I agree. "Realist" international relations theory doesn't seem to actually explain history very well, and so relies on all sorts of ad hoc additions like "chain ganging," etc. For example, Mearshimer's "offensive realism," would predict that the United States should have annexed Canada (and Mexico) at any point since the Civil War, when it clearly became capable of doing so. It doesn't, because no one in America wants that, regardless of if it would improve national security, which it obviously would have during the early Cold War when Canada waffled on how many US assets could be placed in the arctic to defend against the Soviets.

American support of Israel is a particularly stark example of where cultural ties have outweighed strategic value. Another example would be Hungary joining the Axis due to a shared experience of WWI and resentment over how the war was concluded, rather than the actual strategic merits.




There are way more than 1.6 million Palestinians that live in Israel. The 20% figure is for Arab-Israelis, who live within Israel's 1948 borders and have full citizenship (2 million). A further 4.5 million live in the occupied territories. This is relevant in that it makes the one state solution fatal to the idea of a "Jewish state." In a one state solution, just under half the population would be non-Jews and, due to disparate birth rates (the OTs has one of the highest birth rates in the world), non-Jews would very quickly outnumber Jews.

The question is, should there be a "Jewish state?" which is much the same problem as "should there be a Kurdish state?" Should Iran be ostensibly a "Persian state?" when minorities make up half the population and want to leave? Should Afghanistan ostensibly be a Pashtun state? Should China be a "Han state," when it has hundreds of millions of people who aren't/don't want to be "Han." I don't think there is always a good answer here, as independence movements are extremely plentiful, and it's unclear if "a Flanders for the Flemish," or "one island, one Ireland," really resolve the root issues.

Anyhow, while I am sure fringe figures have advocated for expelling the 20% of Israeli citizens who are Palestinian Muslims, this is a fringe position. Removing a whole fifth of Israel's population, people integrated into the economy and with full citizenship rights, is a different question.

Do you see any difference at all between a) a willing perpetrator of genocide who intentionally murders members of a certain group because they are members of that group and b) a soldier in the opposing army who, in attacking that group, accidentally kills civilians of that group. — BitconnectCarlos

When are you going to wake up and understand that this entire dichotomy is nonsense. Propaganda, through and through.

The killing of 8000 children isn’t accidental — they simply don’t care. They don’t care about Palestinian lives. That’s obvious in the rhetoric and the actions.

So ask yourself: what’s worse, someone who murders children and recognizes them as victims for some cause, or someone who murders children for some cause but who sees them as irrelevant statistics?

I’m not in favor of killing children— even in the name of some great cause or defense or good intentions. If you believe it’s all accidental and the intentions are better, that’s on you. In that case, the US invasion of Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, were all justified. For that matter, invading Poland was justified— Nazis gave plenty of justification, and of course claimed the best intentions.

There should, at minimum, be a ceasefire.

The killing of 8000 children isn’t accidental — they simply don’t care. They don’t care about Palestinian lives. That’s obvious in the rhetoric and the actions.

So ask yourself: what’s worse, someone who murders children and recognizes them as victims for some cause, or someone who murders children for some cause but who sees them as irrelevant statistics? — Mikie

Making something complicated seem simple is often disingenuous, but I happen to agree that your description frames the issue. "I had no other choice but to bomb people in tunnels, so any collateral damage is not my problem" is obscene. The fact is that Israel decided that occasional annoyances from evil Hamas was sufficient warrant to stop caring about the lives and well-being of millions of people. Israel had other choices - hard as they might have been politically (the choice to do nothing is a choice). Just as good-faith moral clarity from a standard Westerner requires seeing Hamas' behavior as abhorrent and morally repugnant, so too does it require seeing "Sorry if I killed some kids" the same way.

And for those that say the Israeli's do care about the children, lip service and rending their garments after they have used the death of a few hundred people to justify the past and future killings of thousands of other people, Israeli care is meaningless. The retort of "What would you do?" sounds great - as if the only answer is weighing the method of killing innocents with indifference - but choosing to let even 10,000 Israelis die due to Israel's inability to repel Hamas (or other) attacks is a profoundly more moral choice.

Totally asymmetric warfare makes the problem less obvious, but why is sending several thousand troops to their death in a "justified war" more moral than tolerating the murder of a few hundred of your own citizens? Is it because we can pretend that maybe the soldiers won't die and blame their deaths on the "enemy"?

The hard part about all of this is that the moral thing to do is not necessarily what we ought to do - we can be justified in doing bad things. Having justification, however, doesn't make the bad behavior good. Or if you prefer, obedience to one duty does not diminish your disobedience to another.

Behind the curtains of all the rhetoric there is a scale where infinitely valuable lives are measured and traded. Pretending otherwise does not further our ability to do better.

There are way more than 1.6 million — Count Timothy von Icarus

You are absolutely correct. Thank you for pointing out my error. My demographic picture is faulty -- but there are conflicting ways of presenting information.

Starting over: The population of Israel is around 9.3 million. About 20% of Israeli citizens are Arab -- mostly Muslim but a substantial number of Christians Arabs. I was confused about whether Gaza and West Bank were included in the population. They are not. There are about 5 million non-citizen Palestinians in the two areas.

Having justification, however, doesn't make the bad behavior good. — Ennui Elucidator

Hamas gives justifications too. So does ISIS. So did the Nazis. According to the United States, the US has only made “blundering efforts to do good,” and is always acting defensively.

This is why apologists love to trot out Dresden or Hiroshima.

the US has only made “blundering efforts to do good,” and is always acting defensively. — Mikie

As Churchill said, "Americans will always do the right thing after they have tried everything else first."

Perhaps we are focused too much on Israel. There has been a long series of wars all over the world throughout the 20th and 21st centuries. The totals killed by year and by conflict are high, adding up to many millions of people killed during famous wars and wars we didn't hear much about.

I have not studied war, but my guess is that none of these wars were carried out with thoughtful sensitivity regarding the safety of civilians and children. Bullets fly and they go right through people who get in the bullet's way. Mines laid 40 years ago blow up people today. The combatants never come back to collect them all -- or any of them. There are no smart bombs.

The present war in Gaza is bad, probably worse than other wars in Israel have been. Perhaps, though, not as bad as some other wars carried out to achieve control over other territories and people.

SOME RECENT AND ON-GOING WARS

Myanmar... around 15,000 killed in 2023 (around 200k since 1948)
Israel... around 30,000 +/- in 2023 (around 55,000 since 1948)
Sahel region... around 14,000 in 2023 (around 56,000 since 2002)
Russia-Ukrane.... between 30,000 and 90,000 in 2023 (around 200,000 since 2014)
Sudan... around 13,000 in current war

Columbia... around 2500 in 2023 (453,000 since 1964
Afghanistan... around 1000 in 2023 (between 1.5 and 2.5 million since 1978)
Somalia... around 9000 in 2023, (between 350,000 and 1 million since 1991)
DR of Congo... around 1400 in 2023 ((around 9,000 since 1996)
Nigeria... around 3,000 in 2023 (about 90,000 since 1998

Iraq... around 1,300 in 2023, (between 300k and 1.2 million since 2003)
DR of Congo & Rwanda... 2000 in 2023 (around 25,000 since 2004)
Mexican drug cartel wars... 6800 in 2023 (around 350,000 to 400,000 since 2006)
Sudanese Nomadic Conflicts... about 1240 in 2023 (around 300k to 400k since 2008)
Boko Haram insurgency... about 5,000 in 2023 (around 368,000 since 2009
(the list goes on and on)

The world does not actually have a United Nations Peace Keeping service. If it did, the "blue helmets" would have to be more than a timid diplomatic service. They would have to be the biggest hogs in the trough, and the permanent members of the Security Council are loathe to give up their own "biggest hog" status.

Many uphold the idea that Israel is Western democracy and a beacon of light in an area dominated by more or less totalitarian states. What I think is worrisome is what Israel's politics is going to as it indeed is a Western country. The talk about "voluntary removal" of the Gazan population to the Sinai desert is so frequent with so many administration members talking about it makes the ethnic cleansing of Gaza a genuine possibility, not just some over the top propaganda. What does this actually tell about the West itself? Once when a country finds itself in war, all the high minded ideas that the West believes are thrown away. And once it is in perpetual war, where basically low-intensity warfare is the "norm", the outcomes seem to be quite alarming. Yet it should be reminded that ethnic cleansing in Europe made the Western powers to intervene in a civil war where otherwise they might left the warring parties alone.

I already noticed this awful tendency happening already during the "War on Terror" with revenge, fear and islamophobia taking over. Hence South Africa has a point when it says that the West has double standards (Israel's actions compared to Russia's invasion of Ukraine).

What does this actually tell about the West itself? — ssu

Nothing. Gaza was a giant refugee camp, one of the most densely populated areas on the planet, spewing demoralizing attacks on its neighbor.

The west cautioned Israel not to go overboard attacking Gaza because of all the helpless, innocent people who would suffer or be killed. Israel didn't listen. What was the west supposed to do about it?

Fact of the matter is even Jews are anti-semites because antisemtism is the consequence Judaism, a morality of hate and resentment which drives one into ressentiment. It popularized this formula. — Vaskane

How this doesn't go down as hate speech is a bit beyond me. While anyone can theorize anything they like, stating "facts" like this about Jews doesn't strike of philosophical value and engenders conversations like demanding that someone prove that woman are morally equivalent to men. It is on its face hateful or so decontextualized that anyone but a rarefied few would grasp its subtle underpinnings that might be capable of redeeming the assertion. Sure, bad psycho-analysis has some role on the continent, but it would be best if it was restricted to its couches and private therapy rooms, no?

Historical claims (like the cause of antisemitism is X and even Jews are antisemitic because of X) are inherently non-philosophical if only because the terms employed are so vague as to say practically nothing. You can try to use jargon in such a precise way that anyone who already knew what you thought would understand what you are saying in just the way you meant it, but for the casual reader (you know, most people who see the word "ressentiment" and think, "Huh? Can that guy spell?") the words hanging by themselves mean something very different.

Had you said something like, "Those Jews whose views on equality were so anti-abusive master that when finally given the chance to be master they...." maybe you would come closer to not sounding like an outright antisemite. But to write something tantamount to "Even Jews hate Jews because that is what inherently arises from hateful, reactionary Judaism" reads much more like an argument for why people should be antisemitic written in brief. Writing "the Judaic Religion also creates very strong individuals..." just doesn't do the work of fixing the horrid thing written.

Lovely, someone wrote a book called the On the Genealogy of Morals (picked for its ease of title even if you'd rather a different reference) and the Jews come out of it looking less than philosophically enviable.

For anyone who cares, here is a random Wiki on the topic:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche#Slave_revolt_in_morals

Nietzsche felt that modern antisemitism was "despicable" and contrary to European ideals.[164] Its cause, in his opinion, was the growth in European nationalism and the endemic "jealousy and hatred" of Jewish success.[164] He wrote that Jews should be thanked for helping uphold a respect for the philosophies of ancient Greece,[164] and for giving rise to "the noblest human being (Christ), the purest philosopher (Baruch Spinoza), the mightiest book, and the most effective moral code in the world".[165] — RandomWiki

I'm a non religious atheist, you're an Islamaphobe with extreme prejudice who wants to assert fallacy to make a point. See how non prejudice works? — Vaskane

Are we not allowed to question Islam here? I'd say you hold similar prejudices towards Judaism.

a morality of hate and resentment which drives one into ressentiment. It popularized this formula. — Vaskane

Judaism is not a morality of hate. I know this is a point that Nietzsche makes, and while there may be a grain of truth to his comments on the "priestly class" this categorization of Jewish morality is simply unfitting. If you want to know Jewish morality look up the 613 commandments -- how many of those instruct one to hate or resent?

Deleuze on the Oedipal familial structure really shines some lights on the ugliness of the origins of the Judaic tradition. — Vaskane

Thanks for the recommendation, but my reading trends towards actual biblical scholars when it comes to interpreting the bible. Might I recommend Nahum Sarna? Or Rashi? Gerhard von Rad? People who have devoted their entire lives to this.

The whole reason modern Zionism exists was to overcome the Judaic tradition. — Vaskane

Huh? Zionism is littered throughout the Torah with God promising the land to the Hebrews and describing Israel as a "land of milk and honey." Zionism is biblical.

implicates anti-Semitism starts with Judaism. — Vaskane

Sure, if we also say e.g. racism against blacks starts with blacks.

Perhaps we are focused too much on Israel. — BC

Of course— this is a thread on that specific topic.

Perhaps, though, not as bad as some other wars carried out to achieve control over other territories and people. — BC

Maybe, sure— what’s your point though?

Zionism is littered throughout the Torah with God promising the land to the Hebrews and describing Israel as a "land of milk and honey." Zionism is biblical. — BitconnectCarlos

... ergo a fundamentalist ethnonational delusion; thus, the many generations of secular Jews who were/are conscientious anti-Zionists.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/858450

... ergo a fundamentalist ethnonational delusion; thus, the many generations of secular Jews who were/are conscientious anti-Zionists. — 180 Proof

Delusion is too strong a word. It's no matter to me whether one believes in God. The Bible traces the inextricable connection the Jews have to Israel back to the bronze age. You got records of trips and burial sites from the patriarchs all across the land we know as Israel. According to Genesis the patriarchs were buried in a cave in Hebron.

What was the west supposed to do about it? — frank

The US can stop the war in Gaza at any point in time. Note that the US is supplying Israel with the weapons it needs to conduct this massacre, note the carrier groups it sent in support of Israel, etc.

The reason it doesn't is because of domestic political reasons, aka the US Israel lobby.

If Joe wants to have even a sliver of a chance to be re-elected, he can't afford to antagonize the Israel lobby, which will drag him through the mud if he dares to do so.


Furthermore, due to Israel's tenuous position in the region it is very reliant on international support, so if the US and European countries were to take a firm stance, Israel would have to take it seriously.

The problem is, upon the outbreak of the conflict the first thing these nations did was give Israel cart blanche.

The sputterings they produce now is nothing more than window dressing, so they can continue to pararde themselves as "upholders of international law."

On a related note, look at this:

US intelligence confirms Islamic State's Afghanistan branch behind Iran blasts (Reuters)

"Confirms",

"The intelligence is clear-cut and indisputable," one source said.

Am I the only one who finds this use of language suspicious to say the least?

The moment I see this type of language coming from "anonymous US intelligence sources" my first thought is that they're the ones responsible.

:100:

The west cautioned Israel not to go overboard attacking Gaza because of all the helpless, innocent people who would suffer or be killed. Israel didn't listen. What was the west supposed to do about it? — frank

The question is, if Israel is part of the West and it's really looking at the possibility of ethnic cleansing, what does it tell about the West?

Last time ethnic cleansing happened close by it was the former Yugoslavia, that wasn't part of the West, even if European. Putin's Russia isn't also part of the West, hence the treatment of the Chechens isn't about the actions of a Western democracy. Former Yugoslavia was part of the Eastern bloc countries. And other examples have been from what we term as the Third World.

Or are you saying that Israel isn't a Western country and hence shouldn't be judged as one?

I think Israel would react the same no matter who was in Gaza. I don't think their actions are governed by racism, such that if the Gazans were Dutch, everything would be fine.

Am I the only one who finds the use of language suspicious to say the least? — Tzeentch

Well, there is the possibility that here IS is used as a proxy, just as Iran is using the Houthis as proxy. Iran learnt to use proxies after using it's own forces against Western shipping with the US Navy launching the largest naval operation after WW2 against the Iranian Navy in Operation Praying Mantis. This short war that actually didn't surface so much in the media sunk a lot of the Iranian navy. Hence Iran uses proxies. Possibly now Israel / US has learnt it too? IS would be perfect as you cannot say it's an ally of the West... only with wearing an enormous tin foil hat, that is!

(If someone is interested in that US operation years ago, here's a good visual summary of the 1988 large scale operation, that is quite unknown, the video starts after commercials in 1:10)

It's not about the reason for ethnic cleansing. It's the act of ethnic cleansing itself that is the issue here.

Or you assume that just big enough terrorist attack would have perpetrated by the IRA against the British, then the UK would have started to ethnically cleanse North Ireland and push all the catholics to Ireland? You think that would have been a normal response from a nation that says it upholds human rights etc?

Well, there is the possibility that here IS is used as a proxy, [...] — ssu

Or even just as a patsy. It's not like anyone would believe the word of violent extremists over US intelligence. By now IS is probably so badly fractured that there's not even any type of spokesperson that could deny the claim.

But yes, there's no question that Iran uses proxies. They're commonly referred to as "the head of the octopus."

It'll be interesting to see how the US intends to deal with this, though.

There's a lot of talk about starting a war with Iran, but what would that look like?

Air and naval power aren't going to win the day. Those times are over. They could use it to hurt Iran, but to defeat Iran it would require a full-scale invasion.

Iran is backed by Russia and China, and probably well-prepared to fight a war against a conventional military force.

Even if the US would pull out victorious (which is a big 'if') they would simply be busying themselves with small fish, while the big fish (China) is the laughing third once again.

There's a lot of talk about starting a war with Iran, but what would that look like? — Tzeentch

Like a disaster as everybody has for years anticipated it to be. Basically the US could simply mount a bombing campaign, something similar to Operation Desert Fox and likely nothing else. And Iran is far more powerful than the weak Iraq was after the liberation of Kuwait. A ground invasion? From where? Teheran is over mountains quite well inside Iran. Simply out of the question.

And where could Iran counterattack with it's proxies, the "Axis of resistance":

1) Bab el Mandeb -with the Houthis. Next step would be starting to mine the straits, which would be an absolute disaster for global trade. Already the global chokepoint is an area of fighting and attacks have also happened in the Arabian Sea and even in the Indian Ocean.

2) Iraq and the pro-Iranian militias there, which already have been active:

Iran-backed militias see the US as an occupying force interfering in Iraq’s internal affairs and undermining Baghdad’s sovereignty. Their operations are part of a wider campaign to pressure the US to exit Iraq and are aimed at two primary targets: military bases and convoys carrying logistical materiel (see graph below). Both these targets reflect a preference for indirect confrontation with US troops, and their respective prioritizations have fluctuated depending on the militias’ tactical objectives.

3) And Hezbollah and it's rocket artillery to attack Israel. Hundreds of thousands of Israelis have been already evacuated from the northern parts of the country in anticipation of an all out war with Hezbollah.

If you notice, already 1), 2), 3) are already engaged, even on a low burner. Hence the US can attack Iranian nuclear facilities while Iran can attack many US facilities in Iraq, Syria and the Gulf States.

Hence I find this all very bleak and worrisome.

Hence I find this all very bleak and worrisome. — ssu

Seconded, and good points.

I've heard some talk about Azerbaijan being used as a potential springboard, though the route to Teheran would still be very well-defendable. It'd be a stretch, and incur a level of cost that the Americans cannot afford, as long as China is the main rival they should be worrying about.

Even if they could capture Teheran, there's no way that would end the war. Since the Iranians are probably well-prepared for irregular warfare with Russian and Chinese backing. It would simply turn into another forever war that would eventually end in a US defeat.

At the same time, I can't help but feel the Americans are starting to look cornered. They're being pressured from all angles and it might only be a matter of time before they choose to draw the line somewhere.

Strategically one would think that the line would be drawn somewhere else, in the Pacific, and start a conflict between the US and China. But I don't think the Americans can afford to simply drop all their other interests while waiting for the Pacific to boil over. They certainly can't afford to drop Israel, at least not as far as my imagination goes.

Very worrying indeed. On one hand I can't imagine the US starting a war with Iran under current conditions. On the other hand the stakes are being raised and I think we're nearing a point where the US cannot back down and might do something drastic.

I've heard some talk about Azerbaijan being used as a potential springboard, though the route to Teheran would still be very well-defendable. It'd be a stretch — Tzeentch

The biggest issue is that Americans don't want a war. It's the last thing they want. Only some 9/11 will push them eagerly to attack Iran. Yet Afghanistan is still quite in memory.

This came clear when in 2016, when the Bush neocons were still in office and the WOT still going, the US had ground forces deployed both in Iraq and Afghanistan and someone like the former national security advisor Brzezinski was fearful that the US would indeed strike Iran.

At this moment in January 2016, Iran took prisoner US Navy personnel of a small naval patrol vessel that ventured into Iranian territory:


And no war happened.

What happened is that actually, for no reason given, the US Commander of CENTCOM later resigned. It might be a coincidence, but actually the only way how a US commander can protest is by resigning. Even if it was just a coincidence, the neocons in the White House never attacked Iran. And after this time the US policy has been not so aggressive. Hence to invade Iran is simply a bad idea and the US military knows it.

Even now, the Houthis, part of the Axis of Resistance, are seriously warned about their actions and the operation Prosperity Guardian is said to be purely defensive. And even that US-lead operation isn't forming a great alliance as the French Navy is protecting it's merchant ship by itself and India is doing it's naval operations on it's own in tackling what seems to be Somali privateers now.

Indian commandos rescue a hijacked cargo ship just yesterday in the Arabian Sea:

The biggest issue is that Americans don't want a war. It's the last thing they want. — ssu

Hmm, this is probably true, but they have to draw the line somewhere. Can they really afford to continue to bide their time as another crisis erupts that directly attacks US / western interests?

I'm also quite skeptical about the willingness of other nations to help out. In the case of Somali pirates it was an isolated threat that in itself could not really harm armed navy vessels. The Houthi rebels however are being supplied with anti-ship missiles.

The only navy I can imagine putting itself in the line of fire of such weapons is the US navy. And possibly the Indians? But then again, the Indians are part of BRICS so it's unlikely their ships would be targeted in such a way.

I think other nations will not be willing to run the risk of having one of their vessels swamped in anti-ship missiles and sunk. It requires a lot of faith in one's equipment.

All it took was one self-proclaimed Nietzsche expert to remind me why I lost interest in this place. Call Judaism a hateful religion because some dead guy that every misinformed person reads as being an antisimite wrote an argument you find compelling? A OK. I can only imagine what the mods would have done had the person posting the topic on the "N" word written it out so that people could see it on the front page for days or weeks on end.

The only navy I can imagine putting itself in the line of fire of such weapons is the US navy. And possibly the Indians? But then again, the Indians are part of BRICS so it's unlikely their ships would be targeted in such a way.

I think other nations will not be willing to run the risk of having one of their vessels swamped in anti-ship missiles and sunk. It requires a lot of faith in one's equipment. — Tzeentch

The Royal Navy has already shot down Houthi drones and missiles and the French Navy is already escorting French cargo ships through the Bab el Mandeb.

Shooting down anti-ship missiles and drones has basically been the norm from the 1980's, so it's not so difficult. The Houthi missile arsenal itself is technically quite old, the Iranian missiles like the Noor (originally the Soviet Styx missile) and the Chinese C802 are developed in the 1970's. There are newer Iranian missiles like the Sayyad, but all the anti-ship missiles seem to be subsonic.

The Sayyad missile on parade in Sanaa:


The only issue is that drones are dirt cheap while the surface to air missiles used to shoot them down cost over million dollars and there is a limited number of them on the destroyers and frigates. Hence the ships need to rearm, which isn't something you can easily do especially on the high seas.

Then there can be also remotely controlled ship borne explosive devices, something similar that the Ukrainians have used. Here some years ago a Saudi frigate was attacked by this kind of boat.



And the next level would be mine warfare. If mines are laid on the straight, it would mean that special minehunter ships have to be deployed. What makes this unlikely is that this ceases all shipping from passing through the straights, including countries that are friendly to Iran / the Houthis. For example, no Russian tankers have been attacked by the Houthis.

The only nation that basically has the ability and the will to possibly take an offensive stance here, to bomb Houthi installations, is basically the US Navy. Yet seems there isn't an eagerness to do this, if it can come to this.

Shooting down anti-ship missiles and drones has basically been the norm from the 1980's, so it's not so difficult. — ssu

Shooting down a single anti-ship missile is indeed not much of a problem.

The problem is that anti-ship missiles and drones are cheap, and their principal tactic is to overwhelm the target ship's defenses. They fly low to decrease reaction time, which is why many subsonic anti-ship missiles are still in use today.

A lone ship, or even a small task force, is a sitting duck against swarm attacks.

I don't expect the French or British to stick around if there is a real risk such attacks are carried out on their ships.

Besides, their navies are starting to get pretty dated, and I doubt they'll be willing to put their newest vessels on the line.