You misunderstand me. I was talking about power relations in the Nazi ghetto versus the Gaza "ghetto." — BitconnectCarlos

You misunderstood me too. Notice I was referring to the Polish Home Army. That's the 1944 Uprising, which was quite more devastating for Warsaw than the Warsaw Ghetto uprising of 1943 without trying to belittle the 56 000 that were killed or sent to death camps from the Ghetto after the Warsaw Ghetto uprising.

You likely are aware that there was a larger uprising in Warsaw when the Red Army was on the near the city (and conveniently stopped for a while for the Germans to take care of problematic Polish resistance)?

In any case, the power dynamic between the two scenarios is not remotely similar. — BitconnectCarlos

It has many similarities, even if naturally there are differences.

It was really brilliant, and it mostly only wounded them so it puts a strain on their medical system while taking them out of the fight. — BitconnectCarlos

Feeling the same way of the bombings of Lebanon? The Lebanese Health Official reported that at least 274 people died in these air strikes. Or are those numbers also a propaganda?

Well, Bibi has turned the next page and goes for Hezbollah. Now he's not facing a two front war, so he can freely start a war in Lebanon.

Hopefully he doesn't want to go for a land war... to get it straight after the dismal performance during the last invasion of Lebanon (or the prior one, from which everything started... like Hezbollah in the first place).

Egypt's foreign minister is at least alarmed:

(Times of Israel, 23rd Sept) Egypt’s foreign minister warned Sunday of the risk of an all-out regional war as fighting between Israel and Lebanon’s Hezbollah terror group intensified, saying the escalation had “negatively impacted” long-embattled talks for a ceasefire-hostage deal between Israel and Hamas in Gaza.

Badr Abdelatty spoke ahead of an annual gathering of world leaders at the United Nations in New York, with a chorus of international powers calling on Israel and Hezbollah to step back from the brink.

“There is great concern about… the possibility of an escalation in the region leading to an all-out regional war,” he told AFP at UN headquarters, adding that the latest spike in violence had “negatively impacted” ceasefire negotiations.

You likely are aware that there was a larger uprising in Warsaw when the Red Army was on the near the city — ssu

:up:

I also believe the Poles around this time '44/'45 were forced to wear stars and were next in line for deportation and death on the basis of their race. After the Jews and gypsies, then the Slavs I guess.

It has many similarities, even if naturally there are differences. — ssu

In analyzing a situation or a historical comparison, power dynamics are important to me as are the fundamental nature of the parties involved & their aims.

The Lebanese Health Official reported that at least 274 people died in these air strikes. Or are those numbers also a propaganda? — ssu

It's hard to know what to make of this figure; if you were to tell me 274 Hezbollah were killed I would cheer. The more dead Hezbollah the better. Obviously the lives of 274 innocent Lebanese civilians would be tragic, although civilian deaths are unfortunately excusable if they were hiding weapons in their house which Hezbollah pays them to do & were killed when the house was struck.

I do take this number with a grain of salt as it contradicts earlier reports and seems inflated.

Well, Bibi has turned the next page and goes for Hezbollah. — ssu

Sure but keep in mind the ~8000 rockets launched into northern Israel by Hezbollah over the past few months. Tens of thousands of Israelis have been forced from their homes and forests are burning and children have been killed playing soccer. Their rockets are truly indiscriminate.

In analyzing a situation or a historical comparison, power dynamics are important to me as are the fundamental nature of the parties involved & their aims. — BitconnectCarlos

I don't think comparing WW2 to the recent Gaza invasion helps me understand much. But as for the power dynamics, you know the Palestinians in Gaza originally went there and started lemon farms. The Israelis purposefully diverted the water supply away from the lemons because they didn't want the Palestinians to be there. They wanted them to move to Jordan, but they couldn't bring themselves to forcibly transport them because of what had happened in WW2.

So the Palestinians resorted to starting small businesses in Gaza to support themselves. The Israelis increased taxes until all the Palestinians went out of business. Gaza became a giant refugee camp because the Israelis intentionally undermined their efforts to survive there.

The Israelis have been persecuting the Palestinians for decades. It's just a fact, man.

Ah yes, the Palestinians and their lemon farms. Did you know that when the Israelites conquered Canaan they were notorious for destroying the lemon farms of the locals? Looks like they're back to finish the job. Israel dedicated to destroying Palestinian lemons since the 13th century BC just like their ancestors. Thanks for the info and sticking up for the little guy.

Your contribution is appreciated. — BitconnectCarlos

Awesome.

Thanks for the info and sticking up for the little guy. — BitconnectCarlos

But you're right. Israel is the little guy. They wouldn't be there if it weren't for their strategic value to the US, which has been fading for several decades now.

Why do you figure Israel can't leave the innocent Palestinian lemon farmers alone to their crops? Perhaps it's because Israel grows limes and considers the lemon as competition. It is the Jews, after all.

You just can't do hummus without lemons. It's unthinkable.

I also believe the Poles around this time '44/'45 were forced to wear stars and were next in line for deportation and death on the basis of their race. After the Jews and gypsies, then the Slavs I guess. — BitconnectCarlos

Every fifth Pole died during WW2, so the prospect of something like that isn't at all only theoretical. The Nazis were actually quite "consistent" in the different treatment of "races" in their hierarchial race theory: others were treated different from the Untermenschen.

For example when Finland started fighting the Germans after the armstice with Russia, the German forces categorically destroyed every building, bridge and telephone pole when withdrawing to Norway. Yet there were no widespread atrocities: not only was the civilian population (who were few) allowed to evacuate to Sweden, the Germans even at times assisted in this. By Nazi racial ideology, Finns were part of the "Nordic race", just like Norwegians, and for example German men could marry women belonging to the "Nordic race". This just emphasizes how the brutal violence towards civilians in Russia and Eastern Europe was ideologically based.

It's hard to know what to make of this figure; if you were to tell me 274 Hezbollah were killed I would cheer. The more dead Hezbollah the better. — BitconnectCarlos

I remember an anecdote I read from a memoir of a retired Finnish armed forces commander, who earlier had lead the Finnish blue berets in Lebanon:

While in Lebanon, he had his wife(!) there visiting him, so he had took her one evening to hunt for wild boar (the natural thing to do with your wife in Lebanon, I guess). As they had moved on some hill, suddenly two Israeli AH-1 Cobras appeared and started circling around. He immediately signaled his wife to take cover under a bush and to not move. The attack helicopters flew around for a while and then left the area. Once they left, the continued the hunt for a while and then went back. Next day he read an IDF announcement that "two armed Hezbollah terrorists" had been sighted in the area they just had been.

Hence in that region, killed people and even sighting of people easily come to be terrorists. As likely as fighters can become civilian boys too, I guess. So don't forget that grain of salt.

No, even the partition plan is invalid because this was never agreed with the people who actually lived there. That was an act of theft itself. — Benkei

The Muslims didn't agree with it. Not the people; the muslims - their political leadership.

And that's what it comes down to. Apparently for some people, Jewish self-determination is dependent on getting permission from the Muslims. Jews want to rule over themselves? Better get the Muslims to sign off on that. Specifically the Mufti of Jerusalem at that time, Amin al-Husseini, who supported the dhimmi system and was a friend of Hitler's. The Jews need his permission.

So what happens if the Muslims in the region just categorically refuse any Jewish state? You know, because they see it as Muslim land in which Jews should remain second class citizens? What then?

The Muslims didn't agree with it. Not the people; the muslims - their political leadership. — BitconnectCarlos

Their religious persuasion is irrelevant. They were forced to accept a division of land after decades of colonisation without any say as to how this should be done. And it wasn't as if Jews were unwelcome before that.

And that's what it comes down to. Apparently for some people, Jewish self-determination is dependent on getting permission from the Muslims. Jews want to rule over themselves? Better get the Muslims to sign off on that. Specifically the Mufti of Jerusalem at that time, Amin al-Husseini, who supported the dhimmi system and was a friend of Hitler's. The Jews need his permission. — BitconnectCarlos

No, what it comes down to is that you cannot exercise self-determination by displacing other natives (and it's not as if Jews were natives themselves, given the diaspora). That's been the issue that was and is resisted and it has nothing to do with being Jewish.

But please pretend to be the victim when you steal someone else's land.

It's quite noteworthy how Netanyahu defines on Middle Eastern countries on map as "The Blessing" and "The Curse". Especially when Iraq ought to be an pro-US ally. Bibi refers to Israel's Arab partners in the speech, which is a bit confusing. Having a peace agreement doesn't mean that you are partners.

Also in the speech, Bibi prepared the way in his speech for a land invasion of Southern Lebanon. A land invasion of southern Lebanon, at least to the Litani river even if far more north (likely to stop before Beirut) is quite probable in my view. Which itself would make the peace agreement that Bibi hopes to achieve with Saudi-Arabia quite distant. And Bibi btw refers the UN as "UN house of darkness" and to be a joke while all criticism of Israel's actions is anti-semitism. Yes, the UN is an anti-semitic swamp according to Bibi. Taken right out of Trump's vocabulary (of draining the swamp).

Bibi refers to Israel's Arab partners in the speech, which is a bit confusing. Having a peace agreement doesn't mean that you are partners. — ssu

It's quite understandable.

Israel being able to normalize relations with its neighbors and garner allies in the region would be a fundamental step towards making its geopolitical position sustainable in the long-term.

As the window of US intervention in the Middle-East is closing and the situation there becomes more volatile by the day, Israel is hoping to signal to the US that these attempts at diplomacy haven't completely failed.

However, I think these attempts have failed, and that there isn't a single actor in the Middle-East that isn't counting down the days for the US intervention window to completely shut, after which they will fundamentally change their disposition towards Israel.

Yet, there is still a chance that Israel manages to drag the US into a war with Iran in an attempt to once again reset the balance of power in the Middle-East.

In order to do so, Israel would probably have to convince the US that it wouldn't turn into "US vs. the Middle-East," but that there would be regional partners that would support them. I don't think that's the case, though.

Having a peace agreement doesn't mean that you are partners. — ssu

It's quite understandable. — Tzeentch

Calling counter-parties partners is pretty usual in corporate and diplomatic speech, rarely means an actual partnership. For example, you may here corporate people say they are "working with their partners to remove unethical slave-labour / exotic materials from their supply chain" but partners in this context just means subcontractors and not actual partnerships.

So, I think in this case it's essentially just a figure of speech.

As the window of US intervention in the Middle-East is closing and the situation there becomes more volatile by the day, Israel is hoping to signal to the US that these attempts at diplomacy haven't completely failed. — Tzeentch

I completely agree with your position except I doubt there was any signalling of this kind going on.

The far greater signal during the UN visit was ordering the strike on the apartment buildings to kill the Hesbollah leader Nasrallah leader.

However, I think these attempts have failed, and that there isn't a single actor in the Middle-East that isn't counting down the days for the US intervention window to completely shut, after which they will fundamentally change their disposition towards Israel. — Tzeentch

I would go further and state that Israel and the US knows this as well.

I think it's more likely that both Israel and the US realize Israel has overcommitted to the genocide in Gaza and that has made irreversible changes.

The situation is now that ultimately the US simply has limits to what it is able to accomplish militarily, but Israel, as a country (i.e. can't now change with a change in political leadership), has no other short or medium term options than to try to force US intervention anyways ... or ... or ... or then just Nuke Iran and maybe others.

Which, seeing Israel's course of action, the nuke Iran plan could be the plan from the beginning, or near the beginning.

For, as much as it's talked about the scenario of Israel dragging in the US in a war with Iran, I've never seen it explained how this war would work exactly. No analyst I've ever seen has even outlined how Iran could be defeated with conventional forces and on the contrary I've only ever seen it explained how this is literally impossible: Iran is too big, too mountainous, too populous, too battle hardened from the war with Iraq and then surviving constant sanctions and proxy actions, to be defeateable.

Therefore, if you war game it out (which all these countries do) the only actual "win" state is nuking Iran.

Good points.

'Irreversible changes' is I think exactly the right term to use. It has set back normalization another 50 years, while Israel may not even have 5 years before US influence wanes and the situation in the Middle-East is going to fundamentally change.

It will have a hell of a time convincing the US to commit to a war in the Middle-East, because Washington knows that's exactly what Russia and China would love to see.

And I agree, there is no victory plan. Even nuclear weapons cannot realistically deal with the type of conflicts Israel will be faced with, not to mention the global consequences a nuclear first strike would have.

I don't see why Israel needs the US to fight its war for it. These past few days Israel decapitated Hezbollah. Hamas has been neutered. Israeli intelligence is unmatched. MBS just made a statement that he couldn't care less about Palestinians. A good portion of the Arab world cheers today at the death of Nasrallah while in the west they protest - Iranians, Syrians, Lebanese.

The Arab world is more complex and less unitary than many in the West imagine. Toppling the wicked Iranian regime should be the end goal. Humanity should be striving for that.

Yes, we agree on the main points.

Now, if by "victory plan" you mean a rational course of action, then definitely there is no victory plan.

However, nuclear weapons would not be for "victory" but to create long term deterrence that they are willing to nuke anyone, precisely because they are not rational actors. I.e. mad dog strategy ... but you are in fact completely a mad dog, no guessing games or theatre about it.

Interestingly, not only is there a lack of war games demonstrating how Israel could "win" against Iran even with a full scale invasion by the US, but a war game that was conducted by "The Nonproliferation Policy Education Center" concluding exactly that the US is unlikely to intervene to wage war directly against Iran and so Israel is likely to resort to nuclear weapons:

Israel’s actions [i.e. previous escalations of the type we now see], however, fail to bend Iran’s will to continue to wage war. Worse, the United States now urges Israel to stand down. Isolated and desperate, Israel concludes it has no choice: It launches a “precision” follow-on nuclear strike of 50 weapons against 25 Iranian military targets (including Russian-manned air defense sites). The aim is to cripple Iranian offensive forces and perhaps induce enough chaos to prompt the Iranian revolutionary regime to collapse. Almost immediately after the Israeli strike, however, Iran launches a nuclear attack of its own against an Israeli air base where American military are present.

With this move, the game ends.

Many critical questions remain unanswered. Would Israel or Iran conduct further nuclear strikes? Would Israel target Tehran with nuclear weapons? And vice versa, would Iran target Tel Aviv with nuclear arms? Would Russia or the United States be drawn into the war? These many basic unknowns helped inform each of the game’s four major takeaways: — Wargame simulated a conflict between Israel and Iran: It quickly went nuclear, The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists

The takeaways are also interesting, the key points being:

The strategic uncertainties generated after an Israeli-Iranian nuclear exchange are likely to be at least as fraught as any that might arise before such a clash. The strategic uncertainties generated after an Israeli-Iranian nuclear exchange are likely to be at least as fraught as any that might arise before such a clash. — Wargame simulated a conflict between Israel and Iran: It quickly went nuclear, The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists

Although Israel and Iran might initially seek to avoid the nuclear targeting of population, such self-restraint is tenuous. — Wargame simulated a conflict between Israel and Iran: It quickly went nuclear, The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists

Multilateral support for Israeli security may be essential to deter Israeli nuclear use but will likely hinge on Israeli willingness to discuss regional denuclearization. — Wargame simulated a conflict between Israel and Iran: It quickly went nuclear, The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists

Little progress is likely in reducing Middle Eastern nuclear threats as long as the United States continues its public policy of denying knowledge of Israeli nuclear weapons. — Wargame simulated a conflict between Israel and Iran: It quickly went nuclear, The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists

There's more analysis of these points in the article, but I think we can agree that the first two takeaways are extremely "the case" and the last two points are extremely "not the case".

Therefore, the only thing deterring Israel from the use of nuclear weapons I would argue is Iran already having nuclear strike capability.

It's difficult to take your delusions seriously, but let's give it a go.

I don't see why Israel needs the US to fight its war for it. — BitconnectCarlos

Israel already completely depends on the US for arms supply, significantly greater intelligence capabilities, and deterrence of the US intervention in order to conduct its current wars.

Israel's basic problem is first insisting on keeping Palestinians in a concentration camps and carrying out ethnic cleansing and also a genocide, slow at first but now very rapid, which renders peace impossible and having normal relations with neighbours.

Israel's second problem is that it lacks both population and strategic depth.

If Israel did get into a sustained major conflict with its larger neighbours it would lose due to simply being too small.

Without US support and also direct US intervention Israel could be conquered by its Arab neighbours in any sustained conflict. Israel's population is simply too small.

Now, obviously Israel can "go to war" against people it keeps in a concentration camp, such as the Palestinians, and also against a country with a similar surface area and a smaller population, such as Lebanon.

However, in a war against even half of the middle-east, such as the "cursed half", Israel would lose without US backing and the threat of intervention.

The key questions Israel has needed to ask itself therefore are:

1. How to complete the genocide of the Palestinians and create the living space of the superior Jewish race. I.e. how to implement the final solution to the Palestinian question.

2. Can Israel, as a Western Imperial colony propped up by Western Imperial power in the middle of a sea of people that don't want Israel there, survive without Western imperial power.

Israel's third problem is how to resolve the fanatical drive towards the final solution of the Palestine question with its desire to have long term security.

Insofar as US power was not in question, the problem was that the US itself wasn't so hot on a final solution of the Palestinians. Like, sure, US doesn't like brown people as much as the next superior race, but slaughter them in a giant concentration camp? Seems just a bit much. We're just a bit more sophisticated in our Imperial system nowadays. Therefore, the solution is to essentially take control of the US political process so that there would be no US opposition to Israel ethnic cleansing and genocidal policies, and certainly no hiccups in US arms supply during the final solution itself.

However, as US power wanes, Israel must face the prospect of being a colonial outpost of an imperial system that no longer exists as it once was.

Israel's current actions, whether October 7th was a surprise or not, are to carry out the final solution as well as prepare for the long dark or US imperial decline.

Israel is but the tip of a might US dick that penetrates the Middle East from behind. If the penis goes limp can the tip stay in?

Difficult to judge. History demonstrates that sometimes it's possible, but sometimes the tip of an empire just slips out once the mighty shaft no longer secures it in place.

Now, how exactly Israels actions prepare for this post-US dominance regime, how much is driven purely by Israel internal politics, is up for discussion, but reality is not contained in a few headlines today.

For example:

These past few days Israel decapitated Hezbollah. — BitconnectCarlos

Zero reason to believe this is even bad for Hezbollah long term but Israel maybe simply selecting for Hezbollah their most cleverest commanders to take over. Rarely does assassinating opposing leaders in a war have the desired effect.

Hamas has been neutered. — BitconnectCarlos

Hamas is a concentration camp based force that did not have any capacity to inflict real damage on their concentration camp guards to begin with ... without absolutely massive incompetence (willful or not on the part of the Israelis) as well as a "mass Hannibal" of Israel slaughtering its own citizens for political purposes of justifying slaughtering even more Palestinians.

Hamas doesn't even seem defeated, but even if it was severely diminished it it hardly a great victory to defeat your own concentration camp proxy against yourself (which is what Hamas effectively was) needed to justify your anti-peace policies.

MBS just made a statement that he couldn't care less about Palestinians. — BitconnectCarlos

Which we already knew. What is more important in that interview is MBS clearly stating that his people do care very much and he needs to be responsive to that. Unlikely MBS would join in some war against Israel, but the more domestic pressure he has the less he could obstruct others waging war on Israel much less help Israel as an ally (which was on the table before this recent events unfolded).

A good portion of the Arab world cheers today at the death of Nasrallah while in the west they protest - Iranians, Syrians, Lebanese. — BitconnectCarlos

Which portion? Who is cheering in the Arab world?

But in general, sure, lot's of division in the Muslim world, but the more extreme Israel is the more that creates if not a uniting force then a laissez faire attitude towards conflict between Israel and its clear enemies.

The Arab world is more complex and less unitary than many in the West imagine. — BitconnectCarlos

Certainly true, but neither I nor @Tzeentch are making such an error, but pointing out that Israel committing obvious and obscene war crimes against Arabs has a unifying effect, which does not need to be total to cause an eventual Israeli defeat in a major conflict with various cursed factions of the Middle-East, especially if the other assists in non-overt ways or then simply stays out of it.

Toppling the wicked Iranian regime should be the end goal. Humanity should be striving for that. — BitconnectCarlos

You see this happening? You see anyone lining up to topple the Iranian regime?

No. Mainly because it is essentially impossible to do.

Therefore, Israel would need to resort to nuclear weapons to prevail, at least a time, against Iran and to also deter other aggressions, at least for a time.

It's unclear what would then follow Israel nuking Tehran and other Iranian population centres; seems to me Iranians will then put some effort to strike Israel, with nukes if they can manage but if not conventional missiles, and continue to fire missiles at Israel for a very, very long time.

However, it's equally unclear to me any diplomatic resolution of the current situation. Israel seems to me overcommitted to its genocidal project and there is only further into hell it can go from here.

For, as much as it's talked about the scenario of Israel dragging in the US in a war with Iran, I've never seen it explained how this war would work exactly. No analyst I've ever seen has even outlined how Iran could be defeated with conventional forces and on the contrary I've only ever seen it explained how this is literally impossible: Iran is too big, too mountainous, too populous, too battle hardened from the war with Iraq and then surviving constant sanctions and proxy actions, to be defeateable. — boethius

Actually when experts have discussed this, these issues do have been raised. And thus even when the Neocons were at helm and the US had large forces both in Iraq and In Afghanistan (+ air bases in Central Asia). There was no appetite for a war with Iran. Even if during that time there was for example an incident of Iran capturing US Navy personnel.



Iraq was flat, it's army had been pulverized during Desert Storm and then attacked by Clinton with Operation Desert Fox, had Kurds in control of the north. So Iraq was "doable". Iran was and is something totally else.

Furthermore, we have already seen what a war between Israel and Iran looks like: both sides would lob missiles and drones at each other. Both are totally incapable of taking the fight to the borders (or coast) of the other country. Hezbollah acts here as the way for Israel to attack Iran. And I think Israel still has a bad taste from the 2006 war, which didn't go so well. But after the operations in Gaza have gone somehow, I think Bibi is willing to try to get Hezbollah again.

So I think it is more probable that we will have an Israeli invasion to Lebanon than it being just an air war.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/29/world/middleeast/middle-east-war-peace-nasrallah.html

The key paragraph:

“But an ironclad alliance with Israel built around strategic and domestic political considerations, as well as the shared values of two democracies, means Washington will almost certainly never threaten to cut — let alone cut off — the flow of arms.”

Notice the vague, careful phrasing. Translation: there’s nothing the US can do because the Israel lobby is too powerful (“domestic political considerations”) and is an extension of our economic agenda (“strategic considerations”) in the region.

There’s plenty we can do: namely, STOP SENDING WEAPONS. Stop funding the war. Period. Shame on The NY Times for talking nonsense. This isn’t the 1990s — we see right through it now.

So now we move to Lebanon, which, given the current dynamics at play, and explicit and overwhelming support by the Biden administration of Israeli evil, was, in hindsight inevitable.

It's lamentable that Nasrallah was murdered. He was, till the day of his death, willing to cease the attacks on Northern Israel, in exchange for a ceasefire in Gaza.

Quite a reasonable view. Now comes someone who will be much harsher and less sensible.

And more mass death for everyone.

A complete and utter failure of the Biden policy of letting Israel do whatever it wanted in Gaza in the hopes that it won't do whatever it wanted in Lebanon.

I don't see why Israel needs the US to fight its war for it. These past few days Israel decapitated Hezbollah. Hamas has been neutered. Israeli intelligence is unmatched. MBS just made a statement that he couldn't care less about Palestinians. A good portion of the Arab world cheers today at the death of Nasrallah while in the west they protest - Iranians, Syrians, Lebanese. — BitconnectCarlos

And the US better stay out of it too. A ground invasion is probably where this is heading (given that air strikes are insufficient to destroy alot of Hezbollah's tunnels and military infrastructure), but as long as Iran and the US don't get dragged in, then the IDF can enjoy being bogged down by such an adventure like they did in 2006.

Now, if by "victory plan" you mean a rational course of action, then definitely there is no victory plan.

However, nuclear weapons would not be for "victory" but to create long term deterrence that they are willing to nuke anyone, precisely because they are not rational actors. I.e. mad dog strategy ... but you are in fact completely a mad dog, no guessing games or theatre about it. — boethius

Personally, I don't find that a very realistic strategy.

It's thinkable that Israel would launch a nuclear strike if its survival is directly threatened, and after a long series of warnings. The Iranians are probably smart enough to back down before such a strike would occur and then use the nuclear threats to legitimize their own pursuit of nuclear armament (as may various other actors in the Middle-East).

Actual unprovoked nuclear weapons use would have global political consequences so dire that they would dwarf any military advantage gained.

Keep in mind that a large part of nuclear deterrence lies in the fact that it threatens to destroy the world, and thus not having to deal with the political fallout (pun intended). Israel does not threaten that, so it must have a plan for what happens next.

Personally, I don't find that a very realistic strategy.

It's thinkable that Israel would launch a nuclear strike if its survival is directly threatened, and after a long series of warnings. — Tzeentch

I think you're being a bit naive here.

Israel is the side constantly escalating: genocide in Gaza, blowing up the embassy, assassinating leaders, raping prisoners and then defending the rapists, killing civilians en mass apart from the genocide, in parallel to their rhetoric of explicitly stating their intention of genocide and doing whatever they want (aka. rape children and prisoners) and so on.

All I'm doing is drawing a straight line through these data points and continuing the plot, which should be the base line realism projection. When you have data that can be simply projected you need strong reasons (based on previous data) to believe the trend won't continue.

For example, if I present you a plot of the temperature of my pot of water and it keeps going up in basically straight line, you should expect that to continue unless previous data comes into play. For example, based on previous data about water you are unlikely to continue the projection past 100 degrees Celsius as you know water boils at that temperature. Of course, you maybe aware of a bunch of special circumstances (pressure well above or well below sea level atmospheric pressure) but absent any reason to suspect those conditions actually exist then it's reasonable to expect "normal" water boiling. However, discard all the exceptions and consider the simple case of just boiling water for tea and being provided data about the temperature rising, the point here is if you have no prior knowledge about water then all you can do is expect the simple projection of the data to continue: you're best guess of the temperature of the water in the future is just drawing a straight line; indeed, if you had no prior knowledge of energy and materials generally speaking you'd have no reason to exclude the water reaching a billion degrees.

Bring this water boiling example back to the middle east, I see a line of the most provocative escalations Israel could essentially possibly make including acts that even the Western media admits, even an ex-CIA director admits, is straight up vanilla terrorism, and that after the Western media already admitting that Iran does indeed have a right to retaliate for the bombing of its embassy.

What I'm arguing here is that the prior knowledge you are using to predict this trend would abruptly change before the projection of nuclear strike is reached, is prior knowledge about other people, about yourself. You wouldn't launch a nuclear weapon on a city, hopefully you believe neither would I.

We have no prior knowledge about Israel to arrive at the same conclusion.

Indeed we have the opposite of breaking every rule of war and being proud of it, of breaking every diplomatic norm and being proud of it, of committing a series of acts, and continuing at a regular pace, that by their by their nature irreversible changes to the status quo.

My argument therefore is that the goal is not to return to the status quo, and the only other equilibrium point available is the chilling "day after" the blazing heat of a nuclear strike.

The Iranians are probably smart enough to back down before such a strike would occur and then use the nuclear threats to legitimize its own pursuit of nuclear armament (as may various other actors in the Middle-East).

Back down to where? Israel is the party making the constant escalations and provocations and it is Iran that is the party already constantly backing down, doing the bare minimum to retain basic credibility.

Israel has no diplomatic position of what it "wants" to end the use of force and additionally it is not using force in a manner compatible with negotiating a resolution to anything. You use force judicially if your aim is to apply pressure for a diplomatic resolution, and Israel is essentially as far from a judicial use of force as is possible to get.

I agree, Iran does not want to be nuked and will strive to avoid that.

My argument here is that Israel wants to nuke Iran and is creating the conditions in which that is, if not the natural next step then "makes sense" that they randomly do.
— Tzeentch

Actual unprovoked nuclear weapons use would have global political consequences so dire that they would dwarf any military advantage gained. — Tzeentch

Dire for who?

If Israel has "lost the narrative" in being the actual victim in the situation and their DARVO is wearing thin, then the consequences for Israel of nuking Iran are much the same as the consequences for not nuking Iran, just that nuking Iran would greatly harm one of its enemies and create a deterrent for other parties.

Israel's basic dilemma now is that it has turned itself into a permanent war state and created non-resolvable permanent conflicts with a great many actors but it does not have the size to simply wage war indefinitely (such as Russia can) nor the geographic isolation to simply fester forever in a war economy (such as North Korea can).

How do you end war if making peace is not an option for you?

The answer is nuclear weapons.

Take the example given by the report - 25 strikes on military targets. It would inflict a lot of damage, but Iran would remain largely intact. So it doesn't even solve that problem, and it would create a million more.

Israel would turn itself into a global threat overnight, putting itself in the crosshairs of literally every nation on earth. Israel would be crushed diplomatically, economically, politically, etc.

Nuclear proliferation (and missile defense) in the Middle-East would skyrocket as every nation in and outside of the Middle-East will scramble for security. Similar strikes on Israel would be expected - strikes which Israel is a lot less capable of absorbing due to its small size.

Etc.

I think you're overestimating the damage and deterring effect, and underestimating the geopolitical consequences of a nuclear first strike.

Again, nuclear deterrence works mainly because of mutually assured destruction - threatening the literal end of the world after which there will be no consequences to consider. Israel can do no such thing.

↪boethius Take the example given by the report - 25 strikes on military targets. It would inflict a lot of damage, but Iran would remain largely intact. So it doesn't even solve that problem, and it would create a million more. — Tzeentch

From a rational enlightenment humanist position, we're in complete agreement.

Israel is not, however, such an actor.

From the perspective of people who have absolutely zero concern for human life and have now committed Israel (whether due to some actual strategy or for domestic political reasons) to a permanent militaristic path (bye bye tourism, bye bye "startup nation") with every new act simply overcommitting to such a path even more, nuclear weapons use are not seen as simply creating 100 more problems.

Obviously nuclear weapons would create problems, but they also solve problems. Israel can keep building nuclear weapons and can just keep striking Iran, both military facilities and population centres.

Iran would not be "largely intact" but in complete disarray and essentially nuked into failed state status. Israel can make clear that it will simply nuke the populations centres of anyone else that displeases them.

Of course there will be build up and then propaganda justifying this, repeated by US mainstream media: Iran was about to build a nuclear weapon and strike Israel! this was just Israels Hiroshima and had to be done! we need to look at the end result here which is Iran doesn't threaten Israel anymore and that's a good thing! there's only so much unprovoked attacks Israel can take before they just have to act!! Israel warned the world again and again that Iran had to be dealt with and the world didn't listen!! so Israel dealt with the problem and the world should be thanking Israel!!!

"Normal people" will of course be in disbelief both that Israel nuked Iran and Western leaders and media continue to cover for Israel. Seems "unbelievable" but is it really? We've just witnessed Israel carry out a genocide and acts of terrorism by the West's own admission ... yet we see Western leaders and media continue to cover for Israel.

Before these things happened "normal people" would faced with the scenario would be like "nooo! naaah! Israel can't just carry out a genocide broadcast live to the world and the West just do nothing about it except supply more arms, just can't happen in this day and age! Israel can't just get caught on tape raping prisoners and then justify doing so and then the West just politely ignore that, you serious?! Israel can't just blow up embassies and the West recognize you're really not supposed to do that, but like whatever, Israel can! Israel can't just blow up civilian devices in a clear act of mass terrorism and the West be just like 'cool, still terrorism ... but cool'? None of that could happen!!

Obviously can happen and has happened and using nuclear weapons is simply becoming the next "unbelievable" thing Israel could do that the West will cover for and continue to support and supply Israel.

Israel's rhetoric is that Iran is an existential threat to Israel, and therefore nuking Iran is simply a common sense act of self defence in that rhetoric.

The Russia-Ukrainian war can be understood on the terms you're proposing: two imperial systems, operating on some version (no matter how cynically implemented) of rational enlightenment humanism, seriously chafing each other, neither so happy about it but both "rational" enough to keep things under control as there's plenty more empiring to be done and no need to just up and nuke the whole party.

Israel is not such an imperial actor but is a small and vulnerable state surrounded a lot of enemies that is dependent on a distant imperial force that requires constant stewardship to continue extracting various forms of capital, from money to arms to diplomatic cover to direct intervention: a flow of capital that is not guaranteed but could go away at any moment due to US imperial decline or changes in US domestic politics or disruptions to the global system generally speaking.

Some people in a similar situation would conclude that they need to make new friends, but others conclude what they really need to do is nuke their enemies instead.

Leading up to these completely foreseen geopolitical changes there was of course a "make new friends" faction within Israel, but I think it's pretty abundantly clear by now that the "let's not do that" faction has won that argument.

But what's the game plan, to just look at their enemies across the region and say "Are we to be two immortals locked in an epic battle until judgment day and trumpets sound?"

Possible.

But the alternative is to start dropping nuclear warheads on population centres until you declare yourself the winner of the nuclear weapons duelling context.

For, if you're not sure you can survive until judgement day why not just bring judgement day to you?

I don't think you're understanding the full gravity of what you're describing, which is essentially Israel becoming an aggressive, nuclear-armed rogue state.

The taboo on nuclear weapons use is enormous. If Israel were to launch an unprovoked nuclear strike on another country, the entire world would be seeking nuclear armament and anti-ballistic missile defense, and with good justification.

Unlike the genocide in Gaza, this would directly undermine the nuclear deterrence and security interests of every nuclear-armed power in the world, including the US. This would be everybody's problem.

If any nation were to do something like that, there'd be an international coalition on their doorstep the next day to dismantle the regime.

That's pure realism, by the way. It has nothing to do with humanism.

↪boethius I don't think you're understanding the full gravity of what you're describing, which is essentially Israel becoming an aggressive, nuclear-armed rogue state. — Tzeentch

Consider the possibility that you are simply being too polite in your analysis and that death is a vulgar business.

What exactly is the difference between Israel as a rogue genocidal, raping and terrorist state and Israel as all those things in addition to dropping nukes?

It is exactly because the taboo is enormous that Israel is so envious to break it.

You are considering things from your own moral frame of reference.

Free your mind.

What exactly is the difference between Israel as a rogue genocidal, raping and terrorist state and Israel as all those things in addition to dropping nukes? — boethius

The difference is that the former does not threaten the security of the great powers, whereas the latter undermines it in the most dangerous way possible.

Nuclear proliferation is one of the only topics the great powers have generally been in agreement over. They realise the consequences to global security, including their own, if the nuclear genie is let out of the bottle.

What would ensue after an unprovoked nuclear attack is a mad scramble where virtually every nation on the planet will be trying to get their hands on nuclear deterrents and anti-ballistic missile defenses of their own.

At that point, the great powers would likely do everything in their power to crack down on the culprit in an attempt to cool global fear.

(Gideon Levy, 2016)


@BitconnectCarlos @neomac @schopenhauer1 @RogueAI @Moses @tim wood


10 mo. ago
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/858338