Here is the problem, if the quantitative element is totally irrelevant than that definition sounds good also to claim that Hamas’ massacre on October the 7th was a genocide. And any accusation of proportionality as intended by many pro-Palestinians here (1 zillion of Palestinian children casualties vs one Israeli soldier casualty) would be equally irrelevant to defend Hamas’ crimes from the accusation of committing a genocide.

Yes, it could be argued that Hamas committed genocide on October 7th. But for me it doesn’t qualify, on two counts;
Firstly, the intent, I don’t see those Hamas insurgents having in their heads an intent to harm the racial group of Israel. But rather to commit a violent raid in a small area outside the wall. I know there are calls from people in important positions in the Hamas hierarchy who have called for the eradication of Israel etc. But this is sounding off, hot air. Arabic people often engage in this kind of rhetoric.

Secondly, the act of genocide, The Hamas attack was not capable of hurting the racial group of Israel. Yes, it did hurt the people in and connected to the incursion. Who have been very vocal and it has caused a lot of turmoil within Israel. But there was no way in which the racial, or ethnic group of Israel, or the Jews was under threat, or being harmed. In a genocidal sense.

I think it is important to bear in mind that genocide is not the intent in itself, but intent and the carrying out of the act intended. So even if it can be demonstrated that Hamas had the intent, I don’t see it being demonstrated that the act intended was carried out.

Don't take it personal, but I do get a bit fed up with being told my language and/or attitude is the problem. The solution we are going for at the moment is 'most people die', along with a mass extinction.

They don’t mean you. They mean the people who inform the ordinary voter.

I don’t know what you take to be “pivotal” in geopolitics.

Like a fulcrum, an arena in which large hegemonic goals, or failure depend on a relatively small arena. Whereas a distraction is an arena where hegemonic powers can become preoccupied meaning they lose focus elsewhere. Ukraine is pivotal for both Russia and Europe and by extension for the U.S. and to a lesser extent China.

I see the pulling out of Afghanistan as part of Trump’s demented behaviour, it was Trump who set that ball rolling and Biden couldn’t easily reverse the decision. And Trump by the way who pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal.

As far as I’m concerned, a narrow-minded distinction between “pivotal” and “distraction” can mislead us into discounting or underestimating the role played by circumstances in guiding or misguiding geopolitical efforts.

Again, I don’t see what is happening in the Middle East as pivotal, even though it can generate an awful lot of hot air.

Still the Chinese military build-up, posturing and meddling in other conflicts is understandably taken to signal the US should prepare for the worse anyways. And we should not forget that there are also preventive wars.
Anyways, maybe the US under Trump would not be interested in a conflict with China either:

Yes, more demented behaviour from Trump. There are by the way signs coming out of the U.S. that Trump is suffering from dementia and so won’t make it to the election in a fit state. Everyone around the world is building up their military atm. The issue of Taiwan is tied up more in diplomatic relations and commerce between China and the U.S. than in terms of military showdown, as I see it. I will cover this in my last paragraph.

You sound pretty confident, I don’t know what evidences you have to support your claims. For example 10 years seem enough time for Russia to restore its pre-war capacity for another push

This presumably would be funded from Putin’s war chest. The money saved up from a few decades of selling oil and gas to Europe, including to Ukraine. All income streams which have stopped suddenly. Russia has been able to sell some oil to China and client states, but I doubt it would make up the shortfall. What other income would Russia have? She is under the most severe sanctions and the ruble is worthless. But I don’t have the figures, so I accept that it may be possible that Russia can rearm for another go in ten years. In the meantime, which was my point, Europe will have rearmed and with the appropriate weaponry for such a fight.

Again, you sound pretty confident, I don’t know what evidences you have to support your claims

I’m not making specific claims just making broad observations. For Europe to rearm over the next ten years would be easily financed from the current level of economic activity. Provided there is sufficient incentive( which Russia provides).

financial crisis, pandemics, wars, and the crisis of the Western world order under the pressure of a more assertive Rest,

These issues (excepting the pandemic) did not affect the EU as much as the U.S., U.K. etc. apart from the effects of globalisation.
Also Europe in the longer term, which I was referring to when I said it would become a super power is inevitable. With a population over 500 million and wide ranging resources including the longer term opportunities for growth, why wouldn’t it?

To keep Russia bogged down in Ukraine, the West still needs to adequately and promptly support Ukraine as long as needed.

I know, I can’t see the EU failing to provide enough support. They will be aware of the pivotal nature of the war. I know U.S. funding is under question atm, other countries will provide funding from time to time. Japan for example provided I think $15 billion a few weeks ago.
There may be a calculation which Putin has made, that his war chest will outlast the efforts of the coalition supporting Ukraine. If this is the plan, then Russia will likely be a basket case by the time this stand off were to play out.

Economic growth is possible if input, output, shipping are secured, free, and sustainable from and to China. But we are seeing a resurgence of global security concerns, Western protectionism, national demographic decline that may compromise the Chinese economic growth.

Yes, in some respects China might be in a malaise of some sort. I expect that they were hit hard by the effects of the pandemic and that they will bounce back to an extent.

I want to highlight the extent to which the economic miracle of China over the last 30 years, has impoverished the West. Although it wasn’t just China, but the whole Asian region. People in the West didn’t realise what was happening at first and even now even those who have realised haven’t grasp the extent of it. Simply China has undercut our manufacturing base resulting in outsourcing to Asia on a mass scale, accompanied with mass closures and decline of the same manufacturers in our countries. Alongside this was outsourcing of call centres, admin. Meanwhile China invests the capital they’ve made from this all around the world and dumps commodities like steel in countries struggling to keep those industries afloat. Compounding the movement of wealth and prosperity away from Western countries.
One example is that my father in law makes use of for financial expediency. He mends electrical goods and repeatedly finds the parts available directly from China with free postage. Often at one tenth of the price of producers in our own country, who would charge for postage. Much of our IT equipment is made in China, or other Asian countries.
This is why countries in the West are struggling economically, with some in considerable decline. Increased protectionism and economic problems in China will actually alleviate this situation. Further more if China were to end up in a war with the U.S. the economic fallout would dwarf the economic effects of the pandemic and could collapse the global economy.

:up: :up: I've had cold sweats from intermitten suspicions – recognition(?) – that 'the singularity' has happened already (ca.1989) and It is/They are covertly – indecipherably – doing it's/their own thing via 'the dark web', etc. The Simulation Hypothesis (or The Matrix) might be a tell, no?

Yeah man!

You know those Hindu bodhisattvas with a thousand arms, a thousand cobras coming out of the top of their head, sitting in a thousand petal lotus. Go figure.

Been there done that, met the guy.

I think that Bibi will in the end achieve to get Israel into similar international position what Apartheid South Africa was.

Israel has more advanced hardware and technology at hand.

Yet it sounds implausible that a quantitative condition (e.g. for the death toll) and cumulative condition (among the listed acts) are strictly applied, since in this case even killing one person would amount to a genocide, if intent is proven. So I guess those conditions are present (to prove intent) but treated with greater discretion by the jury/judges. Yet maybe the Israelis can play around international laws by smartly exploiting legal ambiguities to their advantage. In this case this is a problem of international laws.

Yes, I was aware of these definitions. I have thought about the case of one person’s death at length. In the end, I concluded that it’s not the deaths that are pertinent, but rather the harm and intent to harm a national, ethnic, or racial group.
I agree international law needs tightening. However I think the parameters are sufficient currently for the judges to reach a finding.

I find it hard to believe they wouldn't make huge waves in society both politically and technologically. As for whether people believe they're truly good, I'm sure they'd be ridiculed as much as revered for their actions. Certainly controversial.

Whatever this being were to do to demonstrate their powers, or knowledge, they might just be an advanced being kidding us.
I would go further, that we are incapable of understanding, or knowing that they are omniscient, or omnibenevolent. The whole thing is way beyond our capacity to understand, to grasp.

Another way to look at it is that such a being might already be here, there might be loads of them. How would we know? You could say, well if they were here, wouldn’t they bring an end to suffering? Well maybe they know something we don’t ( they are omniscient after all).


Also, without wanting to put a dampener on proceedings. It was the catholics who invented these concepts for their apologia. They are in the end illogical in any philosophical sense.

rael has allowed 15,413 trucks into Gaza during the past 157 days of war. Oxfam says the population of Gaza needed five times more than that just to meet their minimum needs. In February, Israel allowed 2,874 trucks in – a 44% reduction from the month before.

Let's put for the denialists these numbers into perspective. Prior to the war there was 500 trucks entering Gaza with food and supplies which was already quite perilous[/i]. That would be in 157 days 78 500 trucks into Gaza. That's one fifth.

Most of those trucks are going to southern Gaza. In the north mass starvation is already well under way.

How would we know the being was omniscient and omnibenevolent?

You can keep calling it “genocide”, but you have no sentence from an authoritative tribunal that supports such an accusation. And legally speaking, it is really hard to prove the genocidal intent.

The genocide is the deliberate starvation of approximately 500,000 Palestinian citizens in the north of Gaza. The establishing of genocidal intent sufficient for the ICJ will be for specialist investigators to establish.

Maybe that depends on where and what you are looking for. As far as I’m concerned, the Middle East, Europe, the Pacific, Africa, South America are contended/contendable spheres of influence for 3 major hegemonic powers: Russia, China and the US. Controlling these areas means controlling their economic/security input and output and whatever transits through them.

Yes, to a degree, although I consider Russia a waning power, which is punching above it’s weight these days. The new president of Argentina recently pulled back from BRICS. Which may have something to do with trying to tie his currency to the dollar. I expect Mexico to form greater alliance with the U.S.
However China has been making economic alliances with South America for a while. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/china-influence-latin-america-argentina-brazil-venezuela-security-energy-bri
So there will be a tension there, I expect South America to pull in behind the U.S. though when climate change turmoil increases.

The Middle-East is important for commodities like oil and gas, and for international routes (commerce of goods, oil/gas supply, internet supply). Besides that region is source and exporter of Islamic Jihadism, that can spill over in other areas of interest (like Africa and Europe). That’s not all: as a hot area the middle east nurtures the international contest in military supply (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/3/11/fear-of-china-russia-and-iran-is-driving-weapons-sales-report) and as failed governance area criminal business thrives (https://www.arabnews.com/node/1944661). All that sounds particularly worrisome if WMDs are involved (https://thebulletin.org/2023/04/why-a-wmd-free-zone-in-the-middle-east-is-more-needed-than-ever/)
So there are several reasons why the Middle East can very much be subject to hegemonic interest and struggle, and wars in Middle East can get more news attention than the war in Ukraine (not only in the West).

Yes, I agree on these points, however the Middle East is like a cauldron around which the hegemonic powers stand and takes turn to stir from time to time. There are a number of risk factors in that region, such as crime, Jihadism, oil price, WMD, money laundering. But there is also the risk of more and more failed states and the hegemonic powers don’t want to get drawn in to much. So I don’t think it plays a pivotal role in geopolitics, more a distraction. Although I have long thought that it would be most advantageous for Russia to seek to control the area, but they have failed in the past and don’t seem to mesh culturally with the Arabs.

Russia and China as competitors of the US (the former primarily in East Europe, the latter primarily in the Pacific) are interested in getting the US overstretched: inducing the US to divide attention and energies in multiple conflicts like in Ukraine, in Israel, in the Red Sea perfectly serves that purpose.

Yes, however this would only play out if China enters into conflict with Taiwan. Which I doubt they would want to do.

The geopolitical link between what happens in Israel and the hegemonic conflict between super powers is candidly stated by involved parties:

Yes, like the way Netanyahu encouraged Hamas in order to give him the opportunity to ethnically cleanse Palestine. But China doesn’t operate like that. She spreads Maoist ideology and colonises in a less violent way.

Russia and China do not need to get more directly/openly involved in the conflict in the middle east: indeed, they may just want to maximise the military/economic/reputational costs for the US to their benefit while minimising the costs for them, and for that it could be enough to abstain from helping to fix the middle east crisis or contribute to keep it alive (e.g. by helping Iran and other forms of triangulations).

Yes, this goes back to my cauldron analogy.

As long as the West is eroding its power of deterrence against a more assertive Rest, the question remains: how can the West, the US, Israel deter without escalating? And that’s not all, when the tide of historical circumstances will favour the Rest, we should also expect that the Rest will come back at the West

Yes, an important question, however there is only one one military force anywhere near capable of taking on the U.S., China and as I have suggested, China is really not interested in a conflict with the U.S. under any circumstances.

Even if Russia is weakening, that’s maybe true also for the West. Europe in particular is weakening economically

The weakening of Russia is in a whole other dimension compared to Europe and China. Russia is destroying her fighting age men as cannon fodder, has destroyed her lucrative trade in gas and oil with Europe. Is now under the strictest economic sanctions and is sinking into a deep dark authoritarianism reminiscent of the dark days of the Soviet Union. By contrast Europe is feeling the effects of having those fuel supplies suddenly cut off, but will soon bounce back and as I said will now rearm after 70yrs of relying on U.S. and U.K. guarantees of security.

And the possibility of a European decline is ominously looming

Myths around the economic malaise, or decline in Europe are overblown. (Here in the U.K. this has been used as an argument for Brexit for internal political reasons). It’s true there has been a slow down in growth due to the economic pressures of globalisation along with all affluent countries. But the opportunities for economic growth in the E.U. are large with the expansion including Eastern European countries, not to mention Ukraine, offering the opportunity to bring their economies up to speed with western standards. Also once the economic woes of southern European countries is remedied the E.U. will become quite the superpower.

Even the hegemonic power of the US is strained by national challenges and the pressure from international competitors. Besides, if the US wants Russia to be bogged down in the war in Ukraine

You fail to see the significance of this. Currently Russia is dangerous for the whole Eurasia continent and particularly for Europe. Her becoming bogged down in Ukraine will weaken her for a generation while Europe rearms. This neuters the only serious threat to global stability at the moment. The last time this happened in WW2, a deranged tyrant spilled out across Europe. This time it won’t happen, Putin is now powerless and a pariah on the international stage.

Notice also that if China manages to establish a strategic alliance with Russia, Iran and Saudi Arabia, amongst the major oil suppliers (with the possibility of widening the strategic alliance of oil/gas exporters over Nigeria, Kuwait, Algeria, etc. maybe through the BRICS), this could be a non-negligible threat for the West

Yes, this is a looming threat. Although it is an enterprise which will be controlled solely by China and will result in all these other states becoming controlled in a malignant way by Chinese authoritarianism, (to sell their souls). China knows that she will win the economic war in the long run and will not be distracted by wars in the meantime.

A part from the fact that the Chinese economy has run into some serious troubles (https://time.com/6835935/china-debt-housing-bubble/, https://www.vox.com/world-politics/24091759/china-economic-growth-plan-xi-jinping-crisis), if you want a deeper risk analysis for hotter conflicts involving China you can find lots of interesting readings on the internet, like this one:
https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/02/04/china-war-military-taiwan-us-asia-xi-escalation-crisis/

Interesting and something to watch.

There is another dimension to this which I predict will become the primary driving force in geopolitics over the next generation. Climate change, as I said at the beginning of our conversation I see the world retreating into 3 fortresses, when climate change hits, the U.S., Europe and China with the rest of the world descending into failed states.

Interestingly an important resource for Europe in this outcome would be to have the Ukraine grain production within Europe. Something which I expect will become pivotal in preventing Russia becoming powerful again in a world ravaged by climate change.

You mean that since Israel is disproportionately stronger than Hamas and can erase Hamas from Gaza, then Israel must yield to Hamas’ demands? Or that since Israel is disproportionately stronger than Hamas and can erase Hamas from Gaza, then Hamas can’t help but fight Israel to death? Do these conditionals make sense to you?

I’m not proposing a solution. It’s a comment on the how the suffering of the Palestinian people can be alleviated and who of the two sides in this conflict can deliver this. The comment in bold below seems to be a claim that a Hamas surrender would deliver this. Are you sure about that?

Better in what sense? For whom?

The suffering of Palestinians.

If Hamas had surrendered prior to committing the 8/10 massacre, then this would have spared the Gazans the current brutal retaliation. Any time Hamas surrenders in exchange for a cease-fire, then this would spare Gazans further brutal retaliation. If Hamas doesn’t surrender but it returns the hostages in exchange for a cease-fire, then this would still spare Gazans further brutal retaliation. So if the purpose is to spare Gazans Israelis’ brutal retaliation or further brutal retaliation, then not committing the 8/10 massacre, surrendering, returning hostages would be (or have been) all available options to Hamas. Wouldn’t they?

What is happening now is something more than a brutal retaliation for 07/10. It is the deliberate starvation of a captive population. A genocide.

Anyway, my comments were in response to someone else. I don’t see the point in going over this again, our positions and understanding has been aired. I’m preparing a response to your reply to me about the geopolitical situation.

Well there is a crime being investigated at the ICJ.

The population became expendable when they voted in Hamas.

I doubt that was on the ballot paper.

So what? War is neither a beauty contest nor a fair play contest.

You keep saying this, asymmetrical war is a reality, I’m not saying that it’s a question of morality, fair play here. But rather an imbalance in agency. The only agency Hamas has had since October 8th is the option of releasing the hostages and surrendering themselves. Israel has wide ranging agency and propaganda machinery. Not to mention the thing I said about apartheid.

Also if Hamas had surrendered, the course of this situation might not have been much better than where we are now. Certainly if they had released the hostages, but not surrendered, it may well have been considerably worse than that.

So if Palestinians are doomed to suffer whatever price Netanyahu is willing to inflict on them (at least until Hamas keeps hostages and Netanyahu is in power), who is going to help them? If it is the Great Satan to do it, what would be the benefit for the Great Satan?

I was replying to someone else.
Anyway, it looks like the Great Satan has a conscience after all. He is going to provide humanitarian assistance.

No less than the Palestinian population is expendable in the pursuit of Hamas’ objectives, right?

Yes, however this is an asymmetrical situation. Israel is an occupying force with state of the art weaponry. Hamas is a small band of terrorists with basic weaponry. Also the idea that Hamas can spare the population by handing back the hostages and surrendering, or something. Works on the assumption that Israel doesn’t have an ulterior motive, or can be sufficiently trusted.

That would be a start. But until the hostages are released/accounted for, their being kept seems to me a carte blanche for the Israelis and their IDF.

This answers my question then. The population is expendable in the pursuit of Israel’s objectives.

As well, there are the issues of crimes committed on Israeli territory, the perpetrators subject to Israeli law.

You seem very one sided in these comments. What about the crimes committed by Israeli’s in the West Bank and Gaza? Or is it that carte blanche thing again?

It all seems too simple: release the hostages, surrender criminals, try to move on to peace. Who could object to that, and why?

It does all seem to simple.

Ambiguity. They should provide in Israel refugee camps? Or they should provide refugee camps for refugees that are themselves in Israel?

I don’t understand what you’re saying here.

But perhaps more significant is that you seem to feel that the Israelis should do something - and there may be lots of reasons why they "should." But the Arab neighbors appear to be completely unwilling to touch the Palestinians with even the proverbial ten-foot pole. Why do you think the Israelis "should" do something and not the Arab neighbors; and by the way, is there anything you think the Palestinians or more to the point Hamas should do?

There may be numerous reasons why Palestinians aren’t in refugee camps in other Arab countries. Firstly the Palestinians say they don’t want to leave Gaza because they won’t be able to return when the fighting stops. Secondly the Israeli’s won’t let them leave. Thirdly the other Arab countries might not want to see Israel push them out of the territory and annex the land as part of Israel. To be seen as complicit in ethic cleansing.

And I think you should make unequivocally clear your own view on the hostages. Do you agree with me that the hostages must be the first order of business? Or if not, then what?

I doubt that they are the first order of business for Netanyahu. For Hamas they may be a bargaining tool. Personally I would want the hostages to be returned unharmed along with the Palestinian people being left unharmed.

If you think the Israelis have a choice, what choice is it that you think that they have?

There is an easy solution here. Israel should provide refugee camps for Palestinian refugees in Israel.

But unfortunately, pure terrorist governments don’t want to fight like this because they’d lose. Raping, kidnapping, and beheading people as a policy of “resistance” will have consequences for the territory they do govern, as long as they hide within that population. It indeed sucks all around.

The Gaza issue is unique and so normal war comparisons don’t easily apply.
Gaza has been little more than a prison for many years, so a comparison would be like the inmates forming a government within the confines of their detention. You say that the terrorists hide within the population, like human shields, perhaps. This doesn’t apply because the territory is so densely populated that this can’t be avoided unless the terrorists walked out into a few areas of open land at the margins, where they would be mowed down with machine guns.

My question wasn’t aimed at you. It was a response to what someone else said.

It looks to me though, judging from the behaviour of the Israeli administration that the lives of the Population of Gaza are expendable.

So unless the hostages are returned, the whole population of Gaza is expendable?

And if they're murdered, then everything is off the table.

Simple question, how many Palestinian deaths is to many?

At what point do the IDF say we’ve gone to far and stop?

So even war on terror (i.e. against Islamic Jihadism) in the middle east was a political strategic move not just a compulsive reaction, as much as NATO expansion in Europe and inclusive economic globalization (especially addressing potential competitors like Russia and China). All of them were long-term strategies testing the US hegemonic capacity of shaping the world order through hard and soft power, even if it ultimately wasn’t planned and dosed well. Democratization (and economic growth) seemed the best way to go to normalise relations, preserve peace and quell historical grievances (as it happened for Germany and Japan) so the US, after the Cold War, in the unipolar phase, had the time window to think big and take greater risks.
Even terrorist attacks of Islamic jihadism, including the 9/11 attack, aren’t just isolated punitive operations against some past grievance, but steps toward more ambitious ideological goals

Al Qaeda was a U.S. client terrorist group created to aid the U.S. in its war on Communism. Who came back to bite its master. It was only loosely affiliated to any militant Islamist groups (I don’t want to get into this now, but rather focus on the broader geopolitical situation).

Again I don’t see the U.S. having any interests in the Middle East other than the supply of oil from the Arab states and protecting the Western outpost of Israel. They want to maintain the status quo in the area for these reasons. They were happy for Syria to be thrown to the wolves in the fight against Isis and now they are only maintaining a presence in those areas to prevent the rise of Isis in the region over the next period.
As such I don’t see the Middle East as an important arena of geopolitical, or hegemonic tension.
I don’t see any signs of wider conflagration, or broader hegemonic locking of horns, or WW3, resulting from this crisis. Neither the U.S. or China wanted this.

The primary geopolitical game being played currently is by Russia in Ukraine and as far as the West is concerned (geopolitically) that is going nicely in that it is keeping Russia occupied and gradually weakening her. This is also providing the incentive for Europe to re-arm and wean herself of Russian oil and gas. There is however the increased affiliation of Russia with China to consider. However I would expect this to result in a reluctance for war from this coalition once the Ukraine war has played out. This will most likely result in a new Iron curtain dividing Europe from Russia, as I predicted in the Ukraine war thread. Russia will pull back from China when they realise they would be required to sell their soul.

As I said before, why would China enter into a ground war, or dabble with proxy wars, when she is already winning the economic war?

“Property” as a legal term presupposes a legal system. Israel doesn’t acknowledge the Palestinian legal system. But it acknowledges to some extent the international legal system, so to that extent, Israel may be compelled to abide by what international law establishes for Palestinians

You can dress it up all you like, it doesn’t change the facts on the ground. The people living on that land were expelled by an occupying force. This is why they hold a grievance and it’s still happening in the West Bank. Indeed it has happened continuously since 1948.

the international status over Palestine was the one proposed by the UN resolution 1947 which the Palestinians rejected. So Israel forcefully imposed its rule with the main support of the US at the expense of the Arab/Palestinian aspirations in that region.

So now we see what happened, it’s not difficult, it’s not complicated.
And yes I know about the Jewish Nakba, that was an inevitable consequence.

I think you’re over egging the geopolitical perspective, but I find that interesting to. I’ll have a look.

So why exactly should we acknowledge historical “occupation” starting from the time the Arabs/Muslims turned to be the majority after oppressive colonisation of lands originally occupied by Jews?

I haven’t suggested that. What I’m saying is there was an injustice to the people on the ground when the Nakba occurred, because as far as they were concerned it was their property, their real estate when it happened.

So why exactly should we acknowledge rights to land to people (Arabs and/or Jews) prior to the end of the British Mandate?

I saying that their right to the land they are living on is due to their living on and owning the land on which they lived.

. So why exactly should we acknowledge rights to the land to a nation whose identity is rooted very much in this fight for land ownership with another nation whose identity precedes such conflict?

Well that’s a legal argument and I conceded that point.

What a surprise.

I’m not going to get tied up in legal definitions, something that you were delving into in your response to SSU. My volumes on international law are on a high shelf and I have back ache.

In other words, my position is that, given my understanding of the status of the geopolitical game in that area, I think there are STILL strong reasons to see Israel as a valuable strategic ally of the West (I qualify myself as a Westerner) and act accordingly even in the current circumstances

So your only position then is limited to a concern for any broader geopolitical considerations and possible developments.

I prefer to focus on my and my interlocutors’ limited understanding of the situation beyond personal interested perspectives.

I go back to your assumptions about that. Your assessment of my understanding of the situation appears to be based on the following of a philosophical style which you approve of.

P.s. I’m not going to go back over pages and pages of responses to answer questions. My responses will be consistent as my position on these issues has been considered at length and doesn’t change as a result of interactions with others. That’s not to say I won’t accept a revision when new information is provided and errors identified.

The US is now just going along with Netanyahu's war, which has no political ends in sight. (Haas remarks that "it's as if Clausewitz hasn't been translated to Hebrew.) And this is interesting as Noah Hariri made the same point.

Yes, Netanyahu chanted the narrative of how they will remove the Palestinians his whole life. And then with the increased settler activity over the past couple of years and heightened rhetoric, found himself sleep walking into it. I saw his face on tv in the hours following the attacks of October 7th. He looked as if he’d seen a ghost. A trance like state, or even a rapture.

I had noticed and remarked on the fact that Noah Harari was extremely exercised and worried about the situation in Israel 6 months before the attacks. There were increasingly vocal protests in Israel during this period.

The UK is currently 6.5% muslim and it's already causing massive social upheaval.

This is nonsense. The people who push this line believe in the great replacement theory. It’s batshit crazy.

And if Hamas were to be eliminated I can assure you Israel has no intention of annexing Gaza and absorbing all of those Gazans into Israel.

I can see that, where will they go?

Yes, I know, but something went wrong and it’s been going wrong for a long time.

Look at it this way, let’s say Hamas is removed from the picture. A peace is agreed and everyone starts to live together as one country. This country would be approximately half Jewish, half Muslim. What would happen if the Muslim population started to outgrow the Jewish population? Presumably in this scenario everyone would have equal rights, could vote in national elections, could stand for office. Would the Jewish population be happy to be ruled by a majority Muslim population, assuming a Muslim party won power?

Ahh, synchronicity. I know that feeling.

In the U.K. a dyke is a lesbian.

I couldn't consider living in the UK (was last there in 2022, was actually standing in the Tower of London at the moment the Queen passed away.) My perception of the UK at the moment is that it's pretty frayed around the edges, and has a lot of dreary towns.

I was in one of my favourite restaurants in the south of France (near Bordeaux). Anyone who was British knew within a few minutes of the announcement. While all the French people around us had no idea.

Yes the U.K. has lots of dreary towns and more recently sink towns. The class divide has increased with enclaves of affluence hidden away here and there. There are some interesting, progressive towns and cities though such as Bristol, Norwich, Brighton, Edinburgh. Even Manchester is having it’s renaissance.

Apparently we are going to have to wait until the rest of civilization catches up with Canada's progressive cannabis laws before we can think about going anywhere. My outlaw days are past.

You can smoke it legally in the Netherlands and I recently heard it was to be decriminalised in Germany. But in reality in the U.K. if you have small amount for personal use at home it’s ok. The difficult part is buying it. But even then the police would only be interested in the dealers. I used to have a couple of skunk plants in pots on my windowsill which provided enough for what I was smoking. I gave it up a long time ago, though, anyway.

Now, does Israel try this? No. It's a homeland for the Jews and others just can fuck off. And that's why in the end it is an Apartheid system, because it has at it's core that similary hostility towards the others, similar to what the white Afrikaaners had in their system for blacks.

I couldn’t have put it more simply myself.

And where did I make such extraordinary claims exactly? Can you quote me verbatim?

I didn’t say you had made such a claim, I wasn’t talking about you, I was talking about claims. But you do appear to be positioning yourself there in relation to my claim. Unless, you are in some kind of neutral position. As far as I’m concerned to even consider that this Israeli administration we are discussing could be a workable solution, unless it is imposed with brute force is entirely fool hardy, or naive. It’s not going to happen.

While from your neutral position you are happy to use analysis to deconstruct what I was saying.

You mean that the burden of proof is all on me and you have to do nothing other than making claims? You didn’t even offer a clarification of what you mean by “Apartheid state”.

But I’m realising that you are not committing to a position on these questions. You’re just shooting down what people say. I ask for a counter argument and none is provided. You comment on some issue, but thats not making claims.

Sure, if you suspect a disagreement between us over the notion of “state” or “human”. The point is that YOU feel compelled to call Israel an “Apartheid state” and want me to agree with you since you suspect a disagreement (and rightly so).

looking at your discussion with SSU about what apartheid is I’ll give it a miss for now.

I’m not criticising your approach or what you’re saying, it just feels a bit to much like a philosophy tutorial, where your only input is to mark my homework.

P.S. For some reason, I do not get notifications from you, even if you reference my nickname.

Sorry it’s something about the website that I haven’t got around to working out. Something to do with the quote feature I think.

Dude, really? Is that the most you can do?

Well I can list more reasons, it’s quite a long list. Also it’s the direction of travel. The notion that an Israeli administration that would be introduced in Gaza would be an improvement on what was there before October 7th. Or that it would even come close to something acceptable to the Palestinian population is an extraordinary position.

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”

You mean that the burden of proof is all on me and you have to do nothing other than making claims? You didn’t even offer a clarification of what you mean by “Apartheid state”.

Perhaps we should try and agree what a state is first, or what a human is.

But why do you believe that if Hamas surrenders, the people of Palestine will be plunged into an even more oppressive situation? What evidence do you have? What reasons?

Simply because the situation has worsened (the means and practice of the Israeli government and the IDF.)
This is self evident for these reasons;
The stand off between Israel and the leaders of Palestine has worsened and deepened over a long time, as each new conflict occurs. It only ever gets worse, not better.
There is clear evidence of Israeli leaders becoming militant, radicalised. This will only make the situation worse and make it more difficult for Israeli’s to trust Palestinians.
Their insensitivity to the plight as evidenced by their actions re’ Gaza and concerns of Palestinian people, suggests that they will remain insensitive in any subsequent Israeli controlled state.

Yes you said that so many times. And the first time was already one time too much.

I will stop when you agree with me about that. Or demonstrate that it is not the case.

What is your argument here? The Jewish psyche? You should suggest Israelis your therapist, I guess.

You proposed a confederated solution. My point was that such a confederated solution would amount to another form of apartheid by a different name.

In Britain some cities seem large when they aren’t when compared to cities in other countries.

Brighton is known as London on Sea. Nice place and cool with an alternative slant and a Green MP. Personally I find it to big and busy, I would prefer Lewes just a short train ride away.

You’re making some interesting points, but there’s something you keep pushing for which seems wrong headed to me. These two paragraphs distill it quite well.

Does what you are saying imply that horrors of the war (like the ones we see in Gaza) or demand for unconditional surrender constitute a strong argument against durable peace in the region? Because history shows also that one can demand and obtain UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Potsdam-Declaration) and have prospects of a durable peace after enough devastation (including civilians, kids, cities) and even after heavy bombings and nukes.

I think the Post-Dam declaration is a poor comparison, but I can use it to make my point. The people who were surrendering in Japan, the countrymen of Japan, not the imperialist leaders, but the people. Were living a free and fair life before and after the war. They weren’t born into a traumatised oppressed population as Palestinians are. If Hamas, surrenders now. The people of Palestine will be plunged into an even more oppressive situation. From an oppressive apartheid state before the war and into a perniciously oppressive apartheid state after the war. This will only make Israel’s problems worse and lead to a repeat of October 7th, or worse.

For example, my understanding is that Netanyahu is going to destroy Hamas (and other militant groups’) military capacity and identified combatants in Gaza as thoroughly as possible and impose a West Bank regime in Gaza. Maybe complemented with some agreements with Egypt to accept and keep refugees in Sinai as long as needed.

This West Bank regime is the perniciously oppressive apartheid state I referred to.
I don’t see a solution here, a confederate state would be the same in all but name.