Well there's the Polish resistance and the Jewish resistance and these are different matters. I believe in the Jewish resistance they mostly kept their resistance against military targets or railroads or other infrastructure like that. Regardless, reprisals intentionally directed at innocent civilians are clearly evil and deserving of retribution.

Yes they could be brutal against US soldiers in Vietnam. Hamas and the PLO consider all of Israel occupied land so you'll get brutality anywhere. It would be as if the Vietcong attacked American civilians in Massachusetts and claimed it was occupied land and that their attack constituted resistance because Massachusetts is occupied. If we listen to the actual phone calls of 10/7 perpetrators they're just bragging about killing Jews. I know for westerners it's all about "occupation" and the "west bank" but in the middle east it's a bit different.

I just don't see how targeted bombings constitute crimes against humanity. If so, everyone is guilty of it and the term has little meaning.

I just don't see how targeted bombings constitute crimes against humanity. — BitconnectCarlos

Apartheid is a crime against humanity.

Indiscriminate bombing is a different matter. It is a war crime. On the scale Israel is bombing, it could be considered (a part of) an act of genocide, which is what Israel is currently being investigated for.


Again, these apologetics are just... sad.

If you cannot distinguish between oppressor and oppressed - between VC and imperialist USA - between the Polish resistance and the Nazi occupier, etc. there's no point in conversation.

You need to have your "Are we the baddies?" moment, I suppose. Might take a while.

There is no apartheid. Arab muslims who are Israeli have equal rights. Every Israeli has equal rights. No one is owed citizenship.

The charges are spurious and Israel's bombings are targeted. Very humane combatant to civilian ratio.

I can distinguish between powerful and weaker. Israel is currently more powerful than the Gazan or West Bank authorities. Thankfully. The more powerful side isn't inherently in the wrong when it acts against the weaker side. Weak can still be thoroughly evil.

There is no apartheid. — BitconnectCarlos

Oh, is that so? Then why are Israeli newspapers full of it?

For Decades, I Defended Israel From Claims of Apartheid. I No Longer Can

Why is the Israeli human rights organisation B'Tselem calling it apartheid?

Apartheid

Why is the UN calling it apartheid?

Israel’s occupation of Palestinian Territory is ‘apartheid’: UN rights expert

Why is Amnesty International calling it apartheid?

Israel’s apartheid against Palestinians: a cruel system of domination and a crime against humanity

Why is Human Rights Watch calling it apartheid?

A Threshold Crossed: Israeli Authorities and the Crimes of Apartheid and Persecution

______________________





It brings some hope, at least, that there are some Israelis more sensible than you. But for you little hope is left, it seems.

Educate yourself. You literally have no idea.

Because Israel has freedom of press and everyone is able to speak as they like. Unlike in virtually any Arab country including the Gaza or the West Bank. That alone should put Israel on a higher tier, morally speaking. Did Nazi Germany allow free speech? Did they allow Jews in their government and courts?

Which is the lesser evil for you: Israel or the PLO/Hamas? It's unquestionably Israel, for me. And every country has racial/ethnic problems. But not all are free to speak on it. Of course Israel has problems, as does every country.

Hamas believes all of Israel is occupied territory. The Israeli far right like Ben-Gvir believe Gaza and all the West Bank should all be Israel. But Ben-Gvir is not the government, he is the far right. There are no plans to relocate or ethnically cleanse Gaza of Arab muslims that I am aware of. Netanyahu is prepared to aid in the rebuilding Palestinian infrastructure depending on disarmament.

Is there apartheid in Israel, little man?

Everything is racist and should be burned to the ground. Everything is a war crime. Got it.

For you it's not about what is done but about rather the identity of the victim and perpetrator that determines morality.

Palestinian kills Jew = Resistance. Jew kills Palestinian = war crime. We see it everywhere now. Sign of the times. And surely wherever you're from has no racial problems.

Palestinian kills Jew = Resistance. Jew kills Palestinian = war crime. — BitconnectCarlos

That's how it works when one party is oppressed and the other is oppressor. That has nothing to do with identity.

According to what standard? Are all members of an oppressed class allowed to murder members of the oppressor class? We can see where that takes us.

Palestinian kills Jew = Resistance. Jew kills Palestinian = war crime.
— BitconnectCarlos

That's how it works when one party is oppressed and the other is oppressed. That has nothing to do with identity. — Benkei

Well, hasn't that been the Palestinian/neighbor's strategy since pretty much day one? We're oppressed so we can invade, annihilate, murder/rape/kidnap our way to whatever we want? - And how's that been working for them? - The history, past and recent, is not-so-simple, and 7 Oct. (imo) set it to a violent boil, where (imo) it will remain until the hostages are returned/accounted for, and accountability imposed/acknowledged.

That is, to my way of thinking, the Israeli-Palestinian situation is and will remain a hostage situation until that is resolved, and while there are no doubt at least some behind-the-scenes discussions, I believe it is correct for the Israeli's to keep them at the top of their agenda.

Quite obviously there are limits to how resistance can be executed. 7 Oct was over the line. But as pointed out before: Be prepared for it to happen again and again and again until the underlying reasons for such attacks are dealt with. And the underlying reasons are Israeli crimes. Hamas and PLO didn't exist before the Israeli occupation. They are reactionary.

You're an idiot as usual. If it's not that simple then why is every western country blindly supporting Israel?

But of course it is simple. Don't oppress people. Don't collectively punish people. Don't run an apartheid state. Don't commit war crimes. All these things are very well established. It only turns complex for people who think the Israelis are the good guys and confronted with the cognitive dissonance that in fact they're not, they turn into the verbal equivalent of a contortionist. Painful to watch.

Quite obviously there are limits to how resistance can be executed. 7 Oct was over the line. But as pointed out before: Be prepared for it to happen again and again and again until the underlying reasons for such attacks are dealt with. — Benkei

:up:

And the underlying reasons are Israeli crimes. Hamas and PLO didn't exist before the Israeli occupation. They are reactionary. — Benkei

Here's where we part. I don't deny that some attacks are retaliatory in nature. But significant attacks on Jews happened before the creation of Israel in the 20s and 30s - these happened because the influx of Jewish immigrants were seen as a threat to the arab muslim population. These attacks were in response to Jewish power which ultimately culminated in the creation of Israel. There would be "peace" if muslims ruled and Jews submissively obeyed as they largely did under the ottomans, but such rule is hardly acceptable now. Jewish control of Jerusalem is an implacable humiliation for them. It comes down to control/power/hegemony over the holy land. It is the existence of Israel (i.e. an independent Jewish polity) that is the crime.

Thus we hear "from the river to the sea Palestine will be free" and "we don't want no two state we want all of 48" among others. 1948 was humiliation. A backwards step theologically.

What a sad attempt at a smear.

Israel is just another country on a long list of countries which have resorted to crimes against humanity in order to try and subdue an occupied population, and used their resistance as an excuse to do it. — Tzeentch

Absolutely.

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:

People doubted he would invade a large country like Ukraine too. It’s a risk, we are talking about risks here.

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?

Again it’s about risks, probability.

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).

Yes, he might have a trick or two up his sleeve.

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.”

This is a complicated claim, I’m not even sure it’s saying anything.
Surely by helping EU and forming a stronger alliance with them. the U.S. would be making Europe unexploitable to its competitors. By contrast why would U.S. make EU unexploitable to herself and her competitors?

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.

I’ve already agreed that Trump is crazy and could upset the apple cart. He’s not really a representation of the U.S. position. He’s an anomaly and I doubt he will make it to the election with any chance of winning.

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

That’s a non sequitur, I doubt that the fact that Ukraine is not now in NATO is due to squabbling between U.S. and EU.

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 struggle between hegemonic powers.

When you say hegemonic powers here, specifically, are you referring to superpowers, at any point? Or are you just referring to hegemonic power players in the Middle East?

Can you point to a regional power who is in a strong position to influence international equilibria, or a coalition perhaps?
As I’ve already said the only critical resource these players have to play with is oil. But the leverage this can exert is waning and I don’t see how this can be in anyway pivotal atm. Putin could play around with this perhaps, I don’t know.

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.

You repeat this and I agree that there has been some political interference from Russia in these issues. But I don’t see this fatal weakness you keep alluding to in EU, or U.S.

It’s true there has been a complacency in Europe in becoming involved with Russia in various ways since the collapse of USSR. But the Ukraine war has been a big wake up call and this will be corrected. Likewise in U.S., although the political problems in U.S. recently are due more to populist opportunism and hopefully it will be a wake up call there too.

So this weakening you talk about, I agree has happened, but is well and truly now in the past(the wild card of a Second term for Trump excepted), Whereas you are suggesting it’s in the future and that it will deepen. I see a sea change, one in which Europe pulls together and strengthens along with a closer alignment with U.S. and a significant weakening and failure in Russia.
(Again there’s that word hegemonic, it would be useful to distinguish between hegemonic powers who are superpowers and those who are not.)

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.

Possibilities and risks are all we’ve got in a discussion like this. Yes there has been a decline in U.S. deterrence. This is probably the shift from the unipole to the competing superpowers we see now.

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

Desalination will never produce enough fresh water to replace depleted water tables. The quantities required are vast and desalination a trickle.

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

There aren’t any Middle Eastern powers competing for regional hegemony. Yes there are people’s who hate other peoples in the region, or call for their eradication etc. But this is just heated rhetoric. Of the states in the region, some are wealthy and benefit from international commerce travel etc, these states want to hold onto their comfortable lifestyles. There are states with authoritarian leaders like Iran, Egypt and Syria who are struggling with poverty and keeping power and extravagant lifestyles for themselves and their friends. There are poor countries who just bump along the bottom. None of these countries want war, or hegemony.

(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.

Yes, China does seek to work with many countries like this around the world. This is a risk to the west, because of what it could, but might not lead to.

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.

I see this more as a case of “my enemies enemy is my friend”, Russia likes to engage in these ways. But has its own fears of Islamophobia and terrorist attacks in Russia.

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.

Agreed, with the added emphasis that Putin has hegemonic designs on neighbouring countries and is actively invading them.

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.

Close, I’m insisting on the importance of U.S. EU coalition and cooperation to counter China (this requires the neutering of Russia) and observing a change in EU to re-arm, which will deliver it.

I don’t seek to downplay what you bring to the table, I just don’t find the suggestions that there are big geopolitical risks in the Middle East compelling. Or that there is not a big geopolitical risk in Ukraine compelling.

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.

As I say, I don’t seek to downplay this evidence. I just don’t find it evidence of important geopolitical developments at this time. (I’m happy to explain why if you remind me of some of it)

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.

You refer to Trump again, yes a Trump presidency might well try to go down such a course. It’s madness of course, a fools errand. Even if Trump does win a second term in office, it is an anomaly in U.S. foreign policy, which will be corrected after he has left office.
Yes that route of appeasement may become U.S. policy, although I would say where it may have seemed rational before the invasion of Ukraine, now following the invasion, it’s is entirely irrational. It
essentially takes the deep trust and cooperation between U.S. and Europe, squanders it and then pretends to have trust in Putin’s regime. Only Trump would be so stupid. Putin would take them for whatever he could get, while winking to Xi Jingping.
Besides notions of turning Russia against China faded a long time ago and prior to the Ukraine war, the U.S. and EU had tried on many occasions to cosy up with Putin and it got nowhere, in fact it had the opposite effect. Now we have BRICS.

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

I only need to refer to one event which in a moment changed the course of EU foreign policy. On the day of the invasion of Ukraine, Putin threatened the EU with nuclear attack, while invading a large country on its border. Putin’s legacy.

for a population vulnerable to populist rhetoric

This is often exaggerated and refers to a populist reaction to levels of immigration.

(and often pro-Russian)

Lol.

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.

Climate change will result in oil becoming a stranded asset. Also these countries may become dependent on food imports, when the desert cooks.
Interestingly just last week Dubai experienced 18 months worth of rain in one day.

Clearly there are some smallish nations that exist throughout the centuries, but I see no reason why that would be the case for the Gulf States when they are surrounded by two vastly larger states, and sitting on immensely valuable strategic resources. — Tzeentch

The likely reason is just why Kuwait wasn't going to be let to be annexed by Iraq. This would change dramatically the power balance even globally. Do note just how big the opposing alliance was against Iraq, it had even Egypt, Syria, Morocco, Pakistan taking part in the alliance. Hence it's likely that if a small nation with geostrategic importance, it won't be overlooked. (However if some Senegal wants to take Gambia, likely an international alliance to defend Gambia won't emerge. If done eloquently and peacefully, a Senegambia could easily happen.)

Naturally this is just theoretical speculation, but so is your assumption that the Gulf States could be easily gobbled up without US presence. What I hope we can agree on is that if the US truly withdraws from the region, there will be a reshuffling of the cards certainly. That vacuum creates by itself a little whirlpools automatically. In fact, some could argue that whirlpool has already started as the US allies don't toe the line in similar fashion with the US as earlier.

History has followed that pattern multiple times over, so there is a clear historical trend that points in this direction - that doesn't make it a certainty, sure. — Tzeentch

And I would be extremely sceptical about historical trends. Especially in the near term (the next 50 to 100 years). As the saying goes, history never repeats, it just rhymes.

The likely reason is just why Kuwait wasn't going to be let to be annexed by Iraq. — ssu

Kuwait is not a great example to make your point. The Gulf War(s) were exactly the type of wars that were made possible by the unnatural state of unipolarity. They took place during the peak, in fact.

Today it would be unthinkable for the US to let itself get bogged down in a (ground) war in the Middle-East.

Firstly because the actors in the Middle-East are, relatively speaking, much more powerful than they were 30 years ago,
and secondly because the enemies of the US are much more powerful and ready to profit off the fact that the US would be bogging itself down in another war.

This is why the US can't commit, for example to Ukraine, or to a war with Iran. They would be playing directly into the hands of the Chinese if they were to do that.

What I hope we can agree on is that if the US truly withdraws from the region, there will be a reshuffling of the cards certainly. That vacuum creates by itself a little whirlpools automatically. In fact, some could argue that whirlpool has already started as the US allies don't toe the line in similar fashion with the US as earlier. — ssu

I'm not sure what the significance is of this, but sure with this I can agree.

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:

↪neomac

People doubted he would invade a large country like Ukraine too. It’s a risk, we are talking about risks here. — Punshhh

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?

Again it’s about risks, probability. — Punshhh

Possibilities and risks are all we’ve got in a discussion like this. Yes there has been a decline in U.S. deterrence. This is probably the shift from the unipole to the competing superpowers we see now. — Punshhh

Also to assess risks on hypothetical and counterfactual scenarios you need arguments or evidences to support them.
Besides, pointing at a risk is not enough to discourage crossing alleged red lines: motivation is surely one thing, but also means and opportunities need to be taken into account. Indeed, Putin showed his anger in 2008 at the prospect that one day Ukraine would join NATO, as Georgia. But it took Putin 14 years to prepare and find the right opportunity (which include the divisions between EU and the US, with the EU and within the US, and the declining power projection of the US vis-à-vis of its challengers) to aggress Ukraine, differently from what happened to Georgia.
To my understanding, the risk you are referring to is more specifically grounded on Western divisions, decisional weakness, and military unreadiness, than on Putin’s anger. If the West showed a united front, stable resolve and readiness to make the needed military efforts, Putin could have been and could still be very much deterred from pursuing a war against the West over Ukraine. And notice Putin frames this war mainly as a war against the West, but still Western public opinions are far from getting how existential this war can be to their prosperity and security. That’s why Putin can count on the possibility that the West gets tired of supporting Ukraine.

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.”

This is a complicated claim, I’m not even sure it’s saying anything.
Surely by helping EU and forming a stronger alliance with them. the U.S. would be making Europe unexploitable to its competitors. By contrast why would U.S. make EU unexploitable to herself and her competitors? — Punshhh

The logic is analogous to the one compelling military units to destroy their own military equipment, for example during a withdrawal, out of fear it may fall in enemies’ hands. To the extent Russia comes out emboldened and empowered from this war, the West may experience a surge of anti-Americanism which could further weaken the US power projection and leadership in Europe. So the US, along with Russia, will be compelled to try to play such divisions on their favour at the expense of the rival. Europeans experienced something similar during the Cold War: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Years_of_Lead_(Italy)

I’ve already agreed that Trump is crazy and could upset the apple cart. He’s not really a representation of the U.S. position. He’s an anomaly and I doubt he will make it to the election with any chance of winning. — Punshhh

Such a claim sounds overly bold given the available polls. I get that such polls can be wrong and there is still time for Biden’s campaign, but no chance of winning looks definitely as an overkill.

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

That’s a non sequitur, I doubt that the fact that Ukraine is not now in NATO is due to squabbling between U.S. and EU. — Punshhh

Non sequitur?! Doubt because...? These are the facts I’m referring to:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/apr/01/nato.georgia
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/02/09/german-chancellor-merkel-visit-obama/23115859/
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/14/politics/ukraine-nato-joe-biden/index.html
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-06-01/france-and-germany-are-split-over-ukraine-s-appeal-to-join-nato
https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220404-merkel-defends-2008-decision-to-block-ukraine-from-nato
https://washington.mfa.gov.hu/eng/news/why-is-hungary-blocking-ukraines-nato-accession

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 struggle between hegemonic powers.

When you say hegemonic powers here, specifically, are you referring to superpowers, at any point? Or are you just referring to hegemonic power players in the Middle East? — Punshhh

To me “superpowers” is a shorthand for the US, China and Russia. While Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia are regional powers in the Middle Eastern area which are engaging in a hegemonic struggle in the Middle East. They are hegemonic because they are vigorously supporting military and economic projection beyond their borders to primary control the middle-east, but also in Asia and Africa (example: https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20240312-turkey-iran-morocco-joust-for-greater-role-in-sahel).

Can you point to a regional power who is in a strong position to influence international equilibria, or a coalition perhaps? — Punshhh

Iran is now military supporting Russia and pressing Israel with its proxies, related to two strategic regions which have compelled, still compel, and risk to compel further the US’ intervention at the expense of pivoting to the Pacific.
https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/117148/witnesses/HHRG-118-FA13-Wstate-StroulD-20240417.pdf

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.

You repeat this and I agree that there has been some political interference from Russia in these issues. But I don’t see this fatal weakness you keep alluding to in EU, or U.S. — Punshhh

We are talking risks, right? I argued for the risks I see through historical evidences (which you admit but downplay without any counter-evidence) and strategic reasons potentially appealing to geopolitical competitors (which you conveniently narrow down based on hopes).

It’s true there has been a complacency in Europe in becoming involved with Russia in various ways since the collapse of USSR. But the Ukraine war has been a big wake up call and this will be corrected. Likewise in U.S., although the political problems in U.S. recently are due more to populist opportunism and hopefully it will be a wake up call there too. — Punshhh

Besides “hopefully” doesn’t mean “probably”, the point is that this wake up call is too recent to have set a stable and compelling trend in Western security.
Furthermore also non-Western and anti-Western powers had a wake up call at the expense of the West: Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Israel are acting accordingly.

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

Desalination will never produce enough fresh water to replace depleted water tables. The quantities required are vast and desalination a trickle. — Punshhh

I didn’t reference that link to argue that desalination will produce enough fresh water to replace depleted water tables. There may be more methods available to tackle water crisis depending on available and evolving technologies. I limited myself to argue that governments in the Middle East show self-awareness wrt climate challenges (as much as geopolitical challenges) and are already making efforts to deal with them. So it’s not evident to me that in the next ten years or so the Middle East will turn into a Mad Max style location because of a water crisis, and will stop playing any significant role in international equilibria.

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

There aren’t any Middle Eastern powers competing for regional hegemony. — Punshhh

If you have evidences that support your claim, bring them up so we can compare.
I’m talking of evidences such as:
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/iran/irans-order-chaos-suzanne-maloney
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/iran/breaking-out-its-box-washington-tehran-regional-influence
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/REPS-02-2019-0017/full/html
https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/03/20/iran-khamenei-supreme-leader-strategy-middle-east/
https://www.fairobserver.com/world-news/middle-east-news/the-new-middle-east-a-triangular-struggle-for-hegemony/
https://isdp.eu/irans-regional-proxies-reshaping-the-middle-east-and-testing-u-s-policy/
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/30/briefing/iran-proxies-israel-gaza-red-sea.html
https://epc.ae/en/details/featured-topics/navigating-the-iran-challenge-and-regional-instability-de-escalation-and-sustainable-development-strategies
https://thediplomat.com/2024/02/the-iran-factor-in-the-china-taiwan-us-triangle/
https://www.chathamhouse.org/2024/01/us-deterrence-against-iran-damaged-not-dead
https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/pivot-to-offense-how-iran-is-adapting-for-modern-conflict-and-warfare/

Notice that I do not need to argue for the emergence of a superpower in the Middle East. A dominating regional power can be already enough to contain the American power projection on the globe if the US' power projection is already offset by Russia and China's in Europe, Asia and in Africa.

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.

I see this more as a case of “my enemies enemy is my friend”, Russia likes to engage in these ways. — Punshhh

Still that’s possible because the West is currently perceived as a greater threat than Islamism.
Besides the “my enemies’ enemy is my friend” between Russia and Iran is far from being conjunctural given the numerous treatises between them like this one
https://www.reuters.com/world/putin-irans-raisi-sign-new-interstate-treaty-soon-russia-2024-01-17/
And the fact that their strategic alliance is increasing since the end of the Cold War.

I don’t seek to downplay what you bring to the table, I just don’t find the suggestions that there are big geopolitical risks in the Middle East compelling. Or that there is not a big geopolitical risk in Ukraine compelling. — Punshhh

We didn’t agree on how to measure geopolitical risks. My arguments are based on my understanding of how threats are perceived and acted upon by the actual players. The US intervened in support of Ukraine and in support of Israel. And the latter even happened at the expense of the former. This is not what one would expect if the conflict in Ukraine was evidently of grater strategic importance.
My argument is that, even if the stakes in the Ukrainian conflict may have greater impact in the hegemonic struggle between the US and China, than Israeli-Palestinian conflict one can’t reasonable use the former to downplay the latter for, at least, two reasons: there is a link between the two, and up until now the US never managed to disengage from both areas to pivot to the Pacific (and that, to me, doesn’t depend only on domestic factors like the pro-Israel lobby or the military-industrial complex)

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.

As I say, I don’t seek to downplay this evidence. I just don’t find it evidence of importance geopolitical developments at this time. (I’m happy to explain why if you remind me of some of it) — Punshhh

Concerning your reasoning, as long as the West and the Rest runs on oil from the Middle East, the Middle East is strategically important for geopolitical developments.
I think however that their importance goes beyond that since Middle Eastern’s power projection goes beyond the middle-east. So they can play a role on securing/controlling commercial routes (https://newsletter.macmillan.yale.edu/newsletter/fall-2010/american-grand-strategy-middle-east, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belt_and_Road_Initiative), immigration trends and political networking (through Islamism, financial means, military aid, etc.). And not only in the Middle East.

You refer to Trump again, yes a Trump presidency might well try to go down such a course. It’s madness of course, a fools errand. Even if Trump does win a second term in office, it is an anomaly in U.S. foreign policy, which will be corrected after he has left office. — Punshhh

Some anomalies may be more than conjunctural events. See, also re-arming to face the Russian threat is an anomaly in EU foreign policy, yet it happened under the pressure of historical circumstances. And now you may wish to argue it will grow further into a stable, effective and comprehensive defence strategy. On the other side, the prospect of Trump running for a second presidential term suggests me the possibility that Trump’s political base may be wide, strong and persistent enough to survive him. As much as the burden of the imperial overstretch inducing the US to downgrade its commitments to global hegemony. Even more so, if the EU will remain structurally weak.

for a population vulnerable to populist rhetoric

This is often exaggerated and refers to a populist reaction to levels of immigration.

(and often pro-Russian)

Lol. — Punshhh

Here some more evidence for you to downplay (while you provided none as usual):
https://ecfr.eu/article/commentary_putins_friends_in_europe7153/
Concerning pro-Russian populist parties also in Western Europe, Italy offers a good case:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/aug/31/a-success-for-kremlin-propaganda-how-pro-putin-views-permeate-italian-media
https://theins.ru/en/politics/268921
https://www.euronews.com/2022/03/09/see-what-your-friend-putin-has-done-salvini-mocked-in-poland


Dude, we clarified our different positions enough. At this point we seem to disagree so much on what constitutes an interesting, if not compelling, argument in support of some claim that I really don’t see the point of dragging this exchange further.

Palestinian [oppressed] kills Jew = Resistance. Jew [oppressor] kills Palestinian = war crime.
— BitconnectCarlos

That's how it works when one party is oppressed and the other is oppressed. That has nothing to do with identity. — Benkei

:100: :up:

It comes down to control/power/hegemony over the holy land. It is the existence of Israel (i.e. an independent Jewish polity) that is the crime. — BitconnectCarlos

The crime, in their eyes, is that such land was taken from them by a coloniser (the British) to be promised to another coloniser (zionist Jews, later Israël). The 1948 partition plan was once again enforced by external parties and therefore inherently unjust. Thereafter, Israel has acted as a coloniser by taking even more. Sometimes under the pretense of security but most often simply because they could, without addressing the underlying causes of insecurity (injustice) but instead doubling down on injustice through oppression and apartheid. Various Palestinian groups, including Hamas since 2017, have signalled a willingness to negotiate along the 1967 border, which is a huge concession already over the 1948 internationally recognised borders in favour of Israel. Yet it is insane murderous scum like Bibi that refuse to negotiate because they will ensure from the river to the sea it will be Jewish. The very slogan you complain about is policy for Likud and before that Herut. But only when it's spoken in favour of Palestinians is ie immediately condemned as genocidal intent.

Meanwhile, 700 attacks in the West Bank against Palestinians since 7 oct, half of which the IDF looks at or even participates in. Whatever "significant" attacks you think existed or exist, they pale in comparison both in number of attacks and number of victims the IDF and illegal Jewish settlers cause. All the while being the oppressors. There is no defence for such policy and no respect for those who still support it.

Ceasefire NOW. Free Palestine!

Depose, Arrest, Prosecute & Punish the war criminals Netanyahu & his regime's leaders!

@BitconnectCarlos @tim wood @RogueAI & other zionfascist apologists ...

The crime, in their eyes, is that such land was taken from them by a coloniser (the British) to be promised to another coloniser (zionist Jews, later Israël). — Benkei

We should keep in mind that there have been Jewish communities living in Palestine (and by that I mean the land) since antiquity. There have also been millions of Jews expelled from surrounding Arab countries like Egypt or Yemen who have had to migrate to Palestine and have lived there for centuries. The policies of the Ottoman Turks encouraged large migrations of Arabs in the 19th century many of whom are today's Palestinians. My point is, demographically things are really mixed up. It's not as simple as Arabs have native and Jews are colonizers. Various groups arrived at various different points. Neither Jews nor Palestinians are a monolith. The Turks were certainly colonizers.

I'm sorry if you think Jewish autonomy in Palestine is unjust but so were the millions of Jews who were expelled from their lands across the Middle East and subject to pogroms and purges under Arab rule including in Palestine before there was a Jewish state. Ancient communities of Jews were oppressed and treated as second class citizens for centuries by foreign Arab powers. We weren't going to return to it. We were prepared to share it with the Arabs who refused to cede an inch. They would not share with their neighbors insisting only on a position of dominance.

I'm sorry if you think Jewish autonomy in Palestine is unjust — BitconnectCarlos

That's not even close to what I said though. Israel is there to stay. That's not the problem at all.

Israel's existence is very much the issue as we hear the chants "from the river to the sea" and "we don't want no two state we want all of 48." It was an issue in 1948. It is certainly an issue for Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran as well as the protestors here in the US flying their flags and wearing their clothing in our major cities.

If you accept it that's great. I agree there many ways Israel can improve as a country. The US and UK are/were very flawed countries in the 40s and today.

...., tim wood..., zionfascist apologist — 180 Proof

You flatter me; I don't know enough to be a zionfascist apologist. But there does appear to be here a consistent representation that Gazans are simply innocent victims and responsibility-free. And if that be true, then who has been attacking Israel and Jews by thought, word, and deed for most of a century and more? The current situation is admittedly intolerable; no sensible person denies it. But that claim alone gets everyone nowhere, because the intolerable is happening and has been happening, and depending upon your sensibilities, has been happening for a long time.

Against my claim that these matters, at least in terms of history, are not-so-simple, the counter-claim is that they are exactly simple. And apparently in the mind of that claimant, to be "oppressed" is a carte-blanche for any action the "oppressed" should care to take. So let's assay some simplicity and see where it gets us. If anything is intolerable at the moment, it must be the current Israeli violence against Gaza. But what started that? In a word, 7 Oct. And what about Oct. 7 is still current and not merely part of the ugly history of the region? The hostages and accountability for Oct. 7.

If Hamas be in any way justified in their actions of 7 Oct., then certainly the Israelis are similarly justified in their own reply. But this logic breaks because the Israelis neither need nor are justified by anything in this argument. They are justified entirely by the simple fact that they were invaded and some 1200+ of their own were murdered/raped/abused/kidnapped, the kidnapped still held, and accountability yet to be attained. And yet in terms of current intolerability what could be a simpler step than to immediately return the hostages, account for the missing, and adjudicate accountability? And since that does not happen, I conclude that the present intolerable is indeed not only tolerable, but created, desired, and maintained by at least some Palestinians, which I suppose to be Hamas, and that I further suppose are supported by "allies," and neither those "allies nor Hamas caring a whit for the lives of Gazans, those lives being for them mere fodder.

And so the simple question, if the Gazans have been so oppressed for so long, and they think that atrocity is the way out, how's that working for them?

Glad to hear that you’re a Zionist. :)

That's just an exaggeration. There's no existential threat. Nobody in his right mind is demanding the dismantling of the Israeli state. The extent of its borders and its relations with the Palestinians, its war crimes, its apartheid regime, etc. are an issue.

I don't know enough ... — tim wood

Yes, that's why i linked you and others to this video on 'the history' of Israeli oppression of Gazans et al.

Also this (in case you missed or willfully ignored @Tzeentch's) post ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/898196

... representation that Gazans are simply innocent victims and responsibility-free.

Strawman, of course. 'Collective punishment' (e.g. domicide¹) and 'disproportionate retaliatory slaughter' of a several decades-long captive population for "October 7th" by (US client-state) Israel are, at least, ongoing war crimes.

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-01-04/ty-article-magazine/.highlight/amid-israeli-destruction-in-gaza-a-new-crime-against-humanity-emerges-domicide/0000018c-d585-d751-ad8d-ffa5965e0000 [1]

https://fnl.mit.edu/january-march-2024/domicide-the-mass-destruction-of-homes-should-be-a-crime-against-humanity/ [1]

Really? No one?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBwzNAV4sWs&t=218s (It's less than 5 minutes)

When they say liberate Palestine they mean all of it.