Let’s not shift from “sending hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in different neighbouring charitable and brotherly muslim-arab countries” to “forced removal of people”, — neomac

Neomac, that is the issue here.

When have Palestinian refugees that have fled had the ability to come back?

Never.

Not after 1948, not after 1967. Hence it is simply ridiculous to assume that "Simply move the people away while the place is refurbished". It's not a naive idea, it's an astoundingly stupid, ignorant idea. Besides, if this would really would be so "temporary", then have the Palestinian camp inside Israel, built in the Negev. There's vacant room there. — ssu

OK and when did Palestinians who remain in Gaza have the ability to impose their will on the Israelis instead of losing more territories, people, livelihood and freedom, exactly? How smart and long-sighted is that? Where did I assume that “simply move the people away while the place is refurbished”, exactly? That’s not what I argued. Remember it’s not your skin we are talking about but Palestinians and Israelis’ skin. So it’s up to Palestinians to choose between a cycle of massacre overwhelmingly in favour of Israel and having a life as a refugee especially if they can be assimilated instead of being ghettoed in refugees camps by allegedly charitable arab-muslim brothers.

Ruanda isn't an Empire. And Azerbaijan isn't an empire and neither is Burma. Yugoslavia wasn't an emprie, but killing people and cleansing the "unwanted people" away has happened in them. This isn't just done on imperial motives. So it's your argument that isn't at all compelling. — ssu

You don’t seem to follow my reasoning. Indeed, what I meant to suggest is that the right comparison is not between Israel and Soviet Union or Russia as you previously did, but between the case of Israel and what happened in Rwanda, or Azerbajan or Yugoslavia as you now do. Exactly. And while we can invoke national self-determination and statehood to counter imperial ambitions (see Soviet Union and Russia), we can’t do the same when national self-determination and statehood can be achieved only at the expense of other people’s national self-determination and statehood like in Rwanda, Azerbaijan, Yugoslavia. That’s the impasse I was talking about and the reason why the cycle of violence can easily re-emerge, escalate and get vicious.

If both sides would want genuine peace, yes. But they don't. The Likud wants a victory over the Palestinians, Israel being from the river to the sea without any Palestinian entity between it. And they believe that they are succeeding in this. And why not. There seem to be no actual negative things for this as Bibi only needs Trump's ear. Europe doesn't matter at all and China isn't interested.
The so called "Oslo Peace process" was an oddity of a moment that won't come back. Those Israeli politicians that attempted a peace aren't getting back to power. Or then Bibi would have to fail again miserably. What we are seeing is moderate Israelis leaving the country and the previously secular Israel changing to a more religious country. And of course Israel's actions don't make it any easier for a Palestinian "moderate" to surface. — ssu

So, in short, you are telling me that while things are getting worse for Palestinians after losing all they have lost so far, because Israelis are becoming more radical, it would be less naive stupid for "moderate" Palestinians to insist to remain in Gaza despite having the possibility to move somewhere else more welcoming because Allah knows if they will ever manage to come back and reclaim their land than doing otherwise?

Anyone suggesting that forced removal of people from where they have always lived is practical, or a great solution, should then be ready to take those people themselves. — ssu

Let’s not shift from “sending hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in different neighbouring charitable and brotherly muslim-arab countries” to “forced removal of people”, or from “I don't think it's matter of being that unpractical”, to “it’s practical”, or to “a great solution” so easily.

Forced removal of people where they have always lived is a vicious, hateful idea that shows how unethical or lacking moral character a person is. Refugees are given sanctuary with the idea of them being really refugees, people that go back from where they fled once there's peace. Migrants are tolerated, if they bring something to the economy. Forced transfer people aren't refugees or migrants, because they have not opted to do this in any way voluntary. It was a hideous thing for Stalin to do and would be a similar thing now for us to do or to accept. It seems that we are just racing to lower our ethical standards. No wonder values of the Enlightenment are under attack in the West.

If you desperately want to instantiate and aide the religious extremists in Israel in their dream of creating an Israel only for the Jews, then do their dirty work and assist them by opening your home to those people forced out from their homeland. Be the willing henchman yourself. Do not imagine that the forced transfer wouldn't be wrong, or that someone else would happily assist in this — ssu

I’m far from making an ethical point or suggesting (to whom?) a political solution though. I’m a nobody, don’t pretend to know everything that matters about everything and everybody on the topic, nor am I interested at all in political activism, at least in here. So I’m not going to take your remarks in personal terms, if that was your goal. I’m simply reasoning over the conditions amenable to one or the other solution. To me, the peculiar case of the Israel-Palestinian conflict stems from the conceptual impasse I was talking about. Appeal to national self-determination and national statehood historically emerged and worked better at time of empires. But neither Palestine nor Israel (however shaped as a colonialist project in modern times) are empires. That’s also why comparisons to Stalin’s Russia (which actually deported Crimean Tatars) or Putin’s Russia (which actually deported Ukrainians), both motivated by imperialist ambitions, aren’t as compelling as you think.
Besides much depends on how the re-location of the Palestinians from Gaza is actually executed and perceived by the Palestinians. After all in a war like context re-location of civilians is done to preserve civilians life, e.g. through humanitarian corridors. But of course one can stay and risk their lives and freedom with no deportation by the hostile forces, still their lives will remain miserable. On the other side an international agreement over spreading exiled Palestinians (not all the Gazans) over more than one country, keeping them far from the borders and favoring programs for their assimilation among charitable arab-muslim brothers (instead of keeping them in refugee camps) could make them less of a threat not only for Israel but also for the hosting countries.
I would additionally stress that also keeping the borders closed and/or Palestinians in refugee camps besides being ethically questionable from a humanitarian or Muslim point of view, it also contributes to perpetrate the conflict. If Palestinians do not have anywhere else to go to flee from the war (unlike millions of Syrians) and to make a decent living, they are forced to suffer the consequences of a foreign occupation and/or fight against Israel for having their own state.
Are there more desirable outcomes? Of course, my challenge will remain the same: what are the circumstances more likely amenable to reach those outcomes to you, INDEPENDENTLY from whether you personally are pro-Palestinian or pro-Israel? Do you see such circumstances available now or in the foreseeable future?

Apart from the fact that the Nazis were ideologically pretty vocal about their genocidal intent, I can get why sending millions of Jews from Germany to Madagascar (a French colony) more than 8k km far away, during the Second World War wasn't as practical as exterminating them. But how about internationally agreeing on sending hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in different neighbouring charitable and brotherly muslim-arab countries (hundreds of km far away) with no World War around? I don't think it's matter of being that unpractical.

Yet you can see the obvious problem with let's say with the PLO and Jordan. Yes, King Hussein did give them sanctuary. But having a large independent armed force (or separate forces) in a little country isn't something very secure. The whole thing ended up with Black September, or what sometimes is called Jordanian Civil War. This event from history should be remembered, when people just assume that other Arab states should happily bare the burden of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. — ssu

Sure I can get that, it's compelling what you say. But I would also highlight two points: 1) the Palestinian resistance needs political and financial support to turn into a real threat, back then it was mainly Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Libya, today it's mainly Iran, but will Iran still be able to support the Palestinian resistance in the near future, after its proxies have been wrecked and while still being under the threat of Israeli retaliation? Plus Trump? Plus Saudi Arabia fearing Iran? 2) External support aside, there is the threat of fragile borders as you warned, but here I see a security dilemma: are Palestinians more of a threat to Israel from Gaza or in exile? Spreading exiled Palestinians over more than one country, keeping them far from the borders and favoring programs for their assimilation among charitable arab-muslim borthers (instead of keeping them in refugee camps) could make them less of a threat not only for Israel but also for the hosting countries. Or at least, this would be more preferable to a "final solution" by all involved parties, I guess.

Why call it "so-called", if Trump helps Netanyahu's dream to be fulfilled? The next issue will be to argue that "ethnic cleansing" isn't genocide, because it isn't mentioned in the definition of a genocide (as is for example of forcibly transferring children of the group to another group, which Russia is doing in Ukraine). For the Netanyahu government, removal of Palestinians from the borders of Isreal (which include Gaza, West Bank, Golan Heights) seems to be a plausible long term solution. And obtainable. — ssu

There are POLITICAL reasons to call the overall Israel’s war on Hamas in Gaza “a genocide” as much as there are POLITICAL reasons to call overall Israel’s war on Hamas in Gaza “legitimate self-defence”.
From a legal point of view, we can speculate that Israel committed a genocide or not (I would argue against), but what the ICC legally sentenced against “Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant” is that they committed war crimes and crimes against humanity not genocide, which people keep confusing to spin their propaganda. And talking about “war crimes” is hinting at the fact that the conflict between Israel and Hamas is dominated by a logic of war. The problem I see is that laws of war would make an armed conflict between 2 nations claiming statehood over the same “native” land impossible. By comparison, the conflict between Russia and Ukraine is different in nature since they were universally and reciprocally acknowledged states. STILL there are allegations about war crimes (or genocides?) also there [1], so go figure what is likely to happen in a situation where 2 nations are warring over the same piece of land claimed as their “native” land.
Before applying a ruling system over a piece of human domain, wouldn’t it be more reasonable to take into account under what conditions that human domain is amenable to be ruled by the referenced ruling system? It’s exactly their claims of “native” nation statehood over exactly the same piece of land that makes their violent conflicts to be perpetual until one of the two sides prevails or both extinguish. Calls for genocide and ethnic cleansing or appeal to laws of war are naive and myopic in that they overlook the inherent/conceptual conflict which deeply and widely inspires both communities. The way both communities FRAME their deepest political aspirations makes their aspirations inherently incompatible. So I find the Israeli-Palestinian conflict inherently much less amenable to elicit compliance to the laws of war than the Ukrainian-Russian conflict. And since I’m in a philosophy forum that is what I think it is worth stressing. Which is why I also find naive to take Netanyahou's psychology (or Trump's psychology) as bearing some fundamental explanatory power over dynamics that deeply concern their people's aspirations.


[1] … but the Russians have been provoked and yada yada yada as the apologists of Russian war crimes and genocide against Ukrainians are claiming (see how easy it is to accuse somebody to be an apologist of genocide with miserable rhetoric tricks?)

If the destabilization of especially Jordan (and Egypt) is the next issue on the agenda, then hardly anything else would be more effective that this. The last thing that the governments of these two countries want to be is willing participants and enablers of the ultra-nationalist zionists plans for moving all Palestinians out of Israel. As Jordan had to fight earlier the PLO earlier and the Egyptians are no backers of Hamas, the last thing for the two countries is to have huge refugee camps of Palestinians with Hamas.
Also, the fact that the border between Jordan and Egypt have stayed peaceful is because both of the countries armed forces can ensure their side of the peace deal with Israel. That's what an actual peace means. Hamas in the refugee camps won't have none of that. — ssu

But if Palestinians (not Hamas, Palestinians) are destabilising for Jordan and Egypt despite being mostly all charitable arab-muslim brothers, then it shouldn’t be hard to understand that Palestinians ruled by Hamas can be destabilising for Israel, right?

"Trump says Jordan, Egypt should take more Palestinians from Gaza"
https://www.reuters.com/world/trump-says-jordan-egypt-should-take-more-palestinians-gaza-2025-01-26/

For the joy of the whiners in this thread, apparently, the so-called genocide/cleansing of the Palestinians continues "thanks to" (?) Trump after the "terrific" cease-fire Israel has destroyed all it could destroy of all its strategic enemies "thanks to" (?) Biden.

What the pro-Russian self-entitled nobodies, expert on military, economics, international law, geopolitics, propaganda, morality, etc. in this thread systematically and hypocritically failed to acknowledge is the fact that the Pax Americana MATERIALLY BENEFITED the rise of China, Russia and Europe at the expense of the US WAAAAAAAY MORE than any alleged Western provocations have MATERIALLY DAMAGED China, Russia, and Europe in favour of the US.
That is why the accusations of the Western/America/NATO provocations are OBJECTIVELY questionable. And that is why the MAGA propaganda is so popular in the US.
Let’s see how much those people in the West (especially in Europe) and in the Rest who despised the American Imperialism under the Pax Americana will like American imperialism after rejecting the Pax Americana.

As I wrote a while back, the problem the West must face is that if rising anti-Western regimes do not evolve into more Western-style liberal democracies, the West may feel compelled to adopt the characteristics of these anti-Western, militarized authoritarian regimes in order to balance the asymmetry. Meanwhile, nationalist and religious motivations, as well as propaganda, are likely to take precedence over universal human rights motivations and/or propaganda. Imperial ambitions may also become more openly territorial, which AT BEST could lead to a form of agreed-upon, stable (?) spheres of influence. In this scenario, minority groups and non-hegemonic states will likely face oppression, exploitation, or will be used to serve the interests of the dominant powers one way or another through local populist bootlickers.

Trump seems to be reasoning along these lines:

• If Russia can make territorial claims over Ukraine and China can do the same with Taiwan, then the U.S. could claim territories like Greenland, Panama, or even Canada.
• If Russia commits genocide or ethnic cleansing in Ukraine, and China does the same against the Uyghurs, then Israel can act similarly in Palestine.
• If Russia and China can leverage economic pressure or political division to exploit Europe against the U.S., the U.S. can retaliate in the same way against Russia and China.
• If Russia and China reject green agreements, the U.S. can do the same.
• If China exploits Russia to counterbalance the U.S., the U.S. can attempt to exploit Russia against China.
• If Russia and China promote nationalism or religious extremism to advance their geopolitical agendas, the U.S. can follow the same path.
• If Russia and China adopt protectionist policies against the GAFAM (Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft), the U.S. can similarly oppose China’s technologies and Russia’s attempts to exploit them against the West the US.

And so on.

More on "Russian imperialism is just Western mainstream propaganda & russophobia":
President Tokayev is evidently cognizant of the significant Russian-speaking population in the northern region of Kazakhstan, which harbors the potential for separatist sentiments. Additionally, he is aware of statements made by certain members of the Russian establishment, such as Vyacheslav Nikonov, a Duma deputy, who persists in claiming that Northern Kazakhstan is essentially Siberian territory, populated and developed by Russians, and that its transition to Kazakhstan was arbitrary and unlawful.
Furthermore, Tokayev is mindful of assertions made by Russian politicians, including President Putin, insinuating that Kazakhstan, along with other post-Soviet states, was artificially created by Lenin to fragment the cohesive Russian empire and appease minority groups. These statements highlight Tokayev’s awareness of external pressures and challenges to Kazakhstan’s territorial integrity and underscore the importance of his diplomatic and political maneuvers to address such concerns.
(source: https://cacianalyst.org/publications/analytical-articles/item/13798-kazakhstan-resurrects-golden-horde-in-political-messaging.html)

Russia says Christmas Day attack on Ukraine was a success, as Zelensky calls strikes 'inhumane'
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c159082vdqyt?page=2

The Ukrainian losers whining over a successful Russian attack on Xmas instead of blaming themselves and the Great Satan. Well done Mr. Putin! Give this human scum a lesson !

↪ssu
I don't think there's anything essentially wrong with Mearsheimer's analysis as it paints the one-sided viewpoint of Russia, which is a view we have to contend with - either as actual arguments, motivator or even as an excuse. It's accurate insofar it reflects Russian arguments and thinking and you can think about it what you want but it has been raised repeatedly as a reason. — Benkei

It would be more interesting to assess Mearsheimer’s analysis wrt his real politik theory than wrt Russia’s arguments for two reasons: 1. Mearsheimer’s analysis wouldn’t contribute much into understanding the conflict in Ukraine if it limited itself to report Russia’s arguments, we can access them way more easily than Russians can access Western arguments 2. It is very much possible that Mearsheimer is picking only the Russian arguments that better support his claims ignoring, omitting, downplaying others which do not add up with his general views, in other words his theory may bias his views . DO YOU AGREE? IF NOT, WHY NOT?

Objectively, there definitely is an argument to be made from a Russian security perspective that having a large military alliance on your doorstep has clear ramifications with respect to their military capabilities vis-a-vis your own country. The argument NATO is purely defensive is merely theoretical as Kosovo and Libya have shown but even the treaty changes with respect to, for instance, space warfare. It's not merely benign. But even granting what is defensive today, we do not know what it is tomorrow. So this worry of Russia, from a real politik perspective is entirely logical. — Benkei

IF that argument can be made FOR RUSSIA, THEN the EXACT same argument can be made AGAINST RUSSIA and its military alliance (CSTO) by NATO countries. And if Kosovo is a case against NATO, Russia’s interventions in Chechnya, Georgia, Moldava and Ukraine are a case against Russia.
The difference is that you and Mearsheimer are supposedly Westerners not Russians. And while I do not find surprising that Russians promote Russian views on national security , I find rather baffling that Westerners promote Russian views on Russian national security, instead of promoting Western views on Western national security.

Some of the responses to Harris' video reflect a moral view of international relations, which simply doesn't mean much in a world where international relations are preponderantly governed by real politk considerations. — Benkei

The issue I’m having with such claims is that even moral views require POWER if moral rules are expected to be collectively ENFORCED through powerful means, ideally DISPROPORTIONATELY more powerful than those means available to people who oppose/violate such moral rules. DO YOU AGREE? IF NOT, WHY NOT?

That has nothing to do with ignoring agency of Eastern European countries, which is a moral cliam they should have freedom to chose, but simply that stark political realities say otherwise. — Benkei

When I accuse pro-Russian supporters of ignoring agency I’m referring to the fact that they put ALL/MOST/PRIMARY/ULTIMATE responsibility on the US for anything that happens on the ground:
1. Euromaidan (coup d’etat) => blame the Great Satan of course
2. Zelensky president => blame the Great Satan of course
3. The War in Ukraine => blame the Great Satan of course
4. Nord Stream blown up => blame the Great Satan of course
5. Peace talks interrupted => blame the Great Satan of course
6. Israel devastating Palestine => blame the Great Satan of course
7. The EU incapable of being of any relevance in the international arena => blame the Great Satan of course
8. The Middle East is a mess => blame the Great Satan of course
9. North Africa is a mess => blame the Great Satan of course
Etc. etc.

The problem with the moral argument is also that it only works if you adhere to moral principles yourself; otherwise it's just another real politik tool "Do as I say (but don't do as I do)”. And while I agree Eastern European countries have the moral high ground; they are simply not the most relevant players between the proxy wars. There's no fundamental difference between the regional influence the US has (tried to) build through wars in various regions. The Russians simply are more ruthless. And it works - the EU is afraid to escalate - and opinions differ on how justified that fear is. — "Benkei

I find your first claim sloppy and the second shallow.
If I myself was very very very bad at keeping promises and yet I made the following moral argument: “violating promises is immoral and the US has violated the promise made to the Russians that they would NOT expand NATO eastward, after the reunification of Germany, therefore the US acted immorally by expanding NATO eastward”, this argument would be roughly sound and valid (if the premises are held to be true). In that sense the moral argument “works” INDEPENDENTLY from the moral qualities of myself making the argument. Maybe what you wanted to say is that people’s moral authority doesn’t come from the soundness/validity of the moral arguments they make, but by their proven moral dispositions. But then my question to you is: why do we need moral authority? What is the relation between moral authority and political authority?
Concerning real politik, what people often do not realise is that moral rules are not inherently dictated by the laws of physics, so powerful agents may be needed to enforce them over a collectivity. Besides powerful agents can not enforce moral rules beyond their reach (power has limits) nor can abide by moral rules if that would empower competitors who oppose/violate such moral rules, this would go against the goal of being moral rules enforcers.
This is true also for powerful agents in the geopolitical arena. And the weight of the infamous “Western hypocrisy” or “exporting democracy” to me is more grounded on a misunderstanding of the role or purpose of Western propaganda by the Westerners themselves.

There's an obvious difference in the message that Al Qaeda and ISIS are saying... — ssu

Also Talibans when they came back in power talked about peaceful relations with other countries , women's permissions to work and study "within the framework of Islam", granted a general amnesty, etc. My impression is that the Syrian rebels' leader is trying to reassure neighbouring countries and the West about threats of instability (civil wars and its spill overs), or about the resurgence of Islamist ambitions, while advertising their anti-Iranian stance. But it's too soon to judge. The relevant point to me wrt this thread is that those signs are in a direction more averse to the Iranian and Russian hegemonic ambitions in the region.

(and btw there's a thread for Syria... this is the Ukraine thread) — ssu

There are links between all these conflicts and therefore it's myopic to understand them in isolation from their wider historical circumstances.

Or simply once when the insurgents clearly showed sings that they wouldn't be genocidal lunatics as ISIS — ssu

I doubt that. It's been reported that the Syrian rebels are replete of all sorts of jihadists (including ex-Isis and ex Al-Qaeda) which in principle are averse to other religious minorities, so Christians and Alawites don't look to me safer than under Assad's rule just because the rebels look now more moderate than Isis (not even sure that the Syrian army are overwhelmingly composed by Alawites whose moral might be determinant in defending Assad's regime). On the other side the contribution of the Russian aviation (mainly) and philo-Iranian militias on the ground is/was critical to Assad. This support seems to have vanished now. Turkey may have lots to gain from supporting the rebels at the expense of the
Iranian and Russian influence in that region. Lybia is another potential target to further strengthen the Turkish influence in that area at the expense of the Russians.

> Russia and Iran abandon Syria, low on resources, can't keep it up, due to other crap.
> Ripple effects related to Ukraine and the Middle East (Israel).

Some more signs that the US and Israel are doomed, as some self-entitled nobodies claim here, or more signs that it's not only the US that is overstretching, but also Russia and Iran?

Ukraine can’t afford to lose tens of thousands of lives to reclaim Crimea, says Zelensky
https://meduza.io/en/news/2024/11/21/ukraine-can-t-afford-to-lose-tens-of-thousands-of-lives-to-reclaim-crimea-says-zelensky

1. Europe and Russia are parts of the world the US will no longer be able to control going into the future.

2. Europe and Russia will play a critical role in keeping China's economy afloat in case of a US-China war.

3. Europe and Russia being in pole position to benefit greatly from a US-China war, and probably becoming the laughing thirds of such a conflict. — Tzeentch

In the domain of what one can conjecture, sure your predictions can be seen as roughly plausible as others (like a re-approaching of the US and Russia to contain China). You didn't put a timeline though, nor offered a concrete path on how this is going to happen. There are bigger demographic and technological processes that may contribute to shape the future, as much as less predictable events (like pandemics and climate change effects). Making claims and showing off how confident you feel about it, shows more your biases than offering insights about our current predicament.

From an Italian newspaper:
Yaroslav Hrytsak: "Zelensky's popularity is at an all-time low because he doesn't tell us the truth. He treats us like children"

"the Ukrainian historian expresses strong criticism of the president: "He continues to repeat the heroic narrative of the first months, but no one here believes it anymore. He dreams of playing the role of the Ukrainian Churchill. He is more like Gorbachev: very popular at beginning of Perestroika, but then increasingly isolated; respected abroad, detested at home"

source: https://www.huffingtonpost.it/esteri/2024/10/08/news/hrytsak_la_popolarita_di_zelensky_e_ai_minimi_storici_perche_non_ci_dice_la_verita_ci_tratta_come_bambini-17370169/

- Hamas remains undefeated while tens of thousands of civilians lay dead. — Tzeentch

Give me a military definition of "Hamas's defeat"

- Israel's international reputation has evaporated and it is probably the most isolated it has ever been in its history. — Tzeentch

Yes that's why Arab States helped Israel when attacked by Iran.
They care so much about Hezbollah and Hamas:
https://www.trtworld.com/middle-east/why-are-some-syrians-celebrating-israeli-strikes-on-hezbollah-18213844

- Recent seismographic anomalies suggest Iran may have tested a nuclear weapon. — Tzeentch

Suggest to whom?

"While Iran has previously acknowledged the existence of the "Imam Khomeini" space centre and missile headquarters southeast of Semnan, the site is more than 100 kilometres from the earthquake's epicentre."
source: https://www.euronews.com/2024/10/09/social-media-abuzz-with-claims-of-irans-secret-nuclear-test-after-44-magnitude-earthquake

"Iran is one of the most seismically active countries in the world, being crossed by several major faults that cover at least 90% of the country.[1] As a result, earthquakes in Iran occur often and are destructive. "
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_earthquakes_in_Iran

So what I would really like to understand is: is it geopolitical and historical reasoning that is blind to universal humanitarian concerns or is it universal humanitarian concerns that are blind to geopolitical and historical reasoning? I think the second is way more likely, hence the spectacular and endless frustration of the universal human rights activists. — neomac


I'm not sure what you mean by "historical reasoning" — boethius

By “historical reasoning” I’m referring to reasoning over the historical genesis of the “universal human rights” institutions in Western societies or in the World.
By “geopolitical analysis” I’m referring to analysis about the role “universal human rights” appeals play in the geopolitical context.

but both geopolitical analysis and humanitarian concerns can be as informed or then blind to the other. — boethius

My claim is not about possibility, but about what I find more likely.

There are plenty of geopolitical analysts and actors that wish to minimize human suffering, and there are plenty of humanitarian actors that are aware of the geopolitical realities. You can also find the opposite cases, of geopolitical analysts and/or actors that have zero concern for human rights (there are plenty of brutal dictatorships that understand the geopolitics of their situation but are unconcerned with human rights). — boethius

↪neomac
First time I've seen the video so I couldn't have posted it before.

is it geopolitical and historical reasoning that is blind to universal humanitarian concerns or is it universal humanitarian concerns that are blind to geopolitical and historical reasoning?

Yes and no. The latter opposes – struggles against – the inhumane and counter-productive (i.e. destabilizing) excesses – strategic blindness – of the former. — 180 Proof

The reasons why I find it way more likely that people driven by humanitarian concerns are blind to historical and geopolitical reasoning can be found in the nature of their political engagement: the most obvious reason is that humanitarian activists, organizations and the like (as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty international, Unrwa, etc.) focus on monitoring violations, and denouncing behaviour that is breaching certain international norms (like war crimes, genocide, cleansing, torturing, etc.) to provide assistance accordingly, than on investigating either the historical and geopolitical reasons for such violations, or the geopolitical consequences of denouncing such violations. The other reason is that when geopolitical and historical analysis are taken into account, it is not to critically engage them as such, but to use their results to play the blame game (who started it? Who is the primary/mostly/only responsible for human rights violations? Who did worse?) and spin some pro-humanitarian propaganda (like, to restore human rights on earth one has always to take the initiative to cooperate, make concessions, redistribute, equalise, etc. that’s always possible it’s only bad government that makes you believe it’s not etc.).
For them, the point is not to interpret the world, but to change it.
Gideon Levy is an obvious example of this attitude. Many people in this thread reason in the same way.

In terms of "historical force", most conflicts are framed and limited by humanitarian concerns. The rules of war and international law and WMD treaties and other self-imposed constraints on state actors are the result of a humanitarian tradition to minimize the harms of war and strive to maximize a liveable peace after war, all while recognizing that wars do happen.. — boethius

If there was no humanitarian concern every state would stockpile chemical weapons and strive to attain nuclear weapons and not hesitate to use such weapons, as well as any other weapon on hand, on civilian populations. And not just weapons of mass destruction, there is a long list of weapons that states agree not to use (sound weapons, pain inducing weapons, various forms of terrorism, laser and other blinding weapons and radiation weapons of various kinds) all while competing with each other using as much force as they can muster within this broader humanitarian framework. — boethius

But this can be framed also as a coordination problem: a state can contribute to the respect of some universal humanitarian rights, to spare inhuman treatment for its own people by enemies in war time in return. That doesn’t mean that a given state is inherently compelled to feel concerned by violations of universal human rights for the sake of other nations. Nor that a given state is inherently compelled to respect other nations’ universal human rights at the expense of its own people.

There's all sorts of things states could do but choose not to, and the argument that they don't do it because they would look bad simply circles back to the fact they look bad because enough people genuinely believe in the humanitarian principles (such as striving to minimize rather than maximize harm, avoid intentionally harming civilians and so on) that therefore those actions look bad. — boethius

The problem is what it means “enough people”, and what states can be pressed to do by said “enough people”.
From a prescriptive point of view, everybody should comply with universal human rights, and every individual is compelled to abide by those principles by their own initiative without any need of being pressured by others, and history is no excuse. When one is talking about “enough people” and what happens if “enough people” look state actions as bad we are no longer in the domain of a-priori prescriptions but in the empirical domain of psychological and material pressures, and how they scale to the level of nations and political decision makers. There is where geopolitics and history may offer precious insights. For example: is Gideon Levy “enough people” to change Netanyahu’s decisions? is Gideon Levy+Chomsky+Mearhsimer “enough people” to change Netanyahu’s decisions? Is Gideon Levy+Chomsky+Mearhsimer+pro-Palestinian students in American colleges “enough people” to change Netanyahu’s decisions? Is Gideon Levy+Chomsky+Mearhsimer+pro-Palestinian students in American colleges+UN judges+Humanitarian ONGs+all Benkeys in this thread+ALL SOUTHAFRICA+ALL THE MUSLIM IN THE UNIVERSE “enough people” to change Netanyahu’s decisions in accordance to universal human rights principles? And if they aren’t enough, why aren’t they enough?

Which is one area where I diverge from Mearsheimer in that states in the current system strive to maximize power but within a collaborative framework of self-imposed constraint due to the genuine belief in principles opposed to power-maximization. — boethius

Not sure to understand what you are saying here. But how is your claim that “states in the current system strive to maximize power but within a collaborative framework of self-imposed constraint due to the genuine belief in principles opposed to power-maximization" consistent with your other claims that international order (which includes international laws of war) is “ornamental” and “with no meaning”? BTW do you see Russia, China, Iran, South Korea, Hamas “within a collaborative framework of self-imposed constraint due to the genuine belief in principles opposed to power-maximization”?

And, as mentioned above, these constraints are due to the values and not some second order practical consideration, for we can easily find periods in history where there were no such values and we never find such constraints simply arising anyway due to practical lessons. When it was completely compatible with people's values to be torturing, crucifying (including a tenth of your own men on occasion), poising enemy water supplies, general raping and pillaging and eradication or enslaving conquered people's etc. we never find in history groups of people who have these values (i.e. see no problem with any of these things) but stop doing them because of practical considerations (like "torture doesn't work" for example). — boethius

I don’t doubt that ordinary people at large reason in terms of values, however I doubt that political decision makers are not compelled by “second order practical consideration”. By the way, this suggests me another way to put my original claim “that people driven by humanitarian concerns are blind to historical and geopolitical reasoning”: people driven by humanitarian concerns reason in terms of values, decision makers reason ALSO, if not mostly or exclusively, in terms of second order practical considerations that’s why the former are more likely blind to geopolitical and historical reasoning than the latter about universal rights values.

Or she didn’t say that because just a moron would have thought that buying time was an admission by Europeans that Minsk agreements were deceivingly meant to arm Ukraine in order to initiate/pursue a war against Russia. — neomac


That's literally what the expression "buying time" means. That's literally what the expression "buying time" means. It doesn't mean "coercive pressure as one component in a diplomatic strategy to establish a lasting ceasefire", which Merkel could have easily expressed that concept in her own words had she wanted to. — boethius

No, it literally doesn’t. The metaphoric locution “buying time” roughly refers to the purpose of delaying the moment of facing some issues, either in the hope those issues will disappear by themselves or in order to better prepare to cope with them. Out of context, the intention to be provocative or to dupe somebody is not inherent to the semantics of that locution AT ALL. So one has to take into account context to determine its contextual meaning. Here you go:

1) Let’s start reviewing the claim in its wider textual context:
ZEIT: Are you asking yourself whether the years of relative calm were also years of failure and whether you were not just a crisis manager but also partly the cause of crises?
Merkel: I wouldn't be a political person if I didn't deal with it. Let's take climate protection, where Germany has done a lot compared to other countries. But with regard to the topic itself, I admit that, measured against what the IPCC's International Climate Report says today, not enough has been done. Or let's look at my policy with regard to Russia and Ukraine. I have come to the conclusion that I made my decisions at the time in a way that I can still understand today. IT WAS AN ATTEMPT TO PREVENT EXACTLY SUCH A WAR. The fact that it didn't work doesn't mean that the attempts were wrong.
ZEIT: But you can find the way you acted in previous circumstances plausible and still consider it wrong today in view of the results.
Merkel: But that requires you to say what exactly the alternatives were at the time. I thought the discussion in 2008 about Ukraine and Georgia joining NATO was wrong. Neither did the countries have the necessary prerequisites for this, nor had the consequences of such a decision been fully considered, both with regard to Russia's actions against Georgia and Ukraine and to NATO and its mutual assistance rules. And the Minsk Agreement in 2014 was an attempt to give Ukraine time. [Editor's note: The Minsk Agreement refers to a series of agreements for the self-proclaimed republics of Donetsk and Luhansk, which had broken away from Ukraine under Russian influence. The aim was to gain time through a ceasefire in order to later achieve peace between Russia and Ukraine]. It also used this time to become stronger, as we can see today. The Ukraine of 2014/15 is not the Ukraine of today. As we saw in the battle for Debaltseve (a railway town in the Donbass, Donetsk Oblast, ed.) in early 2015, Putin could have easily overrun them. And I very much doubt that the NATO states could have done as much to help Ukraine then as they are doing today.

So in that interview, Merkel ADMITS that Minsk Agreements were an attempt to prevent such a war (as the note of the editor further confirms), however it failed. And even though it failed, it gave time to Ukraine to implement Minsk Agreements, and ALSO to get stronger “as we can see today”. NOWHERE Merkel is talking about Ukrainian victory or about the chances of Ukraine to resolve the conflict in military terms according to its maximalist expectations or cheerleading propaganda.

2) It is very far fetched to claim that Western Europeans, especially Germans or Merkel, were intentionally provoking Russia to a bigger war. For several reasons: (A) given the economic-political ties between Germany and Russia, Germany military unreadiness, and Germany ideological aversion to get dragged into wars and all its consequences (including a refugee crisis). (B) Westerners cornered Ukraine to sign Minsk Agreements which burdened more Ukraine than Russia, since not only Russia was not taken to be a co-belligerant but it was also granted a role of mediator pushing for an interpretation of the Agreements which for Ukrainians amounted to a capitulation to Russia. (C) Even though Minsk Agreements helped Ukraine restore its military forces which in 2014 were poorly equipped, undertrained, and unprepared for a Russian aggression and to partner with NATO (actually, a “decrepit” army: https://theconversation.com/in-2014-the-decrepit-ukrainian-army-hit-the-refresh-button-eight-years-later-its-paying-off-177881), in a moment where Russia had means and motives to pursue a military escalation after grabbing Crimea without much of a fight, STILL the West and especially Germany didn’t military support Ukraine as Ukraine expected, out of fear to provoke a military escalation from Russia. Indeed, the military aid was very much constrained, slow and far below expectations (since 2014, remember the issue over lethal vs non-lethal weapons up until 2018? Where non-lethal weapons means “defensive and designed to prevent further UAF [Ukrainian armed forces] fatalities and casualties” https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN07135/SN07135.pdf ), Germany was the most reluctant country to offer military aid to Ukraine also after the war started (https://www.osw.waw.pl/en/publikacje/osw-commentary/2022-04-28/german-arms-deliveries-to-ukraine-spds-controversial-course). And again, Germany opposed NATO membership for Ukraine since 2008. (D) Merkel ADMITS that Minsk Agreements were “an attempt to prevent such a war” in the very same interview where you extrapolated the claim to defend herself most likely against criticisms about her having not done enough to support Ukraine (see the Guardian article you posted, see persisting complaints by Ukrainians about the Western support). That's why Merkel needed to stress it out that however questionable from the Ukrainian perspective still Minsk Agreements achieved something important for Ukraine, that otherwise wouldn't have been possible. And that's what she's trying to take credit for despite the criticisms.

3) In light of contextual considerations, it is very far fetched to claim that Western Europeans, especially Germans, were deceptive, because making Ukraine stronger to the point of being in condition to withstand a major Russian escalation WAS NOT EXCLUDED BY THE MINSK AGREEMENTS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements#Text_of_the_protocol), and no she didn’t need to express herself otherwise to make that point clearer to those who ignored the actual content of the Minsk Agreements and the criticisms she was trying to defend herself from (like those coming from Ukrainians and Westerners invoking greater support to Ukraine). So Russian expectations about the “provocative” reconstruction of the Ukrainian army were not grounded on what was explicitly agreed upon. Besides, as you can read here in this report: “The Minsk Agreements: Not Legally Binding but a Political Commitment” (https://www.kas.de/documents/252038/4520172/The+Grand+Stalemate+of+the+Minsk+Agreements), so it was mostly left on Ukraine and Russia’s initiative to comply with such agreements. So no, Merkel did NOT admit any intention to be provocative or to dupe the Russians.

4) Whatever residual reason to pin “bad faith” on Western intentions (also independently from Merkel's declarations in that interview) in favor of Russian expectations can overwhelmingly be retorted against Russia because: first, conjecture for conjecture, it’s very hard to believe that a paranoiac despot, ex-KGB agent expert on disinformatia and historical revisionism, with a network of both Western (especially in Germany, given their economic and political ties) and Ukrainian covert agents could possibly be duped by Western intentions about the Minsk agreements. Putin was most likely aware in what predicament Western Europeans and Ukraine were, also considering the power relations between the US and Europe, and how he could exploit their hesitancy and “buying time” in his favour more easily than they could in their or in Ukraine’s favour. Indeed, their hesitation/reluctance could have been taken as a political pretext for escalation, as well as a convenient window of opportunity to push covert operations on the ground (including Russification of the region), AS HE ACTUALLY DID. Secondly, given the occupation of Crimea by Russian militia and the Russian arming/leading to support Ukrainian separatists’ armed conflict with Kiev, Russia was most likely violating previous agreements like the Budapest Memorandum, NATO-Russian foundation act and the United Nations Charter (among others). Third, while Russia was more accountable to comply with Minsk Agreements than Ukraine because (A) Russia was the unprovoked aggressor (differently from Israel wrt Hamas) and Ukraine the victim, (B) had greater military means than Ukraine, and (C) had vested interest to protract the conflict and compromise the Ukrainian territorial integrity and sovereignty (to compromise Ukraine’s chances of Westernisation), not only Russia didn’t do its part to preserve a cease-fire but it was arguably Ukraine the one that did more to comply with Minsk agreements (https://cepa.org/article/dont-let-russia-fool-you-about-the-minsk-agreements/). But if that’s the case then one doesn’t owe good faith to others for dealing with problems that those others created and protracted in bad faith .

Merkel would have known this faction in Ukraine that actually wants a bigger war with Russia existed and at the time she made her comments it seemed this factions view was validated. — boethius

It’s a convenient caricature to present Ukraine’s views as ”this faction in Ukraine that actually wants a bigger war with Russia”, what the Ukrainian leadership aimed to is to preserve territorial integrity and political sovereignty. One can question the methods in light of their chances too succeed. The point is that Ukrainians were/are fighting against Russian oppression, as much as Palestinians fight against Israeli oppression. The main difference is that the former was UNPROVOKED, since Ukraine didn’t attack Russia proper, as Hamas attacked Israel proper. And ultimately it’s inherently a national matter what Ukrainians are ready to do to defend their own territorial and political sovereignty.

Nowhere Merkel is talking about Ukrainian victory in that comment. That's your rhetoric manipulation. — neomac

She says "buying time" ... buying time for what? To become "stronger as we see today".
The far bigger war with Russia is at that time underway. By "strong" she is obviously implying "able to win on the battlefield”. — boethius

That may sound plausible in the hindsight, but when Putin invaded Ukraine in 2022, neither the West nor the US administrations were expecting Ukrainians to be able to resist as they did. When building up the Afghan security forces in 20 years, the US spent tens of billions more than they spent to rebuild the Ukrainian army since 2014 to 2022. When they were directly war fighting the Talibans in Afghanistan, the US spent hundreds of billions more than they spent in war fighting the Russians in Ukraine (https://www.sigar.mil/pdf/quarterlyreports/2021-04-30qr-section2-funding.pdf). And yet when the Americans left Afghanistan, these Afghan military forces were unable to prevent the Taliban from taking control of the country in a matter of months after the US withdrawal.
So, without a deeper understanding of the situation (including Ukrainian motivations), it was not implausible that the Ukrainians could have collapsed in the same way vis-à-vis such a foe as the Russian army. Even less implausible given the political/military/intelligence/economic/demographic ties between Russia and Ukraine since the Soviet era. All the more if one were to believe Russian propaganda: Ukraine’s regime was the result of a Western coup, Russians and Ukrainians are one people, Ukrainians are just misled to self-destruction by a biiiiiig (or “tiny tiny tiny”? Which one sounds better? You tell me!) fraction of genocidal Nazis, Kiev will capitulate in matter of days or weeks, etc. This understandably elicited greater optimism and boosted moral because expectations about Ukrainian performance in an armed conflict with Russia were already pretty low (no matter how Western propaganda artificially amplified this sentiment).
Besides, roughly one month prior to Merkel’s interview, Gen. Mark Milley notoriously warned Ukraine and the West that despite Ukraine’s heroic success in driving the Russians from Kharkiv and Kherson, it would be “very difficult” to evict Russia’s army from the entire country by force. There might be an opening for political solutions, however: “You want to negotiate from a position of strength, Russia right now is on its back”. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoxCo1mXzEE&t=6s).
So, NOTHING in admitting that the Ukrainian military forces became stronger, logically implies or “obviously” suggests that their strength was enough to resolve the Ukrainian territorial disputes with Russia via military means in a way that satisfied Ukraine. BTW this is a persisting issue of Western support to Ukraine, at least, from the Ukrainian perspective.

Otherwise her comments would make absolutely no sense: Minsk was to buy time for Ukraine to be strong ... but alas obviously not strong enough and therefore to ultimately be severely damaged by Russia and forced to sign unfavourable peace terms?! — boethius

Nobody knew back in 2014 what Putin would do in 2022 for certain. We should talk in terms of risks of escalation. The Ukrainian were confident that to mitigate such risks they needed to work on military deterrence with the help of the West. But Western collective support to build such deterrence couldn’t possibly have been granted, or even fully planned back then by individual Western politicians, other than in a form of a generic political commitment, and most certainly not with the same confidence Putin can establish/plan Russia’s foreign policies. The decision process in Western democracies is way more complicated than in authoritarian regimes both internally to individual countries, and externally among allied countries. And Russia can interfere with Western and Ukrainian decision making through infowar more easily than the other way around. So Western commitments to Ukraine could end up being more problematic and conditional in the backstage than on the stage when the West must show unity for propaganda reasons. This is consistent with the persistent disagreements between Ukrainians and Western allies on how to deter Russia.

You don't "buy time" to suffer the same consequences later, perhaps even worse, you "buy time" to prepare a more favorable outcome. Using a negotiation to "buy time" would be understood by anyone in diplomatic, legal, and/or political circles as the goal is to buy time to prepare for an escalation of the conflict and not buy time in order to implement the spirt of the agreement (which makes no sense: you do not "buy time" in signing an agreement with the intention of fulfilling the agreement, just not now but maybe later?! It's not how anyone speaks with even a cursory experience with this kind of discourse). — boethius

I argued that Minsk Agreement served both purposes: reach and preserve a cease-fire while at the same time making Ukrainian more military ready in case of Russian escalation. They are not inherently incompatible, and both purposes took time (also the implementation of Minsk agreements, since it had to go through the internal Ukrainian political process and was obstructed by Russia). What I deny is that Merkel admitted in that interview to act provocatively toward Russia or to dupe Russia. This is a caricature of what she said, based on pro-Russian biased assumptions.

Had Merkel actually thought Ukraine negotiated Minsk with the intention to avoid a bigger war and was therefore implementing Minsk with the goal of avoiding a bigger war, but that, alas, supplying arms to Ukraine as part of that diplomatic strategy didn't work but fortunately Ukraine is now better able to deal with Russian bad faith vis-a-vis Minsk, she would have said something along those lines — boethius

Indeed, she said “something” along those lines. That’s what I’m arguing.

To take two important domains: in the ABM and INF situation, the West could offer in a negotiation to assuage Russian concerns of nuclear first strike, even in mutual beneficial ways that aim to create a new non-proliferation treaty architecture that is favourable also to the US (vis-a-vis not only Russia but also other nuclear or would-be-nuclear powers); and in the economic sphere obviously the West could approve Nord Stream II that Russia spent some 10 billion dollars building. In direct bilateral negotiations Ukraine cannot offer either of these things as leverage, only in negotiations that involve (at the least) the US and Germany could ABM, INF and Nord Stream II be on the table. — boethius

Russia may very well have agreed to favourable terms for Ukraine in not only the Donbas but even Crimea could have changed status (some sort of strange quasi status is had been floated at the time), if Nord Stream II was approved and also some nuclear deescalation (or then at least avoiding further nuclear escalation) which presumably the West should also want. Obviously plenty of other issues such as NATO and so on. — boethius

Here is a question for you: since Europe wouldn’t need a defense system against an anti-Western authoritarian regime as Russia is, then another way to get rid of NATO/Western defense system against Russia would and have been for Russia to turn into a pro-Western democratic regime, respectful of other pro-Western countries’ sovereignty? Russia could be like France and the UK a sovereign and nuclear power within the West strategic alliance. Russia could use its resources to improve material and political standards of life in Russia for the good of the Russians, enjoy a peaceful life as ex-imperial nations with other Western nations (like France, Germany, Spain, Japan) and still expand its sphere of influence in a cooperative way with the West (e.g. in Africa and Middle East). So what’s wrong with these scenarios from Russian perspective?

While you think about it, here my objections to your claims:

1) Let me notice that the US made its efforts to act cooperatively with Russia after 2008 see the Obama administration’s “Russian reset” which, among others, comprised Obama’s decision to turn down Bush’s plans to station an anti-ballistic missile systems in Poland and the Czech Republic (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6720153.stm). And Vladimir Putin said the decision was "correct and brave". (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_reset). And there was even a dedicated channel to address whatever Russia’s security concerns about NATO after the collapse of the Soviet Union, as established by the 1997 Founding Act (https://www.nato.int/cps/su/natohq/official_texts_25468.htm). Besides there were margins for security cooperation in other areas of the globe, e.g. in fighting terrorism and stabilising the Middle East (especially, under Bush’s administration). Yet things deteriorated during the following years on different issues because NEITHER party could help but interfering in whatever the other party saw as its sphere of influence (it’s again Obama the one who approved the plans for the defense systems installed in Romania and Poland). Russia’s concerns in foreign policies are the same ones the US has, and such concerns have little to do with specific/circumscribed territorial and economic claims. They have to do with hegemonic competition at large, starting with those areas of the globe which both Russia and the US see as their proxy spheres of influence like in Europe and in Middle East. Security maximizers are prone to stretch and clash whenever they see an opportunity for weakening their competitors. What makes the difference is their resources to pressure competitors and attract clients. In other words, when states compete for hegemony there is no inherent reason to take opportunities for cooperation as a railroad toward greater stability. Indeed, weaker competitors could grow bolder and empowered through cooperation (as it is the case of Russia, China and Iran) and turn more aggressive, especially if they have historical humiliations to redeem.

2) Russia’s security concerns about the defense systems installed in Romania and Poland, here is what Stoltenberg said in 2016 :
Nor does the system represent any threat to Russia’s strategic nuclear deterrent. Geography and physics both make it impossible for the NATO system to shoot down Russian intercontinental ballistic missiles. The interceptors are too few in number, and either too far south or too close to Russia to do so.
We have made this clear to the Russian authorities time and again. Yet Russia has declined all NATO proposals for cooperation on missile defence, including the establishment of joint centres and a regime to ensure missile defence transparency. Moscow unilaterally terminated dialogue with NATO on this issue in 2013. Source: https://www.nato.int/cps/fr/natohq/opinions_130662.htm?selectedLocale=en
In other words, Russia cornered itself into a position of no dialogue with NATO about security in Europe. The point is that the US can do the same with Russia, and obviously for very compelling reasons: the security system in Europe concerns all European countries not just Ukraine nor primarily Ukraine. So if Russia is perceived as a threat by other Europeans countries, the US can’t just sacrifice European security for Ukrainian security. And if any unilateral defensive move/request from Westerners can be claimed to be hostile/provocative if it can’t be vetoed at convenience by Russia, the West can do the same.

3) One thing I do not understand in your argument is the following: if Russia fears these defence systems, how annexing south-east Ukraine will prevent that if the rest of Ukraine can still join NATO? And even if Russia turned the whole of Ukraine into a neutral/demilitarized/puppet state, still those defence systems could be deployed in the Baltic States and in Finland. How can Russia prevent that without invading/attacking those countries? Besides Russia likely deployed nuclear weapon systems bordering NATO countries (https://www.kyivpost.com/post/36982), so why Russia’s deterrence should be prioritised over Western deterrence?

Now, it was presented by Western officials and media at the time that the reason to rebuke any Russian invitations to negotiate all the issues in play, a "new European security architecture" was that this was essentially as a favor to Ukraine in that the West wouldn't go "behind Ukraine's back" and negotiate things with the Russians. — boethius

I say all this not only because it is apropos but also Merkel would have known the purpose of US policy was to be provocative and not to try to reach a resolution with Russia. — boethius

Unless, Merkel would have known that the purpose of Russia’s was to be provocative and not to try to reach a resolution with the US, as it became blatant before the Russian invasion started:
The Russian leadership is demanding legally binding security guarantees from the US and NATO in two draft treaties. Key demands are, firstly, a commitment to refrain from undertaking any further Eastern enlargements of NATO, particularly with regard to Ukraine or other states within the region such as Georgia. This would entail withdrawing the prospect of membership offered at NATO’s Bucharest summit in 2008. Secondly, the Alliance should guarantee that it will not deploy any weaponry or military forces on the border with Russia. Thirdly, NATO should end its military cooperation with post-Soviet states and scale back its military forces to the 1997 level. This would mean no longer deploying military forces and weaponry in NATO countries that were not members of the Alliance in 1997. Moscow is therefore also demanding that NATO withdraw its multinational battlegroups from Poland and the Baltic states. Fourthly, the US should pull its nuclear weapons out of Europe and, fifthly, cease meddling in Russia’s internal affairs. Here, the Kremlin is referring to support for the so-called Colour Revolutions as part of a US democracy-building agenda.
Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has also made it clear that Moscow takes a critical view of any NATO accession by Finland and Sweden. The Russian leadership is thus extending its reach beyond the traditional post-Soviet sphere of influence and, by seeking to reduce NATO’s role in Europe, is striving for a dominant position in European security policy. Russia is no longer merely demanding a right of veto in all matters pertaining to European security, as called for in former President Dmitry Medvedev’s 2008 proposal for a treaty on a new European security architecture. Instead, THE AIM IS TO DRASTICALLY CURTAIL THE US’s ROLE IN EUROPE, to establish security guarantees for Moscow and to consolidate spheres of influence in Europe on a legally binding basis. Initial talks between the US and Russia on 10 January 2022 showed that such guarantees are unrealistic.
Source: https://dgap.org/en/research/publications/future-european-security-what-does-russia-want
BTW, anti-Americanism is also the reason why many, also in the West, and in this thread too (likely including you), take a pro-Russian stance. Even if Russia is evil, still it’s the US the Great Satan.

I already watched this video (I think you posted it already). I find Gideon’s argument, from premises to conclusions, enough plausible in light of available evidences and universal humanitarian concerns. However, I don’t find it particularly enlightening from a geopolitical and historical perspective (I elaborated on this in several previous posts, not sure if you read them).
So what I would really like to understand is: is it geopolitical and historical reasoning that is blind to universal humanitarian concerns or is it universal humanitarian concerns that are blind to geopolitical and historical reasoning? I think the second is way more likely, hence the spectacular and endless frustration of the universal human rights activists.

standard troll tactic — Echarmion

Indeed, the dude overly indulges in trolling tactics: framing facts through manipulative labels ("Nazi problem", "Western coup", "Russia legitimate security concerns", "Western propaganda"), misreporting sources and interlocutors' claims, and take others' objections just as a pretext to loop once more into framing facts and distorting others' claims.

Indeed not only Merkel has NOT admitted what he claims she has, but it can not even be inferred from what she actually said or equated with what she actually said: reinforcing Ukrainian military not only is not incompatible with pursuing a cease-fire but it could also be instrumental to preserving a cease-fire. — neomac


Just gaslighting apologetics. What does Merkel say:

The 2014 Minsk agreement was an attempt to give time to Ukraine. It also used this time to become stronger as can be seen today. — Merkel


Now this is well into the war. If she wanted to say that the goal of making Ukraine stronger was to deter Russia and so avoid a war ... she would have said that! She's not a moron. — boethius

Or she didn’t say that because just a moron would have thought that buying time was an admission by Europeans that Minsk agreements were deceivingly meant to arm Ukraine in order to initiate/pursue a war against Russia.
Germany’s position was pressed by a strategic dilemma: compromise strategic alliance with Ukraine and the US, and compromise pro-West international order by forcing Ukraine (acknowledged as THE VICTIM AND THE WEAKER party in the conflict) to by caving in to Russia’s demands, or compromise its economic ties with Russia while the anti-NATO/anti-EU wave was rising in the US (see Trump) and also within Europe (see Macron). What should be clear to me is that Germans were very much interested in pacifying the situation and go back to normal business with Russia THAT’S WHY we can believe Merkel’s genuine intention to reach a cease-fire through diplomacy. Yet Germans were cornered by geopolitical circumstances into a role of mediation whose diplomatic efforts could have been weaponised against German strategic interests in any case, and still make the cease-fire impossible to achieve or preserve.
In short, reaching a cease-fire through diplomacy was very much in the interest of Western Europeans, at least for Germany, yet the implementation of the Minsk agreements was very much left onto the Russians and Ukrainians’ initiative because there was no possible mediation between CONTRADICTORY demands by a third party interested in maintaining good terms with both. Indeed, Russians and Ukrainians had strongly competing views about the Minsk agreements, depending on their implementation, seen as capitulation or escalation. There was no viable third option.

Back in autumn 2022 the Western narrative was that Russia was weak, Russia was falling apart, Russia was losing and Ukraine was in the process of inflicting a brilliant victory. The Western talking heads and officials were in a circle jerk of patting each other on the cock in celebration of this brilliant geopolitical strategy, in which the Ukrainian build up, with Western assistance, since 2014 was to credit for Ukraine's extraordinary prowess on the battlefield. Various politicians and officials, in both the West and Ukraine, were taking credit for the brilliant move of using Minsk as a cover to build up Ukraine to defeat Russia.

Merkel in this statement was buying into this narrative of Ukrainian victory and taking a bit of the credit.

And it wasn't just Merkel, plenty did a little victory lap of how Ukraine "outplayed" the Russians and Minsk was part of that deception. — boethius

A version of events proudly asserted by Ukrainian politicians even before the larger 2022 war even started:

“From my point of view, the Minsk agreements were born dead,” said Volodymyr Ariev, an MP from Poroshenko’s party. “The conditions were always impossible to implement. We understood it clearly at the time, but we signed it to buy time for Ukraine: to have time to restore our government, our army, intelligence and security system.” — The Guardian — boethius

Nowhere Merkel is talking about Ukrainian victory in that comment. That's your rhetoric manipulation.
Notice that Merkel’s comment about Minsk agreements came in response to the following question: “Do you ask yourself whether the years of relative calm were also years of neglect, and whether you were not just a crisis manager, but also partly the cause of crises?” (https://www.zeit.de/2022/51/angela-merkel-russland-fluechtlingskrise-bundeskanzler/komplettansicht). And which party had more reasons to complain and actually complained about Merkel’s diplomatic approach to the Ukrainian-Russian conflict? Ukrainians of course, not the Russians, NOT only because of their weakest position, territorial losses, strategic stakes, and the fact that the full scale war with Russia happened anyways BUT ALSO because eventually, NATO member states – including Germany – collectively failed to support Ukraine’s efforts to rebuild a credible deterrence in line with Ukrainian expectations, at least until the full-scale invasion was inevitable, from the Ukrainian perspective. Ukraine was denied weapon supplies for eight years to “avoid an escalation of the war” and compelled to sign the Minsk agreements under duress (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/09/can-ukraine-and-russia-be-persuaded-to-abide-by-minsk-accords, https://euromaidanpress.com/2019/10/06/protests-against-steinmeiers-formula-gather-largest-crowd-since-euromaidan/) PRECISELY BECAUSE the West tried to adhere to the intention of such agreements to find a political solution to the war.
So Merkel was simply defending herself against the accusation that Minsk Agreements were a diplomatic failure to which she countered: ”Diplomacy isn't wrong just because it didn't work,” she said, speaking in the interview broadcast on ARD on June 7. "So I don't see why I should have to say that it was wrong and I won't apologize for it.” (https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-war-germany-merkel/31888480.html). From Merkel’s perspective, given the fact that Russians were the aggressors, the strongest party, and that Germans already tried to appease Russia by denying Ukraine NATO membership, it is plausible to assume that the initiative for cooperation was expected from Russia more than from Ukraine (as much as initiative for cooperation is expected by many from stronger Israel wrt weaker Palestinians). And it may also be argued that between Ukraine and Russia, Ukraine was the one which made the greatest efforts in abiding by the Minsk agreements:
https://epicenter.wcfia.harvard.edu/blog/through-ashes-minsk-agreements
https://ecfr.eu/article/ukraine-russia-and-the-minsk-agreements-a-post-mortem/
https://press.un.org/en/2023/sc15202.doc.htm
So the least Germans could afford to achieve FOR Ukrainians without forcing Ukraine to capitulate, was what Poroshenko himself admitted and Merkel echoed in her interview: namely to allow Ukraine to get stronger, by regenerating and rebuilding its Armed Force for deterrence. Indeed on the onset of war in 2014 exposed Ukraine as completely unprepared. The Ukrainian Armed Forces were not manned, equipped, or trained to meet Russian aggression.
In short, there is no admission of intentional deception of Russia by Merkel, but explicit refusal to take the blame for the failure of the diplomatic approach (as voiced by the Ukrainians). Merkel failed to reach a cease-fire despite being EXPLICITLY PURSUED (“It was an attempt to prevent precisely such a war”), AND CONSISTENTLY PURSUED wrt the strategic interests of Germany, still Ukraine could benefit from Minsk agreements to counter Russian aggression ("The 2014 Minsk agreement was an attempt to give time to Ukraine. It also used this time to become stronger as can be seen today. The Ukraine of 2014-2015 is not the modern Ukraine.").

Now, before the war started it would have been controversial for Western politicians to join this narrative, but a few months into the war when the West understood Ukraine and itself to have won, then saying that Minsk was about building up Ukraine into the strong modern nation that is spanking Russia on the battlefield was simply being part of the cool winning club. Seemed at that time (if you believed what you saw everywhere on Western mainstream and social media was even partially correct, that it can't be pure invention) that this duplicitous strategy was working and the people in Ukraine that wanted only to buy time for a big war were correct. — boethius

You need to reach into the memory hole and dig out what the Western media was essentially playing on loud speaker, on repeat without interruption for months: Ukraine was winning, fighting for the "right to join NATO" (even when you can't actually join NATO because NATO doesn't let you in) is brilliant politics, Russia would collapse any day, and so on, the war was in no way regrettable but "teaching Russia a lesson", and that the West was pure and righteous and never did anything wrong and Ukraine was our innocent child finally taking flight from under our wing and learning to soar on the winds of angelic victory (just as we do since centuries) — boethius

.

I've questioned many times the logic and the relevance of your "main stream media narrative" counternarrative in countering my own claims. Infowar, deceitful propaganda, and blame game are not uncommon in politics as much as in times of hegemonic competition, so Westerners should not be expected to refrain from infowar, deceitful propaganda, blaming game IN FAVOR OF Russian infowar, deceitful propaganda and blaming game, ESPECIALLY given the asymmetric advantages Russia enjoys in poisoning the Western public debate. The same goes with issues related Western tolerance toward war crimes, neo-nazi militia, military-industrial complex lobbying, democratic backsliding, and forcing people to war.
But, beyond accusations of spinning deceitful propaganda, one has to look deeper into what strategic reasoning may push official propaganda. And to understand that one has to look into the core strategic interests of all involved parties and their own agendas, not only into the US’s.
So until you address my objections, your pro-Ukraine propaganda deconstruction has ZERO appeal to me.

A core element of Minsk was disarming the Nazi groups who literally burned their political rivals (aka. normal fucking people) aline in a building and were constantly shelling civilians. — boethius

Not sure what you are referring to with "Nazi groups who literally burned their political rivals" or with "constantly shelling civilians". Anyways, the purpose of Minsk agreements was mainly to reach a cease-fire through disarming, deescalate, withdrawal ON BOTH sides, not on one side only, and it doesn’t talk specifically about Ukrainian Nazi groups, but more in general about “disarmament of all illegal armed groups” and “the withdrawal of all foreign armed forces, military equipment, as well as mercenaries” (like the Nazi and Imperialist Russian militia which started the conflict) with the aim of reaching a cease-fire and the intervention of third parties like OCSE for monitoring the situation.

Western countries had to literally pass laws that arms were not to be transferred to organizations their own governments viewed as Nazi terrorists (which they obviously were). These laws were passed because it's hard to vote against a ban on weapons for Nazis but journalists went regularly to demonstrate the West was not following its own laws much less Ukraine trying to implement Minsk by disarming these non-state groups. — boethius

So what? The laws were passed prior to the Russian full scale invasion of Ukraine in ’22 and yet Russia invaded anyways . Besides the role of “the Azov Battalion” was understandably instrumental to Ukraine in countering Russian aggression when Ukraine had a weaker army, and especially to counter Russian Imperialist/Nazi militia. Highlighting the Nazi problem is instrumental to Western pro-Russian propaganda (like yours) which also comes from Western far-right and crypto neo-Nazis like AfD (https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2024/05/14/co-leader-of-germanys-far-right-afd-party-fined-for-using-nazi-slogan). Indeed, there is nothing in your or Russian denunciation of the Ukrainian "Nazi problem" that is inherently anti-Nazi.
So it’s still up for debate for whom the Azov Battalion is a "Nazi problem" and in what sense it’s a problem.

You may say "that's what friends do" but the Nazi's aren't "Ukraine's friends", Zelensky even tried going to talk to them to get them to follow orders from the president and they just told him no. Now, had the West put pressure for the disarmament of these groups (i.e. no more weapons until their disarmed and removed from the front lines and the situation on the front professionalized) then that would have actually supported Zelensky's attempt to avoid a war, which I have no problem believing was genuine but it is in fact undermined by not only the West tolerating the arming of literal Nazis but that was clearly the policy in order to "calibrate" a conflict to imposes costs on Russia as the RAND documents happily explains to us. — boethius

Your rhetoric framing is highly questionable. The integration of the Azov Battalion to the Ukrainian National Guard came with Poroshenko not with Zelensky. And the integration into a regular army in a moment of need WAS already an attempt to make the Azov battalion a depoliticized, professional and accountable force more instrumental to Ukraine defensive needs than to pursuing neo-Nazi propaganda and political agenda: indeed, the unit has been repeatedly reconstituted since then, with its extremist early neo-Nazi leaders like Andriy Biletsky leaving, among others (https://lens.monash.edu/@politics-society/2022/08/19/1384992/much-azov-about-nothing-how-the-ukrainian-neo-nazis-canard-fooled-the-world). So much so that Ukrainian Jews fought in the Azov Regiment, also in the Mariupol siege: https://www.timesofisrael.com/senior-zelensky-adviser-40-jewish-heroes-fighting-in-mariupol-steel-plant/ , https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/article-762000
Besides RAND doesn’t mention the Ukrainian neo-Nazis in the article you posted.

Concerning "bad faith" accusations, apparently it's more plausible that Putin (arguably an expert in disinformatia) was duped by the Europeans (however interested in pacifying the conflict to come back to do business as usual with Russia, reason why they have been already rejecting/postponing NATO membership for Ukraine all along), than that Europeans were taking countermeasures against Putin's palpable bad faith back then (having Putin already violated various international and bilateral treaties by illegally annexing the Crimean peninsula and committing acts of armed aggression against Ukraine, and being very much interested in keeping a conflict in Donbas alive, to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO, or to allow further annexations). LOL. — neomac


I can't even parse what you're even trying to say ... that concerning bad faith actions Putin was pseudo-duped by European pseudo-bad faith actions? — boethius

OK let me double down on this point then. The Minsk Agreement did not cover the full scale/scope of the hybrid war Russia was waging in ABSOLUTE BAD FAITH FROM THE START (https://euromaidanpress.com/2019/10/25/leaked-kremlin-emails-show-minsk-protocol-designed-as-path-to-ukraines-capitulation-euromaidan-press-report/, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surkov_leaks).
Russia couldn’t possibly be a credible mediator between belligerents (Ukranian government and pro-Russian separatists) being itself a belligerent party and initiator of the conflict, having already and repeatedly violated previous agreements (Minsk agreements came after the invasion and annexation of Crimea by Russia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_green_men_(Russo-Ukrainian_War), https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31796226), pushing for further Russification of the occupied territories despite diplomatic negotiations, and being very much interested in exploiting the conflict in Ukraine to prevent Westernisation of Ukraine. On the other side, the Minsk agreements “bought time” also for Russia to prepare for its forthcoming full-scale war while testing the resolve of the West in supporting Ukraine.
So Ukrainians, Europeans and the US had all compelling reasons to believe that Putin was approaching diplomatic solutions IN TOTAL BAD FAITH FROM THE START, and it should be totally expected that Ukrainians, the US and Europeans were compelled to build a credible military deterrent for Ukraine while pushing for a diplomatic solutions to contain Putin’s hegemonic ambitions (as a “carrot and stick” approach suggests). Russia's claim that the West was in bad faith can be a typical example of accusation in a mirror (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accusation_in_a_mirror) as expected by ex-KGB agent expert in disinformatia and historical revisionism (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10509605/, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/vladimir-putins-rewriting-of-history-draws-on-a-long-tradition-of-soviet-myth-making-180979724/, https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html).
Your reasoning seems to assume as evidently compelling that the burden of making all necessary efforts to avoid the conflict were only on the US, Europeans, Ukraine, BUT NOT ON RUSSIA, and that such efforts must have been assessed against RUSSIAN STRATEGIC INTERESTS AS PERCEIVED BY RUSSIA not US/European/Ukrainian strategic interests as perceived by US/Europeans/Ukrainians. On what grounds you do that? From a geopolitical and historical point view your assumptions are totally questionable.
Can you parse that better now?

People aren't interested in conversations where everybody agrees on the issues and perhaps differ only in nuances. Nope. A heated debate is what people want to follow. Even here in PF this is evident: the threads where people disagree get the most comments. — ssu

That’s a very good point to me. I would go further in arguing this. Notice that we are in a philosophy forum and lack of consensus in philosophy is neither a big issue nor uncommon. In Western philosophy, be it metaphysics or ethics or epistemology, there is lots of disagreement, and no matter how weird a philosophical theory may sound, one may find advocates supporting it. And also philosophical debates can get heated due to intellectual straining. I think some disagreement can be found also in the scientific debate, especially in the human and social sciences. And also this disagreements can get heated.
There is a difference however with the kind of disagreement one experiences in political debates. Political debates are more directly and intentionally oriented toward political decisions and actions. And in this case the debates get heated not due to the intellectual effort per se but because people feel more materially threatened in their economic, social, biological conditions and of those they care about.
IN A PHILOSOPHY FORUM, what should be more than welcomed is a more PHILOSOPHICAL approach, not a political one even when we talk about politics and divisive political subjects, like the war in Ukraine or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. So our intellectual efforts shouldn’t move from beliefs to actions/decisions, but the other way around: from actions/decisions to beliefs. We SHOULD NOT GIVE FOR GRANTED notions of human rights, democracy, freedom of speech, international law, nations, self-determination, states, morality,propaganda, etc. we should find ALL OF THEM open for debate. We should SUSPEND our pro-active approach (like the open and crypto-activists in this thread and the like are doing) and dig into our assumptions. Make them explicit and open for questioning, further explanations or justifications.
And such an approach should be backed by adequate means to do that like clarifying ambiguous terminology, articulating reasoning from premises to conclusions, provide accurately reported evidence and source, provide illustrative examples, avoid to replace literal/descriptive language with non-literal/value language, avoid to replace actual arguments with insults and dismissive remarks, avoid to replace DE RE arguments with AD HOMINEM arguments, etc.
Constructive discussions are not necessarily the ones where people converge in conclusions (which is rationally possible when people agree on premises and procedures to get from premises to conclusions like in mathematics or logic) but also the ones where respective views are presented in a way that is rationally compelling and scrutinizible, ALSO WHEN TALKING ABOUT DIVISIVE POLITICAL SUBJECTS WHICH WILL LIKELY REMAIN DIVISIVE.

"Putin proposes new rules for using nuclear weapons"
source: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5yjej0rvw0o

Russian government agencies are not banned on X/Twitter, though Twitter is banned by the Russian government — SophistiCat

This is true also for Iran. X/Twitter is banned in Iran and China, yet Iranian and Chinese state media outlets and officials have accounts on the platform.

surprise surprise

I wouldn't advocate violent support even though I recognise the Palestinian right to self-defence until other methods are exhausted. Stopping support of Israel, diplomatic pressure on it etc. are much more logical steps than simply starting to arm the other side. — Benkei

On what grounds wouldn't you advocate violent support "until other methods are exhausted. Stopping support of Israel, diplomatic pressure on it etc."? You think it's more ETHICAL or more EFFECTIVE or both?
Iran is supporting the Palestinian armed resistance so are they more or less ETHICAL/EFFECTIVE in supporting the Palestinian cause than the West to you?
And what is the time frame you have in mind to assess if "other methods are exhausted"? Weeks? Months? Years? What evidence would be relevant for you to assess that other methods are successful? A cease-fire? An acknowledged of two state by Israel?

Besides you believe that Israel (maybe Netanyahu's government more specifically) is a genocidal and apartheid state, illegally occupying and devastating Palestinian territories, killing, starving, cleansing Palestinians and mostly innocent Palestinian people and kids BY THE THOUSANDS, and oppressing Palestinians FOR DECADES, and yet you believe they are NOT LIKE the Nazis in a relevant sense. Why?

↪neomac
Maybe read and try to understand the context in which those Nazi comparisons were made. Hint: I didn't start WWII comparisons. — Benkei

Maybe if you were more articulated in your answers, I wouldn’t need to guess what you actually mean to make it easier for you to accuse me of strawmanning you.
So, you mean that your comparison between Israel and the Nazis was just a way to retort the argument against your recipient who brought that comparison up in the first place, but you do not actually believe that the comparison between Netanyahu’s government and the Nazis is appropriate in a relevant sense? If so, then can you clarify why it’s not, in what relevant sense the comparison is definitely inappropriate and not worth entertaining to deal with Israel?
Besides, my doubts remain, with or without the Nazi comparison. Indeed, if you believe that Israel is a genocidal and apartheid state, illegally occupying and devastating Palestinian territories, killing, starving, cleansing Palestinians and mostly innocent Palestinian people and kids by the thousands, and you have humanitarian concerns for this, then we have precedents of Western military interventions motivated by humanitarian concerns:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanitarian_intervention
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia
If not military intervention, then there is also a case for military aid as in the current war in Ukraine were the West is openly supporting Ukraine with motivations (like fighting against oppression, genocidal or war crimes, for self-determination, international legal orders, humanitarian crisis https://www.unhcr.org/emergencies/ukraine-emergency) very much in line with your humanitarian concerns, or am I misrepresenting your views again? After all you wrote, “it would be more congruent with the espoused ideals of self-determination, UN SC and GA resolutions to arm Palestinians than Israel.” [1] then why not advocating for arming Palestinians/Hamas or a Western military intervention in support of Palestinians?
Besides your pre-condition “if it turns out that doesn't work” is rather generic: what would constitute sufficient evidence for your strategy to work to you in relation to the humanitarian damages Israel is inflicting on Palestinians? what is the time frame you have in mind to asses if your chosen political strategy works? Notice also that the two precedents of military intervention/aid were relatively quick to be established, matter of months, while the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been lasting for decades despite all the diplomatic pressure. And if you think you can wait e.g. for another year, then the humanitarian crisis happening in Palestine is not so urgent to require a stronger political action from you at least for another year (how many thousands of innocent kids dying under a year Israeli bombs do you estimate will occur for another year of conflict?).

So, again (for the forth time):
WHAT WOULD NEED TO HAPPEN FOR YOU TO ADVOCATE/SUPPORT PALESTINIAN/HAMAS ARMED RESISTANCE AGAINST A NAZI GENOCIDAL APARTHEID COLONIALIST ISRAEL THAN IT HASN’T HAPPENED ALREADY ?!

Let me know if I’m strawmanning you again.

[1]

It would be more congruent with the espoused ideals of self-determination, UN SC and GA resolutions to arm Palestinians than Israel. But I suspect it would be sufficient to simply stop supporting Israel carte blanche and stopping arms deliveries to Israel by the "international" community (e.g. roughly global North), plus actual diplomatic pressure will force Israel to treat for peace with its enemies. If it turns out that doesn't work, then arming Palestinians is the more ethical choice than arming Israel. — Benkei

Ignored for the childish strawmen you expect me to defend and proving my previous point. — Benkei

Can you at least explain what strawmen I'm making? I understand a strawmen argument as a fallacious argument in that it targets claims or arguments by somebody that have not been actually made by her. If you are referring to my questions, they are questions not arguments, so I'm not sure why you call them a strawmen. And if you disagree with the framing, you can still explain why and argue against the framing. My questions seem pretty legitimate given your statements [1]. And I may also reformulate them more pertinently once you clarified how I misrepresented your views.
Just accusing me of committing a fallacy while providing no evidence of such a fallacy, that's intellectually dishonest and also coward because it doesn't allow me to better tune my questions.




[1]

It would be more congruent with the espoused ideals of self-determination, UN SC and GA resolutions to arm Palestinians than Israel. But I suspect it would be sufficient to simply stop supporting Israel carte blanche and stopping arms deliveries to Israel by the "international" community (e.g. roughly global North), plus actual diplomatic pressure will force Israel to treat for peace with its enemies. If it turns out that doesn't work, then arming Palestinians is the more ethical choice than arming Israel. — Benkei

The Nazis in this story are the Israelis so Hamas should win. They have racist laws that treat Jews and non-Jews differently because Jews are their version of the ubermensch. They annex land, claiming it as their own just like the Nazis and thereby are effectively destroying the people and cultural of the Palestinians (name me one Arab sea port in Palestine!) if they aren't outright bombing them to smithereens while decrying "Amalek".

Hamas are like the Allies who occasionally commit a war crime but that's all good and excusable because they're fighting for the liberation of the Palestinian people and therefore are the good guys. — Benkei

That's the paradox. If we would assume a free independent Palestine that would be as trouble free as Jordan, then that Palestine should have an effective, capable military to guard it's borders and airspace. But that is not what Israel wants. And then we have to understand that the Likud party is de facto totally faithful to it's original party charter. — ssu

I still don’t follow your reasoning. Your hypothetical scenario seems construed out of removing from the picture relevant historical circumstances. Israel is too small of a country to tolerate a Palestinian state which can legitimately aspire to a regular army and a military build up, once you add to that historical grievances (Israel is a colonialist apartheid genocidal state according to the pro-Palestinian front, which will likely echo for generations to come), ideologies inspired by Islamic martyrdom, a network of allies hostile to Israel, the risk of some revanchism within a consistent minority of Israeli arabs and the possibility to still resort to asymmetric warfare even after getting a Palestinian state.
Besides Israel more plausibly needs religious Israelis to maintain its demographic growth. Religious Israeli however are way more jealous of Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, than the secular Jews, and more jealous of Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, than Gaza.
Given their history and their present, security, religious, demographic, geopolitical concerns compel Israeli Jews to reject more than welcome a Palestinian state, with or without Netanyahu and Likud. Netanyahu and Likud stem from within the Israeli Jews’ society. So it would be misleading to think that Israeli Jews are simply manipulated by Netanyahu and Likud propaganda and machinations into rejecting a Palestinian state.

It is a fully occupied and controlled by the state of Israel, not a failed state neighbor. But then you have to remember that Israel did for years occupy half of Lebanon. What was the result of that? Hezbollah was the outcome of that!!! — ssu

Then you have to clarify what you mean by “failed state”. Indeed, referring to Palestine as a failed state isn’t far fetched at all to me if you consider that a Palestinian state is acknowledged by certain countries and what makes it a failed state is that, among others, it lacks centralisation, one side is ruled by a terrorist organization, and both are occupied by foreign forces. And such Palestinian failed state is neighbouring Israel.
I don’t think that the comparison with Lebanon is really helping, since Lebanon isn’t part of the geographic territory that Israelis or just the Likud party sees as belonging to Israel (and even if there are territorial disputes, they are not of the same breadth than the ones Israel has with Palestinians). Besides Hezbollah wasn’t just the result of the Israeli occupation (Sinai was occupied and yet this didn’t prevent Egypt from finding a way to peacefully coexist with Israel) but also of the Iranian long hand.

Notice however that even Netanyahu is able talk about the conditions for a two state solution (at least, starting with demilitarisation and recognition of Israel’s right to exist) — neomac

That's a politician talking the talk... which the Americans want to hear. Actions, not words, ought to be what you look at. (Also with the Palestinians, btw) — ssu

Or a plan B. I think even Netanyahu might have or have had a plan B if his maximalist goals weren’t achievable.

First, we are not talking about Israeli direct financing of Hamas but Qatari money for humanitarian aid, as agreed with the US and Qatar. — neomac

Would the US allow someone to finance Al Qaeda? Because it would be in their interests??? You will look silly if you try to defend Bibi's actions here. — ssu

You are grossly misreading my claims. First, Hamas is not just a terrorist organization (like Al-Qaeda) but it also has a political branch actually governing Gaza, so there are two distinct domain of activities (the ones directed at governing Gaza and the ones directed at fighting Israel), however not transparently separated (because people, goods and funds can flow from one domain of activities to the other) hence the security issue for Israel in providing humanitarian assistance to Palestinians. The point is that if funds for humanitarian aid go from WHATEVER source (including Qatar, including UNRWA whose major donors are Western Countries) to Palestinian non-combatant people, this should be not only permissible but universally encouraged every time there is a humanitarian crisis (as the one Israeli was accused to provoke after the blockad of Gaza).
Second, the options for Israel were/are either ban humanitarian aid completely given the risk that Hamas can embezzle resources to support its fight against Israel, but then Israel will be accused of humanitarian organisations and states, including Western allies, of crimes against humanity. Alternatively, Israel could allow international organizations or Israel oversee the humanitarian aid supply through whatever official channel but then take responsibility for failures in effectively overseeing the distribution and recipients of such aids.
Third, it is not self-evident that Qatar could have not funded Hamas in other ways (as Iran does) than the ones agreed with Israel AND THE US. So whatever strategy Israel pursued we can’t exclude by default that Netanyahu calculations took into account this inconvenience too. But then, to my understanding, Netanyahu’s gambit was more likely something like this: “in the best scenario, by replacing Fatah’s funds with Qatar’s funds for humanitarian reasons, I will get Fatah out of Gaza and will buy quiet Hamas. In the worst scenario, I will only get Fatah out of Gaza, but then Hamas will hit Israel back at some point, the Israeli opposition will blame me for these attacks, especially if they are big, but I will have the opportunity to kick asses in Gaza as I’ve never done before to further make it impossible a two state solution. In any case, any of these 2 alternatives are better than just letting Qatar's money flow into Gaza through sneaky channels, while being accused of crimes against humanity, and/or strengthening the ties between Fatah and Gaza”.
Fourth, clarifying this reasoning is not defending Netanyahu (Israeli opposition could still legitimately blame Netanyahu for his failures or risky game), I’m simply trying to figure out what Netanyahu’s reasoning could look like given his goals and circumstancial options.

As a moderator I know exactly the type of poster you are and you're not interested in an actual discussion, just ranting. Which is why I ignore most of what you write as the reactionary diatribes they are. — Benkei

Your claim looks more silly than it sounds. Indeed, all we are doing here is discussing, and recurrently ranting over colonialist, genocidal and apartheid Israel apologists is part of your actual discussion. Unless by what you call “actual discussion” you are conveniently referring to “discussion I actually approve of and can’t get enough of hearing”, of course.
But, more to the point, if we are unable to discuss our different views over conflicts which do not constitute existential threats to us personally, how can one even hope that things can go differently for those who are directly involved in the conflict? Besides being this a philosophy forum and not a pro-Palestinian private club may be you could make a greater effort into putting your emotional rants aside, and start letting others question basic “obvious” assumptions and/or consequences of your views to earn yourself the intellectual legitimacy to question opposing views. And notice that our exchange is accessible by other posters, so even if you doubt my intentions you can still profit from my challenging questions to provide compelling arguments to the community following this thread.

So here again my questions to you, for the third time:

Why you do not vocally and publicly advocate/support for Palestinian or Hamas’ armed resistance by providing weapons or demanding a more direct military intervention or even by financing them from your own pocket?
Why do you not vocally and publicly advocate/support fiscal boycotting, if not armed resistance against, Western governments who support Israel?
Why do you think it is more ETHICAL or EFFECTIVE compelling to ”to challenging governments, holding them accountable, and, you know, using law to make a change” than any of the above AS SOON AS POSSIBLE ? So you do not think that the West (only the West?) should act as soon as possible to prevent the Palestinian holocaust? You do not feel concerned by the fact that at this rate Israel is going to exterminate more thousands of Palestinian children in Gaza because you and people like you are abstaining from doing anything that it is possible to support the Palestinian armed resistance?
WHAT WOULD NEED TO HAPPEN FOR YOU TO ADVOCATE/SUPPORT PALESTINIAN/HAMAS ARMED RESISTANCE AGAINST A NAZI GENOCIDAL APARTHEID COLONIALIST ISRAEL THAN IT HASN’T HAPPENED ALREADY ?!

Obviously, I challenge you as any pro-Palestinian poster in this thread, who is convinced that Israel is a colonialist, apartheid, genocidal State comparable to Nazi Germany murdering thousands of Palestinian people and kids as a collective punishment.

Maybe not as flashy but it works:

https://www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie-en-contact/Organisatie/Gerechtshoven/Gerechtshof-Den-Haag/Nieuws/Paginas/The-Netherlands-has-to-stop-the-export-of-F-35-fighter-jet-parts-to-Israel.aspx — Benkei

It works? Really? To whom? Did Netanyahu stop/reduce his butchery? By this rate when approximatively do you estimate Israel, a nazi genocidal apartheid colonialist state, is going to stop to exterminate Palestinian children by the thousands ?

↪neomac
More all caps please. As much as I enjoy getting a rise out of you without even trying, I've got better things to do. — Benkei

Holy Benkei, I’m sure you have better things to do for the Palestinian cause than just insulting random nobodies on the internet and thumb suck one another with your pro-Palestinian fellows. So I keep wondering why you do not support/advocate for the Palestinian armed resistance publicly and vocally IN HERE as well as outside. After all, you wrote:

Oh you should play. The Nazis in this story are the Israelis so Hamas should win. They have racist laws that treat Jews and non-Jews differently because Jews are their version of the ubermensch. They annex land, claiming it as their own just like the Nazis and thereby are effectively destroying the people and cultural of the Palestinians (name me one Arab sea port in Palestine!) if they aren't outright bombing them to smithereens while decrying "Amalek".

Hamas are like the Allies who occasionally commit a war crime but that's all good and excusable because they're fighting for the liberation of the Palestinian people and therefore are the good guys. — Benkei

So again, why you do not vocally and publicly advocate/support for Palestinian or Hamas’ armed resistance by providing weapons or demanding a more direct military intervention or even by financing them from your own pocket?
Why do you not vocally and publicly advocate/support fiscal boycotting, if not armed resistance against, Western governments who support Israel?
Why do you think it is more ETHICAL or EFFECTIVE compelling to ”to challenging governments, holding them accountable, and, you know, using law to make a change” than any of the above AS SOON AS POSSIBLE ? So you do not think that the West (only the West?) should act as soon as possible to prevent the Palestinian holocaust? You do not feel concerned by the fact that at this rate Israel is going to exterminate more thousands of Palestinian children in Gaza because you and people like you are abstaining from doing anything that it is possible to support the Palestinian armed resistance?
WHAT WOULD NEED TO HAPPEN FOR YOU TO ADVOCATE/SUPPORT PALESTINIAN/HAMAS ARMED RESISTANCE AGAINST A NAZI GENOCIDAL APARTHEID COLONIALIST ISRAEL THAN IT HASN’T HAPPENED ALREADY ?!

As a moderator of a philosophy forum you should be able to understand that if insulting political adversaries and thumb suck one another with your pro-Palestinian fellows are the better things you have to do in this thread to support the Palestinian cause, yet this is way too far from a honest and humble critical investigation of your own political views or whatever related moral point of principle (like human rights or the right to self-determination) you claim as obvious .
And what your reaction to my sarcasm manifestly shows, is that that’s your ONLY way out from admitting your own moral hypocrisy and intellectual cowardice.

Good to know your moral compass makes you feel totally ok with being sarcastic about kids being bombed or growing up in a war zone. You'd think there would at least be common ground that such things aren't exactly a joke. But here we are. — Benkei

Dead kids won't give a shit about an anonymous nobody's sarcasm on this blog as you do, holy Benkei. That's why I'm so fascinated by the breadth of your moral compass.

As for picking up arms myself - I’ll stick to challenging governments, holding them accountable, and, you know, using law to make a change. Maybe not as flashy but it works: — Benkei

Why though? You think it's ETHICALLY more compelling to stick to the law than to support Palestinian armed resistance? You would still stick to it till the last Palestinian kid is murdered by the apartheid genocidal colonialist Israeli Nazis? What would it need to happen for you to advocate/support the Palestinian armed resistance than it hasn't happened already?! Don't you feel the urgency of supporting Palestinian armed resistance? While you are "challenging governments, holding them accountable, and, you know, using law to make a change", thousands of kids are dying, and yet you seem confident that... what? That "challenging governments, holding them accountable, and, you know, using law to make a change" is more EFFECTIVE and ETHICALLY compelling than actually supporting/advocating the Palestinian armed resistance AS SOON AS POSSIBLE?

↪neomac
Cool you are so obsessed with me you start imagining what I do when not posting here. — Benkei

Aaaaah you got me there, holy Bankei. I'm a big big big fan of yours. Besides you seem very much into mounting support against Israel's decade long butchery of Palestinians in here, aren't you? You are a human rights champion whom everybody in here should feel compelled to admire and look up to, aren't you? Fighting Israeli apologists in this thread as if this had any effect on reducing the ongoing butchery, especially of thousands of Palestinian children, by the genocidal apartheid colonialist Israeli Nazis doesn't seem enough though, does it? Would you go to a Palestinian family who lost all their children under IDF bombs to comfort them with "I'm insulting lots of anonymous people in a blog in the name of the pro-Palestinian cause, justice for your children is done, you can be proud of me"?

So my doubts remain:

1. If you are citizen of a country that supports a genocidal apartheid colonialist decade long butchering of Palestinians, especially Palestinian children are dying like flies after being materially and psychologically tortured by Israeli Nazis, by sending them weapons. Aren’t you ETHICALLY compelled to fight with arms your own country’s government?

2. Notice that, in this case, your country is also using tax revenues to support its military industry at the service of a genocidal apartheid colonialist butchering of Palestinians, especially Palestinian children. For several decades. So YOU TOO (if you paid taxes) are personally however indirectly but KNOWINGLY supporting a genocidal apartheid colonialist butchering of Palestinians for decades, especially Palestinian children, thousands of them, so far. So aren’t you ETHICALLY compelled at the very least to fiscally boycott your own pro-Nazi apartheid genocidal colonialist butchers' government?

3. And if your own country, doesn’t pay to support the Palestinian armed resistance, on the contrary, it supports Israel, then aren’t you ETHICALLY compelled to pay your own money to support the Palestinian armed resistance to fight against a genocidal apartheid colonialist butchering of Palestinians for decades, especially Palestinian children, thousands of them?

But I suspect it would be sufficient to simply stop supporting Israel carte blanche and stopping arms deliveries to Israel by the "international" community (e.g. roughly global North), plus actual diplomatic pressure will force Israel to treat for peace with its enemies. — Benkei

And when do you think this is going to actually happen? Do you have an approximative idea? You know the genocidal apartheid expansionist massacre of Palestinians hasn't stopped yet, especially Palestinian children are dying like flies after being materially and psychologically tortured by Israeli Nazis. And after 60 years of failing to make Israel come to its senses, maybe you should advocate for a stronger solutions, don't you think? There are countries like Canada, the Netherlands, Japan, Spain and Belgium allegedly stopping to ship weapons to Israel, but the massacre hasn't stopped, right? So how long should Palestinian children wait for Canada, the Netherlands, Japan, Spain and Belgium to arm Palestinian resistance or actually send troops to Israel or bomb Israel to stop the slaughter of tens of thousand of them, to you? What can you do for them to make this happen as soon as possible? Do you think that whining over this thread about the West stopping to ship weapons to Israel is the most effective or ETHICAL way for you to contribute to preventing the Israel nazi genocidal apartheid colonialist criminal state from massacring Palestinian children by tens of thousands and the Palestinian people for decades at every hour that you are wasting in this thread? Do you feel ethically accomplished by insulting people in this thread instead of going to support the Palestinian armed resistance with your own money?

Actually that's a question for all pro-Palestinians in this thread, why do not advocating for supporting the Palestinian armed resistance as Iran is doing? There shouldn't be anything bad about it since Palestinians have the right to self-defence, right?
Can you me point me to pro-Palestinian grass-root protests in day light publicly advocating for Western countries to support the Palestinian armed resistance?
NATO military intervened in ex-Yugoslavia because of genocides going on there too. So if Israel is a genocidal apartheid state massacring Palestinians, why Western pro-Palestinians do not advocate for a NATO military intervention in Palestine to end the genocide?

Additionally, the Palestinians have a continual right to self defence meaning any IDF soldiers in Gaza and West Bank and any settlers there are fair game. And any military campaign in Israel proper aimed against military targets would be allowed too. — Benkei

Are you in favor of your country supporting Palestinian armed resistance by arming the Palestinian to the teeth? Or you'd prefer Iran do it because you are against violence?

1. Israel to unilaterally recognise a right for the Palestinians to have a sovereign state where the 1967 borders will be the basis for the size of Palestine — Benkei

edit: 10. forgot: Palestinians to recognise Israel along the 1967 borders as the basis of the size of israel — Benkei

Then why "unilaterally" ?

8. For the interim period, Gaza and WB remain occupied territories but they will be policed instead of military oppression — Benkei

Meaning? Policing too can be perceived as oppressive:
US justice is built to humiliate and oppress black men
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/11/chokehold-police-black-men-paul-butler-race-america
US must tackle police brutality against Black people head-on
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/may/05/us-police-brutality-un-experts-george-floyd

9. Palestinians to commit to an indefinite cease fire as long as Israel maintains the above 8 points — Benkei

So Israel should just trust Palestinian commitment? How about demilitarization and neutrality? How about the status of Jerusalem? Should it be integrally under the sovereignty of Israel?