My first question would be: do they consider themselves a citizen voluntarily and do they support their nation?

If the answer is yes, then they share responsibility.

If the answer is no, then they are not responsible. After all, one doesn't choose the nation one is born into, and if one is made part of something abhorrent through forces outside of their control, they cannot be held responsible.


In general I would argue that people are only responsible for their own actions, however our actions can contribute to or enable crimes by others, at which point we may share responsibility.


For example, countries wage war with taxpayer's money.

Do those taxpayers pay taxes because they support their nation, or do they pay taxes because if they don't the state will use violence against them in order to force compliance?

The answer likely differs from person to person, and therefore the question of responsibility differs from person to person.

Trump also supports genocide. — Mikie

Source?

Over the course of the conflict, I have pointed out various times that the Russian operations surrounding Kiev were probably not what they were made to seem in Western media.

Given what we know now about the negotiations that took place in March/April 2022 in Istanbul, further questionmarks arise.

However, in the Tucker Carlson interview, Putin addressed this and said the following on the topic of the negotiations:

My counterparts in France and Germany said, ”How can you imagine them signing a treaty with a gun to their heads? The troops should be pulled back from Kiev. ‘I said, ‘All right.’ We withdrew the troops from Kiev.

As soon as we pulled back our troops from Kiev, our Ukrainian negotiators immediately threw all our agreements reached in Istanbul into the bin and got prepared for a longstanding armed confrontation with the help of the United States and its satellites in Europe. — Vladimir Putin

Even though Putin clearly isn't a source that can be trusted at face value, this story is congruent with much of the factual information known to us, namely the intentional boycotting of the Istanbul negotiations by the West. Therefore I find Putin's story plausible.

It appears that not only did the West block negotiations, but that those negotiations were used in bad faith to get a concession out of the Russians which could be subsequently spun as a "great Ukrainian victory".


If this is true, and in my opinion it likely is, the clown car that is the European leadership is in a worse state than I thought.

Scholz and Macron spun a 'crafty' scheme at the expense of, first of all, the Ukrainians, and secondly at the expense of their own nations' welfare.

I'm not sure what these clowns were thinking, sacrificing all their diplomatic credibility and the chance of a peaceful settlement for the sake of spinning some meaningless propaganda. I bet they got headpats from Washington, though.

It begs the question, why is the West so disinterested in peace? Or dare I say, interested in prolonged war? Who benefits? Surely not the Europeans, so whose interests do Scholz and Macron represent? Uncle Sam's perhaps?

The full interview between Tucker Carlson and Vladimir Putin with English translation.

Carlson did a pretty professional job. It's also worth noting how remarkable it is that Putin is willing to sit down for a two-hour, non-scripted interview with a foreign journalist. I don't think many western leaders would be prepared to do that under today's circumstances.

Europe is militarizing in response to the conflict in Ukraine, and Russia is militarizing in response to the Europeans.

Recently western media, especially in Europe, is filled with high-ranking officers claiming that "there could be a war with Russia within the next five years".

Fearmongering at its worst.

It's hard to say whether these people are bought and paid for, or are really that short-sighted. I find both options equally likely.

It's completely nonsensical, since the Europeans themselves helped to facilitate war in Ukraine and forced Russia to expand their military operations by refusing negotiations and arming Ukraine to the teeth, even stripping their own militaries in the process!

If Europe wanted, it could stop dancing to Uncle Sam's tune tomorrow and have a negotiated settlement after which things could return roughly to normal. The fact they are not doing that, and choosing to warmonger instead, is picked up by the Russians and interpreted as a desire for conflict.

Europe truly has the most bone-headed leadership imaginable, but they play the role of Uncle Sam's stooges so, so well.

I don't agree with your assessment that the two state solution is dead. Or at least, we should make sure it isn't because the alternative will only happen when hell freezes over. I think the two state solution is the only solution the Palestinians are willing to accept and the one-state certainly is also out of the question for the Zionists. There's also the issue of the right to return, which would immediately cause non-Jews to outnumber Jews. I think that would even give non-zionist Jews pause.

The two state solution can be implemented IF the international community demands extensive resettlement of illegal settlers out of the West Bank. It would be consistent with international law instead of rewarding this genocide by slow displacement. — Benkei

I don't think removing the illegal settlers is realistic, and this is the main problem. We're talking literally hundreds of thousands, many of whom are religious fanatics, and many of whom are armed - and they have used force against the IDF in the past.

Previous instances where Israel had to remove settlers, like in the Sinai and Gaza, were notoriously difficult and much smaller in scale.

How would you suggest this could be done?

Just curious, is there other nations and leaders you also don’t approve of? — schopenhauer1

I have no problem with nations, but their leaders are almost exclusively a bunch of clowns. I'd have to think long and hard to find any nation that has a leader I do approve of.

aaannd we've entered into conspiracy theory territory. — BitconnectCarlos

Nice joke.

The Israeli newspapers have spoken openly about what they call the 'Netanyahu-Hamas Alliance', and how Netanyahu intentionally sought to get Rabin assassinated.

I think what we've entered is in fact 'head-in-sand' territory.

However, Netanyahu is right about de-radicalizing the Palestinians. — schopenhauer1

Netanyahu has no right to speak of deradicalizing anyone. He's a radical himself. Hamas is his baby. The murder of Yitzhak Rabin is his brain child. The death of Israel will be in large part his doing.

Boundless arrogance? — tim wood

Israel is the law — tim wood

:chin: Kind of making my point for me there, buddy.


But no, Israel is not 'the law'. As the occupier it cannot claim self-defense, and armed resistance against an occupation is legal under international law.

And of course, the idea that Israel has to resort to apartheid, ethnic cleansing, indiscriminate bombing, etc. to defend itself is a not a serious argument to begin with.

I think - putting it simply - that Hamas and the Palestinians are in control, and what they're getting and have is what they wanted, worked for, and got. — tim wood

A-ha. The people who have lived under a brutal occupation for half a century are in control? Genius.

The only control they have is the extent to which Israel has, through its own belligerence, manoeuvred itself into a position where there are no more good outcomes for Israel.

They're in control, because the only way a good outcome for Israel can be produced is for the Palestinians to magically disappear. (but it seems in the absence of miracles the current Israeli government has no qualms with "moving fate along".)

What a joke.


What about:

Give Palestinians equal rights. End the crimes against humanity.

Yes, I get that from your vantage point. Israel doesn't want to even be put in that position in the first place, and that is understandable from their viewpoint. — schopenhauer1

The options are only going to get worse (and eventually run out) if they continue to let the situation deteriorate. In my opinion, it is no longer understandable.

Many Israelis are now realising that Likud and Netanyahu have led Israel down a dead end.

People have always had a great ability to come up with 'valid' excuses to cling to the status quo. They might do so until the bitter end. But here's to hoping they won't.

At the end of the day the Jews in Israel do not want to dissolve their status as a Jewish state. — schopenhauer1

It probably should have thought of this before it settled the most hotly contested piece of real estate on the planet.

Again, 'valid' reasons a-plenty to cling to the status quo. People can do that until reality starts dictating the terms of change.

Personally, I am not very sensitive to this argument. If people want to cling to an identity when it means supporting policies of apartheid and ethnic cleansing then fuck those people. Adults need to step in and take the wheel, in the understanding that this simply cannot persist without inviting a reckoning of Biblical proportions.

The new Israeli identity will have to include Jews and Muslims. What alternatives are there?

Don't forget too, Europe is replete with bloody wars that has set the borders in place [...] — schopenhauer1

The problem is that, given the shifting geopolitical situation, Israel is not going to survive such a round of conflicts. It is a tiny nation amid a sea of historical enemies.

It would be really callous to take such a stance, in effect saying: "Just let history take its course once more."

Just curious. What if Israel completely withdrew to 67 borders said that Palestinians have a state now (whatever that entails), and the Palestinians in charge within a few weeks launch a campaign dividing Israel in half, launching missiles from the high ground in the West Bank, and starts to form a siege on all major Israeli cities. — schopenhauer1

If a hypothetical future state of Palestine were to attack Israel, then Israel could rightfully claim self-defense and if it were unable to protect itself call upon the international community to intervene on its behalf.


And I agree roughly with your post.

Whatever solution eventually is agreed upon, it would have to take place gradually and under supervision, and in dialogue with the rest of the region. As we've discussed, the most logical solution to my mind would not be a two-state, but a one-state solution: equal rights for all.

Israel's survival should not be taken as a given. Jews know very well that the unthinkable can happen [...] — BitconnectCarlos

This is certainly true, and Israel is doing just about everything it can to boycot it's own long-term prospects of peace and prosperity through its constant belligerence.

The problem is that during the last half century Israel has felt it could get away with anything due to Uncle Sam's unconditional support.

Religious ultranationalists (represented by Likud, for example) have foolishly attempted to seize this as an opportunity to turn Israel into a strictly Jewish nation state by force, despite the obvious problem of millions of non-Jews living on the territory it calls its own.

Furthermore, it has concluded that in order for that strictly Jewish state to survive, it must become the dominant player in the region and therefore cannot allow any other powerful states to spring up in the region.


They have evidently failed on both accounts, yet still they continue to double down on stupid by not using the little time Israel has left to find some form of rapprochement in the region.

Worse still, in their boundless arrogance Israel and the United States undermine the international rule of law, which is the very thing that could provide some protection to Israel when the tables are turned.


It's like watching someone jump off a cliff in slow motion.

[...] and the world will very much let it happen. — BitconnectCarlos

I'm sure at the end of the day many a victim card will be played, but how long hasn't the world been spurring Israel on to find solutions, and how many times has Israel refused?

One can lead a horse to water, but one cannot make it drink.

A while back I pointed out how, if you want a real example of looming fascism, one should look no further than our own backyard, Europe.

Today it seems European Union is becoming more and more authoritarian, now overtly threatening to sink the Hungarian economy if it refuses to back aid to Ukraine.

Brussels threatens to hit Hungary's economy if Viktor Orbán vetoes Ukraine aid (Financial Times)

Note the lack of respect for the rule of law, the sovereignty of Hungary, and the EU's willingness to strong-arm smaller nations into obedience.

The Duran did a good report on this, in which they also briefly touch on Donald Tusk whom I mentioned earlier in this thread as an example of looming fascism.

FT report, EU planning to destroy economy of Hungary (The Duran)

But how can this be? I thought this was a conspiracy theory!

Because you keep talking about Trump. :lol:

What I do know is that you have left out some key players that play an important role in determining what will happen. — Fooloso4

How will Trump influence whether Biden goes to war with Iran and its proxies or not?

You seem intent on linking escalation in the Middle-East to Trump, via the Israel lobby. Regardless of what I think of Trump, I don't think that's a serious argument. It's a bit cartoonish.

I mean, this could go the other way. If Biden doesn't do anything in the Middle East, Trump will use it as a case that he is the backchannel savior (ala Nixon during Vietnam). — schopenhauer1

The Biden administration is doing what Israel wants - giving Israel cart blanche, blocking Security Council resolutions and continuing to funnel weapons and ammunition to Israel, even circumventing Congress if it has to, etc.

The "pressure" the administration puts is not actual pressure at all. It's simply what Biden has to do to avoid looking like a complete stooge, and Israel understands this is how it works.

Trump seems to me very much against this type of 'final solution' business in the Middle-East, so I personally find it very hard to believe he would try to profile himself as an even greater Middle-East hawk.


Meanwhile, the Biden administration hasn't stopped pointing fingers at Iran since the Oct. 7th attacks, so there's probably a lot of people wondering why he hasn't gone to war with Iran yet. In for a penny, in for a pound.

Trump is anti anything that will not be to his benefit. Support of Israel is to his benefit when it comes to his base. — Fooloso4

No, that's too simple. Any American president has to "support" Israel. The question is what that support looks like.

It's not very likely Trump would support Israel in its current actions, simply because it would almost guarantee that the US will get embroiled in various wars in the Middle-East, and thus not serve Trump's isolationist views.

Israel/the lobby know that full well. They might use Trump, but the chance that they'll actually support him over Biden is very slim. But they will use Trump to pressure Biden for sure.

In fact, the Trump phenomenon may give the Biden administration room to get away with a lot, including another war in the Middle-East against Iran and/or its proxies.

The neocons no longer play a significant role in American politics. — Fooloso4

:brow: Disagreed. What do you think the US is doing in Ukraine?

If you do not understand the importance of the Religious Right you cannot give a plausible analysis of the part Israel plays. They are pro-Israel Zionists. — Fooloso4

Yes. The Israel lobby consists of various uncouth interest groups including Zionist Christians. I'm well-aware.

With the indiscriminate killing in Gaza Biden is well aware that support for Netanyahu's Israel may be working against him with liberal, moderate, and independent voters. — Fooloso4

The question is whether that will weigh heavier than the lobby's influence. But yes, Biden is obviously between a rock and a hard place in that regard - that's part of the aforementioned perfect storm.

First, your characterization of "a cynical plot" is markedly different from mine. I called it a perfect storm of perverse incentives, not a plot.

Next, you must understand that Trump is anti-establishment, and neither the neocons nor Israel (or the lobby) want him as president because of his isolationism. Of course these parties will happily use Trump to pressure Biden. Especially because the Israel lobby doesn't like Biden to begin with, so Trump isn't completely off the cards. Playing both sides is standard for these interest groups.

But Biden is clearly the easier one to control, and he's a neocon. Trump is a wild card and isolationist.

The Biden administration are the ones who gave Netanyahu cart blanche, and have been pointing fingers at Iran non-stop since the start of the conflict. Further, they've even circumvented congress to continue weapon sales to Israel, making the US complicit in Israel's crimes, which may very well be genocidal.

So it's clear Biden is trying to appease Israel, which may very well be what causes him to start this war - to cement support from the notoriously capricious lobby. If he acts like a stooge, the lobby will play him like a stooge and milk him for what he's worth.

If he refuses, the lobby will pressure him, quite possibly along with other interest groups who desire wider war, like the MIC, etc. And of course then the question is whether he caves or not. I think there's a good chance he does.

And in Israel, meanwhile...

Settlement Mega-event Calls for Jewish Return to Gaza

A third of Netanyahu's cabinet was present.

A very powerful talk by Chris Hedges. He pulls no punches.

Republicans — Fooloso4

Oh, sweet summer child.

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

I agree.

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

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

Well, they've managed for a good while, almost surrounded by hostiles/unfriendlies in superior numbers on the ground. (Though not exactly all as efficiently as Entebbe 1976.) Looking back, I kind of get the impression that they built out a (modern) society in a desert, however discriminatory/thefty. — jorndoe

Yes they have, but mostly on the basis of the supremacy of Western technology and doctrine. Today the power balance is different, and of course most important of all, the United States may be too occupied elsewhere to stage a large intervention in the case things go south.

Many of Israel's regional rivals are no longer militarily naive and backwards. They have figured out the American (and thus the Israeli) way of war, and have found ways to combat it, mostly through asymmetric warfare.

To put it in simple terms, if we compare Israel's population with that of its neighbors, we can only conclude that once those neighbors get even remotely competent Israel will stand no chance in a military engagement.

And the simple fact is that the negotiations didn't go further. The war continued. And now Putin is quite hopeful that he will win. This is just speculation as we didn't go that extra mile. — ssu

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

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

Of course there is reason to assume it can help Biden. Israel wants the US to go to war with Iran. Israel holds great sway in American domestic politics.

This isn't rocket science.

Yemen is also a possible candidate for the hail mary war.

Sure, why not.

Are you claiming that if not for an election we would not go to war against Iran? — Fooloso4

It's no secret that the neocons and Israel want the US to go to war with Iran. The MIC wants war, period - any war will do.

And Joe wants to get re-elected. Or, more accurate, the people who control Joe don't want Trump to be elected.

It's one of those perfect storms of perverse incentives brewing. A shit blizzard, if you will.

Is what Iran and its allies doing of no consequence? — Fooloso4

It might be of consequence, but going to war with Iran is another type of crazy. The US would get stuck in the worst quagmire thinkable, not to mention what it would do to the rest of the Middle-East, and it would dumpster what is left of the US empire in a single swoop.

This would only be a successful strategy if Congress approves the war. Does this mean that Congress wants to salvage his chances? — Fooloso4

I don't know who controls congress. Probably it's a melange of the worst lobbies imaginable, and thus war with Iran to save Biden's campaign is definitely in the cards.

If this is a winning strategy wouldn't Trump also advocate for war? — Fooloso4

Nah, Trump is running squarely against the neocon establishment with his isolationism. It was never really an option for him. Besides, why would they choose wild card Trump over puppet Joe?

While people are bickering over a border, I'm just waiting for Sleepy Joe to go to war with Iran and blow up the Middle-East to salvage his chances at this election. :lol:

In a sense we have reached a pivotal point here in the development of civilisation. Do we finally grow up and act as a global community to help these people out and build a stronger United Nations. Or do we fail again, remain divided, tribal, to sit by and watch the continual spread of failed states across the world. — Punshhh

I think there indeed was an opportunity for a real shift, but in my opinion that window has closed

The US during its 30 year period of hegemony simply continued its zero-sum politics, using the "rules-based order" to its advantage, and thereby completely destroying the legitimacy of said rules-based order.*

Now the counterbalancing powers (Russia, China, Iran, etc.) have thrown down the gauntlet and said: "If you're not going to follow the rules, neither will we."

Therefore I think that ship has sailed. The UN will continue to serve an important function as it has, but mostly as a reflection of state power and policy rather than a shaper of geopolitics.


*Note how the US/Israel are now attempting to delegitimize the UN as revenge for the ICJ ruling.

It would be very strange for the ICJ to demand a cease-fire for several reasons.


First, this is an interim ruling - not a definitive ruling. Basically the court has said that, based on the South African case, there is reason to believe Israel may be planning and/or perpetrating a genocide. Had the court felt there was no such indication, the case would have been dismissed.

Second, under the conditions of the Gaza war a decision for a cease-fire should be taken in the UN Security Council, even for so simple a reason as that the UN has no way to impose a cease-fire without overwhelming international support and agreement of the warring parties.

Third, calling for a cease-fire may call into question the court's impartiality.


I think the court was wise in its decision not to call for a cease-fire. The message that the Israeli government may indeed be harboring genocidal intentions towards Gaza is strong enough on its own.

But the first link doesn't give this kind of "smoking gun" argument: — ssu

There was already a lot evidence for the blocked negotiations in March/April, and this is simply another piece to add to that pile.

Chalyi doesn't mention who blocked the negotiations, or why. Probably because he will have to fear for his life is he says too much (notice that Arestovych is also afraid to talk about who did it). But we have plenty of evidence who it might have been from the various other sources.

If you're expecting definitive evidence, obviously that is never coming. That's simply not how these types of things work. Biden isn't going to give us a statement admitting to the United States' many crimes. States always ensure they have "plausible deniability". However, as the list of contrary evidence grows, the plausibility of said deniability continues to shrink.

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

Ultimately it's up to you whether you continue to give these states the benefit of the doubt. I choose to go where the evidence points.

It's impossible to say what is going on on the ground in Gaza currently, but I've been skeptical about Israel's chances of success, and prior to the the start of Israel's operation the military analysts I have heard were skeptical too. Today most seem in agreement that Israel has not yet managed to deliver a serious blow to Hamas.

But ultimately Hamas is a small fish, and Israel is in a no-win situation.

If it manages to crush Hamas, it's only a matter of time until another organisation takes its place.

Even if Israel does the unthinkable and ethnically cleanses Gaza, it will not solve its problems.

As I said, I'm not playing the game of who gets to claim the moral high ground.

It goes without saying that neither side deserves any prizes in that regard.

Then a decent respect for those rights ought call for the inclusion of some acknowledgement of them and the attacks on them. For the rest, I agree.

Edit: As to the VC and the Taliban, the VC do not belong in this group - a separate discussion. But in glossing over who and what they are - e.g., the Taliban - you implicitly excuse them. And excusing without cause is imo a great mistake. Aesop covered this in his fable of the frog and the scorpion crossing the river, and no doubt a story even older than that. — tim wood

Resistance movements are simply a result of an occupation. Their tactics are tried and true, and yes, brutal. Sadly, brutal are also the tactics of the occupier and this is certainly true for Israel's treatment of the Palestinians.

I'm not excusing anyone. I'm just not playing the game of who gets to claim the moral high ground. I think both sides have acted awfully, and at some point it is just a vicious cycle where there are no "good guys" and "bad guys" anymore. There are a lot of innocent people stuck in the cross-fire though.

But it is clear that Israel controls Greater Israel and millions of Palestinians live under Israeli occupation - not the other way around.

do the Israelis possess any right to be where they are? — tim wood

Of course. This has nothing to do with Israel's right to exist.

What I'm laying out is how Israel can continue to exist, or, if it stays on the road it is on, can cease to exist.

I like Israel, actually. I visited Israel, Jerusalem, the Golan Heights and the West Bank as part of an academic tour in 2019. It was very eye-opening, and despite the fact that I like the country, it was also clear to me that the situation there as it is now simply cannot persist.