anti-Jew/Israeli anti-Semitism of the Middle-East runs deep — tim wood

Ah, and Israeli war crimes, mass slaughter and crimes against humanity somehow changes that situation for the better?

And here I was, thinking that would make the situation much, much worse.

The likely reason is just why Kuwait wasn't going to be let to be annexed by Iraq. — ssu

Kuwait is not a great example to make your point. The Gulf War(s) were exactly the type of wars that were made possible by the unnatural state of unipolarity. They took place during the peak, in fact.

Today it would be unthinkable for the US to let itself get bogged down in a (ground) war in the Middle-East.

Firstly because the actors in the Middle-East are, relatively speaking, much more powerful than they were 30 years ago,
and secondly because the enemies of the US are much more powerful and ready to profit off the fact that the US would be bogging itself down in another war.

This is why the US can't commit, for example to Ukraine, or to a war with Iran. They would be playing directly into the hands of the Chinese if they were to do that.

What I hope we can agree on is that if the US truly withdraws from the region, there will be a reshuffling of the cards certainly. That vacuum creates by itself a little whirlpools automatically. In fact, some could argue that whirlpool has already started as the US allies don't toe the line in similar fashion with the US as earlier. — ssu

I'm not sure what the significance is of this, but sure with this I can agree.

What a sad attempt at a smear.

Is there apartheid in Israel, little man?

There is no apartheid. — BitconnectCarlos

Oh, is that so? Then why are Israeli newspapers full of it?

For Decades, I Defended Israel From Claims of Apartheid. I No Longer Can

Why is the Israeli human rights organisation B'Tselem calling it apartheid?

Apartheid

Why is the UN calling it apartheid?

Israel’s occupation of Palestinian Territory is ‘apartheid’: UN rights expert

Why is Amnesty International calling it apartheid?

Israel’s apartheid against Palestinians: a cruel system of domination and a crime against humanity

Why is Human Rights Watch calling it apartheid?

A Threshold Crossed: Israeli Authorities and the Crimes of Apartheid and Persecution

______________________





It brings some hope, at least, that there are some Israelis more sensible than you. But for you little hope is left, it seems.

Educate yourself. You literally have no idea.

I just don't see how targeted bombings constitute crimes against humanity. — BitconnectCarlos

Apartheid is a crime against humanity.

Indiscriminate bombing is a different matter. It is a war crime. On the scale Israel is bombing, it could be considered (a part of) an act of genocide, which is what Israel is currently being investigated for.


Again, these apologetics are just... sad.

If you cannot distinguish between oppressor and oppressed - between VC and imperialist USA - between the Polish resistance and the Nazi occupier, etc. there's no point in conversation.

You need to have your "Are we the baddies?" moment, I suppose. Might take a while.

Anyway, like I said:

Every sane person can see this, and various apologists in this thread are simply digging foxholes for themselves out of unwillingness to admit it.

Their views can safely be disregarded as having fallen victim to a lapse of insanity, brought about by relentless propaganda, herd mentality and cheerleader-syndrome.

I find it hard to imagine such people making a meaningful contribution to a moral discussion, other than serving as an example of how humans can go wrong. — Tzeentch

No point in discussing with children.

Do you need a history lesson on the Polish resistance? You think the tit-for-tat wasn't absolutely brutal?

Or what about the Viet Cong? They skinned American soldiers alive. How do you like that for brutality?

You think Israel is somehow special in this? That this somehow justifies its crimes?

Israel is just another country on a long list of countries which have resorted to crimes against humanity in order to try and subdue an occupied population, and used their resistance as an excuse to do it.

I could claim that Palestinian SS abducted that shepherd boy. I could say that Palestinian SS murder Israeli settlers. Every single Hamas rocket fired at Israel is a war crime. — BitconnectCarlos

Oh sure, and I could claim that the Polish resistance fighters who carried out the Warsaw Uprising were terrorists and criminals.

I could do that if I wanted to make a total ass of myself, kind of like what you're doing right now.

You see only black and white. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes, yes. That means an awful lot coming from someone who is spinning apologetics for crimes against humanity.

Small countries do exist everywhere. — ssu

These little states would, under non-unipolar circumstances, simply be gobbled up by the real contenders for regional hegemony (Saudi-Arabia and Iran). — Tzeentch

Note the underlined key word.

And sure, you could come up with an elaborate theory as to why Luxembourg won't be gobbled up. Maybe you'll be proven right, maybe you'll be proven wrong. Again, if that's how you would like to spend your time, I'm not stopping you.

Clearly there are some smallish nations that exist throughout the centuries, but I see no reason why that would be the case for the Gulf States when they are surrounded by two vastly larger states, and sitting on immensely valuable strategic resources.

They have no strategic advantages to speak of. They're completely vulnerable when it becomes clear the international "rules-based" order can no longer be upheld.

There's no unavoidability or destiny of there forming some Pan-Arabist / Islamic Caliphate / other regional hegemon in the Middle East. — ssu

History has followed that pattern multiple times over, so there is a clear historical trend that points in this direction - that doesn't make it a certainty, sure.

It's just that in recent times, US hegemony/'divide et impera' has prevented this pattern from repeating. Such (in geopolitical terms) "unnatural" situations cannot subsist for very long and indeed they are nearing their end as we speak.

Let's take for example the UAE. — ssu

Sure. The United Arab Emirates has a population of 9.5 million people. Saudi-Arabia has a population of over three times that number. Iran has a population of nearly ten times that number.

In the long run, the UAE would stand no chance whatsoever, just like how Ukraine never stood a chance against Russia.

Yes, history might produce flukes and outliers here and there, but those tend to postpone the inevitable when the numbers are so skewed.

And it should be noted I am talking about long-term trends, potentials, etc. - and no, I don't pretend such theories are correct 100% of the time.

Yet for example the tiny UAE has a larger GDP than Iran. It's population isn't growing, it's economy isn't booming and it's hard to believe a theocracy would see an economic miracle somehow. Although the government tries to promote science and technology. It has aspirations to be a Great Power, that is for sure. Especially in the 1970's many predicted Iran to become this kind of great power, but it wasn't to be so. — ssu

What can I say? If I need to explain to you why a country with 9,5 million people has an insigificant chance of becoming a regional player (in non-unipolar circumstances) compared to a country with 88 million, then indeed a lot of explaining is required and I can't be bothered frankly.

The bottomline is, geopolitics is about potential (and population matters a great deal in determining said potential). This is why Israel is worried about Iran, and not about UAE.

Maybe take your case to the Knesset? :joke:

It's far more about the US wanting to build this picture of an anti-US axis. For example, there's no alliance between China and Russia. — ssu

Surely you see the manner in which China, Russia and Iran are working in unison to strain the US empire?

I'm usually pretty cynical about US intentions, but in this case I would have to be rather blind not to acknowledge that it is indeed being challenged by a form of coalition.

they recently abducted and stoned to death a 14 year shepherd boy among others. — BitconnectCarlos

Of course, anything to excuse genocide.

As I said:

Every sane person can see this, and various apologists in this thread are simply digging foxholes for themselves out of unwillingness to admit it.

Their views can safely be disregarded as having fallen victim to a lapse of insanity, brought about by relentless propaganda, herd mentality and cheerleader-syndrome.

I find it hard to imagine such people making a meaningful contribution to a moral discussion, other than serving as an example of how humans can go wrong. — Tzeentch

At this point, Bibi is probably hoping his "Einsatzgruppen" - ergo, violent ultranationalist settlers (or maybe SS divisions is a more apt comparison?) - will do the dirty work for him in the West Bank:

‘Nowhere is safe’: Fear and mourning inside the West Bank villages where Israeli settlers went on the rampage

Speaks for itself.

As for Amalek, Netanyahu called Hamas Amalek [...] — BitconnectCarlos

That's not how that Old Testament reference works, unfortunately:

Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. — Samual 1 15:3

It's clearly a call to destroy not just Hamas, but everything, including women, infants and suckllings, and all their lifestock.

There are no multiple ways of interpreting this passage. This is a thinly-veiled call for genocide.

You would do well to condemn it for what it is.

Oh yes it is. We are on the side of truth, and they are the enemy. — unenlightened

Well, I would consider people who deliberately use propaganda and censorship to pursue their goals at the expense of others to be the enemy of reason and all things good - this much is true. It turns out there are a lot of such "enemies" out there.

Do you see things otherwise?

Well...it would go back to the British Empire, actually. — ssu

The British haven't played a role of any significance for decades.

They do what the Americans want them to do, and in return they get to play pretend.

The current status quo is the product of the US Empire, even if meddling by foreign powers happened long before the US got in control.

And anyway, I'm not exited about calling various states as "artificial". — ssu

Artificial in the geopolitical sense, of course. These little states would, under non-unipolar circumstances, simply be gobbled up by the real contenders for regional hegemony (Saudi-Arabia and Iran). However, during unipolarity they are used by the unipole, the US, to deny strategic resources/territory from the would-be regional players.

I'd argue that Ukraine isn't artificial in the same sense, because both neighboring great powers agreed upon its role as neutral buffer until 2008, so its status as a neutral state gave Ukraine a geopolitical reason for existence. That of course started to change in 2008.

And these tiny nations, like Qatar and UAE, have been quite active on the international stage. — ssu

If you want to spend your time analyzing the actions of these states in the belief they're significant, be my guest. Personally, I think that's a waste of time.

We have small countries all over the world — ssu

Well, the world has been living under US-led unipolarity, and the pattern I have just described is visible in many places across the world.

Furthermore, please explain just why Iran would become such a hegemon. — ssu

It's the largest player in its neck of the woods, sits on a geographically and geopolitically vital area with lots of natural resources, controls half of the Persian Gulf, it has powerful allies (it's actually of gigantic economic importance to China), etc. - I could go on but I'm not going to write an essay explaining this.

What's perhaps interesting to note is the fact that US/Israeli policy vis-à-vis the Middle-East has left a gigantic power vacuum, especially in Iraq, which Iran is gearing up to fill.

This is what the US/Israel have been trying to avoid - a rising Iran, and their foolish policies have achieved just that.

You think the US and Israel would be willing to go to war against Iran if Iran wasn't threatening to become a large regional player?

The proof is in the pudding.

Great Powers, or Superpowers, are only thing important, right? — ssu

Their influence on world affairs is simply orders of magnitude above the other, smaller countries. Like I said, if you want to analyze the intricate inner workings of Luxembourg to figure out its geopolitical significance, be my guest. I think that's a waste of time.

What is likely that Middle East will be still quite volatile and prone to wars even if the US withdraws from the place. — ssu

Of course, because the US/Israel have been disrupting the natural way the region should have developed, because the natural way of things trends towards conglomeration, which would in turn create regional hegemons which could have been a threat to the US/Israel.

They have created a giant reservoir of shit, by sowing chaos, creating artificial states, trying to stop states from developing, etc. and now that US power is waning, that dam is going to break.

Oh yea, it's going to be one giant mess - a mess Iran will probably be able to profit from in the long run. And a mess that might spell the end of Israel.

You understand that at this point I'm basically spelling out why US/Israeli policy is what it is, right?

Pay attention to the intentions and carefulness. — Mikie

They're not even that careful about stating their intentions.

About their desire to ethnically cleanse Gaza they are completely open. They don't even try to hide it. Same goes for their perception of the Palestinians as animals.

Israeli officials have come out publicly and stated these things.

Netanyahu himself called the Palestinians 'Amalek', which is an Old Testament reference to the Amalekites who were murdered specifically to the last woman, child and ox by the Israelites. He's flirting with genocide publicly.

At least the Nazis tried to hide their deeds, showing that on some level they felt shame and realized their own moral depravity.


Every sane person can see this, and various apologists in this thread are simply digging foxholes for themselves out of unwillingness to admit it.

Their views can safely be disregarded as having fallen victim to a lapse of insanity, brought about by relentless propaganda, herd mentality and cheerleader-syndrome.

I find it hard to imagine such people making a meaningful contribution to a moral discussion, other than serving as an example of how humans can go wrong.

The question we need to be asking ourselves is, should institutions funded by wealthy billionaires with agendas be put in charge of deciding what is disinformation and what is not? Because currently, they are. And, as the video shows, they are using it actively to promote their own views and suppress others - propaganda and censorship, pure and simple.

This isn't about taking sides. This is about the degree to which the information landscape is being poisoned by all sides, including the ones at the top with the most power; and those seem to be the ones getting away with it, because many people still subconsciously treat those sources as authoritative.

If this 'Global Disinformation Index' business doesn't scream 1984, I don't know what does.

To my understanding, the hostages and accountability for 7 Oct. are open, current now issues. In your peacemaking, how do they fit in, and at what point in the process? — tim wood

Once Israel starts making the 'concessions' that it should have made decades ago (ergo, not committing crimes against humanity), those hostages can likely be released as part of negotiations.

Can they be certain of that fact? No. There are no guarantees in situations like these.

But that's how these sorts of things work: small steps, give and take.

Israel just needs to be prepared to make the first, and real, steps towards reconcilliation.

And that is of course the central problem. Israel is not prepared to do that, because a large portion of Israel's elite still cling to ethno-supremacist fantasies of Israel as a strictly Jewish state, which is completely incompatible with the reality that they themselves have created - namely a reality of an equal amount of Palestinians living on the territory it considers its own; Palestinians who would either have to live under apartheid or be removed through ethnic cleansing (or genocide) to make that fantasy a reality.


Like I have said before, reconcilliation is Israel's only long-term option.

Israel's actions are rapidly turning itself into an international pariah, surrounded by a sea of historical enemies who all have a bone to pick with the little upstart state.

Things will not end well for Israel if it doesn't manage to change course and find a modus vivendi with the Palestinians, and by extension, the rest of the region.

Sorry tp be long in replying. My point was that there is an immediacy and currency to the hostages and accountability for 7 Oct. Do you expect anyone to simply forget them? Would you? — tim wood

You can't use hostage-taking as an excuse to carry on apartheid.

I don't think you understood my point.

The other Gulf States are clearly artifical states that are a result of US divide & conquer strategy in the Middle-East. After all, the last thing the US wants is for a Arab or Persian state to hold all the strategic areas around the Persian Gulf.

The wealth, power and independence the other Gulf States currently enjoy is indeed artificial and would not have arisen under normal circumstances - they would have simply been incorporated in a greater Arabian or Persian state.

As US power wanes, these states will disappear.

There's nothing bipartisan about the US' forever wars in the Middle-East — Tzeentch

Is it only the democrat administrations or only the Republican administrations that are fault here? — ssu

Both sides have been elected on platforms of stopping the forever wars, yet they never managed to change anything, because there's nothing 'bipartisan' about them.

Calling it 'bipartisan' imples these wars are fought on the basis of some agreement between the two sides, when they are in fact fought on a basis that's completely disconnected from the democratic process.

The only role domestic politics plays in it, is the question of whether the American people can be kept docile and ignorant enough to accept that the American government keeps going to war without any proper basis for it.

Yet to be a hegemon, it ought to have then a lot of influence over the Gulf States. It hasn't. — ssu

It should be obvious that I am talking about potential, and not the present day.

Even in the present day it would be foolish to understate Iran's influence in the region. It is quite massive, but is mostly targeting players other than the Gulf States - that will change as soon as US power in the region is broken.

Perhaps after (or if) the US withdraws from Iraq. — ssu

The US either goes to war with Iran in the near-future, to prevent exactly what I am talking about, or it will vacate the region in the near-future, which would open the door for Iran to take things over.

The smaller Gulf States aren't really worth mentioning. They only exist by virtue of US presence in the region, and will be absorbed by the bigger Gulf States (Iran and Saudi-Arabia), however between Saudi-Arabia and Iran, Iran is clearly the one with more potential.

Not to mention the fact that Saudi-Arabia's aligning with BRICS will cause it to be diplomatically isolated in the long run, because BRICS will favor Iran over Saudi-Arabia when it comes to blows (which will be inevitable, unless the US goes to war against Iran).

This is a bipartisan cause. And it's not simply the 7 million Jewish-American votes (of whom many don't like the present right-wing government in Israel), it's the Evangelicals which there are tens of millions, who want to support Israel. It's simply a domestic issue, not something chosen because of foreign policy realities. — ssu

US foreign policy isn't guided by domestic opinion.

The only thing 'the Blob' is interested in domestically, is keeping the American populace docile and ignorant - something they've been quite successful at.

There's nothing bipartisan about the US' forever wars in the Middle-East - all directly linked to Israel and the Israel lobby.

Iran is set to become regional hegemon if left unchecked (based on population, there is no question). — Tzeentch

How? — ssu

That's obviously a big topic, but geographically, geopolitically, economically and demographically it is simply the only country that can make a reasonable bid for becoming regional hegemon on the Persian Gulf. It is also in prime position to profit off Iraq's power vacuum.

The only other contender is Saudi-Arabia, which is much smaller than Iran and economically less stable.

Furthermore, Saudi-Arabia is currently in the process of aligning to BRICS, which is probably a long-term mistake for them that will eventually leave them diplomatically isolated and an easy target.

If it wasn't for the Americans/Israelis playing successful divide & conquer and sowing chaos in the region for over half a century, Iran would have already become a regional hegemon.

Why do you think Israel has treated Iran as public enemy #1 for all this time?

Jeffrey Sachs providing us with a brutally honest take on the sorry state of US, UK and Israeli foreign policy.

The only point I disagree with him on, is the fact that US foreign policy isn't guided solely by Biden's desperate attempt to salvage his election. Biden's re-election chances are only one of many perverse incentives that rear their ugly heads during this perfect shitstorm.

The US is still guided by its age-old strategy of divide & conquer on the Eurasian mainland, for which it needs conflict and a lot of it.

Iran is set to become regional hegemon if left unchecked (based on population, there is no question). The US can't have that. It just so happens that Israel wouldn't like that either, and that Israel holds a lot of sway in US domestic politics, and that's how we come full shitcircle.

Oh, how interesting.

I thought he represented the report splendidly.

Are you predicting Biden will go to war with Iran before the election? Are you also predicting this would help his chances of getting elected? — Relativist

↪Relativist Sure, why not. — Tzeentch

Looks like we're still on.

The US may appear reprehensive about a war with Iran on the surface, but the truth is that they have been planning for such a war since at least 2009.

It wouldn't be the first time Israel drags the US into a war, and I can assure you that Israel has a lot more reason to want to do so today than it had back in 2003.

It should start by ceasing the apartheid regime. As long as Israel is committing crimes against humanity there will be no peace with its neighbors either.

And I believe Israel should be prepared to make the first move in that regard. Concessions should have made decades ago, because Israel should have foreseen that it was creating an unsustainable situation for itself.

When Israel can foster some form of rapprochement within its own borders, that can be used as a basis to improve relations with its neighbors.

And no, brutalizing the Palestinians in the hopes they will be the ones to come with concessions is not a valid tactic for actual rapprochement. Israel should acknowledge it has been on the wrong side of history in this regard, and that it needs to change on a fundamental level.

It seems entirely reasonable that if one is damaged or damages themselves to a great enough extent, they lose that connection with their higher self, no?

Lapid: Netanyahu government ‘an existential threat to Israel’

Good to see Israeli politicians are starting to wisen up to the large problem Israel is creating for itself.

As I have been stating here numerous times, Israel is in a strategically vulnerable position, and the ultranationalists' inability to make peace with both its neighbors and its own population have set Israel on the road to a gigantic disaster - a disaster which is indeed existential in nature.

The only thing that can avert disaster is for the Israeli population to demand a course change, and make a sincere attempt at creating a sustainable position for Israel in the Middle-East.

The longer it waits, and the more atrocities it commits, the harder this will be.


The US is openly flirting with regime change in Israel, Lapid being the second major opposition leader to be invited to Washington.

How Netanyahu and his hardliners will respond to this remains to be seen.

We know what they are capable of.

When people argue over who "rightfully" owns the land, they are indirectly suggesting the other side may "rightfully" be oppressed, expelled, put under an apartheid regime, ethnically cleansed, etc.

In other words, these types of arguments aren't really worth taking seriously, whichever side they are coming from, since they betray a lack of basic humanity.

Personally I am not religious, yet the concept of sin makes intuitive sense to me.

It is to go against one's conscience, which I would interpret as going against one's higher self (God).

Iran says it gave warning before attacking Israel. US says that's not true

Take note, children.

This is how propaganda works.

The US is, as usual, clearly lying, by the way.

Ohhh Israel strong! Iran weak!

Am I doing it right?

Also, the situation just became extremely worrying.

Israel was clearly trying to provoke Iran into doing something like this in the hopes of dragging the US into a war with Iran. It succeeded in the first part, the second remains to be seen.

However, Iran probably understood this and went ahead with the attack anyway, basically showing it doesn't fear escalation either.

A handful of outdated nukes that may not even be there are no guarantee for anything.

October 7th was a blessing for Likud. It finally provided them with a reaction that was hideous enough to use as pretext for their long-desired ethnic cleansing. So it goes. — Mikie

On October 7th Bibi realised he lost the game: Israel will become a target in the great power struggle between 'the West' and BRICS, there will be no rapprochement in the Middle-East, and it's a matter of time until US power wanes and Arab / BRICS takes over the region, at which point Israel will be at the mercy of its historical enemies.

I think that's why Bibi's initial reaction to the attack was so extreme. This was certainly no blessing.

If you want to replace "murder" with "killing", be my guest. The point stays the same.

This isn't a claim.

This is what happened, and everybody who cares about the truth more than cheerleading for team America has acknowledged it.

From neutral observers, to direct participants, to members of the Zelensky government itself - all sources which could impossibly be argued to be lying in favor of Russia - all have confirmed it.

Do murder and torture belong in the behavior pattern of the morally upright?

I think not.

Would murdering someone in an act of self-defense irredeemably stain your soul forever and condemn you to eternal hellfire in the hereafter?

Maybe not. But that doesn't make it moral.

There seems to be confusion about the meaning of the word.