Zero. There has been no cases where IDF soldiers and/or Israeli civilians went house to house murdering, raping, and torturing Palestinians in a manner comparable to 10/7. — BitconnectCarlos
Personally, I think it is self-evident that the US action is guided by a geopolitical strategy. The idea that a nation achieves, maintains and defends hegemony 'by accident' is just not a very convincing argument to me. I also think there is plenty of historical and contemporary evidence to suggest that the US follows deliberate geopolitical strategies. — Tzeentch
the idea the US needs Israel to commit a genocide for "geopolitical reasons" is simply laughable — boethius
↪boethius I think you're grossly underestimating the power of the United States.
Of course it has various domestic issues, and corruption is undoubtedly one of them. — Tzeentch
This is a strawman that I rejected in the very post you replied to. — Tzeentch
That's the reason the US may tacitly approve of Israel's genocidal actions, since, if successful, it gets rid of a critical vulnerability of their Middle-Eastern proxy. — Tzeentch
Power to do what though?
Defend their own borders? Nuke the world? Bomb a few weaker states into a internal chaos. Sure.
The US has no where near the power it did even a decades ago, let alone 2 decades or 3 deuces ago. It's in imperial decline.
We could of course discuss exactly what the US power status is at the moment, but my point here is not to argue that the US does not have a lot of power. Indeed, it is precisely because the US build up such a large amount of power that it can withstand such incredible levels of corruption without collapsing yet. However, the waste is very evident wherever one looks.
But perhaps that would be best to discuss in a new thread. — boethius
Is the main point I'm responding to, which I feel is fair to assess as the US needing Israel to commit a genocide for "strategic reasons", those reasons being solidifying Israel's position (which also the genocide is unlikely to accomplish).
If you're objection is the use of the word "need" in the sense of some sort of categorical need, then I agree that's not what you're saying, but in this case I'm using need in the sense of "need for these strategic reasons" and those reasons being strengthening Israel's position through genocide. My intention was not to connote that you were suggesting the genocide was some sort of US strategic imperative.
My argument is that the US empire is not benefiting at all from the genocide and is in fact greatly harmed by it in various ways. If the US benefits from chaos in the Middle-East generally speaking, which I also disagree with, that is easily achieved without a genocide.
I.e. if your theory was true then it would make sense to say "The US needed Israel to commit a genocide to better secure the latter's borders and so the strategic position of it's proxy would be improved to more optimally contribute to further Imperial machinations". — boethius
If Washington wants to sow chaos in the Middle-East, a nuclear-armed Israel that fully embraces violent ultranationalism is the perfect vessel to do so. — Tzeentch
Genocide and ethnic cleansing, while dooming the Israelis in the long run, are critical steps towards its short-to-medium-term survival as an ultranationalist nation. Since, if it goes down the ultranationalist path (as increasingly seems to be the case) it will soon be at war with various neighbors, at which point the housing millions of possible partisans within their borders would become a critical strategic vulnerability.
In other words, Washington doesn't need Israel to commit a genocide, but it doesn't exactly have a reason to stop it either. If anything it means they might get more use out of their proxy before it eventually kicks the bucket. — Tzeentch
Damage to US reputation/prestige is the price to pay, but if we are entering the prelude to global conflict, that really isn't all that significant. — Tzeentch
PS: I would be exceedingly careful with ascribing the label "obvious blunder" to the actions of great powers.
People incorrectly interpret the actions of great powers all the time, as was for example the case with Russia's invasion of Ukrain, which many must have deemed 'an obvious blunder' at the time.
The great powers' chess game is vastly superior to ours.
My litmus test for this is whether or not the great power in question shows signs of backtracking, or instead continues to double down. In the case of the US we see them continuously double down on 'obvious blunders' - in my view a clear indicator that they may not be blunders after all. — Tzeentch
There's plenty of ultra-violent groups in the Middle East already completely willing and able to cause further chaos for the right price, training, equipment and a large amount of intelligence. — boethius
Therefore, if America actually wanted to get into a big war in the Middle-East [...] — boethius
The genocide places significant pressure on US alliances which you do actually need when going into a global conflict. — boethius
Likewise escalating the war in Ukraine was an obvious blunder.
Likewise getting into long wars in the Middle-East.
Likewise destroying the empires finances.
Likewise offshoring critical production.
Likewise a lot of things are obvious blunders in terms of geopolitical strategy. — boethius
↪boethius If Israel fully embraces the ultranationalist path, genocide/ethnic cleansing is not necessarily desirable to the US, it is inevitable. In the case of Israel, and indeed most ultranationalist endeavors, crimes against humanity are par for the course.
I'm sure the US has made peace with that fact decades ago, which is why US support for Israel remains unchanged no matter how many American bombs fall on hospitals and refugee camps. — Tzeentch
That isn't necessarily true.
Iran is the target here, and there is no other proxy that could destabilize Iran. — Tzeentch
Does it?
I'm seeing some hand-wringing, strongly-worded letters, etc.
Is there any chance of alliances dissolving over US support for Israel? I see no sign of that, to be honest. As far as I can tell, they're getting away with it. — Tzeentch
You may view these as 'obvious blunders', but to me they are not obvious at all.
The US is doing quite well, all things considered. The ones who are paying the price are the Ukrainians, the Europeans, soon it will be the Israelis too, but the Americans are safe on their island, with their economy doing largely fine. — Tzeentch
Yes if Hamas were to release the hostages I'd expect there to be a ceasefire. — BitconnectCarlos
Gaza is not really that historically important to the Jews, — BitconnectCarlos
Whatever. I admire your innocence, Carlos. — javi2541997
42K innocent people — javi2541997
It is important to me and a lot of people — javi2541997
But then you'd want to negotiate with the ultranationalists to delay their genocide the time to attack whoever needs to be attacked.
There is no strategic path in which genocide is necessary nor conducive. — boethius
Your argument has been premised on the US imperial goal being avoiding regional integration and so becoming a land corridor, attacking Iran is not necessary to avoid this regional integration.
Furthermore, Israel isn't destabilizing Iran either and can't really wage war on Iran. It could nuke Iran as we've already discussed but that doesn't require a genocide and you're position on Israel using nukes is that would be too high a diplomatic cost (but not for genocide?).
As far as attacking Iran goes, as mentioned we've been hearing the neocon reasons for this being important for decades but no actual pathway has ever been presented for how you actually go about attacking Iran. — boethius
Now, Israel will "get away" with the genocide to the extent that no one can intervene due to the US protecting Israel, but this is at a massive diplomatic cost to the US and not really the world shrugging off the genocide. — boethius
People are pretty mad about it, including as mentioned nearly 2 billion muslims. — boethius
We're talking about the US empire, which is its hegemonic influence outside its borders.
Now, if the grand strategy you're talking about at the end of the day is just the US spoiling as much of the rest of the global economy as it retreats into isolationism on their island as you say, that's simply accepting US imperial decline. — boethius
Yes, Ukraine paid far higher a price than America for the war with Russia ... but the important question is what did the US gain? — boethius
I don't think Israel specifically wants to annex Gaza. If Hamas were to release the hostages it would signal a fundamental change in their approach though. — BitconnectCarlos
This number includes Hamas fighters. We'll never know the true breakdown but I've heard some ~80% of that are Hamas/Hamas associates. — BitconnectCarlos
It's important to me to since within Gaza there are hostages and they keep killing Jews. — BitconnectCarlos
Imagine if we ever bombed the Basque Country because there were sympathizers who voted for the political party. — javi2541997
Apart from that, what about the 20% left? That's 8,400 deaths. Are they just collateral victims who had bad luck and were in the worst place? — javi2541997
Now that Sinwar passed away—who was the main objective of Israel since October 7th—Netanyahu would like to stop killing civilians in Gaza and Lebanon, right? — javi2541997
Apparently Bibi is now saying the war isn't yet over because they have to get the hostages out, which is why he is continuing to reject a ceasefire deal that does both at the same time. — Mr Bee
Whatever the case, the Israelis disagree and the Americans don't feel called upon to correct them. — Tzeentch
Israel has proven capable of assassinating high-profile targets within Iran, and it's likely they are holding back various means at their disposal for when shit truly hits the fan.
So personally I would not underestimate Israel's capability to hurt and/or destabilize Iran in significant ways, even without the nuclear option.
If things were to come to global conflict, I believe Israel may use nuclear weapons on Iran. — Tzeentch
This is true, but I think the signal from Israel is that they are definitively abandoning rapprochement (and thus embracing conflict - as good ultranationalists do) - probably because they now believe it was never feasible to begin with.
Without a solution to the Palestinian problem, no rapprochement. And any real solution to the Palestinian problem (either a Palestinian state or an end to the apartheid) would be anathema to the Israeli hardliners. — Tzeentch
The US still has Europe, the Anglosphere and several East-Asian nations like Japan and South-Korea in the palm of its hand.
I think one shouldn't exaggerate the decline of the US empire. — Tzeentch
Eastern Europe is a vital bottleneck that connects China, via Russia, to Europe over land. (Iran is the other one, remember?)
What the US has done is economically decouple Europe and Russia, and created long-lasting conflict with fertile soil for further escalation.
A forever war in Ukraine is the goal, and it's what they're getting. — Tzeentch
In the case of the anticipated global conflict (which may be instigated by the US, or simply turn out to be an inevitability), this serves two purposes: it denies China overland access to European markets, and it involves two potential US rivals, Russia and Europe, in a war with each other. — Tzeentch
I'm saying "this plane is definitely going down" and your reply is "well we still have a lot of fuel so can't be that bad". — boethius
We actually agree that the plane is definitely going down, however I think a better representation of our arguments is "Plan vs. No plan", and to that end I've tried to repeatedly point out that there is clear continuity in US policy over the course of decades, both with regards to Ukraine and Iran.
A continuity that is in line with geopolitical theories like for example Heartland theory by Mackinder and Geographical Pivot theory by Brzezinski. — Tzeentch
... And neither do Americans. — Tzeentch
For example, we go from abandoning Afghanistan and "fighting for democracy" there to a discourse of fighting for democracy in Ukraine as the most important thing to ever happen and Putin is literally Hitler and a genocidal maniac ... to supporting an actual genocide in Gaza!? — boethius
... and then escalate to regional war with Iran ... which the whole point of abandoning Afghanistan was that Iran was no longer such a big priority and the region generally, time to pivot to East-Asa. — boethius
Add into that blowing up critical infrastructure of key allies, going from decades of the war on terror to now conducting state terrorism openly is ok and actually super clever if you kill some enemies in their living rooms with their families, running low of ammunition after deuces of outspending essentially the rest of the world on the military for decades (where'd the money go??) and so on. — boethius
The main point I'm trying to make is we're in a phase where the top elites, what I refer to as the Imperial primary beneficiaries, have personal plans that are more important to them than the interests of the empire. — boethius
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.