Indeed. Conspiracy theories are part-and-parcel of Republican politics now. If all politicians are corrupt, if media cannot be trusted or always sourced from a "better" source, then nothing can be trusted. — schopenhauer1

Also it's worth mentioning that the biggest taboo in a democracy is politicians killing each other to gain power. If it happens, if you get leaders that have murdered their way to the top, there's not much left democracy in the first place however active the voters participate on elections. Hence the most popular conspiracies put politicians (even LBJ) as the culprits.

And if political violence does happen, we often simply look away and just sideline it, because those kind of things happen in Third World countries and "Banana Republics", not established Western democracies. Yet there is no guarantee that political violence couldn't or wouldn't happen: in Norway it took only one very dedicated terrorist to create huge carnage.

(77 Deaths and over 300 wounded in Norway, just by one lunatic.)


And there has been political violence in the US, with both Democrat and Republican politicians have been attacked. And with an abundant number of people having semi-automatic firearms, Americans have been lucky that unfortunate incidents haven't happened yet. All it takes is two panicky gun carrying activists on opposing sides in a riot and the mess will be awful.

The above is obviously not a commitment to neutrality. — boethius

Yes. As the quote you made yourself says: "Ukraine pursued a non-alignment policy, which it terminated in response to Russia’s aggression."

Do you understand what 'in response' means? No?

People in a philosophy forum ought to understand cause and effect.

Yes, it is truly incredible that your reading comprehension is so low. But it does explain some of your views. — Jabberwock

:100: :up:

Using artillery and going in house-by-house first by robots and dogs and taking the time will lower substantially the losses. Speed and rapid overtaking houses would be what would cause Israeli casualties. Shoot first and then inspect works to keep the attackers casualties low. Totally different for the civilians.

A telling interview from the Jordanian ambassador Dina Kawar. And this is an ambassador whose country has made peace with Israel:

Seems like levelling Gaza has been achieved in the northern part (Gaza City), literally.




Temporary truce what they call this lull in the fighting.

Thus the claim that Russia might be satisfied with any 'formal neutrality' is obviously false. — Jabberwock

Indeed. Formal neutrality hasn't left Moldova safe from Russia's interventions either.

Perhaps the rise of Alexander the Great, or the Atomic Age. I would speculate lots of instances.

Your second question is a good one. Actually, the Atomic Age and the resulting societal changes came about through incremental incidents over a period of time, one researcher at a time. Well, sort of. — jgill

I would say that those individuals who have started new monotheist religions have done huge societal change. We don't have this mush of having many gods around now in the West. And what they have specifically said and taught does matter.

One might argue that their emergence and success is because of structural reasons: for Christianity the size of the Roman Empire and the ability for people and thoughts to spread there was crucial and for Islam it was that just prior Byzantium and the Sassanids had fought a very bloody war where East Rome had finally crushed the Sassanid Empire. So both very in a weak state when a new force from the deserts of Arabia hit them.

Yet what is written in the Koran or the Bible do matter. Authors were important.

Yeah, probably giving Kennedy too much credit here, but his few years in office were supposed to be looked at fondly because of his instincts against pro-war advisors, though he did respect McNamara. — schopenhauer1

What President wouldn't have been disappointed after the Bay of Pigs disaster? Yet here I wouldn't go all 'Oliver Stone' and make the dichotomy of there being the hawks inside government and JFK.

Interestingly, McNamara and Kennedy moved away from "massive retaliation" and "first strike" to countering "liberation movements". — schopenhauer1

That basically nuclear weapons are only a deterrent and you cannot actually use them for anything else started to be quickly obvious from the 1950's. Nuclear strategy and counterinsurgency are simply two different areas. JFK was quite central in giving a boost to the Special Forces and actually authorized the use of green berets (by which the forces are now called). Now the Special Warfare Center and School is named after him.

This questions just how 'pacifist' JFK was again when the president takes notable personal interest in clandestine warfare.

My broader question was not about foreign affairs as much as culture. Was the Kennedy assassination the thing that most pushed the nascent radical change that occurred in the 60s? — schopenhauer1

I think the Civil Rights movement and 60's cultural revolution would have happened with or without the assassination of the President. US presidents do get killed and many (like Reagan) have had these attempts on them. Yet that culture change happened also in France, in the UK and all around the Western world.

That said, I think the JFK assassination itself and especially the way it was handled was very important to the long process of the erosion of trust in their own government, which Americans have. The assassinations of the two Kennedy's and MLK are in the same category here, something reinforcing this idea that not all is well and there's a deep state lurking in the shadows. Erosion in the confidence of your government isn't anything new, actually, very famous event was the Dreyfus affair in France in the 1890's where the hold modern thought of 'the government is lying' and 'it shouldn't lie' resulting in the erosion of trust in the government. And let's remind ourselves that the notion of the "deep state" actually came from Turkey!

Americans I guess all the time have had doubts about Central government (and central banks, btw) and also before, against standing armies. That is quite American.

Yet what if the assassination was only a hitjob from the mob and nobody in the government had nothing to do with it? The Cosa Nostra had back then still quite a lot of power and had only surfaced to being a country wide network only in the 1950's. It was only tackled decades later. Yet thinking about it this way, and you have all the actors like closet-gay Hoover and others looking quite different, just pathetic and simply botching up the intelligence.

For the conspiracy theories usually the most enjoyable are the ones that are the most sinister. And these overplay the abilities of the "deep state" and create this huge web where nothing happens by chance or accident. Yet now conspiracy theories have become mainstream and in elections they play a huge part. When visiting with my family Washington DC, I went to Capitol and listened for a while some Republican member of the house speaking what a threat the FBI is for the United States and it's citizens.
That brought it home to me how lunatic US politics is now.

A very good comment.

Especially with the assassination of JFK, there is this underlying idea that if JFK wouldn't have been assassinated, then everything would have been better. The confidence of Americans in their own government would be higher, there wouldn't have been what we now know as the (US) Vietnam war. And the US would be a happier place. Here the "everything" part is debatable.

But then we are in the fairy-tale land of "what if" -alternative realities. Would the post-Houston JFK been like that? Would he have withdrawn from Vietnam and let South Vietnam fall? Cold War had it's own logic to go. Politics is still teamwork, and there were many on the LBJ team that had been on the JFK team, starting from people like Robert McNamara.

The idea that the alternative universe without JFK assassination would be totally different from our reality now seems to me to be unlikely. A lot of things would be the same. Yet to be consistent to myself, we of course cannot know.

Literally no one here has said that. — boethius

This is a thread of 532 pages, so yes, that was said. And I won't bother to find the direct quote as you continue yourself:

Everyone here in favour of peace (some compromise that ends the war) has had no problem accepting Russia annexed Crimea due to their military base there coming under threat with an illegal change of government in Kiev. — boethius

:grin:

Rest my case, tovarich @boethius.

I think you missed the part where Russia annexed significant parts of Ukraine. But I guess the west forced them to do that. — Echarmion

Of course. And if it brought up, the "peace-party" immediately tells us that Crimea has been part of Russia, only given away as a birthday present inside the Soviet Union. Or then, conveniently, any earlier Russian demands for Crimea are forgotten and the annexation is introduced only as a response to revolution, sorry, US "coup". :roll: :snicker:

He died before he was (probably) going to do that. LBJ immediately escalated.. So the result can be seen as very directly. — schopenhauer1

Yes. Here history shows clearly that social science aren't anything remotely like natural sciences. Decisions in the end of few important people do matter.

Just a guess out of left field: No Kennedy Assassination in '63 ... no Nixon in '69 ... no Reagan in '80 ... ultimately no Dubya - Obama - Trump from 2000 to 2016. Things that followed could have been worse or better than 'our timeline', we'll never know. — 180 Proof

Think again here, @180 Proof, there are only a limited number of key politicians on the top of the two ruling parties. Sooner or later the voters would have had enough of the democrats, hence the Republicans would at some time win the elections. Who there for them than Nixon if Goldwater isn't elected? The situation with the issues at hand might be somewhat different, the actors not.


Besides, your current President is perfect proof of this: just how long Joe Biden has been around?

Longer than people think.

The fact is that the top echelon of politicians is and has stayed very small. If you take from both parties 100 most powerful, most influential politicians, it's likely that those 200 people will be found in any administration holding prominent positions and responsible for, well, quite a lot. The occasional Trump doesn't "drain the swamp" as people believe in their dreams. Naturally many will fall for the populist lies.



Does this refute what I said to @schopenhauer1 above? Of course not: history is of both 'chance' and the affects of even one individual and also the Longue duree, changes in institutions and structures and transformations where you can do away with individuals affecting the events.

Do you think that the 60s counterculture in America would have played out the way it did if Kennedy was not assassinated? — schopenhauer1

Yes.

60s counterculture was far more than just only in America, mind you, hence one political assassination in one country in the West hasn't that kind of impact.

Clearly there is a sharp cultural divide between the 60s prior to 1964 and after. — schopenhauer1

Vietnam war was more influential. Especially when the US still had the draft, not a volunteer force. Those who were drafter over 2,5 million saw service in Vietnam. I can imagine that for example the War on Terror would have had different effect on the young American males here on PF if they would have found themselves at an military outpost in some Iraqi town or in the mountains of Afghanistan.

If the US still would have had the draft and not a volunteer force, far more would have served in Afghanistan and in Iraq than served in the Vietnam war, actually.

So now we have a pause.

Hopefully the four days will be used so that the offensive won't restart and continue for another 8 weeks.

At least the sides are talking.

Why the urge talk about licences? Or the need to approach this question with licenses?

Many people should have licences for nearly everything, starting from how to use alcohol or to have a license to use a computer or a smart phone. Or how about simply the use of kitchen knives? Kitchen knives are terrible, nearly everybody has cut himself or herself with one and you can kill other people with them. How dare they are sold without licenses!!! They belong to the category of cold weapons, hence shouldn't they be registered and regulated like firearms. :smile:

I think talk of "licenses" belongs to the silly totalitarian dreams of control freaks.

The best natural way simply is for the government to provide assistance to couples or mothers that are having children. If the government provides support and assistance without charge, people will use these services. Few will have their babies at home without any official knowing about it. Hence there is already a way for the supervision of childbirth and children in general. If it's obvious that either the mother or the couple is really incapable of raising a child (meaning the child can literally die), then it's up already to the officials to intervene. Children aren't private property.

Hence no need for "licenses". You already have the adequate legal framework in other laws, actually.

Joe Biden will be the nominee. All this talk of other candidates is nonsense and shouldn’t be taken seriously.

Trump will be the Republican nominee.

All of this is foregone. — Mikie

Except when American crave for and desire so old politicians to lead them, these people can all of a sudden die or get hospitalized. Yet it has to be Octogenarians!

The argument was that Russia cannot demand that western nations bar Ukraine's NATO entry. — Echarmion

Sovereign countries can apply freely to international organizations.

When btw Russia started to make demands just who can and cannot join NATO was when Finnish leadership understood that the country had to apply for NATO membership, not just have it as an option and still stay out of it.

At least for now Hezbollah and Iran has been out of the conflict... apart a few rockets.

There's two ways to look at this. On the other side, one could say that the Israeli response has deterred from Hezbollah joining the attack (and the two US carriers on the Mediterranean). From the other perspective, Iran's unconventional deterrent Hezbollah has kept Israel and the US from attacking itself (unlike Syria, which is a free range for bombing).

But then there's the Houthi hijack of a ship that has an owner that is Israeli. Bibi is accusing the Iran of terrorism.

Hopefully this doesn't escalate.

I've made this point before, but as an (imperfect but sufficiently apt) analogy, the IRA engaged in a long guerilla war with the British army in which it committed atrocities against British civilians. It had widespread support among the Catholic population in Northern Ireland and in certain cities, such as Derry, it dominated politically as does Hamas in Gaza. The British government wanted to eliminate and defeat the IRA but no one in their right mind ever suggested bombing Derry and slaughtering masses of Irish civilians as a means to kill IRA operatives because you cannot "eliminate" an embedded guerilla force without committing war crimes against the civilian population in which they are embedded. And trying to do so simply creates more extremism among the remaining population. The British and anyone with any common sense knows this and they remained within international law in dealing with the conflict. But by the logic of the apologists on here, their reaction could excusably have been "Oh well, it's a war" and they could have sent the bombers over Derry. — Baden

The moment that the Royal Air Force would have started bombing villages or houses in North Ireland, it would have been over. There would have not been the appetite for a new civil war in Ireland at all and the insurgency couldn't have been hided. Now the UK government achieved a huge victory in the discourse of the conflict: it was "The Troubles", not an insurgency (even if now the British Army openly says that it indeed was an insurgency. And the assassination attempt of Prime Minister Thatcher, didn't make "the gloves to come off". Yes, you had even British tanks deployed in Northern Ireland, but I don't think they ever used their main armamnet.

What is very telling is that in the conflict more British soldiers and policemen died than IRA terrorists. This ratio favoring the IRA terrorists doesn't tell about them being superior, but the British government sticking to the laws it had and using that restraint. And the British officials have later admitted that there have been killings by it's proxies and has made apologies for this.

The reality that having less restraint and using more firepower usually inflicts less casualties for you at the moment, but those actions can make you lose the war.

Here's some other views on the conflict instead of the myopic western bullshit being peddled in this thread. — Benkei

The US backing anything that Israel does isn't anything new. And It should be noted that not all in the West take the line of Biden.

Speaking the day after a humanitarian aid conference in Paris about the war in Gaza, Mr Macron said the "clear conclusion" of all governments and agencies present at that summit was "that there is no other solution than first a humanitarian pause, going to a ceasefire, which will allow [us] to protect... all civilians having nothing to do with terrorists".

"De facto - today, civilians are bombed - de facto. These babies, these ladies, these old people are bombed and killed. So there is no reason for that and no legitimacy. So we do urge Israel to stop."

Ireland is once again an outlier in the West, home to some of the loudest criticism of Israel and support of Palestinian rights, as the Middle East conflict rages.

After Hamas launched an assault in Israel on October 7, Irish Prime Minister Leo Varakdar decried the deadly incursion, during which about 1,200 people were killed and 240 were taken captive.But less than a week later, he became one of the few European officials to raise alarm.

“Israel doesn’t have the right to do wrong,” he said in something of a play on words as most European leaders were stressing Israel’s “right” to self-defence during its bombing campaign on Gaza, the enclave ruled by Hamas.

In just 41 days of war, more than 11,400 Palestinians have been killed by Israel.

Varadkar has also said Israel’s bombardment “amounts to collective punishment”, which is prohibited under the Geneva Conventions.

There are and have been many Finnish volunteers in Ukraine, yes. They have gotten actually a quite positive welcome back here in Finland. Naturally they don't make a huge fuss themselves about it. A lot of people have basically been transporting supplies to Ukrainians themselves, especially to the civilians close to the front.

A moderate Palestinian state would not have these human rights abuses:
https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/middle-east-and-north-africa/palestine-state-of/report-palestine-state-of/ — RogueAI

Even a 'moderate Palestinian state', if by meaning that democratic elections are held and political opposition isn't persecuted, I guess there's much in the insurgency that human rights organizations won't look as to be OK.

And there surely is loads of evidence of warcrimes, human rights abuses and so on October 7th, even if Israel has now degraded the number of killed during that day. But it's not good either how Israel is fighting this war.

TEL AVIV, Israel — In a text message to journalists on Friday, a spokesperson from Israel's Foreign Ministry said "around 1,200" is now what he called "the official number of people" killed by Hamas militants on Oct. 7. That's about 200 fewer victims than Israel had been citing for more than a month.

* * * * *

As I see it, you’re reiterating my points, not countering them. If you’re trying to say America responsibly reintegrated Germany and Japan and Israel should do the same, I agree. — schopenhauer1

Hopefully you have noticed, that I'm not disagreeing with everything you say.

But there's the real problem, which makes me so pessimistic about this conflict: How can Israel do this?

Does it have the urge to do this? What is dominant view now is that the other side only understands lead. This goes also with the Palestinian side. The PA is sidelined and the West Bank surely isn't now a tranquil sea of modesty and respect. And Gaza? Well, what is there to talk? Who is there to talk to?

The only reason, in my view, is that Bibi and IDF go too far with the military operation of destroying Hamas and aren't prepared to take care of the 2,2 million people in which a lot more than just now children and civilians die. A lot more that finally it looks bad in the US. So bad that the question goes beyond the general culture war lines of being pro-Israeli or not, and something has to be done. And then it's so embarrassing to Israel, that they have to do something. People will die if they don't get food and water, hence the issue has to be solved.

There are hints that this could happen as the mood is starting to change in the US.

WASHINGTON, Nov 15 (Reuters) - U.S. public support for Israel's war against Hamas militants in Gaza is eroding and most Americans think Israel should call a ceasefire to a conflict that has ballooned into a humanitarian crisis, according to a new Reuters/Ipsos poll.

Some 32% of respondents in the two-day opinion poll, which closed on Tuesday, said "the U.S. should support Israel" when asked what role the United States should take in the fighting. That was down from 41% who said the U.S. should back Israel in a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted Oct. 12-13.

The share saying "the U.S. should be a neutral mediator" rose to 39% in the new poll from 27% a month earlier. Four percent of respondents in the poll said the U.S. should support Palestinians and 15% said the U.S. shouldn't be involved at all, both similar readings to a month ago.

Of course, one solution is to try to keep the whole issue out of sight.

Or then declare that Hamas is finished and try to stick to that line and hope people don't question it. :roll:

But the US did occupy Germany and Japan after utterly destroying many of their cities. There’s even dozen or so US army bases still in Germany and in Japan. When Western and Eastern Germany was rebuilt, it was definitely in a new framework molded to each sides image. It doesn’t mean it was some occupied territory forever (but was for a time). It had to be a liberal democracy again though. — schopenhauer1

And how many Americans were repopulated to live in Germany? Did the American President declare that now Germany (or Japan) are part of the US?

And how long do we talk about an US lead occupation in Germany? That ended in 1949, as you yourself said, the occupation wasn't forever. Even with this example, the difference is quite stark between the US lead occupation (and West Germany) and the Soviet occupation (and formation of East Germany).

The West Germans remember quite well how the US assisted West-Berlin with the airlift and Marshall Plan:


While the East-Germans had their uprising against Soviet forces:


Spot any differences in the two occupations of the same people, @schopenhauer1? I do notice.

So yes, how the occupation forces behave and rule, what is it's true objectives do matter. The difference is between night and day.

And furthermore, the typical argument that the US is a Superpower and dominates other countries just like any other Great Power, hence if it's a country having US bases or being occupied by another country isn't at all so straight forward. Europeans do like NATO and genuinely have built their defense on a common defense. Here's a perfect example of how US troops were looked upon in Czechia in 2015, a year after the occupation of Crimea by the Russians.



Yet going back to the subject. The objectives of Israel here are quite different. And that is the problem.

Functionally a war. How else? But are you suggesting that the actions of Hamas on 7 Oct. were not a crime? — tim wood

A war crime would be more apt here, because these aren't ordinary criminals in Israel's view.

It sure as hell looks like they can't form a moderate state, yes. — schopenhauer1

What would be the "moderate state" here when Israel is building new settlements in the West Bank, has an Apartheid system of different laws and has basically no intention of a two state solution? Why do you assume somehow "moderates" could form a state when the role is to be a puppet state?

Netanyahu aided Hamas to divide and rule the Palestinians, besides for him Hamas is far better representative of Palestinians than the Palestinians that would want to negotiate. Sorry, but the leadership of a state does matter: if we would the actions of the Iraqi state in the last 50 years, then Saddam Hussein and his utterly disastrous decisions to invade neighbors couldn't be otherwise explained than by his leadership.

Ok, now you are making Israel's (Netanyahu's government's) case right now about why they have to take over Gaza and hold it for a while and make sure it is molded to their liking ala the US to Germany and Japan after utterly defeating them after WW2. — schopenhauer1

Somehow you don't see the huge difference here.

The allies wanted to get rid of the ruling state, yet Germany and Japan were still left for Germans and the Japanese (although Soviet Union took Sakhalin, which has been a sour issue between Japan and Soviet Union / Russia).

Only a certain mr. H had plans not only to conquer to get rid of the states and annex land especially in his Eastern neighborhood, but he and his followers also had huge plans for population replacement in these countries on a grand scale.

If the victorious allies would have had similar objectives, moving the Japanese out of their islands or the Germans out of Germany (or putting the people on reservations), I think both people wouldn't been so happy with the situation as they were now about the allied occupation. In fact, I think in that case the response 'land and the people' (or in the case of Japan, 'the islands and the people') would become central to the national identity of the countries. Hence it's quite logical why for the Palestinians for their identity the land of Palestine is so central.

I consider the Israeli actions since 7 Oct. to be a police action and as such not subject to any need for justification or any consideration of any history at all. — tim wood

Rather strange view on police actions. At least the Israelis themselves are far more honest than you and call it a war.

So how to fight?

I would say that they ought to fight as United States armed forces did in Iraq like in Fallujah. There in Iraq when they were fighting the terrorists, they (the US) were at the same time bringing assistance to the few civilians still there. The US Army understood that you simply cannot first fight the long urban fight and only after destroying the last terrorist stronghold start humanitarian assistance to the civilians. There wasn't a massive casualties. Even in Afghanistan the death toll of civilians compared to the Russian invasion is totally on a different, smaller scale.

So why, from the start, stop water for 2,2 million people? Would it be so disadvantage to still provide water for the people with so many children? It's really quite clearly simply about revenge and fulfilling the desire for revenge after the horrible massacres. And you can clearly see from the statements of the politicians of Gaza being the 'evil city' with 'human animals' that something like cool, calculated moves may not in the end prevail.

The whole idea that laws of war would prevent from a military from achieving victory is nonsense. Abiding to the laws of war is on the long run important especially if you consider the country to abide by international law in the first place. Not abiding those rules just tarnishes the cause however just it would be.

Of course from ancient history onwards sieges have been about starving those behind the walls, but I think similar actions today can be very counterproductive. At least for Israel at the present.

Nah, I don't think that characterization is even true. — schopenhauer1

I think that is quite true. Hamas isn't ISIS or just a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood in general: their objectives are to fight the Israeli occupation. A bit of gaslighting from yourself there.

How do the moderate Pals form a state with these kind of players to control? — schopenhauer1

Have you not noticed that I've said that again and again the extremists have taken over?

Or do you assume that Palestinians are somehow uncapable or perhaps so inferior they cannot form a functioning state? Is that your idea?

I don't see 'moderates' in charge anywhere. What is there for 'moderate Pals' to do in Gaza or the West Bank, actually? You obviously didn't find 'moderate Germans' during WW2, but afterwards in peacetime you did find them.

First and foremost: Beyond their fierce rhetoric, actors in the Middle East are capable of being reasonable. But if you want to go with a line deranged babykillers cannot be tolerated and that Palestinians are them, I have to remind you that the PA did hideous terrorist attacks too and vowed to destroy Israel... until they did sit down and tried to make peace.

Hamas is only one actor that is basically now being destroyed. How the conflict continues from here on depends on many issues.

(Another good documentary, which especially tells well the Trump peace process why Arab states did normalize their relations with Israel and why the Saudi's were on the cusp of doing it, but then this war happened... )

That is basically asking how moderate pals plan to control violent deranged elements like Hamas antagonizing Israel rather than living peacefully? Is there enough will on the Pals side to do this? — schopenhauer1

You do understand that there's a conflict between the Palestinians and Israel?

There's just the Palestinian Authority. But basically it's quite sidelined. As new settlements are still rising and Palestinians are forced out of their homes, what is the reason why the PA would start fighting other Palestinians? Hence the PA is not even in the position of Vichy France when it fought the resistance movement and 'Free French'..

This seems to be pretty tenuous argument as it is basically generalizing the end of a conflict that had determining factors for why Israel was battling the PLO in Lebanon. It's not as easy as Israel just wanted to go in there for funsies. — schopenhauer1

Israel wanted to erase PLO from operating from Lebanon. That was the "funsies" you asked about. PLO is no not firing rockets or terrorist attacks from Lebanon. Hezbollah is for that there now. And do you wonder why?

Well, somehow being 18 years as an occupation force in Lebanon did make this. Israel's own proxy force, the South Lebanese Army, collapsed immediately when Israel withdrew. You might try to fight an insurgency like the British did in Northern Ireland, or then can fight it like Israelis did in Lebanon: in order to defend from ambushes like when the road is next to trees and orchards, fire blindly your machine guns into the orchard. If a small girl is accidentally killed by this, then tell that a terrorist has been killed in operations.

I'm confused why you would say Hezbollah was the "proxy arm of the IDF". — schopenhauer1

the proxy arm of the IDF, the South Lebanese Army, immediately collapsed with it's members seeking refuge from Israel. — ssu

Would have been better to end the sentence 'Hezbollah then followed them to the border.'

I think you meant the South Lebanese Army was Israel's proxy (though even that is a bit tenuous)? — schopenhauer1

Yes, you got it. SLA was the Israeli proxy, not Hezbollah.

So, you can try to use the talking points about Netanyahu, but I would certainly call you out on overmining the shibboleth for any and every ill of Palestinian society and mentality. — schopenhauer1

Now I'm the one confused. Please try refrain the question because I don't understand what your point is.

What's the shibboleth overmined here? That I talk about occupied territories and not about Judea and Samara? Or what?

Or should we just talk about the Israeli civilians who have died in terrorist attacks? If you look at this century, then those killed basically doubled in October 7th. But we are reaching new heights now with Palestinian deaths too. (But that's the shibboleth of mentioning them or what?)

Also, I don't believe a single word that comes from US about its intelligence agencies. — Tzeentch

Many didn't when the US intelligence services were saying that Russia will invade Ukraine in 2022. I remember that well. :smile:

But my point with that last post referencing Nicholas video was to show how it is that Netanyahu started to become favored over the ones willing to go for peaceful two-state solution (even AMIDST Hamas' suicide bombing campaigns). It doesn't turn that way overnight. — schopenhauer1

If I say extremists take over, what I mean is that they do take over because they are popular. And because "appeasement" of trying to form a peace deal, a two nation solution, isn't. So I'm not against you here, Bibi is basically the most successful Israeli politican ever. Yet I think that the politicians themselves have a lot do with this. It's not like a tide has swept them even if they would have wanted a peace deal.

Let's take an example: Israel occupied the southern part of Lebanon in Operation Peace for Galilee to root out the PLO in 1982. It retreated from Southern Lebanon in 1985, yet stayed in the southern bordelands of Lebanon and occupied what was called the South Lebanon Security Zone until 2000.

And PLO indeed left during the initial operation. But what happened then?

A low intensity conflict presumed in which a religious shiite militant group opposed Israel's occupation called Hezbollah was borne. And this organization sponsored by Iran and earlier Syria (when it could) is now basically the unconventional deterrent for Iran that Israel won't attack itself. It's been so successfull, that it has brother organizations for example in Iraq.

But how was this portrayed in Israeli politics? Well, the Ehud Barak, one of the most highly decorated Israeli soldiers and Labor government prime minister withdrew unilateraly from South Lebanon (which by then had caused over 200 Israeli soldiers being killed about over 1000 Hezbollah fighters being killed). Hezbollah then followed them to the border basically as the proxy arm of the IDF, the South Lebanese Army, immediately collapsed with it's members seeking refuge from Israel.

Bibi and others then reason that it's been the withdrawal that caused then the bombing of Israeli settlements and everywhere where Israel has tried to "negotiate", only failure has followed. Not that going off an occupying other countries will create insurgencies and escalate the conflict.

And why wouldn't many Jewish Israelis choose Bibi's version of events? Israel has the nuclear bomb, Arabs don't. Israel has military superiority over it's neighbors. Israel has an staunch ally in the US that will accept basically everything that Israel does.

If I knew Palestinian politics better, I would assume that the fate of those who tried aggressively to get a two state solution by negotiating with the Israelis are as unpopular as the Labor party is now in Israel. Religious fanatics rule.

I doubt the US was completely surprised by it, since they had just supported a coup in Ukraine. Perhaps they hadn't anticipated that the Russians would dare invade Crimea with such a small force. — Tzeentch

More than your personal doubt, please give some reason why wouldn't this be the case? Yes, the hadn't make extensive preparations that your normal satellite intelligence would notice, that is true. But really, the focus wasn't at all in Ukraine. That is a simple fact.

(POLITICO, 3.4.2014) the U.S. intelligence community failed to read the signs when it came to Ukraine.

“We have to better deploy our resources… because we have large resources and it should not be possible for Russia to walk in and take over the Crimea and it’s a done deal by the time we know about it,” Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) told POLITICO as she left a closed-door briefing for committee members on Ukraine and other issues. Feinstein indicated that the intelligence community has already moved to re-focus on the region.

"From everything I’ve seen, this was not anticipated,” Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), a member of the House Intelligence Committee, said in an interview Monday. “I think there will have to be a whole evaluation of what our links into Russia are and [into] determining their policy.”

King said it was evident that U.S. policymakers such as Obama viewed Putin’s move as unlikely — until it happened.

“As far as the administration, I think they had to be taken off guard,” he said. “They were making these very tough pronouncements that there will be consequences and he won’t do it. I don’t think they would have done that if they were thinking that Putin would do this.”

The reasons for a hardliner like Netanyahu got to power was because of previous events that pushed it that way on the Pals side. — schopenhauer1

Or because Netanyahu had himself a role to play in the derailment of the peace-process, as Bibi himself has bragged about:

“I know what America is,” asserted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. “America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction. They won’t get in their way.”

This quote from the hard-line right-wing Israeli leader is well-known. What is much less known are the more egregious comments he made at the same time.

A 2001 tape of Netanyahu speaking in private to a group in an illegal settlement in the occupied West Bank was leaked in 2010. In the video, Netanyahu’s extreme views are made clear.

The only way to deal with the Palestinians is to “beat them up, not once but repeatedly, beat them up so it hurts so badly, until it’s unbearable,” Netanyahu insisted in the video.

He claimed “that the only way to deal with the Palestinian Authority was a large-scale attack,” Tablet Magazine reported.

Netanyahu also “boasts of having derailed the Oslo accords with political trickery,” Tablet added.

“I de facto put an end to the Oslo accords,” the then-former prime minister bragged.

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=740416829986542

And the widows of former prime minister (shot by an Jewish extremist) blamed quite openly Likud and Bibi for creating the hostile environment.

(LA Times)Appearing angry but composed, Yitzhak Rabin’s widow, Leah, bluntly criticized her husband’s political opponents Tuesday, claiming that they created and even encouraged the hateful climate that inspired his assassination.

Just a day after the funeral, still gracefully accepting the condolences of friends, Rabin’s strong and articulate wife of 47 years recalled the many personal verbal attacks that hurt her husband but never dissuaded him from his single-minded pursuit--”like a bulldozer,” she said--of peace.

So upset was she with the moderate rightist members of the Knesset, the nation’s Parliament--who she claimed stood by while extremists harassed Rabin--that she admitted snubbing Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of the opposition Likud Party, at the funeral by being “as cold as I could be.”

“Surely I blame them,” Leah Rabin said of the Likud members, her husband’s most vocal critics in the Knesset. “If you ever heard their speeches, you would understand what I mean. They were very, very violent in their expressions: ‘We are selling the country down the drain.’ ‘There will be no Israel after this peace agreement.’ I mean, this was wild.”

And if you want to hear it, yes, also there were those terrorist attacks on Israelis. As I've said, the extremists dominate the scene.

Better weapons means that I can defend myself better if need be. — Lexa

More weapons will mean that the robber surely will have a gun, for his personal protection.

The world has gone to shit under his watch. Afghanistan was a humiliating debacle. — RogueAI

Unfortunately this won't be an issue in the election, even if it actually should be.

Who would raise a subject where both Biden and Trump are the culprits???

Is there a viable third party candidate? Nah... :worry:

Finland closed four of the major border crossings to Russia as a response to a hybrid attack.

When you had, out of the blue, after decades without it happening Iraqis and other Third World country citizens coming with bikes without the proper documentation and seeking asylum, the officials here knew what was happening. A brief interrogation of the first asylum seekers clearly showed how Russian authorities were behind this.



The good thing now was that the politicians here weren't clueless of what is happening. That's the problem of when Russia has already shown earlier that it could do this, then even Finns can anticipate it. Luckily we are in NATO, poor of Sweden...

In my view, it is thinkable that they knew the Russians were going to invade, and also knew the Russians would eventually prevail, since the decision not to put NATO boots on the ground was obviously made in advance of the conflict. — Tzeentch

Uhh... exaclty when? 2014? Earlier?

Sorry, but the West was totally surprised with it's pants down when Russia annexed Crimea. Remember, then the Intelligence services were still fighting the War on Terror.

And how can you expect the Israelis to support a two state solution given their experience with the Palestinians? — Hanover

And what would be the reason for Israel to support a two state solution in the first place?

How would anybody expect Israel to do anything that would be inconvenient for the country as it has the staunch backing from the US? Some protests in the West don't matter much if at all. The vast majority of nations don't care much about the regional problems in the Middle East.

How can we explain the US alliance with Germany and Japan given their WW2 experience? — Hanover

Quite well: In the end in both countries, there was no support for the previous aggressive expansionism as the utter defeat was totally evident to everybody. How bad previous national socialism and Imperial militarism had been simply couldn't be denied. And then, both countries happily accepted the position they were given: being an ally of the US was quite different from being an "ally" of the Soviet Union.

How can we explain the US alliance with the UK given the history of colonization and indentured servitude. — Hanover

Well, the US military still had Operational Plans for a war against Canada and the UK even after WW1 (Warplan Red), so it wasn't so easy I guess.

Why do Muslims live in the US peaceably, but not in their ancestral homelands? — Hanover

Well, if you don't understand that, wonder what gives. Yes, why do the Palestinians oppose Israel??? :roll:

My point here is that if we want to widen our scope to figure our why people act as they do, the variables are limitless, and are not simply explained by focusing on the select events that satisfy a narrative that evil is explainable as being reactionary. — Hanover

Yet it's you who talk of evil. And the variables are many, but not limitless. There are important and then not so important issues. Which are the most important reasons is the interesting discussion here.

Another possibility is that bad people assumed power and imposed their will on what might otherwise have been a better society.

That comes to mind as the cause in China, N. Korea, Nazi Germany, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Stalin's Russia, maybe even Putin's as well. — Hanover

Even if what is right and wrong is important, I still would not base issues here on a moral judgement of good and evil. Or just bad people get into power than good ones. There was a reason that people did vote for mr Hitler in Germany, just as they voted into power mr Trump. Or mr Biden. Or anybody.

Surely if Germany would have won WW1, an Austro-Hungarian -borne corporal and a failed painter likely wouldn't have been elected and likely the whole national socialism wouldn't have prevailed in Germany. Perhaps then in France or the UK? If there would have been a Communist Revolution in either France or the UK after a lost war, wouldn't that seem so inevitable to us now? France had this history of revolutions, starting from the revolution that bears the country's name. Or UK as a monarchy would seem to have been so ripe for the inevitable fall. After all, then Marx would have been totally correct in his views of the place where the Proletariat starts it's violent struggle against Capitalism.

It's the distinction between explanations and excuses. The fact that I can find an explanation for why a murderer murders doesn't mean that serves as an excuse for his murdering. — Hanover

I've said that in the Middle East when it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict / Palestinian-Israeli conflict, you can find both sides being the victim and the perpetrator. That's what happens when extremists take the center stage.

It is a tragedy that the Arab world has failed to mesh with western values, for whatever reasons. I’m not blaming them, the blame stands more with the duelling between the US and the Soviets.
Even the rich Arab states, who were spared due to their oil, are living on borrowed time. — Punshhh

I agree. And the rich Gulf states with their tiny citizenry have their own milder version of Apartheid namely in the form of permanent migrant workers, whose legal rights can be dubious (at least by Western standards). At least usually the migrant workers can go home.

In a larger persepective, this was the curse of decolonization: how could you even think of 'capitalism' that your colonizer had, as surely the part of being a colony wasn't so great? Socialism seemed a perfectly viable answer back then. How would Palestinians think about "American democracy" after having lived under occupation that the US supports? Hence the "back to original roots" -movement with islamism is now the 'viable' option. Unfortunately.

Exactly. The US rather have had the Northern Alliance or something not Taliban. It's not all black-and-white? Were the Soviets "good guys"? No one's hands were clean there, but Soviets were still trying to "colonize" them if you will, (at least imperially control them). — schopenhauer1

I would say that the Americans were better guys than the Soviets!

They stayed in Afghanistan far longer, yet killed far less people! :grin:

And now Afghanistan isn't controlled by rival factions and isn't as chaotic as after the Soviet backed government fell! :grin:

And you had an epic disaster movie in the end when Kabul fell, not a Soviet style parade with little girls giving flowers to the last Soviet troops. :blush:

Last Soviet in Afghanistan soil, general Gromov walking with his son out of Afghanistan:



Last American soldier in Afghani soil, general Donahue leaving Kabul walking to the transport aircraft:

That makes sense somewhat. — schopenhauer1

In the end, it makes as much sense as Bibi supporting Hamas!

I think the former Israeli prime minister Ehdu Olmert makes this clear quite well:

"Netanyahu is responsible for the build-up of Hamas capabilities … Netanyahu personally and directly responsible for deal with Hamas… and 80 per cent of the people want him out," the leader, who initiated his political career within the ruling Likud party but transitioned to Kadima in 2006, a party founded by moderates under the leadership of former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, remarked. Olmert also suggested that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should be held responsible for the attacks.

Olmert held the PM responsible for the policy that marginalised the moderate Palestinians, "we should have been negotiating with," and led to the rise of Hamas.

He explained that the reason behind this was because Hamas "was supposed to be safe since they were not a candidate for negotiations, so he (Netanyahu) would not have to make concessions for them."

He further stated that Netanyahu was also directly and personally responsible for the agreement with Hamas, which resulted in the release of "1,000 Hamas members in exchange for one Israeli soldier."

But if you really think that supporting the enemy of your enemy is allways 'makes sense', I have to disagree.

These myriad tricks usually blown in the face of these politicians who think that they can juggle with live grenades.

I'd say that goes without saying. They armed the Taliban and subsequently put them in charge. I don't think I need to remind you who the Taliban were. It's one of many extremist groups that rose to power as a direct result of US interference. — Tzeentch

I think the Taleban was of Pakistani origin, not the US. And uh, yeah, the Pakistanis holding on to the Taleban and being an ally (somehow) of the US brought them victory in the end. The US did go away and didn't punish them. They can tap each other on the back in the offices of the Inter-Services Intelligence.

Again, don't forget the little guys, the regional players, and insist everything happens because of the US.

*I don’t like to talk in these blunt terms and would prefer to believe that this could return to the 2 state solution as has been outlined numerous times. — Punshhh

Any reasonable person would think so too, but as I've said, extremists have taken over there. They will continue to dehumanize the "enemy" and basically argue for war, either "Jihad" or "Mowing the lawn" to be the only answer here.

What would be then the reasons why the extremists would fall from favor?

Well, in the case of Europe you finally got European integration after millions being killed in WW1 and it's continuation, WW2. Great example!

So a true genocide of Palestinians in Gaza? Not just 11000, but let's say 110 000? Or every tenth human being killed in Gaza? That would be 220 000 people. I think that could be a "biblical" enough to 'wake up' people from their apathy. It would then would 'look bad' enough for Israel to come up with a two state solution. If Israel continues to limit humanitarian assistance, we can be there. It actually would 'look bad' for the US too, so perhaps there would be some effective diplomacy, not the futile 'bearhugs' that the US now gives to Israel. Or let me backtrack: Israel I guess has accepted 4 hours of not boming. Quite quick those giving humanitarian assistance have to be...

And then you immediately have the following problem: only efficiently strong countries can keep peace. Lebanon and Syria are on brink of being failed states. How does the PA suddenly become a strong country? Egypt is strong enough, even if the 'Arab street' hates the peace with Israel. Yet Palestinians aren't Egyptians. Far easily populists in the Palestinian side could pose this as just a part of throwing back the crusaders. After all, it took 192 years to throw out the Crusaders.

Yeah, seems extremely bleak.