Why is Israel such a lightening rod for criticism? — Count Timothy von Icarus
2. Western support. It may be perceived that Israel is doing all their nastiness with support and resources from Western countries, in ways that the other countries are not. The average American may think (whether right or wrong), my country is more involved in this conflict, which means my voice matters more than it would in some conflict my country is a lot less involved in
Not only this, but US intelligence was actively assisting their efforts and US assets were actively hitting targets in Yemen, flying recon, etc., a level of support Israel has not received in any of its wars.
This is not generally reflected in public understanding, — Count Timothy von Icarus
failed state like Syria, or Iraq. — Punshhh
This is a question worth exploring because public opinion does shape the conflict. Would Hamas really think baiting Israel into destroying its own infrastructure and people was a worthwhile strategy if world and Arab opinion would be on a par with how people respond to other similar conflicts in the region? Absolutely not. Their strategy is in part predicated on the special resonance of Israel, and so it shapes their decisions in what seem to be fundemental ways. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Just curious. What “made” them a state?
Their strategy is in part predicated on the special resonance of Israel, and so it shapes their decisions in what seem to be fundemental ways.
Excuse me, who put Nasser in charge in Egypt? Who started the string of coups in Syria? Uncle Sam's greasy fingerprints are all over the Middle-East, and wherever it got involved things got worse. Much worse. They're closing in on a century of sowing chaos in the Middle-East, much of it directly tied to protecting Israel's position in the region. — Tzeentch
It's a known trope that many of the people the US put in power through regime change turned towards communism on their own initiative.
This of course convinced the US that the Soviets were everywhere and that they needed more regime change.
It's an incredibly cynical game the US played. The abuse of power and the toying with the fates of nations on a global scale. I don't think it has any precedent in history. — Tzeentch
Certainly America (and Britain and others) favored various policies before and during the Cold War, but I don't think the US would ever want Nasser or the Baath ideology to take charge. — schopenhauer1
It's might not have been what they wanted, but that's what they got.
They were like children playing with fire, but it was someone else's house that burned down. — Tzeentch
However, out of all of those, it was Iran that actually was the worst of them because that could have been a democracy, even if not quite aligned with interests. — schopenhauer1
A lot of countries in the Middle-East had undemocratic forms of government, but for a lot of those countries that's what worked. It kept those countries stable and gave them prosperity. Countries like Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, even Somalia, used to be genuinely modern (or well on their way towards modernity). — Tzeentch
Any reasonable person would think so too, but as I've said, extremists have taken over there. They will continue to dehumanize the "enemy" and basically argue for war, either "Jihad" or "Mowing the lawn" to be the only answer here.*I don’t like to talk in these blunt terms and would prefer to believe that this could return to the 2 state solution as has been outlined numerous times. — Punshhh
Again, Iraq fell to Baathists. — schopenhauer1
The coup against Mossadegh was concocted by the British under Churchill because they were nationalizing the longstanding British oil companies there. — schopenhauer1
It's hard to say the US was the "bad guy" there. — schopenhauer1
I think the Taleban was of Pakistani origin, not the US. And uh, yeah, the Pakistanis holding on to the Taleban and being an ally (somehow) of the US brought them victory in the end. The US did go away and didn't punish them. They can tap each other on the back in the offices of the Inter-Services Intelligence.I'd say that goes without saying. They armed the Taliban and subsequently put them in charge. I don't think I need to remind you who the Taliban were. It's one of many extremist groups that rose to power as a direct result of US interference. — Tzeentch
Which the US supported. — Tzeentch
Again, don't forget the little guys, the regional players, and insist everything happens because of the US. — ssu
In the end, it makes as much sense as Bibi supporting Hamas!That makes sense somewhat. — schopenhauer1
"Netanyahu is responsible for the build-up of Hamas capabilities … Netanyahu personally and directly responsible for deal with Hamas… and 80 per cent of the people want him out," the leader, who initiated his political career within the ruling Likud party but transitioned to Kadima in 2006, a party founded by moderates under the leadership of former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, remarked. Olmert also suggested that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should be held responsible for the attacks.
Olmert held the PM responsible for the policy that marginalised the moderate Palestinians, "we should have been negotiating with," and led to the rise of Hamas.
He explained that the reason behind this was because Hamas "was supposed to be safe since they were not a candidate for negotiations, so he (Netanyahu) would not have to make concessions for them."
He further stated that Netanyahu was also directly and personally responsible for the agreement with Hamas, which resulted in the release of "1,000 Hamas members in exchange for one Israeli soldier."
I would say that the Americans were better guys than the Soviets!Exactly. The US rather have had the Northern Alliance or something not Taliban. It's not all black-and-white? Were the Soviets "good guys"? No one's hands were clean there, but Soviets were still trying to "colonize" them if you will, (at least imperially control them). — schopenhauer1
More to the point, though, can the moral argument for supporting the right of both sides to exist, with a permanent ceasefire, be opposed? — FreeEmotion
And then you immediately have the following problem: only efficiently strong countries can keep peace. Lebanon and Syria are on brink of being failed states. How does the PA suddenly become a strong country? Egypt is strong enough, even if the 'Arab street' hates the peace with Israel. Yet Palestinians aren't Egyptians. Far easily populists in the Palestinian side could pose this as just a part of throwing back the crusaders. After all, it took 192 years to throw out the Crusaders.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.