Once again, the lab leak. If only we would have used Occams razor, but no.



But, make it part of the culture war.. and it's just an opinion.

Antisemitism has once again become normalized — BitconnectCarlos

Criticism of the actions of the Israeli state gives also the antisemites an opportunity to act. This is unfortunately the way how this goes in other examples too: the opposition of Putin's attack into Ukraine has also brought hostility towards Russians and acts of Russofobia in general. Yet many Russians, especially those outside of Russia, don't at all support Putin. But many will simply generalize their opposition of the actions of the Russian state to being against Russians in general.

This Israeli administration will especially fervently promote the idea that being critical about the policies of the state of Israel is antisemitism.



Yet the question was if Israel will survive. That Israel will survive is a fact, a no brainer: it has a nuclear deterrent (it's neighbors don't), it enjoys military superiority over it's neighbors and it has the unwavering support of the US. But I guess it's convenient to portray Israel as the little guy facing off a huge powerful menace. Remarks like Israel will be forced out as the Crusader states earlier are similar conspiracy bullshit like Europe will become Muslim and the original Europeans will be replaced.

Yes I see this. But I also see an arms race in the Middle East though (on the assumption that Israel continues with the ethnic cleansing and remains defiant). They would become a fortress bristling with weapons. Presumably they would want US bases in Israel too. — Punshhh

One thing we have to remember is that Israel's neighbors are Third World countries, and so is Iran too. They simply don't have the economy to really compete with Israel. That they end up like Iraq or Syria is a far likely possibility than them becoming so powerful to really take on (again) Israel.

Then let's assume the Arabs somehow, get their lines together and having such integration that the Arab league countries can coordinate their armed forces like NATO countries. Put them all together with the ability for the armies to fight together and that would make the situation different. Add even perhaps nukes from Pakistan, so there would be nuclear parity.

Why wouldn't this be an existential threat to Israel? Because the likely outcome would then be a two state solution. Faced with a nuclear balance, true possibility of losing a war, especially if the Israeli lobby would fail creating enough Islamophobia against this new version of the Arab League, then a two state solution would be on the table.

And once that is done, what would be incentive for then this alliance to endanger itself with a nuclear war with Israel? It's a common cause in the Arab realm, but somehow we miss that people still are rational actors, even if they muslim. Yet somehow the idea of "mad mullahs" wanting to blow up Israel (and themselves) is taken as real possibility. It only holds in the realm of propaganda.

Israel is sensing US overstretch, and realizes that if the US now gets stuck in a conflict elsewhere, say Korea, Taiwan, etc. Israel may be on its own for the foreseeable future.

I wouldn't be surprised if they are trying to make sure the conflict the US eventually gets stuck in is the one that borders on their interests. — Tzeentch

That is plausible.

Yet what is I think totally clear is that the Israeli government has not much here in long term thinking. Bibi is just hanging there, so I don't think he has his sights in the long term. The right-wing government has seen this as a crisis where they can attempt to do what they want, but likely it's going to backfire.

They would be dependent on an umbilical cord to the US and judging by the state of politics in the US at the moment that cord could be severed at some point in the future. — Punshhh

Actually John Mersheimer said the reality quite well: The Israeli Lobby, just as any successful lobby, is basically part of the US system of lobbying. It's there just like the gun lobby is. Not only are there many Jewish Americans, but also the Evangelical support for Israel that will be there also in the future. Only something really terrible, actually, could make this to change. I don't see that for instance AIPAC would anytime need to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

What this means that the umblical cord goes actually the other way. Bibi can be very confident that the US will do what Israel wants, because of having this lobby group made of Americans supporting his country no matter what. No other country has this kind of influence over the US, which makes the situation quite unusual.

And Israel too, presumably? — Punshhh

Nope. Nuclear deterrence works. Especially when the other side doesn't have nuclear weapons. And I guess the Israelis, unlike the Americans who live on another continent, have an incentive to stay in the Middle East. Israel won't go away. Although in their propaganda they say that it's them who are on the verge of being wiped out.

And likely then the US can have it's bases in Israel. And perhaps one in Qatar for some time, because Qatar has made Saudi-Arabia so angry that they might correctly assume that it's good to keep the Americans around.

Perhaps the US can have an actual defence treaty with Israel? Why not, when the policy has gone from CENTO -> Twin Pillars -> to what, "Arab (Muslim) Containment?"

Then the US is just like the UK and France, the past colonial masters are: there to sell weapons to the Arabs, but not anything else. After all, doesn't the US want to pivot to the Far East?

There's ample reasons actually to think that this might happen. It's simply the "fatigue"-factor. Just like the leaving of Afghanistan on it's own was a deliberate policy by both a Republican and a Democrat administration, why then to hang around in Iraq or Syria? Holding there troops just creates an easy target for radical Islamic groups to attack them (as the bases are where they live). What's the purpose? When is the last time you have heard the term War on Terror being said anymore?

It's not the US military. It's the US politicians themselves: they likely don't see anything else than supporting Israel to be beneficial for them in their own political careers.

When according the politician BlackRock has bought Ukraine, I wouldn't put much on this one. Only to note that anti-Westernism / anti-globalization and hostility towards the US has deep roots in the European far right (even if they love Trump, but he, of course, isn't one of those billionaires ripping of the poor people).

Three US servicemen killed and 34 wounded.

WASHINGTON, Jan 28 (Reuters) - Three U.S. service members were killed and at least 34 wounded in a drone attack by Iran-backed militants on U.S. troops in northeastern Jordan near the Syrian border, President Joe Biden and U.S. officials said on Sunday.

Jan 28th (Al Jazeera) - The Islamic Resistance in Iraq, an umbrella group of Iran-backed armed groups, claimed attacks targeting three bases, including one on the Jordan-Syria border.

Jordan condemned on Sunday the “terrorist attack” on a military advance post just inside its border with Syria and said it was cooperating with Washington to secure its frontier.

The pro-Iranian group IRI has been already attacking US forces inside Iraq.

Also, the war on shipping is going on, even after the US and UK strikes. Now a UK-based tanker carrying Russian nafta was attacked in the Red Sea by a Houthi ballistic missile. Indian, French and US naval vessels came to the help of the ship.



What I see here is a process of the US slowly but determinedly sucked into the quagmire of a Middle Eastern conflict, which isn't beneficial for itself, but works well especially for Bibi. If Israel (or the US) attacks Iranian assets in lets say Lebanon and Syria (as has been done), Iran let's it "Axis of Resistance" go on with their agenda by giving them materiel.

At some time then Joe Biden has to make counterstrikes, or face the possibility to be viewed upon as a weak dick. Thus you have a perfect vicious circle. Naturally the American population isn't eager for a new (or continued) war in the Middle East, which limits the options here.

It may be so that in the end the US will have to withdraw like France did from the Sahel.

so let me try to break it down: leftist institutions are full of people chanting 'From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!' — flannel jesus

Actually, the river to the sea is the slogan of the Likud party. And I think it's working for them well... :smirk:

Here's the crux of the argument: Palestinians themselves are currently suffering from the literal nightmare scenario of the unfettered immigration of a bunch of people who they believed had an opposing way of life. Palestinians are literally the victim of the very thing "racist white Europeans" are trying to avoid. — flannel jesus

Here's the crux of a counter-argument: migrant workers and refugees don't have the objective to create a new (Muslim?) country in Europe and aren't up taking arms and fighting to do that. Or if you think so, then you aren't going to quite extreme conspiracy theories and this conversation is meaningless.

Actually this is quite similar to the slogans that anti-immigration Finns (racists?) had years ago: The present situation of the Native Americans in the US is an example of having lax immigration laws. Obviously they should have had more stringent immigration laws!!!

My thesis is this: if you have sympathy for Palestinians in this situation, because they are living in the worst nightmare scenario of the result of unfettered immigration of a perceived "hostile culture", then you should also have sympathy for the "racist white Europeans" who are trying to avoid the nighmare scenarios that come with unfettered immigration of perceived "hostile cultures". — flannel jesus

Oh yes, we white Europeans will be living in reservations or worse... how was the chant? We will be replaced?

But seriously, haven't you noticed how the views on immigration have already changed in Europe? Or are you still reading Douglas Murray's The Strange Death of Europe? Thing do have changed since 2015-2016 migrant crisis, you know.

We have various neutral sources stating that the negotiations were blocked by the West. So the evidence is out there. Whether you find it convicing is up to you.

To me it's cut and dry, and there is little doubt in my mind. — Tzeentch

History will tell us, but again, we simply don't know what Putin would have accepted. Yet that strategic strike on Kyiv failed and the few days war got quite longer.

I literally stated:

US didn't want Ukraine to have nukes either and an additional proliferation concern so trying to keep the nukes would have resulted, at best, in international pariah status even if we imagine there wasn't the above problems. — boethius

So I guess on this issue we agree then.

Even if Ukrainian leaders wanted to keep the nukes and didn't believe in non-proliferation as a moral imperative, they were faced with a long list of practical problems and risks of keeping the nukes as well as developing new ones, and then (turns out we both agree) the best case scenario would be pariah status as both the US and Russia would be agreed on the policy.

So, it is was not a matter of "political will". — boethius

And there's the possibility that this war would have started earlier and without the West so eager to give aid to Ukraine.

Probably because he will have to fear for his life is he says too much (notice that Arestovych is also afraid to talk about who did it). — Tzeentch

Nah, I think Chalyi is still an Ukrainian diplomat. Hence he likely suppports his own country. That moment past, we are in a new moment. That came quite clearly from the debate. Only those who want to portray everything being about the US (with nobody else having effect on these issues) will replay this. as they take any kind of own decision making capability away from the Ukrainians in their own country.

If you're expecting definitive evidence, obviously that is never coming. — Tzeentch

Actually, that will come.

As we know about the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement and issues like that, these issues surely will be come out. And the simple fact is that the negotiations didn't go further. The war continued. And now Putin is quite hopeful that he will win. This is just speculation as we didn't go that extra mile.

For example, in an official capacity the US probably still maintains it didn't base its wars in Vietnam and Iraq on construed evidence, but everybody with a brain knows that they did. — Tzeentch

The Iraqi case is a slam dunk nowdays, thanks actually Trump himself. And in Vietnam the US was already engaged prior to the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Besides, Great Powers simply act this way, after all, to Soviet (and Putinist history), Finland started the Winter War in 1939 with an artillery attack on Soviet Union.

The implications of violent video games are grossly underestimated. — Steven P Clum

Video games in America are the same as everywhere else. If their implications would be grossly underestimated, then there ought to be more shootings in other countries, which don't have the mass shootings, but do have the same video games.

↪Tzeentch Do you have a link? But seriously, what were Russia's terms then. That's a big "if" when Putin hadn't accepted the terms. — ssu

Oleksandr Chalyi Interview / Panel (Former Ukrainian ambassador and diplomat, partook in the March/April negotiations) — Tzeentch

:smile: Did you listen to for instance what doctor Greame P. Herd said? Thorough explanation of the imperial aspects of Russia and it's policies.

But the first link doesn't give this kind of "smoking gun" argument: Chalyi simply states that the talks didn't go further. (It's btw a long discussion)

Chalyi does make some good points. Chalyi: Putin's actions was not only a crime, but a mistake. Putin came a victim of his own propaganda and, according to Chalyi, then understood this was a mistake. Here I can agree, Putin might really noticed that his swift quick capture of key objectives didn't go as they had gone as when he captured Crimea. Many have said this and the actual fighting on the ground tells this that what Russia had in mind was a quick lightning strike. But as @neomac has consistently said, there was no agreement on what kind of peace Putin would have accepted. Listening to Chalyi, it's evident that they hadn't come close to an actual peace or cease-fire arrangement.

Yet notice what Chalyi says about the present: it's a full scale war, for NATO a cold war. Chalyi believes that it's something there has to be some reapprochement, even if other matters, between the West and Russia. What he also admits (correctly in my view) that now Putin is willing to continue.

Do you mean that the pro-Palestinians can be happy for such ruling? It didn't demand an immediate ceasefire nor it condemned Israel for committing a genocide. — neomac

First of all, do notice what the South African charge was.

Far better than it being thrown out of court, as Israel wanted it to do. And far better than nothing.

And also likeliest: the American lawyer (or the German on) likely wouldn't have gone against their governments that are against a ceasefire (only perhaps talking about humanitarian pauses etc.).

So the ICJ made it's primary ruling in favour of South Africa and against Israel.



I think it didn't make front page news in the West.

Yep, and unlike the US, Israel cannot retreat across an ocean and pretend nothing ever happened. It will be stuck in the middle of said trainwreck.

I think people grossly underestimate how dire this situation can become. — Tzeentch

First peace with Egypt, then with Jordan and then Trumps Abraham records. Who remembers anymore the Oslo peace process? Everything is going fine, isn't it? Until now, Israel has thought it can very well handle everything, build settlements and simply do fine with the status quo. Hasn't that been the biggest job of Mr Security, Bibi Netanyahu?

Or then Israel could apply to the UN Security Council decisions. (Which it won't: there's no reason it would.)

Then if we somehow WOULD get that two-state solution, then issue is if the newly formed Palestine would have a peaceful border (like Jordan and Egypt) or if Israel would treat it like Lebanon. Hence likely you would have to have Arab states not only protecting the new Palestine, but also keeping the border peaceful. Which would mean an awful lot of coordination from the Arab states.

Not only would in the two nation state solution both countries need recognition from each other, but also that they would be left alone.

Do you have a link? But seriously, what were Russia's terms then. That's a big "if" when Putin hadn't accepted the terms.

As @neomac shows, there were (and are) many hurdles for peace. The idea that Russia was open for something else as "peace" than all it's objectives accepted: puppet regime, eastern Ukraine with land corridor to Crimea and perhaps also Odessa is questionable.

It sounds like there was this wonderful peace just around the corner that everybody was taking, but then came the baddie Uncle Sam.

And if it would have been only about NATO membership (which also some portray this war to be about), just having those troops on the border would have and did de facto put away NATO membership. NATO would have never said it out loud because the treaty organization is open for everybody that qualifies, but Ukraine never would have joined. It wouldn't be just Hungary, it would be Germany opposing the idea. Hence the war was never only about NATO membership, which conveniently someone like Jeffrey Sachs forgets.

And this is now and there are proposals to have peace talks by Zelensky, but that hardly seems to matter for some...

Oh, for Hamas? I have no doubt, the numbers of their own people they don't mind being used as fodder is hundreds of thousands or more. — schopenhauer1

For Gazans. Palestinians know there's no coming back, if they "voluntarily" move, or are moved outside.

The reality of the situation is that roughly as many Palestinians as Israelis live in the land Israel now occupies, which fundamentally compromises Israeli security. — Tzeentch

And fundamentally creates and unsolvable problem for Zionism, because the idea of the Jewish homeland doesn't take into consideration Palestinians.

Hamas wanted some apocalyptic shit, and it's getting it. — schopenhauer1

Hamas wanted that the Palestinian question and their cause isn't forgotten and doesn't affect the overall situation in the Middle East. They had the warplan for quite some time, but likely the potential Israeli-Saudi deal launched this. Hamas leaders referred to this in their statements on October 7th, even if not mentioning Saudi-Arabia, but referring to "some Arab states".

What do you think will happen when the US retreats to its island and the Middle-East falls out of its control? We are rapidly approaching that point. — Tzeentch

This might be a possibility, actually. If we extrapolate how things have been going, perhaps in the end the US really needs airbases in Israel and Cyprus and that's it.

Iraq wants a "quick and orderly" withdrawal of US forces out of Iraq, of the 2500 that are still there. Now those US forces are often under attack from Shiite armed groups in Iraq.

(ABC, 21st Jan 2024) In the latest escalation against U.S. forces in the Middle East, Iranian-backed militias launched a barrage of ballistic missiles and rockets at Al-Assad airbase in western Iraq on Saturday that left several U.S. personnel being evaluated for traumatic brain injuries, according to a statement from U.S. Central Command.

Most of the incoming missiles and rockets were intercepted by the air defense systems at the base, which is used by both the Iraq and U.S. militaries, but some impacted the base, officials said.

"At approximately 6:30 p.m. (Baghdad time) on January 20, multiple ballistic missiles and rockets were launched by Iranian-backed militants in Western Iraq targeting al-Assad Airbase," CENTCOM said in a statement.

"Most of the missiles were intercepted by the base’s air defense systems while others impacted on the base. Damage assessments are ongoing," it added. "A number of U.S. personnel are undergoing evaluation for traumatic brain injuries. At least one Iraqi service member was wounded."

Actually it's quite good luck that just two Navy Seals have died during the current fighting. A lot worse could have already happened, which would have forced the US to engage even more. Yet the fact is that the US Middle East policy is a train wreck. Likely sooner or later US is forced out of Iraq, perhaps as with low media coverage like France left the Sahel. If nobody makes a big issue about it in the media, perhaps people won't notice.

The peace talks in March/April 2022 which were blocked by the West. — Tzeentch

And there have been attempts at peace after that, now Zelensky is trying to have them in Switzerland. Back then it was all about the denazification of Ukraine, which it isn't anymore (so clearly).

I think there's been ample moments when peace talks could have been taken, if both sides would be willing.

Whatever fig leaf you are clinging on, the fact is that negotiated settlements come usually into being a possibility when both sides see that they cannot win the war militarily. As the other option is unconditional peace, which means military victory for one.

And I think time is a main ingredient, along with the eventual dying out of the haters. To facilitate an interim peace, however long it takes, I'd be in favor of a robust blue-helmet presence to protect the peace, well-being, safety, and rights of both sides. — tim wood

Or to have war weariness.

At least how it's now going, this isn't peace for the Jewish people with security operations that don't bother normal life and go on in the background.

The idea of having basically a perpetual insurgency around with the occasional "mowing of the lawn" isn't working. Already the calling in of the reservists has disrupted civilian economy and thus Israel is now looking at getting back some of the reservists from the war.

Yet the military operation isn't over. If it can be over with an objective of erasing out Hamas.
Here's a map that is rather up to date, which shows that for the IDF there's more to go, Hamas just hasn't been overrun and destroyed:


Also it's not likely that things just "die down": you do have the South African case in the court.

Netanyahu has little regard for this, as he becomes part of the Middle Eastern grizzly affairs. He represents fully being co-opted by the barbarism. — schopenhauer1

A populist leader does what the people want to be done and milks the raw emotion of the crowd. He doesn't think what would be better in the long term even after he isn't in power.

And this is where Bibi can really fuck up for the last time. There is the possibility that he indeed turn Americans from being enthusiastic supporters of Israel to being lukewarm. If that happens, it's quite nasty for Jewish Americans.

Hamas would first have to give a shit about their own people. That key is harder to turn. — schopenhauer1

The question is: how many Palestinians killed is independence worth for them? I believe it's quite high. They won't just leave to the Egyptian desert as they know there's no coming back.

As to the West Bank, I agree. If the Israelis are creating unlivable conditions on the West Bank, then they should both stop and reverse those actions. — tim wood

"Creating unlivable conditions" is what you end up with just thinking about the safety of the settlers: more walls, CCTVs, separate roads, restrictions on movement, random checks and violation of privacy.

So think twice then what would be those "reverse actions" when there is no political solution.

And what the Israelis should do is simply enfranchise the Palestinians by declaring Israel a joint Israeli-Palestinian state - with no doubt a lot of details to be worked out. — tim wood

Here's why the issue isn't just about details, it's far more worse.

First, there's zionism: Israel is the homeland of the Jews. And let's say this ideology doesn't go so well with modern ideas of a multicultural nation where everyone can be whoever or whatever and things are fine. Hence there really is no overarching identity of all being Israelis, where there is an identity of being British to the English, Scots and Welsh. And then there's the fact that the vast majority of Palestinians are Muslim. And Islam as a religion isn't just a personal issue of the individual, which one can hide away and which that nobody notices. Also in Islam there isn't the separation of the church and the state. After all, Mohammed was literally a king and not just one named to be one, hence the link that religion has with the state is very tight. It's also an issue why the neighboring states actually care so much about the Palestinians. It's not just Palestinians, it's the Ummah that's under attack.

Hence if all Palestinians would be Christians, I think the conflict wouldn't have been so severe and not so unsolvable. The Christian states wouldn't have come to the defense of Christian Palestine as, well, they don't in general come to the aid when a Christian state is attacked by a Muslim state. Think Armenia/ Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan. We don't even think about that conflict on terms of the religious divide. Yet Muslims do. The idea of Christendom was something important in the Middle Ages, yet not today.

And this is why right from the start the UN went on to divide Mandate Palestine with no lofty ivory tower attempts of everybody singing Kumbayah and being citizens of the same nation, just with having different religions.

And needless to say, current events haven't brought the sides closer. What was fucked up, just is getting worse.

If elections were held in the WB, Hamas would win. I want to believe that Hamas is not the voice of the palestinians, but they quite likely are. — BitconnectCarlos

I think especially because of the "Operation Swords of Iron", nobody has in mind the peace process anymore.

The only way I see a negotiated settlement (or anything like that) coming out of this is if simply attitudes would change in the US and Israel would find it's situation similar to white South Africa. But that's hardly going to happen anytime soon, so the war continues. But I guess it can happen.

Are you arguing here that the Israelis start wars against their neighbors in order to take their land? — tim wood

Well, we do generally call the 1967 war a "pre-emptive strike" by Israel, hence it started that war. And it was that war where the occupied territories were taken by Israel, which was condemned by the UN security council, including the US. So with that said, it appears so.

Yes, it gave back the land it took from Egypt after a peace deal (btw. Israel had already started building settlements there too, hence used the similar tactic in Sinai too). But then again, similar issue is at hand would be the two-state solution. Something that actually the Palestinians would be OK with.

So if your going to disprove that, good luck rewriting history!

The only thing dumb is your remark about the video(s). Which inclines me to believe the fellow who makes them, in all of his videos that you are so dismissive of, is making good points. I myself am not in a position to verify them, but they seem about right. — tim wood

So the basic message of that video: once you have war, then you can steal land. :roll:

Well, in order for that to be successful in acquiring land through war in the present, not only should you have a) a peace deal where the loser admits the transfer of territory and b) international recognition of your new land borders.

And as we know, both a) and b) are difficult for Israel.

If the Russians were really interested in conquest, why would they negotiate a peace in the opening stages of their invasion where they gave back occupied territory and WE were the ones to block the deal? — Tzeentch

What are you referring to?

Time travel to the past hypothetically possible?

Hypothetically yes.

Theoretically? That's the question.

Realistically? Let's gain the ability to travel 99,9% of the light speed first...

Well, naturally our front was on the other side, yes. And likely the blue division was for a time stationed at the Leningrad front.

Yet Finland actually didn't push to the actual fortification line surrounding Leningrad from the north. Last thing Finland wanted to do is to bang it's head against against the Karelian fortified region and lose troops for basically nothing. And Finnish troops didn't try to contact the German forces south of Leningrad when the took Shlisselburg. Hence Leningrad wasn't totally besieged and you had at winter 'Road of Life'.



(PS. The film Sisu is politically correct: the baddies are evil Nazis from the Lapland War, who apparently use a post-WW2 era Soviet main battle tank.)

A very clearheaded and insightful interview with Mark Gaelotti. Even if done by a Finnish podcaster (in English), the



Some of Galeotti's good remarks:

- There are differences between how Putin views Ukraine compared to the Baltics and then the Baltics compared for example to Finland and Sweden.
- Russia defending the rights of Russian minorities is more rhetoric than an political objective. The West ought to use the Russian minorities, Russians that are in EU member states don't have the desire to be part of Putin's Russia.
- Europe isn't so so united as it says on the matter of Ukraine. For many the security threat comes from the south.
- We don't have the debate of "Why Ukraine matters". We should.
- Ukraine fatigue is real even if officially denied, the talk of countries having limited amount of years to get their defences up is part of this.
- Even if Trump likes autocrats, he likely isn't going to do something dramatic: notice what the Trump administration actually did when in power.
- Still, if US backs away from assisting Ukraine, Europe won't fill the gap. Countries will use that as the excuse.

I agree. There is a problem here though. Israel is in a hole and by default all Jews are in a compromised position. — Punshhh

That is the problem. It makes also the classic "one state solution" totally impossible, because the ordinary way this would be solved is simply that being "Israeli" would actually mean similar thing as being "Palestinian" especially prior Israel's independence. There's no cultural assimilation of muslims and Christians to a homeland of the Jews. Hence everybody, right from the UN in the 1940's, has purposed the two state solution.

There is a peculiar feature of racism and accusations of racism. They are very sticky, even to use the word taints one with racism, (it’s not so sticky on a philosophy forum because it is treated as a sociological concept). Every time the accusation of anti-semite is used, it brings along a whole juggernaut of baggage, disrespect, contempt, distrust and taints the speaker with racism. — Punshhh

This is for especially the US a big issue, just like Hitler and national socialism is for Germany. With the US the issue with minorities is actually larger than in other American states, as the Latin countries have their culprit for everything bad, like the previous caste-system and the weak situation of the Indian population, just lying there over the Atlantic, their former colonizers.

The attempt to make the criticism of the state of Israel to be anti-semitic goes a bit over. States and their policies and the people are two really different things. Or otherwise there are a lot of racist people here: just add up all those in the forum who have ever criticized either the policies of Russia, China or the US, the UK or Iran or Afghanistan or Syria or Venezuela and so on... a lot of racists and haters here!

But I guess modern propaganda is that you have to be aggressive and basically outrageous in your views. It isn't anymore of countering the most preposterous accusations yet admitting that things like collateral damage, like uh, nearly all Western armed forces do when in war. No, you just attack anyone who makes criticisms and accuse them of anti-semitism and hope that does the trick and that it spreads the fear of being called an anti-semite.

It doesn't work because there's ample amount of Israelis and Jewish living abroad that are critical to the right-wing administration and it's policies and tactics in this war. There's still room for actual discussion, not just for a lithurgy that is only a declaration on who's side you stand.

I did not argue that Ukraine could not develop a nuclear program, I argued that doing so would risk Russia invading / nuking Ukraine before it could complete the task. — boethius

Yeltsin's army had huge difficulties with Chechnya, they actually lost the first Chechen war. But any Russian invasion wouldn't have been Ukraine's problem. The West, especially the US, wouldn't have at all liked the idea. Hence Ukraine would have become a pariah state thanks to it's strange obsession of having a nuclear deterrent.

And anyway, if then this would have prevented Russia attacking Ukraine, nobody would notice it! It would already be such an incredible idea that after the quite peaceful dissolution of the Soviet Union, Russia would attack and annex parts of Ukraine.

People with even a little bit of political experience know these sorts of deals aren't eternal. — boethius

Go and tell that to the Swedes, who basically dismantled their armed forces, because it wasn't anymore the Cold War era. And go tell that to the Germans. Actually many West European countries. And all those American diplomats and administration that wanted to restart the relations after Russian previous aggressions.



Only the former Warsaw pact countries and especially the former Soviet states had realistic ideas about Russia being Russia and it's weakness not being eternal. The West did write off Russia in the 1990's. They were very surprised to find suddenly Russia backing Serbia and sending it's troops to Kosovo.

Moreover, to what extent any of the Ukrainian leaders and policy analysts were confident in a perpetual peace, they certainly did not have in mind "great, we can just go ahead and join NATO" and they all could have easily explained that existing at peace with Russia would be contingent on not doing a few things. — boethius

Ukraine did want to be neutral. But as all of the East European countries starting from the Baltics, sooner or later they understood what Russia's plans would be... when it got it's act together. The Baltic states being tiny countries understood this from day one. Hence their objective to join NATO.

The vast majority will have no problem making a choice between these two. A small percent will be disenchanted and either cast a vote for a non-viable candidate or not vote. — Relativist

If 60% is high, then OK.

Of course, there's still time to go.

According to wikipedia Palestine is a state. If so, it is a state that Israel is at war with. — BitconnectCarlos

Hamas isn't the Palestine state, just like Hezbollah isn't Lebanon.

energetic
— jgill

:up:

quick-witted
— jgill

:lol: Come on. — Mikie

:smile:

Perhaps compared to Joe Biden, yes. Trump is at least energetic when talking about himself.

And anyway, usually American debates between candidates is just a "Gotcha!"-seeking moment with the candidates simply speaking pest about the other candidate. Policy hardly comes up. Only perhaps in some 5 second memorized quick lines. And Trump of course has the "best": everything will succeed when he's in charge. Just as like, uh... last time.

They’ll likely fail again in the fall. But they won’t even scratch their heads about it— because they’ll claim it was rigged. The problem is obvious: even against a weak candidate like Biden, independents and most of the American electorate hate Trump, and for very good reason. — Mikie

The big question is how many American will just stay home.

So Trump isn't going into debates, which is a wise choice. And now Nikki isn't either, because Trump isn't.

Yes, why on Earth would you have candidates debating in the first place? :wink:

Wonder if this will continue forward, when it's Biden vs Trump: why even give the respect for the other candidate by debating him face to face?

Perhaps both old men would like it that way.

That is not the way everyone in the US views it. — Relativist

Official US views it so. Bi-partisan support! And with that, in the tow many other Western countries issue something like that or then simply want to keep silent (simply as not to anger the Americans, but also not to anger their own voters either). It seems that you really have to be neutral like the Irish...

Yet I think times are changing. You don't rule the public discourse by fear, which seems to be the case.

Bibi and the far right in Israel are with eager determination marching Israel to the position of White South Africa. (But then of course, White South Africa endured on for many decades...)

Yesterday, I received a disturbing email from my Senator (the less crazy of two from Texas): — Relativist

That is the way the US views this. So no wonder Bibi is extremely confident that his military operation will go through and achieve it's objectives.

"Occupied territories" is itself a misnomer. It implies the palestinians are entitled to 100% of the west bank which is a ridiculous idea. — BitconnectCarlos

Incorrect.

Let's start with the most obvious: Syria and Israel has never signed a peace-agreement, thus Syria hasn't OK'd the annexation of the Golan Heights. Golan Heights is rather similar to Crimea. No other country has recognized the annexation of the Golan Heights than Trumpistan!

(Trump Heights, YEAH!)


For example the EU has declared that it doesn't recognize the Golan Heights to be part of Israel.

Then let's look at the West Bank (and Gaza).

First of all, Israel has basically (both de facto and de jure) annexed only Jerusalem. Israel hasn't actually annexed Judea and Samaria (the West Bank). Bibi naturally is very eager to do this, but it's been a bit difficult since the US isn't yet back to being Trumpistan again and Saudi-Arabia wouldn't be so eager to normalize the ties if Israel annexed the West Bank. And of course the Israelis know that there is the UN Security Council 242, so it wouldn't be a hugely popular move.

First let's take go through prior history:

Turkey did not legally surrender its sovereignty until 1923 when the Treaty of Lausanne was signed. Such detachment was primarily de facto and was a consequence of the British military occupation of Palestine and became de jure in 1923. The British military occupation did not bestow sovereignty to the United Kingdom, furthermore the military occupation did not affect any claim to sovereignty of the inhabitants.

Hence the reference to Mandatory Palestine. The British obtained this from the League of Nations to administer areas of the defunct Ottoman Empire "until such time as they are able to stand alone". Hence here already the Palestinians, then meaning both the Jewish and the Arabs living there, had a more legal grounds for the land than the "administrator", United Kingdom. Hence Palestine was never a British colony.

Then the UK gave up the land with the quarreling people and Israel declared independence and we had the UN partition plan. And we had the 1948 war and it's armstice.

From the UN site THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE WEST BANK AND GAZA

In 1949 Armistice Agreements between Israel and Egypt, Lebanon, Transjordan and Syria that followed the 1948 war meant territorial changes in Palestine. Israel secured control of all the territory allotted them in the Partition Plan and gained substantial additional portions in the West Bank area. The Gaza Strip was held by Egypt and the West Bank was united with Transjordan with no prejudice to the final settlement of its just cause within the framework of national aspirations.

These are the pre-1967 borders.

Do note that the Gaza Strip was first All-Palestine Protectorate and only was from 1959 annexed to be part of Egypt, but de facto was a military occupation area of Egypt. The people of Gaza couldn't for example move freely into Egypt.

What is called the West Bank is the area that Trans-Jordania occupied in the 1948 war, which by UN Resolution 181 was intended to be the Arab state alongside the Jewish part. In December 1948 in the Jericho conference Palestinian notables accepted Jordanian rule and recognized king Abdullah as their ruler. The Palestinians in the West Bank got Jordanian nationality and full citizenship rights. So how did Jordan view the Palestinians? Let's say they got over losing the West Bank to Israel quite quickly and saw the people being Palestinians, not Jordanians. King Hussein said the following in the UN in 1979:

“On 24 April 1950, the joint Jordanian Parliament, in taking its historic decision on unity, did not neglect to record Jordan’s unwavering stand towards the historic rights of the Palestinians and the support of Arab Palestinian rights in any future settlement in accordance with national aspirations and international justice. Thus when we speak today of the right of self-determination for the Palestinian people we do so because it is something we have always believed in and have always attempted to bring about within the framework of a just and comprehensive settlement.

And anyway, Jordan lost the West Bank and finally in 1988 Jordan shed all legal and administrative ties with the West Bank it claimed, except for the Jordanian sponsorship of the Muslim and Christian holy sites in Jerusalem, and recognised the PLO's claim to the State of Palestine. So from 1988, nobody claimed that the people of the West Bank were Jordanians. This actually is important, because many Israeli politicians have simply hoped that Palestinians in the West Bank would move to Jordania.

Then how about the peace deals with Egypt and with later Jordan?

The Egyptian-Isreali peace treaty normalized the relations between the two countries, gave Sinai back (partly demilitarized), provided Israel free passage in the Suez canal and also the straights of Tiran and in the Gulf of Aqaba, but also called for an end to Israeli military rule over the Israeli-occupied territories and the establishment of full autonomy for the Palestinian inhabitants of the territories.

That's in the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty. So obviously that didn't give any leeway for Israel to annex the Occupied territories.

How about the Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty of 1994?

Here we should remember that already in 1988 Jordan had relinquished any claims it had towards the West Bank and stated that the Palestinians lead by the PLO had the rightful claim.

Still, Here's the main principles of that peace treaty:

1) Borders: The international boundary between Israel and Jordan follows the Jordan and Yarmouk Rivers, the Dead Sea, the Emek Ha'Arava/Wadi Araba, and the Gulf of Aqaba. The section of the line that separated Jordan from the West Bank was stipulated as "without prejudice to the status of [that] territory."
2) Diplomatic relations and co-operation: The Parties agreed to establish full diplomatic and consular relations and to exchange resident embassies, grant tourists visas, open air travel and seaports, establish a free trade zone and an industrial park in the Arava. The agreement prohibits hostile propaganda.
3) Security and defense: Each country promised respect for the sovereignty and territory of each side, to not enter the other's territory without permission, and to cooperate against terrorism. This included thwarting border attacks, smuggling, preventing any hostile attack against the other and not cooperating with any terrorist organization against the other.
4) Jerusalem: Article 9 links the Peace Treaty to the Israeli–Palestinian peace process. Israel recognized the special role of Jordan in Muslim Holy shrines in Jerusalem and committed itself to give high priority to the Jordanian historic role in these shrines in negotiations on the permanent status.
5) Water: Israel agreed to give Jordan 50,000,000 cubic metres (1.8×109 cu ft) of water each year and for Jordan to own 75% of the water from the Yarmouk River. Both countries could develop other water resources and reservoirs and agreed to help each other survive droughts. Israel also agreed to help Jordan use desalination technology in order to find additional water.
6) Palestinian refugees: Israel and Jordan agreed to cooperate to help the refugees, including a four-way committee (Israel, Jordan, Egypt and the Palestinians) to try to work towards solutions.

So here not only Israel recognized Jordan's claims on the muslim holy shrines in Jerusalem, but notice also the last part.

Various people/groups have considered what might come to pass in case the Kremlin prevails — jorndoe

Well, Ukraine is preparing it's own defensive lines, so the likely outcome is a war like the Iran - Iraq war: a kind of WW1 stalement, until one or the other gets enough materiel and resources for an operational assault.