Before I respond, how about the post before about Sykes-Picot, it’s goals, it’s failure, etc. — schopenhauer1

Ok,

Let's remember that Sykes-Picot, just like nearly all of the imperialist border drawing competitions were drawn to please first and foremost the parties that drew the lines on the map. And some effort was also drawn with the old idea of divide et impera. It's similar to the Durand Line, which separates one people to be living in Afghanistan and Pakistan, which has caused problems even to this day.

Under no circumstances have the Europeans thought of when drawing the borders that "lets make large nation states that unify people". The Kurds are a prime example of this.

My premise is that strategic interest of the US in the Middle East is to prevent the emergence of regional powers that challenge the American hegemony. — neomac

Yes, but does being the most staunch ally of Israel help here?

Both Egypt and Saudi-Arabia are allies of the US. If there would be logic here, that the issue is to prevent emergence of Iran becoming a regional power, wouldn't it then to be more logical to support the Sunni Arab states? The US has already forces in Iraq.

Sorry, but what US needs is a hegemony that it has in Western Europe through NATO. Countries that want it to stay in the continent. Not countries that are just waiting for it to go away, but being friendly when Uncle Sam is around.

There is a sort of "liberation theology" in Islamist strains of politics that would like nothing more than pushing Jews to the sea... — schopenhauer1

...which is the delusional raving of lunatics, to put it mildly. But these kinds of delusions fit perfectly the minds of religious zealots like the muslim extremists. They live in their fantasy World where the true Caliphate of the Ummah is just around the corner and they are the glorious few of the vanguard of it. Or perhaps in the case of Hamas, they are just the glorious few martyrs who will cause the destruction of Israel. And Palestinians that now get killed can thank them for rising to martyrdom going straight to heaven.

But then there is reality.

Israel is the sole country with a nuclear deterrent and likely has now a nuclear triad. It dominates all of it's potential rival is in the air and has a technological advantage over even theoretical rivals. All of those neighbours that Israel hasn't gotten a peace deal are basically failed states (Lebanon and Syria) and Israel is bombing them with impunity all the time. Israel enjoys all this before it's Superpower ally comes to the picture. As we have seen now, the US will immediately come to Israel's aid.

Hence those prophesizing the destruction of Israel are simply lunatics. Hamas is a real threat to Israel as we have seen what it can do when Israel let it's guard down, yet still, it's not an existential threat meaning it could defeat the IDF on the battlefield. It surely can't.

Yet in the media absolutely crucial to uphold the image that Israel is on the verge of being destroyed with it's uncanny fiendish enemies rolling the people back to the sea. Not just the one that can indeed make large scale terrorist attacks, but truly can destroy all of Israel. Never mind the peace deals with it's largest neighbour, never mind that it's enemies don't surround it now and aren't backed up and armed by the communist Superpower. And never mind that even if Iran does get the nuclear weapon, then there are the Israeli nuclear deterrent.

You want to see real ethnic cleansing? Talk to the Yazidis, Assyrians, Manichaeans, and especially the Zoroastrians. — schopenhauer1

Look no further than the Armenians of Nagorno Karabakh, @schopenhauer1. You don't have to go to history to the fall of the Zoroastrian Persians to Islam. You can only go back to last September.

Yet this doesn't refute my point that Israeli-US relationship is a domestic issue for the US, which put's the relationship totally apart from any other country that the US has relations with.

If the question is about “ Israel has done ANYTHING to help it's ally US”, I gave you the examples:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_rocket_attacks_on_Israel — neomac

I think I already mentioned that it was the US that deployed it's own forces to protect Israel. Not the other way around.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_in_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War — neomac

HAH HAH!!!
Well, I cannot fathom just what that supposed to be of an example of the "strategic alliance" that Israel had covert arms deals with Iran. For the US similar weapons deliveries was the Iran-Contra scandal, that shook Reagan's administration. So Israel makes shady deals with it's neighbors that vow to destroy it.

And the Osirak strike? Well, again here (just as with similar strike in Libya) Israel had first and foremost it's own agenda in having nuclear dominance in the region. Heaven forbid any kind of parity!!! Again read just how suspicious JFK was about the Israeli nuclear weapons program, but then that was before 1967.

I would claim instead that the American support for Israel is solid, longstanding and bipartisan so that’s for me enough — neomac

But that's my whole point. This "solid" relationship happened only after 1967 and yes, there's bipartisan support. As I stated, the whole reason is that the US is the staunch ally of Israel is because both parties want to get votes and win elections. That's it. For the US it's a domestic issue. That's the key to this "strategic alliance". And that's why Biden or anybody cannot push Netanyahu around. Heck, he'll just voice his concerns to the both parties and it's hell for the US president.

Oil has always been the big game in that region. Take down the Ottomans and install various oil kingdoms. That didn’t quite work. Luckily for Britain and France they had the US take the reins in foreign policy after WW2, thus allowing the messy military aftermath to them. Europes last hurrah in the region was the 1956 Suez War. — schopenhauer1

And Israel's gas fields are a very late comer here. Besides, the US lost interest in the oil once it had it's fracking & shale oil revolution.

Just look at what are the primary Oil trade customers of Saudi Arabia:


Yes, the US is only 6th. For China Saudi-Arabia is more important. But then China also buys oil from Iran too.

But you are talking about Netanyahu, I’m talking about Israel. — neomac

Then give the example when Israel has done anything to help it's ally US. As I have stated, this "special relationship" with Israel started only after the six day war. And it's been quite one sided, especially when there's no threat of Soviet Union: no country in the region is armed by China as the Soviet Union did. There are no Chinese instructors in the Middle East.

The geographic position of Israel is relevant for military and intelligence projection, also against/for possible sabotage operations in a region that is dense of major routes critical to the World economy. That’s all I’m saying. — neomac

The US doesn't have any military bases in Israel. The US has military bases in Turkey, in Kuwait, the Gulf States. It has friendly ties to Egypt and Jordan. What is the geographic position so favorable in tiny Israel? And intelligence sharing. Really, all of these billions of dollars

US troops have only been deployed to Israel to defend Israel when Saddam Hussein launched Scuds to Israel and Israel yet didn't have it's vast anti-missile systems it now has (thanks to the US again sponsoring that).

Basically the alliance with Israel serve one purpose: domestic politics in the US. Both political parties uphold the staunch special relationship at any cost to win elections, to woo especially the Evangelists for whom Israel is a biblical entity to be supported. Even the large Jewish population of the US (7,6 million) understands that Israel is a normal country and can be critical of politics in Israel, but not the whacky Evangelists who wait for the rupture and the second coming of the Christ. The Holy Land getting attacked rhymes well with that. After all, to the Evangelicals, the Jewish Israelites are Gods people too. Hence the support of Israel has nothing to do with security policy or global realpolitik. And Netanyahu knows this. He can just walk past Biden or whoever is the US president and get his support from eager American politicians waiting in line for the photo-op.

Basically here's the dire extrapolation of the catastrohy of the US foreing policy in the Middle East. It has gone all through the decades worse and worse falling to another lower level.

The 1950's was the height of US influence: The Middle East had a treaty alliance like NATO in the case of CENTO with Iran, Iraq, Pakistan and Turkey aligned in the organization. Then Iraq had a revolution.

Next phase was worse, but still good: This was the "Twin Pillars" policy were Saudi-Arabia and Imperial Iran were the backbone of the US alliance in the Middle East. And then came the Iranian revolution where the most important, most armed ally in the region suddenly changed to be an enemy, a rogue state from the US.

Perhaps last the swansong of the US happened when the utterly reckless dictator of Iraq attacked it's former war financier Kuwait. The Bush the older could create a truly impressive alliance of not only all of the Western allies of UK, France etc and all of the Gulf States, but Morocco, Pakistan, Egypt even Assad's Syria sending a tank division. With approval from the Soviet Union, this was the pinnacle of US diplomacy and power. Luckily Bush took the advice of the Saudis and didn't invade Iraq. Yet the episode it went into the head of a tiny cabal called the neoconservatives.

Next phase was worse: Now the time of "Dual Containment", containing both Iraq and Iran (both former allies, do take note of that!), might sound as the lowest, but it got worse, far worse. After 9/11 for totally invented reason (a nuclear program that didn't exist anymore) the neocons had their war in Iraq and the US attacked and occupied an Arab country, even if just having attacked and occupied another country (Afghanistan).

Next phase was worse: The US stayed in Iraq with a small force, which now could be attacked by Iran and Iranian proxies and the relationship with the Iraqi government, the one originally installed by the US, is bad. The as Syria fell into civil war, you have US troops there alongside Russian troops, who have their own agenda.

If you simply extrapolate from the above the future is bleak for the US. It will continue standing with it's special-relationship Israel and simply alienate it's former allies. So when will Egypt become a rogue state? Or if the Saudi kingdom falls? In the end likely Israel will be the last place where the US can be.

Then surely Israel will have strategic importance.

It is the left that has made culture and identity into an issue. It can be traced to Antonio Gramsci, up through the critical theory of the Frankfurt School and beyond. — Merkwurdichliebe

Actually this is a narrative that the right wing engaged in the Culture Wars promotes. Because "the Left" has no underlying master plan, no agents of the Frankfurt School that have taken their time to spread like cancer into the academia and then over into business sector. Remember that here you do have really leftist people who do know their Marx so one should listen to them.

Perhaps it's simple easier to sell the idea that some cabal of leftist thinkers thought that after the collapse of Marxism-Leninism that the way into power would be through culture and education. Far more difficult would it be to tell that American institutions, both in education and in business, are so scared shitless about being called racist that they make overtures from adapting ideologies to simply parroting nonsense close to the left. All in the name of keeping good public relations.

I think a lot more realistic would be to assume that the left simply takes the issues that the next new generation of leftists take to heart and simply and feed them the older leftist thought. This is possible because of the political amnesia and ignorance of history. Leftist ideas and policies that have failed in the past suddenly appear to be new and fresh! And why not? People in their 30's or younger have not lived when there was a Soviet Union, when Marxism-Leninism was the official religion of the true staunch leftist. The left simply waits for the next batch of angry youth to take the streets, be they protesting the WTO, police brutality or whatever woke matter there is.

I'm often struck by how the Right has a radical free market arm which doesn't seem to care what gets destroyed or sold in the process, and a somewhat separate conservative tradition, which seeks to venerate certain expressions of culture and tradition. — Tom Storm

Do note that technically conservatism can have various leanings as it refers to preserving traditional institutions, customs, and values. Now those values and institutions don't have to be right-wing.

Hence in curious way in the post-Soviet Russia the "left" and "right" wings of politics were changed from our point of the view the other way around with "leftists" being right wing and "the right" being the left. But it makes sense when you think that those wanting to preserve the "traditional institutions, customs, and values" were communists yearning back to the days of the Soviet Union!

The cultural left is concerned with identity politics, culture and sociology. Rorty warns that this latter group could fragment and atomise the left and to some extent become preoccupied with culture at the expense of economic and class based concerns. I tend to agree that the left has split into these two camps. — Tom Storm

I think the right has similar divisions: there are the classic conservatives who do value both free trade and classic liberal values, and then there is the right wanting to fight the culture wars and to engage in the identity humbug. Just as you have have populists on both on the right and left.

You basically can make the division between those that promote and love the polarization and then those old school people who care about getting things done.

You are right, it is all about election politics, nothing more. Support Israel, and your campaign will never want for lack of funds. It is all part of what has been detrimental to US politics for quite a while now. — Merkwurdichliebe

Starting from the Six Day War.

Before the US-Israeli relations were friendly, but basically normal as with two countries and France was Israel's biggest ally. But then came the astonishing Israeli victory in 1967. Back then it was Cold War realpolitik as the Soviet Union backed the Arab nationalists mainly in Egypt and Syria.

But now, as you say, it's all domestic American politics. That someone like Netanyahu knows well how to play.

The very idea of being self-critical of one’s OWN ideals seems a Western thing. — schopenhauer1

I would go further and say it is part of Western culture, not just something that seems to be Western. Of course being critical about one's own culture and society isn't solely a Western thing. Kemalism of Turkey is a prime example of a non-Western nations leaders understanding that the weakness they suffered against the West was their own fault and because of their own backwardness. Similarly the Japanese woke up by an American warship and had their Meiji-restauration. Yet the kind of perpetual criticism is quite Western: everything could be always better.

Hence some people are pissed off when leaders say that they defend Western democratic values yet introduce Apartheid type segregation with people living under different laws or just don't give a fuck about rights of individuals or existing international agreements.

Putin is at least honest when he makes a difference between the decadent (homosexual?) Western Europe and the pure traditionalist Russia. I myself consider Russian culture Western, but seems that Putin wants to make the difference with Russian culture being Eurasian.

If every war with massacres of civilians and attempts to displace populations was a genocide, than virtually every war is a genocide. Maybe they are in a sense, but then the term loses any value in international affairs. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Naturally the term "genocide" is used in excess and is a basic word of propaganda. However, how you fight wars does have differences:

Soviet war in Afghanistan (9 years): 525 000 - 2 000 000 civilian deaths, 7+ million displaced
US war in Afghanistan (19 years): 46 300 civilians killed

Do you see any difference in the amount of civilians killed? No? Or did both armies fight the war in the same way?

And of course you can refute that 46 000 civilians number, but the low estimate won't be over half a million. No amount of propaganda or media control will somehow erase the hundreds of thousands of not having been killed. Yet the difference in happened because of the way the war was fought. And why was the Soviet number so high? Here's one quote:

In order to separate the mujahideen from the local populations and eliminate their support, the Soviet army killed and drove off civilians, and used scorched earth tactics to prevent their return. They used booby traps, mines, and chemical substances throughout the country. The Soviet army indiscriminately killed combatants and noncombatants to ensure submission by the local populations. The provinces of Nangarhar, Ghazni, Lagham, Kunar, Zabul, Qandahar, Badakhshan, Lowgar, Paktia and Paktika witnessed extensive depopulation programmes by the Soviet forces.

Basically this was going back to the Roman tactic of making peace by making an artificial desert. If there are now peasants from whom the mujahideen can live off, there's no mujahideen. And even some ancient Roman's found this way of fighting immoral.

Hence the fact is that how you deal with 2,2 million people that of whom about 1 million are now displaced is going to be a key factor here. There simply isn't any way around it. Especially when there's no Armenia as there were for those Armenians living in Nagorno Karabakh to go for the Palestinians. Yes, in Nagorno Karabakh where just a little time ago a huge ethnic cleansing happened and nobody lifted a finger.

They are at fault in that they helped create Hamas and the situation they find themselves in, not because they are using military force to remove a hostile government that carried out an attack against their population. — Count Timothy von Icarus

In 1967 Israel decided to occupy more land because it could. And that's basically where the problems we have now started.

Why don't you look up the definition of genocide as agreed in the general assembly and get back to me so you can all eat crow?

Oh you know what, I'll save you the trouble:

On 11 December 1946 the General Assembly of the United Nations resolved that genocide was a crime under international law. This was approved and ratified as a Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide on 9 December 1948. The Convention defines genocide as:

‘any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

killing members of the group
causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

I emphasised the part that applies in this situation. So no, it's definitely not an exaggeration. — Benkei

Sorry that I've not responded to this earlier, @Benkei, as your argument ought to be discussed here.

I think there's quite enough of quotes of Israeli politician giving emotional outcries of revenge and demands to flatten all Gaza, that it's a evil City with human animals and questioning the innocence of all Palestinians in Gaza as they had not overthrown Hamas. The massacre on October 7th lead to this response. Obviously a chance to milk the justified outrage for the massacre to get a "free hand" on dealing with Hamas.



Yes, that is the kind of political rhetoric you need for a genocide. However, we have to remind ourselves that this kind of rhetoric is very typical in the Middle East. How many times have nearly all of the other participants have been involved in ranting to their own crowd the rhetoric of the destruction of Israel and throwing the Jews into the Sea? Yet these are the same people who have done that have been capable of making peace with Israel. Hence there is simply a lot of hot-heads and a ranting style of discourse in the Middle-East. Behind this discourse are still shrewd and logical politicians, even if they earlier called for the utter destruction of their enemies.

Yet I don't think the orders are for the IDF to perform genocide. However, with unrestrained bombing, a tiny area filled with over 2 million people totally dependent on outside logistics and incapable of fleeing the battle, this is very difficult. It can easily become so that nobody can refute you.

Hence here it's really about how Israel deals with the two million people of their open air prison, which is in a riot. If there's a prison riot, do you kill everybody and flatten the prison? Sounds easy, but then what you kill is also the rule of law.

Hence the real question is that if Israel continues to block supplies, doesn't anything on the survival of two million people, then pretty well it will play into the hands of Hamas. Bibi can easily make this error. As I mentioned with the example of the US Army, which itself really had no grudge against the Iraqi people (and basically was left to solve issues on the ground without it's incompetent politicians), it observed that it had to start humanitarian assistance to the people at the same time as the fighting was still going on in Fallujah. (Let's remember that actually the US Army did put down Al Qaeda and reached a solution in Iraq, again without any political direction from Washington, only then to leave and leave the place to the Shia government, which then lead to ISIS taking over the place.)

Perhaps if Bibi fucks up again and there is a huge death toll, well into the tens of thousands and perhaps even hundred thousand killed. Perhaps then, out of outside pressure, the post-Bibi government of Israel has to seriously consider a two-state solution.

Or at least give the picture of it being serious about the peace process at least a few years. Because in a few years the Western audience will have forgotten about Gaza. And then back to the policy of perpetual war and "mowing down the lawn" every once a decade.



About the rhetoric of Israeli politicians and the question of genocide commented on MSNBC:

Five factors, according to Zaluzhnyi, for Ukraine to progress significantly: air force, electronic warfare, counter-battery fire, dealing with the extensive minefields, reserves. — jorndoe

It's a great and honest acknowledgement from Zaluzhnyi that the tech now has put them back to the trenches of WW1. And this is totally logical. If you have a drone which sees the tanks approaching, thanks to fire control computers, you can give the firing solution in seconds, not in minutes, to the artillery system. The it takes a minute or something for the projectile to fire and hit the target. Or then to shoot a minefield into where the tanks are moving.

And if neither side has any way by electronic warfare to severe the link, then it really is as Zaluzhnyi said. Large formations of armour rolling the Ukrainian flatlands is extremely dangerous.

Interesting detail: Just one day prior to "Al Aqsa flood", a poll was taken on how popular Hamas actually was in Gaza. About 29% of people in Gaza supported Hamas while 44% had absolutely no trust in Hamas. And surprise, surprise, the vast majority were pissed off about corruption and the majority favoured a two-state solution. Of course, what a difference a day makes, when Gaza became the evil city thanks to Hamas.



And if 29% supported Hamas, that means, I guess, some hundreds of thousands for Bibi to do away with.

My idea is that Nathanyahu’s compulsive response will exhaust its impetus, the US will have the best opportunity for diplomatically pressing his ousting as well as a significant change in Israel political strategy toward the Palestinian issue. — neomac

I agree that the compulsive response will exhaust its impetus. Actually Joe Biden's advice was good on the failures that the US did in 9/11. The Hamas terrorist attack shouldn't be viewed as: Great! Now we can deal with every enemy we have because we will have the support of the traumatized population.

I don't think that the US has to do anything (and will do anything) about the internal Israeli politics. You see, this goes only one way: Israel influences US politics, not the other way around. If you say it does, please give me a concrete example. The only pressure what the US had was for Israel to disregard it's own fighter project, the IAI Lavi, and choose modern F-16s.

Bibi will likely fall. October 7th was a total disaster and political leadership will have to pay the price, just as Golda Meir later had to resign.

Right, Israel is a Western ally as much as Japan can be, through the strategic cooperation with the US, the leader of the Western alliance. — neomac

Please tell me, what just that "strategic cooperation" is in the case of Israel.

Japan aided the US in it's War on Terror. Japan sent roughly 5,500 GSDF troops to Iraq from January 2004 to July 2006 to provide medical aid, water and to help repair infrastructure in Samawah. No Japanese troops were killed or injured during the mission (they were actually protected themselves). But still, that's a contribution from a country from the other side of the World, which has similar problems like Germany to show it's military muscle (after WW2). And Japan is quite essential for the US when it poses against China. Plus the Japanese navy is actually quite large and competent. Without Japan all this talk about US pivoting to Asia (against China) is very difficult. That is strategic cooperation for me.

What has Israel contributed other than continuing on it's own objectives?

I don't recall Isreal and Bibi helping the US to defeat ISIS. Actually what I do remember is that islamists fighting Assad's forces who were wounded were helped by Israel: the islamists would simply leave the wounded on the Isreali side of the Golan Heights and Israeli soldiers would pick them up and take them to a hospital. Pretty honorable thing to do... but I'm not sure if they would have done the same for Syrian troops. In all, Israel and Bibi are just interested in themselves.

To which I would add: the geographic location of Israel (like the proximity to the Suez Canal and its strategic relevance for the traffic of oil, gas, commerce, the internet cables) — neomac

Umm... isn't the US and Egypt in good terms too? Wouldn't geopolitically the stability of Egypt be here more important? The Suez canal is in Egypt. Btw, those gas fields that Israel has aren't so important. And as Israeli is a very wealthy country, I guess it does have a lot of internet cables.

For many Western countries the issue of the current conflict is also linked to the presence of an angry Arab/Muslim community which is much larger than the Jewish community (in many European countries at least, not in the US). — neomac

That would actually be the least of their problems.

The perpetual war in the Middle East simply has had and will have a destabilizing effect and unlike the US, European countries will have to deal with the flow of refugees because the Israel and the Levant is in the Mediterranean and not on the Caribian Sea. What will Bibi afterwards with the 2,2 million Palestinians as Israel likely kill only some tens of thousands of them in this war? Or, Lebanon, which basically is now bankrupt and facing, has already 1,5 million refugees from Syria. Hence if the war escalates into Bibi vowing to destroy Hezbollah, Lebanon turning into a battlefield can cause huge amounts of refugee flight again.

Then the war can destabilize countries like Egypt and not Lebanon, that do have a peace agreement with Israel and does have a population that generally despises what Israel is doing. When Egypt had it's brief encounter with democracy, the only organized opposition group won, which wasn't actually so eager anymore to hold on to the peace agreement in all cases.

France and Germany had and may still have different views from the US on Ukraine, yet this didn’t prevent them from aligning with converging policies and/or narratives when needed. — neomac

Russia has attacked already two countries and wants to annex large parts of Ukraine. Russia is a threat to EU and NATO member states. It's quite different than a terrorist organization. Hence there is no similar unified response from the EU as there was in this case as there was in the case of Ukraine.

If we agree that a system of alliance is part of the survival kit of any state in the international arena — neomac

I'm sorry, is Israel an ally of NATO? Has Israel committed ever troops or assistance to help any other country than itself? Is it a member of EU? First and foremost, the US is an ally to Israel that is basically the only advance country which the US funds. Only time when foreign countries have gotten more is when a) US has invaded them or b) the Ukraine war.

AND a larger  alliance is better than a smaller alliance to the extent economic, political and security policies and capacities can converge to maximise efficacy in reaching desired outcomes, then Israel on its side has lots of economic, technological, military, intelligence, geographic and political assets that it’s definitely worth preserving as an ally. — neomac

As the interview I above posted, yes, lot of that 14 billion weapons aid will go to weapons development.

But why not then do this with the allies that actually come to help the US in it's wars? Why not for example the UK? Give them the aid to make new joint ventures on new weapon systems with the British! They would be very happy if the "special relationship" with the US really would be a special relationship. They have a sound, well function military industrial complex I think better than Israel. Especially after the disaster of Brexit, they need friends. The British have gone with you to into Afghanistan, into Iraq, defended Kuwait alongside the US. Israel has not. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to help and improve the armed forces of your ally that for example can help you all around the World (like with AUKUS), including in the Far East?

Why not the British? They are easier and less problematic than Bibi.


Oh but I forget: Israel's security and objectives are the objectives of the US. In that order. Because... Judeo-Christian heritage, because Israel is a democracy, etc.

Here's an interesting interview about an US State Department official, who resigned after how weapons are now shoved to Israel without any previously used supervision etc. The contrast to Ukraine is quite huge. But it's that Judeo-Christian heritage you have to defend!!! Biden is sending everything and the bathroom sink to help Israel.


What is telling that he has gotten a lot of support, but naturally nobody dares to say anything similar as fearing that they'll lose their job.

But the example does tell us that when it's not Israel, the US does think carefully what the impact of its arms will have (and this can be seen from some other conflicts).

I would like to formally retract anything that might be interpreted as a suggestion for Israel or Palestine towards a "solution". — flannel jesus

You can surely purpose a peaceful solution, but then I don't see that simply as being realistic.

I have no idea what a way forward would even look like. — flannel jesus

How about extrapolating the present history into the future?

Isreal will continue to "mow the lawn" once a decade, when a new generation of Palestinians make their own attempt of an intifada. And during the more peaceful times life is ordinary for Israelis, until that time to head to the bunker when the rockets fly comes every once in a while. And nothing will be done because there is no outside pressure the US is an ally of Israel and no Arab nation presents a real threat to it. And the far right in Israel can always say that any appeasement with the Palestinians have just made things worse.

Hence I think perpetual low-intensity conflict is what Israel thinks it has to do. And the religious zealots like Hamas and Hezbollah, they are just happy with this. They don't want normalization. Heck, people could get as unreligious as young Iranians are today. People who lose their loved ones can rejoice of having the honor of having lived with martyrs! Religious zealots prevail.

Curious, why is Abbas’ four year term 16 years? — schopenhauer1

They surely aren't a justice state, a democracy and rather corrupt, as people opted to vote in Gaza. But notice, that Hamas fought the PA and then took over Gaza. And yes,

Don’t get me wrong, consequentially, this is infinitely better, but your answer will reveal the contrary situation to what you imply in that response. — schopenhauer1

What do you think I imply as a response?

In my view there simply is not a peaceful, diplomatic, solution!

To think that there is now is a nice humane solution is living in a denial. Either side has no desire to appease the other side and make any solution, like going back to the pre-1967 borders.

Unlike European after WW1 (or WW2), people aren't fed up with the war.

And what did that get them? Slower genocide I suppose. — Benkei

I wouldn't call the Apartheid-system of control of the Israelis genocide, but clearly a state where every Palestinian understands that they don't have an own independent state. (No Russian soldiers checking my ID when drive to a different town from mine in Finland.)

In fact, many Palestinians might desire for the time there wasn't yet this "freedom" in the West Bank. Yes, there was a time when the Israeli officials were more lax about their Palestinians in their occupied territories.

The best thing Palestinians could do, as a group, is stand up against Hamas - make it clear that the people aren't looking for the destruction of Israel ("from the river to the sea"), and want to negotiate for a 2 state solution, one where Israel can feel confident Palestinians won't allow another Hamas to come to power. — flannel jesus

Ummm.... hasn't that the Palestine Authority already done that? :roll:

And oh yeah, now far less Palestinians are killed in West Bank than in Gaza.

I wondered what happened in 2010. Now I know

2011: Arab Spring Reaches Yemen — FreeEmotion

Yes.

And perhaps that Saudi-Arabia and it's allies have put a blockade on the Houthi controlled part of Yemen. Plus bombed them for years.

I think these professors/commentators/academics are much more BALANCED in their approach: — schopenhauer1

Glen Loury & John McWhorter are in my view the beacons of sanity, especially when it comes to race issues and academia in America. I always enjoyed listening to them. It just reminds me that American academia still can be totally sane, reasonable and objective. And speak the truth. Unlike we hear from all the "wokeness" going around.

Have to listen what the two professors say about this. What Coates tells us on the other hand is his personal experience, how he did feel when being in the occupied territories etc.

I wonder how they'll react when other actors in the region get involved in this conflict and start operating on the same principles. — Tzeentch

I think that the Houthis now attacking Israel shows quite clearly that they indeed are proxies to Iran. Which should have been obvious after they managed to sink a Saudi warship with an anti-shipping missile, which isn't the usual repertoire of a Yemeni faction.

Telling is that this country is one of the poorest in the World and has a genuine humanitarian crisis of it's own from which it is suffering. For example you rarely see the Per Capita of any nation plunge back fifty years. But in Yemen, you can!


So what better thing to do is to fire missiles and drones at Israel. :roll:

I thought they would never be the subject of comments on TPF because it is a main specific thing about the history of Spain. — javi2541997

Ah! Well, the gauches are the perfect example of how critically Westerners (here the Spanish) do look at their past actions. And notice, your friends are proud of their Gauche past. Not that they are proud of their present culture and language separate from Spanish.

So yes, there are those who have gaunche ancestry, but still, the people are quite assimilated to Spain. Obviously there are those who identify being and not Spanish, but for example the Gauche language seems to have disappeared. Which just shows how thorough the genocide and assimilation was. Now obviously Spain has an objective to help this culture etc. And why not.

It's not just Hamas. There's Hezbollah and Iran and a whoever else opposes Israel. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes, various non-state actors. But not Egypt. Not Jordania, Iraq, Saudi-Arabia etc.

I'm also not fond of the assumption that the Palestinians just are the native inhabitants of the land. — BitconnectCarlos

And I didn't say that! What I said that Hamas defeating the IDF is as remote as the Plain Indians defeating the US Army in the 19th Century. Jews have live their and Israel has every right to exist.

Prior to the Six Day war it was different. And prior Israel having a nuclear weapon, which the arsenal now is quite powerful.

What would the world be like if either group was in charge? One side would create a democracy that respects women and LGBTQ people, and the other would create an Islamic shithole patrolled by "morality police". — RogueAI

First and foremost: Israel exists. It's existence is never or has been ever in doubt since 1967.

Yes, Hamas can obviously make a successful terrorist attack when Bibi was concentrated in the West Bank and Israeli forces had lulled themselves to similar confidence as prior to Yom Kippur war. But that's it. Hamas, as you can see evidently now, cannot defeat the Israeli army.

Hence your whole argument is as crazy as asking what if the Native Americans would have pushed the United States to the sea and reconquered America. What kind of shithole America would be then ruled by Apaches and the bunch? It's simply as ludicrous as thinking that in the 19th Century the Plain Indians or any of the various could have defeated the whole US Army. They had good luck once when they faced such an incompetent commander as Custer. Well, the Palestinians have similar ability to push Israel to the Sea as did the Native Americans in pushing the US to the sea and sending the Europeans back to their own Continent.

Besides, you think all Arab states are shitholes? Is Jordania a shithole?

Actually it was Dersu Uzala and yes, it's an absolutely great film! I watched it in a movie theatre with my father as a child.

When I discovered that it was inspired in the Russian context and plot, it rang a bell to me... — javi2541997

Well, it did happen in the Siberia of Imperial Russia.

It's actually a movie where there's little political, but a great movie about friendship and about the wilderness. The simple thing is that Russian or even Japanese movies aren't so well known as Hollywood films in the West. Hence you often have a very popular foreign movie then being made "The America" version about it.

On the other hand, although I admit that Nazi Germany and Holocaust films are great - Schindler's List, for instance - it seems that they only focused on Jewish people, while the Holocaust also affected Socialists, homosexuals, gipsies, etc. I never heard of a film about the Holocaust in which these victims are also included. — javi2541997

Some victims get always more attention than others. Here one could quote the infamous comment that mr Hitler himself made about the Armenians and the Armenian genocide.

And have people done a film about the genocide that Circassians suffered? Or from the people that have been killed to extinction, like the Guanches of the Canary Islands (by who other than the Spanish)? Or simply have faded away when they have been assimilated and have lost their original identity. If there's nobody "promoting" or keeping up the memory of someone, then hardly will people find the time or interest to do a film about their plight. The memory of the Guanches are now basically upheld by Spanish who want to look critically at their own history:

They started to use their propaganda to brainwash the people. I bet we will see a lot of Hollywood films regarding this conflict too. — javi2541997

I guess they have a reason to that. But of course Hollywood will be there.

People living their life and caring of their children and elders, attending a music festival and overall enjoying life... until psychopathic terrorists come and try to kill everybody. And here you can be absolutely truthful, nearly making a documentary. That all happened.

And in truth, it would be as truthful as making a film about people living their hard life in Gaza and caring of their children and elders... until homes are bombed and an invasion is launched, even without the "knock" or the phonecall/text message "How are you doing? We'll bomb your home now." And here you can be absolutely truthful, nearly making a documentary. That all happened.

But will you put both stories on the same movie? Never.

That isn't allowed. Either you have to side with the Zionists or the Islamists. There has to be the good guys and the bad guys. As you couldn't condemn both.

And that is what disgusts me the most.

Maybe more likely is a continuation in the slow and uneven reduction in growth we've had since 2008, and then a gradual nosing downwards into contraction. But since the trend-line will be affected by one-off wars, pandemics, climate disasters - whatever - it won't be smooth. — Tim3003

Economy in the West has slowed. But I think here is that our debt-based monetary system is to blame. The problem is that the debt is not used for just investment, but for consumption. More debt simply won't simulate growth. And for example Japan has already gone over the tipping point: it simply cannot have high interest rates. Hence it has (or had to) let the Yen fall, because it cannot make any rate hikes.



Too much debt hinders economic growth and creates the so-called "zombies" and zombie-economy. This is a result of there been no limitations on just how much you can print money as we've been off from the gold standard (or the remnants of it) since the 1970's. In historical terms, this is a very short term, actually. Usually paper money experiments have failed in the past. Let's see how this 50-year old experiment will last.

agree too with what you say about the combination of many factors that affect this overall trend direction. But as there are so many, and they all trend downwards, doesn't that make this overall change seem more likely? Or are there other global indicators looking positive? — Tim3003

First of all: start to look at thing globally and don't concentrate on the US. That's the first thing people don't see.

Let's start from the really important indicators, that tell really something about improvements globally:



The above statistic, especially for Africa, but also for other continents cannot be anything else that extremely positive! It shows how life is actually improving in the poorest nations. This is no sign of a collapse. You simply cannot disregard the improvements that have happened in the last 20 years.

Of course, Americans can look at themselves and be pessimistic. As in the US the life expectancy is falling:

"American children are less likely to live to age 5 than children in other high-income countries," the authors write on the second page. It goes on: "Even Americans with healthy behaviors, for example, those who are not obese or do not smoke, appear to have higher disease rates than their peers in other countries."

The researchers catalog what they call the "U.S. health disadvantage" – the fact that living in America is worse for your health and makes you more likely to die younger than if you lived in another rich country like the U.K., Switzerland or Japan.

Yes, Americans eat more calories and lack universal access to health care. But there's also higher child poverty, racial segregation, social isolation, and more. Even the way cities are designed makes access to good food more difficult.

And btw, Americans use THE MOST MONEY on Health Care per Capita in the World per capita. Yes, people not in even in welfare heaven of Norway don't use as much on health care than Americans. But hey, health care companies and insurance companies are making profits!

When soldiers say they are "fighting World War I, just with drones and social media," I see why. — Count Timothy von Icarus

And I think the part that it's a landfill tell it's well.

But simply in the times of drones, ATGMs, instant artillery and good Ground Based Air Defence on both sides, it comes to very limited fighting. For large scale maneuvers simply would result into far heavier losses.

But I guess
The UN is an Israel-hating joke.
— RogueAI
:nerd: — Tzeentch

Yep. It has come to that.

That's why I also think that this war can easily now expand.

One of the great ironies of the 1948 war is that it was largely fought by the Israelis with Czech surplus Kar98k rifles donated by the Soviets, rifles which had been stamped with swastikas for their intended Nazi users (a dark premonition of the apartheid state perhaps?) — Count Timothy von Icarus

I am glad you brought this up. Wars are always proxy wars, it seems, which technically constitutes interference in the affairs of other nations, probably violating the UN Charter. — FreeEmotion

Notice in the actual war of Independence that total lack of any "special relationship" between US and Israel, no urging of the special "Judoe-Christian heritage" that makes the US the greatest ally of Israel and Israel a most important ally for the US. In fact the FBI was dying all it's best to prevent the new country from getting weapons!

And let's just remember that the most valuable outside assistance that Israel got, the nuclear weapons program, came from France. NOT the US. Israel has much to thank France in the years when it truly faced peril from it's neighbors.

2) Palestinians in Gaza in free elections in 2006 elected Hamas as their government. And I remember clearly being astonished that they had done so. — tim wood

And then PLO/PA and Hamas fought over control Gaza and there hasn't been any elections afterwards. That fighting part and then holding power without any elections is always forgotten. But I guess it's still extremely important to mention that Hamas did get a lot of votes (as people were tired of the PA).

Israel is actually considering ethnically cleansing Gaza at the top level, with US support. — Tzeentch

As that article states, it talks about getting assistance from Egypt. That's not happening. Hence this is irrelevant.

My point is that the huge changes of the past 20 years may mean that tipping point has now been reached. — Tim3003

I think it would be proper to list just what are those tipping points 2000-2020 that haven't been around earlier. And I presume that for what you have in mind there are already lengthy threads on this site. And when we look at them, each one specifically, then it gets difficult really to pinpoint it to now.

So I assume there's a) climate change, b) peak of natural resources and then political developments. (If you have other thoughts, please mention them). Collapse due to population growth has already been proven quite dubious: China's biggest problem is the shrinking workforce, not that it would have problems in feeding it's people. In the West the population size is already decreasing without immigration.

Let's take one example: peak conventional oil production (as it was then defined) peaked globally in 2006. This was quite in line with Hubbert's predictions in 1956, as he had gotten right about US oil production in the 1970's. But then again what wasn't anticipated was technological advances. Hence the real production (in green) is totally different from the foreceast.



And this is one of the crucial errors all assumptions of the evident collapse of societies due to shrinking natural resources don't take into consideration: as prices of scarce resources go higher, then alternative production methods and technologies become competitive and with competition and advances in technology, the prices of these alternatives become lower.

And as when the media is just talking about the two carrier groups to be positioned on the Mediterranean, one should note also this:

(Air & Space Forces Magazine Oct. 24, 2023) “What has happened in the last several days is efforts by Iran and Iran proxy forces to seek to escalate this conflict,” a senior defense official told reporters Oct. 23.

The addition of another multirole fighter squadron will “provide flexible options to coalition leaders directing air operations throughout the Middle East, including contingency response capabilities and deterrence mission,” according to a release from Air Forces Central (AFCENT). The exact location of the F-16s was not disclosed.

The F-16 Fighting Falcons are part of a broader package of forces that have deployed after Hamas’ attack on Israel. F-15Es from RAF Lakenheath, U.K., and A-10 Thunderbolt IIs from Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Ariz., have already arrived in the region to bolster the U.S. Air Force presence.

AFCENT now operates three F-16 squadrons, two A-10 squadrons, and an F-15E squadron “alongside several strategic airlift, aerial refueling, and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance platforms,” according to the release. U.S. officials are considering deploying additional military forces to the region.

If the US or the IDF will go and strike the Yemeni Houthis, then we will have the truly macabre war of US & Israel against the "Humanitarian Disasters". Which just shows how one sided this war is and will be.

Religious fantasies don't give them the right — flannel jesus

Being successful in war doesn't give it either, but you do get the land.


But then, you have to get the recognition of that from other sovereign states and those that lost. That's the difficult part of "getting the right".

There is no very high moral ground in the profession of killing. — Vera Mont

And yet the act of humaneness is especially needed the most in a war. The killing fields is especially where you shouldn't forget basic humanity, even if you have a task to do.

(A Navy corpsman helps an Iraqi soldier wounded by American gunfire in 2003.)

For perspective on the use of prisoners, Russia's pre invasion prison population was 420,000. Today it is just 266,000. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Quite incredible statistics, actually.

One of the influences here is that in Russia there was an emphasis on ethnic identities. — BC

When I visited Moscow during the second last year of the Soviet Union a lived with a Muscovite family, the father was Jewish and I remember his passport having as nationality Jewish. So that prevailed I think.

In my view, it's quite close that this conflict will enlargen. Iran is using it's proxies. It's like a creeping start.

My understanding is that it is of vital interest for the West to be committed to a system of alliance between countries that share the same standards and treat each other by the same standards. Israel is a valid ally in that sense. — neomac

I think that @Benkei and actually many others, including Western states do have questions if really Israel's standards are the same as ours. Many countries in the West don't see themselves as "allies" of either party.

I question the "vitality" of being an ally here, just as if Iran would be an "existential" threat to the West either.

Switzerland isn't an ally of us. Either the EU or NATO have absolutely no commitments to come into their help on some occasion (which, surrounded by EU member states, would be incredible). If the Swiss would suffer a terrorist attack, many countries would send help if needed. But becoming an "ally" is different.

Why not. It has to be some time. No defunct empire, no lost civilization thought their NOW had come. But it did. — Vera Mont

On the contrary.

The idea of "our society" having come to the climax and we've seen the swan song and from here it's just way down is an extremely popular idea! Very popular in the 1970's. Very popular in the 1980's (nuclear war!). And so on. And remember Der Untergang des Abendlandes, Oswald Spenglers famous book about the decline of the West?

That was published 100 years ago. So I guess we have had this "Winter of a Faustian civilization", fall of the West for a century now.

How long have especially Americans had the idea that now their once so great civilization is coming to an end? How long has every scifi-movie done depicted a future that is bleek, unruly with having the society with it's infrastructure having collapsed? Or collapsing. A wonderful film "Soylent Green" (made in 1974) was to happen in 2022. So, is NY like in that picture? We know, because 2022 was last year.

(In 1974, year 2022 was thought to be like this in NY, at least for those worried about ecology.)



(FYI, the population of New York Metro area is 18,9 million people. In 1974 it was 15,9 million. Here the film writers believed the 1970's very popular population crisis trope.)

Thinking that this is the best it will get and everything is downhill from here is an extremely popular, extremely long-standing idea that has been with us actually for Centuries now, if not longer. People find comfort in it. Ah, the decadent, failing West! Or decadent, failing humanity in general. Before it was because we weren't faithful enough to our religion, now it's a eco-disaster that will wipe out us.

Optimism just looks so naive and silly. And pessimism so deep and full of wisdom. The end is nigh.