It's an embarrassment, Biden could end this with a phone call, he refuses to do so.

The issue then is, can the Israeli economy, and the Israeli's themselves (the citizens) be able to sustain an in-depth fight with Hezbollah? — Manuel

The question you should ask: Will Bibi be OK with a hundred thousand or more Israelis having fled their homes in the North and now having live somewhere else?

let's remember:

(Times of Israel, 22nd Oct 2023) Some 200,000 Israelis have been internally displaced in the ongoing Israel-Hamas following the terror group’s October 7 massacre in southern Israel, and amid escalating skirmishes on the Lebanon border in the north with terror group Hezbollah and allied Palestinian factions, according to Israeli authorities.

About half of the 200,000 were instructed to evacuate from 105 communities near the Gaza and Lebanon borders in the south and north, while half left areas close to the front of their own volition, a spokesperson for the Prime Minister’s Office said Sunday.

The Defense Ministry, through its National Emergency Management Authority (NEMA), said it was giving services to about 120,000 displaced Israelis ordered to evacuate from 25 communities up to four kilometers from the Gaza Strip, and from another 28 communities up to two kilometers from the Lebanon border, according to a Defense Ministry announcement.

- You think those Israelis living close to Lebanon are happy to just come home and wait for the tens of thousands of Hezbollah rockets to be fired at them at some time?

- Second of all, when Israel is already in a war. Why not try to kill two flies at the same time? You are already running around with the flyswatter and not minding your peaceful doings, so why not?

- You think those Israelis living close to Lebanon are happy to just come home and wait for the tens of thousands of Hezbollah rockets to be fired at them at some time? — ssu

The fire will stop once the Gaza operation stops, Hezbollah has been very clear about this.

- Second of all, when Israel is already in a war. Why not try to kill two flies at the same time? You are already running around with the flyswatter and not minding your peaceful doings, so why not? — ssu

But they couldn't "swat the fly" in 2006, when they only focused on Lebanon. How could they do so now, when they are in a worse condition, militarily speaking?

I agree that Netanyahu wants to keep this going as long as he can, but, the question is how long will they have before economic and international pressure continues to pile on and make this even worse for them?

For the first time, illegal settlements are being sanctioned by the West, this is due to the conditions on Gaza. It's something the West can do to give Israel some minimal pushback, given that Biden is unwilling to call this whole thing off.

Can we please steer away with a very wide birth from the "psyche" of a group of people? Smells too close to racism to me. Cultural and material conditions have caused both sides to have a majority of people that can drink the other sides blood. That is a consequence of a decades long (rather one sided) conflict but little to do with "psyche". After WWII my grandfather-in-law hated Germans for the rest of his life - that was only 5 years of conflict.

Israel is conducting an apartheid state. The responsibility for the outcome lies with them.

yes, sir.

But they couldn't "swat the fly" in 2006, when they only focused on Lebanon. How could they do so now, when they are in a worse condition, militarily speaking? — Manuel

Are they in a worse condition? I don't think Bibi thinks at all like that.

Remember that 2006 war, which lasted for 34 days, happened because a cross border raid that left three IDF soldiers dead.

A little bit different that what happened in Oct 7th. Just as 9/11 response was a bit different to the 1993Twin Towers bombing (when that terrorist attack was a police matter, in which the FBI caught the terrorists and put them into an ordinary US prison).

When you have the people wanting revenge, you go all in with the war! It's an opportunity of a lifetime. Time to mow the lawn in Lebanon too?

The one thing we can say with significant confidence is that Bibi wants to stay in power for as long as possible. That does add strength to the claim that he will expand the war with Hezbollah to a full-scale war.

By the same token, Bibi's state of mind may not be the best course to follow into Israel's actions.

One thing which I did find interesting - I cannot recall were I saw it - is that this time, the IDF has not bombed Beirut's main airport. Every time they've launched a huge war against Lebanon, the airport is always destroyed. Not this, at least, not now.

Hezbollah has significantly expanded and upgraded its missile capacity, which is why it is suggested that the Israelis are reluctant, despite the rhetoric, of going all in with Lebanon.

Regardless, Israel would pulverize Lebanon in such an event, no doubt, but they will also receive significant damage as well.

I don't see how they can beat Hezbollah, if they can't beat Hamas. And then what? A defeat against Hamas and Hezbollah?

I don't see how they can beat Hezbollah, if they can't beat Hamas. And then what? A defeat against Hamas and Hezbollah? — Manuel

Isreal and Bibi react. Then think about tomorrow. 'The distant future' is not on their minds.

And note, IDF cannot surely beat the movement called Hamas, but present military units of Hamas the can take out or degrade to a point that they can say to the Israeli public that Hamas isn't a threat. And that's it. That's the objective. Same is for Hezbollah they have a huge stockpile of rockets, so the issue is to destroy the existing capability. Those physical rockets and present leadership and present fighters. And with the October 7th attack having a similar effect of the 9/11 attacks, this logic can easily prevail. Why not? It's an opportunity.

Plus Israel can justify it's actions that Hezbollah operates south of the Litani river and thus poses a threat that Israel simply cannot live with. (Of course Hezbollah argues that this is because Israel hasn't kept it's side of the deal.)

Reminding of the slaughter on October 7th is an easy way to enlarge the war. 9/11 showed just how long this feeling will continue. The attack on Iraq on fabricated reasons happened and was very popular. Remember the time of "Freedom Fries"? Hence for Israel to deal with Hezbollah now is an opportunity. It's not when things are calm.

So my view is that it is more likely that Israel will attack and try to destroy Hezbollah than that this war wouldn't escalate from the tit-for-tat war that it is now. Yes, the current level of conflict can be a possibility: a historical example of a tit-for-tat war is the War of Attrition that went on a bit over three years.

Yet that hardly is what Bibi would like and the likely at least in a years time those Israelis living now in hotels somewhere else in Israel would get angry.

Naturally "Genocide Joe" is against this. Yet it will be harder and harder for the US to keep this stance when it's already fighting it's war against Hezbollah in Iraq!

(from nine days ago)


Perhaps Bibi hopes that the US can get mixed up to this. After all, Bibi's objectives are portrayed as "Israel defending the US and the West". And also hopes for his friend Trump to arrive on the scene.

Isreal and Bibi react. Then think about tomorrow. 'The distant future' is not on their minds.

And note, IDF cannot surely beat the movement called Hamas, but present military units of Hamas the can take out or degrade to a point that they can say to the Israeli public that Hamas isn't a threat. And that's it. That's the objective. Same is for Hezbollah they have a huge stockpile of rockets, so the issue is to destroy the existing capability. Those physical rockets and present leadership and present fighters. And with the October 7th attack having a similar effect of the 9/11 attacks, this logic can easily prevail. Why not? It's an opportunity. — ssu

For the time being. There are elements with the government that are tired of Bibi, but sadly, many of the alternatives to him are even worse, which is hard to comprehend.

It risks escalating into an even bigger war this time, I don't believe that, once this is over, whenever it is, Israel will ever be the same again, nor will Gaza. I see the logic you are presenting, similar to what many in the government are presenting, but it has its drawbacks too, most notably civilian losses for Israel.

Hence for Israel to deal with Hezbollah now is an opportunity. It's not when things are calm. — ssu

Well, a lot can happen, but my feeling is, even if they go to war with Hezbollah, which they may very well do, Israel is no longer guaranteed long stretches of peace, that is, they won't be able to avoid significant large wars, if they do not give up some land. So this is a band-aid for a missing arm, only more troubles for everybody.

Naturally "Genocide Joe" is against this. Yet it will be harder and harder for the US to keep this stance when it's already fighting it's war against Hezbollah in Iraq! — ssu

What Biden is doing is crazy, given how the polls with young voters are showing.

You may very well be right. But it's a big risk, is all I'm saying.

For the time being. There are elements with the government that are tired of Bibi, but sadly, many of the alternatives to him are even worse, which is hard to comprehend. — Manuel

Yes, there surely are those who are tired about Netanyahu and question how October 7th was possible. Yet the response isn't so much criticized by Israeli politicians. Just look at for example interviews of former prime minister Ehud Olmert. He's really not a Bibi fan in any way, but the response to destroy Hamas is quite there. It's as if on 9/11 we would have had a democratic administration of Al Gore: it would have gone also to Afghanistan. Not perhaps later to Iraq, but it would have gone there. To handle 9/11 like a police matter was simply out of the question. And so it is for Israel: it's at war. The real question is if another administration would want to enlarge the conflict as Bibi evidently does.

It risks escalating into an even bigger war this time, I don't believe that, once this is over, whenever it is, Israel will ever be the same again, nor will Gaza. I see the logic you are presenting, similar to what many in the government are presenting, but it has its drawbacks too, most notably civilian losses for Israel. — Manuel

Yet civilian losses, just as in 9/11 and in October 7th, were needed to justify the war at the first place. Assume if the Al-Aqsa Flood operation had been a disaster for Hamas, if the IDF had been tipped of and it had it's forces on alert and had started the battle at the wall, then wiping out Gaza wouldn't have been tolerated! Hamas would look like the bumbling fools that in general Palestinians look like for Israelis as it is hubris that caused the breaching of the multi-million wall in the first place (because it wasn't designed against a large concentrated military operation, but small breaching attempts)..

When there's a credible threat, a genuinely traumatic experience, it will harden the attitudes. As you said, both Israel and Gaza (and the Palestinians) won't be the same after this.

Well, a lot can happen, but my feeling is, even if they go to war with Hezbollah, which they may very well do, Israel is no longer guaranteed long stretches of peace, that is, they won't be able to avoid significant large wars, if they do not give up some land. So this is a band-aid for a missing arm, only more troubles for everybody. — Manuel

I agree. Basically if Netanyahu overplays his hands, the end result may be a peace deal. But that would mean that the Israel lobby in the US loses it's position on the US. That is a big if.

another interesting video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giktOwxfK-M

“What we have forgotten in this atmosphere of political correctness is actually the Christians that are being persecuted are some of the poorest people on the planet. In the Middle East the population of Christians used to be about 20%; now it’s 5%.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/02/persecution-driving-christians-out-of-middle-east-report

Imo the Israeli attack on Gaza is justified only by Hamas's attack on Oct. 7 and the hostages, but altogether and entirely justified thereby. The fellow in the video above has made a number of videos, all interesting and thought provoking (again imo). His message seems to be that if taking a critical look at the middle east, it is both necessary and wise to look at it "large-scale." For without such a view, one fails of understanding, of what has happened, is happening, and why; and without right perspective, nothing is the right "shape." And I think the fellow is sufficiently credible to allow what he says to have a good deal of weight.

if taking a critical look at the middle east, it is both necessary and wise to look at it "large-scale." — tim wood

Fully agree on that. Many Westerners still refuse to see the threats coming from Russian imperialism and Islamism and fall for the claim that Israelis and Ukrainians are the real Nazis. Westerners are only provocators while peaceful Russia and Islam are only trying to restore justice. And if we do not see that, it's because of a problem in our psyche or in crazy Evangelical propaganda.

Many Westerners still refuse to see the threat their governments pose to others and as such create the very conditions for those others to become a threat in turn. Like a self-fulfilling prophecy. Also nice how you reduce everything anti-zionists in this thread have said about the crimes from Israel as comparing them to Nazis. It's useless.

As to your whole spiel about human rights, war crimes etc. not being considerations; they obviously are as all appeals by like-minded individuals, especially former colonies that better understand the oppression of the Palestinians, to higher norms are couched in international law norms, which have been recognised by Western and non-Western countries alike.

And note, IDF cannot surely beat the movement called Hamas, but present military units of Hamas the can take out or degrade to a point that they can say to the Israeli public that Hamas isn't a threat. And that's it. That's the objective. Same is for Hezbollah they have a huge stockpile of rockets, so the issue is to destroy the existing capability. — ssu

What if I were to say, "the US and Britain surely cannot beat the movement called Nazism, but only their present military units"... I suppose I would be technically right also but not making much of a point. Nazis do still exist.

Hopefully Israel won't need to "mow the grass" in another decade or two if real, systemic changes can be made and if the Rafah campaign is successful. Several military commentators, including ones from West Point, have commented that Israel is conducting this war quite humanely with less than a 2:1 civilian to terrorist ratio.

Isreal and Bibi react. Then think about tomorrow. 'The distant future' is not on their minds. — ssu

I can't think of another country that doesn't respond similarly when 1200 of its own are slaughtered and ~300 taken hostage. What are we negotiating about??? What's the response? Embargo Hamas? Write them a strongly worded letter from the UN demonstrating international condemnation and a promise to restart the peace process? There is no peace process with Hamas in charge. Or the PA, for that matter. Israel is to be made Muslim according to them.

Another point I thought of regarding anti-semitism: Could you think of another country whose hostage posters would be torn down if its citizens were kidnapped by another group? I struggle to think of one. Israel is regarded as the nexus of worldly evil for so much of the world, especially on college campuses and among the youth. It's disturbing.

Moreover, why are so many of the pro-Palestinian protests violent and destructive while in the pro-Israel ones I've never heard of any vandalism and everyone's sitting around singing "HaTikvah." The difference in "culture" between the two groups is stunning. The Palestinian crowd disturbs cancer wards with their bullhorns. It's self-righteous psychopathy. Extremely dangerous.

Can we please steer away with a very wide birth from the "psyche" of a group of people? Smells too close to racism to me. Cultural and material conditions have caused both sides to have a majority of people that can drink the other sides blood. That is a consequence of a decades long (rather one sided) conflict but little to do with "psyche". After WWII my grandfather-in-law hated Germans for the rest of his life - that was only 5 years of conflict. — Benkei

Not racism, religious difference. Schopenhauer described the Quran as containing a "remarkable contempt for death" as opposed to Judaism, the oldest of the Abrahamics, which has more time to develop/moderate and contains much less eschatology than Islam. In that sense, we can speak of different "psyches" -- not due to race, but by religious/cultural upbringing. According to the Pew Research Center, 85% of Muslims in the Palestinian Territories say religion is very important in their lives.

Another point I thought of regarding anti-semitism: Could you think of another country whose hostage posters would be torn down if its citizens were kidnapped by another group? I struggle to think of one. Israel is regarded as the nexus of worldly evil for so much of the world, especially on college campuses and among the youth. It's disturbing.

Moreover, why are so many of the pro-Palestinian protests violent and destructive while in the pro-Israel ones I've never heard of any vandalism and everyone's sitting around singing "HaTikvah." The difference in "culture" between the two groups is stunning. The Palestinian crowd disturbs cancer wards with their bullhorns. It's self-righteous psychopathy. Extremely dangerous.

Special pleading.

A low level of anti-semitism is endemic in Western countries. It’s a hang over from the last few hundred years of persecution and prejudice against them.

If it weren’t there and Isreal were conducting the same actions against the Palestinians there would still be the same level of outrage across the globe. Outrage at a so called civilised country, a Western country confining a population and then starving them to death and bombing indiscriminately.

↪neomac
Many Westerners still refuse to see the threat their governments pose to others and as such create the very conditions for those others to become a threat in turn. — Benkei

Well that’s not my case. Indeed, what you are saying is very much related to the point I made on several occasions in the thread about the Ukrainian crisis: if states/governments are security driven and anticipate threats (because if the threat is imminent, it may be too late to respond to it effectively), then any DEFENSIVE move can be perceived as OFFENSIVE by a competitor states/governments (see Putin’s complaining about NATO expansion and invasion of Ukraine to prevent that, triggered Finland and Sweden to candidate for NATO membership, so NATO expanded). Notice that, by this logic, even Nazis and Christians could see Jews as a threat for what Jews did and had done. BTW this is true also for PROPAGANDA spun by ordinary people like you: any propaganda by political activists can threaten and trigger a counter-propaganda.
That is why one has to look at the wider geopolitical/historical/cultural context (e.g. Islamism vs Zionism) and signaling strategies (like the declared intentions of Hamas or Iran vs the declared intentions of Israeli government, including Netanyahu) to make sense of what constitutes threat perception and threat signaling for all involved parties (because the threat is more in the eye of the threatened, than in the eye of the threatener). And ultimately pick a side as consistently as possible with such understanding, if one wants to be rationality motivated.
Besides I also do not underestimate the possibility that not all human problems can be solved through diplomatic means or for the benefits of all involved parties.

Also nice how you reduce everything anti-zionists in this thread have said about the crimes from Israel as comparing them to Nazis. — Benkei

Not really. In that comment, I wasn’t specifically referring to “everything anti-zionists in this thread have said about the crimes from Israel”, I generically said “many Westerners”. Besides, in this thread, I questioned certain critical views against Israel (like yours, ssu and punsh's ) without making the kind of reduction you are now attributing to me based on a post addressed to another user.

As to your whole spiel about human rights, war crimes etc. not being considerations; they obviously are as all appeals by like-minded individuals, especially former colonies that better understand the oppression of the Palestinians, to higher norms are couched in international law norms, which have been recognised by Western and non-Western countries alike. — Benkei

They obviously are AS other considerations. What I’m questioning and solicit people in this thread to give a more serious thought about is whether the considerations you seem to cherish so much (as many privileged white Westerners) are the main driving motivations of main involved parties’s decision makers with their supporters like Netanyahu with his Israeli supporters, Hamas with their Palestinian supporters. Obviously this is very much questionable, they both can be easily accused of having committed/committing war crimes, being driven by genocidal ideologies, violating human rights, can’t they?
Now you may WISH to say other main parties indirectly involved in this conflict may be driven by such considerations you seem to cherish so much: like the US, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, China, Russia to name the first ones that come to mind. But obviously that's also very much questionable, they all can be easily accused of having committed/committing war crimes, being driven by genocidal ideologies, and/or violating human rights, can’t they? That’s also why international tribunals/councils with these countries’ as representatives can AT BEST express international consensus. They are less credible champions/enforcers of justice according to the international law norms you seem to cherish so much.
Now you may still WISH to say “like-minded individuals” people, “former colonies” people, love&peace people in the World are motivated by such considerations you seem to cherish so much. Is it true? How influential are they? As far as I’m concerned, there are 2 BIG problems here: 1. Such people are not ONE and the same people indeed many (I’d say MOST OF THEM) are driven by IDENTITARIAN principles more than UNIVERSAL principles you seem to cherish so much, so yes they may complain about human rights violations AT BEST when THEIR people suffer from foreign oppression (example, the Muslim Ummah gives a shit about the Palestinian genocide, yet they do not give a shit about inter-Islamic massacres, Christians genocide and all sorts of human rights violation that Islamist countries perpetrate against their own people, besides Islamism in Africa constitutes A FORMER (?!) COLONIAL POWER, yet criticism of Islamic colonialism doesn’t look very much popular in the Muslim world, as far as I can tell) 2. Even if there are people (to me just a minority) GENUINELY motivated by UNIVERSAL principles, they are influential to the extent they support certain political representatives, yet their political representatives do not necessarily act GENUINELY based on such UNIVERSAL principles even if so it seems for predictable propaganda reasons. This is particularly plausible in an epoch where the international order is unstable, and every country may try to assert itself as a player on the international stage ALSO by exploiting current crisis from elsewhere and always in the pursuit of perceived national interest. An example of this is South Africa which appeals to an international tribunal for the alleged genocide of Palestinians committed by Israeli, AND YET it refuses to comply with the ICC issued arrest warrant for President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan for genocide committed in Darfur. South Africa tried to play the same game with Putin but eventually couldn’t afford it.

So that’s the harsh predicament we have to deal with.

What if I were to say, "the US and Britain surely cannot beat the movement called Nazism, but only their present military units"... I suppose I would be technically right also but not making much of a point. Nazis do still exist. — BitconnectCarlos

Because what is offered to the Palestinians by the current Israeli government is to move away, to Sinai or Jordan, or somewhere else. That's basically it. Or be second-class citizens with different laws applied that Israelis. The majority of Israelis don't want a Palestine state and also don't want the Palestinians in their state. And this administration of Bibi is determined to do something about this.

The Germans got back their country, you know.

In fact the US helped Germany with aid and also made a huge effort by the Berlin airlift. Do note that the East German staged an uprising while in West Germany nothing like that happened, so the way you treat people matters. I'm sure that similarly the West German response would have been different if you would have based the occupation on that Germany and the Germans are a death cult, the should be an agrarian country without any industrial base that they can (and will) use to attack the West. Such ideas were very common after WW2 and if the politicians would have followed the "will of the people" in this way, I'm sure that the Bundesrepublik hadn't emerged to be what it is now.

So no, it won't go that way here as it went with Germany (and Japan) after WW2. Just as Iraq didn't go as Germany. Or Afghanistan.

Hopefully Israel won't need to "mow the grass" in another decade or two if real, systemic changes can be made and if the Rafah campaign is successful. — BitconnectCarlos

Hopefully? Of course it will. The infants of today will be all military age in 20 years. Then at least the next serious mowing of the grass.

Besides what "systemic changes" are you talking about? Well, the ethnic cleansing might do the trick. Have Gaza empty of those human animals and build there nice Jewish settlements. Perhaps a museum to celebrate ancient Kadytis. Israelis are great in building museums. And if all the neighboring countries collapse into civil wars like Lebanon and Syria, then Israel can easily bomb them all the time without any problem. It will just show how incapable the Arabs are of anything, right?

Or I get it: The Palestinians simply have stop being a death cult and stop attacking peaceful Israelis. And perhaps just move somewhere else and "get on with it!". I mean it's just a place where you live. One place is as good as another. For nobody the place they live is a "Holy Land", right??? :grin:

Or I get it: The Palestinians simply have stop being a death cult and stop attacking peaceful Israelis. And perhaps just move somewhere else and "get on with it!". I mean it's just a place where you live. One place is as good as another. For nobody the place they live is a "Holy Land", right??? :grin: — ssu

OK let's see how far you can empathize with the Palestinians. Let's say Netanyahu is a psychopath and can/wants to murder ALL Palestinians in Gaza for fun, would you ssu still want to remain in Gaza and risk the life of your entire family to be massacred for Netanyahu's fun or would you try to flee to more hospitable lands of the holy All-Peace&Love Pan-Arabic Pan-Islamic Pan-Brotherhood Islamic Arab Ummah AS FAST AS POSSIBLE (like Jews massively fled to the US when persecuted by the Nazis) at their place?

Well that’s not my case. Indeed, what you are saying is very much related to the point I made on several occasions in the thread about the Ukrainian crisis: if states/governments are security driven and anticipate threats (because if the threat is imminent, it may be too late to respond to it effectively), then any DEFENSIVE move can be perceived as OFFENSIVE by a competitor states/governments (see Putin’s complaining about NATO expansion and invasion of Ukraine to prevent that, triggered Finland and Sweden to candidate for NATO membership, so NATO expanded). Notice that, by this logic, even Nazis and Christians could see Jews as a threat for what Jews did and had done. BTW this is true also for PROPAGANDA spin by ordinary people like you: any propaganda by political activists can threaten and trigger a counter-propaganda. — neomac

I don't want to start about Ukraine in this thread but expansion of NATO has deteriorated relations with Russia several times and therefore deteriorated our safety in Europe. It has always been a bad idea for Europe and has more to do with the geopolitical ambitions of the USA and Europe's dependence on its protection. We (the EU) need our own defensive alliance and leave the US and create a fourth power.

More generally, I don't see how anyone can call an expansion of any military alliance as defensive. Expansion is by definition offensive. It is the "trust our blue eyes" we're really a defensive organisation that everyone in the West sincerely believes because it's our guys claiming it - until it isn't. With its expansion into space, expansion into other countries and actions like Libya we already know where this is going to ensure NATO remains relevant. What will worry any country not in the alliance is the capabilities of such an alliance. So it's not so much propaganda on the side of Russia but more realising how our own propaganda works and ignoring it.

And ultimately pick a side as consistently as possible with such understanding, if one wants to be rationality motivated.
Besides I also do not underestimate the possibility that not all human problems can be solved through diplomatic means or for the benefits of all involved parties. — neomac

I don't pick a side the way you do as the only rational position in my view is one that is morally consistent. Picking sides never gets you that.

Let's say Netanyahu is a psychopath and can/wants to murder ALL Palestinians in Gaza for fun, would you ssu still want to remain in Gaza and risk the life of your entire family to be massacred for Netanyahu's fun or would you try to flee to more hospitable lands of the holy All-Peace&Love Pan-Arabic Pan-Islamic Pan-Brotherhood Islamic Arab Ummah AS FAST AS POSSIBLE (like Jews massively fled to the US when persecuted by the Nazis)? — neomac

Sorry, but I'm an old reserve officer... so I would fight and die for my country if needed. I cannot know what I would be as a Palestinian, but likely I wouldn't be fleeing my country. That's the best option we Finns know when faced by an overwhelming enemy which we cannot militarily destroy is to defend yourself and hope it's too costly to continue the war and you get a peace deal where you remain independent. Being a refugee and you know how much respect refugees get in this world. Fuck that!

My grandparents were in WW2 and they didn't send their children, my parents, away to Sweden. In fact, those children that were sent to Sweden had far more traumatic experience as the country wasn't occupied by the Russians. I wouldn't have respected them if they would have sent their children away. Children adapt to things and are happy with their parents, even it's just their mother there.

Sorry, but I'm an old reserve officer... so I would fight and die for my country if needed. I cannot know what I would be as a Palestinian, but likely I wouldn't be fleeing my country. That's the best option we Finns know when faced by an overwhelming enemy which we cannot militarily destroy is to defend yourself and hope it's too costly to continue the war and you get a peace deal where you remain independent. Being a refugee and you know how much respect refugees get in this world. Fuck that!

My grandparents were in WW2 and they didn't send their children, my parents, away to Sweden. In fact, those children that were sent to Sweden had far more traumatic experience as the country wasn't occupied by the Russians. I wouldn't have respected them if they would have sent their children away. Children adapt to things and are happy with their parents, even it's just their mother there. — ssu

All right, I can respect that. And, for my education, how representative do you think your views are among Finns today?

Special pleading.

A low level of anti-semitism is endemic in Western countries. It’s a hang over from the last few hundred years of persecution and prejudice against them.

If it weren’t there and Isreal were conducting the same actions against the Palestinians there would still be the same level of outrage across the globe. Outrage at a so called civilised country, a Western country confining a population and then starving them to death and bombing indiscriminately. — Punshhh

A low level which has now exploded back to 1930s levels and targets all Jews worldwide.

I don't think so. The hate extends far past the Israeli government. It extends to all Israelis as we've seen in the rape denials and hostage posters being torn down and extends past that to world Jewry. I've never heard of hostage posters of other nations being torn down.

Bombs indiscriminately? I'm sure you're intricately familiar with the IDF's targeting procedures. Surely you've spent some time in their command centers to make that judgment (I actually have worked in one, but not Israel's). The IDF has been quite precise actually and maintained a quite good civilian to terrorist death ratio, comparatively speaking.

Hamas steals their aid by the way. The Palestinians have started protesting/rioting against them. Their own Arab cohorts are starting speaking out against them. It could all be over if Hamas returns the people they stole. And those who do return speak of grievous sexual assault. Sometimes evil just needs to eliminated.

I don't want to start about Ukraine in this thread but expansion of NATO has deteriorated relations with Russia several times and therefore deteriorated our safety in Europe. It has always been a bad idea for Europe and has more to do with the geopolitical ambitions of the USA and Europe's dependence on its protection. We (the EU) need our own defensive alliance and leave the US and create a fourth power.

More generally, I don't see how anyone can call an expansion of any military alliance as defensive. Expansion is by definition offensive. It is the "trust our blue eyes" we're really a defensive organisation that everyone in the West sincerely believes because it's our guys claiming it - until it isn't. With its expansion into space, expansion into other countries and actions like Libya we already know where this is going to ensure NATO remains relevant. What will worry any country not in the alliance is the capabilities of such an alliance. So it's not so much propaganda on the side of Russia but more realising how our own propaganda works and ignoring it. — Benkei

I do not intend to go off topic nor repeat what I have abundantly argued in the thread about the Ukrainian crisis to question views like yours. So I limit myself to question the claim in bold in general terms. Whose definition are you talking about? You can stipulate the meaning of words as you wish, that doesn’t mean others will accept it. In particular, I too can claim a DEFENSIVE alliance (as NATO) is defensive by definition. Even claiming that the expansion of a defensive alliance is a provocation to X can very much be threatening to those countries which are exposed to hegemonic ambitions of X (Eastern European States, and on top of them, Ukraine can very much be interested in VOLUNTARILY joining a defensive alliance like NATO if they fear Russian imperialism). Again, the perception of offensive/defensive moves can shift depending on the perspective of competing players and perceived actual/anticipated threats, yet from the perspective of the more vulnerable parties, the more compelling question is: who is it worth or less detrimental to ally with in the short/medium/long term?

I don't pick a side the way you do as the only rational position in my view is one that is morally consistent. Picking sides never gets you that. — Benkei

I’m not sure to understand what you are saying. I didn’t claim mine is the only rational position, I simply argued for my understanding of the “self-fulfilling prophecy” issue and questioned the political relevance of your views, roughly the idea that Israel should not do what it does because of international law, war crimes, stealing land, humanitarian concerns. To me, “I don't pick a side the way you do” suggests that you are picking sides just in other ways. But then you seem to question the idea of picking sides as such or that is morally consistent. Not sure. What is the argument? Can you elaborate?

They obviously are AS other considerations. What I’m questioning and solicit people in this thread to give a more serious thought about is whether the considerations you seem to cherish so much (as many privileged white Westerners) are the main driving motivations of main involved parties’s decision makers with their supporters like Netanyahu with its Israeli supporters, Hamas with its Palestinian supporters

I don’t see the interlocutors you mention failing to appreciate this. I don’t, but I remind you that Israel is and is portraying itself as part of the West. Israeli citizens have strong links with all Western countries and move freely back and forth. This is one of the main reasons why those in the West are exercised over this issue rather than numerous others around the world.

All right, I can respect that. And, for my education, how representative do you think your views are among Finns today? — neomac

I think it is representative. It is a simple question about geography, something we cannot do anything about. The question of defense is in politics easy here. No difference between the left and the right wing parties. If we had an over 1000-km eastern border with Canada, I wouldn't ever gone to the military: it's not something for me whose has so low physical fitness. Or so I thought, I never imagined to be an officer. Likely we wouldn't have conscription.

Now we have conscription, and still the majority of all adult males are or have been reservists. For a very long time, for decades now, Finns have been asked in polls the same question: "Would you yourself defend Finland, even if the outcome would be questionable (meaning there is a large risk that we will lose)?"

In the last poll:

12% say no.
26% didn't give an answer / are unsure
62% say yes

The majority saying yes, even if the outcome is doubtful, has been there for decades since the end of WW2. The nation having survived WW2 without an occupation has firmed the attitudes of Finns that defending your country works.

Europeans that were the least ready to defend their own country were:

The Dutch: 16% of the Dutch would defend their country
The Germans: 22% of Germans would defend their country.

The Finnish Parliament decided on applying NATO membership by a 188 "yes" vote to 8 "no".

Besides, in the Finnish constitution it says:

Section 127 -National defence obligation

Every Finnish citizen is obligated to participate or assist in national defence, as provided by an Act.