It's interesting you chose to share a picture from 1945, during which Israel had not yet been established and the United States still could be said to have reasonable leadership.

If we would rewind the clock a hundred years, maybe things could have worked out differently, but comparing then to now is apples and oranges.


Furthermore, have you taken a look at the graph you shared earlier? Who does Egypt share its spot at the top with? Afghanistan, Vietnam and Iraq - very typical examples of US "allies" in my opinion. I think your graph makes the opposite point of the one you're trying to make. If I were Israel or Egypt looking at that graph, I think I should be extremely worried. In fact, unless something fundamental changes for Israel, I'm convinced it will share the same fate as the rest of the countries on that list.


You're also choosing to ignore periods of recent history during which the US and Egypt could be said to be have been indirectly at war with each other (through Israel as the US proxy) and the US involvement in the turmoil that has plagued Egypt for more than a decade, which has repeatedly soured relations between the two countries. Egypt realises it's being manipulated, but up until recently it had no choice but to acquiesce in order to survive.


Saudi-Arabia is another (not all that different) story, but to make a long story short: Saudi-Arabia is/was being propped up by the US to fight against Iran, just like Iraq was before it. The recent rapprochement between Iran and Saudi-Arabia shows the Saudis have finally wisened up to the fact they were being used as basically a proxy.


So yea, who is living in .. erm... "la la land" here?


Anyone with historical awareness should be highly skeptical whenever the term 'ally' is used by the United States. Personally, unless there are formal mutual defense agreements and/or security guarantees I think the term means nothing, other than that a nation is temporarily serving US interests. There is no 'bond', there is no 'friendship' in the world of geopolitics - certainly not in that of US geopolitics.

Anyone with geopolitical awareness understands the joint US-Israeli goal has been to keep regional players down, and they are therefore at odds with virtually every other nation in the region - especially those that are powerful enough to aspire to regional dominance. The US has made clear what happens to countries that get uppity or get notions of 'independence'. They get trashed and thrown onto the junkheap of history.


Egypt and Saudi-Arabia simply saw the writing on the wall and understood their only option was voluntarily subjugation.

We see now as US power wanes that these countries have no intention of staying under the US yoke for any longer than is strictly necessary.


Personally, I find your liberal use of the world 'ally' rather misguided. But I suppose they can be said to be allies in the same sense that Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, Ukraine, etc. can be said to have been 'allies'.

But stay in your la la land where Egypt and Saudi-Arabia are enemies of the US. — ssu

'Enemy' is a strong term that I haven't used, so perhaps this is a projection coming from your own 'la la land'?

It's interesting you chose to share a picture from 1945, during which Israel had not yet been established and the United States still could be said to have reasonable leadership. — Tzeentch

Then the close alliance started. Not even the worst terrorist attack hasn't withered this relationship as this pillar of the "Twin Pillars" policy has remained. Many times the two don't see things similarly, but so hasn't it been in the alliance between France and the US. And of course there's later pictures:





With Egypt naturally the close relations started only after the peace deal with Israel and the kicking out of the Soviet military advisors.

Ramble all you want in your own imaginations, it's just nonsense I won't be reading....

What's going on here?

One Palestinian killed as Israeli settlers attack West Bank village
^{— Bethan McKernan · Guardian · Aug 16, 2024}
Dozens of Israeli settlers attack West Bank village, burn cars and kill a Palestinian in violence condemned by US as mediators hold new round of talks to end war in Gaza
^{— David Averre · Daily Mail (+ AP) · Aug 16, 2024}

Whatever those settlers (or whatever they are) think they're doing, around here they'd be prosecuted for serious crimes. If such crap continued, countermeasures would be organized.

If the Palestinians organise, then they are bombed to smithereens. Palestinians in the West Bank are terrorists too. Just listen to Netanyahu "condemning" the attack:

“Those who fight terrorism are the IDF and the security forces, and no one else,” he said, using an acronym for the Israeli military.

, I wasn't just thinking of Palestinians, I mean, wild west conditions, really?

I'd suspect it's revenge for something - likely another murder. But yes it's the wild west out there. If a Palestinian murders an Israeli their government will reward them for it so Israelis seek justice themselves.

That's been the case for years and increasing due to the fact only extremist Jews are into the settler business. They think they have divine dispensation and think Palestinians are subhumans. IDF facilitates by making sure Palestinians cannot retaliate. Murders by Israelis of Palestinians are not investigated. It's not wild West, because then they simply had no law and order. Here they have law and order for one group of people, resulting in impunity and injustice.

What's going on here? — jorndoe

Taking the land by little steps, or one Palestinian at a time.

After all, the "River to the Sea" was Likud party's original platform:

The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable and is linked with the right to security and peace; therefore, Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.

And btw, the original platform continued:

A plan which relinquishes parts of western Eretz Israel, undermines our right to the country, unavoidably leads to the establishment of a "Palestinian State," jeopardizes the security of the Jewish population, endangers the existence of the State of Israel. and frustrates any prospect of peace.

When you think about it, Likud and Netanyahu have been extremely consistent in their objectives for many decades now. It simply isn't complicated. These guys aren't going to negotiate like the Labor governments did. That time is in the past. It would be hilarious if not so deadly tragic, that this party dedicated to it's original agenda and objectives is somehow portrayed in the hypocrite West to be as perhaps doing a two-state solution in the future. Quite similarly to those on the other side thinking that Hamas is willing to negotiate and make peace with Israel (especially after the example that happened to the PLO when it did go with the peace plan).

This conflict could have been solved in the end of the Cold War. This conflict should have been solved int the end of the Cold War. It wasn't. Hence it can totally possibly continue for the next hundred years.

"from the river to the sea" is the original zionist motto - but I would rather be a muslim under jewish rule than a jew under muslim rule. Israel is currently fighting the palestinians over the west bank. The simple fact is is that Israel has no viable negotiating partner today.

There is simply no secular force with the Palestinians today. Even the "secular" PLO has references to Sharia in its Constitution/founding documents. It's a religious & political struggle mixed with a deep history of violence. This war is the very confrontation point where West meets Islam.

As per our last discussion, pro palestinian protesters met with Harris this weekend and claimed that she would be open to stopping arms sales to Israel if elected (she is currently the slight favorite.) In the past she has come close to accusing Israel of war crimes. The Democratic Party today is a very unreliable "ally" to Israel. As an American, I don't get the sense that Harris has firm positions on the matter and that she will cave quickly to forceful pro-palestinian voices which have been a rising and violent tide in American political discourse.

West meets Islam. — BitconnectCarlos

Israel is on the fringes of 'the West' to be fair, though. It's not as if the we're going to scramble to her defence in a religious conflict. I think this is partially why many have just stayed out of it and commented only on aid efforts.

Israel is ground zero in the conflict between West and Islam. If Israel falls, Europe is next. Europe is already feeling the pressure. How democratic and tolerant can a society be towards those who are fundamentally undemocratic and intolerant? Such questions test the limits of western democracy. We should all be uncomfortable.

Oh, I see where you've come from now.

Hmmm, I do not think that is the case. I don't think Europe will actually tolerate what underlies your point there (which is a valid one).
"no tolerance for intolerance no more". We have enough (and dare I speak vaguely semi-almost positively here..) hard-line anti-non-western types to hold hte fort, I think. And most of them love guns!

hard-line anti-non-western types to hold hte fort, I think. — AmadeusD

And are they all our allies? The right and the Islamists feed off each other. Any decisive action taken to defend "western civilization" will bring back echoes of Europe's past. Not an easy situation.

"from the river to the sea" is the original zionist motto - but I would rather be a muslim under jewish rule than a jew under muslim rule. Israel is currently fighting the palestinians over the west bank. The simple fact is is that Israel has no viable negotiating partner today. — BitconnectCarlos

And that's unfortunately been the objective for Likud. That's why Bibi gave money to Hamas earlier. Just as we can notice from the peace deals that Israel has with the neighbouring Arab countries, only a country in control of it's territory as Egypt or Jordan can make a peace deal with Israel. Lebanon, which has been a failed state for quite a long time simply cannot. And Palestine, well Israel doesn't even accept a Bantustan.

Simple fact is that peace in the Middle East comes through deterrence on both sides: if one side has no deterrence while the other side does, this other side will abuse this and continue it's military strikes. And this is primary cause why there is no peace in the Middle East: Israel can do whatever it wants with impunity as there isn't a real military threat for it. The air defenses against Iranian missiles work. It also is the only country in the region that has a nuclear deterrence.

Hence in the remote possibility of Isreal doing something extremely stupid, like blowing up the Al-Aqsa mosque and the dome of the rock and start to build again the Temple on the Temple mount, the Arab countries will not unify against it. We have seen this response already. And simply put: why would they want to go to war with a nuclear power backed up by the sole Superpower? Especially when their arms basically come from that Superpower itself.

The likeliest outcome is the continuation of the current situation. The real forever war continues.

pro palestinian protesters met with Harris this weekend and claimed that she would be open to stopping arms sales to Israel if elected (she is currently the slight favorite.) — BitconnectCarlos

I'm sure that Kamala can lie to their faces things like that.

The Democratic Party today is a very unreliable "ally" to Israel. — BitconnectCarlos

Nah. That's GOP sillyness. Bibi has just set up the bar so high. Here "unreliable ally" means that the US won't parrot everything what Israel wants. And it's just rhetoric. The US will be committed to fight for Israel, just as it has done during the Biden administration. US troops are already in Israel defending it.

Israel is ground zero in the conflict between West and Islam. If Israel falls, Europe is next. — BitconnectCarlos

Quite the contrary.

Decades of US-Israel policy is the cause of chaos, refugee crises/mass migration and radicalism, and the reason why various, formerly flourishing regions were disallowed from developing into modern states.

The sooner the US vacates the Middle-East, the better for Europe.

Israel is ground zero in the conflict between West and Islam. If Israel falls, Europe is next. — BitconnectCarlos

This is a whimsical and ludicrous statement that naturally Israel (and especially it's far right) will want to cherish. It is taken out of context, but as people wave Palestinian flags in riots and demonstrations around Europe, it's understandable that some people believe this. And there's a lot of people who want to spread these kind of ideas.

The absurdity starts naturally with the fall of Israel.

Of course the hilarious thing is that the real country that has a "muslim problem" is Russia, which in the right-wing discourse is viewed as a champion of Christianity (even if that's Orthodox). In the map those that are light green have less than 1% of the population muslim. How with 1% or less (or in that level anyway) some kind of "replacement" will happen is beyond my understanding. Kosovo, Northern Macedonia and even Bulgaria have had since the Middle Ages their muslim populations. For some reason they aren't the problem.

As it stands, the Jewish versus Muslim thing is part of the problem, in particular when both go craz...radical.
Jews continue to be (existentially) threatened, Muslims continue to be treated radically unjustly.
Jews aren't going to eradicate opposing radicals, Muslims aren't going to turn the region into an Islamic theocracy or whatever (and, outside of self-fulfilling prophecy, Christians won't have their second coming).
Both lay religio-historical claims, not really something where you'd expect much compromise.
Supposing that Israel has nuclear weapons, I wouldn't want to be in the region if Israel stands to be run over.
This part of the problem isn't that different from a (deadlocked) religious war, and fictional characters like Yahweh and Allah aren't going to settle anything, though one might wish that both parties would believe so (and leave it at that), or, better yet, ditch their (fundamentalist) superstitions.
Isn't simply telling one group to "Fuck off (and die)" more radicalism?
Anyway, I'm guessing that a solution would require both plausible security guarantees and ongoing justice.

Anyway, I'm guessing that a solution would require both plausible security guarantees and ongoing justice. — jorndoe

How this would happen is the real question.

Perhaps have then the European development.

Wonder why or how Europeans started to talk about peaceful integration, not only coexisting but being intergration an have continuously their heads of state meeting each other?

In order to pacify Europeans, you had to kill millions, tens of millions of Europeans in two absolutely devastating wars. With every fifth Polack being killed. Losing that war twice worked wonders on the German psyche.

That gives an opportunity for the peacenicks to have a say.

Just a former Mossad director comparing the current Israeli government to the KKK:

Ex-Mossad Chief: 'Netanyahu Allies Worse Than KKK, Overhaul is His Master Plan' (Times of Israel, 2024)

Quite in line with what I argued earlier, the idea that radical loonies are in charge of anything is just a guise (Pardo calls it an urban legend) under which these cynical political structures (similar to that of the US) try to exculpate themselves from the crimes they commit.

The radical loonies / military industrial complex / wealthy bankers / etc. made us do it!

, yeah, with two world wars just a good couple of decades apart, resulting in, say, 100 million fatalities + impressive destruction, it's no wonder that things had to change. Emperors, dictators and the like were central figures, North America wasn't happy, ...

^{(Imperial Japan started its own campaign shortly before the 2nd world war as far as most historians are concerned, don't know if anyone uses that as a marker for the start of the war instead.)}

Israel is ground zero in the conflict between West and Islam. If Israel falls, Europe is next. Europe is already feeling the pressure. How democratic and tolerant can a society be towards those who are fundamentally undemocratic and intolerant? Such questions test the limits of western democracy. We should all be uncomfortable. — BitconnectCarlos

You're getting kind of racist here, and you're also wrong. Islam has no conflict with democracy and it is in no way a threat to either Europe or the rest of the West.

Earth to Bitconnect, you're getting delusional.

Earth to frank, Islam isn't a race. It's an ideology that seeks to spread itself to every corner of the globe. And it just so happens to subjugate women, minorities, and animals virtually everywhere it goes.

Earth to frank, Islam isn't a race. It's an ideology that seeks to spread itself to every corner of the globe. And it just so happens to subjugate women, minorities, and animals virtually everywhere it goes. — BitconnectCarlos

Ok. You're demonstrating religious intolerance. That's just as unacceptable. No, they don't subjugate women everywhere they go. They conform to the laws of the lands in which they live.

You're painting the whole global population of Muslims with one color. Stop it.

Being offended is not a substitute for an argument. Only Islam is ever afforded this level of immunity from criticism. But this isn't Starmer's Britain; it's a philosophy forum.

Being offended is not a substitute for an argument. Only Islam is ever afforded this level of immunity from criticism. But this isn't Starmer's Britain; it's a philosophy forum. — BitconnectCarlos

I don't care whether you understand why religious tolerance is a requirement. Just stop talking about Muslims as if they're all villains.

Says... A Jew whose people have their own apartheid country and still gets free bombs from its allies to commit war crimes.

Islam is almost exclusively criticised in the West, in case you haven't been paying attention and @frank is entirely correct calling out your self serving discrimination.

thank you

Says... a communist whose ideology has killed more people than all religions combined. Not surprised at all that you sympathize with brutal Islamist regimes.

In b4 BuT tHaT wAsN't ReAl CoMmUnIsM

I don't sympathise with any brutal regime, regardless of whatever dumb religion they believe in.

a communist whose ideology has killed more people than all religions combined. — BitconnectCarlos

As compared to a capitalist, whose ideology has killed and enslaved about 10x as many.