And where did I make such extraordinary claims exactly? Can you quote me verbatim?

I didn’t say you had made such a claim, I wasn’t talking about you, I was talking about claims. But you do appear to be positioning yourself there in relation to my claim. Unless, you are in some kind of neutral position. As far as I’m concerned to even consider that this Israeli administration we are discussing could be a workable solution, unless it is imposed with brute force is entirely fool hardy, or naive. It’s not going to happen.

While from your neutral position you are happy to use analysis to deconstruct what I was saying.

You mean that the burden of proof is all on me and you have to do nothing other than making claims? You didn’t even offer a clarification of what you mean by “Apartheid state”.

But I’m realising that you are not committing to a position on these questions. You’re just shooting down what people say. I ask for a counter argument and none is provided. You comment on some issue, but thats not making claims.

Sure, if you suspect a disagreement between us over the notion of “state” or “human”. The point is that YOU feel compelled to call Israel an “Apartheid state” and want me to agree with you since you suspect a disagreement (and rightly so).

looking at your discussion with SSU about what apartheid is I’ll give it a miss for now.

I’m not criticising your approach or what you’re saying, it just feels a bit to much like a philosophy tutorial, where your only input is to mark my homework.

P.S. For some reason, I do not get notifications from you, even if you reference my nickname.

Sorry it’s something about the website that I haven’t got around to working out. Something to do with the quote feature I think.

It sounds as if you are making an objection to me — neomac

Sorry if I was rude or impolite, didn't mean to.

So what’s the point of bringing that up? — neomac

Just to emphasis that in order to have peace after war, it's not so simple as politicians say it is. Simple easy sounding solutions (just destroy them) end up in quagmires.

For example: Just to "go to" Afghanistan and destroy Al Qaeda and the supporting Taleban was what George Bush had in mind. He didn't want to have anything to do with "nation building". Did he take into account Iran or especially Pakistan, the backer of Taleban? Nope. So the US got it's longest war, which it even more humiliatingly lost than the Vietnam war. And Pakistanis can celebrate (as they did) outsmarting the Americans.


That was the plan. And simple naive plans backfire. Usually because they are stupid plans.

Just compare to his father who a) got an OK both from the UN and from Soviet Union and China for the use of force, b) arranged an overwhelming alliance, c) listened to his allies and didn't overreach and continue to Baghdad, d) had an cease-fire

that the enemy accepted. Had even a parade after the war.

After the cease-fire talks, US general Schwarzkopf salutes his counterpart Iraqi Lt. General Sultan Hasheem Ahmad. Saudi Armed Forces commander next to Schwarzkopf, but not shown:

As far as I’m concerned, the dual system in the West Bank occupied territories consists in the fact that Palestinians were/are under Israeli military law and not under Israeli civil laws, because Palestinians are not Israelis — neomac

And since Israel never has had the attempt to make both Jews and Non-Jews there all Israelis, then this is what you get.

If you want peace and have in your country other people then you, then you try to make them part of your country (like Romans decided later that everybody living there would be Romans). Or be even smarter, create a new identity like the English did: Everybody, including them, would be BRITISH. Even that wasn't enough for the Irish, because they had a long memory of how the English had behaved in their country. But it has been a success story in Scotland and Whales.

Now, does Israel try this? No. It's a homeland for the Jews and others just can fuck off. And that's why in the end it is an Apartheid system, because it has at it's core that similary hostility towards the others, similar to what the white Afrikaaners had in their system for blacks.

I don't think Israel is special in this regard. As an American, Pearl Harbor and 9/11 come to mind as comparable instances casualty-wise -- both of which led to "the gloves coming off." Can you cite me an instance where comparable casualties did not lead to further escalation? — BitconnectCarlos

As stated earlier, the Japanese attack wasn't comparable to a terrorist attack. It really was a traditional military invasion. Remember that the US owned the Philippines and the Japanese invaded your colony. The US was also invaded in the Alaska. That's far off from a terrorist strike.

But sure.

The best comparable situation that comes to mind was when the Austro-Hungarian crown prince was murdered in cold blood in Sarajevo by terrorists that had relations to Serbia. Austro-Hungaria had to declare war! Who cares if they lost the whole Empire (and Serbia was put into Yugoslavia), leaders had to react with the "gloves coming off".

And then there are the false flags like the terrorist attack on a Moscow suburb. Putin had to get a "round two" with the Chechens who had humiliated the Russian Army in the First Chechen War. That war was great for Putin and his presidential campaign! When have problems at home, go for war.

So I guess Bibi will think that once he's taking care "once and for all" about the issue, his popularity will come back.

Regarding the "Jewish psyche" mentioned earlier, here's Golda Meir: — BitconnectCarlos

Who btw was forced out because the Yom Kippur war had as a surprise to her and her administration, just like "Al Aqsa-flood" came as a surprise to Bibi.

But naturally when your war kills 30 000 in a few months and children are starving, anybody needs to be firm in one's convictions to be doing the right thing.

Have you btw noticed that Putin is also playing the Hitler card? Evil nazis everywhere.

Now, does Israel try this? No. It's a homeland for the Jews and others just can fuck off. And that's why in the end it is an Apartheid system, because it has at it's core that similary hostility towards the others, similar to what the white Afrikaaners had in their system for blacks.

I couldn’t have put it more simply myself.

Now, does Israel try this? No. It's a homeland for the Jews and others just can fuck off. And that's why in the end it is an Apartheid system, because it has at it's core that similary hostility towards the others, similar to what the white Afrikaaners had in their system for blacks.
↪ssu
I couldn’t have put it more simply myself.
9 hours ago — Punshhh

And Greece is the homeland of the Greeks; they give special immigration privileges to those with Greek descent. Japan is the homeland of the Japanese and Spain is the homeland of the Spanish. If you are a Muslim you can go to ~50 muslim countries and they will rule the way you like. The Jews will have their little sliver of land that Jews can seek refuge in. The Jews will treat the foreigner kindly and with hospitality as their bible demands. There are thriving muslim and other communities in Israel so no, others do not need to "fuck off." Minorities occupy high positions in Israeli society and command great respect. Israel is a little enclave of Jewish culture surrounded by nations which Islam has devoured. Israel won't demand you burqa up or eat kosher either.

Yes, I know, but something went wrong and it’s been going wrong for a long time.

Look at it this way, let’s say Hamas is removed from the picture. A peace is agreed and everyone starts to live together as one country. This country would be approximately half Jewish, half Muslim. What would happen if the Muslim population started to outgrow the Jewish population? Presumably in this scenario everyone would have equal rights, could vote in national elections, could stand for office. Would the Jewish population be happy to be ruled by a majority Muslim population, assuming a Muslim party won power?

Of course, but this is an issue everywhere. Finland is a nation of ~5.5 million, what if 6 million Muslims were to appear? The UK is currently 6.5% muslim and it's already causing massive social upheaval. In any case, countries have the inherent right to limit their immigration.

And if Hamas were to be eliminated I can assure you Israel has no intention of annexing Gaza and absorbing all of those Gazans into Israel. A one state solution is not feasible. It's just demographics. This isn't a strictly Jewish issue.

The UK is currently 6.5% muslim and it's already causing massive social upheaval.

This is nonsense. The people who push this line believe in the great replacement theory. It’s batshit crazy.

And if Hamas were to be eliminated I can assure you Israel has no intention of annexing Gaza and absorbing all of those Gazans into Israel.

I can see that, where will they go?

Yes, I know, but something went wrong and it’s been going wrong for a long time. — Punshhh

This is so true. Israel is really changing. The Israel @BitconnectCarlos is depicting is something especially the older generation still sees in the country as they look at how Israel fought against it neighbors in the 20th Century and wasn't the dominant military power with a nuclear triad as it is now. Or how right wing the country has become. (Comes to my mind how an old-timer like Joe Biden views Israel)

Here's a truly good interview by Ezra Klein of Richard Haas about the present situation. It is worth listening to in my view. Handles both wars: in Gaza and in Ukraine.



As a career diplomat Haas is from the old school of US foreign policy (like the late Bent Scowcroft): He states very well what is wrong with the current US foreign policy when it comes to the Middle East. Haas can talk about this, he had his finger at creating the large Western and Arab coalition that pushed out Saddam Hussein from Iraq. The US is now just going along with Netanyahu's war, which has no political ends in sight. (Haas remarks that "it's as if Clausewitz hasn't been translated to Hebrew.) And this is interesting as Noah Hariri made the same point.

It leaves me feeling that this kind of old school American foreign policy where the US took into account what is happening in the region and tried to form coalitions has been replaced unilateral actions. And illogical, but good sounding talking points that are said to please the American listener (or should I say voter). And if (when) Trump comes around, I'm not seeing any improvement. Even without Trump, the likely outcome that things will be even worse.

I can see that, where will they go?

Maybe Finland could take them in. With ~5.5 million Finns and ~2.2 million Palestinians the Finns will still be in the majority so the country should be fine. Plus, once the Palestinians arrive and attain citizenship they'll be just as Finnish as the natives and it will be a beautiful melting pot of traditions and cultures.

The US is now just going along with Netanyahu's war, which has no political ends in sight. (Haas remarks that "it's as if Clausewitz hasn't been translated to Hebrew.) And this is interesting as Noah Hariri made the same point.

Yes, Netanyahu chanted the narrative of how they will remove the Palestinians his whole life. And then with the increased settler activity over the past couple of years and heightened rhetoric, found himself sleep walking into it. I saw his face on tv in the hours following the attacks of October 7th. He looked as if he’d seen a ghost. A trance like state, or even a rapture.

I had noticed and remarked on the fact that Noah Harari was extremely exercised and worried about the situation in Israel 6 months before the attacks. There were increasingly vocal protests in Israel during this period.

Maybe Finland might not fulfill your delusional fantasies of ethnic cleansing.

At least no Israeli officials came here to talk about it. They went to DRC, actually (see Israel in talks with Congo and other countries on Gaza ‘voluntary migration’ plan). Naturally DRC denied this, when the news was broken about the secret talks. So your not alone with these final solution fantasies.

I had noticed and remarked on the fact that Noah Harari was extremely exercised and worried about the situation in Israel 6 months before the attacks. There were increasingly vocal protests in Israel during this period. — Punshhh

The large hideous terrorist strike did unify the country, but it hasn't fixed the underlying problems. Israel had turned hard to the right already. Religious zealots and these people who openly embrace "final solution" type policies is totally normal. This was the case even before October 7th, of which Hariri and others have been worried about. And naturally you can see that not all Jews support the actions of current Israeli government.

I think the reason is that no democracy can survive perpetual war and the occasional "mowing the lawn" and assume it's normal peace time. It isn't. And since actually there isn't an existential threat for the nation as perhaps in 1948, then there has been no urgency to have peace and Bibi's opposition to any peace has won the day. Since it's been so great for decades, why not continue for more time. And hence the you cannot negotiate with "human animals" will prevail.

Yet little by little as the famine works out, the views are changing. Good example is the UK foreign secretary's statements just few days ago (see here). Only the US is fully committed to follow the Netanyahu government where ever it goes. Even if Joe can bitch about it being "over the top", it hardly will save the US.

And where did I make such extraordinary claims exactly? Can you quote me verbatim?

↪neomac

I didn’t say you had made such a claim, I wasn’t talking about you, I was talking about claims. But you do appear to be positioning yourself there in relation to my claim. Unless, you are in some kind of neutral position. As far as I’m concerned to even consider that this Israeli administration we are discussing could be a workable solution, unless it is imposed with brute force is entirely fool hardy, or naive. It’s not going to happen.

While from your neutral position you are happy to use analysis to deconstruct what I was saying. — Punshhh

I do not have a neutral position. I’m partial, interested and pro-Israel, to put it bluntly. But that doesn’t mean unconditional support for the Zionist cause. In other words, my position is that, given my understanding of the status of the geopolitical game in that area, I think there are STILL strong reasons to see Israel as a valuable strategic ally of the West (I qualify myself as a Westerner) and act accordingly even in the current circumstances. So even if the West doesn’t align with Israel on how Israel is handling the current crisis, it has to deal with Israel in a way that it doesn’t estrange Israel either. I do not have strong opinions on that and I do not think I know better than Western or Israeli political decision makers. So mine are just general concerns from a Westerner perspective based on a general understanding of the situation given certain geopolitical and historical assumptions.
Since I’m not a political activist and we are in a philosophy forum, I prefer to focus on my and my interlocutors’ limited understanding of the situation beyond personal interested perspectives. This means the analytic exercise I’m engaging in and challenge others to do as well is to investigate, make explicit and review the assumptions and the arguments which could support one’s political beliefs. To give you an example: I do not care if one believes and claims that Israel is “ an Apartheid state”, but I care more to understand how one came to conclude that Israel is “ an Apartheid state” and assess how such argument is compelling on geopolitical and historical grounds.

You mean that the burden of proof is all on me and you have to do nothing other than making claims? You didn’t even offer a clarification of what you mean by “Apartheid state”.

But I’m realising that you are not committing to a position on these questions. You’re just shooting down what people say. I ask for a counter argument and none is provided. You comment on some issue, but thats not making claims. — Punshhh

What is the counter argument that you asked and I didn’t provide, exactly?
I’m still waiting a compelling response to the 3 questions I asked to you.
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?

looking at your discussion with SSU about what apartheid is I’ll give it a miss for now. — Punshhh

What a surprise.

I’m not criticising your approach or what you’re saying, it just feels a bit to much like a philosophy tutorial, where your only input is to mark my homework. — Punshhh

I have nothing against you, personally. But I’m here to entertain myself, not you. And I use the same approach with everybody.

It sounds as if you are making an objection to me — neomac

Sorry if I was rude or impolite, didn't mean to. — ssu

You are neither rude nor impolite to me. And I’m fine even with rude and impolite objections as long as they are on topic and sufficiently argued. In any case, I have a thick skin.

Just to emphasis that in order to have peace after war, it's not so simple as politicians say it is. Simple easy sounding solutions (just destroy them) end up in quagmires.

For example: Just to "go to" Afghanistan and destroy Al Qaeda and the supporting Taleban was what George Bush had in mind. He didn't want to have anything to do with "nation building". Did he take into account Iran or especially Pakistan, the backer of Taleban? Nope. So the US got it's longest war, which it even more humiliatingly lost than the Vietnam war. And Pakistanis can celebrate (as they did) outsmarting the Americans. — ssu

I’m not sure what you are referring to. Pakistan and Iran didn’t have the same interest in Afghanistan. Bush reserved a more privileged treatment to Pakistan than to Iran, during the war on terror (maybe this was a mistake, since the Iranian were willing to cooperate in fighting the Talibans more than the Pakistani were). So I do not understand why you are claiming that Bush didn’t take into account especially Pakistan nor in what sense he could have taken into account both Iran and Pakistan. The ethnic/religious composition of Afghanistan doesn’t look it very amenable to nation building.

That was the plan. And simple naive plans backfire. Usually because they are stupid plans. — ssu

As long as presidential speeches are meant to market national and foreign policies the president promotes, one has to assess them more in rhetoric terms and as function of their effect on the audience, more than on their accuracy or explanatory power. But even in that speech Bush is talking also about international support, patience for sacrifice and the long time that the war may require (it took almost 10 years to kill Bin Laden). He is also talking about the broader prospect of a war on terror (which may have been nothing more than a threatening posture) and making pay the price of the terrorist attacks to state sponsors (which is not only based on military action, but also diplomacy, intelligence, legal prosecution). The confidence in a victory didn’t seem farfetched given the military power of the US and Bush’s focus on objectives such as the destruction of military capabilities and terrorists training camps in Afghanistan, or making it more difficult for terrorists to use Afghanistan as a base for terrorist operations, or bringing terrorists to justice. He insisted also on friendly dispositions toward Afghans and Muslims, and humanitarian aid to the civilian population.
I don’t think one can see much of a plan doomed to fail from that speech alone. At most one can get an impression of confidence in the international support and in the victory of justice that my look excessive or hypocritical in the hindsight.
Anyways speaking of “war on terror” in such wide terms, unilateralism, widening the conflict and lack of flexibility may have plausibly contributed to misdirect efforts and to compromise successes.

Just compare to his father who a) got an OK both from the UN and from Soviet Union and China for the use of force, b) arranged an overwhelming alliance, c) listened to his allies and didn't overreach and continue to Baghdad, d) had an cease-fire — ssu

I find your comparison misleading. A declining Soviet Union led by a complacent Gorbachev said OK at the UN resolution but he also tried to play the middle man to avoid the war since Saddam used to be a strategic ally. China abstained from voting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_678) as well as from opposing the American led intervention against Iraq. Indeed, China might have been willing to cooperate with the US in weakening the Soviet Union with its system of alliance. Besides China was prone to focus on national economic build-up and modernisation pushed by Deng Xiaoping’s reforms more than to engage in international military endeavours over international borders. Even more so, if such abstention was instrumental to preserving a soft but not compromising cooperation with the US over Taiwan. On the other side, Saddam was a maverick and had more enemies than friends in the region while the influence of his biggest supporter (the Soviet Union) was already gone. So he was an easy enemy. The Gulf war was also an easy cause because it was a relatively narrow conflict between two Arab countries, one bullying the other, over internationally acknowledged borders with no major or incumbent geopolitical stakes for the US. And it was restorative objective because the instability was brought by Saddam’s aggression which was countered without any need to overthrow Saddam. Actually this war greatly contributed to support the idea of the US world police.
The “war on terror” wasn’t against a single enemy, nor an easy cause (Islamic terrorism inflicted a humiliating attack against the US which would be welcomed by anti-American feelings in the region), nor a restorative objective (the region was destabilized by overthrowing regimes and this offered enough leeway to other geopolitical actors’ initiative at the expense of the US). But I’m not sure to what extant the US could have done otherwise in light of what was known back then and given its hegemonic ambitions.

And since Israel never has had the attempt to make both Jews and Non-Jews there all Israelis, then this is what you get.

If you want peace and have in your country other people then you, then you try to make them part of your country (like Romans decided later that everybody living there would be Romans). Or be even smarter, create a new identity like the English did: Everybody, including them, would be BRITISH. Even that wasn't enough for the Irish, because they had a long memory of how the English had behaved in their country. But it has been a success story in Scotland and Whales. — ssu

You are thinking as if people and states reason in terms of maximising peace and are willing to sacrifice anything else for peace. But that’s a rather questionable assumption: people can fight because they refuse slavery, or inequality, or intruders, or for blood revenge, or for predation, for defence, for helping somebody under threat, etc. People can fight also to preserve their religious or ethnic social identities, the customs, habits, language, historical memories they have inherited from past generation and want to transmit to future generations. This mindset can drive Israelis as much as Palestinians. Israelis apparently do not want peace if that means sacrificing Israel as a nation-state. And even Palestinians do not want peace if that means sacrificing Palestine as a nation-state. In other words, you have to convince them, the people and their the leaders, that nation-state is not something worth sacrificing their life for. And good luck with that.
Until then Israel can’t simply annex Gaza and West Bank and give Israeli citizenship to all Palestinians, even if the international community allowed it (and I doubt it). Indeed, given all the historical grievances and the comparable demographic size, there is no guarantee that the conflict would NOT reproduce in form of a civil war. It’s a deadlock.
So if one finds Israeli’s security concerns credible given its nation-state ambitions, then only solutions that address such Israeli’s security concerns better than just keep using brute force or ethnic cleansing have a chance to be appealing to Israel. For example, I deeply doubt that one state or two state solutions can address Israeli’s security concerns better than a confederated state (which is still compatible with Palestinian nation-state ambitions) or three state solution (which is NOT compatible with Palestinian nation-state ambitions).

Now, does Israel try this? No. It's a homeland for the Jews and others just can fuck off. And that's why in the end it is an Apartheid system, because it has at it's core that similary hostility towards the others, similar to what the white Afrikaaners had in their system for blacks. — ssu

You are comparing Israel to an Apartheid system as others compare Israel to Nazi Germany always in light of perceived striking similarities. But watering down the meaning of the words, based on associations of ideas, to achieve rhetoric effects is more good for propaganda than for analysis. Notice that 20% of the Israeli citizens are Arabs/Palestinians and they do not suffer from the political, economic, legal, and social discrimination that “Blacks” suffered in South Africa during the Apartheid, nor from the segregation and/or military regime Israel has imposed in West Bank and Gaza. As far as I’ve understood, the Israeli military rule until 1966 made look Israel dramatically closer to an apartheid state than after the military rule was lifted.
What also I can concede is that the ethnocentric nature of the Zionist project is incompatible with Western secular pluralism, and this factor can very much facilitate structural discrimination even if it doesn’t straightforwardly lead to an Apartheid state.
Indeed we shouldn’t overstate its gravity nor underestimate its force for 3 reasons:
1. The ethnocentric nature of Zionism was common to European nation-state formation, nationalist ideologies, European colonialism (which also lead to ethnic cleansing and/or oppression). It took centuries and 2 world wars to overcome this mindset in favour of more pluralistic views. In other words, pluralism seems a very hard won lesson. So maybe also Israelis and Palestinians have to learn it the hard way.
2. Structural discrimination is still very common also in Western pluralist countries (like the US, the UK, France, Germany etc.) and actually in the rest of the world (have you compared how certain minorities are treated in other countries, like Arab/Muslim countries or China or India or Russia?).
3. Security concerns (not racial concerns) are still dominant in Israel and when a country is at war with terrorism or another country, democratic backsliding is expected (“Terrorism and Democratic Recession” https://www.jstor.org/stable/26455914).

So I do not understand why you are claiming that Bush didn’t take into account especially Pakistan nor in what sense he could have taken into account both Iran and Pakistan. — neomac

Isn't it obvious?

That the Pakistanis did support their creation and gave it a safe haven. Or you really think that OBL who was was next to a Pakistani army base in an area where many military personnel lived, was there just by coincidence and the Pakistanis didn't know anything about it? And when Trump had given the stab in the back for their own Afghan government, the Pakistanis likely coordinated the quick military operation that took over the country.

So the US invaded and occupied a country, which not only had a tradition of fighting successfully Great Powers that invaded it, but now there also was a safe haven, a country next to Afghanistan where the Taleban could rest, reorganize and train and coordinate the fighting from.

So yes, George Bush didn't take into account that the Taleban would simply continue the fight from Pakistan. And guess he didn't want to make Pakistan, another former ally of the US, another nuclear capable axis-of-evil state like North Korea. Nope. Once Kabul was free from Taleban, mission accomplished and onward to the next war.

And when OBL was killed, did the war end? Of course not! That's what you get when your response to a terrorist attack done by 19 terrorists is to invade a country where the financier of the strike has been living. Getting the terrorists won't end the conflict, because those insurgents opposing you are fighting you as the invader of their country. To me it's quite obvious, but people can live in their bubble and have these delusional ideas that a whole country has to be invaded in order for it not to be a terrorist safe haven.

The case of Iran is obvious when it comes to Iraq. It's telling that the Saudis told exactly what would happen if Bush senior would continue the attack from Kuwait to Baghdad. But younger Bush had to go in, because there was the "window of opportunity".

I don’t think one can see much of a plan doomed to fail from that speech alone. — neomac

Obviously you have to put the speech into context with everything else. But there are obvious warning signs:

Like "War on Terror". What is this war against a method? What actually does it mean? Going after every terrorist group anywhere or what? What's the idea here? Especially when any war that the US fights is de facto top-down controlled: in the end the POTUS makes the decisions, is the "decider" and gives the "go ahead". And when the issue is like killing under aged American citizen because his father was a terrorist (or had promoted terrorist rhetoric after been in an Egyptian prison), it's totally logical for the intelligence services want a "jail free card" and the President to take the decision, and not face themselves a congressional inquiry. So when the President and the White House is (and has to be) so connected to warfighting, how many different wars you think they can handle? Fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, the Sahel, Philippines.

What do you think will happen when an administration starts a "Global War on Terrorism"? What kind of myriad involvement you will have everywhere when you try something like that?

You get more than just a fancy service medal:

On the other side, Saddam was a maverick and had more enemies than friends in the region while the influence of his biggest supporter (the Soviet Union) was already gone. So he was an easy enemy. — neomac

LOL! So you think that Osama bin Laden and his little cabal called Al Qaeda weren't mavericks? :lol:

I don't think there's any trace of the Taleban being involved with the September 11th attacks oir that they had been informed about them. And what was the "diplomacy" between the US and Taleban in turning OBL to US authorities? As I've stated, it wasn't enough just to get OBL and Al Qaeda leaders to be put into trial. Nope, Americans wanted revenge, punishment! So what did Bush say to the Taleban? This, in a statement in front of the Congress enthusiastically applauding it:

The leadership of al Qaeda has great influence in Afghanistan and supports the Taliban regime in controlling most of that country. In Afghanistan, we see al Qaeda's vision for the world.

Afghanistan's people have been brutalized -- many are starving and many have fled. Women are not allowed to attend school. You can be jailed for owning a television. Religion can be practiced only as their leaders dictate. A man can be jailed in Afghanistan if his beard is not long enough.

The United States respects the people of Afghanistan -- after all, we are currently its largest source of humanitarian aid -- but we condemn the Taliban regime. (Applause.) It is not only repressing its own people, it is threatening people everywhere by sponsoring and sheltering and supplying terrorists. By aiding and abetting murder, the Taliban regime is committing murder.

And tonight, the United States of America makes the following demands on the Taliban: Deliver to United States authorities all the leaders of al Qaeda who hide in your land. (Applause.) Release all foreign nationals, including American citizens, you have unjustly imprisoned. Protect foreign journalists, diplomats and aid workers in your country. Close immediately and permanently every terrorist training camp in Afghanistan, and hand over every terrorist, and every person in their support structure, to appropriate authorities. (Applause.) Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps, so we can make sure they are no longer operating.

These demands are not open to negotiation or discussion. (Applause.) The Taliban must act, and act immediately. They will hand over the terrorists, or they will share in their fate.

What you should note that the terms, not open to any negotiation, were not only to give the leaders of Al Qaeda (which is a vague group of people), but also to accept that the US forces could roam freely around the country closing military sites they deem to be terrorist sites and take whoever was deemed to be a terrorist.

And later in the speech the idea of promoting this war to about anyone anywhere (at least if they are muslim extremists) is obvious:

[/quote]Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.[/quote] (The whole speech here)

The Gulf war was also an easy cause because it was a relatively narrow conflict between two Arab countries, one bullying the other, over internationally acknowledged borders with no major or incumbent geopolitical stakes for the US. — neomac

Exactly. And that means the war had a specific objective that could be met. But just read above what Dubya says above about the GWOT. Is that clear path to a specific obtainable objective for a war that has an end? Of course not! It's just rhetorical talking points that were very apt for the occasion. Yet it came to be the guiding line in the GWOT.

But I’m not sure to what extant the US could have done otherwise in light of what was known back then and given its hegemonic ambitions. — neomac

What I find is tragic is that when too many people die, legal procedures how we treat terrorists or other homicidal criminals goes out of the window. Hence, I think it's an impossibility that 9/11 would have been treated as a police matter and the perpetrators would have been dealt as criminals and not to have a war in Afghanistan. Some other nation without a Superpower military could have been forced to do that. But now it was an impossibility. Not only would Bush have looked as timid and incapable of "carrying the big stick", he would have been seen as cold. If it would have been Al Gore as the president, likely the war in Iraq wouldn't have happened, but Afghanistan would have. And the real history is well known. To please the crowd wanting revenge and punishment, the Bush administration gave us the Global War on Terror. Something which still is fought around the World by the third US president after Bush.

It's something that Biden warned the Netanyahu government not to do. But Bibi surely didn't care and is repeating exactly something similar.

Notice that 20% of the Israeli citizens are Arabs/Palestinians and they do not suffer from the political, economic, legal, and social discrimination — neomac

Notice that we are talking about the Occupied Territories. So a question back to you, why then a one-state is impossible? The answer is that Zionism isn't meant for the non-Jews, so the State of Israel has a problem here.

What also I can concede is that the ethnocentric nature of the Zionist project is incompatible with Western secular pluralism, and this factor can very much facilitate structural discrimination even if it doesn’t straightforwardly lead to an Apartheid state. — neomac

I agree, this incompatibility here is the real problem. Hence all the talk of a two state solution.

And we have just a slight disagreement on just what makes a state to be an Apartheid state. You won't call it that, others here like me will call it so.
.

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?

I haven’t suggested that. What I’m saying is there was an injustice to the people on the ground when the Nakba occurred, because as far as they were concerned it was their property, their real estate when it happened.

So why exactly should we acknowledge rights to land to people (Arabs and/or Jews) prior to the end of the British Mandate?

I saying that their right to the land they are living on is due to their living on and owning the land on which they lived.

. 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?

Well that’s a legal argument and I conceded that point.

What a surprise.

I’m not going to get tied up in legal definitions, something that you were delving into in your response to SSU. My volumes on international law are on a high shelf and I have back ache.

In other words, my position is that, given my understanding of the status of the geopolitical game in that area, I think there are STILL strong reasons to see Israel as a valuable strategic ally of the West (I qualify myself as a Westerner) and act accordingly even in the current circumstances

So your only position then is limited to a concern for any broader geopolitical considerations and possible developments.

I prefer to focus on my and my interlocutors’ limited understanding of the situation beyond personal interested perspectives.

I go back to your assumptions about that. Your assessment of my understanding of the situation appears to be based on the following of a philosophical style which you approve of.

P.s. I’m not going to go back over pages and pages of responses to answer questions. My responses will be consistent as my position on these issues has been considered at length and doesn’t change as a result of interactions with others. That’s not to say I won’t accept a revision when new information is provided and errors identified.

What I’m saying is there was an injustice to the people on the ground when the Nakba occurred, because as far as they were concerned it was their property, their real estate when it happened. — Punshhh

“Property” as a legal term presupposes a legal system. Israel doesn’t acknowledge the Palestinian legal system. But it acknowledges to some extent the international legal system, so to that extent, Israel may be compelled to abide by what international law establishes for Palestinians. Yet it likely won’t do it if this compromises its national security. So until Israelis’ national security concerns are addressed in a way that sufficiently satisfies Israel, then a solution can be only FORCED onto Israel. Who is going to do this? How? I doubt that the US (or any other major actors in the region) finds convenient to force a violent solution on Israel for various reasons. So only diplomatic, economic, legal pressure remain but diplomatic, economic, legal pressure may still be ineffective if too mild (why should they be mild? Again out of convenience?) or even counterproductive if they could harden Israeli’s resolve.
Since you care so much about Nakba and refugees’ property rights, do you know there is a Jewish Nakba too?
https://www.thetower.org/article/there-was-a-jewish-nakba-and-it-was-even-bigger-than-the-palestinian-one/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_the_Muslim_world

So why exactly should we acknowledge rights to land to people (Arabs and/or Jews) prior to the end of the British Mandate?

I saying that their right to the land they are living on is due to their living on and owning the land on which they lived. — Punshhh

If you are still talking about the Nakba, see my previous comment. If you are talking, as we should, about the Palestinian State, Nakba and the legal case of the expelled Palestinians during the Nakba doesn’t suffice to deal with the demand for a Palestinian nation-state. Zionists bought lands from local owners, befriended powerful allies, obtained the league of nation acknowledgement and, after the British Mandate ended, the international status over Palestine was the one proposed by the UN resolution 1947 which the Palestinians rejected. So Israel forcefully imposed its rule with the main support of the US at the expense of the Arab/Palestinian aspirations in that region.

So your only position then is limited to a concern for any broader geopolitical considerations and possible developments — Punshhh

.

Right. I’m not a political activist and using this philosophy forum to spin some political propaganda, no matter how legitimate, instead of philosophically investigating one’s own understanding of the political crisis in the Middle East is a wasted opportunity, even worth of being ridiculed.

P.s. I’m not going to go back over pages and pages of responses to answer questions. My responses will be consistent as my position on these issues has been considered at length and doesn’t change as a result of interactions with others. That’s not to say I won’t accept a revision when new information is provided and errors identified. — Punshhh

You do as you wish. I do as I wish.

So the US invaded and occupied a country, which not only had a tradition of fighting successfully Great Powers that invaded it, but now there also was a safe haven, a country next to Afghanistan where the Taleban could rest, reorganize and train and coordinate the fighting from.

So yes, George Bush didn't take into account that the Taleban would simply continue the fight from Pakistan. And guess he didn't want to make Pakistan, another former ally of the US, another nuclear capable axis-of-evil state like North Korea. Nope. Once Kabul was free from Taleban, mission accomplished and onward to the next war. — ssu

As far as I know the Bush administration had a hard time to diplomatically/financially solicit Pakistan to fight the terrorist network from their side, but he tried to the point of even calling Pakistan “major non-NATO ally”. Yet Pakistan didn’t perform or wasn’t cooperative as required. Pakistan’s approach was more for appeasing toward the Talibans in order to contrast the Iranian (and the Indian) influence in Afghanistan and contain the terrorist threat on its soil.
It would have seemed smarter for Bush to cooperate with Iran and India to preserve the new Afghan government after overthrowing the Taliban one and/or contain a Taliban comeback. Only then Pakistan may have turned more willing to deal with the network of Taliban terrorists on their side with the support of the US. But I guess that the pro-Israel lobby may have contributed into shaping the course of the “war on terror” surrounding Iran.

And when OBL was killed, did the war end? Of course not! That's what you get when your response to a terrorist attack done by 19 terrorists is to invade a country where the financier of the strike has been living. Getting the terrorists won't end the conflict, because those insurgents opposing you are fighting you as the invader of their country. To me it's quite obvious, but people can live in their bubble and have these delusional ideas that a whole country has to be invaded in order for it not to be a terrorist safe haven. — “ssu

It took 10 years to kill Osama Bin Laden. Maybe the US could have pursued a small military operation Israeli-style to hit main Al-Qaeda leaders, military resources, and training camps but the idea of remaining there could have also been a way to keep the terrorist forces in the region to fight the “invader of their country” and not give them a chance to regroup and organise another attack in the US soil in retaliation. Especially if the other risk the US felt exposed to was not just Islamic terrorism, but Islamic terrorism equipped with WMD weapons (let’s not forget https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks). Whence the infamous link to Saddam.

The case of Iran is obvious when it comes to Iraq. It's telling that the Saudis told exactly what would happen if Bush senior would continue the attack from Kuwait to Baghdad. But younger Bush had to go in, because there was the "window of opportunity”. — ssu

This looks as another big mistake in the hindsight, and Bush didn’t listen to the Saudis nor to Putin ok. But how clearly wrongheaded did it look the idea of exploiting that "window of opportunity” within Bush administration, back then? The war on terror was likely exploitable to more ambitious hegemonic goals in the region beyond simple retaliation. Yet wrong intelligence, unilateralism, widening goals and overlooked regional political equilibria backfired.

Like "War on Terror". What is this war against a method? What actually does it mean? Going after every terrorist group anywhere or what? — ssu

how many different wars you think they can handle? Fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, the Sahel, Philippines. — ssu

What do you think will happen when an administration starts a "Global War on Terrorism"? What kind of myriad involvement you will have everywhere when you try something like that? — ssu

I don't think there's any trace of the Taleban being involved with the September 11th attacks oir that they had been informed about them. And what was the "diplomacy" between the US and Taleban in turning OBL to US authorities? As I've stated, it wasn't enough just to get OBL and Al Qaeda leaders to be put into trial. Nope, Americans wanted revenge, punishment! — ssu

While I understand that there is greater chance to solve problems by military means if military objectives are enough clear and circumscribed, and circumstances are favourable (military capabilities are enough, national and international consensus is wide, all other diplomatic attempts failed, etc.), I doubt that this is how human affairs and politics are reasonably expected to work. In other words, you keep reasoning as if, in a conflict, the political task was to define military objectives in such a way to maximise military success, as if politics has to adapt to military needs. But I find more plausible to take war as a way to pursue political goals with other means. So it’s political goals that guide (and misguide too!) military effort. Besides I’m reluctant to view the American failure in the middle-east just as a military outburst driven by punitive compulsion. The same goes with the Israeli reaction to the massacre of October 7th, and Hamas reaction to prior Israeli oppressive measures. These reactions are not just actions emotionally driven by will to retaliate, but also pro-active steps toward longer term goals and calculated wrt expectations about other main interested players’ moves. So even war on terror (i.e. against Islamic Jihadism) in the middle east was a political strategic move not just a compulsive reaction, as much as NATO expansion in Europe and inclusive economic globalization (especially addressing potential competitors like Russia and China). All of them were long-term strategies testing the US hegemonic capacity of shaping the world order through hard and soft power, even if it ultimately wasn’t planned and dosed well. Democratization (and economic growth) seemed the best way to go to normalise relations, preserve peace and quell historical grievances (as it happened for Germany and Japan) so the US, after the Cold War, in the unipolar phase, had the time window to think big and take greater risks.
Even terrorist attacks of Islamic jihadism, including the 9/11 attack, aren’t just isolated punitive operations against some past grievance, but steps toward more ambitious ideological goals (https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL32759.html). Islamism and Islamic Jihad can very much aspire to ideologically replace the Soviet Union in representing the grievance of the Rest against the West since the end of the Cold War. And it can very much be seen as a globally sharable foe (so another aspect of the globalization) given the problem of the muslim minorities in Europe, Russia’s conflict with the Chechen, India’s tensions with the muslims of Kashmir, China’s persecution of the Uyghurs, Israel’s conflict with Hamas (backed by Iran), Egypt’s struggle with Muslim Brotherhood. While the asymmetric warfare, the fluid/decentralized organisation, the vocation to martyrdom, and the prospect of obtaining WMD made Islamist Jihad look a particularly tricky challenge to anybody, including to the US (and Israel). So escalating a state-to-organization confrontation to a state-to-state confrontation and bring the confrontation into the Islamist homeland (i.e. targeting states that finance or, otherwise, support Islamic terrorist organizations) was instrumental to hitting deeper into Islamist jihadism.
So even if the US committed big mistakes, I question the way you are trivialising them. What we see in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, or in the war on terror can NOT be reduced to an “emotional reaction”, an act of revenge, of just punishment, a retaliation for a provocation. These events are best understood as power struggles. And people/leaders/political administrations/states are not necessarily peace maximisers so political choices do not need to be assessed exclusively in terms of peace maximising objectives.

On the other side, Saddam was a maverick and had more enemies than friends in the region while the influence of his biggest supporter (the Soviet Union) was already gone. So he was an easy enemy. — neomac

LOL! So you think that Osama bin Laden and his little cabal called Al Qaeda weren't mavericks? :lol: — ssu

Maybe I wasn’t clear enough, but my point wasn’t about being or not a maverick, but about being one or many (as I clarified later “The ‘war on terror’ wasn’t against a single enemy”). Indeed, Islamist terrorism looks as a fluid network of cross-national guerrilla fighters’ groups (with replaceable leaders).

Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated. (The whole speech here) — ssu

Bush’s speech still “tastes” differently wrt what I said earlier.

But I’m not sure to what extant the US could have done otherwise in light of what was known back then and given its hegemonic ambitions. — neomac

What I find is tragic is that when too many people die, legal procedures how we treat terrorists or other homicidal criminals goes out of the window. Hence, I think it's an impossibility that 9/11 would have been treated as a police matter and the perpetrators would have been dealt as criminals and not to have a war in Afghanistan. Some other nation without a Superpower military could have been forced to do that. But now it was an impossibility. Not only would Bush have looked as timid and incapable of "carrying the big stick", he would have been seen as cold. If it would have been Al Gore as the president, likely the war in Iraq wouldn't have happened, but Afghanistan would have. And the real history is well known. To please the crowd wanting revenge and punishment, the Bush administration gave us the Global War on Terror. Something which still is fought around the World by the third US president after Bush. — ssu

As I said elsewhere “long-term strategies can still be worked out of ‘emotional responses': indeed, it’s the emotional element that can ensure a united/greater home support for strategic efforts around the world.” In other words, to me the issue is not the emotional element behind a foreign policy but how it fits into a wider political strategy. Even if Al Gore would have stopped at Afghanistan, it remains to be seen if and how this choice could have served wider political strategic goals.

It's something that Biden warned the Netanyahu government not to do. But Bibi surely didn't care and is repeating exactly something similar. — ssu

The similarity may overshadow very different stakes: for Israel it’s a matter of nation-state building, for Bush it was more matter of hegemonic struggle.

Notice that 20% of the Israeli citizens are Arabs/Palestinians and they do not suffer from the political, economic, legal, and social discrimination — neomac

Notice that we are talking about the Occupied Territories. — ssu

An Apartheid state is a state with a racially based law system in peacetime, not a foreign military occupation imposing martial law to indigenous people.

So a question back to you, why then a one-state is impossible? The answer is that Zionism isn't meant for the non-Jews, so the State of Israel has a problem here. — ssu

As much as the Palestinian nation-state promoted by Hamas. One state solution is impossible for both Zionists and Hamas, because they both pursue a nation-state over the same land. So they are reciprocally incompatible. Under this assumption, you have no more reason to complain about Zionism than about Hamas. Yet you seem to put a greater moral burden on Zionism, I guess that’s because you are compelled by the comparison of military capabilities and losses which favour Israel, or because you believe that Palestinians have a more right to the their nation state over Palestine than Israel. So it would be clearer if you spelt it out instead of leaving it implicit.

What also I can concede is that the ethnocentric nature of the Zionist project is incompatible with Western secular pluralism, and this factor can very much facilitate structural discrimination even if it doesn’t straightforwardly lead to an Apartheid state. — neomac

I agree, this incompatibility here is the real problem. Hence all the talk of a two state solution.

And we have just a slight disagreement on just what makes a state to be an Apartheid state. You won't call it that, others here like me will call it so. — ssu

Since you insist, then let me insist: no it’s not “a slight disagreement”. Qualifying Israel as an apartheid state is analytically wrong to my understanding. It’s like equating ethno-centric Nation-state, State with structural discrimination, foreign military occupation, Apartheid state due to certain similarities. Even Republican conservatism and nazism are similar wrt left-right political spectrum, yet one can’t reasonably call Republican conservatism “nazism” unless one wants to achieve a rhetoric effect more than analytic goals. Even Stalinism and Nazism are similar within the spectrum democracy, liberalism, pluralism vs dictatorship, authoritarianism, totalitarianism, yet one can’t reasonably call Stalinism “nazism” unless one wants to achieve a rhetoric effect more than analytic goals. Analytical minds must repel classifications based on overstretched associations of ideas.
Out of curiosity, can you list other current Apartheid states, beside Israel, according to YOUR understanding of what an Apartheid state is?

An Apartheid state is a state with a racially based law system in peacetime, not a foreign military occupation imposing martial law to indigenous people. — neomac

I can accept that. But if they are both (potentially) racist, and oppressive, then so? What is the significance so great that it merits differentiation in the context of these discussions? That is, besides just that "analytical minds must repel classifications based on overstretched associations of ideas." Is Apartheid objectively more culpable than Colonial Occupation and the imposition of Martial Law against, and for the purposes of subjugating, indigenous people who are all painted with the same brush on the basis of their ethnicity?

“Property” as a legal term presupposes a legal system. Israel doesn’t acknowledge the Palestinian legal system. But it acknowledges to some extent the international legal system, so to that extent, Israel may be compelled to abide by what international law establishes for Palestinians

You can dress it up all you like, it doesn’t change the facts on the ground. The people living on that land were expelled by an occupying force. This is why they hold a grievance and it’s still happening in the West Bank. Indeed it has happened continuously since 1948.

the international status over Palestine was the one proposed by the UN resolution 1947 which the Palestinians rejected. So Israel forcefully imposed its rule with the main support of the US at the expense of the Arab/Palestinian aspirations in that region.

So now we see what happened, it’s not difficult, it’s not complicated.
And yes I know about the Jewish Nakba, that was an inevitable consequence.

I think you’re over egging the geopolitical perspective, but I find that interesting to. I’ll have a look.

Yet Pakistan didn’t perform or wasn’t cooperative as required. — neomac

And why is that? Because the state of Pakistan had it's own security agenda, which the Bush administration didn't care a shit about. There were there only for the terrorists ....and either you were with them or against them .And that's why it failed.

In short, if you have the finest hammer in the World, don't start thinking that everything is a nail. Accept that you can use only in limited cases a hammer and you simply have to go with other tools, even if your citizens just desperately want it to be "Hammer time"!

But how clearly wrongheaded did it look the idea of exploiting that "window of opportunity” within Bush administration, back then? — neomac

So clearly wrongheaded that few people including myself saw the error that was being done. All you needed was read a bit. What was telling then was Scott Ritter, who had been part of the weapons inspection team and wrote a little book about there being no WMD program anymore before the invasion. Of course he faced the wrath of the US later and once those bridges are burnt, the only thing to get income is to be Putin's spokesperson.

And since then it was news like a train in the US stopped because someone panicked that there was a Sikh abroad (as obviously a Sikh man is a dangerous muslim terrorist because he has a turban), the message was really evident that American crowd was taking everything in and the Bush administration was milking the traumatic experience. Just like Bibi is doing now in Israel.

I remember very well even in this forum (which had an older version before this) many Americans coming angrily to defend their President on the reasons to go to war in Iraq. He got faulty intel? What could have he otherwise done? Many saw as their civic duty to defend their President on this Forum.

Luckily Trump happened. Trump shattered the stupid idea of "The Prez just got bad intel". Trump crushed Jeb Bush just for being a Bush and told the truth that even the Trump supporter understood it. Hence everyone now that has some knowledge of the facts understand just how active role in promoting the war in Iraq the Vide President and his team had. Members of his team were convicted and would have faced jail if the "Prez" hadn't pardoned them.

As stated earlier, the Japanese attack wasn't comparable to a terrorist attack. It really was a traditional military invasion. Remember that the US owned the Philippines and the Japanese invaded your colony. The US was also invaded in the Alaska. That's far off from a terrorist strike.

But sure.

The best comparable situation that comes to mind was when the Austro-Hungarian crown prince was murdered in cold blood in Sarajevo by terrorists that had relations to Serbia. Austro-Hungaria had to declare war!

Pearl harbor was a surprise attack that killed ~2600. The assassination of Franz Ferdinand was a political assassination that killed one. 10/7 was a massacre and attempted invasion that destroyed entire communities and killed ~1200 but Israel has a smaller population so when brought to scale the number is closer to Pearl Harbor numbers.

I can't liken the murder of ~1200, mostly civilians, to the death of one political leader. If Hamas wanted to go that route they could have attempted it. They could target political leaders. But they don't.

Morally speaking, 10/7 is worse than Pearl Harbor because at least Pearl Harbor was a military target. 10/7 was a much greater tragedy than the killing of a political leader, a single person representative of a political party. 10/7 was an assault on civilization and the Jews and revealed the true face of the enemy. There is absolutely zero justification -- even Jews during the Holocaust never did something comparable to German civilians (but German military was targeted) -- yet the world refuses to let Israel mourn its dead and condemns any type of retaliatory strike against such evil. The behavior of the IDF has been remarkable humane, comparably speaking.

Morally speaking, 10/7 is worse than Pearl Harbor because at least Pearl Harbor was a military target. — BitconnectCarlos

It's telling that you forget the Philippines and the Filipinos. An invasion that started ten hours after Pearl Harbor, lasted until 1945 with half a million to one million Filipinos dying in WW2. This was a pre-emptive attack which a land invasion followed. But that's hardly something you would take notice, because it doesn't fit to the narrative to remind people that actually the US was a colonial power back then.

The behavior of the IDF has been remarkable humane, comparably speaking. — BitconnectCarlos

Of course. Guess we all need a refresher now on what 'comparably speaking' means.

(The Guardian) Israel is facing growing international pressure for an investigation after more than 100 Palestinians in Gaza were killed when desperate crowds gathered around aid trucks and Israeli troops opened fire on Thursday.

Israel said people died in a crush or were run over by aid lorries although it admitted its troops had opened fire on what it called a “mob”. But the head of a hospital in Gaza said 80% of injured people brought in had gunshot wounds.

On Friday, a UN team that visited some of the wounded in Gaza City’s al-Shifa hospital saw a “large number of gunshot wounds”, UN chief Antonio Guterres’s spokesman said.

The hospital received 70 of the dead and treated more than 700 wounded, of whom around 200 were still there during the team’s visit, spokesman Stéphane Dujarric said.

I’m not sure what you’re getting at or what your point is in bringing up the Philippines or that the US was a colonial power in 1941. Surely in 1941 the US did not have a postwar plan either. Yet it still went to war.

But I think we both know that it was the chain of alliances and the breakdown of the 19th century diplomatic order that led to WWI, not merely the assassination of the archduke. Similarly 10/7 may lead to something much greater, but if so the fault will not solely lie on Israel. And in any case some fights are just.

I can accept that. But if they are both (potentially) racist, and oppressive, then so? What is the significance so great that it merits differentiation in the context of these discussions? That is, besides just that "analytical minds must repel classifications based on overstretched associations of ideas." — ENOAH

If it’s a problem of security concerns more than racism, then Israelis may be more open to solutions that address their security concerns in satisfactory ways (and resentfully closer toward solutions/measures grounded on "racial issue" accusations). I’ll give you an example, if one wants to push for a 2 nation-states, one should try to couple it with things like demilitarisation and neutrality of Palestine and, maybe even a constitutional regime that protects minorities like the jews (and their properties) in the Palestinian State and grants them political representativity (no less than the Arab/Palestinian minority has in Israel).

Is Apartheid objectively more culpable than Colonial Occupation and the imposition of Martial Law against, and for the purposes of subjugating, indigenous people who are all painted with the same brush on the basis of their ethnicity? — ENOAH

As I said, one should be careful with similarities, besides an analytical mind should care about consistency. If one wants to talk about Foreign Martial Law in terms of Apartheid State for Palestinians in Gaza and West Bank, how about the condition of Palestinians in Lebanon?
https://www.unrwa.org/sites/default/files/20-09-28_lfo_context_protection_brief_2020_final83.pdf

“Property” as a legal term presupposes a legal system. Israel doesn’t acknowledge the Palestinian legal system. But it acknowledges to some extent the international legal system, so to that extent, Israel may be compelled to abide by what international law establishes for Palestinians

↪neomac

You can dress it up all you like, it doesn’t change the facts on the ground. The people living on that land were expelled by an occupying force. This is why they hold a grievance and it’s still happening in the West Bank. Indeed it has happened continuously since 1948. — Punshhh

Then it’s not about facts, but what one wants to legally/politically infer from that.
For example, if the numbers of Palestinian and Jewish Nakba are comparable (if not superior on the Jewish side) and the confiscation of properties and assets on both sides are comparable as well then they compensate each others (e.g. in Syria, Jewish property was confiscated and Jewish homes were used to house Palestinian refugees.). In other words there was an exchange of people and properties on both sides. So one can’t reasonably expect the Israelis’ to listen to Arabs’ grievances against them without Arabs’ listening to Israelis’ grievances against them.
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/fd/il20062006_07/il20062006_07en.pdf

the international status over Palestine was the one proposed by the UN resolution 1947 which the Palestinians rejected. So Israel forcefully imposed its rule with the main support of the US at the expense of the Arab/Palestinian aspirations in that region.

So now we see what happened, it’s not difficult, it’s not complicated.
And yes I know about the Jewish Nakba, that was an inevitable consequence. — Punshhh

If you are reasoning in terms of “inevitable consequences” than also the Zionist project can be claimed to be an inevitable consequence of the persecution and abuses Jews suffered in the West and in Middle East.

Yet Pakistan didn’t perform or wasn’t cooperative as required. — neomac

And why is that? Because the state of Pakistan had it's own security agenda, which the Bush administration didn't care a shit about. There were there only for the terrorists ....and either you were with them or against them .And that's why it failed. — ssu

A part from unnecessarily caricaturing Bush’s administration attitude toward Pakistan, your views seem to overlook Pakistan’s agency in dealing with the terrorists. And this risks to attribute to Bush also Pakistan’s strategic mistakes:
https://southasianvoices.org/what-went-wrong-pakistan-strategic-depth-policy/

But how clearly wrongheaded did it look the idea of exploiting that "window of opportunity” within Bush administration, back then? — neomac

So clearly wrongheaded that few people including myself saw the error that was being done. All you needed was read a bit. What was telling then was Scott Ritter, who had been part of the weapons inspection team and wrote a little book about there being no WMD program anymore before the invasion. Of course he faced the wrath of the US later and once those bridges are burnt, the only thing to get income is to be Putin's spokesperson. — ssu

Trump shattered the stupid idea of "The Prez just got bad intel”. — ssu

Even if the link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, or Iraq possessing WMD or the bad intel were convenient hypes, still your analysis may miss something deeper in Bush’s approach to the region:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/wmd-just-a-convenient-excuse-for-war-admits-wolfowitz-106754.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2003/05/11/no-weapons-no-matter-we-called-saddams-bluff/0be893f3-f877-44d9-84b2-5f580266213e/

Surely in 1941 the US did not have a postwar plan either. Yet it still went to war. — Moses

Yet they understood war in the Clausewitzian manner. And in 1945 they did have one: for example the US left the Emperor alone. It didn't have an objective to take Japan over and make it part of the US. And it didn't plan to move the Japanese out of their Islands and make the place a resort for Americans and build there a new America for Americans.

Remember that the Japanese surrender without one single US marine on the main Japanese Islands. To show this, let's just start with the actual Instrument of Surrender that the Japanese signed. Here it is in it's entirety:

INSTRUMENT OF SURRENDER

We, acting by command of and in behalf of the Emperor of Japan, the Japanese Government, and the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters, hereby accept the provisions set forth in the declaration issued by the heads of the Governments of the United States, China, and Great Britain on 26 July 1945 at Potsdam, and subsequently adhered to by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which four powers are hereafter referred to as the Allied Powers.

We hereby proclaim the unconditional surrender to the Allied Powers of the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters and of all Japanese armed forces and all armed forces under Japanese control wherever situated.

We hereby command all Japanese forces wherever situated and the Japanese people to cease hostilities forthwith, to preserve and save from damage all ships, aircraft, and military and civil property and to comply with all requirements which may be imposed by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers or by agencies of the Japanese Government at his direction.

We hereby command the Japanese Imperial Headquarters to issue at once orders to the Commanders of all Japanese forces and all forces under Japanese control wherever situated to surrender unconditionally themselves and all forces under their control.

We hereby command all civil, military, and naval officials to obey and enforce all proclamations, orders, and directives deemed by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers to be proper to effectuate this surrender and issued by him or under his authority and we direct all such officials to remain at their posts and to continue to perform their non-combatant duties unless specifically relieved by him or under his authority.

We hereby undertake for the Emperor, the Japanese Government, and their successors to carry out the provisions of the Potsdam Declaration in good faith, and to issue whatever orders and take whatever actions may be required by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers or by any other designated representative of the Allied Powers for the purpose of giving effect to that Declaration.

We hereby command the Japanese Imperial Government and the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters at once to liberate all allied prisoners of war and civilian internees now under Japanese control and to provide for their protection, care, maintenance, and immediate transportation to places as directed.

The authority of the Emperor and the Japanese Government to rule the state shall be subject to the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers who will take such steps as he deems proper to effectuate these terms of surrender.

Signed at TOKYO BAY, JAPAN at 0904 I on the SECOND day of SEPTEMBER, 1945

(I left the signatories away)

Do note one important thing which is in the last paragraph which it put in bold. Both the Emperor and the Japanese Goverment survive. They just have to obey the victors on "proper to effectuate these terms of surrended". But Japan exists.

This is the reason why the Clausewitzian idea of war being the extensions of politics and after war normal politics continue is so crucial here. This is the reason why you have a real problem when you don't have given politica thought what to do next. You don't even want to have any piece of paper like the above, because those theoretically signing this kind of document, you want the to be killed, erased. Punished.

Let's remember what Clausewitz said:

Politics is the womb in which war develops. War is the domain of physical exertion and suffering. War is not an exercise of the will directed at an inanimate matter. War is regarded as nothing but the continuation of state policy with other means.

Here that "war is not an exercise of the will directed at an inanimate matter" is what is forgotten. You simply don't have war against terrorism. That's just a slogan, just like "war on poverty" or "war on drugs". Then there's the actual policies you implement to make it more than just a slogan. And to do any of those actions, you have to think a bit more than just to declare wars.

And that's why this whole thing will backfire on Israel. As stated by many respected observers, Netanyahu lacks a political objective.

Similarly 10/7 may lead to something much greater, but if so the fault will not solely lie on Israel. And in any case some fights are just. — Moses

A greater disaster, likely. Perhaps Bibi want's to have that moment of declaring victory, but is it going to be that. really?

The idea of "Hamas did a terrible thing, so they have to be destroyed" doesn't at all take into consideration what happens then. And people thinking so (that it's punishment time and Hamas simply has to be destroyed and nothing else should be done) don't actually care a fuck what happens next. They don't care how many Palestinians will be killed, they don't care what the impact to the whole neighborhood it will have. They don't care that Arabs are very unhappy what is happening (so that's that for the peace process). They don't care about just what those Palestinians will think if the survive the war. They don't care either how Israel will look after this.

It really makes a difference how you fight a war. Just compare how the Soviet Union fought in Afghanistan and how the US fought in Afghanistan and look up the differences in civilian casualties. There's a huge difference. Because you could try destroy Hamas with similar operations yet keep food flowing to the area. You could say "Hamas tried to kill as many Israelis as possible, women, children and babies, and we will fight Hamas but not like Hamas and support the civilians, even if they support Hamas."

It would be easy, as I've stated again and again that fight like the Americans did in these cases in Iraq, while fighting supply food to the civilians. But that won't happen.

This because the idea in "punishment" that "humanity" would be somehow a sign of "weakness". The idea of punishment start from the hallucination that when you show undeterred strength, the other side will be cowed so much that it will stop it's fight and give up it's objectives. This crazy idea is similar to Hollywood movies teaching us that if the Hero roughs up and beats the bad guy, he will spill his beans and tells where the nuclear weapon is. Somehow the scene where the bad guy roughs up and beats the Hero, the viewer is confident that this won't happen. And so is in the case of punishing Hamas of giving a powerful message to others not to do this or otherwise. Somehow the believers in the punishment narrative believe this when it's their enemy, but they wouldn't think so if it would be the enemy using the same idea back at them.

And furthermore, I think the Israeli administration sees this as a "window of opportunity" to deal a blow to all enemies and thus they have to milk the traumatic experience of the attack and promote hard views and idea of punishment. Like after Rafah, then starts the war against Hezbollah. There at least the IDF can say that Hezbollah hasn't retreated to the Litani river. If Israel want's to refer to international agreements in the first place.

I think you're underestimating Bibi. He does care about what happens next and what happens next is annexation. That's the goal and it has always been that; they don't care about the consequences or what anybody else thinks or believes, because the world, the UN and everybody is against them in their self-proclaimed victimhood.

And furthermore, I think the Israeli administration sees this as a "window of opportunity" to deal a blow to all enemies and thus they have to milk the traumatic experience of the attack and promote hard views and idea of punishment. Like after Rafah, then starts the war against Hezbollah. There at least the IDF can say that Hezbollah hasn't retreated to the Litani river. If Israel want's to refer to international agreements in the first place. — ssu

I don't know so much about "milking" the trauma when the trauma is still fresh and festering. The brutality of 10/7 was unlike anything many countries have ever experienced. Women raped in front of their families and then the families executed. Whole families and communities tortured before being murdered. The degree of personal brutality exceeds anything the IDF has ever considered. Hamas is much, much more brutal then the IDF and they have no qualms with deliberately targeting civilians whether through deliberate rape, torture, kidnapping, or murder. It's not even close. But they are given a blank cheque by the left to do whatever they want because they are the "oppressed" and even their "noble" savagery cannot compare to the evils of amorphous, 80-year old "Israel."

If the IDF were wicked then the IDF should be targeted; not random, peaceful civilians. Hamas hurts the Palestinian cause of self-determination. Ridding "Palestine" of Hamas may help the Palestinians attain statehood in the long run.

And Israel has let in plenty of aid. Netanyahu claims a 1:1 civilian to terrorist death ratio. Israel provides medical care for Palestinian civilians.

10/7 may very well destabilize the region and lead to something larger, but it's not an inevitability. But undoubtedly 10/7 has led to a huge upsurge in anti-semitism across the globe while other conflicts such as the one in Nigeria where Muslims have been murdering thousands of Christians and engage in ethnic cleansing gets completely ignored. No Jews, no news.