After 165 attacks on US installations or so, president Joe Biden gave the OK for attacks on 85 targets in Syria and Iraq. This from the country that in Biden's words "does not seek conflict in the Middle East or anywhere else in the world".

OK, we really should stop and think what is going on here and what will the future bring. First the military logic behind these attacks. So unfortunately when a US drone was landing on the US base "Tower 22", an attack drone sweeped in and three African-American reservist engineers were killed alonside many wounded. Hence after a huge barrage of attacks that the US has endured since October 7th, the US felt the need to respond with a "proportional" response so that the US "doesn't look weak". So not only was this inevitable (after 165 attacks), but also the response seems "inevitable" too.

And that's it, really.

Even if Joe left open that the US will respond "on it's own time and choosing", to say that the US isn't seeking conflict is quite similar to the stupidity of Obama declaring a surge and then immediately declaring that time when the troops are withdrawn: you clearly state that you aren't committed, really. Only for short duration.

Before Tower 22 got hit (before it was over 100 attacks), the map looked like this:


First let's think just why the US has bases sprinkled all over Syria and Iraq and also in Jordania. Few recollect the Global War on Terror, but this is the result of that especially after the campaign to fight ISIS, which is the reason the troops are there. And of course, Iranians and Iranian backed militias aren't ISIS, so there you have your first problem. Those bases sprinkled all over Iraq and Syria were intended to work with either allies or the government forces in the area. Now in this case it's hardly the case anymore. And this takes us to the next fundamental problem:

1.) The US is lacking a mandate and an real objective to be in Iraq and Syria.

US troops in Syria happen only because the country is mired in a catastrophic civil war. This basically isn't anything new: when countries collapse into chaos because of a civil war, Great Powers swoop down like vultures and play their games against each other. When Finland got it's independence, there were British and French forces doing their stuff in Northern Finland obviously in response of the German army in Finland (as WW1 was still going on). They went away, just like the Marines went away from Siberia. And if (actually a big if) Assad gets the country under control, those American forces will leave Syria.

Iraq is another matter. Iraqi officials have and military spokespersons have made it quite clear they don't tolerate what the US is doing and basically state that the US with it's actions is creating insecurity, not security. This has gone on a long time and seems like the US response is simply to not notice what Iraq says.

2.) The US is lacking a mission, an objective for what it is doing in the Middle East, especially in Iraq.

Yet this is a genuine problem for the US. The US is finding itself in a situation where France found itself last year in the Sahel: no country wanted it anymore there, hence it had to leave. As there simply was no appetite at all in Paris to stay there anyway, it was a case closed: no war happened, no overthrowing attempts. And this might actually be the future for US forces in Iraq: neither Biden (or later Trump) have no desire to now attack the regime the US has created itself in Iraq. Remember, it's all about the "Pivot to Asia", as the saying goes.

Hence likely at some time the US will finally get out of Iraq and likely at some time from Syria too. If someone will say to this "Good! Never should have been there." one has to remember just who comes and collects the place: Iran. Basically what is happening is that Iran is getting the US off it's own borders.

The Houthis already have shown that they don't mind about US bombings, they are quite fine to continue the fight. And as the fight is now in Iraq, Syria (and Jordania), I think Iran can be quite happy how things are going.

Hence likely at some time the US will finally get out of Iraq and likely at some time from Syria too. — ssu

Yes. Isolationism has been a goal of the US conservatives for a long time now. We're tired of transplanting our ideals of democracy to ungrateful foreign lands.

The MRGA crowd, sorry, I meant MAGA will likely sweep the elections here. Trump will gain dictatorial powers and align us with the Kremlin. This might prevent a world war but at a very high cost (we're sorry, Ukraine).

American troops and military aid will be withdrawn from everywhere. And then what? The secondary powers will have military control of their regions and nuclear weapons will proliferate unchecked. Then we shall see if Russia and China have plans beyond just battling us imperialists.

The Israeli newspapers have spoken openly about what they call the 'Netanyahu-Hamas Alliance', and how Netanyahu intentionally sought to get Rabin assassinated. — Tzeentch

:up:

We're tired of transplanting our ideals of democracy to ungrateful foreign lands. — magritte

:rofl:

Sorry…carry on.

I am likely an outlier in this conversation. I see two groups of people who have been buffeted by historic forces outside their control who are struggling to survive. It is an ongoing tragedy for everyone that shows no signs of ever resolving.

This Sunday's NY Times gives an excellent historic overview of the events that lead up to 1948. Strongly recommend that - even if you are familiar with the basics - folks read this to ground the discussion in the historical facts.

Yes. Isolationism has been a goal of the US conservatives for a long time now. We're tired of transplanting our ideals of democracy to ungrateful foreign lands. — magritte

Ungrateful? I think here it's necessary just to compare the US and Europe and the cooperation what has be produced to how the US acts on other continents and how the cooperation with other countries has gone.

First and foremost, the US helped Western Europe after WW2 with things like the Marshal aid. It made a huge contributions the Berlin airlift, which didn't go unnoticed by the West Germans. Then, above all, it was favored European integration which itself was an European process. It didn't oppose European integration, even if the typical Great Power strategy would have been rule and divide, not let others integrate. That is one of the most awesome choices the US has ever done: it listened to it's allies, understood that this could be beneficial for both sides of the Atlantic, it accepted European integration. Hence the US created the North Atlantic Treaty Organization which many European countries truly founding their defense policies on cooperative defense.

Then look at the failures everywhere else. CENTO failed. SEATO failed. Iran, the most powerful ally of the US is now it's most bitter enemy there. Pakistan, another former ally, simply burnt the candle from both end and "worked with" the US and also backed it's enemy and then won Afghanistan back.

At least in Latin America the US isn't stuck in some mindless war, but the economies and security situation of especially the Central American countries aren't so good, thus the flood of migrants. Yet many Latin countries have rather cool relations with the US. We shouldn't forget where BRICS gets the "B".

And now you have your "Pivot"-people in Washington DC demanding a pivot to Asia (to be against China). And what there? You have countries that don't share any military cooperation, just bilateral treaties with the US. Japan and South Korea, the two most powerful nations there don't work together. Australia is separate from the other countries and with New Zealand, who cares about the small Canada.

American isolationism happens, because the US doesn't care about leading other countries, doesn't try to coordinate actions with other countries. It's actually an end result: there is no enthusiasm for the "Free World" as there was earlier. Not in the US. Isolationism takes root because of the failures of US policy. The US doesn't believe itself anymore in the international order it had created after WW2. Hence the UN is bad actor in the eyes of the US. The US just reacts and then looks who is with it. Last example of this is Operation Prosperity Guardian, to protect international shipping in the Bab el Mandeb. But in it's inabilty, the US couldn't get even the French to join and likely didn't even bother to ask India about the issue! Thus these two countries have now warships doing exactly the same thing, but not with the US (thus the Houthis and Iran can be happy about that).

The MRGA crowd, sorry, I meant MAGA will likely sweep the elections here. Trump will gain dictatorial powers and align us with the Kremlin. This might prevent a world war but at a very high cost (we're sorry, Ukraine). — magritte

Actually, likely no. What I think that a Trump administration will eagerly promote is simply that "Europeans should defend themselves Europe more and not totally rely on the US" and that US will take a more passive role. That's the most likely outcome. You see, Trump's tweets and Trump's rhetoric is a bit different what actually the Trump administration will end up doing. Trump is an orator, not a leader. And foreign policy is a bigger process than a speech or a remark from the POTUS.

In fact, when you look at it from outside the US, the policies of Biden and Trump are in the end frighteningly similar. For example, for Afghanistan to fall so quickly to the Taleban, you really needed both Trump and Biden.

I am likely an outlier in this conversation. — EricH

We're fellow travelers. I just enjoy pressing people on their views here.

I am likely an outlier in this conversation. I see two groups of people who have been buffeted by historic forces outside their control who are struggling to survive. It is an ongoing tragedy for everyone that shows no signs of ever resolving. — EricH

This is totally true it just doesn't excuse certain behaviour on both sides. And while one side gets all the support, it's cover for the worst atrocities this century and that was entirely predictable unfortunately. It's quite a feat to actually be worse than a bunch of religious fanatic terrorists. The international community should be sanctioning both sides and start enforcing basic humanitarian laws and force them to get a negotiated settlement in place. BSD all the way.

:fire: BDS (Benedictus de Spinoza ...
would approve.)

Another good interview from a British general. His conclusion is logical and well reasoned: there is no military solution. Any military "solution" will simply end the war perhaps in a few months and then the conflict will erupt again in three years or so. Military victory, if something like it can be portrayed to happen, will be just temporary and won't solve the conflict. Israel's wars show this over and over again.



Major-general Charlie Herbert also makes an interesting point about the British conflict in Northern Ireland: there was no military solution and in the end quite little was achieved militarily. This coming from a British general. The solution was political, but this also meant that the UK had to really tackle the social, economic and legal problems that the Catholics in Ireland had.

This shows just how difficult the two state solution is: it's not only an issue about dividing land, it's also how viable the Palestinian State would be. The Palestine Authority has, especially in the eyes of Palestinians, become a sidekick of the Israelis. The Palestinian conflict isn't as easy as making a peace treaty with a neighboring country.

This shows just how difficult the two state solution is: it's not only an issue about dividing land, it's also how viable the Palestinian State would be. The Palestine Authority has, especially in the eyes of Palestinians, become a sidekick of the Israelis. The Palestinian conflict isn't as easy as making a peace treaty with a neighboring country. — ssu

This is entirely true and which is why a staggered approach is necessary. What's particularly troublesome is, is that neither party can be trusted (the IDF least of all) to adhere to any ceasefire. So the conditions for building trust while you negotiate all the various points aren't there and that way you'll never reach the end goal. This is why this problem cannot be resolved by mediating between the parties but a ceasefire needs to be enforced by the international community. Sanctions, blue helmets etc.

Israel is an unruly child of the US, poking their neighbours in the eye and stamping their feet. While the parent (the US) is trying to calm the situation and avoid a row between the parents. — Punshhh

I don’t find this image particularly enlightening. To me the power relation between the US and Israel isn’t best captured by the image of a wise father vs unwise child. Even though the history of Israel as a state is more recent than the US’s one, the cultural heritage and identity is much older in the Jewish community than in the American one. Besides even though the US is stronger economically, militarily and politically than Israel, much of the economic, military, technological, political and media power of the US comes from the Jewish community. Let’s not forget that the father of the American nuclear bomb was the jew Oppenheimer. And the Jewish lobby is among the strongest ethnic lobbies in the US.
Besides Israel bears a big weight on its shoulders given its geopolitical environment: being in a very strategic position between the Mediterranean and the Middle East, and in potential competition with 3 hegemonic powers Turkey (cradle of the Ottoman empire), Iran (cradle of Persian empire), Saudi Arabia (cradle of the Islamic empire).
On the other side the US is already in a tense situation coming from international challengers (Russia in Europe and China in the Pacific which may tempt also Israel) and national instabilities (Trump). And its political reputation is rather compromised: as far as genocides, war crimes and highly controversial geopolitical choices are concerned the US can’t really lecture Israel.
So Israel and the US may have competing as much as converging national interests to work out, and resources which may not compensate own or partner's vulnerabilities. The situation is rather messy.

Now we have a contradiction at the heart of the US policy. They want to avoid a war while at the same time thinking strategically how they could have war with Iran, take Iran out. — Punshhh

That’s somehow the point, deter without escalating. How politically feasible is that though?!

This is entirely true and which is why a staggered approach is necessary. What's particularly troublesome is, is that neither party can be trusted (the IDF least of all) to adhere to any ceasefire. So the conditions for building trust while you negotiate all the various points aren't there and that way you'll never reach the end goal. — Benkei

Exactly. And let's look how difficult it is even them to take a peace process seriously. Both sides have actually genuinely thought about peace when there has been the fear of losing their main backers: PLO chose to seek the peace process after Arafat had angered the Gulf States by backing Saddam Hussein in his invasion of Kuwait. Israel on the other hand thought that after the Cold War had ended and the Soviet Union dissolved, the US wouldn't need it around anymore so it took quite seriously the peace proposals and the Madrid process started by the US. Only afterwards Bibi understood that American Evangelists are diehard supporters of Israel, hence he really can go for greater Israel because no American politician will ever stand against him and the Zionist cause (because of the crazy religious people waiting for the rupture, supporting Israel isn't a foreign policy issue, it's a faith issue).

Besides Israel bears a big weight on its shoulder given its geopolitical environment: being in a very strategic position between the mediterranean and the Middle East, and in potential competition with 3 hegemonic powers Turkey (cradle of the Ottoman empire), Iran (cradle of Persian empire), Saudi Arabia (cradle of the Islamic empire). — neomac

This attitude just shows how fucked up this is.

You really think that these countries wouldn't opt for peace, stability and prosperity in the region with good relations around to the present clusterfuck? They just really want to fight or what?

Why is a perpetual war and insecurity here beneficial for anybody? Was South East Asia better in the 1960's and 70's when they were killing each other in the millions and with the US fighting there in Vietnam and bombing other places? Now the warfighting is basically confined to Myanmar, which is still a similar cauldron which it has been right from it's independence. But a lot of countries: Vietnam, Malesia, Indonesia, Cambodia and hopefully the Phillipines have moved away from fighting insurgencies.

So I don't understand this whole bullshit about somehow Israel doing anything else but giving a reason for various parties to have this war around. There are other problems, like the Kurds, but still, this is the conflict what really gets the place wild.

The Middle East is something that the Nordic countries were in the Middle Ages, the South American countries in the 19th Century. So I don't understand what the benefit truly is to have the Middle East as this cauldron of violence.

So just what you earlier said means that if the IRA had killed 1200, then you would have been totally OK with air strikes! — ssu

You can compare Israel-Palestine to the IRA conflict and I can compare it to Nazism. After all, 1200 is a number reminiscent of early Nazi massacres c. 1941. The reason Israel isn't in more danger is because Israel and Egypt control Gaza's borders and monitor them for weapons.

I'm not hugely familiar with the IRA conflict. If 1200 were killed in the attempt on Thatcher's life in the 1980s with 3/4 being civilians and many rapes occurring and hundreds of Protestants taken hostage in brutal conditions, would the Irish be out on the streets cheering in mass? Beats me. Not my neck of the woods. Would we have seen the Irish beating these hostages as they were paraded down the streets of Northern Ireland because they were English-Protestant? Time to bring back Cromwell I'd be thinking if I were English.

Israel does not bomb neighborhoods because the residents are sympathetic to Hamas; it bombs them because they contain military infrastructure. If Israel bombed a populace because it supported Hamas, virtually all of Gaza would be leveled.

Do you understand that your response can be the intent of the perpetrator? — ssu

Yes. Hamas intended to open the gates of hell on 10/7. I'm sure Japan knew that war would begin on Dec 7 1941. But one ever really argued that bombing Nazi Germany or Japan would just lead to more Nazis or Imperial Japanese. Perhaps the reprisals against those two nations initially did strengthen their resolve?

Do note what Maggie did after the actual bombing: she continued the conference and declared: ""this attack has failed. All attempts to destroy democracy by terrorism will fail." — ssu

The world would have been in a very different place if the IRA had managed to kill ~1200 British in one day, including the Prime Minister... but we enter into thought experiments here.

I don’t find this image particularly enlightening.

My analogy was to illustrate that the U.S. is the senior party here, not wise, but in the position of a power broker in the Middle East. Israel is perceived by her neighbours as a U.S. outpost in the Middle East. Now Israel is showing highly aggressive behaviour and the U.S. is trying to keep a lid on it. That’s all.
Yes I see the strength of the Jewish lobby in the U.S. and the political sensitivity. It places the administration between a rock and a hard place. They are scared to enrage the lobby while wanting to tell Israel to show restraint. Biden, like Sunak and Starmer in the U.K. and leaders in the EU don’t want to be labelled as anti-Semite. This renders them powerless to stop Netanyahu running riot.

Netanyahu finds himself in the position of having great power, in that he has the backing of the Western powers, who are scared to step out of line. He could singlehanded initiate a wider regional war and draw in the Western powers. He can eliminate the Palestinians, which he has dreamt of for decades and be given cover by the West. Alternatively he could now extend the hand of friendship to the Palestinians and Arab neighbours from this position of great power and bring a period of peace and prosperity to the region.

This also puts Netanyahu in a vulnerable position in his own country. The competing political forces in Israel will be imploring him to go this way, or that. They may already have him in a stranglehold.

Yes Isreal is in the crossroads between East and West, and in antiquity between Africa, Europe and Asia. Between Christendom and Islam. All the more reason for her to become a mediator and broker of peace in the region. Instead the psychological trauma, I fear, of their past won’t allow it. It might in the end drag the Jewish people back into exile.

https://www.volkskrant.nl/columns-opinie/met-het-wegkijken-van-de-massale-schendingen-van-het-oorlogsrecht-door-israel-ondermijnt-het-westen-nu-zelf-de-internationale-rechtsorde~b6522e2e/

Good opinion piece from Dutch historian Thomas von der Dunk.

Israel does not bomb neighborhoods because the residents are sympathetic to Hamas; it bombs them because they contain military infrastructure. — BitconnectCarlos

Yeah right, seems to be then a lot of military infrastructure in Gaza, when now half of the buildings have already "contained military infrastructure":



And then there's the talk that simply is a / the Nazi solution:

(Times of Israel, Jan 1st 2024) Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s two senior far-right partners endorsed the rebuilding of settlements in the Gaza Strip and the encouraging of “voluntary emigration” of Palestinians on Monday, while hawkish opposition MK Avigdor Liberman called for Israel to reoccupy southern Lebanon.

Speaking during their parties’ respective faction meetings in the Knesset, National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich presented the migration of Palestinian civilians as a solution to the long-running conflict and as a prerequisite for securing the stability necessary to allow residents of southern Israel to return to their homes.

The war presents an “opportunity to concentrate on encouraging the migration of the residents of Gaza,” Ben Gvir told reporters and members of his far-right Otzma Yehudit party, calling such a policy “a correct, just, moral and humane solution.”

“We cannot withdraw from any territory we are in in the Gaza Strip. Not only do I not rule out Jewish settlement there, I believe it is also an important thing,” he said.

The “correct solution” to the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict is “to encourage the voluntary migration of Gaza’s residents to countries that will agree to take in the refugees,” Smotrich told members of his Religious Zionism party, predicting that “Israel will permanently control the territory of the Gaza Strip,” including through the establishment of settlements.

"Correct, just moral and humane" solution, it seems? A final solution? Close to it...

Didn't the Germans at first think about relocating Jews to Africa?

(Times of Israel, 3rd January 2024) The “voluntary” resettlement of Palestinians from Gaza is slowly becoming a key official policy of the government, with a senior official saying that Israel has held talks with several countries for their potential absorption.

Zman Israel, The Times of Israel’s Hebrew sister site, has learned that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition is conducting secret contacts for accepting thousands of immigrants from Gaza with Congo, in addition to other nations.

“Congo will be willing to take in migrants, and we’re in talks with others,” a senior source in the security cabinet said.

That above clearly gives a reason just why demolishing everything and making Gaza totally unlivable is a great objective. So I guess every building is part of the military infrastructure, right?

The "real horror" – their banality aided and/or abetted by our indifference (i.e. your apologetics).

Didn't the Germans at first think about relocating Jews to Africa? — ssu

The UK is doing that with asylum seekers. Pack them off to Rwanda. It's been blocked by the courts on Human Rights grounds so far, but the Conservatives are planning legislation that legally defines Rwanda as safe! The world has been missing a trick it seems. We should just pass legislation that says climate change isn't happening, Gazans don't suffer, the moon has an oxygen rich atmosphere and welcoming locals, and everyone is happy.

:smile:

One could argue that deporting people from a country that they don't live in, but want to live, is a bit different from deporting people from a country (or let's say a physical place) that they have lived all their lives and do want to continue to live.

One could argue that deporting people from a country that they don't live in, but want to live, is a bit different from deporting people from a country (or let's say a physical place) that they have lived all their lives and do want to continue to live. — ssu

Oh, indeed! It was a frivolous comparison. :)

Interesting piece by a good journalist on the IDF campaign.
https://lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v46/n03/tom-stevenson/rubble-from-bone

What bothers me is that all of a sudden a lot of people are waking up to the current atrocities while not realising this is just part of the overarching strategy. People are ignoring the genocide of the Palestinian people that has been going on for decades just because it wasn't acute but slow. The regular bulldozing of houses and farmland and eviction of Palestinians in the past 40 years is no different in effect than bombing them to smithereens.

And what is likely happen is that perhaps next month the northern front will be opened by Israel and Bibi will try to deal with Hezbollah. The simple fact that 100 000 civilians have evacuated Northern areas of Israel will likely draw the Netanyahu government to do something about it. Yes, there's a very twisted logic that the anticipation of fighting that caused people to flee might be the reason for the attack. Perhaps the attack will be done simply by increasing the level of current operations and to get Hezbollah hopefully to launch an full scale retaliatory attack. Such an attack would likely get the US to assist Israel.

As the US troops all around Syria and Iraq are there basically because of the past operations on ISIS, they do pose an easy and actually vulnerable target, which doesn't make the situation good for the US. That of course plays well into Bibi's hands. Bibi is already portraying this fight a war Israel is fighting on the "behalf of the West".

Yes and people who have been campaigning for the end of the oppression of Palestinians have been labelled as anti-Semitic, or smeared with anti-semitism, for decades too.

The smear campaign against Jeremy Corbyn in the U.K. is a good example. Many Labour voters were convinced not to vote Labour (2019) because Corbyn was dangerous. Would invite the worlds despots and terrorists into the country.

In what follows, I'm indirectly commenting to your last post too.

You really think that these countries wouldn't opt for peace, stability and prosperity in the region with good relations around to the present clusterfuck? They just really want to fight or what? — ssu

So I don't understand this whole bullshit about somehow Israel doing anything else but giving a reason for various parties to have this war around. There are other problems, like the Kurds, but still, this is the conflict what really gets the place wild. — ssu

If all those countries would just opt for peace, stability and prosperity in the region with good relations around to the present clusterfuck, why did they end up in this clusterfuck in the first place?
Precisely because Turks, Iranians and Arabs do not care about the Kurds’s nation-state aspirations and violently repress them, blaming Israel for the fate of the Palestinians is very much likely convenient to them. Indeed, why would Iran even care about the fate of Palestinians? They are Sunni and Arab, while Iranians are neither Sunni nor Arab and precisely for these reasons Iranian are widely unsympathetic (to not say, “feel hatred”) toward Sunni Arabs, so why do they care about the Palestinians? At least Putin can blabber about the genocide of ethnic Russians in Ukraine, Iran can’t do something similar. So, why does Iran (a repressive country toward its own people and toward internal separatist movements on its own) cares about the Israeli repression of the Palestinians?
Israel and Saudi Arabia were trying to overcome historical conflicts and that might have favoured peace, stability and prosperity, but Hamas and Iranians (at least) messed it up because not convenient to them.
Authoritarian regimes are facilitated to spin a certain narrative to project onto external foes their internal failures, and invest resources in military buildup for power projection, also through proxies, more than Western democracies. Past and recent history offers all the pretexts they need, and nobody is free from blame.
I’m afraid the is no recipe to get out of this mess, which nobody fully understand or dominate. By trial and errors of all involved parties the situation will stabilise over generations, at some point, hopefully. It would be nice if one could start seeing this happening within one’s lifetime and for the better of all involved parties. I find it very hard to be optimistic about it, though.

The Middle East is something that the Nordic countries were in the Middle Ages, the South American countries in the 19th Century. So I don't understand what the benefit truly is to have the Middle East as this cauldron of violence. — ssu

Maybe states can’t easily skip historical stages: Nordic countries evolved to nation-state status through all the bloody wars of the Middle Ages. So nation-state formation in the Middle East has to go through bloody wars as well. Something similar happens with industrialisation and urbanization: e.g. China is going through economic stages that may resemble the ones the West lived in the XIX century.

If all those countries would just opt for peace, stability and prosperity in the region with good relations around to the present clusterfuck, why did they end up in this clusterfuck in the first place? — neomac

One reason, which should be trendy, old white European men with moustaches:

Misters Sykes and Picot:


Mr Balfour:


Or perhaps WW1 in general and it's aftermath, which basically started modern Zionism and the inherent instability of countries like Iraq etc.

Indeed, why would Iran even care about the fate of Palestinians? — neomac

It is as interesting question like as why is US treating Israel so differently than any other of it's allies. (No wait, Israel isn't actually an ally of the US, meaning there is no actual defense treaty, hence Israel doesn't have to come to the aid of the US.)

But anyway, why is Iran so eager to be against the Israelis?

Well, it maybe hard for Christians to understand that the Muslim community, the Ummah, means a lot for Muslims if Christendom is now days totally meaningless for us. That's the first reason. Secondly, not only is the cause of Palestine popular in the Arab street (remember Pan-Arabism etc), but also there are the Shiias in Lebanon, which formed and fought against Israel after it attacked and occupied Southern Lebanon. Not only are they defending Muslims, but also fellow Shiites. And since Iran is an revolutionary state that wants to promote it's Islamic revolution and islamic values like revolutionary states typically do (just like, well, the US), this is a perfect way for Iran to show it's the vanguard of the Ummah against the West and that all these Monarchies or Arab republics close to the West and US aren't doing anything about the genocide against Palestinians.

Thirdly, when the US has made Iran part of the Axis of Evil and Americans talk of attacking Iran and how a threat it is to everybody, then it's far more better to have the conflict been played out somewhere else than in Iran. Create the quagmire for Americans somewhere else than in your own country. Far more better to have the US fight somewhere else, like in Lebanon, Yemen or Iraq and Syria.

Israel and Saudi Arabia were trying to overcome historical conflicts and that might have favoured peace, stability and prosperity, but Hamas and Iranians (at least) messed it up because not convenient to them. — neomac

Trump's Abraham records was basically an attempt to bribe the countries in normalizing relations with Israel and simply to sideline the troublesome question of the Palestinians. This was indeed the worry of Hamas, and it thus went with the Al-Aqsa Flood operation, something that likely had been planned for years. I think it came as a surprise to Iran what Hamas did.

I’m afraid the is no recipe to get out of this mess, which nobody fully understand or dominate. — neomac

Actually, you can understand it. And the more you understand it, the less hopeful you are of a negotiated peace deal.

I find it very hard to be optimistic about it, though. — neomac

I feel the same way. What would be the reason why a two state solution would be reached? Perhaps that Bibi really fucks up and we aren't going to be talking about tens of thousands of killed Palestinians, but perhaps a hundred thousand killed. Or two hundred thousand. When does Israel loose the "beacon of democracy" role in the eyes of Americans? Americans don't like what is happening in Gaza, yet how about when it's even worse? And how after that will gentile Americans and Europeans feel towards Jews in general when Israel is in the international arena like white South Africa? Then some Benny Gantz has to do something to improve the image after "Mr. Security" Bibi Netanyahu.

Hamas has actually come out and admitted that things got a bit out of control in October 7th:

The group said that avoiding harming civilians “is a religious and moral commitment” by fighters of Hamas’s armed wing, the Qassam Brigades. “If there was any case of targeting civilians; it happened accidentally and in the course of the confrontation with the occupation forces,” read the report.

It added that “maybe some faults happened” during the attack “due to the rapid collapse of the Israeli security and military system, and the chaos caused along the areas near Gaza.

(See Hamas says October 7 attack was a ‘necessary step’, admits to ‘some faults’)

Well, I guess that statement of "Oops, partly sorry about that!" above puts Hamas in honesty in the same category of the "most moral" army in the Middle East, the IDF.

Maybe states can’t easily skip historical stages: Nordic countries evolved to nation-state status through all the bloody wars of the Middle Ages. — neomac

Actually the last war between the Nordic states happened between Sweden and Norway in 1814, which was the last war Sweden has fought (and actually was victorious). And just think what needed to happen in Europe for Europeans to want integrate and be so peaceful. We had to have WW1 and WW2 where millions of died.

So perhaps both sides have to have the Polish experience of WW2, a war where at least EVERY SIXTH POLISH DIED. After that kind of Holocaust/Nakba, I think the survivors won't care a fuck about just who controls the Temple Mount and just where the border goes, but want peace.

So yeah, I'm really not an optimist here.

How does Palestine's population grow during a decade's-long genocide?
https://www.statista.com/chart/20645/palestine-and-israel-population-growth/

"Palestine is facing a rapid population growth and large youthful population with 69% below the age of 29. The population growth rate stands high at 2.8% and it is expected to remain stable due to decline in mortality rates while fertility rate remains one of the highest in the Arab region standing at 4.06, with high disparity between Gaza and West Bank, 4.5 and 3.6 respectively. Furthermore, the current population density is a serious concern in Gaza Strip reaching more than 4500 inhabitants per one square kilometer."
https://palestine.unfpa.org/en/population-matters-0

Not really much of a genocide, is it?

Oh wow, you really want me to post the definition for the third time? I think your stupidity in this thread is on display but now you're adding wilful stupidity to the mix as well.

Cause, as I stated before, the tens of thousands of Palestinian deaths over the past 100+ years cannot be considered large enough scale to fit the term Genocide. But it is proper to use the term "holocaust," which details a slow burn killing over an extended period of time. — Vaskane

Ah, so not a genocide, but a kind of holocaust. The same objection applies: while there's a holocaust going on, Palestine's population triples in 40 years? Not really much of a holocaust, is it? Nothing at all like the actual Holocaust. Why do you think Israel is so ineffective at killing Palestinians?