But, let's say America has some good policies ... does that excuse leading Ukraine to war and then having Ukraine sacrifice so many Ukrainian lives for American (elite) perceived interests, on false pretences? — boethius

If Ukraine really would be making the sacrifice only for American (elite) perceived interests, then I guess they would have folded even quicker than the Afghan army did to the Taleban. And Zelensky would have boarded that plane to fly to safety... just like the Afghan leader did.

But it seems what the little people, the Europeans or here the Ukrainians think, seems not to matter for some.

As for the war "not being lost" yet, we discussed, you and me, some length at the start of the conflict of how Ukraine has, based on information available to us, essentially zero chance of victory against the Russians. — boethius

And many Western analysts gave essentially zero chance of Ukrainians stopping the Russian Juggernaut in a conventional fight from taking the what they want.

There's a very wise saying in Finland about Russia: Russia is never so powerful as it's depicted and also never so weak as it's portrayed.

So, since that time has slipped away and hundreds of thousands of lives have as well, have you seen since this secret thing that could deliver Ukraine victory? — boethius

Yes, if Europeans would take really seriously the situation and make it about countering the Russian attack, not just assisting Ukraine so that it doesn't falter totally. And then make true with those promises that they made at the start of the conflict. Basically only Poland has taken the situation seriously. (And the Baltic States, but of course their assistance is quite little, naturally.)

You seem to have a dissenting understanding of my own, do you understand why Russia invaded Ukraine? Try to remember in your understanding that all is process. Russia and China and the BRICS are not the bad guys here. If you know the history behind what is occurring, we can then talk, the aggressors are the Yanks, and the Europe that they own. The BRICS forever, and the end of colonialism. — boagie

This is so typical, even in an Philosophy Forum.

Where does this eagerness come from to justify and hail one side from another when both sides could be criticized for disrespecting human rights or international laws? Why this desperate and naive intent to put countries to be either "the bad guys" and those opposing them "the good guys"? There's much criticize all Great Powers, but then again, they sometimes can have good policies too. Apparently this is too much to fathom for many.

Is it so controversial or illogical to be for human rights, peace and against colonial and imperial aspirations universally?

Or is it just trolling?

Because I asked you in another thread the same following questions and you never replied, but again does fit this thread too:

Why on Earth praise the BRICs?

You think those Great Powers are different or better, or some kind of champions of human rights and against genocide? Yeah, they surely will condemn things that are in their interest. But it's not some universal value they agree on.

What about what Russia did in Chechnya or now is doing in Ukraine or what China is doing in Uighuria to the Uighurs?

I think it is similar acts, although far more worse in the case of Russia. In the First and Second Chechen wars multiple more Chechens were killed than Palestinians have been killed in the current war in Gaza and there are far fewer Chechens than Palestinians. And the treatment of the Uighurs in China will definately constitute the legal definition of genocide.

So :vomit: for praising such countries like Russia and China.

The balance of power being heavily in favor of the Russians is completely obvious, and nothing short of a miracle will change it because neither the US nor Europe is willing to stick their neck out.

The only question now is how much more punishment Ukraine will receive before it finds an off-ramp, and the sooner people understand the reality of this situation, the more lives can be spared.

If it appears I am "living a bubble" it is only by one's lack of insight. — Tzeentch

So...

The media insisted that a "counterattack" that it forecasted didn't achieve much without air superiority, material advantage in artillery or anything similar that.

And the US Congress is bickering about the support to Ukraine...

Hence @Tzeentch declares it all over and a glorious Victory to Vladimir Putin!!!


Well, time then to end this thread as the war has been won by Russa and it's all over. :snicker:

Once people finally acknowledge Ukraine is militarily completely lost — Tzeentch

How is Ukraine completely lost?

Seems that you are living in your own bubble or something.... :snicker:

Actually that Merkwurdichliebe, who has been here for 5 years and posted well over 2000 posts is actually telling.

I think that times are changing.

My point remains that the usage of the terms "concentration camp" and "genocide" has been and continues to be used to create a moral equivalency argument between Israel and Nazi Germany. Acting as if those terms are just generic terms that can be used in all sorts of contexts of varying degrees is not taken seriously by anyone recognizing the context of upon which Israel was given statehood or by who resides in that land. — Hanover

As there is a legal definition for Genocide, do note that it isn't similar to what the Third Reich perpetrated and what we know as the Holocaust. For example, the genocide in Ruanda isn't similar to the Holocaust, especially by scope, but it is still a genocide. Many people think that genocide and Holocaust are synonyms, they aren't. Also, concentration camps have been used by quite many countries, which do not have had the idea of extermination everybody.

The unfortunate thing is that @Benkei's argument that a genocide is happening in Gaza is becoming more credible as the talk continues of "voluntary" movement of Palestinians from Gaza and when Gaza is reduced to rubble with not much ability to sustain over 2 million people to live there. It simply cannot be refuted that there isn't a lot of genocidal discourse in Israel starting with the prime minister talking about Amalek and other high ranking politicians referring to human animal, Gaza as evil and the calls for "voluntary" removal of Palestinians to the Sinai desert (not the Negev desert in Israel), or for Nakba 2. I find it very worrisome that the way that the IDF is now fighting Hamas starts to be very different from the way the US fought Iraqi insurgents, and this makes a lot more credible the accusations of genocide.

I would suggest to watch (or listen) to the following interview Raz Segal, a Professor in the Study of Modern Genocide at Stockton University, which makes quite well the argument for a genocide happening in Gaza.



Some points from the interview (if you won't bother to watch it):

- Hamas has many times talked about destroying Israel, so yes, it has the intent, but not the capability. Here what really matters is not only the intent, but also the capability to perform such things. (That Hamas has broken human rights and perpetrated war crimes is obvious.)
- The whole idea of moving people from the Gaza into the Sinai desert comes very close to examples like the Armenian genocide.
- Historically it has been the case that the perpetrators of a genocide have thought to be acting in self defence: From the Ottomans to Nazi Germany.

And if you think this is totally unimportant / nonsensical anti-semitic arguments of "the left", please do observe that just South Africa took Israel to the International Court of Justice for being " in breach of its obligations under the 1948 Genocide Convention in its crackdown against the Palestinian group Hamas in Gaza".

29 December 2023

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

Press Release

Unofficial

No. 2023/77

THE HAGUE, 29 December 2023. South Africa today filed an application instituting proceedings against Israel before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, concerning alleged violations by Israel of its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (the “Genocide Convention”) in relation to Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.

According to the Application, “acts and omissions by Israel . . . are genocidal in character, as they are committed with the requisite specific intent . . . to destroy Palestinians in Gaza as a part of the broader Palestinian national, racial and ethnical group” and that “the conduct of Israel — through its State organs, State agents, and other persons and entities acting on its instructions or under its direction, control or influence — in relation to Palestinians in Gaza, is in violation of its obligations under the Genocide Convention”.

The Applicant further states that “Israel, since 7 October 2023 in particular, has failed to prevent genocide and has failed to prosecute the direct and public incitement to genocide” and that “Israel has engaged in, is engaging in and risks further engaging in genocidal acts against the Palestinian people in Gaza”.

South Africa seeks to found the Court’s jurisdiction on Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Court and on Article IX of the Genocide Convention, to which both South Africa and Israel are parties.

The Application also contains a Request for the indication of provisional measures, pursuant to Article 41 of the Statute of the Court and Articles 73, 74 and 75 of the Rules of Court. The Applicant requests the Court to indicate provisional measures in order to “protect against further, severe and irreparable harm to the rights of the Palestinian people under the Genocide Convention” and “to ensure Israel’s compliance with its obligations under the Genocide Convention not to engage in genocide, and to prevent and to punish genocide”.

See United Nations page

So it's not just some crackpots here in PF, it's also some nations too. And not only Arab/Muslim countries. Hence we are really quickly moving from the initial responses from October 7 to something else (as happened in the Global War on Terror) thanks to the idiot zealots and those nurturing the feelings for revenge.

And (if you're still reading), I will repeat that this is extremely unfortunate. If this is dragged to be some kind of "culture war" issue or then being critical of Israel's actions is deemed anti-semitic, then at some point people will start to fall into saying that "Very well then, if opposing this is anti-semitic, count me being one then!". And that's not a good thing.

The West wasn't willing to stick its neck out for Ukraine when Ukraine was still in decent shape. It sure as hell won't risk a war with Russia now that Ukraine is lost. — Tzeentch

Is it lost? Has Putin got all the territories he formally annexed? Have Russian got the Western side of the Dnipro?

Or is this your Pro-Russian ramblings again?

First step is getting Netanyahu out of office. — schopenhauer1

Another thing to consider is, I wonder what it would take for the Gazans to hand over Hamas. — schopenhauer1

Netanyahu might go at some time, but I think the real problem is the extreme right, people like Smotrich and others. They won't go away and the moderates in Israel are few without much support. The Labor party is a tiny opposition party. People that push for the "From the Sea to the River"-soluntion without the Palestinians and are totally against any kind of Palestinian sovereignty do have a lot of power. And from their viewpoint, why not?

Equally difficult is the Palestinian politics. Democratic elections might give authority, but I think with the current environment and actions of the IDF, that might also not get elected the kind of people that we Westerners would assume to solve the situation.

This is the Gaza "concentration camp" prior to the recent war: — Hanover

So apparently not everything that the Gulf States gave their weren't put into building tunnels.

I've lost count how many times the Palestinian areas have been built by outside money just for Israel to destroy the buildings as "terrorist strongholds".

At the first place: why is ordinary life so bad?

Aren't we here for others too? Isn't life something about continuation of life?

Aren't hardships, disappointments, failures that then make success and achieving something so great?

So No. No.

If this would be a possibility for someone who is totally paralyzed, basically a 'vegetable', this might sound very humane...

What's ironic is if you peel back the layers of the clearly polemical aspects of the New Testament, you have a very Jewish Jesus of Nazareth who died at the hands of the Roman Imperial system. But as Pauline doctrine spread across the Mediterranean, you cannot have that connection anymore, and any good Greek scribe is going to make a passage that detaches Jesus from his own people, so as to make him sui generis. — schopenhauer1

At least the New Testament has the great insight that it has several Gospels, hence someone clearly understood that the written story of the life of Jesus would be extremely crucial to the whole religion, so better to have several accounts. But do Christians use the Gospels together and come to conclusions then to what really happened? Of course not! Not only would it be too confusing, but also Pontius Pilatus and his hand washing is of course center in the marketing effort in trying to convert Romans to Christianity. So pick that Gospel to teach how bad the Jews were to Christ.

And because this is a central part of the traumatic history of a Jews, Jewish satire comes into play: not only the largest religion on Earth has such anti-semitic passages in it's holy book, the second largest religion on Earth also has similar passages in it's holy book. In that case, as there's no uncertainty of Muhammad and his kingdom existing (we even still have the grave around untouched), you have case like the Jewish Banu Nabir tribe trying to assassinate Muhammad, Muhammad fighting against Jewish tribes. And of course, Muhammad trying to convert the Jews and the Jews not being so excited about this new prophet. And a lot of how bad the Jews are.

I think we have hit upon a foundational agreement between our views :). There is a certain arbitrariness to all of it, and thus any justification is simply that group's cudgel for their justification. But cudgel it is. — schopenhauer1

That's a nice way to put it: cudgeling for ones owns justifications. You first come up with your objectives, then look for some moral reasons why your objectives are also morally good. Typical actions in our World.

What of the day after the day after? What is really to rule this area and bring peace, and not just the status quo? I am hoping it is something akin to what you recommend- that a coalition of sorts, helps Palestine rebuild, and rebuild away from those who led them down the darkest nightmare path to death-cult, and to something like a developing country that has economic ties to its closest neighbor. There is literally, no other way. And yes, this takes an Israel that is open to this, one that must be radically transgressive in order to form peace with a former hostile neighbor. Something has to change in order for a long term peace. It cannot be seen as simply a hotbed for more death and destruction. If there is no end to grievance retribution, there is no end to any of it. Give up the fuckn ghost, might be the slogan then. — schopenhauer1

Only under pressure will both sides cave in and the zealots lose their support. Otherwise the grievance retribution circle will just go on.

The only way I see that pressure coming against Bibi's administration is that they really fuck up with Gaza and a lot more Palestinians would be killed. Perhaps 50 000 are killed. Or perhaps 100 000? Where do we put the number when the outrage becomes too bad? Because that number is out there. When that is reached, Biden will really get the "Genocide Joe" nickname for real. And that's when the US love for Israel would falter: there is already the notable change in the attitudes of the younger generations. Yet so insane aren't even the hardliners in the Israeli government. They might perhaps hope that Palestinians in the Gaza simply walk out to Egypt, but even these Zionist zealots aren't up to any 'final solution' solutions. They might talk so, but likely do understand the consequences and not act so.

The problem is that having over two million people starving without shelter can produce a true disaster of epic proportions. That's the real threat, because Bibi isn't insane. But as we have seen, he can fuck up.

If the Warsaw Uprising is comparable to Gaza now, let's just remember that it took for the Germans 63 days and then from a smaller population of Warsaw they had killed 150 000 to 200 000 civilian and 15 000 Polish resistance fighters. Now with Gaza the war has gone longer and 21 000 civilians have died and perhaps few thousand Hamas fighters are casualties. That is bad and I do say that we could have far less destruction if the IDF would fight like the US Army in Iraq, but we aren't dealing with six digit numbers.

Then on the Palestinian side: when would the losses be so traumatic, that there wouldn't be this firm belief that Israel can be overcome through decades of war? When is it so dark, that people would be just happy to have peace and really don't give a shit about who controls the holy places in Jerusalem? In this way, the history of Europe shows just how ugly the killing has to be that people genuinely want peace and are against jingoism and religious extremism.

Hence I'm really pessimistic at everything here, because the road to real peace might be extremely ugly.

So I'm not hopeful at all.

Antisemitism wasn't created wholesale from Hitler. It goes back over a millennium, and took on industrial psychopathic proportions rather than hodgepodge pogroms or lower-level decrees of expulsion and the like. — schopenhauer1

And the most obvious reason for antisemitism isn't usually talked about: it is Matthew 27:24–25, from the Bible:

So when Pilate saw that he was gaining nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying "I am innocent of this man’s blood; see to it yourselves." And all the people answered, "His blood be on us and on our children!"

I genuinely think that this is the most sickening, obnoxious part of the New Testament. That none of the other Gospels say anything like this, doesn't make it less important. The idea of the Jews as being Christkillers and having that 'Blood curse' is very important in Christian anti-semitism. It explains just why after the Pope instigated the Crusades, the first to be attacked were the local Jews, as there weren't so many Muslims around that time in Central Europe. Yes, the Blood curse was repudiated later by the Catholic Church and others, but that doesn't stop someone like Mel Gibson putting the crowd to chant in Aramaic the Bible verses from Mathew in his Passion of the Christ film in 2004.

So I was just saying it looks bad to finding no sympathy with a people, that were expelled amidst your own lands, to then want to deny them even in their aspirations for their own land in what at least, historically and ancestrally, is recognized as their origin... yes, even acknowledging the Palestinian rights as well. — schopenhauer1

Still, if the aspiration is to live in their own land, hardly anyone has anything against that. What simply creates the anger is the Apartheid system, is that Israel is seen as a Western country and democracies shouldn't have apartheid systems and yes, that it is so close to US (where it's basically a domestic policy issue) get anti-American sentiment linked to this. This can be seen how much fewer calls there are for the Kurds to have their own state, even if they too have been a target of genocide, like with the Anfal campaign by Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
.

Before the slaves were sent against their will, those people deserve a state, but the returning slaves to the continent of their origin, don't get an opportunity to form a state? Because they were too long separated? Again, that is just YOUR idea of how a state should be so self-determined. Why is THAT the one that is "morally justified", and not the idea that ex-slaves can form a state as well? — schopenhauer1

Who is morally right to own land is to me a stupid question as countries themselves are social constructs in the end. It's actually something that warmongers and imperialists ponder about and get the 'moral reasons' for 'liberation' or conquest. Those who seek moral justification for their sovereignty over a territory are usually the bad guys.

The morally good situation is where neighboring states are quite happy with their borders and those borders are open.

Yes, as you become more powerful, you become more criticized on how you use that power. Hamas justifies Likud's heavy-handedness, I get it. However, in counterfactual history, Hamas wasn't going to act differently. — schopenhauer1

Well, were the fears of the white Afrikaners justified or not when they abolish the Apartheid system in South Africa?

The irony here is that in order to have a peace deal, Israel would need a strong state capable of upholding the peace treaty and keeping the border calm, an act that basically like Egypt and Jordan can do, but Lebanon cannot do and Syria can barely. But that would mean that a Palestine would have to have it's own capable armed forces, which Israel doesn't allow. Or then there ought to be dramatically more integration on the Arab side, like the League of the Arab states being more like the EU or something similar. Then you could have Egyptian, Saudi and Iraq forces patrolling the Palestinian borders. Well, the GCC is closest to an Arab military treaty organization, and it's members nearly went to war with one members, so that doesn't look good.

And this is why, yes again, I come back to the present Israeli administration, which has done everything possible to make the Palestinian Authority as weak as possible, because their objective is to annex Judea and Samaria and to get away with it. And that's why I am very pessimistic about the future here.

But have you ever been part of an intelligence community? You know I learned from my own intelligence officers just how fucked up and unethical the USA truly is. — Vaskane

Well, even if I've met several intelligence officers, I think this is a more of a case of how these organizations operate. The individual intelligence officer is smart, usually quite informed and if true intelligence man, quite a talker who can relate to anybody.

Yet in a group the 'intelligence' of the individuals decrease, and in comes first "policy" or "the mission". Once you have the political objectives, military men (intelligence or other branches), will start to implement the given task. In a dictatorship, they will follow the dictators whims and in a democracy, they will follow the political leadership. If they don't, well in the first case (dictatorships) their wives may become widows and in the latter case (deomocracies) the only option for active officers is simply to resign. And if they know that the next guy will be eager to continue with the policy, then they might even decide to continue to be a "team member" and try to influence the outcome of an agenda. that they themselves don't believe in.

You presented a face, I presented a face, and certainly still there are others it maintains. — Vaskane

Again I agree with this. That's what actually all the foreign policy "blobs" in the World are.

It's the same thing with 9-11, we had all the intelligence and chose to ignore it. In which we got ourselves a free ticket to exploit the middle east for roughly 2 decades. — Vaskane

Yes, I agree.

Yet why it was so successful is the same thing: such a strike had never happened in the US.

I do remember prior to 9/11 how lax the security in the US was on domestic flights: it was a joke. Even on the international flights the security was more lax than for example in France.

Actually the US was talking a lot about Al Qaeda, there had been already attacks made by Al Qaeda at the US. Clinton had already bombed Al Qaeda training sites in Afghanistan. And let's remember that the twin towers had been tried to be demolished already by the same terrorists (some where related to 9/11 attackers, so tiny is this cabal). As they weren't so successful, the terrorists were tried in a normal court, the FBI went looking for them and found some in Pakistan. And they are still in the US prison system.

And yes, it's the strategy of a crisis giving the opportunity for some to push their agenda.

Today, in the here and now, America and Israel are guilty of genocide, and the world is not blind. THE BRICS FOREVER, AND THE END OF COLONIALISM. — boagie

Why on Earth praise the BRICs?

You think those Great Powers are different or better, or some kind of champions of human rights and against genocide? Yeah, they surely will condemn things that are in their interest. But it's not some universal value they agree on.

What about what Russia did in Chechnya or now is doing in Ukraine or what China is doing in Uighuria to the Uighurs?

I think it is similar acts, although far more worse in the case of Russia. In the First and Second Chechen wars multiple more Chechens were killed than Palestinians have been killed in the current war in Gaza and there are far fewer Chechens than Palestinians. And the treatment of the Uighurs in China will definately constitute the legal definition of genocide.

So :vomit: for praising such countries like Russia and China.



Why not take the side of simply being against colonialism and for human rights everywhere?

When you want hostilities to occur you ignore the warning signs and let your enemies attack you so you may appear Just to the world. (In reply to the PBS documentary). — Vaskane

I'm not so sure that this was done by intention as Israelis blame Netanyahu for this. If the IDF would have been ready, it could have stopped the attacks, but Hamas simply got the strategic surprise.

I think in this case using Occams razor gives the best answer: as there never had been such a large coordinated attack initiated by Hamas, the IDF simply hadn't taken into account that a large coordinated attack like this could happen. The whole billion dollar wall wasn't designed in mind of this. Which actually just shows what kind of an open air prison Gaza was. For example, the Wall would be simply a nuisance for conventional army, as an armed force simply could quickly blast it's way through the wall. Just look how different the Russian defensive line is in Ukraine.

I'm addressing an issue that is closer to home to you, actually. — schopenhauer1

But the thing is, I do think it is a bit odd that countries that were directly involved in the displacement of European Jewry, who were occupied by Germany or became collaborators with them, and who willingly and unwillingly assisted the Nazi cause, would be so callously anti-Israel. — schopenhauer1

???

Well, I'm a Finn, not a German. And my country wasn't directly involved with the displacement of of the European Jewry (as our Jews fought alongside the Germans). And btw the most pro-Palestine people are the Irish. Were the Irish collaborators in the Holocaust? Perhaps it's their memories of the English makes them feel towards the Palestinians more than other Europeans. Other Europeans likely don't know the reasons just why the Irish aren't British, even if they talk the same language.

Right, well this all came about from European colonialism. — schopenhauer1

Indeed it came. As usual, when a large empire falls and new nations or regions are drawn on a map, it will create turmoil. And in the Middle East, that turmoil has continued from the WW1.

Being that you are a student of history, did you ever wonder if the borders set by European powers are itself a form of colonialism? — schopenhauer1

Even if Finland could be said to have been a colony of lets say Russia, this does huge injustice to actual colonies as Europeans do treat other Europeans differently as say Asians or Africans.

I haven't heard about the African colony which the European colonizer not only gave autonomy and accepted it to have it's own currency, but also didn't make the European language (Russian) education in schools mandatory (only some eighty years into the colonization), and kept the existing legal system intact when it annexed the territory. And then the colony itself could create a monopoly in some industrial sector of the European country itself. Hence imperialism is the word to use, not colonialism.

Do notice that there was even in the British Empire quite a difference between dominions and colonies.

The point of Israel was to be one place in the world where you couldn't f*ck with them anymore. — schopenhauer1

Uganda? That was thought too. But again, just transporting people somewhere else usually don't solve anything. Best example was Liberia: the American freed slaves made just then an elite, which later didn't have so warm relations with the "original" Africans.

I do sort of blame European anti-Israeli sentiment in the way that being so forcefully against Israel- and not just in the current Bibi-ism, but throughout its history, seems just more of that same old antisemetic attitudes, just now dressed up and allowable in a different form. — schopenhauer1

There is a campaign away that tries to make critique of the policies of the state of Israel to be anti-semitic hate speech. I think this simply alienates even more people, because naturally and logically it's one thing to be against some policies of a country and another to hate the people. For example, I'm against the aggressive policies of Putin, but I don't hate the Russians. Having met them, they are very nice people, extremely generous and friendly when they have guests. Above all, Russians understand how many problems they have, but they have been ruled and are ruled now with fear. Why would you hate people that are living under a dictatorship? And anyway, I'm against the generalizations to condemn such large groups as people, condemning individuals is another and a more appropriate thing.

I think my country is a good example how the relation with Israel has changed: prior Israel was seen as a similar small nation heroically defending itself from a larger enemy (as Finland had been during the Winter War). I think that changed somewhat when Israel invaded Lebanon, a smaller nation than Israel and especially after the massacres of Shabra and Shatila, that prior image of a small heroic nation changed. Now it was the bully, the stronger dominant nation, not the one that defended itself from a larger power as in 1948 or 1967. Hence the anti-US, anti-Israeli leftist rhetoric started to win the discourse simply based on the facts that the massacres did happen. Yet Finland isn't nowhere near to Ireland in it's views about Israel. And naturally there are those Finnish Christians who think that Israel is the Holy Land and the Jews are a special people.

Would be very interested to hear what non-native/multilingual people think about this. — I like sushi

In my view languages can indeed put to a comparative better-worse list of some sort. Unfortunately! (I'm not sure if this has already been said, but anyway...)

The fact is that if a language is to be useful, it has to have (a) enough speakers of it and (b) enough words. The less a language has (a) and (b), the less useful it is.

Does (a) matter?

Of course! The Njerep language in Nigeria has six people who are able to talk it. It might be a great way to talk in a secretive way (like the US used Navajo radiomen, the famous WW2 windtalkers). Yet I'm sure the next problem would be how many words there are in Njerep.

For an English speaker, the (b) part might not come up to mind as English has more than a million words. Finnish, my own mother tongue, has roughly about 400 000 words.

Does then (b) have an effect? Does 600 000 less words make a difference between English and Finnish. Yes!

For starters, there has to be in Finland a "Kielitoimisto", an official government department at the Institute of the languages of Finland, whose job is also to translate new words into Finnish. The translation of professional terms are obvious, as there are always invented new ones. But many of these are very commonly used and the official Finnish version sometimes doesn't simply get used. The word Pizza is one of those, even if it would have a Finnish version pitsa (said similarly as in English), it's rarely written that way. "Television" was another, as the the official 1940's Finnish version was näköradio (meaning "visualradio") and it didn't get to be used, but the simple term televisio was adapted to the language.

This also shows how languages btw are influenced by other languages. Americans might know well Spanglish, and usually these combinations are really funny. Yet it happens with other languages too. Language teachers just irk when they hear it. I remember my Swedish teacher telling her "favorite" what she had heard among Swedish speaking Finnish youth was "Den kivogaste pipo". Swedes (the few that are in PF) might have a trouble understanding that. The Finnish word "kiva" (nice) is used in the Swedish superlative form (hence kivogaste) and "pipo" is also Finnish (meaning beanie, knit cap). Jättekiva!



One way cultures with their languages transform, mix and even die.

That's why there's a huge surge of gun sales after every particularly heinous mass murder event. The most vicious of vicious circles. — Wayfarer

The only thing that decreases gun sales last time was when Trump got elected.

Yes, the urge to buy a gun is all between ones ears.

As usual, a great documentary from the PBS Frontline (showing that American media can make informative documentaries still). One thing becomes very obvious: just why Hamas was able to breach the "Iron Wall", which had gotten a 1 billion dollar upgrade just last year.

The wall simply was designed to counter individual people or small groups of terrorists trying to infiltrate to Israel. It wasn't designed to handle an organized military operation. And that's basically it. Just like the famous Maginot-line, the real error was in the understanding of how the enemy would fight and attack. This basically comes down to hubris, when you don't anticipate that the enemy, Hamas, would be capable of organizing a large scale military operation. The IDF spokesperson is totally correct that there will be a lot of soul searching in the future.

That a lightly armed security team of one kibbutz could defend and fight off the Hamas insurgents for three hours just show how easy the defense actually would have been. The Hamas tactic obviously was "attack military targets, go on a rampage on the kibbutzes, take hostages and bring back them into Gaza". The high number of Israeli soldiers killed in October 7 also shows how unprepared the IDF are. In truth, soldiers in barracks wasting their time on a holiday aren't a cohesive military force either, but simply individuals. Now only a fraction of IDF soldiers have been killed in Gaza, which shows how out of the blue this came for the IDF.

The documentary also brings in well the fact that those now being kidnapped in Gaza came from a distinct rural area and distinct kibbutzes whereas the larger population of Israel simply had to fear for the rare yet possibly deadly Hamas rocket. If time and interest, worth wile to see.

Not with a bang, but with a whimper?

Or not even with a whimper, as Ts Elliot put it, France left Niger. Last Friday the last French troops left Niger. France also closed it's embassy indefinately. And no ECOWAS war, additionally. Now Mali, Niger and Burkina Faso try to deal with the muslim extremist together. The Wagner debacle didn't make Russia to look so promising after all.

Niger junta = 1
France = 0



In fact, unlike in the coverage of France24, Al Jazeera notes that how this withdrawal notes a long transition from French colonization, even if some French troops are still in neighboring Chad. Otherwise the Sahel region is empty from French military.

And of course, there's not much enthusiasm for the French troops in Chad either.

(VoaNews, 1st Dec 2023) YAOUNDE, CAMEROON —
Chad's opposition and civil society groups are asking France to immediately withdraw troops who arrived in Chad after being ordered to depart neighboring Niger by that country’s military junta.

Ordjei Abderahim Chaha, president of the opposition party Rally for Justice and Equality, said Thursday that military ruler Mahamat Idriss Deby has failed to heed calls to ask French troops to leave.

Speaking at a news conference in the capital, N’Djamena, Chaha said he believes Deby wants French troops to keep Chad's military junta in power by intimidating or cracking down on civilians who are ready to protest should Deby fail to hand power to civilian rule by November 2024 as agreed.

Opposition and civil society groups have asked Deby to ensure some 1,000 French troops already stationed in Chad — plus those who have arrived from Niger — leave the central African state no later than December 28, Chaha said.

What is worth mentioning is that Niger hasn't severed it's relations with the West totally. US troops are still there and German troops continue their presence. Yet it's understandable that either the US or Germany have no colonial link to Niger or the Sahel.

Yet it's obvious that France hasn't anymore the aspirations to hold on to it's former colonial states as earlier. In that way, it's likely to take similar stance as the UK towards it's past colonies.

(Last French plane out from Niger. Not at least in the middle of the night as US had in Afghanistan.)

They can exit the region to their mansions and hotel rooms in Qatar or whatnot, and try to hide wherever, but vacate the place. — schopenhauer1

Obviously the vast majority of Hamas have basically been born and lived all their lives in Gaza without ever being anywhere else.

So this is where there are false equivalencies in terms of means and ends- in this case more ends. Israel wanted a nation but they were willing to live peacefully with an Arab neighbor, something where they could have some political autonomy but yet coexist with an Arab autonomous state as well. — schopenhauer1

OK, I was talking about the Jews resisting British control and fighting the British. The Irgun fought the British, you know. You cannot simply start the conflict when the British have already left.

And furthermore, colonial settlers typically do not get a warm welcome. Especially when their desire is to establish their own country for themselves. And this is one of the reasons why this conflict is so unsolvable: There are no Palestinian Jews anymore, there are Israeli Jews. And furthermore, Israel as a homeland for the jews isn't interested in creating a common Israeli identity for Jews, Christians and Muslims. And on the other side the Palestinian identity has emerged from the Nakba, from the struggle against Israel, hence there isn't any interest on their sides to become Israelis either (thanks to the Apartheid system). I would argue that a lot of the present Palestinian identity is linked to the conflict itself. Hardly something that will ease relations even if there was peace one day. (Just think about Irish-British relations even today)

As Golda Meir in an interview (from 1970) clearly states, she was prior to the creation Israel a Palestinian as she moved to Palestine in 1921 from the US (she was born in Ukraine).



Some commentators triumphantly note that there was no independent Palestine ever. Yet in the last 75 years, there certainly has emerged Palestinians with a Palestinian identity from just Arabs that were living in Palestine.

This seems very cynical to not see that Hamas has been trying to screw up a peace deal from day 1. — schopenhauer1

I think this has been seen by all commentators here. As I restarted this thread three months ago (Page 83, btw.) I did state quite early in this conflict the following like:

Of course I would say that the leadership of Hamas thinks far more like Bibi Netanyahu. That with talk you won't achieve peace. Appeasement is failure. Hence the stand of Hamas that Israel shouldn't exist. — ssu

and...

Yes, I think there is an agreement that one motivation for Hamas to do this was the warming or Saudi-Israeli ties. If Saudi-Arabia would recognize Israel, there wouldn't be any major players vouching for the Palestinians. — ssu

So, this does make me question the motives of the posters here, to be fair. So the Jews experienced a Holocaust in Europe with many displaced persons, many times the Jews going back were faced with continued hostilities from populations, etc. But don't worry, if they try to make a state of it in Israel, the same Europeans will call foul and say, "You better not do that either, or we will root for the Palestinians to push you into the sea there as well!". — schopenhauer1

I don't think that people question the existence or the right for the existence of Israel. Hence I agree with @Benkei: a bit of a strawman. But if the Jewish had backing for an Israeli state from the Balfour declaration to the Holocaust and the successful Zionist movement, you do have also a lot to backing to the Palestinian aspirations here.

Just compare Palestinians to the another Middle-Eastern people without their own country: the Kurds.

Firstly, Kurds are Muslims inside Muslim states.

Kurds are predominantly Sunni Muslims, although some Kurds are of other religions. Yet this makes the Kurdish conflict and internal matter for Islam. Hence the conflict cannot be portrayed as defense of the Ummah and calls aren't made for a Jihad against the infidels. And the Kurds have revolted for a very long time: they have revolted against the Safavid Empire (Iran) and later the Ottomans. In the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the Jewish settlers mainly came for Europe and thus are of different religion, even if Palestinian Jews have existed. Hence you have Iran meddling in this conflict, even if it hasn't got otherwise any border with Israel and Iranians aren't Arabs or Sunni Muslims either.

Secondly, Kurds are not Arabs

Pan-Arabism matters. And it is obvious that Palestinians are Arabs. This gives another reason why the plight of the Palestinians does matter to the Arab street.

Thirdly, Palestinians are on their own as no Muslim state claims the land of Palestine

Starting from the 1970 Black September King Hussein pushed the PLO out of Jordania (and into Lebanon). Then King Hussein decreed that Palestinians in the West Bank were not Jordanians. This means that only the Golan Heights are claimed by a neighboring state of Israel. Yet in the case of the Kurds, Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria have no intention of giving the Kurds an area of their own. Only Iraq is still going with the Kurdish autonomy (Syria only because of the civil war are there pockets of Kurdish control), but even there in Iraq dark clouds are gathering.

Fourthly, the land gained by war by Israel in 1967 gives Palestinians them a legal reason

Territorial annexations by force aren't tolerated in a World made of sovereign states. This is something quite universal today and the UN is quite consistent in this. Hence we talk about occupied territories and the maps used everywhere else than in Israel are different from the maps used there. This gives an obvious legal argument for the Palestinians. And as I stated above, with the exception of the Golan Heights, claims to West Bank and Gaza are between Israel and the Palestinians.

Thomas Friedman made quite rational remarks. 'Bibism', as he coined, has been now a disaster. And it should be understood that this will go on, if the assumption is that Israel can continue a perpetual low-intensity war with the occasional "mowing of the lawn". Advocates of the perpetual war won't give safety they say they are so in favor of. And any "final solution" type of policy will just alienate Israel.

Just to give another insightful interview, here is one former Israeli negotiator Daniel Levy (former advisor for Ehud Barak). What is interesting to here is just how close the negotiations came and how the situation has developed. I think it also shows just how clearheaded and open Israelis can be about the situation. I think one of the most informative explanations of the current situation and how we got here.



(If I've already referred to this, well, I'm getting then old. But worth wile to watch or listen to.)

Being sarcastic, as you are the one asking if islamist resistance group will just give up the fight.

So similarly, You think the Irgun would just have given up too at the British and "come to their senses", had just "dealt with it" and "moved on" (as your favorite Bill Maher says)? As if at some point they would understand that there couldn't be an Israel as an homeland for Jews, but they simply have to coexist with the Arabs in Palestine under the benevolent leadership of the British Mandate?

A zionist terrorist like Menachem Begim wouldn't have done that. He would have continued the fight, even if the UK had made Mandatory Palestine priority number one and sent additional 100 000 troops more to deal with the Jewish insurgency. He would have kept trying, knowing well that there was the Balfour declaration, there was the Holocaust and that they can be successful at some point.

On a side note, this was one of the better conversations I have seen in regards to what is happening and where it might be going. — schopenhauer1

I've listened a lot to Robert Wright on various issues, it's good listening. I'll listen to it and comment it.

So are you splitting hairs on who is more barbaric? Are they for the 800s? Again this looks kind of 600s to me: — schopenhauer1

Seems like for you they are all just one bunch.

Who cares to sort them out? Isis, Fatah, Hamas, Houthis, Hezbollah, Iran, Syria... whatever.

Hamas can give up the hostages and give up the fight too. That is an option, is it not? Yes or no? — schopenhauer1

Yes, Palestians can go to Jordan, Egypt and all other places in the Middle East. Why are they making it so difficult for themselves?

Just deal with it, as your favorite Bill Maher says.

Memories grow sweeter with time.

One wants the 600s it seems all over again, and has shown that they don't mind ending things all around them in that goal. — schopenhauer1

Hamas isn't Isis.

As I stated with the Israeli political parties, don't generalize everything. It would be as silly as me saying that every American in this forum thinks about political issues the same way, because they're Americans. We know that isn't the case.

but the actions that makes it seem like people are doing a false equivalency when we compare Hamas with say, Likud. — schopenhauer1

Indeed.

Both can talk about their people having the right for everything between the River and the Sea, but only one has the ability potentially to go through with that.

(The New York Times, Nov 5th, 2023 )Israel has quietly tried to build international support in recent weeks for the transfer of several hundred thousand civilians from Gaza to Egypt for the duration of its war in the territory, according to six senior foreign diplomats.

Israeli leaders and diplomats have privately proposed the idea to several foreign governments, framing it as a humanitarian initiative that would allow civilians to temporarily escape the perils of Gaza for refugee camps in the Sinai Desert, just across the border in neighboring Egypt.

(Times of Israel, Nov 14th, 2023) Two Israeli lawmakers, one from the ruling Likud party and the other from the opposition Yesh Atid party, have urged the international community to take in Palestinian refugees from the Gaza Strip

In a rare display of cross-party solidarity, Danny Danon (Likud) and Ram Ben-Barak (Yesh Atid) published an op-ed piece for the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday, calling for “countries around the world to accept limited numbers of Gazan families who have expressed a desire to relocate.”

Of course, the smaller political parties are quite open about their demands on expelling the Palestinians out of Judea and Samaria too.

I'm just wondering, is there a strategy here, cynical one? Perhaps you can reference articles why Israel didn't take it... — schopenhauer1

Ariel Sharon rejected the Arab initiative as a "non-starter" because it required Israel to withdraw to pre-June 1967 borders. Simple as that.

And perhaps I should then add to you that solving these issues through negotiation and an international settlement isn't believed on the other side also: Hamas has s very low opinion about an international settlement on the issue. They say these are a waste of time, actually have written so in their charter. From their 1988 Charter:

Peaceful Solutions, Initiatives and International Conferences:

Article Thirteen:
Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement. Abusing any part of Palestine is abuse directed against part of religion. Nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its religion. Its members have been fed on that. For the sake of hoisting the banner of Allah over their homeland they fight. "Allah will be prominent, but most people do not know."

Now and then the call goes out for the convening of an international conference to look for ways of solving the (Palestinian) question. Some accept, others reject the idea, for this or other reason, with one stipulation or more for consent to convening the conference and participating in it. Knowing the parties constituting the conference, their past and present attitudes towards Moslem problems, the Islamic Resistance Movement does not consider these conferences capable of realising the demands, restoring the rights or doing justice to the oppressed. These conferences are only ways of setting the infidels in the land of the Moslems as arbitraters. When did the infidels do justice to the believers?

"But the Jews will not be pleased with thee, neither the Christians, until thou follow their religion; say, The direction of Allah is the true direction. And verily if thou follow their desires, after the knowledge which hath been given thee, thou shalt find no patron or protector against Allah." (The Cow - verse 120).
There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors. The Palestinian people know better than to consent to having their future, rights and fate toyed with. As in said in the honourable Hadith:

"The people of Syria are Allah's lash in His land. He wreaks His vengeance through them against whomsoever He wishes among His slaves It is unthinkable that those who are double-faced among them should prosper over the faithful. They will certainly die out of grief and desperation."

(see here)

I mean, now we are just treading over the same ground, where we forget why someone like Netanyahu started getting more support. — schopenhauer1

Same reason why Hamas is starting to get more support.

You mean the "offer" accompanied by a Hamas terror attack on Passover? — schopenhauer1

Accompanied? You think the peace initiative and the Hamas Passover attack were coordinated?

I think that attack was simply to derail any peace initiative! This is what Hamas (and Likud) do. Their worst enemies are the moderates wanting a two state solution. That's my whole point! I think it was @Baden (if I remember correctly) that pointed out that when the North Ireland peace agreement (the Good Friday agreement) was negotiated, the extremists made their last bomb attacks hoping to stop the process and continue the circle of violence.

And notice that the Arab peace inititative hadn't been forgotten! Not even this autumn 2023.

RAMALLAH, West Bank Sept 26 (Reuters) - Saudi Arabia's first ambassador to the Palestinians described a decades-old Arab land-for-peace offer on Tuesday as a pillar of any normalization of ties with Israel, an apparent attempt to signal that Riyadh has not abandoned the Palestinian cause.

The ambassador, Nayef Al-Sudairi, told reporters in Ramallah his visit "reaffirms that the Palestinian cause and Palestine and the people of Palestine are of high and important status and that in the coming days there will be a chance for a bigger cooperation between Saudi Arabia and the state of Palestine".

Referring to the prospect of normalisation with Israel, Al-Sudairi said: "It is the normal thing among nations to have peace and stability." "The Arab initiative, which Saudi Arabia presented in 2002, is a fundamental pillar of any upcoming agreement," he added.

That was PRIOR to the Hamas attacks in October: Saudi Arabia was still holding on to the Arab peace initiative. So your wrong to argue that this "offer" was something in the distant past.

Operation Prosperity Guardian would be an interesting thread on it's own, but as it's firmly linked to the war in Gaza, I think this thread is enough.

So the Houthis have now expanded their strikes to Western shipping in general, which has a huge impact on world trade and global logistic chains. Already Maersk, Hapag-Lloyd and BP have routed their shipping around Africa. This increases shipping times by 7 to 14 days and has already increased insurance fees for anyone going through the Bab el Mandeb. The USN Destroyer Carney shot down 14 drones (using very costly 2,5 million dollar Standard missiles at the far cheaper drones) some days ago. Also the Royal Navy (see HMS Diamond: British warship shoots down suspected attack drone in Red Sea) and the French navy have shot down drones (see French frigate downs drones over Red Sea in 'legitimate defence'). The USN aircraft carrier Eisenhower has moved from the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Aden.

Hence the Western powers are ALREADY engaged in a naval war protecting one of the most crucial sea lanes in the World. And just like the Ukrainian Navy has shown that the mix of drones and missiles can do the job, that you don't need to have ships yourself, so are Iran's proxy showing this in the Middle East.

Now this naval operation has become Operation Prosperity Guardian (not much info on the Wikipedia page yet, but I'm sure there will be more).



The next question is how will the West respond to this? Merchant shipping has already reacted to the threat, and this is a mission that basically the US Navy was created for in the first place. Will it strike at possible launching sites in Houthi controlled Yemen? Will it start convoys through the Red Sea or form a picket defense? Are ships going to be reflagged?

(Stay tuned...)

So I knew you were going to bring up the Likud part there.. — schopenhauer1

His point was that for most of those 75 years one side (the Israeli side) made overtures for peace and the other side never took any deals — schopenhauer1

So I knew that again @schopenhauer1 would again totally sideline the crucial factor of just who is in power in Israel (or in Gaza, for that matter).

If we are able to make a distinction between the Republican Party and the Democrat Party and understand that they have their differences in US politics, why then act as if "Israel" is one entity here?

It's Likud and it's right-wing allies that is in power, not the Labour party, not the Kadima party.

It was the Labour party that made the Oslo accords happen (with Rabin, who later was assassinated).

It was Labour party that withdrew from Lebanon (with Ehud Barak as prime minister).

It was the Kadima party that tried to attempted later a political resolution (with Ehud Olmert as prime minister).

And yes, the ex-terrorist Menachem Begin, the founder of Likud, did make the peace deal with Egypt. Hence even possibly Netanyahu could make a peace deal. If he it would be beneficial policy to him. Or basically if the not accepting it would be disastrous.

What is also very typical to (people like Maher etc.), is to sideline the Arab side peace initiatives.

There was the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative , reindorsed 2007 and 2017, which was immediately embraced by the Palestinians, by Arafat (and later by Abbas). And notable, included in the 57 Arab and Muslim states is also Iran. The Arab states, those that are still technically at war with Israel (like Kuwait etc) would normalize their relations if Israel withdrew from the 1967 occupied territories and accepted the two-state solution. Distribution of territory could also be discussed.

Hence it's the typical bias to say that Israel has here being offering peace, which has been rejected by Palestinians... as if it hasn't also happened the other way around. And naturally that basically even Iran would be OK with the 1967 borders is sidelined because they are the "Mad Mullahs" wanting to destroy all of Israel.

The fact is that it's the moderate lines that aren't tolerated. Israel has killed for example those Palestinian leaders that have been promoting the two state solution. And let's not forget that Bibi supported Hamas first (in order to weaken the PA). Non-compromising zealots just love if the other side is also made of non-compromising zealots: pretty easy to explain then why a negotiated settlement isn't possible.

Anyway, I guarantee you ssu who is an intelligent commentator will not find this impressive either. — Baden

What is impressive is that as Netanyahu's Likud party had as it's party platform "River to the Sea" and also the platform "No two state solution ever", hence all the later part would have worked just fine if you would change the Palestinians and the Jews, like the "Jewhaul", to "Arabhaul". Of course the part:

5:55
As my friend, Dr. Phil says, "How's that working for you?"

The answer would be: it's working quite well!

Yes, Hamas and Likud share quite a lot together.

And yes, the history of Ireland isn't correct (but who cares about that in America). Also somehow from the part where historical events were listed with the argument "Deal with it" / "Just move on..", the Holocaust was somehow forgotten, only a reference to pogroms in Russia was made.

So no, things aren't just in the category of "it happened, so just move on".

In the case of how Finland joined NATO, a far more accurate would be: the Marin administration was taken and dragged into NATO by an overwhelming pressure from the Finnish people.

After the invasion I remember prime minister Marin's first response was "We'll think of it in the Party conference in summer", which just showed how clueless she was. She was quickly put in line even by her own party leadership and in 48 hours or so the tone had totally changed as it dawned how much the World changed in late February 2022. Then it was an issue to Finland to pressure the Swedes. Unfortunately with that Erdogan and Orban halted the process with Sweden.

No more NATO options, but the real thing...


But yes, as time goes the narrative of Finland and Sweden being dragged to NATO by the US will surely pop up. After all, small states cannot decide anything themselves.

Actually, if conservatism was all like this, I probably might be a a conservative. — unenlightened

Actually, those conservatives or conservative parties which reject populism are quite like that.

Yet it's quite telling that Rory Stewart resigned/was kicked out of the current conservative party.

Germany had to devote precious resources to defending their skies and that, of course, came at the expense of their forces on the Eastern Front. — RogueAI

Well, some estimates put the B-29 program to have been even more costly than the Manhattan project, so how much would a transatlantic bomber project or a von Braun's rocket that would have been the first intercontinental missile used up those precious warfighting resources Germany had? Hitler surely would have used them, if given the option. Just look at how the superb Me 262 was made into being a fighter bomber!

So this war is becoming larger. In a peculiar way.

Among other (10) nations, Norway is getting abroad to the fight.

The Norwegian government is sending naval officers to the Red Sea, to help secure civilian merchant navigation after another Norwegian ship was attacked on Monday. The attack brings Israel’s war on the radical Palestinian organization Hamas in Gaza closer to home, after a string of demonstrations in Oslo against it.

----

Members of the Houthi militia in Yemen, which supports the Palestinians, have been launching drone attacks on ships believed to be tied to Israel. The Bergen-based owner of the tanker MV Swan Atlantic claimed the militia was wrong, however, in reportedly believing its vessel was operated by a firm with ties to Israel.

“We have no connections to Israel, neither on the ownership- nor operating side,” Øystein Elgan of Inventor Chemical Tankers told Norwegian Broadcasting (NRK) after the vessel was struck Monday morning. “The vessel wasn’t heading for Israel either.”

Inventor Chemical Tankers is owned by the Norwegian investment firm Rieber & Søn AS in Bergen and was carrying a cargo of biodiesel when a Houthi drone rammed a water tank and punched a hole in the vessel. Elgan said no crew members on board the vessel were killed or injured, and it was being escorted to the closest safe harbour by an American naval vessel.

A Houthi spokesman, meanwhile, insisted to NRK that the Swan Atlantic was bound for Israel, and stood by its information “100 percent.”

It’s the second Norwegian ship to be attacked off Yemen, after the chemical tanker Strinda was hit on December 12. The Strinda is also owned by a Bergen-based firm, J Ludwig Mowinckels Rederi, and the Norwegian Shipowners Association is sounding the alarms since around 40 Norwegian-owned vessels are in the area. Several other shipping firms, including Mærsk of Denmark, have also been hit including also a British vessel on Monday, the MCS Clara. Reuters reported that none of its crew was hurt either, but that doesn’t console the shipowners or their crews.

“The attacks underscore the ever-more serious situation in the Red Sea,” said Harald Solberg, leader of the shipowners’ organization, Rederiforbundet. He said more shipowners and operators will choose to avoid the Red Sea and Suez Canal, now that the situation there is so tense. That in turn will disrupt international trade, since the only alternative is to sail around Africa.

But Mikie, what of the thousands of German and Japanese children who died in WWII bombing campaigns? A horrible crime, right? Clearly the allies should have never used air power. — BitconnectCarlos

No, air power does work. Tactical air power works. Even strategic bombing can work. Yet the pre-war ideas of bombing civilian targets to quicken the ending of the war or make the home front collapse don't work. Have been tried on several occasions.

Bombing civilians can give political success when people cry for revenge. Yet this kind of revenge doesn't work as it just hardens the will to fight in many cases as it shows how cruel the enemy is and how existential the war is.

Just take the following hypothetical:

Assume that Hitler would have had an "Ural-bomber" that could have reached from France the US and would have been to bomb the East Coast of the US in 1943 or 1944. Question: would you think that bombing New York, Boston and Washington DC with few of such bombers would have made a real difference? Would Americans would have demanded immediate cessation of the war and would have made calls for peace with Germany once some New Yorkers would have died?

Of course not!

It simply would have strengthened the cause and made everybody to see that Hitler genuinely was a threat to the US. And naturally just like the British after the Blitz, Americans would have wanted more payback.

On the other hand: would it have bolstered German fighting spirits?

Yes. Or at least Hitler would have believed that it would. Goebbels would have been ecstatic and could have talked how demolishing all of America is just around the corner. Yet the real dent, just like with the actual 'Revenge'-weapons that Germany fielded and used, was basically to tie down for a while for the allied bombers to bomb the V-sites. More slave workers were killed producing the V-2 than the rockets killed people in the UK or Belgium. Hence attacking US cities in the east coast with German "Superbombers" would just made the USAAF to bomb those airfields that the bombers used, the plants that produce them and to have few fighter squadrons in defense of mainland USA. And of course we would have endless amounts of Hollywood films depicting these bombings, when American cities came together and showed the strength of the ordinary American.

Indeed. But it does get into the differences at stake here. Jewish identity has tried to have been stamped out. — schopenhauer1

In my view cultural assimilation stamps out identity, but pogroms or discrimination in general don't. On the contrary, even if you wouldn't otherwise care about it, you are quite "well informed" about your identity of being of a lower dubious status when you are a target of a pogrom or discrimination. And the memory of that discrimination just comes to be your heritage, part of your identity.

whose dominoes are falling?
For the Trumpist, more proof that the system is rigged against Trump. :razz:

And notice from the article:

Nonpartisan US election forecasters view Colorado as safely Democratic, meaning that Joe Biden will likely carry the state regardless of Trump’s fate.

Israel's main goal is to preserve their identity and not have it wiped out. — schopenhauer1

A pretty sure goal when you are the sole nuclear power in the Middle East with likely a working nuclear triad deterrence, a superior armed forces compared even to all neighbors combined. Addition to all that, then you are backed by the sole Superpower that funds your defense spending and will rush to your aid.

Oh, how close it is that Israel would perish! :snicker:

Palestine wants to maintain their identity, but functionally speaking, if there was no Palestine, the culture that Palestine represents (Arab Muslim, roughly.. a subset one can say of the southern Syrian province of the old Ottoman Empire if one wants to find a historical precedent), would be intact in a vast swath of the region of the Middle East. — schopenhauer1

?

Again an argument for the inferiority of Palestinians compared to the 'new comers'?

Jewish culture endured even when there was no Israel around.