:up:

"Attacks were systemic and “sadistic,” the ARCCI concluded. Women were raped so brutally that their pelvic bones fractured, rape was committed by several participants sometimes “in the presence of excited crowds,” and sexual assault was carried out on women who appeared to be dead already. Hamas forced some families in kibbutzim to witness the rape or sexual assault of their own family members, in their own homes, ARCCI reported. In one house, the IDF found the body of a mother whose hands were bound and who appeared to have struggled before her murder. In the room next to her, her daughter was found dead with her pants and underwear rolled down."
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/hamass-sadistic-sexual-assault-detailed-by-israels-rape-crisis-centers/

Remove all Hamas members from the gene pool and those that voted for these monsters. If some innocents have to die because Hamas hides behind civilians, c'est la vie.

Remove all Hamas members from the gene pool and those that voted for these monsters. If some innocents have to die because Hamas hides behind civilians, c'est la vie. — RogueAI

Remove all Israeli war criminals from the gene pool and those that voted for those monsters. It never ceases to amaze the dumb shit people post here. As if Israeli aggression and occupation have nothing to do with Hamas' popularity to begin with.

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. — ssu

How exactly do you want Israel to respond to 10/7? Are they to scurry off to the UN and demand a resolution against Hamas? Is Israel to first gain permission from the UN before it can defend itself?

It will just show how incapable the Arabs are of anything, right? — ssu

Yet Arabs are capable of making peace with Israel. Given that, the Palestinians should be as well (as the Palestinians are really Arabs, the rebranding can be traced to the 1960s for propaganda purposes). But no Palestinian leader would deign to do so, hence a regime change is needed.

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 — ssu

Nazism is a death cult as is the Islamism of Hamas. Ideological deprogramming must occur in both cases. Ideas may be eternal, but the minds that hold them -- lodged in skulls -- are far from eternal.

definitely agree with you here (final para) and apply to many other ideologies

but expansion of NATO has deteriorated relations with Russia several times and therefore deteriorated our safety in Europe — Benkei

More generally, I don't see how anyone can call an expansion of any military alliance as defensive. Expansion is by definition offensive. — Benkei

Sure, maybe that's an aspect of sorts, yet it was never about NATO specifically. It's about the Kremlin's vision of Russia, at least the current authoritarian leadership, and that losing control of Ukraine or parts thereof would be contrary to that.

We (the EU) need our own defensive alliance and leave the US and create a fourth power. — Benkei

Yep :up: if Europe can get its act together (I intentionally expanded "the EU" to "Europe"). Do you think Europe can create + maintain an effective defense? Hopefully so. (I don't just mean some "blue eyed" part of Europe, or Western Europe, I mean those wishing to be part thereof that can meet a set of requirements.) Yet that, all by itself, could be argued the same way by the Kremlin: "Can't have such a strong (capable) defen...err..threat on our doorstep. Offensive!" Authoritarians don't require much discussion debate bureaucracy agreement back-and-forth etc, things we've seen in North America, Europe, and elsewhere. The Kremlin, in its aggressive posturing, would further argue Ukraine wanting to join a European defense as being a "dire existential threat", "critical security offense", whatever. Again, it was never about NATO in particular, but about a grand vision of Russia's "destiny", that Ukraine has been forced into, evidently with little concern for Ukrainians or their aspirations.

Remove all Hamas — RogueAI

OK, or neutralize.

Remove all Israeli war criminals — Benkei

And those as well.

Nazism — BitconnectCarlos

And that. :fire:

The Israeli propaganda machine was glorifying the victims of 7th October from day one, to justify the planned destruction of Gaza.

I don’t see the interlocutors you mention failing to appreciate this. I don’t, — Punshhh

What is “appreciate” supposed to mean here? These are two of your one-liners:

“If we distill the issue down to its root cause, we find there is a problem in the psyche of the Israeli’s.”

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

My arguments question such claims, and none of my arguments have even been addressed by you to come to the above conclusions, even though you claim to appreciate them. You talk about Israeli psyche and responsibilities, I talk about Israeli security concerns, dead-lock nation-state struggle by Israelis and Palestinians, wider and hotter international hegemonic competition, the threat of Islamism, the political weakness and compromised credibility of International Law.
It’s like you and others (participating in an internet forum as anonymous nobodies likely from your armchair and in privileged conditions) feel self-entitled to pin down rules of the game and responsibilities, prior to even understanding the game which is actually being plaid by people putting their skin in it for generations. So everybody else has to (kindly?) shut (the fuck?) up and listen.

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. — Punshhh

There is more to question in these claims of yours, but I limit myself to question the latter: if the problem of the Israeli is best understood IN RELATION TO numerous others issues around the world (which is what I'm claiming), then we have a compelling reason to not assess Israelis’ actions in isolation from such numerous others issues around the world, don’t we?

How exactly do you want Israel to respond to 10/7? — BitconnectCarlos

Simply go and fight like how the US armed forces did, when they destroyed Al Qaeda in Iraq. Understand that you have to give a reason for the civilians to support you or at least tolerate you. Don't put them into a corner where there's nothing for them: that will just say to the Palestinians that the way of war is the only way forward.

And then understand that the only solution is political. Or then you will have these wars again and again. You just have to wait for the next generation of Palestinians to grow up. They will continue the fight, because what else is there for them?

I've said when this conflict started and I'll repeat it again: fight just the way the US dealt with Al Qaeda. When fighting the terrorists, it also took care of the civilians too understanding that if it treats cruelly the civilians, that the kill the present Al Qaeda supporters won't matter, there will be new ones that they make. It won Al Qaeda. Only to be defeated by Obama's withdrawal and letting the Iraqi government get in charge that basically immediately rejected and stopped all the work the US military had done with the Sunni population.

And when that happened, you got ISIS after the US withdrew and let the Shias in control.

So yes, there is a true difference on how you fight the insurgency. Do you stop water and food to the two million population or not? You really think that Hamas cannot take care of it's fighters? Would keeping water on give Hamas fighters a real edge?

I know you will not admit it, but Israel simply wants revenge and the current administration milks that revenge. Gaza is the evil city. They are human animals. They elected Hamas (years ago) so they surely aren't innocent. All this dehumanization works wonders if you want to satisfy the emotions of a people traumatized by October 7th, but it won't help you in the long term. But who cares about that!

Even the US example shows this well. When Trump got into power he insisted that limitations and restrictions in bombing had to be lifted. Well, that meant that more civilians did die when the US fought ISIS. What is telling to even to this the discussion is what Trump told us that he had with Mattis. When he asked the marine general about the efficiency of torture, Mattis replied that a pack of cigarettes and a six-pack works better. But Trump was adamant: if the US people wanted torture, he would use it. That's how a populist politician thinks. Populist politicians will milk the emotional feelings of the crowd. Hence all that bullshit of laws of war are somehow viewed as an "obstacle", because the crowd hasn't served itself in the army and doesn't understand that actually upholding the laws of war makes wonders for morale. Body counts don't.

Also, understanding that while the US will support Israel totally blindly, the rest of the World won't and that rest of the World matters. The obvious case is the ICJ case brought upon South Africa. It basically relies on what the Israeli politicians themselves have said about the human animals. With that kind of discourse, making the case was easy.

Hence all that bullshit of laws of war are somehow viewed as an "obstacle", because the crowd hasn't served itself in the army and doesn't understand that actually upholding the laws of war makes wonders for morale. Body counts don't. — ssu

OK and prior to the current horror show, what was the morale of Palestinian civilians (the non-Westerners, the Westerners) about Israel exactly? If Israeli supported the laws of war as you claim (and putting aside the issue that international laws of war do not seem to fix any specific ratio civilian/militant casualties for proportionality assessment) how much Palestinian morale and the morale of World of people concerned about Palestinian morale do you estimate would benefit Israeli's security concerns? The US and Iraq are not fighting FOR STATEHOOD OVER THE SAME LAND, nor are next to each other like Russia and Finland.

the US will support Israel totally blindly, the rest of the World won't and that rest of the World matters — ssu

OK and what are the costs/benefits you'll see coming for the US and Biden, and for Israel if Biden withdraws military support or UN veto in favor of Israel?

OK and prior to the current horror show, what was the morale of Palestinian civilians (the non-Westerners, the Westerners) about Israel exactly? — neomac

Quite similar to the Israeli view. Likely even more demonizing than the Israeli far right.

If Israeli supported the laws of war as you claim (and putting aside the issue that international laws of war do not seem to fix any specific ratio civilian/militant casualties for proportionality assessment) how much Palestinian increased morale and the morale of World of people concerned about Palestinian morale do you estimate would benefit Israeli's security concerns? — neomac

Somewhat confusing statement there.

Let's take a theoretical example:

First of all, just think yourself as being an officer and in command of troops. What would you think about your country if your leaders and superiors would say that it is important that you follow the laws of war or you can face court martial.

Or then what would you think about your country if you wouldn't ever even be told about the laws, your superiors would be after body counts, how many of the enemy have you and your troops have killed and if you kill civilians on the way, doesn't matter so much as they obviously were supporting the enemy.

At least for me I would far more willingly serve a country that truly upholds things like international laws of war. Important to have that when in war killing people still is obnoxious.

What is “appreciate” supposed to mean here? These are two of your one-liners:

To appreciate, I mean to understand, to be aware of.

My arguments question such claims, and none of my arguments have even been addressed by you to come to the above conclusions, even though you claim to appreciate them.

I do understand the security concerns, however I am of the view that Israel’s security would have been secure had Israel not conducted it’s settlement policy and treating of Gaza’s as second class citizens over the last few decades.

I talk about Israeli security concerns, dead-lock nation-state struggle by Israelis and Palestinians, wider and hotter international hegemonic competition, the threat of Islamism, the political weakness and compromised credibility of International Law.

I don’t see a hotting up of hegemonic competition which would inflame the situation in Israel. One could possibly say something about Russian actions, or Trump’s actions in regard of Iran, or Afghanistan when he was in office. But I don’t see much cause and effect going on here. Islamism has faded into the background recently with the occasional terrorist action in Western countries. Again, little cause and effect. Unless it is code for Hamas.

So everybody else has to (kindly?) shut (the fuck?) up and listen.

I’m just someone who likes discussing politics and philosophy on a forum. What you depict here must just be in your head, it’s not in mine.

if the problem of the Israeli is best understood IN RELATION TO numerous others issues around the world (which is what I'm claiming), then we have a compelling reason to not assess Israelis’ actions in isolation from such numerous others issues around the world, don’t we?

Feel free to link this crisis with things happening elsewhere around the world, I don’t see much of it from where I’m standing. But if there is something, I’d like to know.

OK and prior to the current horror show, what was the morale of Palestinian civilians (the non-Westerners, the Westerners) about Israel exactly? — neomac

Quite similar to the Israeli view. Likely even more demonizing than the Israeli far right.

If Israeli supported the laws of war as you claim (and putting aside the issue that international laws of war do not seem to fix any specific ratio civilian/militant casualties for proportionality assessment) how much Palestinian increased morale and the morale of World of people concerned about Palestinian morale do you estimate would benefit Israeli's security concerns? — neomac

Somewhat confusing statement there. — ssu

OK, I'll put it as simple as I can. If the Westerners have to take seriously Israel's security concerns (and I argued why they should, unlike Russia's security concerns), and the Israeli government has proven to be incapable of dealing with it in ways more digestible to us, then either the West finds a way to appease Israel's security concerns for good (and in a much better way much than it did with Ukraine) or it has to abandon Israel to its fate (which is going to spike Israel security concerns). I don't think either are feasible or convenient for the West at the moment, especially for the US alone. That's the Western impasse.

Let's take a theoretical example:

First of all, just think yourself as being an officer and in command of troops. What would you think about your country if your leaders and superiors would say that it is important that you follow the laws of war or you can face court martial.

Or then what would you think about your country if you wouldn't ever even be told about the laws, your superiors would be after body counts, how many of the enemy have you and your troops have killed and if you kill civilians on the way, doesn't matter so much as they obviously were supporting the enemy.

At least for me I would far more willingly serve a country that truly upholds things like international laws of war. Important to have that when in war killing people still is obnoxious. — ssu

Previously, you showed me to what extent you could empathize with the Palestinians, now you are showing to what extent you could not empathize with the Israelis. That's all. And notice that the threat posed by Hamas or Palestinian resistance to Israel is of different kind of the one posed by Russia to Finland for means (unconventional war vs conventional war) and nature (fighting for statehood over the same land).

OK, I'll put it as simple as I can. If the Westerners have to take seriously Israel's security concerns (and I argued why they should, unlike Russia's security concerns) — neomac

Actually stop there as this is a very good point. Because naturally for Putin it's allways about security concerns (even if he cannot stop blabbing about Ukraine being a natural part of Russia as the cradle of the Russian state). And we have to accept that "security concerns" are the reason for war. After all, my country was (and is) a "security concern" for Russia just where it is.

, and the Israeli government has proven to be incapable of dealing with it in ways more digestible to us, then either the West finds a way to appease Israel's security concerns for good (and in a much better way much than it did with Ukraine) or it has to abandon Israel to its fate[/quote]
Or simply do what Ronald Reagan did with the Isrealis after they launched "Operation Peace for Galilee" (which btw created Hezbollah in the first place). Show the red card, put limits. It's easy, has been done in history.

And if you want peace than the present to continue for another 75 years or more, you simply have to put pressure on both sides. That's it. That's the only reason why both Israel AND the PLO chose the Oslo path, but when Israel say it doesn't have any pressure to do anything about it, why would it not opt to put more grind on the Palestinians. IF PLO would have had their Gulf support, I think that Arafat would have been just fine to direct attacks on Israel and try to fight the war.

Israeli people don't want a two state solution. Hence their one state solution of Israel to the river to the sea will have a perpetual security problem they are willing to have. Or then kick out the Palestinians, do the ethnic cleansing. What a superb way to solve the problem. Then bitch about how anti-semitism is on the rise.

Bibi is following exactly the neocon playbook that George Bush followed after 9/11. Remember that the Americans loved that so much they voted him to office another time. And the neocons wanted to go other countries than just Afghanistan and Iraq. Perhaps the solution for Bibi too, win a great victory and get the support back. Far more territorial his aspirations. So let's have that war in Lebanon.

After the initial shock and fear, the lust for revenge pretty natural. Crowd wants punishment. That's how humans react. But what politicians then do is important, do the pour gas into the fire or do they do something else, try acting with statesmanship. Going with the let's destroy everything simply isn't a war winning tactic in this situation, but surely is a great way to stay in power.

And what I've stated is that there is no peaceful solution to this conflict.

Previously, you showed me to what extent you could empathize with the Palestinians, now you are showing to what extent you could not empathize with the Israelis. That's all. — neomac

And you are incapable of understanding the question, it seems.

But if my argument is that "fight like the Americans did in Iraq" is the extent I cannot empathize with the Israelis, I think it actually a lot about you.

Ukrainians aren't going to "get the message" and become Russians. And surely Israelis won't either "get the message" and go away from Israel back to Europe, that's for sure. They'll choose fighting over being refugees. Yet somehow Palestinians should here different and get "the message and move on". Of course they won't.

And the conflict will continue...

Likud wants Palestinians dead or out of the way. October 7th, which itself was a reaction to Israeli policies in Gaza, was a gift towards this end. They’ve been explicit about what they want, and October 7th lends them cover (“We’re just defending ourselves against the terrorist organization that has killed far less people than us”).

That’s what’s really going on. It’ll be very easy to see in time, but like many things it’s impossible for many to see now.

Since they basically start with the premise that Arabs and Muslims are backwards, and further include Palestinians in with this group, and hence are the bad guys on par with Nazis and animals, they can get away with murdering as many innocent people as they want.

As children are being butchered, our very intellectual and sophisticated apologists busy themselves about with 3 main justifications:

1) the numbers may be wrong, given that they come from a Hamas-run organization.

2) Hamas is using human shields

3) Israel doesn’t intend to murder people, but Hamas does and has said so explicitly.

All predicated on Israel being a high-tech, Western aligned, modern and reasonable state. As opposed to the “savages” — in Ayn Rand’s words.

Thus, Israel never INTENDS to commit these war crimes or kill thousands of children — and, after all, since they’re fighting a war against the Nazis, let’s compare what was done to Germany in WW2: there’s bound to be “collateral damage” in a just war against evil.

So, because of this warped, stupid way of thinking, thousands more children will be starved and killed— and our enlightened, philosophy-reading hobbyists will continue to cheer on the sidelines. All the good studying philosophy does…

How repulsive.

:100: :clap:

So, because of this warped, stupid way of thinking, thousands more children will be starved and killed. And our enlightened, philosophy-reading hobbyists will continue to cheer.

How repulsive. — Mikie

When enough people are killed in the first place, we don't care about our laws we have been so proud of. That's the frightening part. It is all about numbers.

Just look at what the difference between numbers of 6 and 2977.

In the case of an (unsuccessful) terrorist attack that killed six people the US legal system prevailed: the attack was a police matter and finally after years the terrorists were tracked and caught in Pakistan by the FBI, sentenced in a US court and are now in the US prison system serving their terms.

The same target attacked later now successfully attacked along other targets by terrorists with links to the former. The attack killed 2977 in total (plus the terrorists themselves) and the US went on to fight it's longest war. Which it humiliatingly lost. And an invasion of Iraq. Where the now "pro-US" government wants the US out. With 7245 US servicemen killed in both wars. The terrorist weren't dealt with the US justice system, but by a special military court tucked away in Cuba. And the war is actually still going on, even if not admitted.

Same has happened in Israel. With similar numbers like 11, 22, 38 and then 1139 (or 799)

Now these numbers were PLO attacks of the Munich Olympics attack of 1972 (11 deaths), the Ma'alot massacre 1974 (22) and Coastal Road Massacre of 1978 (38). The last one actually was similar to October 7th in that the terrorists came inside Israel by boat and then simply roamed around and tried to kill as many as possible. This from the PLO that finally agreed into the peace process.

All of those 'numbers' still held Israel back (and of course there would be more), but that 1139/799 didn't. 799 referring to the civilians and 1139 referring to the number when also the soldiers are counted. Operation Al-Aqsa flood succeeded very well and created first the shock and then this response. 9/11 showed us what the response will be.

Many commentators are eager to point out that those kibbutzes attacked on October 7th had many of the 'peaceniks' of Israel that were for a two state solution and now how unison Israel is against any Palestinian state. And in truth the Israel left that did try to get the peace process moving is tiny.

So yes, the war will prevail now. And likely will escalate. We have seen this play out and it will take decades for the desire for revenge to calm... assuming the war won't bring even larger numbers.

And yet you waste your time posting and moderating here. If you were truly outraged and really wanted to help the situation, you wouldn't be hanging out in this philosophical backwater.

Majority are sensible. Even 5% is too high, but so be it. You and a handful of other apologists are to be expected. It’s repulsive, but I don’t waste that much time on you — or this thread.

OK, I'll put it as simple as I can. If the Westerners have to take seriously Israel's security concerns (and I argued why they should, unlike Russia's security concerns) — neomac

Actually stop there as this is a very good point. Because naturally for Putin it's allways about security concerns (even if he cannot stop blabbing about Ukraine being a natural part of Russia as the cradle of the Russian state). And we have to accept that "security concerns" are the reason for war. After all, my country was (and is) a "security concern" for Russia just where it is. — ssu

As I said, one can talk about security concerns all he wants, yet others can question their reasons for making such claims compelling. I do not find Russia’s stated security concerns even remotely as credible as Israel’s.

Or simply do what Ronald Reagan did with the Isrealis after they launched "Operation Peace for Galilee" (which btw created Hezbollah in the first place). Show the red card, put limits. It's easy, has been done in history.

And if you want peace than the present to continue for another 75 years or more, you simply have to put pressure on both sides. That's it. That's the only reason why both Israel AND the PLO chose the Oslo path, but when Israel say it doesn't have any pressure to do anything about it, why would it not opt to put more grind on the Palestinians. IF PLO would have had their Gulf support, I think that Arafat would have been just fine to direct attacks on Israel and try to fight the war. — ssu

We have argued the Oslo path. And the America of Ronald Reagan is arguably not the same as the America of Biden, as much as the Israel of Begin/Sharon is not the Israel of Netanyahu. Notice that now the American diplomatic leverage over Israel should arguably be very high since the international isolation is increasing for Israel and isolationist trends are growingly popular among Americans. Yet Biden hesitates to threaten to withdraw military support or UN veto in support for Israel against a stubborn Netanyahu. So, why Biden is hesitating? Maybe he has compelling reasons rooted in national and international politics which are both unstable and risking to worsen. As I said, I would exclude the Evangelical issue (at least the way you argued it, preserving the support of the Jewish lobby may be enough compelling to Biden), and give more weight to hegemonic concerns that also led the US to get involved in the beef between Russians and Ukrainians.

Bibi is following exactly the neocon playbook that George Bush followed after 9/11. Remember that the Americans loved that so much they voted him to office another time. And the neocons wanted to go other countries than just Afghanistan and Iraq. Perhaps the solution for Bibi too, win a great victory and get the support back. Far more territorial his aspirations. So let's have that war in Lebanon. — ssu

I can get that Bibi and Israelis may be on a rampage, and that Bibi might also exploit Israelis thirst for revenge for more personal political reasons. But Islamist terrorism was arguably far from being an existential threat to the US as Hamas is to Israel.

Ukrainians aren't going to "get the message" and become Russians. And surely Israelis won't either "get the message" and go away from Israel back to Europe, that's for sure. They'll choose fighting over being refugees. Yet somehow Palestinians should here different and get "the message and move on". Of course they won't.

And the conflict will continue... — ssu

You seem to misunderstand my arguments again. So I’ll rephrase some critical alternatives which Palestinians have to face as far as I'm concerned:
IF it’s really matter of nation-state struggle over the same land on both Israeli and Palestinian sides (the war between Ukrainians and Russians is not the same, Russians have their state while threatening integrity and independence of the Ukrainian nation-state), then that’s a dead-lock and they both, Israelis and Palestinians, are compelled to fight it out even at risk of ethnic cleansing on both sides.
IF it’s matter of fighting as martyrs for pan-Islamism, pan-Arabism, or just as Iranian-proxies Palestinians are an extension of Arab/Islamic/Iranian imperialism which even the West may be compelled to fight (as the West is fighting Russian imperialism), not only Israel.
IF it’s matter of peace and safety for civilians, then Palestinians are MORE EASILY compelled to emigrate to more hospitable lands than Ukrainians and Jews (indeed, it’s what Jews did to flee from the Nazis), because their Ummah-brothers in neighboring Arab/Muslim countries have ALL THE LOVE AND LANDS to host and protect ummah-brother Arab/Muslim Palestinians (unless the Ummah-brother story is all bullshit).

I do understand the security concerns, however I am of the view that Israel’s security would have been secure had Israel not conducted it’s settlement policy and treating of Gaza’s as second class citizens over the last few decades. — Punshhh

I don’t find this counterfactual argument particularly compelling. On one side, it sounds so in the hindsight (back then would have you been able to predict what would have likely happened for decades to come?), yet Israelis might argue that the success they obtained (wars against Arab countries which Israel won and against Palestinians who lost more land and more people than Israel so far) were still worth that much of sacrifice in terms of security. On the other side, one can construe a more compelling counterfactual for the Palestinians: namely, Palestinians would have been safer had Palestinians accepted the terms posed by Israel for a peaceful coexistence since the end of British mandate and, if needed, including the condition of second class citizens (also because Jews would have been likely treated as a second class citizens in a unique Palestinian state run by Hamas or other Arab/Islamist regime).
And, notice, if the latter counterfactual was not more compelling to the Palestinians than the former counterfactual to the Israelis, this would further support Israelis’ aversion to the Palestinians’ cause, because it’s not peace they are looking for.

I don’t see a hotting up of hegemonic competition which would inflame the situation in Israel. One could possibly say something about Russian actions, or Trump’s actions in regard of Iran, or Afghanistan when he was in office. But I don’t see much cause and effect going on here. Islamism has faded into the background recently with the occasional terrorist action in Western countries. Again, little cause and effect. Unless it is code for Hamas. — Punshhh

I don’t see what you take to be “hotting up” but the US as the main hegemon while going through an internal political crisis has to intervene in Ukraine, then ALSO in Israel, then ALSO in the Red Sea is the example of hotting up I was talking about. And the multiplicity of these issues are draining and dividing energies from the main ally of Israel. This is not weakening but increasing (so hotting up) Israeli’s security concerns.
Besides, I question cause-effect reasoning in geopolitics for more reasons. One is that security concerns are not just about single (fac)actual threats but also anticipated threats (because it may be already to late to respond to an actual threat effectively, and because threats can come in combination with other threats). For example, Russia invaded Ukraine allegedly because of the anticipated threat of Ukraine joining NATO.

I’m just someone who likes discussing politics and philosophy on a forum. What you depict here must just be in your head, it’s not in mine. — Punshhh

So you like discussing politics but then when challenged you responded with one line (“Israel is conducting an apartheid state. The responsibility for the outcome lies with them”) which doesn’t even look very much as an argument, nor addresses any of the many objections I previously made to question your views? Indeed, that’s the kind of response I would expect by anybody who wanted to end a political discussion, not engage in one.
But I guess the root cause of this is in my psyche, right?

if the problem of the Israeli is best understood IN RELATION TO numerous others issues around the world (which is what I'm claiming), then we have a compelling reason to not assess Israelis’ actions in isolation from such numerous others issues around the world, don’t we?

Feel free to link this crisis with things happening elsewhere around the world, I don’t see much of it from where I’m standing. But if there is something, I’d like to know. — Punshhh

The “others issues around the world” I was referring to are the ones that I and others kept talking about until now: the political struggle in the US, the American leadership of the Western front challenged by authoritarian regimes with hegemonic ambitions (like Russia, China and Iran supporting Hamas in Israel, Russia in Ukraine, Houthis in Yemen, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Assad in Syria), the weakness and compromised credibility of International Law, the incumbent Islamism (starting with Hamas itself as a branch of Muslim Brotherhood, and it’s not only the Islamist faction active in Palestine), the incapacity of Europeans to play a decisive role, the competition between Iran and Arabs to stabilise the middle-east, the opportunism of all interested parties (like South Africa against Israel).

I feel for you, dude. Do you want a hug?

And, notice, if the latter counterfactual was not more compelling to the Palestinians than the former counterfactual to the Israelis, this would further support Israelis’ aversion to the Palestinians’ cause, because it’s not peace they are looking for.

Well one can speculate, however we are talking of an occupying force (U.K.) gifting occupied land to a newly introduced occupying force (Israel). Perhaps the Palestinians were already unhappy about the situation beforehand.
So to speculate, if one were to swap the Palestinians for the Israelis and visa versa, we would possibly have the same issue, but with Palestinians as the occupying force. It doesn’t change anything, it’s just on the other foot.

I don’t see what you take to be “hotting up” but the US as the main hegemon while going through an internal political crisis has to intervene in Ukraine, then ALSO in Israel, then ALSO in the Red Sea is the example of hotting up I was talking about. And the multiplicity of these issues are draining and dividing energies from the main ally of Israel. This is not weakening but increasing (so hotting up) Israeli’s security concerns.

Ok, but these issues, where they affect Israel, occurred after the fact. After the Israel began their campaign in Gaza as a response to 7th October.
Unless you are drawing a link between US involvement in Ukraine and the escalation in Israel/Palestine?
I agree it does increase Israel’s security concerns, but in this regard Israel (Netanyahu), is his own worst enemy.

Besides, I question cause-effect reasoning in geopolitics for more reasons. One is that security concerns are not just about single (fac)actual threats but also anticipated threats (because it may be already to late to respond to an actual threat effectively, and because threats can come in combination with other threats). For example, Russia invaded Ukraine allegedly because of the anticipated threat of Ukraine joining NATO.

Agreed.

So you like discussing politics but then when challenged you responded with one line (“Israel is conducting an apartheid state. The responsibility for the outcome lies with them”) which doesn’t even look very much as an argument, nor addresses any of the many objections I previously made to question your views? Indeed, that’s the kind of response I would expect by anybody who wanted to end a political discussion, not engage in one.
But I guess the root cause of this is in my psyche, right?

I gave that response after being requested to steer clear of the word psyche. So I didn’t respond to your detailed post as that would have involved that word.

if the problem of the Israeli is best understood IN RELATION TO numerous others issues around the world (which is what I'm claiming), then we have a compelling reason to not assess Israelis’ actions in isolation from such numerous others issues around the world, don’t we?

Yes, but I’m not convinced that any of these issues played much of a role here. Rather I see this crisis as deeply intertwined between the Israeli’s and Palestinians.

The “others issues around the world” I was referring to are the ones that I and others kept talking about until now:

Yes, I see this. Perhaps these issues will come into play due to actors in these arenas capitalising on the crisis. Like the Houthi’s for example. But as I say, I don’t see how any of these were causal in the crisis.
It could be argued that Isreal and Hamas have backers, the US and Iran respectively. And that there were some pressures exerted in relation to the efforts to achieve normalisation between Isreal and Saudi Arabia. But I would attribute this far more to the increasing and violent occupation of the West Bank over the past few years. Also tensions between Isreal and Gaza had been increasing over the same period. These are the main drivers of this crisis.

I return to my point about Israel, Isreal is conducting an apartheid state with an oppressed population who they treat badly. The blame and responsibility for what results from this crisis lies squarely with the Israeli’s

I do not find Russia’s stated security concerns even remotely as credible as Israel’s. — neomac

At least there's something we agree on.

And my criticism is on the way Israel is currently handling it's security concerns. Yes, it has to handle them, but perhaps the idea of building more settlements isn't the path to safety.

Notice that the American diplomatic leverage over Israel should arguably be very high since Israel is international isolation is increasing and isolationist trends are growingly popular among Americans. — neomac

Actually it isn't. During the Cold War Israel understood it's role against Soviet leaning Arab nationalism. But that is ancient history now. The US-Israeli connection is far more than than. And Bibi (and likely others) can play the Washington game too. They have the Israeli lobby of whom the most powerful group is the Evangelicals, not the American Jews. Hence actually US leverage is smaller. You can see this easily with for example with Obama. Bibi didn't have to go through the White House or the Secretary of the State, he could easily meet politicians in the Congress directly.

As I said, I would exclude the Evangelical issue (at least the way you argued it, preserving the support of the Jewish lobby may be enough compelling to Biden), and give more weight to hegemonic concerns that also led the US to get involved in the beef between Russians and Ukrainians. — neomac

It is election year, so I would assume millions of votes do count. Biden can sacrifice the Arab-American vote and some young progressives in the campuses, not millions that would vote for him.


With friends in the Congress...

IF it’s really matter of nation-state struggle over the same land on both Israeli and Palestinian sides (the war between Ukrainians and Russians is not the same, Russians have their state while threatening integrity and independency of the Ukrainian nation-state), then that’s a dead-lock and they both, Israelis and Palestinians, are compelled to fight it out even at risk of ethnic cleansening on both sides. — neomac

That the most realistic way to put it. And that's why this conflict has gone for over 75 years.

IF it’s matter of fighting as martyrs for pan-Islamism, pan-Arabism, or just as Iranian-proxies Palestinians are an extension of Arab/Islamic/Iranian imperialism which even the West may be compelled to fight (as the West is fighting Russian imperialism), not only Israel. — neomac

That's the more unlikely reason. Various ism's come and go. But naturally Israel hopes it can get this role of being the defender of the West against the Muslims threat. That Israel's fight is your and mine fight too.

IF it’s matter of peace and safety for civilians, then Palestinians are MORE EASILY compelled to emigrate to more hospitable lands than Ukrainians and Jews (indeed, it’s what Jews did to flee from the Nazis), because their Ummah-brothers in neighbouring Arab/Muslim countries have ALL THE LOVE AND LANDS to host and protect ummah-brother Arab/Muslim Palestinians (unless the Ummah-brother story is all bullshit). — neomac

I think European response to the war in Ukraine here shows that this isn't the case. Even if European countries are OK with refugees (mainly women and children) coming to their lands, they are more eager to give Ukraine weapons. Nobody than Iran is giving any weapons to the Palestinians. And for Palestinians, they have the Nakba as close to heart as the Jews have the Holocaust.

But of course it can get even worse. When that attack to Lebanon starts, for example. And usually things get worse when Israel thinks that it's enemies are incapable idiots that it can beat off, if it has done that previously. Then things like the Yom Kippur war and October 7th happen.

So when Iran then attacks Israel's Jericho II/III missiles based in Sdot Micha and the Arrow missiles cannot fully defend the site, then Biden is really close to sending the US to the aid of Israel.

One question: are the hostages returned?

You make interesting points. I'll address two: humanitarianism in war and your point about Gaza as "evil."

Regarding humanitarianism I would tend to agree, and Israel has actually fought this war fairly humanely. John Spencer, who holds a faculty chair position at West Point, concluded:

"Israel has painstakingly followed the laws of armed conflict and implemented many steps to prevent civilian casualties, despite enormous challenges.

Israel's military faced over 30,000 Hamas militants in over 400 miles of defensive and offensive tunnels embedded in and under civilian areas, populations and protected sites such as hospitals, mosques, schools, and United Nations facilities across multiple cities."

Additionally, Israel has not cut out aid for the palestinians. Israel regularly allows in many aid trucks despite Israeli protestors who object that this aid just goes to Hamas (and much of it does as we have video of Hamas stealing it and Palestinian civilians have started demonstrating against Hamas.)

Hamas does have bomb shelters, but Palestinian civilians are not allowed in these bomb shelters. They are for the safety of Hamas fighters. It is also to my understanding that Israel has turned back on the water pipes, although it is strange notion that Gaza is apparently so reliant on Israel for water. Water is not hard to provide for a population. Hamas did ban Palestinian civilians from digging wells however.... In any case, Israel lets in aid despite protesters and very well knowing that much of it ends up in the hands of Hamas.

Regarding winning "hearts and minds" -- sure, but I wouldn't expect too much. Polls show 85% of Palestinians support Hamas's actions on 10/7 so numbers are discouraging, but yes Israel ought to persist and fight humanely as it has done. ~300,000 Iraqi civilians died in Iraq, much less have died in Gaza. Spencer argues it is ill-advised to compare Israel to other modern conflicts:

https://www.newsweek.com/memo-experts-stop-comparing-israels-war-gaza-anything-it-has-no-precedent-opinion-1868891

Regarding Gaza as wicked

I know you will not admit it, but Israel simply wants revenge and the current administration milks that revenge. Gaza is the evil city. They are human animals. They elected Hamas (years ago) so they surely aren't innocent. All this dehumanization works wonders if you want to satisfy the emotions of a people traumatized by October 7th, but it won't help you in the long term. But who cares about that!

Revenge, sure, but also the hostages who are being sexually and physically abused by a government which has the widespread support of the population. But not every palestinian is wicked. Politicians such as Ben Gvir will push the hard right line, but there is also the opposition in the Knesset which includes arab muslims and there was recently a blow up between Ben Gvir and that side. Israel is under unity government. The Knesset represents all stripes of Israel and there is a hard right in every nation.

I don't deny such notions exist. We're only human after all. I have no idea what the post-war order will look like, only that a military response towards Hamas is justified. A ruling body cannot murder, torture, and rape the citizens of another nation and not expect to be hit back. It is time to cleanse the evil that is Hamas. And a return of this evil is not inevitable, at least on the scale it is now.

And my criticism is on the way Israel is currently handling it's security concerns. Yes, it has to handle them, but perhaps the idea of building more settlements isn't the path to safety. — ssu

West Bank (= Judea + Samaria) is the historical heart of Israel, so it must be really hard for a Zionist political leaders to prevent their people and supporters to voluntarily settle over there. I’m not even sure that the illegal status of the settlements according to international law is legally compelling to Israel, if Israel doesn’t recognize their jurisdiction over their settlements in that areas (also Oslo agreements are claimed to be ambiguous enough about the legitimacy of new settlements) nor has Israel ever acknowledged the confine of a Palestinian state over there.

Notice that the American diplomatic leverage over Israel should arguably be very high since Israel is international isolation is increasing and isolationist trends are growingly popular among Americans. — neomac

Actually it isn't. During the Cold War Israel understood it's role against Soviet leaning Arab nationalism. But that is ancient history now. The US-Israeli connection is far more than than. And Bibi (and likely others) can play the Washington game too. They have the Israeli lobby of whom the most powerful group is the Evangelicals, not the American Jews. Hence actually US leverage is smaller. You can see this easily with for example with Obama. Bibi didn't have to go through the White House or the Secretary of the State, he could easily meet politicians in the Congress directly. — ssu

That doesn’t change the fact that Israel depends even more on such connection if it feels more internationally isolated and part of Biden’s democratic base (like many from the Woke culture https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/563415-poll-one-third-of-voters-identify-as-woke/) is sensitive to the Palestinian cause (https://jstribune.com/bernstein-woke-ideology-in-the-us-poses-a-national-security-challenge-for-israel/). Besides Evangelicals are not the fan base of Biden, so I can see there some diplomatic leverage the US could use against Israel (as already Obama did in the past https://www.wsj.com/articles/obamas-parting-betrayal-of-israel-1482795616)

As I said, I would exclude the Evangelical issue (at least the way you argued it, preserving the support of the Jewish lobby may be enough compelling to Biden), and give more weight to hegemonic concerns that also led the US to get involved in the beef between Russians and Ukrainians. — neomac

It is election year, so I would assume millions of votes do count. Biden can sacrifice the Arab-American vote and some young progressives in the campuses, not millions that would vote for him. — “ssu

Millions of Evangelical votes? Do you have any compelling evidence that millions of Evangelicals would vote for Biden, if only Biden let Netanyahu do whatever he wants in Gaza?
I have evidence that Evangelicals would vote Trump no matter what:
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/4389317-trumps-evangelical-voters-remain-loyal-as-he-violates-the-ten-commandments/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/02/23/trump-christians-evangelicals/
https://www.businessinsider.com/evangelical-christian-voters-support-trump-despite-weak-abortion-stance-2024-1?r=US&IR=T
https://www.npr.org/2024/01/21/1225860255/evangelical-voters-trump-2024
https://www.ft.com/content/fe3fe8df-fa61-402c-b8a6-9966c2a27b25
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/08/30/most-white-americans-who-regularly-attend-worship-services-voted-for-trump-in-2020/

IF it’s matter of fighting as martyrs for pan-Islamism, pan-Arabism, or just as Iranian-proxies Palestinians are an extension of Arab/Islamic/Iranian imperialism which even the West may be compelled to fight (as the West is fighting Russian imperialism), not only Israel. — neomac

That's the more unlikely reason. Various ism's come and go. But naturally Israel hopes it can get this role of being the defender of the West against the Muslims threat. That Israel's fight is your and mine fight too. — ssu

That may plausibly be a more unlikely reason for many Palestinians, not for Hamas though which is governing Gaza (unlikely the Ukrainian Nazis which are not governing Ukraine), conducting attacks on Israeli soil from Gaza and tightly infiltrating/radicalizing Palestinian society in Gaza against Israel. Indeed, Hamas and its Palestinians supporters may very much play their cards also to serve Iran and its Islamist agenda (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_Hamas_charter).

IF it’s matter of peace and safety for civilians, then Palestinians are MORE EASILY compelled to emigrate to more hospitable lands than Ukrainians and Jews (indeed, it’s what Jews did to flee from the Nazis), because their Ummah-brothers in neighbouring Arab/Muslim countries have ALL THE LOVE AND LANDS to host and protect ummah-brother Arab/Muslim Palestinians (unless the Ummah-brother story is all bullshit). — neomac

I think European response to the war in Ukraine here shows that this isn't the case. Even if European countries are OK with refugees (mainly women and children) coming to their lands, they are more eager to give Ukraine weapons. Nobody than Iran is giving any weapons to the Palestinians. And for Palestinians, they have the Nakba as close to heart as the Jews have the Holocaust. — ssu

It seems you are totally missing the implications of my conditional: 1. Diaspora can be an ACCEPTABLE OPTION for Palestinians looking for safety and peace as it was the case for the Jews looking for safety and peace for centuries so if Palestinians refuse to flee, having the chance, they have to be ready to pay the brutal consequences they have experienced for decades 2. The option for a Palestinian diaspora should be EVEN MORE ACCEPTABLE to Palestinians looking for safety and peace than it was for Jews (or Ukrainians), because the Jewish diaspora (or the Ukrainian refugees) took place in lands where there were no identitarian roots comparable to the ones Palestinians could find in Arab/Muslim countries in the Middle East. And if that is not the case because such countries refuse Palestinian refugees, than the ummah-brother rhetoric of Muslim/Arab countries in the Middle East looks EVEN MORE (DISGUSTINGLY?) HYPOCRITICAL than the Western universal humanitarian concerns.

So, in the end, Palestinians genuinely looking for peace and safety over everything else are screwed by their own kin fellows more than they are screwed by the Israelis, since Israelis do the shooting/bombing after being provoked by Hamas (and its Palestinian supporters) but then Hamas and Ummah-brothers keep them there in Gaza to get brutally shot down, instead of letting them flee.

Well one can speculate, however we are talking of an occupying force (U.K.) gifting occupied land to a newly introduced occupying force (Israel). Perhaps the Palestinians were already unhappy about the situation beforehand.
So to speculate, if one were to swap the Palestinians for the Israelis and visa versa, we would possibly have the same issue, but with Palestinians as the occupying force. It doesn’t change anything, it’s just on the other foot. — Punshhh

That’s a very questionable way of framing the issue, for several reasons:
1. If you check the demographic of Palestine in recorded history, the first known people to occupy those regions in majority were Jews, not Arabs/Muslims.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region)
Before the end of the 12th century Arabs/Muslims turned to be the majority.
So those lands have been over time occupied by different people and demographic distribution changed over time. But the original people occupying the land of Palestine (and which never completely left Palestine) were NOT Arabs/Muslims but Jews (and notice that the West Bank = Judea+Samaria is the heart of the historical Jewish land). And the main reason why many of the Jews fled from those lands is due to oppression by foreign powers (first the the Roman/Byzantine empire then by that Muslim empire + Arab/Muslim COLONIZATION of lands originally occupied by Jews). So why exactly should we acknowledge historical “occupation” starting from the time the Arabs/Muslims turned to be the majority after oppressive colonisation of lands originally occupied by Jews?
2. Correlating land and population is not enough to establish rights over the land, because such rights are established by rulers. And in ancient history up until the end of the British Mandate the rulers and owners of the land were the leaders of kingdoms and empires not Jewish/Arab people. So why exactly should we acknowledge rights to land to people (Arabs and/or Jews) prior to the end of the British Mandate?
3. Correlating land, population and land rights, is not enough to establish national identity. Indeed, Palestinian nationalism supporting a Palestinian nation-state developed in the last century and in response to Zionism. So why exactly should we acknowledge rights to the land to a nation whose identity is rooted very much in this fight for land ownership with another nation whose identity precedes such conflict?

I don’t see what you take to be “hotting up” but the US as the main hegemon while going through an internal political crisis has to intervene in Ukraine, then ALSO in Israel, then ALSO in the Red Sea is the example of hotting up I was talking about. And the multiplicity of these issues are draining and dividing energies from the main ally of Israel. This is not weakening but increasing (so hotting up) Israeli’s security concerns.

Ok, but these issues, where they affect Israel, occurred after the fact. After the Israel began their campaign in Gaza as a response to 7th October.
Unless you are drawing a link between US involvement in Ukraine and the escalation in Israel/Palestine? — Punshhh

Yes, I find it very much plausible. The massacre of the 7th October (which doesn’t concern illegally occupied lands) can very much be linked to wider international conflicts. Iran and Russia may be very much interested in overstretching the American military engagement, so Iran may help Russia (as it does in the Ukrainian war by supplying drones), to instigate another conflict in Israel and in the Red Sea. Besides Iran may be very much interested to hinder the normalization between Saudis and Israel by reviving the Israel/Palestinian conflict. Both Russia and Iran have ways to do it: Iran is the primary sponsor and supporter of Hamas and Houthis, and Russia can influence the Russian Jewish community who support Netanyahu in Israel. Besides it has been argued that Hamas aggression took years of preparation and required support from foreigners (both Russia and Iran are very much present in the region). It’s even plausible that Hamas itself may have been spontaneously triggered by international events (the normalisation between Saudis and Israel, and the Chinese mediation between Iranians and Saudis were risking to marginalise the Palestinian cause) and took its own initiative which eventually may have served Russia and Iran’s hegemonic ambitions, anyways. So yes, the American military overstretching and the political instability of the US, the internal and external enemies of Israel getting more aggressive, and the international community more vocal against Israel can very much spike Israel’s security concerns.

So you like discussing politics but then when challenged you responded with one line (“Israel is conducting an apartheid state. The responsibility for the outcome lies with them”) which doesn’t even look very much as an argument, nor addresses any of the many objections I previously made to question your views? Indeed, that’s the kind of response I would expect by anybody who wanted to end a political discussion, not engage in one.
But I guess the root cause of this is in my psyche, right?

I gave that response after being requested to steer clear of the word psyche. So I didn’t respond to your detailed post as that would have involved that word. — Punshhh

If the comment of @Benkei was actually an implicit threat of banning or post suppression because they smell as racist, instead of being racist, that’s rather disappointing. Indeed, claiming that the "psyche of a group of people” smells too close to racism smells as dumb as claiming that blaming Israelis for their “rather one sided” conflict with Palestinians smells to close to anti-semitism, doesn’t it?

The “others issues around the world” I was referring to are the ones that I and others kept talking about until now:

Yes, I see this. Perhaps these issues will come into play due to actors in these arenas capitalising on the crisis. Like the Houthi’s for example. But as I say, I don’t see how any of these were causal in the crisis.
It could be argued that Isreal and Hamas have backers, the US and Iran respectively. And that there were some pressures exerted in relation to the efforts to achieve normalisation between Isreal and Saudi Arabia. But I would attribute this far more to the increasing and violent occupation of the West Bank over the past few years. Also tensions between Isreal and Gaza had been increasing over the same period. These are the main drivers of this crisis. — Punshhh

I do not need to question the strength of endogenous MOTIVATIONS to the massacre of October the 7th by Hamas (the nation-state ambition, historical grievances against Israel, and e.g. the need to free Palestinians detained in Israeli prisons) among less endogenous motivations (like the Islamist cause, the competition of other jihadist movements in Gaza with their international sponsors), but motivation is only one factor. One needs to see also all relevant enabling factors/opportunities for such an attack to be carried out. So FINANCIAL/MILITARY MEANS, PREPARATION, TIMING, and DECISIONS of Hamas (whose leaders are based in Qatar, next to Iran), in general, and even in the case of this specific attack are arguably linked to the support/advice of foreign powers (mainly Iran which in the same period of the attack October the 7th is also playing in Ukrainian conflict and in the conflict of the Red Sea) and other related international events (like the normalisation between Israel and Saudis), even if the massacre of October 7th wasn’t strictly/entirely orchestrated from Hamas’ sponsors (I never claimed nor need to claim that Hamas are mere executioners of Iranian orders).
In any case, Israel’s threat perception and reaction to October 7th does not depend simply on Hamas’s motivations. Assuming that Israel genuinely wants to literally exterminate Hamas and Palestinians in Israel, it has all the means to do it, yet the pressure coming from outside to curb Israel and support Palestinian resistance has prevented that from happening for decades. So even if Hamas was completely or mainly indifferent to the repercussions of the massacre of October 7th to the international environment, that doesn’t imply that Israel was compelled to perceive it in isolation from the international situation. Besides, to the extant geopolitical actors calculate there moves based on competitors’ anticipated moves, there is reason to believe that even Hamas may very much have figured out what Israel’s reaction might be to the would-be massacre, if successful, and its impact on the international community (like the international cry for war crimes and genocide due to Israeli’s brutal retaliation). Actually that’s precisely the game Hamas is accused to play when using Palestinian civilians as “human shields”.

I return to my point about Israel, Isreal is conducting an apartheid state with an oppressed population who they treat badly. The blame and responsibility for what results from this crisis lies squarely with the Israeli’s — Punshhh

If you think that with the notion of “psyche” you can explain everything that matters to you and place responsibilities accordingly, I can understand that all there is to see to you in the massacre October 7th is Hamas’ EMOTIONAL REACTION to increased tensions between Israel and Gaza and West Bank in the past two years (even if the aggression of October 7th doesn’t concern illegally occupied lands according to International Law) NO MATTER what the international sponsors' support is nor what international repercussions would be. After all, “if the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail.” (cit.)

The terrorists should be eliminated. We can all agree. So let’s start with the ones who kill, injure, and starve the most people— in that case, the Israeli government. Maybe kill 10 or 20 thousand Israeli children as well, in pursuit of such ends. I’m sure the forum chickenhawks would be fine with this, given how consistent they are.

It seems you don't like Israel because Israel is winning. :chin:

If it were the other way then what? Would you like Israel more? The weaker side gets your support then.