Or I get it: The Palestinians simply have stop being a death cult and stop attacking peaceful Israelis. And perhaps just move somewhere else and "get on with it!". I mean it's just a place where you live. One place is as good as another. For nobody the place they live is a "Holy Land", right??? :grin: — ssu

OK let's see how far you can empathize with the Palestinians. Let's say Netanyahu is a psychopath and can/wants to murder ALL Palestinians in Gaza for fun, would you ssu still want to remain in Gaza and risk the life of your entire family to be massacred for Netanyahu's fun or would you try to flee to more hospitable lands of the holy All-Peace&Love Pan-Arabic Pan-Islamic Pan-Brotherhood Islamic Arab Ummah AS FAST AS POSSIBLE (like Jews massively fled to the US when persecuted by the Nazis) at their place?

↪neomac
Many Westerners still refuse to see the threat their governments pose to others and as such create the very conditions for those others to become a threat in turn. — Benkei

Well that’s not my case. Indeed, what you are saying is very much related to the point I made on several occasions in the thread about the Ukrainian crisis: if states/governments are security driven and anticipate threats (because if the threat is imminent, it may be too late to respond to it effectively), then any DEFENSIVE move can be perceived as OFFENSIVE by a competitor states/governments (see Putin’s complaining about NATO expansion and invasion of Ukraine to prevent that, triggered Finland and Sweden to candidate for NATO membership, so NATO expanded). Notice that, by this logic, even Nazis and Christians could see Jews as a threat for what Jews did and had done. BTW this is true also for PROPAGANDA spun by ordinary people like you: any propaganda by political activists can threaten and trigger a counter-propaganda.
That is why one has to look at the wider geopolitical/historical/cultural context (e.g. Islamism vs Zionism) and signaling strategies (like the declared intentions of Hamas or Iran vs the declared intentions of Israeli government, including Netanyahu) to make sense of what constitutes threat perception and threat signaling for all involved parties (because the threat is more in the eye of the threatened, than in the eye of the threatener). And ultimately pick a side as consistently as possible with such understanding, if one wants to be rationality motivated.
Besides I also do not underestimate the possibility that not all human problems can be solved through diplomatic means or for the benefits of all involved parties.

Also nice how you reduce everything anti-zionists in this thread have said about the crimes from Israel as comparing them to Nazis. — Benkei

Not really. In that comment, I wasn’t specifically referring to “everything anti-zionists in this thread have said about the crimes from Israel”, I generically said “many Westerners”. Besides, in this thread, I questioned certain critical views against Israel (like yours, ssu and punsh's ) without making the kind of reduction you are now attributing to me based on a post addressed to another user.

As to your whole spiel about human rights, war crimes etc. not being considerations; they obviously are as all appeals by like-minded individuals, especially former colonies that better understand the oppression of the Palestinians, to higher norms are couched in international law norms, which have been recognised by Western and non-Western countries alike. — Benkei

They obviously are AS other considerations. What I’m questioning and solicit people in this thread to give a more serious thought about is whether the considerations you seem to cherish so much (as many privileged white Westerners) are the main driving motivations of main involved parties’s decision makers with their supporters like Netanyahu with his Israeli supporters, Hamas with their Palestinian supporters. Obviously this is very much questionable, they both can be easily accused of having committed/committing war crimes, being driven by genocidal ideologies, violating human rights, can’t they?
Now you may WISH to say other main parties indirectly involved in this conflict may be driven by such considerations you seem to cherish so much: like the US, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, China, Russia to name the first ones that come to mind. But obviously that's also very much questionable, they all can be easily accused of having committed/committing war crimes, being driven by genocidal ideologies, and/or violating human rights, can’t they? That’s also why international tribunals/councils with these countries’ as representatives can AT BEST express international consensus. They are less credible champions/enforcers of justice according to the international law norms you seem to cherish so much.
Now you may still WISH to say “like-minded individuals” people, “former colonies” people, love&peace people in the World are motivated by such considerations you seem to cherish so much. Is it true? How influential are they? As far as I’m concerned, there are 2 BIG problems here: 1. Such people are not ONE and the same people indeed many (I’d say MOST OF THEM) are driven by IDENTITARIAN principles more than UNIVERSAL principles you seem to cherish so much, so yes they may complain about human rights violations AT BEST when THEIR people suffer from foreign oppression (example, the Muslim Ummah gives a shit about the Palestinian genocide, yet they do not give a shit about inter-Islamic massacres, Christians genocide and all sorts of human rights violation that Islamist countries perpetrate against their own people, besides Islamism in Africa constitutes A FORMER (?!) COLONIAL POWER, yet criticism of Islamic colonialism doesn’t look very much popular in the Muslim world, as far as I can tell) 2. Even if there are people (to me just a minority) GENUINELY motivated by UNIVERSAL principles, they are influential to the extent they support certain political representatives, yet their political representatives do not necessarily act GENUINELY based on such UNIVERSAL principles even if so it seems for predictable propaganda reasons. This is particularly plausible in an epoch where the international order is unstable, and every country may try to assert itself as a player on the international stage ALSO by exploiting current crisis from elsewhere and always in the pursuit of perceived national interest. An example of this is South Africa which appeals to an international tribunal for the alleged genocide of Palestinians committed by Israeli, AND YET it refuses to comply with the ICC issued arrest warrant for President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan for genocide committed in Darfur. South Africa tried to play the same game with Putin but eventually couldn’t afford it.

So that’s the harsh predicament we have to deal with.

When one tries to follow those events more tightly from Euromaidan (which seemed very much an attempted "coup" but by the pro-Russian Ukrainian President Yanukovich), Nuland's call (which, in the context, one can take to be nothing more than a diplomatic pressure within the frame of Yanukovich's proposed solution to the crisis [1] more than evidence for a staged "coup" by the US, indeed even Russian diplomats and European diplomats were there trying to diplomatically work out the Euromaidan crisis and which was ended only by parliamentary decision and wide consensus, also from Yanukovich's own party) and the imperialist Russian Nazis (all afferent to Russian oligarchs) which staged an insurrection in Donbas by their own explicit admission, one can see how much of the Russian propaganda which infiltrated the Western anti-Ukrainian propaganda about coups and Ukrainian nazis is actually an "accusation in a mirror" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accusation_in_a_mirror).
What I think remains more murky though is the actual role of the Russian oligarchs with their militia and imperialist ideology in starting the war. Maybe, at the least in the earliest phases, they had a greater initiative and also support from Putin's entourage (like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladislav_Surkov), than from Putin himself. That also means internal political dynamics (which Putin most certainly nurtured but which he didn't fully control or used for plausible deniability) may have very much concurred, if not prevailed, in driving Putin into war with Ukraine.

[1] https://www.aa.com.tr/en/politics/ukrainian-opposition-turns-down-yanukovych-s-proposal/187670

if taking a critical look at the middle east, it is both necessary and wise to look at it "large-scale." — tim wood

Fully agree on that. Many Westerners still refuse to see the threats coming from Russian imperialism and Islamism and fall for the claim that Israelis and Ukrainians are the real Nazis. Westerners are only provocators while peaceful Russia and Islam are only trying to restore justice. And if we do not see that, it's because of a problem in our psyche or in crazy Evangelical propaganda.

“What we have forgotten in this atmosphere of political correctness is actually the Christians that are being persecuted are some of the poorest people on the planet. In the Middle East the population of Christians used to be about 20%; now it’s 5%.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/02/persecution-driving-christians-out-of-middle-east-report

Footage from security cameras showed the moment armed men seized Simferopol’s Parliament building in Ukraine’s Crimea region.
https://www.nytimes.com/video/world/europe/100000002742154/cctv-shows-crimean-parliament-takeover.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_the_Crimean_Parliament
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medal_%22For_the_Return_of_Crimea%22

Key insurgent admits there was no civil war, just Russian aggression
https://khpg.org/en/1608808721
https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/07/21/7412402/

As we can see from the example of just one single day, the war came not only to Donetsk, but also to other cities of Donbass. However, there were not many people willing to defend their native land. Enough for certain operations and at least some resistance, but nothing more.

According to unofficial statistics, in 2014, 0.28 percent of the total number of men living in Donetsk and the Donetsk region who were old enough to hold a weapon joined the militia. This is not even 1% or 5%, but 0.28%!!! At that time, local militias made up 50% of the total militia, 40% were militias from other regions of Ukraine, and 10% were volunteers from Russia.

I remember how in August 2014 I went to Makeevka, to the center. We were then based on the outskirts, closer to Khanzhonkovo. From there we went on missions. A man, about 35 years old, approaches me in the center with a beer in his hands. He tells us how much he’s rooting for us (probably putting likes on our contacts) and asks when this will all stop. I didn't know what to answer him. I was ashamed of him and others like him. I simply invited him to go on his way in peace.

https://asd-news.translate.goog/articles/voyna/kto-stoit-za-donbass/?_x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en

War In Donbas
Milchakov participated as a volunteer in the war in Donbas from 2014,[2] stating later he wanted "to kill".[6] According to his own account, Milchakov formed Rusich together with Yan Petrovsky in the summer of 2014, after going through a paramilitary training program run by the Imperial Legion, the military branch of the Russian Imperial Movement.[8] He has openly bragged about photographing the bodies of mutilated and burnt Ukrainian bodies from the paramilitary Aidar group in 2014.[2] Milchakov is also reputed to have cut ears of Ukrainian corpses and scratched swastikas on their faces.[9] By 2015, he had been sanctioned by the European Union, United Kingdom and Canada.[2] He has used the call signs "Fritz" and "Serb"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexey_Milchakov

Russian Neo-Nazi, GRU officer Alexei Milchakov (him of puppy torture/killing fame), who fought in Ukraine in 2014, talks about how he cut off the ears of the Ukrainian military (Aidar Battalion) and got high on the smell of burning flesh.
In Russia this pillock is called an "anti-fascist' and "Defender of Donbas".
Milchakov has links to Dmitry Utkin, founder of Wagner Group.
He's a Russian GRU operative and Neo-Nazi - a supporter of Nazi SS formation.
Utkin's career with Putin shows Russian hypocrisy. Moscow falsely accuses others of "Neo-Nazism" while itself using services of true fascists.
Translation of Milchakov's mad ramblings:
-I'm a Nazi. I'm a Nazi. I'm not going to develop this - am I a nationalist, a patriot, imperial direction etc, I'm saying directly I'm a Nazi. I could raise my hand.
- You see, when you kill a person, you experience a hunter's rush of excitement. Those who have not been on a hunt, try it, it's interesting.
- Regarding Aidar (Ukrainian Battalion), the guys have burned. Burnt out at work. It happens. They smelt great. I'll tell you honestly, when we went on to the road, the smell was... my jaws clamped together, we were hungry, we were looting a car with gingerbread and condensed milk, and it smelt great.
- Here are ears, here are guys, burning asses. It's my trophy. Those who judge me can go f**k themselves, this is my trophy. I'm like a hunter. It's mine, I took a photo. What's taken in a fight is sacred and these photos made the necessary impression that I expected. Everyone was laughing at the base, yes, the ears were meant to go as gifts... by the way, the photo of one cut off ear, it's just the one that you have. Yandex and Google had a lot of stuff...
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=648020209618444

The Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) released an audio recording on 5 May that they said was a phone call between a Donetsk separatist leader named Dima Boitsov, and the leader of the far-right paramilitary Russian National Unity group Alexander Barkashov. In the recording, Boitsov said he wanted to postpone the referendum due to the DPR's inability to control all of Donetsk Oblast. Barkashov said that he had communicated with Putin, and insisted Boitsov hold the referendum regardless of the separatist leader's concerns. He suggested that Boitsov tabulate the results as 89% in favour of autonomy.[26][27] Separatists stated that the recording was fake.[28] However, the 89% mentioned in the phone call exactly match the result of the referendum, which took place on 11 May 2014, i.e. several days after the recording had been published.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Donbas_status_referendums#Allegations_of_fraud


On 16 October 1990, Barkashov and a few dozen followers gathered at his home on Moscow's Dubinin Street and founded "the National Unity for a Free Strong Just Russia" (soon shortened to "the Russian National Unity", and informally among the Barkashovtsy [Barkashovites]: "the Unity" [Yedinstvo]). Historian Walter Laqueur writes that Barkashov stated in an interview that he is a Nazi.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Barkashov


The Russian National Unity movement was founded on 16 October 1990 by a splinter group of the National Patriotic Front "Memory" (NPF "Pamyat"). It grew from 1990 to 1991. Members have been reported to wear black and camouflage uniforms. The group also adopted a red and white swastika emblem and openly expressed admiration for German National Socialism and public celebrations of the rise of the Nazis, although the organization officially denied any support for Nazi ideology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_National_Unity

First, I have not forgotten your long post explaining this pick-a-hegemon position, which at least strives to resolve surface level contradictions. I will get to it when I have time.

But, in short, you are describing realpolitik and the justification for supporting the ally in the wrong is going to be ultimately a consequentialist argument that not-doing-so would lead to some worse outcome (losing a war to some fascist state, for example).

I do not mind this realpolitik approach, it is essentially my basic argument in this debate just I have different realpolitik conclusions:

1. That Ukraine very likely cannot win militarily.
2. That the war very likely strengthens, rather than weakens, Russia.
3. That most of the rest of the world is sympathetic to Russia and don't give much of a crap what we Westerners think (most of the rest of the world is authoritarian, anti-gay, anti-trans, and have a long memory vis-a-vis Western colonialism and CIA interference); Russia is "standing up to the West" in this alternative view point.
4. That the war greatly harms the European economy and makes it structurally less competitive over the long term significantly decreasing Western leverage in general (and most ceding it to China).
5. That creating a global economic schism in which Russia is pioneering a totally different economic framework structurally decreases Western leverage over the long term.

So the war isn't good neither for Ukraine nor the West, and the idea that Ukraine is harming Russia is a dangerous myth.

Of the objectives the US achieves:

1. Destroying the EU as a competition to the Dollar.
2. Selling LNG to Europe.
3. Fully subordinating the (current) European political class.
4. Making mad bank in arms exports.

Are terrible for Europe (and I'm European) and I would also caution that they are in the "careful what you wish for" category even for the United States. — boethius

So, if Ukraine could win and Russia was actually an enemy (which I don't buy that it was) then there would be at least the realpolitik case for supporting Ukraine, even if it would be a double standard vis-a-vis plenty other causes as or more just. — boethius

To my understanding, the scenario which I find more compelling for European risk analysis is roughly the opposite of yours:
- If Ukraine can not “militarily win” (in some debatable sense), maybe neither can Russia “militarily win” (in some debatable sense) if the West keeps supporting Ukraine enough. While if the West stops supporting Ukraine, Russia can more likely “militarily win”.
- If the war very likely strengthens, rather than weakens, Russia. Surrender to Russia in Ukraine will strengthen Russia even more.
- The claim that “most of the rest of the world is sympathetic to Russia and don't give much of a crap what we Westerners think”, could sound to Westerners as compelling as “most of the rest of the world is sympathetic to Palestinians and don't give much of a crap what Israelis think” to Israelis, if not less. Yet, the Israelis seem willing to handle it and far from being intimidated by it.
- Concerning the fourth and fifth point, letting Russia win (and indirectly China as its strategic ally), betraying the American leadership which is still (but hardly) policing international commercial routes with its military navies/air force and reasons to refrain from a more aggressive economic competition with Europeans as an ally, while leaving Europeans (in demographic declines) dependent for its input and output on a world contended by more equipped and aggressive powers, could not only destabilise the system of strategic alliances within the West (which NATO and EU are expression) from internal and external pressure, but make more likely democratic backsliding, social unrest and proxy wars inside Europe. And in this case, I deeply doubt that Europeans will be in a better position to compete with China in any meaningful sense.
- Concerning the US, if the US wants to keep its world dominance, it needs Europeans (and other allies) to reduce the burden of imperial overstretch, so plausibly a enough economically and military strong EU. Or give up on world dominance and leave Europe to be contended as Africa and Middle East by other hegemonic competitors (as anticipated in my previous comment https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/872479). In the latter case, the 4 benefits that a predatory US will earn at the expense of Europeans in your scenario, will simply be split among 3 predatory hegemonic competitors STILL at the expense of Europeans in my scenario:
1. Destroying Euro as a competitor to any hegemonic competitor’s currency.
2. Making European countries dependable on any hegemonic competitor’s commodities.
3. Fully subordinating the European political class to hegemonic competitors’ will.
4. Making mad bank in arms exports.

To make your assessment more compelling to me, you should seriously argue for why 3 hegemonic competitors (2 of which are consolidated AND, POSSIBLY, "VICTORIOUS" authoritarian regimes while the third at risk to become more authoritarian and more confrontational e.g. if Trump wins [1]) will give any chance to Europeans (= the ex-Great Satans which turned into the current Great Satan’s lapdogs) individually or, worse, collectively either to economically and democratically prosper in a peaceful limbo safe from power projections and security threats coming from these 3 hegemonic powers (to put it simple, because there is also Islamism that one can add to the scenario), or to grow as a military force capable of power projection (which, notice, may also require nuclear proliferation) and therefore support hegemonic ambitions in a contended world. Alternatively, you could argue in support of European politicians which will peacefully & safely make their countries economically and democratically prosper (and even militarily intimidating) DESPITE the external pressure of powerful and predatory hegemonic powers OUT OF SHEER WILL, MORAL SUPERIORITY, POLITICAL WISDOM, DIPLOMATIC AND ECONOMIC SKILLS, HUMANITARIAN CONCERNS, EGALITARIAN MISSION, EXEMPLAR PATRIOTISM after that an avalanche of WESTERN populist propaganda ALREADY ABUNDANTLY INFILTRATED, BRIBED, LOBBIED by hegemonic competitors kept SHITTING OVER AND OVER AND OVER Western democracies, media, economy, economic/political elites and leaders, EU and NATO ON WORLD STAGE FOR SEVERAL DECADES. And in this case, I’m just looking forward to hearing their names.

Until then, I’m fine with my understanding of the stakes. According to it, the LEAST benefit of the war in Ukraine for Europeans is to BUY TIME for European politicians to figure out their approach in a contended world in order to minimize the damage, and this may very much require greater investment in the Western system of strategic alliances (among European countries and with the US, Ukraine included) and greater effort to do more economically/militarily within greater international constraints (difficult but maybe not unfeasible). Anyways, given the predicament in which we are, I can't ignore that European populists will do their worst to screw that too, though.

[1]
Notice, I don't need to take Trump's words about NATO at face value. It's still arguable that Trump is very much interested in keeping NATO and the US in Europe and/or that the American establishment will make it hard for Trump to really disengage from Europe. Yet the future of the American support for the European security is getting dangerously uncertain while the threats are dangerously increasing.

As the RAND documents makes clear, escalating military conflict between Russia and Ukraine would likely result in Russia winning any such escalation and would significantly harm US prestige and strategic position if Russia were to win. — boethius

What RAND documents?

It's a simple question: had the Soviets some analogous ABM system to Cuba, the US would not (or at least should not have) reacted in anyway because such ABM bases are insignificant? — boethius

As the Multivac, I’d say “Insufficient data for meaningful answer”.
I’m far from being a military analyst, even at an amateurish level. So instead I would argue against the way you framed your question (”my question is to imagine the situation analogous, it would follow that your position is the same if the situation was analogous”) because it looks grounded on either a non sequitur or a tautology. Indeed, I don’t see why I should assume that threat perception would be the same over similar factual/hypothetical military scenarios and, if the same, that the reaction would be the same. On the other hand, if the “analogous situation” already includes also threat perception and response, then of course the position would be analogous by definition. Not to mention that threat perception can be miscalculated or inflated for propaganda reasons.
Besides, as far as I’m concerned, there is no need to make such a convoluted thought experiment, because the Cuban Missile crisis readily offers a historical study case about threat perception and copying mechanism from the US that we can use for comparison. And what this study case suggests is that while the US chose diplomacy to an actual present threat, Russia chose aggression to a hypothetical future threat.
Not to mention that from a political point of view: 1. the US needs Ukraine neither to put its nuclear bases closer to Moscow because Baltic countries could be enough for that, nor to widen the front of nuclear threats since Finland could be enough for that. 2. While the US was the only country to use nukes against a rival which was aggressed by on mainland, the ONLY one which keeps threatening to use nukes, in the current crisis, is Russia after aggressing and annexing part of an acknowledged sovereign country. 3. The US has shown a concern toward perceived nuclear threats by Russia, in at least three significant occasions: Cuban missile crisis, not deploying further east offensive nuclear weapons, Budapest Memorandum in which the Ukrainian nuclear arsenal was returned to Russia (with great disappointment of Mearsheimer himself, go figure).

yes, sir.

For example, feel free to try to explain how if the Cuban missile crisis was about Soviets moving ABM into Cuba, the US would be like "insignificant, we cool with it, soviets already have ships".

It's honestly incredible how deeply people believe the double standard delusions of American foreign policy analysis. — boethius

First, as already argued elsewhere, I don't find the double standard accusation particularly compelling in geopolitics because indeed double standard reasoning can very much be part of the game: namely, depending on the circumstances, one may STILL feel rationally compelled to support an ally who is wrong, precisely because he is an ally, than an enemy who is right, precisely because he is an enemy.
Second, as far as I'm concerned, the Cuban Missile crisis serves better pro-US propaganda then pro-Russian propaganda: indeed, in the Cuban Missile crisis we are talking about an ACTUAL case of medium-range and intermediate-range ballistic nuclear missiles on site [1] not about a prospective deployment of nuclear weapons conditional on Ukrainian accession to NATO (which was far from being imminent while the existence of the NATO alliance itself was challenged by Trump and Macron), yet the US was able to solve the crisis without invading and annexing Cuba, massacring Cuban civilians, deporting Cubans (including kids) in the US, and colonizing Cuba with American beach boys, wasn't it?

[1]
"After the failed U.S. attempt to overthrow the Castro regime in Cuba with the Bay of Pigs invasion, and while the Kennedy administration planned Operation Mongoose, in July 1962 Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev reached a secret agreement with Cuban premier Fidel Castro to place Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba to deter any future invasion attempt. Construction of several missile sites began in the late summer, but U.S. intelligence discovered evidence of a general Soviet arms build-up on Cuba, including Soviet IL–28 bombers, during routine surveillance flights, and on September 4, 1962, President Kennedy issued a public warning against the introduction of offensive weapons into Cuba. Despite the warning, on October 14 a U.S. U–2 aircraft took several pictures clearly showing sites for medium-range and intermediate-range ballistic nuclear missiles (MRBMs and IRBMs) under construction in Cuba. These images were processed and presented to the White House the next day, thus precipitating the onset of the Cuban Missile Crisis."
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1961-1968/cuban-missile-crisis

Yes, why should we care about international law, war crimes, equal rights and humanitarian concerns? All meaningless mystification! Why would we care about these issues when it comes to be the war in Ukraine or in Gaza? Silly nonsense, noble mystification.

Ahhh...the argument of it's all realpolitik, baby. — ssu

What I literally wrote is: “framing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in terms of ‘humanitarian concerns', ‘international laws’, ‘war crimes’, ‘equal rights’ to obfuscate the above considerations is kind of a noble mystification, to be kind”.
In other words, people have a history and historical grievances which may matter very much to them and shape their political identities. The Westerners may have forgotten their colonialist pasts, the ex-colonies didn’t forget it though. As much as Eastern European countries didn’t forget Russian imperialism. And Israelis didn’t forget the persecution and the oppression they have suffered for centuries in the West and in the Middle-East.
My realistic (more than realpolitik?) assumption is that literally nobody can uproot oneself from historical legacies and power struggles in the making of human history: so if there is room for ‘humanitarian concerns', ‘international laws’, ‘war crimes’, ‘equal rights’, there is a compelling reason to believe this will eventually happen ALSO or EVEN MAINLY through blood and coercion more likely than through exclusively diplomacy or economic sanctions, as a peaceful Europe (= a Europe which gave up on security-driven hegemonic ambitions) was made through War religions, colonialism and 2 WWs, a Cold wars’ proxy wars and the dominance/acceptance of the American hegemony (which means American military presence in Europe, economic dependency from the US, persecution/banning/suppression of past undesirable political elites and movements, and re-education of the entire population over generations). But what’s worse is that we are in a backsliding phase where the “peaceful” West is losing grip over its conditions of survival under the pressure of a growing anti-Western forces from the outside and democratic crisis from within (the two trends can reinforce one another). So the power balance is dangerously tilting against the West. In this case, the issue is that far from spreading the culture of international law, war crimes, equal rights and humanitarian concerns the West is risking to lose support in the West too or make itself vulnerable to hostile forces which reject the culture of international law, war crimes, equal rights and humanitarian concerns. Anyways, in this very uncertain and dangerous predicament we have to pick a side on our choosing if we don’t want others to choose it for us.

If there's real mystification, it's the idea of "Israel being the Holy Land", "Judeo-Christian heritage", or Israel being some kind of bulwark of Western values and defender of the West. As I've repeated over and over again, for Evangelists the support of Israel is a matter of faith. Isn't that mystification? The Muslims surely have similar bullshit mystification too. And even more mystification is all the crap importance that three religions put to Jerusalem. It makes the beautiful old city actually repulsive as the people that give it special importance to it (or who in history have wanted to build a new one) are repulsive themselves. — ssu

Still world population’s beliefs, feelings, experiences seem shaped by other faiths way more deeply and reciprocally than by the faith in ‘humanitarian concerns', ‘international laws’, ‘war crimes’, ‘equal rights’ which concerns more a privileged minority of the world population which is less and less influential. Don’t they?

If we distill the issue down to its root cause, we find there is a problem in the psyche of the Israeli’s. — Punshhh

Do you seriously mean that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has just ONE “root cause”?
And why isn’t the “root cause” in the psyche of the Arabs and the Muslims?
Notice that the persecution/oppression in the West by Christians and in the Middle-east by Arabs and Muslims (the prophet Mohammad) lasted for centuries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Jews
Jews have been forcefully expelled or fled from the Middle East (not only from the West):
https://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/news/the-expulsion-of-jews-from-arab-countries-and-iran--an-untold-history
Half Israel is claimed to be constituted by Jews who were expelled or fled from the Middle East:
https://www.oneforisrael.org/holidays/special-days-in-israel/half-israels-jews-came-muslim-countries/

Blame can’t be put on the Palestinians, they are an occupied, oppressed population, of which Hamas is a symptom. — Punshhh

Are you suggesting that blame should be put on the Israelis because they are the oppressor? But if there is a collective blame, shouldn’t there be also collective punishment? And if you can blame the Israelis as the oppressor, why can’t the Israelis blame the Muslims/Arabs (including the Palestinians) as the oppressors which they are defending themselves from?
Hamas can be a symptom of oppressed Palestinians as much as a symptom of oppressive Islam.
Even nazism can be an expression of oppressed Germans or oppressed Ukrainians.
And what about Netanyahu being expression of oppressed Jews in the West and in the Middle East for centuries?
What’s the point of questioning people’s copying/survival mechanism against traumas when the reasons of the traumas are still there and keep being brutally threatening them? How can the West address Israel’s security concerns when it fails to address its own security concerns or it disengages from policing the World theatre?
Talking of collective blame is a political burden and it’s a source of mystifications on its own (e.g. even if there is NOTHING intrinsically antisemite in criticising Netanyahu’s measures in Gaza, yet BOTH antisemite and non antisemite can make the same accusations, even if there is NOTHING intrinsically anti-zionist in having a Palestinian nation-state, yet BOTH anti-zionist and supporters of the Israeli Nation-State can support a Palestinian nation-state).
I have no problems to understand that the current horror show in Gaza has been decided by the democratically elected most right wing Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. And that this has to stop for all those who prioritize humanitarian concerns over whatever REASONS AND CONSEQUENCES. Still, my doubts rest on the conditions and reasons internal to Israel and external to Israel that enabled this horror show to happen and the consequences that may ensue once this horror show is over, especially if they are going to affect us in the West.

If we are going to find a solution to this it is going to be in the minds of the Israeli people and the diaspora which lives in the West and holds Western values. — Punshhh

Then it’s not really “we” who are finding a solution but the Jews who hold Western values. And why not in the Arabs who hold Western values or must embrace Western values?

Israel is an adolescent outpost of the west. — Punshhh

Which may be more scared and senile than wise. Besides, I wouldn't forget that the US, the promising broker of peace in the Middle East, is a country born through colonisation of foreign lands plus genocide/ethnic cleansing of the native American people, and that enough of them got rich also by practicing slavery over African people. Besides the US reached its current political status after a war of independence, civil war, involvement in world wars, including very controversial proxy wars and wars on terror in the Middle East. Not least, the US is also the main historical supporter of Israel, so it is supposed to share responsibilities for the historical oppression of the Palestinians. Now, are you really 100% sure that by brokering peace and given Hamas its nation-state the middle-eastern narrative of the American imperialism will stop? That they are going to wake up next day as "civilised" Western people devoted to prosperity, stability and peace? And all past “mistakes” will be forgotten, if not forgiven? What do you think the implications for other major players in the region, like the Saudis and Iran, would be? What will the Americans allies (like Taiwan under the threat of China) think of it? Will the Western enemies of Western imperialism stop whining about Western imperialism or will they continue anyways?

"DRAMATICALLY" does not equal "dramatically".

"DRAMATICALLY" is significantly more dramatic than merely "dramatically".

A citation should be exact, I do not all-caps words because I can rely on "arguing a point". — boethius


Of all the hilarious of your backtracks this is the best one... You claim that you did not use 'the word'... When I have pointed out that yes, actually you did use the exact same word, you claim that the same word in all caps is not the same word? Seriously, can you get more absurd? Oh, yes, you can: you then argue that your use of the word 'dramatically' was less dramatic. — Jabberwock

:lol:

I trust those posts from twitter even more than the article, for reasons.

If you read the article, he seems to be called the "the butcher" not exactly in a good way: — boethius

That's why I posted it. If you read my links, all of them are criticizing Zelensky's choice of replacing Zalushny with the Butcher.

Opinions over Syrskyi "the butcher":
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/national-security-daily/2024/02/08/zaluzhny-is-out-the-butcher-is-in-00140206
https://twitter.com/Tatarigami_UA/status/1720814139600232737?s=20
https://twitter.com/NeilPHauer/status/1756470879142170805

Ukrainian corrupt Nazi losers and Western lapdogs keep provoking Russian honorable men in the Black Sea and Sudan:
"Ukrainian Special Forces Interrogate Wagner Mercenaries in Sudan"
https://www.kyivpost.com/post/27637
Russian landing ship Tsezar Kunikov hit in Black Sea, it has sunk
https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/02/14/7441777/

So you believe concepts of justice do not motivate these people? You think there's no Islamic theory for just wars? — Benkei

I do believe that Palestinians can sincerely be motivated by their understanding of justice and just war. But I doubt that, deep down, international law, war crimes, humanitarian concerns play a significant role in shaping such motivations. That is true also for Israel.
Roughly speaking, I think one could get closer to their understanding of their predicament, by comparison to nation state formations in Europe, which looked pretty bloody and genocidal. For many Western countries, such wars belong to a remote past, so they can more confidently talk about international order in terms of a “society of states” which can decide policies even based on things such as “humanitarian concerns”, “international laws”, “war crimes”, “equal rights”. For Israel and Palestine the situation isn’t exactly the same since these state-formation wars still belong very much to their present and possibly to their future.
Besides, one may be tempted to see this conflict as an updated version of the historical conflicts between Jews and Arabs from Biblical/Koranic times through a more modern notion of “nation state”. But I think there are some nuances we shouldn’t discount: indeed, while in the case of Israel the diaspora of the Jews in the West has managed to absorb a good amount of secularism and to learn how to effectively play the Western system from within (reason why the Israelis could afford to play the villain role until now), in the case of Palestine, Hamas is just a form of backsliding to Islamism and pan-Arabism (so Western antagonists) where political models are mainly caliphates with their sharia or pre-Islamic tribalism (which still coexist with Islami). So, one should keep in mind that a good part of the Palestinian cultural habitat are things like retaliation in kind (like blood revenge, or Qisas), kin/collective punishments (see the massacres against Christians and takfiris still very trendy), jihadism, dhimmification, etc. way more than “humanitarian concerns”, “international laws”, “war crimes”, “equal rights”. That’s why the notions of justice and just wars that resonate in Palestinians’ hearts may more likely sound something like this:
“Under the wing of Islam, it is possible for the followers of the three religions - Islam, Christianity and Judaism - to coexist in peace and quiet with each other. Peace and quiet would not be possible except under the wing of Islam”
“It is the duty of the followers of other religions to stop disputing the sovereignty of Islam in this region, because the day these followers should take over there will be nothing but carnage, displacement and terror.”
“Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious. It needs all sincere efforts. It is a step that inevitably should be followed by other steps. The Movement is but one squadron that should be supported by more and more squadrons from this vast Arab and Islamic world, until the enemy is vanquished and Allah's victory is realised.”
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp

Now, one may feel tempted to think that even if Palestinians and Israelis haven’t developed the necessary political mindset (based on “humanitarian concerns”, “international laws”, “war crimes”, “equal rights”) to fix their beef on their own from the inside peacefully, then the external international order of the Masters of the Universe can enforce a solution according to such political mindset. Unfortunately, as far as I understand it, even the outside international order of the Masters of the Universe doesn’t reason in terms of “humanitarian concerns”, “international laws”, “war crimes”, “equal rights” deep down. Therefore, as far as I’m concerned, framing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in terms of “humanitarian concerns”, “international laws”, “war crimes”, “equal rights” to obfuscate the above considerations is kind of a noble mystification, to be kind. To conclude, I’m less sure about who will win between Israel and Hamas, than that “humanitarian concerns”, “international laws”, “war crimes”, “equal rights” political mindset could likely lose anyways. And I’d welcome anybody at any moment who would prove me wrong.

↪neomac
So your argument is what exactly? Israel gets to commit war crimes with the intent to steal the land while there's a humanitarian obligation on Egypt to take in Palestinian refugees to allow Israel to steal the land? — Benkei

My argument is that "commit war crimes", "steal the land", "humanitarian obligation" are framing notions more relevant to your understanding of the problem than to Israel, Egypt, Palestinians' understanding of the problem. Reason why, I suspect, "commit war crimes", "steal the land", "humanitarian obligation" haven't helped much fix this tragedy on their own initiative.

a President that came to power in a coup deposing the Muslim Brotherhood from power in Egypt. — ssu

And this is fine with Israel. The last thing they would want is to deal with neighbors speaking with one voice. — ssu

Tell me more about Panarabist and Muslim Brotherhood's grievances, I too miss caliphates, jihadism, and sharia so badly, bro.

the instability isn't just due to the Palestinian — ssu

Reason why I never made such a claim. I take the clusterfuck of international relations in general and the middle east in particular for what it is. And part of this clusterfuck is that the fate of Hamas and Palestinians (at least from Gaza) looks as tightly joint as repellent EVEN to other Muslim Arab leaders.

They sound compelling reasons from an Egyptian perspective, yet they do not add up with the Ummah or humanitarian concerns (even Zionists claim Israel to be home to all persecuted Jews, then why isn't the Arab Ummah home to all persecuted Muslism arabs in Gaza? Why isn't Russia home to all persecuted ethnic-Russians in Donbas/Crimea? They both have LOTS of land they can use to host refugees) and confirm Israel's views on Hamas hiding among Palestinians as a major security threat hard to eradicate from the Gaza community itself and challenging also Arab regimes, not only Israel.

Don't forget all the neighbors who wanted a piece of the land for themselves too. — ssu

Nor that Arab neighbors fear Hamas hiding among Palestinians (who cares about the Ummah!):
https://allarab.news/egyptian-president-el-sisi-evacuation-of-palestinians-to-sinai-means-dragging-egypt-into-war-against-israel/
Welcoming 1.5M desperate brother Palestinian refugees is WORSE than going to war with Israel, go figure!

Question: is there are reason why this thread nor the thread about Ukraine do not seem to appear in https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussions ? Is it happening only to me?

Anyways, the point I was making has less to do with Ukraine and more to do with your understanding of democracy vs totalitarianism. Replacing a top general (popular or unpopular) from leading the armed forces in wartime is not something incompatible with democracy AT ALL. Making unpopular decisions in wartime like imposing martial law, mass mobilization, and replacing a popular&competent top general is not something incompatible with democracy AT ALL. — neomac


Though I agree with you here, using martial law to ban critical media, ban any dissent of the war policies, banning political parties, postponing elections are all anti-democratic and despotic and arguably totalitarian.

Ukraine is only a democracy on paper at this point. — boethius

Yet, as far as I’m concerned, your argument is pointing less to a specific problem of Ukraine than to a more general problem for democracies in war times. Indeed:
1) My premise is NOT that Ukraine is a consolidated/flawed democracy but a hybrid/transitional regime with some democratic institutions (so more fragile than consolidated/flawed democracies, yet still better than institutions of actual consolidated authoritarian regimes and vested interest to more Westernization/Democratization). And the other premise is that this hybrid/transitional regime of Ukraine is engaged in a defensive war for its political self-determination and territorial sovereignty against Russia. Russia instead is a consolidated authoritarian regime with hegemonic ambitions, so with a penchant for heavily interfering with other countries’ business and bitterly hostile to greater Westernisation of Ukraine. On such premises, there is little to be surprised if Ukraine may take unpopular measures such as postponing elections, mass mobilization, and removing top generals non-aligned with the government’s objectives in war time. And if there are pro-Russian collaborationists in Ukrainian politics and media (which is something very much plausible given the historical and ethnic ties between Russia and Ukraine) then Ukrainians OBVIOUSLY are compelled to silence and ban them in war time (maybe also in the ways Ukrainians have learnt from the Russians) to prevent them from sabotaging the government’s activity. National unity is vital in war times for all regimes, authoritarian AND DEMOCRATIC. And even democracies could not reasonably allow parties collaborating with an aggressor arguably genocidal towards them. Of course, pro-Russian propaganda can then predictably spin the narrative of a Ukrainian totalitarian regime due to such unpopular/controversial measures with the aim of duping Western masses (coz Russians don’t need it, and enough of them are rather happy with their consolidated authoritarian regime and home propaganda). And Western populists who are eager to be duped by anti-American/NATO/EU/West propaganda will obviously echo such pro-Russian propaganda, since they already have such a penchant for publicly and extensively whining about censorship and authoritarian measures in their democracies during peacetime, that the Western support for Ukraine, an “allegedly” totalitarian state, is just a too convenient hanging fruit up for grabbing for more whining. In any case, as I said many times, I don’t find predictable manipulative claims particularly compelling (even if there is some truth to them).
2) To my understanding, states at war are not engaged in a beauty contest and wars OBVIOUSLY can degrade democratic representativity and solicit unpopular measures also in Western democracies (the infamous democratic backsliding): Churchill too postponed elections in wartime, and in the US there was a fierce persecution/paranoia targeting communist collaborationists during the Cold War. After all, democracies are grounded on more fragile institutions than authoritarian regimes, i.e. they can consolidate and be functional ENOUGH under certain favourable circumstances (which very much likely do not include wars), otherwise they can not consolidate or, worse, they can turn dysfunctional to the advantage of hostile authoritarian regimes. Which is also pretty bad news for Western democracies, because that means they can be hijacked by powerful and hostile authoritarian regimes (e.g. through infowars, economic/security blackmailing and bribing/lobbying) aiming at playing divide et impera within the West, and wearing out Western popular support for their regimes way more easily than the other way around. So thanks to this institutional asymmetry democracies can more easily be destabilised and lead either to dysfunctional political polarization (see the case of the US) or to reliance on more unpopular (or even authoritarian) measures to quell corrosive political antagonism and actual/incumbent civil unrest. In other words, as far as democracy is concerned, Westerners have more to lose than the Ukrainians if Russia brings home a strategic victory against the West. That’s also why, as I argued in previous posts, the West is strongly compelled to counter the Russian threat and frustrate Putin’s ambitions to destabilise the West and lead an anti-Western coalition. And that’s also why I can’t take the infamous American neoliberal agenda to export democracy in the World, as simply or mainly motivated by hypocritical humanitarian concerns to cover actual and economic exploitation (at least, according to the Western populist and pro-Russian propaganda for which only the West is exploitative, hypocritical, and with no security concerns while the Rest is the opposite). Indeed, the spread of democracy is very much important also for security concerns (of the US and other Western democracies too), independently from any propaganda.
3) The Ukrainian unpopular measures don’t look to me as worrisome as you have argued: not only because they still look within a frame of constitutionality and legitimate exercise of presidential powers, as far as I know. Not only because the popular support for Zelensky is still strong enough, as far as I know. But also because there is still enough democratic transparency: indeed, Ukrainians are open to and can access to Western democracies’ monitoring and investigations about the political/military/economic situation in Ukraine, more than the Russians. So if the latter would be missing, then OK I’d start to worry more about the fate of the Ukrainian democratic institutions but still I wouldn’t be much disappointed nor would I find it particularly effective in discrediting Ukraine or the Western support to Ukraine, given the predicament in which they both are under the security threat posed by Russia (and its Western minions).

he reason why I focused on the Palestinians is just because you seemed to question my views and suggest that Palestinians would opt for peace, stability and prosperity in the region with good relations around to the present clusterfuck. — neomac

I think the misunderstandings are mutual: my point is that ordinary people would opt for peace, stability and prosperity if that chance would exist. It doesn’t. — ssu

If your point is just about making a generic optimistic claim based on a counterfactual (indeed, THEY HAD THE CHANCE, unless by “if that chance would exist” you refer to “no prior historical grievances” and “no prior ethnic violent clashes” which are counterfactuals), I may sympathise but I don’t find it particularly enlightening.

It is a fact that historical grievances on the Arab/Palestinian part prevailed against the UN resolution which Israel accepted. — neomac

It is a fact that Israel doesn't accept a huge number of UN resolutions, even Security Council resolutions, so what is your point? — ssu

My point is that, up until now, the BEST CHANCE for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to be resolved in the best interest of both and on their own initiative was at the end of the British mandate, because, later on, the historical grievances THEY BOTH had at the end of the British mandate just kept badly growing on BOTH SIDES.

It’s not a counterfactual (I’m still arguing for a past possibility). And if there was no such a time, then I don’t know why I should assume that Palestinians would “opt for peace, stability and prosperity in the region with good relations around to the present clusterfuck”. To me, it makes sense to assess possibilities for agents to determine their fate only in their given historical circumstances. So if the Palestinians couldn’t profit from that opportunity back then due to their historical grievances (which I do not need to question), I have even less reasons to believe that they would act otherwise later on when their historical grievances, say, doubled. — neomac

If you are talking about 1948, isn't it obvious that it wasn't just an issue of the Palestinians somehow being here the culprits? Don't forget that when the British left, it was the neighboring Arab nations going on the attack NOT to liberate the Palestinians and create a Palestinian country, but simply to take land for themselves. It was free land for them to take...and perhaps kick back the Jewish Europeans, right? Palestinians came to be the focus when they couldn't get that land.

And then don't forget the other side also. Ask yourself, who killed Folke Bernadotte? As you should notice, at that time also the Israeli side wasn't some unified actor benevolently hoping to share the land with the Palestinians. So your alternative reasoning simply doesn't add up. — ssu

I’ve lost you. What is the alternative reasoning that doesn’t add up? You didn’t bring anything that questions my views. My reasoning goes beyond the issue of who is the culprit. As I said, I don’t need to question the Palestinian historical grievances against Israel to make my point. The reason why I focused on the Palestinians is just because you seemed to question my views and suggest that Palestinians would opt for peace, stability and prosperity in the region with good relations around to the present clusterfuck. I questioned the latter because it seemed to me out of historical circumstances, to begin with, like the ones at the end of the British mandate which weren’t amenable to a peaceful resolution. It is a fact that historical grievances on the Arab/Palestinian part prevailed against the UN resolution which Israel accepted. I’m not judging responsibilities, I’ll claim it as a fact to stress the importance of historical grievances. If historical grievances are the premise for refusing peaceful resolutions, I expect things to be worse when the list of historical grievances has increased and deepened over time on both sides. If one adds to such historical grievances the ideological dimension, namely nation-state aspirations and certain worrisome cultural dispositions (like the support for blood revenge, but not only… BTW have you ever noticed how nicely Muslims kill Christian minorities in the Arab world?), then there is little to be surprised if this conflict looks so genocidal. We should be surprised if it didn’t. (And I didn't consider yet how external actors can instrumentalize this polarization). That’s why I’m reluctant to frame the Israeli-Palestinian conflict primarily in terms of humanitarian concerns.

↪neomac
Ah, OK. Fine. We are like kids in a kindergarten now. At least I explained why I refused to take your post seriously. I will make it easier for you so you don't have to read a long post.

Do you really consider Ukraine as a democratic nation? Yes/No. Explain why. — javi2541997

To my understanding this is not a yes/no answer. According to some index, Ukraine is considered a hybrid/transitional regime (so neither a consolidated democracy, nor a flawed democracy) given the levels of corruption, civil unrest, and the war. Not surprisingly so since Ukraine is struggling to survive as an independent state out of the influence of Soviet legacy and Russia’s interference (having Russia a consolidated authoritarian regime and hegemonic ambitions). But Ukraine has also shown a certain degree of political representation (free political competition, free elections and referenda), freedom of press/media, in addition to democratic institutions (constitution, division of powers, human rights), and openness to Westernisation (NATO/EU which can be also external factors of further democratization) which look promising to me. Another aspect is that Ukraine is considered semi-presidential so the president is directly elected and has normally more powers than a president would have in a parliamentary democracy.

Anyways, the point I was making has less to do with Ukraine and more to do with your understanding of democracy vs totalitarianism. Replacing a top general (popular or unpopular) from leading the armed forces in wartime is not something incompatible with democracy AT ALL. Making unpopular decisions in wartime like imposing martial law, mass mobilization, and replacing a popular&competent top general is not something incompatible with democracy AT ALL.

Does Zelensky act like a totalitarian? Yes/No. Explain why. — javi2541997

Not sure what act you are referring to. If you take the removal of Zaluzhny as a totalitarian act (and by "totalitarian" you mean the opposite of democracy), I don’t and explained why.

More good news ;)
Trump 'encourages' Russia to attack NATO states not paying 'bills'
https://www.euronews.com/2024/02/11/trump-encourages-russia-to-attack-nato-states-not-paying-bills

What came after concerning Palestine were the decisions of a colonial power and the UN. — neomac

With the UN we are already talking about post-WW2 era. Then the conflict between the Jewish and the Palestinians was already in full swing.

“Don't set up Mandates and colonies in the first place” refers to a counterfactual situation and a rather farfetched one since it is construed on the premise that colonial powers wouldn’t rule over their foreign territories the way they want if they can. — neomac

Of course it's an counterfactual, but your question was already a counterfactual! — ssu

But I was not arguing based on a counterfactual: namely, a fact that didn’t happen, but could have happened. I limited myself to argue for a possibility that the Palestinians had back then, when the list of Palestinians/Israelis’ grievances weren’t AS LONG AS they are now (in that sense it was the best opportunity up until now), and they had the chance to get their States: Israel said OK, Palestinians said KO.

My question is about a time in the Palestinian history as it actually enfolded in which Arabs/Palestinians could show their good will to pursue peace and prosperity along with Israelis as an independent state — neomac

But that's totally counterfactual. There hasn't been such time. — ssu

It’s not a counterfactual (I’m still arguing for a past possibility). And if there was no such a time, then I don’t know why I should assume that Palestinians would “opt for peace, stability and prosperity in the region with good relations around to the present clusterfuck”. To me, it makes sense to assess possibilities for agents to determine their fate only in their given historical circumstances. So if the Palestinians couldn’t profit from that opportunity back then due to their historical grievances (which I do not need to question), I have even less reasons to believe that they would act otherwise later on when their historical grievances, say, doubled.

And it seems that you totally forget or ignore that PLO actually stopped it's fight against Israel and did recognize it. Or that isn't enough of "show their good will to pursue peace and prosperity along with Israelis as an independent state"? Oh but they didn't finalize the peace process... well, because those who celebrated that Rabin was dead came to power. — ssu

No I didn’t forget it but the Oslo accords came from vulnerable political leaders with little backing from the people they were supposed to represent, indeed they couldn’t stop Palestinian terrorist attacks and Israeli settlement expansions in the interim period of negotiations.
As I pointed out elsewhere the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is essentially about conflicting demands for self-determination, which both sides perceive as a zero-sum game, evoking feelings of existential threat and profound insecurity. It’s a deadlock. It’s not just a historical-emotional impasse but an ideological impasse: that may not only be due to the idea of nation-state but also to the the idea of just retaliation for blood of relatives which both Islam and Judaism support (secularism may have overcome this in Israel, in the Arab world the alternative is less secularism than tribalism which still supports blood feud). That’s why I think there is little hope for a peaceful coexistence and credible expression of good will, at least on their own initiative.

when those Evangelists outnumber Jewish-Americans (of whom many are critical to the actions of the Netanyahu administration), it's a slam dunk. To win votes in the US, you have to favor Israel. Doesn't matter if few "leftist hippies" are angry about it, it's the culture war, baby! The US will support Israel no matter what. — ssu

As I said, I deeply doubt that Evangelicals would vote for Biden if Biden supported more Israel.
Besides many American Jews may be critical toward Netanyahu administration overall, yet they may still be more supportive of his measures after the massacre of October 7 than you seem to believe https://jewishinsider.com/2023/12/poll-overwhelming-majority-of-american-jews-support-israels-fight-against-hamas/
Finally, don’t overlook the possibility that those Americans who are against supporting Israel, especially among the younger generations, may very much be against supporting Ukraine as well (so Biden might not get enough political support from them either):
https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/how-young-americans-view-wars-world-right-now

Honestly, I stopped reading the rest of your argument when you state that Ukraine is a 'democratic' country. — javi2541997

So I'll stop reading the rest of your post.

Who else would agitate for a world war. Or be capable of conducting a large scale war?
What may happen though, is a wider regional war with power brokers conducting proxy wars and more of the Middle East left in ruin and failed states. — Punshhh

Even if direct and conventional confrontation between major powers as in WW2 must be avoided (for the reasons you suggest and also because the nuclear threat is still there like during the Cold War), interlinked and worldwide instabilities due to regional asymmetric or conventional conflicts (like in Ukraine and Palestiane) involving major powers and/or proxies of major powers make less predictable the extent to which such conflicts can be contained. So maybe WW3 is arguably unlikely in the foreseeable future, still we may be getting closer to an international situation that could be more uncertain and hotter than Cold War in that there are no 2 military and economic blocks with their respective solid leadership to guide/assure our dealing with our economic and security concerns.

I was referring to the kind of grievances the Arabs/Palestinians were voicing against the British since the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. — neomac

They naturally wanted independence, like was promised to them, but that came then after some lost uprisings and WW2. Needless to say they weren't consulted. — ssu

The promise wasn't to the Palestinians nor explicitly/specifically about Palestine, if you are referring to the Hussein-McMahon agreements (whose actual content is still disputed given its critical textual ambiguities). What came after concerning Palestine were the decisions of a colonial power and the UN. So I would still question if it makes sense to frame the genesis of this conflict on an alleged past broken promise and then assess it based on our current concerns for the humanitarian crisis in Palestine.

was there any better time in which Arabs/Palestinians could show their good will to pursue peace and prosperity than at the end of the British mandate? — neomac

Of course! Don't set up Mandates and colonies in the first place, but simply let the prior Ottoman provinces be independent. Like ummm.... Finland and the Baltic States and Poland after Russia lost them. Finland hadn't been independent prior. But you think we would have liked to be then under the Mandate of some other country or Sweden? — ssu

“Don't set up Mandates and colonies in the first place” refers to a counterfactual situation and a rather farfetched one since it is construed on the premise that colonial powers wouldn’t rule over their foreign territories the way they want if they can. My question is about a time in the Palestinian history as it actually enfolded in which Arabs/Palestinians could show their good will to pursue peace and prosperity along with Israelis as an independent state (cause there is no doubt that Arabs/Palestinians would be happier if there was an Arab empire in the region and the jews were living UNDER the Arab rule).

↪neomac
According to your logic: A president under martial law does whatever he wants to keep him in power. He removes Zaluzhnyi from the cabinet because he disagreed with him briefly, and the latter is obtaining more respect from the Ukrainian people. It is a totalitarian act. — javi2541997

.

You misunderstood. I was simply pointing out that in Ukraine, as in other democratic countries, presidents are entitled to hire/fire commanders-in-chief of the armed forces, and to invoke martial laws (which in Ukraine must be approved by the Verkhovna Rada) constraining freedoms and democratic life in wartime. So firing Zaluzhnyi by president Zelensky is controversial given Zaluzhnyi's competence and popularity, but that doesn't qualify the decision as an act of totalitarianism or lack of democracy. So much so that the popular Zalushny himself before getting fired was pressing Zelensky to make an unpopular decision of mass mobilization (500k new troops) which Zalushny believed as necessary:
“We must acknowledge the significant advantage enjoyed by the enemy in mobilizing human resources and how that compares with the inability of state institutions in Ukraine to improve the manpower levels of our armed forces without the use of unpopular measures”.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/02/02/zaluzhny-zelensky-white-house/
In other words, unpopular decisions of establishing martial laws, mass mobilization or removing a popular commander-in-chief can’t reasonably be taken as acts incompatible with democratic regimes in wartimes.

According to information from Reuters, most of the Ukrainians are upset because of this. Do they have the right to discuss this issue in Parliament? Or is Zelensky unbeatable? — javi2541997

Maybe you missed my previous quote from wikipedia so I'll repost it again:
"The Armed Forces of Ukraine (Ukrainian: Збройні сили України (ЗСУ), romanized: Zbroini syly Ukrainy; abbreviated as ZSU or AFU) are the military forces of Ukraine. All military and security forces, including the Armed Forces, are under the command of the President of Ukraine and subject to oversight by a permanent Verkhovna Rada parliamentary commission. They trace their lineage to 1917, while the modern armed forces were formed after Ukrainian independence in 1991."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_Forces_of_Ukraine
In other words, until we hear Verkhovna Rada complaining about the legitimacy of Zelensky’s decision to fire Zaluzhnyi , we can safely assume that Zelensky’s decision was a legitimate exercise of the Ukrainian President’s powers in wartime still compatible with democratic standards.

If Putin had done this... Wow, all the press of the world would have gone mad against them — javi2541997

.

If Putin replaced a competent and popular general while preventing the latter from obtaining a new mass mobilization to keep fighting the Ukrainians, pro-Ukrainians would more likely rejoice than get mad, of course.

You state we have to respect how the government acts towards the Armed Forces of Ukraine — javi2541997

That's false . Indeed, you can not quote me making such a claim.

It begs the question, why is the West so disinterested in peace? Or dare I say, interested in prolonged war? Who benefits? Surely not the Europeans, so whose interests do Scholz and Macron represent? Uncle Sam's perhaps? — Tzeentch

Dude, you made all this effort to flood this thread with your self-serving pro-Russian ruminations from the start till now, you might as well finish them by yourself.

Zelenskiy who is acting like a totalitarian. — javi2541997

Zelensky's choice can be questioned and is controversial, given Zaluzhnyi's popularity, but that has nothing to do with totalitarianism or democracy:
"The Armed Forces of Ukraine (Ukrainian: Збройні сили України (ЗСУ), romanized: Zbroini syly Ukrainy; abbreviated as ZSU or AFU) are the military forces of Ukraine. All military and security forces, including the Armed Forces, are under the command of the President of Ukraine and subject to oversight by a permanent Verkhovna Rada parliamentary commission. They trace their lineage to 1917, while the modern armed forces were formed after Ukrainian independence in 1991."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_Forces_of_Ukraine

It's Zelensky who appointed Zaluzhnyi as commander-in-chief and if Zelensky estimates that Zaluzhnyi is no longer fit for the job, he has the presidential power to replace him. Besides Ukraine is under martial law which grants the Ukrainian President democratically elected to constrain democratic life in wartime (like postponing presidential elections), always under the supervision of a democratically elected parliamentary commission.

Holy shit:
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraines-zelenskiy-says-time-has-come-changes-top-military-2024-02-08/

Despite your joke, Luxembourg has tried and is trying to play some diplomatic role in Europe and directly with Israel, though.