.

The only point I disagree with him on, is the fact that US foreign policy isn't guided solely by Biden's desperate attempt to salvage his election. Biden's re-election chances are only one of many perverse incentives that rear their ugly heads during this perfect shitstorm.

The US is still guided by its age-old strategy of divide & conquer on the Eurasian mainland, for which it needs conflict and a lot of it.

Iran is set to become regional hegemon if left unchecked (based on population, there is no question). The US can't have that. It just so happens that Israel wouldn't like that either, and that Israel holds a lot of sway in US domestic politics, and that's how we come full shitcircle.

certainly since nations are a recent invention — Benkei

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

Jews are indigenous to the region — BitconnectCarlos

I guess they are, after all they are Canaanites, their nation originated there. But then you have little grounding to say Palestinians are also not indigenous, as they have lived there for over a thousand years, regardless of some Jihad 1400 years ago, to which they have little responsibility over. Not only that, but despite speaking Arabic and being Muslim, their genes also trace back to the region, more than any Ashkenazi or Sephardi, perhaps just as much as many Mizrahim. If a person born from Jewish parents is non-religious and does not know the modern, artificial Hebrew, does that mean he is a Jew or no? If yes, Palestinians are also indigenous to the region, because your criterion is not culture or language, but ancestry.

Consider the following:

Now go open your borders and welcome in more migrants. — BitconnectCarlos

Did you get that line from the Talmud?

Tbh I mentally checked out when I read Judaism is "fucking dumb." I get it, you think all the religions of the world are "fucking dumb" except, apparently, whatever you follow (which you have not made entirely clear). That belief would be truth and it is that which must be taught to everyone else including those idiots in the Middle East. I'm just not dealing with it today. I'll respond to your bigotry before anything else. So no, you don't get a response from me until I deal with the attitudes/assumptions behind your response. Saying Judaism is a "fucking dumb" religion is a ridiculous statement. Maybe it's that monotheism is stupid? Or all theisms in general are stupid? Then just say that. :roll:

But I suspect that there's something about Judaism in particular that you do not like which is what makes you a bigot. :wink:

Regardless of whether we call Palestinians "indigenous" or not -- and I've heard all types of theories e.g. that many of them descend from workers imported by the Ottoman empire in the 19th century, that they're genetically closer to Jordan or Egypt.... Whatever it is, I think most Israelis would be fine giving them a state as long as they accepted the existence of Israel which they have not and have instead just engaged in constant violence since Israel's inception. It's a security matter above all else. Israel doesn't want Hamas or the PLO importing nukes or biological weapons.

Did you get that line from the Talmud? — Lionino

:roll:

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

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

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

"Born from oblivion; bear children, hell-bound as ourselves; go into oblivion. There is nothing else. Existence is random. Has no pattern save what we imagine after staring at it for too long. No meaning save what we choose to impose. This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It's us. Only us."

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

Come to think of it, isn't a 28 year old Dutch woman due to be euthanized next month for depression? Why is death a bad thing, after all. Why prefer it over life? Why does life even have value? :chin: Death does mean no more pain, after all. Why drudge yourself to work in the morning when you could just euthanize yourself? The muslims will not have a hard time with this country - although you have a potential savoir in Geert.

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

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

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

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

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

False dichotomy. — Benkei

Is my quote representative of your beliefs or not? I'd figure it is. You're an atheistic materialist. No? The universe has no real meaning/value save what we choose to impose?

But nice try trying to make this personal and misrepresenting what I said so you can pretend I'm just another bigoted antisemite. — Benkei

But I really get the sense that you are. You talk about xenophobic rabbis. I can tell you don't like that the Jews stick to their own. You probably think they believe themselves superior. You may not be a Christian, but you're familiar with the New Testament - a massive source of anti-semitism. You routinely criticize Jewish barbarism, yet never really Muslim barbarism. And now you want me to condemn Bibi for waging war on Hamas after murdering 1200 Israelis? The idea that Judaism is the dumbest religion is also anti-semitic and ridiculous. But above all, it would be your attempt to deny and deconstruct Jewish identity that is anti-semitic. Judaism is passed on through the mother and Judaism is indigenous to Israel. It is the historic homeland of the Jews with Jerusalem as the cultic center.

You're an atheist who doesn't believe in anything. — BitconnectCarlos

:lol:

Then there are Jews like you I feel mostly sorry for for having been brainwashed to the point where you have no moral backbone to stand up to the scum amongst your midst. — Benkei

:clap:

Nor have I been brainwashed. — BitconnectCarlos

Oh, well that closes the book on that one I guess.

You don't view intention as morally relevant. :roll: :lol:

You're an atheist who doesn't believe in anything. — BitconnectCarlos

You don't view intention as morally relevant. — BitconnectCarlos

You are _____. You do ____. You believe ____.

Always hilarious. :rofl:

What’s wrong with trying to understand the beliefs and worldview of an interlocutor? I like to understand why people think as they do.

What’s wrong with trying to understand the beliefs and worldview of an interlocutor? I like to understand why people think as they do. — Moses

Yeah, which is why declaring what others believe or think is stupid and embarrassingly funny.

Eh, nevermind.

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

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

You're an atheistic materialist. No? The universe has no real meaning/value save what we choose to impose? — BitconnectCarlos

:roll: C'mon, dude, for fuck's sake. Atheism =/= nihilism. Materialism =/= nihilism. Anti-zionism (i.e. anti-greater israel fascism) =/= nihilism. Anti-oppressors =/= nihilism. Anti-Netanyahu's regime =/= nihilism.

Opposing systematic military slaughter of an apartheid-corraled, ethnically cleansed civilian population without any Bronze Age religious cult's "promise of eternal reward" (or "promised land"-grab!) exemplifies historically-situated moral goodness (and courage) in contrast to theo-fascist apologia like post-1967 zionism-über-alles. After all, "faith" has always been a blanket rationalization for moral cretinism – in effect, nihilism. :shade:

After the attack I figure Israel must respond in some way to save face even if its orchestrated. Yet Israel did not respond militarily within a day or two of the attack so clearly they're taking their time with it. Bibi already has a war with Hamas and I don't see potentially sparking WWIII as something that he'd hope to get involved with, yet he must respond in some way. How - I don't know. — BitconnectCarlos

You got the answer today.

Anyway, as Israel did attack the embassy, it's likely that the Netanyahu government did want to escalate this to Iran, as it's likely frustrated to have just the proxies having this tit-for-tat exchanges. Firstly, this moves focus away from the possible Rafah operation and then if Iran (and Hezbollah now respond), then Israel can freely go and fight Hezbollah and also attack the supply lines all the way into Iran. It's been long anticipated that there's going to be a war with Hezbollah (after all, all those tens of thousands Israelis now evacuated from the northern border aren't happy). All better for Bibi if Iran declares the war and Bibi can portray himself not to be the aggressor.

I think Bibi is quite open to have a little war with Iran. And for himself, why not? He can save his political career only by being a great victorious leader of Israel who singlehandedly defeated all of it's last existing enemies.

Yeah, this idea is somewhat of a relic of wars of past decades as well as the fact that Israel has no true friends in the region. — BitconnectCarlos

But it's propaganda value works well especially for those that aren't informed about the existing realities and people who still only remember and live in the 20th Century (Biden?).

Poor ol' Germans seem doomed to be on the wrong side of history again. — bert1

It actually shows just how much we truly value things like "freedom of speech". It's very sad.

What was hilarious was the Jewish person that was arrested carrying a sign "Jews against genocide" asking the police if he should then have had a sign "Jews for Genocide". But yes, obviously a gathering of hideous Islamists. As the German interior minister put it:

(Reuters) "It is right and necessary that the Berlin police intervened firmly at the so-called Palestine Congress," Interior Minister Nancy Faeser posted on social media. She earlier had urged police to be on guard for signs of hate speech at the congress.

Ah, onward to the triumph of defeating hate speech and hate speaking Islamists like Yanis Varoufakis. :joke:

The only point I disagree with him on, is the fact that US foreign policy isn't guided solely by Biden's desperate attempt to salvage his election. — Tzeentch

This is a bipartisan cause. And it's not simply the 7 million Jewish-American votes (of whom many don't like the present right-wing government in Israel), it's the Evangelicals which there are tens of millions, who want to support Israel. It's simply a domestic issue, not something chosen because of foreign policy realities.

Iran is set to become regional hegemon if left unchecked (based on population, there is no question). — Tzeentch

How?

There's a firm coalition against it on the Arab side. Even Nasser's Pan-Arabism didn't work because it posed a threat to the regions monarchies and utterly failed in creating an unified Arabian state with the attempt of unification with Syria. How on Earth then will Iran, a Shiite non-Arab nation, get to be the hegemon when a) it attacked Pakistan, b) It had a long proxy war with Saudi-Arabia and the UAE and allies, c) Iraqis don't want to be Iranian puppets and d) the Axis of resistance, Miḥwar al-Muqāwamah, are non-state actors with one being a side in a civil war that are totally dependent on it's arms.

If you want to be a hegemon, then you should have real allies and at least country that have Finlandization as their policy towards you. That's not happening. I think only Armenia in the region wants the help from Iran in it's dire situation.

Population doesn't matter. Heck, Bangladesh isn't going to become a hegemon. And btw Iranian population isn't growing as it used to before the 1990's, I think the women's fertility rate is just above 2. Hence it will stay as big as it is now.
.

The quote I posted was existentialism. Man creates his own values. I thought a comparison of belief systems might be fruitful to the discussion. I sought to understand my interlocutor's belief system. The discussion at this point was about Judaism.

If a minority population of white supremacists under a white supremacist government killed 1200 blacks in an alternative timeline where blacks are the dominant power group, would you appreciate people calling for a ceasefire or to not respond at all? How would you respond to the world telling you that you need to be nicer to them and stop oppressing them. You need to let them import whatever weapons (i.e. grant them statehood) despite their government's stated intention to either murder or subjugate you. Anything else would be apartheid.

Earliest nation-states are usually linked to the treaty of Westphalia — Benkei

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

A country is definitely not a nation-state — Benkei

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

I will note however that I am quite confident most people criticising Israel here were supportive of it before 2023. And that they only started shitting on it after it became the Twitter-approved opinion.