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.

1) What do you say should be done now about the hostages? Something? Anything? Nothing? If something, what, exactly?

2) You added to the video you reference above, "Free Palestine!" What exactly do you mean by that?

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

At least if it would be Saudi-Arabia, then yes. Even Trump would defend the Saudi oil fields. And btw this was the major threat that the annexation of Kuwait posed.

Assuming that the belligerent would be Iran. But of course it could be that the Gulf States themselves would have a war. It came really close with Qatar. Then naturally the US would be just looking at a very awkward situation where it's so-called allies fight each other. Not a very good place to be. Already it's "allies" can be found on different sides for example in Libya or Sudan.

Nobody in this thread.

Edit: in any case, as long as Israel refuses to negotiate Hamas' goal will be the total liberation of Palestine yes. But they have already offered to negotiate on the basis of the 1967 boundaries. So really, your point isn't even accurate.

1) What do you say should be done now about the hostages? — tim wood

They all should be released asap just as all the Palestinian non-militants held hostage and tortured in Israeli prisons should be released. And the nearly 2 million Gazan hostages should be released asap. Lastly, the Israeli population, who are hostages of several decades of right wing, colonizer-settler "Greater Israel", anti-peace policies, should be released as well.

2) You added to the video you reference above, "Free Palestine!" What exactly do you mean by that?

Exactly what you apologists fear – the aspirational struggle: Palestine free of Israeli occupation & oppression. No doubt, at least since 1967, opposing a free Palestine consequently opposes a free Israel.

You could always negotiate with a hungry lion by giving it your leg.

Amen, mostly.

Palestine free of Israeli occupation & oppression. — 180 Proof

Are you representing that the Palestinians would accept a peace with Israel? Their rhetoric and actions have been clear that they would not, and I'm afraid Oct. 7 and other events have got some Israelis singing the same tune.

Btw, here is the first of an undergraduate course of lectures on the Bible and incidentally on Middle Eastern history. Interesting stuff. Offered here because at the outset of her introductory remarks the lecturer places the Israelites in Canaan - pretty much modern Israel - 3000+ years ago, not that that is news.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mo-YL-lv3RY&list=PLh9mgdi4rNeyuvTEbD-Ei0JdMUujXfyWi
The lectures themselves being an education for any who care to receive it.

Funny how they never demand a Palestine free of Hamas’s occupation & oppression. Such a thing is never mentioned. Everything with these people is one sided.

:roll: Clearly you are severely allergic – cognitively dissonant due – to the relevant historical and critical information provided most recently by and others.

Funny how they never demand a Palestine free of Hamas’s occupation & oppression. — Moses

Not half as "funny" as the apologists for decades of Israeli settler dispossession, Shin Bet apartheid and IDF collective punishment who incorrigibly fail to recognize/acknowledge that Hamas and others "terrorists" are the logical consequence of (US-backed) Irgun/Likudnik *zion-über-alles* fascism. As long as a man is beaten savagely everyday like a dog, the only moral "demand" is for the beatings to stop in order for 'the dog' to learn how to stop trying to rip out 'the dog-beater's' throat. "Eye for an eye", Moses – lose-lose or win-win: oppressor's (Pharoah's), not the oppressed's (Hebrew exiles'), choice. :brow:

You keep looking at this as if Israel is the victim. They're not. It's both aggressor and oppressor. A coloniser. It would sooner be the other away around, where the leg is land the Palestinians should have owned.

what about freeing the Palestinian people from being hostages of their own governments and their oppressive policies? Destroy all oppression. Release everybody!

Destroy all oppression — Moses

The aggressor-oppressor (apartheid) State of Israel first. :up:

If we’re serious about destroying all oppression we could all just kill ourselves. But in the meantime I say Hamas first - the aggressor and oppressor.

If we’re serious about destroying all oppression we could all just kill ourselves. But in the meantime I say Hamas first - the aggressor and oppressor.

Hamas is like an amoeba, it can’t be destroyed, or removed. This is the legacy of the Israeli oppression of Palestinians.

:100:

to the relevant historical and critical information provided most recently by ↪180 Proof and others. — 180 Proof

Ah, yes, the relevant history. You're not that stupid, 180, what are you doing talking about relevant history? Or if it's relevant history you want, how about the hostages from 7 Oct.? That's about as relevant and current as you can get. Further, these are bona fide hostages. I am unaware of any hostages held by the Israelis. Or can't you tell the difference between the two?

I am unaware of any hostages held by the Israelis. — tim wood

Willful ignorance (my mistake assuming the video, etc I'd offered you upthread would help educate you on this matter) or craven deceit. :shade:

Obviously, you're not serious ...

Willful ignorance ...or craven deceit. — 180 Proof

So you cannot tell the difference between persons ripped out of Israel by Hamas as hostages and persons detained by Israel. Perhaps you're one with those who call the Jan. 6 rioters, those convicted and jailed, "hostages." I suggest you take a quick Google look at the word and remind yourself what it means.

What I am on about is that one group of people is bearing the weight of a war against presumably a fanatical minority of themselves who have so burrowed into the civilian infrastructure for concealment and protection that the civilian population is necessarily subject to the blows of that war, a war directly caused by that minority, and which minority possesses at least a few keys to bringing about an end to that war, which they to date refuse to use. To my way of thinking the Palestinians are victims of many things, chief among those things themselves, their choices, their beliefs. The genius of Hamas is to get the Israelis to be the agents of the death and destruction. And given the provocation, for at least the time while the hostages are still held and until some accountability adjudicated, I do not entirely fault the Israelis.

I am 100% serious in calling the Palestinian governments oppressors and aggressors. Islam is an expansionist political ideology which Hamas takes very seriously. “First the Saturday people, then the Sunday people.” First the Jews, then the West. But maybe you’d be fine with that.

]Netanyahu Calls Student Protests Antisemitic and Says They Must Be Quelled

War criminal and genocide leader calls anyone protesting the murder of thousands of women and children “antisemitic,” and wants to stifle free speech. Good luck.

Love seeing these amazing people out there. Police pushback and media lies will only lead to more of them. History will judge them well.

:yawn:
Here's a video of an interview with Jewish-American (forensic scholar) political activist Norman Finklestein with the title: Memory Of The Holocaust Is Abused By Zionists As A "Weapon"

@RogueAI @BitconnectCarlos

This is the legacy of the Israeli oppression of Palestinians. — Punshhh

:100:

I listened. What about it? - I did notice the piece is edited in places where i would have liked to have heard more; e.g., about 18:00 to 18:30, when we don't hear what the first thing he had to do was. More to the point, why do you not succinctly reprise whatever his argument is?

If I may be permitted a metaphor: much so-called intellectual effort feeds on itself, in the way that art critics might discuss and criticize paintings and more significantly each other and their own criticisms. But what is the concern here is not the paint, but the canvas itself and it's material and structure, which for my metaphor stand for the underlying reality, truth, and facts of the matter, and those as prior to interpretation of them.

I have a challenge for you that of course you're free to disqualify. I think if you consider your own cultural experiences and identity, you may find some points of identity with the Jew/Israeli Palestinian circumstance. (Are you familiar with the Brouwer's fixed point theorem - the idea here being that fixed points of reference between things otherwise different is not in itself an outrageous or unreasonable idea.) And the idea being not to warm to any particular of current events, rather the challenge to dig as deep as possible to find the ground, sub-stratum, ultimate cause of all the strife. Not subsequent causes, as in chains of cause and effect, but the start of the thing.

As a clue to my thinking, it may be that a person will be attracted to notions of freedom; and why not, it's a powerful and attractive idea. But the question of freedom usually arises in substantive form when and where there is a lack of it - fair enough. But what underlies that? Why, or what, accounts for that lack of freedom in the first place? To me this is a foundational question, meaning that anything built on the subject without addressing it is very likely built to fail, as being built on a faulty foundation.

In this, one can see that Oct 7th is an immense distraction, and yet one that cannot be ignored as a distraction. And I ask your view as to what it is a distraction from, and why, for what purpose, and for whose benefit. That is, what monstrous thing is concealed in the shadows beyond this raging bonfire?

a load of text to pretend you think deeply about this issue when your analysis doesn't even begin to scratch the surface. It's ridiculous.

@180 Proof

Here's Douglas Murray interviewing a reformed Hamas militant (Palestinian muslim) who is deeply knowledgeable. It's also age restricted so if you're under 18 do not click the link.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_j2mXvZHTuo

a load of text to pretend you think deeply about this issue when your analysis doesn't even begin to scratch the surface. It's ridiculous. — Benkei

Nah. You're ridiculous.

Btw, this game takes little effort to play, offering little in the way of rewards. Why don't you try something substantive instead?

I'm suggesting that the anti-Jew/Israeli anti-Semitism of the Middle-East runs deep, like racism in the US, and consideration of the one, by one who knows it, may aid in understanding the other. Or do you think mere palliatives and superficial nostrums are the right medicine?

Why are you referring to Israel with they/them pronouns? Zionism seeks a homeland, Islam seeks the world. After Israel, Europe. If defending oneself from a pathogen which seeks to eat you is aggression then Israel is the aggressor, sure. Hamas demands a return to 1967 borders at which point they will continue their "negotiations" i.e. their unwavering fight to destroy Israel through whatever means possible. Yet ofc it's Israel who refuses to negotiate. Hamas is cancer that needs eradication as is fundamentalist Islam.

anti-Jew/Israeli anti-Semitism of the Middle-East runs deep — tim wood

Ah, and Israeli war crimes, mass slaughter and crimes against humanity somehow changes that situation for the better?

And here I was, thinking that would make the situation much, much worse.

@RogueAI @Moses et al ...

[W]hat monstrous thing is concealed in the shadows beyond this raging bonfire? — tim wood

Several decades of suffering of the dispossessed – Warsaw Ghettoized – Palestinian people.

https://imeu.org/article/quick-facts-the-palestinian-nakba

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba

And like antisemite Holocaust denial, anti-arab zionists also deny/blame their victims ...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba_denial :mask:

Zionism seeks a homeland — BitconnectCarlos

... The Promised Land Grab ... Manifest Destiny ... White Man's Burden ... Lebensraum ... Making Apartheid Great Again ...

https://inthesetimes.com/article/jewish-anti-zionism-israel-palestine-colonialism-annexation-apartheid :fire:

Also to assess risks on hypothetical and counterfactual scenarios you need arguments or evidences to support them.

Quite, like words of agressors being backed up by actions.

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.

Of course, the complacency in Europe failed to act as a deterrence against Putin’s expansionism. But the EU along with U.S. attempted to appease Russia following the collapse of USSR and bring her into the fold. Which is something you were suggesting U.S. could do as an anti China policy(appease). An approach which has failed, at least while Putin is in office. Lending weight to my position that Europe will now pull back from cooperation and collaboration with Russia and with help from U.S. weaken Russia and strengthen the boundaries and defence of EU. Thus discredit Russia on the world stage.

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.

Yes, something an idiot like Trump might do. We see now that under Biden’s leadership $60billion has now been provided to prevent it.
You provide a good reason there for why the U.S. and EU should now form a strong coalition.

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.

I’m thinking ahead to Trump’s name being dragged through the courts throughout the summer. He is currently sitting in a courtroom with a porn star every day for 6 weeks to avoid being arrested for contempt of court.

Non sequitur?! Doubt because...? These are the facts I’m referring to:

I’ve read your links, although apart from them being an interesting read, I don’t see a compelling case for squabbles between U.S. and EU being the cause of why Ukraine hasn’t yet joined NATO. What is often missed in such articles is the complexity of considerations of the political and economic conditions in the countries involved. So what appears as a protracted disagreement on the surface, may just be posturing following negotiations considering these circumstances. While beneath the surface the calculation had been reached and agreed between the players involved.

I think you underestimate the strategic leverages of Middle East regional powers in the international equilibria,

Perhaps, by international equilibria, you are talking about balance between superpowers. I’m not seeing it. The presence, or not of U.S. in the region would make a big difference, otherwise, who’s going to do what?

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

I don’t see anything out of the ordinary here. Most states are involved in escapades like this. Get back to me when one is about to invade another. If they did, it would risk them becoming a failed state like Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, or Lebanon.

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.

Yes, vocally Iran would conquer the whole region. It’s not happening though. Iran is a weak unstable country. The majority of the population would overthrow the regime if an opportunity arose.
As I say, what I see in the region is lots of small countries either in economic trouble, or wanting to hold onto their wealth, or controlling their countries through authoritarian control. All trying to keep quiet in the hope they won’t become one more failed state. They will be well aware of what has happened in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, Ethiopia, Lybia (this list would be a lot longer if countries in a precarious position were included) in recent years and watching Israel, perhaps becoming a failed state now.

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).

Perhaps the difference is how we each interpret the available information.

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.

Oh, so Europe might not rearm now, right oh.

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.

Yes, perhaps. The whole region is a tinder box, I doubt that will end well.

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.

I’m referring to a fresh water crisis, something which will be widespread in the future. There isn’t a technology that can replace it in sufficient quantities.

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.

U.S. is just protecting its oil interests in the region. No one is containing their spread in the region and they’re not spreading.

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.

Yes, I have said that Russia might play games in the region and China is gradually spreading her economic involvement like an amoeba, like she has been across the world. These things are and will be perceived as a threat to Israel, not so much U.S.
Russia’s deal with Iran is Putin asking for help in a desperate attempt to salvage his catastrophic foreign policy failure in Ukraine.

We didn’t agree on how to measure geopolitical risks.

Well you just seem to be playing the devils advocate. I agree with most of what you say, I just come to a different assessment as to where the risks lie.

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.

It seems now that support for Israel didn’t come at the expense of Ukraine, now that the money has come through ( delayed for internal reasons in U.S.) A couple of days ago PM Sunak described the threat to Europe, NATO, from Putin as existential and that he is putting U.K. arms production on a war footing. Along with similar from Macron yesterday.

than Israeli-Palestinian conflict one can’t reasonable use the former to downplay the latter

I haven’t done this.

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)

I don’t subscribe to the pivot ideology. My position is that a pivot is not needed provided Russia is neutered.

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.

Yes for the foreseeable, on this issue I am talking longer than 10yrs. The U.S. is providing stability here, I don’t see a change in that for now.

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.

Yes I’m aware of all these things and U.S. will continue to secure her interests in the region, namely oil and her coalition with Saudi. Isreal is giving them a headache atm. But it is becoming clear now that despite how provocative Isreal is, her neighbours are not going to be drawn into a wider conflagration, as I explain.

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.

I have listened to a republican yesterday saying that they had not been prepared for how disfunctional Trump was in office and that they will be prepared now, as he is a liability. Also Republicans against Trump are quite vocal.

Here some more evidence for you to downplay (while you provided none as usual):

I’m not disputing this, European countries became complacement since the fall of USSR. Oligarchs snoozing with European politicians has been going on for a long time now. Again things are changing.

[wuote]
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.[/quote]
No worries, it’s been fun.

Arguing that U.S. should, or may, throw EU to the wolves in some sort of power play with China was never going to end well.

The Promised Land Grab

Promised to the Israelites by God but only insofar as they uphold the covenant. The right to the land is ultimately behavior based -- not might makes right. In our religion, we don't exonerate murder, rape, and man stealing because one is from an oppressed group.

What does yours tell you? That all oppressed people everywhere have the absolute right to rid themselves of their oppressors by any means necessary?