The article is dry recitation of polling numbers, but the geopolitical implications of this shift are staggering.
For example, the Saudis have long relied on their alliance with the US for defense, allowing them to plow their prodigious oil wealth into vanity projects like ski resorts in the desert and 100-km-lomg skyscrapers. But if they feel they can't rely on the US anymore (and after the past month, can they?), they could easily invest in building their own nuclear weapons instead. Israel would obviously not tolerate this, but even they would likely hesitate to pick a fight with the one country in the region that can (and does) outspend them 2x on defence.
While I agree, nuclear weapons have their own drawbacks and unless you invest in the full triad, just having siloes may even make you more of a victim (that's their main function anyway).
What they can and have started to do is to make deals with partners like Ukraine to diversify their defense systems so they are independent from the USA.
As Iran has shown, you don't need nukes, just a means of cutting off, or at least severely restricting, the flow of oil. All Saudi needs to do is let the US and/or the world know that if they do/don't do X the taps turn off, as Iran has shown. That's a more powerful weapon than having a few sanctions-triggering bombs.
America has lost the entire world. Everyone has realized that they can't depend on the US as much as they did and are looking to distance themselves.
It's too bad, because the unity that we had before Trump was great for peace, but now the rule of the strong is plunging the world back into wars and uncertainty.
These conversations are always interesting. Most treat the world as a single variable problem when, in reality, it is an exceedingly complex multivariate problem. And the Arab world sure is responsible for a large number of variables to decipher reality from a simple article that ignores so much.
Others have mentioned China as a benevolent actor of sorts. I find this interesting, maybe even laughable. China is not interested in coming to the aid of anyone in the world. I am not saying this to criticize China. I believe this is purely a statement of fact: They don't do that.
If we pulled it forward to modern times, China, for example, would not put it all on the table and lose nearly 500K lives to save Europe in a world war. They exist for one thing, and one thing only: To do business that benefits their nation. And that's it.
Again, not being critical, just stating what I believe to be a fact. I can also say that I envy that focus to some extent. It's "China first" to an extreme level.
OK, so, if we accept my premise: Who in the world would come to the aid of societies in need?
Let's also agree that perfection does not and will note ever exist on this planet. So, insisting on perfect interventions, actions and outcomes is not rational. We are --humanity-- not perfect.
Well, the answer to this is simple. The only nation with the ability and the demonstrated willingness to risk life, limb and treasure is the US. The rest of the American continent cannot and has never taken this role. Europe has self-decimated over the decades in terms of these capabilities. So, they can't. Africa? Asia? Who's left? Nobody.
Without a doubt, the Arab world --or Middle East in general-- has been a complex neighborhood for quite some time. Yet, things have gotten massively worse when a country like Iran sponsors murderous terrorists in the region and --as confirmed by the current conflict-- makes it a point to build-up a Middle-East-Annihilation arsenal of missiles that could have almost no other purpose than to obliterate everything around them and even as far as Europe.
And then you add the potential for some of these missiles carrying nuclear warheads.
And then you add a regime that simply has not been a rational actor.
So, what do you do? Do you wait until they are a nuclear power? Just like we waited for Hitler to come to power and kill millions of Jews and others? How much slack do you give a regime who's publicly stated goals, for decades, have been the complete destruction of others?
Without a doubt, the actions of the last month or so have not been perfect. They will not be. That's just reality. For example, I don't understand how sinking their entire navy, destroying their air force, destroying their anti-aircraft capabilities, some 20,000 sorties and targets later...we still have to make a deal with them to keep Hormuz open.
How does that happen? Drones and missiles, of course. What is remarkable is that you'd think we would have mitigated that danger to the point where the international waters of the strait would no longer be threatened. I don't understand why stupid reporters never ask this question. Well, I answered it right there.
And yet, to go back to the thought: Who else but the US could have even approached setting Iran back far enough to make the neighborhood less of an issue? China? They would never. They have happily been selling Iran weapons hardware and know-how. They do not exist to benefit the rest of the world. China first. That's the policy.
Can anyone imagine just how far worse --horrific, really-- this would be if Iran had gone nuclear in the next few months or couple of years? This would truly be unimaginable. We've already seen that NATO does not seem to be willing to engage and might be largely useless.
So, while not perfect, at this point in time I believe that this is one of those "treating the cancer early" scenarios. Iran was on a straight path to being a nuclear nation run by deranged theocratic lunatics. This, while not ideal, not perfect, not desirable, not pretty, is likely a good thing. Now it has to end with the right outcome, whose minimum definition is to denuclearize Iran. From there, it would be nice to see the wonderful Iranian people get out from under the oppression they have been living under for so long. If you know any Iranians (we have many friends) you know they are actively rooting for the US to succeed and are thankful. Same with Venezuelans, BTW.
> Iran was on a straight path to being a nuclear nation run by deranged theocratic lunatics.
No, they were not. No more than Saddam was close to having WMDs. Your entire premise is based on Israeli lies.
> How much slack do you give a regime whose publicly stated goals, for decades, have been the complete destruction of others?
How about you answer what we are supposed to do with regimes whose actual actions over the last 80 years have been the destruction of others? I'm talking about the US and Israel, btw.
> If you know any Iranians (we have many friends) you know they are actively rooting for the US to succeed and are thankful
How many of them actually live in Iran? I'm sure the monarchists in LA love that the country is being leveled.
You do realize that the Iranian government (whatever remains of it) is actually insisting, as a condition, that their nuclear materials not be removed from the country?
Burden of proof lies on the accuser. There is no proof. Just the same Israeli lie that Iran is weeks away, for years and years.
Demanding the sovereignty to enrich nuclear materials for energy purposes does not mean they have or want nukes. They won't be able to have the triad anyway, so you can argue having a nuke would be a strategic misstep since they can't guarantee MAD anyway. Better to be able to utilize your large rocket arsenal to wage war and not have people think you are launching a first strike.
Stop trolling. You are speaking like the theocratic Iranian regime were saints building gardens and farms. C'mon. Who do you think you are fooling. They funded nearly all of the terrorism that has been causing so much mayhem in the Middle East and beyond. Now, if you are a Jew hater, so be it. There's nothing I can say to make you accept that Israel could not invent terrorists launching HUNDREDS of missiles into their territory. Yet, you are convinced that Iran is a good actor in world politics that was not within reach of something that could have launched us into and unthinkable version of WW3.
So be it. You are free to believe whatever you wish.
> Yeah, if you only subscribe to the US view of the world, then of course the US are the good guys.
Kindly show me where I said that "the US are the good guys".
There are no good guys in this crap. The world is a mess. And you cannot do any of this without things getting messy.
As for my opinion: As a US citizen, I would be perfectly fine with the US closing down all military bases in Europe and elsewhere. Bring it all home.
If Europe wants to defend their territory, they should do it themselves. The US funds somewhere around 70% of NATO. We should exit that thankless organization. Countries like Spain can face reality on their own. We can use the money at home. I don't know how much we spend on all the bases around the world. I'd shut them all down. Again, <insert country here> can invest their own citizen's taxes to defend themselves.
I'd say the same about the UN. We are spending billions to support that organization. Why? Let someone else host them, we'll gladly show up and vote.
In other words, if all the US has gained at an international level for what we have done, it's time to stop.
I don't have a problem with this at all. It isn't about being an isolationist. It's about what we are paying for and how we are being taken advantage of.
This is very similar with the situation we had with drugs. We pay for the R&D here and Europe (and others) enjoyed low drug prices because they did not have to pay for it. We subsidized low prices around the world. Now that is largely ending. Drug prices are going up around the world because we are no longer going to be taken advantage of in that domain. If you want the drugs we develop, pay your fair share of the R&D.
Is any of the above simple or perfect in concept and execution? No. Of course not. Name anything in international relations that is. Nobody can. It does not exist. But you certainly can try to do the right thing and end-up people hating you for it. Whereas those who do nothing don't have that problem. Funny how that works.
Drug companies pay for the trials, but most R&D is done in public institutions, and a big part in Europe (unless you count adding a piece of plastic to a ventoline cap to avoid loosing it a 'new drug', Europe public universities/labs are the sources of mire new drugs/molecule and techniques than anywhere else)
You have repeatedly stated you’d be happy for the US to shut its bases in Europe and pull their troops out, and stop funding NATO. Do you believe it should take the same stance with Israel? If not, why not?
I think it would be good for the world to see the reality of society around the world. So, yeah. Everything, everywhere at the same time.
Let's see Europe protect itself. Let's see the Middle East decide if they are a region that wants to support world terrorism or --on their own-- achieve peace. Let's see if China helps anybody.
I am perfectly comfortable with at least a one decade pullback. I see no reason for US citizens to subsidize countries all over the world to the tune of over $80 billion dollars and absolutely burn far more than that protecting Europe and others. Pull that back 100% and let's see what the world looks like. Invest that money internally on real infrastructure (not California bullshit projects that never get done), education, healthcare, housing and so many things we need far more than protecting the universe.
Yeah, I'd vote for that. I am sick un thankless nations always pointing a finger at the US. Let's eliminate that target and see how places like Spain and the UK and others do when they need help and we are busy watching it from across the ocean.
Nobody expects China to run the next protection racket. Because no matter how people try to whitewash, a protection racket is not something decent people (or countries) do.
Sure. Read my prior comment. We (the US) should pull out of every nation, NATO and stop funding the UN. If the world needs help, each nation can face it on their own or team-up on a case-by-case basis to deal with their issues.
I don't claim the US to be perfect. Not even close. Yet, we cover 70% of Europe's defense (likely more), fund the UN to the tune of billions, etc.
It's 2026. I think it's time for everyone who thinks the US is evil to just step back and be responsible for their own shit. Fine with me. I'd rather invest that money here for infrastructure, education, affordable housing, healthcare, etc. No more miliary bases outside the US. No more funding for NATO or the UN. No more subsidies for dozens of nations.
> Well, the answer to this is simple. The only nation with the ability and the demonstrated willingness to risk life, limb and treasure is the US. The rest of the American continent cannot and has never taken this role.
Canada would like a word.
US deaths in WW2: 420k
US population in 1940: 132000k
US death rate from WW2: 318/100k
Canada deaths in WW2: 43k
Canada population in 1940: 11300k
Canada death rate from WW2: 380/100k
US deaths in WW1: 117k
US population in 1918: 103000k
US death rate from WW2: 114/100k
Canada deaths in WW2: 66k
Canada population in 1918: 8100k
Canada death rate from WW2: 814/100k
More recently, in Afghanistan, Canada sent its military and incurred 0.5 deaths/100k population. The US military incurred deaths of 0.8 deaths/100k. US contractors took a hit of 1.2 deaths/100k.
The military death rates per 100k military members sent were 390/100k for Canada and 290/100k for the US.
In other words, the real cause of this shift is that Oct 7 showed that it is possible to beat America, and destroy Israel. The reaction in the entire Arab world? Immediately pile on!
In other words: this was a great PR win for (and by) hamas, showing that US/Israel, and the entire west CAN be beaten. And it was very much a PR win, in other words: it's false information. They didn't convince many Syrians, who had to directly deal with Iranian islamist actions directly. And in Lebanon, it's about equal, which I'm going to guess is not the opinion of all Lebanese. There's 2 groups of Lebanese: hezbollah (who number in the millions) that get paid by Iran's regime and everyone else, that get killed by hezbollah, and aren't very exited, to put it mildly, that hezbollah goes out to kill Syrians in Syria and Iraq and even Iranians in Iran.
The arab world is exited for this to happen. Arabs on top again! So ... this is not a failure by the (Biden or Trump 1) administration, and not a reaction to the deaths in this conflict. Also: not a chance in hell that this actually happens.
Also ... how dumb are these people? "Who is committed to upholding international law?" with China consistently scoring the highest? Really? The problems with US/EU/Israel in international law is that they don't uphold international law against other actors, only against themselves (e.g. they don't defend Sudan, except Israel, and then only a little bit). But China is actively committing warcrimes by the dozens.
"After Oct 7" realistically means "after Israel's reaction to Oct 7, and the US' tolerance of that reaction".
The IDF took a day to stop and repel Hamas' attack on October 7. The attack lasted painfully long, but after control was regained, the Israeli government could have chosen all kinds of long-term strategies to end the conflict with the Palestinians. Instead, they chose the most inhumane strategy possible.
As for the US and the West, a certain amount of ethical double-standards regarding the Palestinians and Israeli impunity was known to everyone, I think. But I imagine most people thought that the western support for Israeli treatment of Palestinians would have some kind of limit. The tolerance of bombardment and starvation until western citizens threatened general strikes showed everyone that there weren't any.
I think that was the big change that was caused by October 7.
Israel's reaction to Oct 7 came pretty damn late. Western protests were caused by Oct 7, by hamas' massacre, NOT by Israel's reaction. Let's face reality here: the biggest massacre of Jews since the holocaust, and WITHIN 2 DAYS masses of people were "protesting", but really muslims were celebrating the Oct 7 genocide with slogans like "gas the Jews", around the world. From Sydney to London, to Washington. More than a month before Israel did anything other than close the border.
The IDF took 12 days to stop the hamas attack, because the IDF did not immediately send forces (aside from 1 helicopter). You see, Iran's hamas attack was never anything more than a distraction, and Iran always meant for hamas to get slaughtered. The places they attacked, look at it on the map ... there's nowhere to go. Before you see anything remotely important there's dozens of kilometers of desert, without barely any shelter, no trees, no rivers, nothing, without any protection for their forces. They were always going to get slaughtered. Israel fortified Ashkelon, which hamas will need to take before anything will happen. Turns out, hamas was stopped halfway through Sderot, on the public square (look at the map to see just how bad a performance that is. They could literally have walked around it, and nothing would have stopped them. They did not. When facing actual forces, not civilians, hamas couldn't defeat a single police office. They attacked the office, the police officers retreated into the square, and every single hamas attacker that made it into the office died there)
The IDF was afraid (I should say preparing) for a real attack from Hezbollah, keeping their options open. The IDF was 100% correct in their assessment that Hezbollah would attack, over land, before any reaction against Gaza happened, in fact before a single day passed. The Hezbollah attack would come through forest, over mountains, where they might hold actual defensible positions, unlike what hamas did. And the hezbollah attack actually might have gotten support from Syria. It didn't, but that was at least vaguely realistic. So the decision to not immediately counterattack hamas was made. And, obviously, now not talked about anymore.
So no, the protest marches in the west occurred before the first move against Gaza.
Here's a timeline of events:
October 7, 2023 — Hamas and allied militants attacked southern Israel, crossing from Gaza and firing rockets. Israel said about 1,200 people were killed and around 250 were taken hostage. There were some Israeli airstrikes during the attack, but nothing more.
October 9, 2023 — Israel announces the border will stay closed for at least 2 months.
October 9, 2023 — Sydney: a pro-Palestinian protest took place outside the Sydney Opera House, just two days after the Hamas attack. There are accusations of the slogan "gas the Jews" shouted, again and again, at the Opera house and in front of the main synagogue of Sydney.
October 14, 2023 — One of the first big Western pro-Palestinian protests after October 7 took place in London, with thousands marching.
October 15, 2023 — Sydney: thousands joined a larger pro-Palestinian rally in Sydney.
October 21, 2023 — A much larger London march drew about 100,000 people, showing the protests had become mass demonstrations in Western capitals.
October 21, 2023 — Sydney: thousands more marched in Sydney again, after police concerns and legal disputes over approval.
October 22–26, 2023 — Israel carried out a series of limited ground raids into Gaza, including overnight operations and what Reuters described as its biggest raid so far on October 26.
> Hard to "end the conflict" when the other side has made your destruction its founding mission. Read the Hamas covenant. It doesn't distinguish between Zionists and Jews. It wants Jews gone.
I find it fascinating that so many people trot out the threat of genocide by a power utterly incapable of carrying it out as if it's worse than Israel actively committing genocide or if it somehow makes it justified.
I have no love for Hamas, but let's be real: most of what Hamas puts out is meaningless chest-thumping by an irrelevant power that wants to feel powerful within an apartheid state. It has been allowed to fester and has even been cultivated by the Israeli government at times so Hamas can act as the boogeyman which justifies all the evil shit the IDF and Israeli settlers do.
Ideally, Hamas should absolutely be removed, but the conditions in which the Israeli government puts Palestinians in guarantees another Hamas-like group would immediately spring up in its place. Israel should not get the free pass it does.
> I have no love for Hamas, but let's be real: most of what Hamas puts out is meaningless chest-thumping by an irrelevant power that wants to feel powerful within an apartheid state.
The October 7 attack on the other hand killed 12 Israelis per 100k population, which is a little over an order of magnitude more than the kill rate of the 9/11 attack on the US.
I don't think there is any country on Earth that would not respond to a 9/11 magnitude attack, let alone an attack that is 10x bigger per capita, with overwhelming force if they have the resources.
Not really, since it would be irrelevant to the point I was addressing which was the assertion that Hama are mostly just irrelevant chest thumpers that want to feel powerful.
What horrors others have inflicted on Gaza deserves plenty of discussion, but in a thread branch where it is relevant.
Fair point. But even then, having to retreat to relative calculations is not exactly the best argument. In absolute terms, Hamas was at no point able to destroy anytime outside of the Gaza envelope. The attack was horrible enough, but there was never a possibility that it would annihilate Israel, as much as Hamas would want that.
Roughly 3,000 Americans died September eleventh. Similar numbers of Americans die every month from the automobile, with enough deaths annually for a bonus thirteenth month
I've seen America declare a war on Terror, but I'm still waiting for the war on oversized cars and poor urban design
In other words, let me know when 3,000 deaths mean something to America as a whole
I like how those buzzwords are being thrown around casually: "Genocide", "Apartheid" ... It's hard to take your comments seriously.
There is no genocide in Gaza, a genocide is a systematic annhiliation of a whole people. Read the UN ICJ definition of genocide, intent is a major part of it:
>Under Article II, genocide means any of the following acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group"
If Israel wanted to conduct a genocide in gaza, i.e. had an "intent" - do you think it would have been a problem for it? Would it issue warnings before bombings? no.
The only intent here, is to destroy hamas. the rest - a direct consequence of how they fight from within hospitals and civilian population.
Second, "apartheid" - Israel has arab supreme judges and muslim parliament members, very very far from apartheid. Is it a perfect system? no. but no system is perfect, especially compared to the rest of the countries of the middle east.
Come on dude, there are enough, very public indicators that it indeed had that intent. The quotes from various government officials are well-known by now.
> Second, "apartheid" - Israel has arab supreme judges and muslim parliament members, very very far from apartheid
That term is in relation to Palestinians in the occupied territories, not in relation to Arab Israelis, and you know that.
> The only intent here, is to destroy hamas. the rest - a direct consequence of how they fight from within hospitals and civilian population.
That's why they're not letting in any shelter material more durable than a tent...
Quotes are not intents. If someone would have advocated for peace and acted in aggression you wouldn't call them peaceful. You judge by actions, rather than words. and the actions are far from pointing out any intent for a genocide.
Second, the occupied territories were Jordanian and Egyptian territories. Currently most of the territory is governed by the Palestinian Authority with Israeli security control. Palestinians have demonstrated very well that they are unable to prevent suicide bombings, stabbing, mass shootings, so Israel had no choice but to take care of the security itself. The purpose of the Oslo accords was to hand the control in the entire west bank to the Palestinians and establish a state in those territories. Right now, we are in a limbo state. This is not an apartheid, apartheid is a systemic racial separation in all levels of society.
And finally, again, everything that went into Gaza was used for one purpose - fight and destroy Israel. Where did they get all this concrete to build tunnels? Where did they get all the chemicals and metals to build rocket and rocket fuel?
If you explain first what "The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him" means, you know, in what is generally considered the constitution of Gaza. Could you please also expand on why this explicitly refers to Jews to be exterminated without limit, not Israeli.
Oh AND explain how this is not apartheid or racism: "The sale of Palestinian land to Jews is punishable by death" (part of the PLO laws)
For the sake of argument, let's concede that every point you make is 100% true, it's apartheid and racism.
How does that possibly make the act of keeping an ethnic minority of 1 million+ people with zero political agency confined in a walled-in ghetto that is routinely bombed into rubble, where the ability to import even basic humanitarian aid is entirely at the mercy of external security forces anything other than apartheid?
It would be much easier to make your argument without absurd contortions of logic if Israel actually agreed to a two state solution and gave Palestinians true political agency and right to self-determination. Then they could get away with washing their hands of any culpability, instead of vaguely pointing to the Palestinian Authority which both de jure and de facto is missing most of the attributes of an actual state. First and foremost being controlling a border, instead of Israel's "security control" granting the IDF complete freedom of movement and power to block any goods from entering/exiting the occupied territories.
The PA is closer to a city government with fewer powers than even a U.S. state, let alone an actual nation state. As long as that remains unchanged, Israel bears both legal and moral responsibility for the residents, and difficult to view the gross disparities between the rights of Israelis proper and those residing in the occupied areas as anything other than apartheid.
So here's where your argument first goes wrong: Israel agreed to a two state solution many times. You do realize that the very origin of hamas was as a reaction to the two state solution, after the agreement was agreed/signed? They started massacring Palestinians to prevent it, spoiling Bill Clinton's "I made peace in Israel" party. Remember?
But this generalizes. Since 1880 what eventually became the Israeli government has made a great many attempts to make peace. Between 45 BC and 1970 ironically "Palestine" referred to the Jewish government in a bunch areas, most now called Israel (before "Palestine" is was "Judaea" and "Samaria"), a term chosen by, of all people, Julius Caesar. He chose it specifically to insult the Jews living there. A fact that, while totally lost on everyone today, was not lost on the KGB's Egyptian spy with the name "Yasser Arafat". Everything about Palestinians, including the name of their supposed ethnicity, is chosen with the specific purpose of making whoever lives there the enemies of the Jews, and this was so chosen by the Soviet Union (yes, it wasn't yet dead at that time). It's crazy how many people the Israeli government made peace with. The Caliph al Islam (ie. the leader of the Ottoman empire). The King of England. The UN Security Council. US presidents. General secretaries of the Soviet Union. KGB spies calling themselves "president of Palestine". The list goes on and on and on and on.
All Israeli peace attempts were in fact rejected by Arabs, dozen of peace attempts by now. Even by islamic institutions when they still existed. Islamic institions in Jerusalem at one point went so far as to create new SS units to exterminate Jews. Yes, really, that SS. There's history here.
> How does that possibly make the act of keeping an ethnic minority of 1 million+ people with zero political agency confined in a walled-in ghetto
It doesn't, of course. The problem is that that's not what happened. What happened is that muslim leadership consistently chose and enforced this outcome for other muslims (not just in Israel, but equally in Sudan, Syria, Egypt, Lybia, Iran, to various extents. This is their standard way of operating). Then they blame the result ... on the Jews. That is partly what the war with Iran is about. On Syrian Sunnis, then on Alawites, now on Sunnis again. On Lybian families. And so on, it's not like they're changing tactics.
Another big wrong point: US states have a ridiculous amount of power, imho, far more power than a European nation state has these days.
> Another big wrong point: US states have a ridiculous amount of power, imho, far more power than a European nation state has these days.
A nation-state choosing to delegate power by treaty agreements does not mean they have lost the ability to exercise that power. Any state in the EU can withdraw at any time, as evidenced by Brexit.
Setting that aside, US states are prevented by the constitution from exercising control over trade or migration across their borders within the US, conducting independent foreign policy, issuing passports, are unrecognized by any other country, etc so that argument doesn't withstand the slightest scrutiny and is somewhat absurd. What they do have is an independent legal system and police powers that the federal government respects as settled law (with give and take on specific areas but still constrained by the judiciary).
Israel can and does override any action the PA may take at any time, once again on the basis of "security". There is very limited de jure autonomy and non-existent de facto autonomy. Much like how a state can override decisions a city makes, the difference still being that Israel again uses "security" as an ever present wildcard without judicial limitations that act as guardrails such as exist in US municipal governance.
> A nation-state choosing to delegate power by treaty agreements does not mean they have lost the ability to exercise that power. Any state in the EU can withdraw at any time, as evidenced by Brexit.
All I can say is that there is legal definitions about that, and to suggest you go read them. No, EU states cannot withdraw, just like US states cannot withdraw (the constitution forbids it, and some interpret the constitution as if it authorizes the US military to act against congress to prevent it. But even if you disagree with that, the constitution authorizes pretty extreme measures to prevent US states from withdrawing. More importantly, a US state would be immediately kicked out of the global financial system due to debts to the FED, which would decimate even California's economy in weeks or less, despite those debts being entirely fictional), and the UK violated a LOT of treaties withdrawing and it absolutely is not legally possible. They did it anyway for 3 reasons.
Why did the UK do it anyway? First, it was in the EU, but not in the Eurozone (and so did not owe massive debts to the ECB, and the ECB could not simply bankrupt UK banks on a whim like they did with Greek and Italian banks). Second, the EU does not have an army, and certainly not one authorized to act against member countries. Third, the really important core economies (France, formerly the UK, and Germany) have simply stopped respecting their own laws and treaties. A de-facto situation was created by the UK and the system just pretends everything is fine, like Europe always does. The EU was originally a conglomerate, a company, and so it has always worked to accept what states do, and they threaten countries with economic measures, with loan repayments, foreclosures, mass-layoffs, bank closures, that sort of thing. Countries do what they want and send a military squad "with clear instructions". If you want to see what a total disaster the UK withdrawal was (and is), go visit Northern Ireland and talk to a few people how and why goods are traded there.
You see, states make laws, but as is demonstrated every week these days, don't see their own actions as bound by laws, or treaties, or ... at all. And I don't just mean the US, or Iran but equally countries like Spain or France or ...
And yet you can find maps with arab villages all over present-day Israel that were completely erased. There were battles in the War of Independence (independence from what?) to take over the large cities like Jaffa and Haifa and expel the population. How did that happen if Israel was always so peace-seeking?
> Since 1880 what eventually became the Israeli government has made a great many attempts to make peace.
Yes, like the UN partition plan. Usually, if one party says "no", I'd think this would mean "we have to renegotiate and find another solution" and not "ok, then we can just take everything by force". But the rules seem to be different here.
> It doesn't, of course. The problem is that that's not what happened. What happened is that muslim leadership consistently chose and enforced this outcome for other muslims (not just in Israel, but equally in Sudan, Syria, Egypt, Lybia, Iran, to various extents. This is their standard way of operating). Then they blame the result ... on the Jews.
Last time I checked, it was the IDF who keeps up the blockade of Gaza and controls everything that goes in and out, not any kind of muslim army.
> And yet you can find maps with arab villages all over present-day Israel that were completely erased. There were battles in the War of Independence (independence from what?) ...
Independence from the British Empire that took over in an attempt to stop the wave of muslim genocides that started after WW1. Genocides on the Armenians. On the Kurds. On Jews. And so forth.
> How did that happen if Israel was always so peace-seeking?
Ah. Ok. The Palestinian government (this refers at this point in time to Jewish body under British colonial rule) made a deal with the British. They would deliver soldiers for England's wars and in trade they'd get independence. Same deal Australia made. Of course ... they delivered soldiers ... and independence, well, Britain said "no". VERY much the same deal as Australia. In fact, British soldiers started brutally repressing all independence movements, and that brutality led to more and more fights between islamic indepence movements, Jewish independence movements (famously "Irgun", "Haganah" and "Lehi". Irgun and Haganah are now the IDF, and Lehi ... was congratulated, thoroughly thanked for their performance in the war of independence and its outcome, and ... asked to leave. For good reason). Once these fights got really in gear, there's this little thing that happened in Europe involving Hitler, muslims helped the Nazis in hopes of stopping Jewish immigration to the middle east, but obviously that achieved the exact opposite of what they wanted. It resulted more Jewish immigration, a LOT more in fact, which led to yet more tensions. Even between Lehi and Jewish immigrants, but especially between islamic independence (and ... let's be honest, islamic genocide movements, the guys who had gotten to massacre so many peoples. Kurds, Armennians, Greeks, ... but were thoroughly unsatisfied with their mostly failed genocide on the Jews). However, under the circumstances, everyone still saw the British as their main enemy. However, the impossible happened: the British retreated and really just left. But this can be described as "put the Palestinian government in power". At this point, the tensions between Jewish independence movements and islamic ... let's charitably call them independence movements exploded (not that I claim Irgun or especially Lehi were ... afraid of a warcrime or two or ten. But the islamic ones were still WAY worse. In their defence, the convention of Geneve didn't exist yet). Obviously, as everyone knows, the Jews won. As reaction the surrounding Arab countries all attacked. The Jews won again. 20+ years of war. The Jews won again. The Palestinian government renamed itself "Israel" to undo the insult Julius Caesar made (full name "Eretz Israel"). In reaction, muslims attacked all Jews not living in Israel, which cause ANOTHER wave of Jewish immigration to Israel. Then the communists decided to attack the Jews (the hero of Chernobyl, Valery Legasov, got his position in the party, and his academic position, by removing Jewish students from the Kurchatov institute. He even makes a reference in his famous tapes that one of his actions to remove them, removing a doctorate thesis written by a Jewish student, has something to do with causing the accident. Not clear exactly what do). Which caused ANOTHER wave of Jewish immigration (including quite a few Russians, millions in fact, who were perfectly willing to pretend to be Jewish to escape communism, which of course turned out to be a very good decision). Much later the Iranian revolution happened, swearing to complete the genocide on the Jews ... which caused ANOTHER wave of Jewish immigration (not that large, but still)
At some point during this, Israel did the unthinkable. They almost uniformly chose the side of the US. It was thought ex-communist Russians would protest, but "strangely" to everybody who has not yet talked to some ex-Soviet people, these Russian immigrants had no objections to that at all. A lot of them have since served allied to the US military, some even in the US military directly. Most arabs chose the side of the Russians (the Soviets, then later the Russian Federation, you see, the nazis were unavailable after 1944). So the Soviets recruited 100 spies to create a "independence movement". One of them, with nom-de-guerre "The Wise Egyptian" succeeded. Better known with his name shortened, in Arabic: "Yasser Arafat (el-Masri)", who chose the name for his "resistance movement": PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization). Strangely, they did not really see Israel as their enemy, rather the US. Strange that. Communist-funded. See US as their enemy. But to do that, they started massacring Jews, killed some teams the Olympics, and managed to survive a few IDF attacks. So they got a state from the UN, in trade for normalizing relations. Then, surprisingly a group of religious zealots got enough support, and especially weapons, not from Netanyahu, but from leftists (they still use communist-designed weapons, their famous rocket is named "Katushya", Russian for "little girl", the title of a famous Russian folk song, and their weapons are still mostly Kalashnikov rifles), and spoiled Clinton's big "peace in the middle east" moment. You see, Palestinians (and Hezbollah, and the Houthi's) are paid, mostly by the UN, to attack Jews. The amounts are staggering, and ... Israel taxes this money. That represents ... 1/8th of Israel's economy.
And here we are.
And despite all this, leftist parties do not see any of what happened as their fault. They blame Jews for refusing to get killed (and obviously, the problem Moscow really has with Israel, even today, is that Israel makes access to oil possible for the west. It is not lost on Russia that all the losing parties of WW2 (Germany, Japan, Turkey) lacked access to oil, and all the winning parties (US, Russia) had all the oil they could want.
The goal of paying hamas and the PLO these absurd amounts of money, is to deny the West access to oil. Which is why Russia has not (yet) turned on Iran. Iran is still blocking western access to oil. It's coming, though. It's the mullahs only way out, the only way to keep their kids in American universities and keep their mansions in central London and New York (did you know that's what allah commands? Mansions in central London. Villas in New York. Raise your kids in American, Christian, universities. Most of the daughters are not wearing veils. And by "not wearing veils" I mean "posting bikini shots on Instagram", and apparently several sons do the same with alcohol parties, even some in Iran itself. In case anyone is still wondering why the Mossad is so incredibly successful at recruiting Iranians and where they contact and recruit operatives, I hope this explains that matter). I have actually read the quran, but I must have somehow missed the part about the expensive villas). So I expect the mullahs to chose western money (sorry I mean "peace") which will suck for Iranians (no peace for them, of course it's not like Russia is offering them peace either), but will suck a LOT more for Russia, socialists (yes, really), and the UN.
You judge whether this all makes the world more, or less peaceful. All sides have behaved despicably, though again, there is no comparison and the islamic movements have behaved a LOT worse. And the only thing communists/socialists/UN have planned for Palestinians is eradicating them (just ask a few Afghans) ... just not quite yet.
> Last time I checked, it was the IDF who keeps up the blockade of Gaza and controls everything that goes in and out, not any kind of muslim army.
You need to get your eyes examined and look to the South and the East. It is in fact muslim armies blockading both Gaza and the west bank.
We can agree that Hamas is bad - but Israel doesn't seem to make any difference between Hamas and the rest of the Palestinians. In fact, if I hear pro-Israel people talk, my impression is that there exists only Israel and Hamas - the latter the pure embodiment of evil - and nothing else. Are all 2 million Gazans Hamas?
Israel also doesn't give any indication what would happen to Gaza (and the Gazans) once Hamas is gone.
What about olive farmers in the West Bank that get their groves torched by settlers? What about people who are running modern universities in Ramallah or opening galleries and cinemas? (until the IDF raids them?)
What about Palestinians who are active in Combatants for Peace or Standing Together?
> Oh AND explain how this is not apartheid or racism: "The sale of Palestinian land to Jews is punishable by death" (part of the PLO laws)
Ah yeah, like the "anti-white racism" in South Africa. The Israeli "civil administration" and the IDF have full control about land use in the West Bank. They can and do just grab areas that belong to Palestinians and declare them as "state land" or "military restricted areas", until mysteriously some settlement outpost pops up on them. Palestinians have no hope of ever getting that land back and have no other land to go to. The same is (in the West Bank) not true for Israelis.
> It doesn't distinguish between Zionists and Jews
Almost like the only Jews they know are zionists. Finkelstein had a good response to some zionist going on about the Houthi slogan. He talks about how his parents (victims of the holocaust) hated germans. Not nazis, but germans. Why? Because the only germans they knew were Nazis.
So, yeah, the rhetoric would be better if it was nuanced and toned down. But how about we take the boot off their throats first so they can get around to that?
> If Hamas were to disarm, the war would stop and everyone could go on with their lives.
You're basically looking down at the founders of Hamas, saying something like: "Now, now... you didn't actually know what you were talking about, you meant zionists, not jews"
I give them the credit that they knew exactly what they were talking about in this document. Those guys are intelligent, well educated people. And, this document is the US constitution equivalent of Hamas, every word was chosen carefully and meticoulsly.
But, let's say you're right and they had a misspell. Is zionism punishable by death? is this what we have come down to? Believing that jews deserve a country of their own means the death penalty?
Great straw man. That is not it at all. It is the simple acknowledgment that Palestinians have only known violence and suffering at the hands of people who are Jewish. That those jews are motivated by a specific ideology isn't the type of nuance a people who are struggling to survive will have. Do I wish things would be better and that jews were not viewed that way? Of course. But that is up to the zionists.
Zionists who are, at this very moment, doing mass violence against the Lebanese. Which will only perpetuate this cycle. Which lets people like you argue its okay when Israel does its next land grab, cause every hates them in the region so they need to for security. Rinse and repeat until Greater Israel is complete.
> Is zionism punishable by death?
This is poor framing. Zionism on its own is a crappy ideology, but that is just one among thousands.
When you are using it as justification for an ethnostate that has their own version of lebensraum and actively works to ethically cleanse the people of a specific group who live there: then yes, you should expect violent resistance and people wanting to kill you. Its no surprise the other ideologies with this blood and soil framing that used violence also had people wanting to kill them.
For example, the Saudis have long relied on their alliance with the US for defense, allowing them to plow their prodigious oil wealth into vanity projects like ski resorts in the desert and 100-km-lomg skyscrapers. But if they feel they can't rely on the US anymore (and after the past month, can they?), they could easily invest in building their own nuclear weapons instead. Israel would obviously not tolerate this, but even they would likely hesitate to pick a fight with the one country in the region that can (and does) outspend them 2x on defence.
reply