Jews are indigenous to the region. You would know this if you knew the history of the region before 1948. But none of this apparently matters because you only think in terms of abstract notions like states, not actual, flesh and blood people.

And that's what it comes down to. You don't really appreciate or understand the region or the people. Religion is stupid for you, after all. And you're an intelligent, secular European who is far above any of this.

At least Begin was honest about it: there's no Israeli village that hasn't been build on an Arab ruin.

Israeli or Jewish? Wording is key here. Israel, as a modern state, is new. Israel as an entity is not. And I would remind you that al-Aqsa mosque was built on Jewish ruins. As were those later Arab buildings. The point is not that property shifts hands but rather how is shifts hands.



Read. Your. History.

Read. Your. History. — BitconnectCarlos

:rofl:

I can guarantee I know history in this region better than you. Jews are indigenous, thus zionism - jewish self-determination -- is decolonization from later colonizers.

I can guarantee I know history in this region better than you. — BitconnectCarlos

:rofl: Wow! Good job!

Keep the jokes comin’, please.

Thanks! So I guess with recent events you're on team Iran/Hezbollah/Hamas now? Anything to beat Israel. Way to go! :rofl:

:rofl:

Yes yes, whatever you say. Now please continue using your “extensive” historical knowledge to justify genocide. :up:

People back then believed the ideas of Douhuet, which was an error. Bombing the manufacturing military base works...just as destroying air fields and other military infrastructure. It does make manufacturing more difficult, even if German simply increased it's production of war material until the end of the war simply by spreading it's manufacturing into coal mines and so on.

But just think about it yourself: assume Hitler had in 1943 some magnificient Ural-bomber aircraft that could from Northern France (perhaps simply the Luftwaffe had mastered air-to-air refuelling) hit the east coast cities of the US. Then sometime at the end of 1943 or in 1944, German bombers would have appeared out of nowhere to bomb New York with all it's lights on. At least the first strike, US cities would have had no defenses.

Yet. Do you genuinely think that kind of attack would have cowed the US not to fight anymore Germany? Do you FDR would have gotten pressure from the opposition to stop the war with Germany? HELL NO! It would have had quite opposite effect:bombings would have just shown how the enemy was real, they did pose a threat were to the US. Mainland US being attacked would simply have increased the American will to fight. It would have made the leadership to increase it's efforst even more to push the Manhattan Project etc. to go ahead. And the bombings would be part of American history and experience, just like the attack Pearl Harbour is now.

The people that would be happy about it would be Hitler and Goebbels. They could say that they are revenging the bombings of Germany and thus give something for the Nazi supporters that wanted revenge. Yet it would be irrelevant to the war and it's outcome.

Hence the idea that Douhuet marketed, that strategic bombing would shorten wars, that if civilians would be bombed would want their governments to have peace simply has the negative effect. Strategic air war on the other hand is part of air war. Just as in tactical air support and intrediction.

So now Iran has had it's revenge after the 1st April attack on the consulate, which the supreme leader promised.

Likely it won't end up here. Bibi can see here an opportunity to broaden the war. At least he'll get the distraction for the Rafah operation.

I mostly agree with this, but there is a difference between terror bombing, which is probably immoral and doesn't work, and strategic bombing, which is a fair military tactic. I was pushing back against your claim that civilians are not combatants and are supposed to be "off limits". For Dresden, I would agree. But civilians working in armaments factories are fair game. Wouldn't you agree?

Do you think Israel is doing terror bombing? If they were, they would have killed a lot more civilians than they have. They seem to be trying to target Hamas and minimize civilian casualties, which is a fair tactic. Do you agree that Israel is at war?

ETA: In WW2, terror bombing could have been justified because it put a huge drain on German resources to defend their cities, which helped the Soviets.

I mostly agree with this, but there is a difference between terror bombing, which is probably immoral and doesn't work, and strategic bombing, which is a fair military tactic. — RogueAI

Ah, that is a really fine line in the sand. Because nobody will say that they are trying "terror boming" as a tactic. And it all comes down to targeting.

I remember Chuck Yeager in his memoirs telling about the air war in 1945 as a Mustang pilot that at some time in the end of the war, they got these orders of patrolling some small area (was it 15km to 15km) and simply attack anything that moved. He and the other pilots were disgusted about the order as they didn't think it was their job to hunt and attack some cyclists or civilian people walking on some dirt road in Germany and hence they basically just flew around. But in the huge wheels of what the USAAF someone had come up with this kind of order.

It all comes down to rules of engagement. Those are defined, unfortunately, usually by the political leadership. And for the political leadership things like "revenge" or "giving a strong message" means that sometimes they want that rules of war are interpreted quite loosely. If the politicians want dead enemy soldiers or dead terrorists, the armed forces will give them want they want.

Do you think Israel is doing terror bombing? — RogueAI

Just look at the scale of the bombing.

In the first six days that Israel started it's bombing of Gaza: It dropped then over 6000 bombs, which is far more than the US coalition when fighting ISIS used bombs in any month of the war.

Then compare this to for example the battle over Mosul (about 1,7 million people). There extensive bombing was used to clear out ISIS. The civilian death toll was 9 000 to 11 000. So you have now at least double, even triple figures. That tells a lot.

MOSUL, Iraq (AP) — The price Mosul’s residents paid in blood to see their city freed was 9,000 to 11,000 dead, a civilian casualty rate nearly 10 times higher than what has been previously reported. The number killed in the nine-month battle to liberate the city from the Islamic State group marauders has not been acknowledged by the U.S.-led coalition, the Iraqi government or the self-styled caliphate.

But Mosul’s gravediggers, its morgue workers and the volunteers who retrieve bodies from the city’s rubble are keeping count.

Iraqi or coalition forces are responsible for at least 3,200 civilian deaths from airstrikes, artillery fire or mortar rounds between October 2016 and the fall of the Islamic State group in July 2017, according to an Associated Press investigation that cross-referenced independent databases from non-governmental organizations.

So as I've said: the US approach to urban combat would be better than the Netanyahu-lead Israeli one.

So think for yourself, when the political leadership of Israel talks of human animals, the evil city, people in Gaza being responsible for the attacks because they voted ages ago for Hamas in an election and so on. Those things do amount to the death toll.

Good points.

An interesting development: What is Jordan's role in this?

(AlArabiya News) Jordan will be Iran’s “next target” if it “cooperates” with Israel amid Iranian missile and drone attacks against Israel, the semi-official Fars news agency reported early Sunday, while two regional security sources said Jordanian jets downed dozens of Iranian drones flying across northern and central Jordan heading to Israel.

Iran’s military is “carefully monitoring the movements of Jordan during the punitive attack against the Zionist regime, and if Jordan intervenes, it will be the next target,” Fars reported, citing, an “informed source” in Iran’s armed forces.

“Necessary warnings were given to Jordan and other regional countries before the operation,” the agency, which is close to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), quoted the source as saying.

According to the two regional sources, the drones were brought down in the air on the Jordanian side of the Jordan Valley and were heading in the direction of Jerusalem. Others were intercepted close to the Iraqi-Syrian border. They gave no further details.

Naturally shooting down armed drones flying in your airspace is totally legitimate thing to do for Jordan. But likely Jordan doesn't want to be the first line of defense for Israel. The tiny nation has to do quite a balancing act here.

Regional players like Saudi-Arabia and UAE express concerns for any military escalation. The hope would be that Israel would act like Trump now (do nothing). But that hardly isn't goint to happen like that. As now Israel has gotten "the right" to go after Iran, it will likely use this opportunity. At some time of it's choosing.

Regional players like Saudi-Arabia and UAE express concerns for any military escalation. The hope would be that Israel would act like Trump now (do nothing). But that hardly isn't goint to happen like that. As now Israel has gotten "the right" to go after Iran, it will likely use this opportunity. At some time of it's choosing. — ssu

Israel already attacks Iranian people and assets all the time, including assassinating Iranian citizens within Iran.

Israel has not acquired any "rights" here; indeed, it's Iran that has the right to attack Israel due to blowing up an embassy being a clear and overt act of war.

The purpose escalating to blowing up the embassy was exactly so Iran attacks Israel and the US is "back onside".

The first goal is simply to renew the US backing so Israel can either continue the genocide in Gaza or then stop the genocide in Gaza.

So we'll see.

It could be that Israeli elites have seen they've lost the PR war, lost appetite for the economic cost of the genocide, so doing it this way leaves the last big impression (especially on Americans) that "Israel is under attack" and is the actual victim (in the next news cycle we'll have forgotten all about Gaza).

And that could be the only goal in this tit for tat, that attention is off Gaza.

Iran gets to show strength and measured retaliation for the embassy and Israel is the victim again so that the genocide can continue, so both parties gain in the exchange.

This is certainly what Iran is betting on because Israel has nuclear weapons and probably the Iranian leadership doesn't want to get nuked. Iran's main strategy is to just tolerate Israeli harassment until it too has nuclear weapons. US power is also in decline both globally and particularly in the Middle East, so Iran gains in relative power and can consolidate its power in the ration in playing the waiting game due this also.

That Israel wants to continue the escalation into a regional war to drag in the US to fight Hezbollah and Iran and Syria and a long list of other groups, I think is unlikely due to the simple fact that the US can't win such a war, without resorting to nuclear weapons.

There's no practical way to actually invade Iran. Escalating standoff attacks heavily favours Iran simply because Israel is so much smaller both in territory as well as people. Not that Iranian missiles would likely kill many Israelis if they just start firing missiles and drones at each other, but it's more the economic cost to Israel of the entire population going to bunkers regularly (the low casualties would be due to the bunkers). Israel wouldn't be able to have a similar effect on Iran (without nuclear weapons).

Not to say it won't keep escalating, just in that case Israel is already committed to the use of nuclear weapons against Iran and Hezbollah. Instead of being like "we lost the PR war so we should wind it down" Israeli decision makers (whoever they actually are) could reason "we lost the PR war so we should therefore use nuclear weapons".

Of course this would be pretty horrible and insane, but so too is carrying out a genocide.

Now I don't have personally anything against you, but I do find talking about an "enemy people" disturbing, even if you likely make a separation with "enemy soldiers" and "enemy people". — ssu

I'm not offended, and we can call them what you like, but the unfortunate fact is the majority of Palestinians -- according to polls -- are sympathetic to the events of 10/7. On 10/7, many palestinians civilians stormed in and murdered and raped their neighbors. We can call them "wonderful village people" for all I care, but treatment-wise, if I were a soldier or commanding them, I would advise extreme caution. I will concede that we don't need to use the term "enemy" especially if it leads to bad treatment.

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.

, my impression was that just about everyone knew early on. Besides, didn't some of those drones more or less fly over Baghdad, some over Syria, some over Jordan? (Did some skirt over Saudi Arabia or close?) Fairly long flight. I imagine they were detected by various systems, but maybe I'm overestimating what's in the area.

Bullshit. Some jews were indigenous when they relocated recently (eg. before starting a fucking war about it) peacefully to what they believe is their ancestral home due to religious claims but most left centuries ago and married locally or you would have the most inbred, retarded people today that would've gone extinct several centuries ago. What you are - what every person on earth is - is mixed race, who based on religious rules extends jewishness to descendants of female jews. And since religion is made up bullshit, the claim is bullshit and certainly not a claim I have to entertain as a non-jew because I reject the made up reference frame of dumb fucking relligions.

It's been 99 generations since the first diaspora. What assumption do you fancy? Currently 40% intermarries outside of Israel. Let's say this was less throughout the ages, so maybe 1 in 10 married a non-Jew, that means current Jews are only 1/1024th indigenous Jew, so 1023th part is non-indigenous blood. And yet, we get the insance claim you're indigenous when you're more not an original Israelite than anything else. This is equally ridiculous as Warren's claim to being native American and purely a religious claim.

But this is the game Jews like to play all the time: then it's ethnicity, then it's religion and then it's national identity. Being a Jew is politicized by (mostly right-wing) Jews to further whatever political agenda they have - in your case, justifying the war crimes and stealing land from actual indigenous people in the area. It's bloody insulting to Jews who actually have a moral compass and don't want anything to do with these insane claims and defences.

EDIT: Actually, come to think of it, that 10% intermarriage is probably too low since it already started with intermarriage with Joseph to Asenath and Ruth to Boaz. It was fairly common especially since converting to jewishness resolves the issue of intermarriage the xenophobic rabbis still hold today.

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.

Palestinians -- according to polls -- are sympathetic to the events of 10/7. On 10/7, many palestinians civilians stormed in and murdered and raped their neighbors. We can call them "wonderful village people" for all I care, but treatment-wise, if I were a soldier or commanding them, I would advise extreme caution. I will concede that we don't need to use the term "enemy" especially if it leads to bad treatment. — BitconnectCarlos

Yet you are not a soldier and not even in the region.

But on the other hadn, even before Oct 7th, from 2016:

(Times of Israel, 8th March 2016) Nearly half of Jewish Israelis agree that Arabs should be expelled or transferred from Israel, and a solid majority (79 percent) maintain that Jews in Israel should be given preferential treatment, according to a Pew Research Center in Israel survey published on Tuesday.

So firm public support for ethnic cleansing and the apartheid state even years ago!

And now:

a recent study conducted by an Israeli sample and campaign company Direct Polls affirming that the majority of the Israeli settler society is in favor of mass displacement in Gaza.

The study surveys a representative sample of Israeli public opinion on their stance regarding the Israeli authorities' efforts to "encourage the voluntary immigration" of the residents of the Gaza Strip.

The results show that:

68% are very supportive of "encouraging the voluntary immigration of residents of the Gaza Strip";
15% are quite supportive of "encouraging the voluntary immigration of residents of the Gaza Strip"

Wonderful village people on the other side too.

And the conflict will go on... and there's a real possibility that we will see that "voluntary immigration", ethnic cleansing, of Gaza.

The first goal is simply to renew the US backing so Israel can either continue the genocide in Gaza or then stop the genocide in Gaza. — boethius

Isreal got it's ironclad support automatically from Joe Biden. I think they will continue with the Rafah operation when the time comes.

There's no practical way to actually invade Iran. Escalating standoff attacks heavily favours Iran simply because Israel is so much smaller both in territory as well as people. Not that Iranian missiles would likely kill many Israelis if they just start firing missiles and drones at each other, but it's more the economic cost to Israel of the entire population going to bunkers regularly (the low casualties would be due to the bunkers). Israel wouldn't be able to have a similar effect on Iran (without nuclear weapons). — boethius

For both Israel and Iran the "war" between them is quite OK, because they don't share a land border. Simple geography limits the war here. What Israel can do is some limited strikes on Iranian territory, and vice versa. And in reality, neither side is willing to use nuclear weapons (even if Iran would have them). And Iran, unlike Iraq or Syria, hasn't build it's nuclear program in one centralized place which can be taken out. It's been preparing for the attack from Israel and the US for decades now.

But as you said, the whole thing starting from the bombing of the Iranian consulate in Damascus got Bibi where he wants to be. He's the wartime prime minister and as you can see, it's the possible replacements of him like Benny Gantz who have to be bellicose against Iran now. And now when Iran has directly attacked Israel, Bibi has can choose the moment when he retaliates back at Iranian targets, which will then get Iran to respond. "Genocide-Joe" will automatically declare support of Israel and participate, just like he did now, with shooting down the Iranian missiles. With bigger and smaller US bases all around Syria and US, it's very easy to get US in this mess. And even if those aren't attack, a larger attack from Israel will get the US President to fight alongside Israel. There's no doubt about it.

The "coalition" that Bibi is now talking about is likely Israel, the US and the UK. Israel will just asses Iran's capabilities as now it has seen them against Nevatim air base and Mt Hermon. What Nevatim had was F-35 fighters, which likely weren't effected. And notice that Iran didn't attack against Sdot Micha air base, where Israel's Jericho III nukes likely are stored.

Wonderful village people on the other side too. — ssu

If the shoe were on the other foot, and Arab muslim armies were prevailing over Israel, I would expect Israel to fight to the last man. Israel would qualify as an "enemy population" from the arab perspective. But I wouldn't expect the arabs to send in aid trucks or coddle the Israelis there. It would truly be genocide.

Sweden is experiencing considerable social upheaval at ~1.5 million migrants entering over the past decades and we've seen the far right take power. Such a thing would have been unheard of in such a civilized country years ago. But here we have it. Their education system has taken a dive and gang violence has shot up. Sweden is maybe 8% muslim? Israel is 20% and has been dealing with the issue for longer. The point being, mass immigration and such demographic differences will cause such attitudes to rise. Ireland is also seeing nativist marches.

It's not that those european countries are inherently superior -- it's that they don't deal with the same types of issues as Israel has, but right now Sweden is getting a taste of it. Try letting in a sizable majority of a population which doesn't accept your history or your claim to your own land and see how it goes. 59% of Israeli Arabs don't believe that a Jewish temple ever stood on the temple mount! The ruins are still standing!!

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/israeli-attitudes-of-israeli-arabs-005-present

peacefully to what they believe is their ancestral home due to religious claims — Benkei

Not due to religious claims. It's due to history. The Arab muslims built their buildings on the ruins of Jewish civilization. Jews are the older strata.

Judaism - as a religion, as an ethnic identity, as a national identity (and yes it is all 3) -- forms in the land of Israel. Archaeology supports it. Anthropology supports it. Linguistic evidence supports it. I don't need to invoke God in this discussion.

Jews were expelled from their homeland under the Romans yet Jewish tradition has never abandoned its ties to it. Take the Shema -- a prayer ushered morning and night by observant Jews in Hebrew (a language formed in Israel) derived from the words of Deuteronomy (a text formed in Judea under King Josiah in the 7th century BC.) It's maintained all this time.

Not trying to be offensive, but where is the Palestinian history? Or they just assumed to be the original inhabitants? It's in the name, after all, guess it has to be true. /s

And since religion is made up bullshit — Benkei

Judaism predates modern notions of religion. Judaism is an evolving civilization. Its basis is in practice, not creed.

It's funny you say this while in the same post citing Ruth and Boaz as well as Joseph (!). You call it bullshit yet rely on Scripture to make your argument...

mixed race — Benkei

Which is fine. There are Jews from all over. Judaism is not a race. Genetic testing does bear out certain common markers among Jews. You can convert to Judaism. But could you become a Palestinian, Benkei?

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.

The hostages and accountability. These it seems to me are the open, uncured, and festering wounds of the Israelis/Jews. Everything else has already happened, but these two are in the category of always happening. I would like to be able to write here that by far most people just want peace, but I do not know if that is true and suspect that it is not true. First things first: if your thumb is in my eye and my hands around your throat, we're neither likely to be responsive to anything except the demands of immediate necessity. But how to disengage at least this part? A return and accounting of all hostages, and surrender of all Hamas complicit in 7 Oct. In this I assume that the Israeli war against Hamas in Gaza is a result of and intended by Hamas actions on 7 Oct. I think ultimately the Israeli/Jews want a secure peace. I am unaware of any similar desire on the part of Israel's neighbors, except at the expense of the destruction of the Jews and Israel. The only short-term remedy I see is a UN enforced peace with a concerted police action on behalf of the hostages and against the crimes of 7 Oct., and perpetrators and accessories before, during, and after the fact.

If this seems a bit one-sided, it's based on the idea that Hamas started this chapter of the larger struggle and either they will contribute to ending it, or there's a good chance they will be ended by it.

What I find baffling is how certain people cling on the charicatural idea that
- the US is the world’s superpower and that is a major player in shaping world affairs, yet at the same time they keep reminding all foreign failures: Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Ukraine, Palestine, etc.
- the US is the evil mastermind conspiring against states and people around the world through lies and bribes (which everybody non-brainwashed is aware of), and yet systematically failing to achieve strategic goals other than the self-defeating ones by wasting resources and reputation in failed (proxy) wars
- the US is driven by hypocritical and greedy people supported by a gullible majority (still?), lacking basic humanity principles, and which the entire world has to condemn (especially if Westerner) and to hold as the number one responsible for everything wrong there is in this world (including climate change)

and the ultranationalists' inability to make peace with both its neighbors — Tzeentch

Just for the heck of it, how exactly do you see any Israeli/Jews making peace with its neighbors?

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.

Not due to religious claims. It's due to history. The Arab muslims built their buildings on the ruins of Jewish civilization. Jews are the older strata.

Judaism - as a religion, as an ethnic identity, as a national identity (and yes it is all 3) -- forms in the land of Israel. Archaeology supports it. Anthropology supports it. Linguistic evidence supports it. I don't need to invoke God in this discussion.

Jews were expelled from their homeland under the Romans yet Jewish tradition has never abandoned its ties to it. Take the Shema -- a prayer ushered morning and night by observant Jews in Hebrew (a language formed in Israel) derived from the words of Deuteronomy (a text formed in Judea under King Josiah in the 7th century BC.) It's maintained all this time.

Not trying to be offensive, but where is the Palestinian history? Or they just assumed to be the original inhabitants? It's in the name, after all, guess it has to be true. /s — BitconnectCarlos

Judaism - as a religion, as an ethnic identity, as a national identity (and yes it is all 3) -- forms in the land of Israel. Archaeology supports it. Anthropology supports it. Linguistic evidence supports it. I don't need to invoke God in this discussion. — BitconnectCarlos

I see you're confused about facts. You're less than 1024th a descendent from an original Israelite. You have more historical claim to other areas of the world than Israel proper. And Judaism is abused as a national identity only recently, certainly since nations are a recent invention. It's also not an ethnicity because there are at least 4 different identified ethnicities within the religious group of Jews, namely Sephardic, Ashkenazic, Mizrahi and Ethiopian.

It is religious rules making you think there's a straight line from you down to those Israelites from the first diaspora. It's bullshit.

Judaism predates modern notions of religion. Judaism is an evolving civilization. Its basis is in practice, not creed.

It's funny you say this while in the same post citing Ruth and Boaz as well as Joseph (!). You call it bullshit yet rely on Scripture to make your argument... — BitconnectCarlos

Anyway, Judaism is a religion and nothing more. You can convert to it and the Israeli supreme court has determined as much where it concerns rights under Israeli laws. A Jew that converted to christianity is no longer a Jew.

And Judaism is a fucking dumb religion at that, basically waging a religious war in the region. It's devolving and clearly uncivilised when the likes of you think it excuses current Israeli crimes.

Which is fine. There are Jews from all over. Judaism is not a race. Genetic testing does bear out certain common markers among Jews. You can convert to Judaism. But could you become a Palestinian, Benkei? — BitconnectCarlos

I could if they would have a fucking state now wouldn't I? I wonder why they don't. Oh yes, warmongering assholes like you rather have them blown up.

You can convert to it — Benkei

And try converting out of it. A Jew who believes Jesus is divine is a heretical Jew. You don't lose your Judaism by accepting Jesus you just invoke the wrath of the community. As you should by accepting a man who walked the Earth as God. Once a Jew, always a Jew.

You can call Judaism dumb, I don't care. Go back to your own worldview where humanity (European humanity, that is) apparently only becomes intelligent during the Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries. Or is it later with the rise of atheism? I guess who needs religious thought when you've got Dawkins and Harris. The Middle East is stupid because they are religious but you are smart because you know there is no God. :up:

If Judaism is a dumb religion can you show me a smart one? If you think all religion is "fucking dumb" just say that :vomit:

You know so little about Judaism, yet judge so much. And surely if Judaism is "fucking dumb" then Islam must be really fucking dumb. So are there smart religions or is only secular atheism smart?

I’m sure that I’m “not sure if that’s relevant”.

It’s relevant if that anger goes beyond the point of rationality. But you take us back to the Chechen war, things have moved on since then. Putin’s megalomania has grown top heavy. The myth that the nuclear deterrent still works has been eroded. Putin may not invade a NATO country by conventional means( as you say yourself). I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Putin had attacked Ukraine if accession to NATO were in the pipeline.

So my counterfactual is not arbitrary.

Quite, however that alliance may have been on Putin’s mind from that time. Putin was around then, just not in power.

On the other side if we are talking about starting from the current conflict, it would be certainly problematic for political and strategic reasons wrt NATO and wrt Putin, still I think Putin would have big problems to start a war against NATO if the non occupied part of Ukraine was successfully fast tracked into NATO (like Finland), as Putin is even having problems to end the conflict in South and East Ukraine.

Yes, Putin is now in a weak position. Going back to where this line of thought started. That there are differences in foreign policy between U.S. and EU, such that U.S. would seek to keep EU down, or weak. Again I’m just not seeing it. The alliance between them is strong and in lockstep. The status of Ukraine, or the expansion of EU and NATO to the east is not a controversial issue between them.

I’m not sure the US will preserve its superpower status so defined in the next decades if certain strategic alliances are necessary for the US to keep its superpower status:

I repeat, I wasn’t talking about U.S. keeping, or not, it’s superpower status. That status is strong. The alliance with the EU is to counterbalance future threats from China

technological gap is already decreasing, military projection is already grown unsustainable, monetary dominance is challenged or worked around, and reputational costs are mostly against the US. So the US power projection as world power can be severely damaged in the longer run.

Yes and this is the threat to U.S. China is winning the economic war and U.S. needs friends, another powerblock in an alliance to shore this up.

Second, if the US needs a strong EU as an ally to sustain its power projection wrt rival alliances, I don’t think it will evidently succeed either because a strong EU will never materialise, and if it will materialise it still will at best balance not overwhelm rival alliances, even more so, if the contribution of Middle-Eastern regional powers can weigh in.

And the alternative? (I don’t need to repeat my comments about the EU in this regard.)
The Middle Eastern regional powers are small fry, Turkey is not far off a failed state and the Arab states just want to hold on to their decadent lifestyles.

The point is that the combination of persisting EU vulnerabilities plus incumbent weakening of the US leadership, Europe will turn into a more disputable area for hegemonic competition among the US and other rival hegemonic powers, and this could threaten both NATO and EU project.

This is the flawed argument I was referring to.
I think the best you’ve got here is some sort of general malaise and internal collapse in the EU, or U.S. The EU is now rearming and stronger as an alliance due to the example of the U.K. (having left the EU). Also as I say if Ukraine joins, it will provide a considerable boost in numerous ways. The U.S. is in a more precarious position, (I see Trump more and more as a busted flush now) but is still strong militarily and can print money to pull itself out of the malaise.

Other than oil, money, terrorism, control over commercial routes, criminal business, immigration, exporting islamism in Asia, Africa and the West, maybe nothing. That’s however may be enough to help a Russia-China alliance against a US and EU alliance, even more so with a weak EU.

Weak argument, unless we are talking of a world slipping into distopia. Climate change might deliver this though.

Concerning the Middle East, I find at least the leaderships of regional powers like Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia, enough aware of their geopolitical role and strength, despite rivalries and vulnerabilities. They are open to balance the US hegemony in cooperation with Russia and China. They try to develop their sphere of influence even beyond the Middle East in Asia and Africa.

I wouldn’t tell that to anyone in Saudi atm. Again more of a liability than an advantage, I would say.

And even though they will exploit their oil as a main source of revenues, they are already planning for a post-oil transition (https://www.forbesmiddleeast.com/lists/the-middle-easts-sustainable-100/, https://www.dw.com/en/how-the-gulf-region-is-planning-for-a-life-after-oil/a-67067995, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10668-021-01424-x).

Yes, however there might be severe climate issues there in a few decades. Saudi has some dubious practices including building ski slopes in the desert and depleting water tables, something they’re doing to U.S. water tables too. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/16/fondomonte-arizona-drought-saudi-farm-water/

Besides, even though they compete for regional hegemony, yet the most acute and local problems they have to face coming from Islamism, environmental challenges, growing population (https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/05/why-the-world-s-fastest-growing-populations-are-in-the-middle-east-and-africa/), plus the mediation of greater powers, like China, may also solicit greater cooperation among them to face shared future challenges, including the threats of a multipolar world like hawkish non-middle eastern hegemonic powers.

Sounds more like a liability for China, Russia etc.. Also it would mean them getting into bed with these Islamists you talk about.

Actually I’m more skeptical about the idea that whatever happens in the Middle East, it won’t play any decisive contribution in the power balance of major hegemonic powers.

The only way I see what happens in the Middle East playing anything approaching a decisive role is if it distracts the coalition of support for Ukraine enabling Putin to make more ground.

There is some logic into the 2 hypothetical scenarios you have described but given the current circumstances I’m less certain about their likelihood. And the end of the Ukrainian war may look more messy than an uncontroversial victory or loss.

Yes, of course, I was talking of the more easily defined outcomes. I would think that if it were not that clear cut, the perception of success, or failure of Putin as a leader would determine how the world see’s it. I could well see an iron curtain following close to the current front line, but I would see this as a win for the West and a failure for Putin. So my points would still hold.