Keep hand-wringing over Zionist "settler-colonialism" over a tiny sliver of land while ignoring or defending a rapidly growing 1400 year old religious colonialist empire 600x Israel's size.

In any case, follow my discussion with @ssu as an example of how productive & polite discussion goes. I wouldn't even call it an argument.

You need to earn respect. You simply lost it all.

Did my discussion with @ssu fundamentally change your view of me? Really? And is there a certain type of pro-Israel Jew that you do respect?

And is there a certain type of pro-Israel Jew that you do respect? — BitconnectCarlos

Speaking for myself, I respect every pro-Isreal Jew who openly, vigourously denounces and opposes the mass murdering, ethnic cleansing, apartheid policies of the US/Nato-backed Netanyahu regime.

Speaking for myself, I respect every pro-Isreal Jew who openly, vigourously denounces and opposes the mass murdering, ethnic cleansing, apartheid policies of the US/Nato-backed Netanyahu regime. — 180 Proof

The truly pro-Israel Jews are those who don’t want to see Israel destroyed. Which is exactly what they’re doing with these policies.

:up:

@BitconnectCarlos Of which there are many. You can be pro-Israel and against zionism, against war crimes and against disgusting reframing of colonisation as de-colonisation and lying about that recently invented frame as if it had existed for a long time. You want respect? Don't lie and recognise the splinters in your own eyes.

If someone IRL told me that they were "pro-Israel but anti-zionist" I would laugh. Zionism is why Israel is a state. It would make more sense to say "I'm a Zionist but opposed to certain Israeli policies." To say that you are "anti-zionist" is to say that you are opposed to Jewish self-determination. A true "anti-zionist" would seek the destruction of Israel/the loss of Jewish self-determination.

To say that you are "anti-zionist" is to say that you are opposed to Jewish self-determination. — BitconnectCarlos

Bullshit. That you cannot wrap your head around it because you adhere to a definition of zionism that's ahistorical and wrong is your problem.

One year on since the Hamas attack,


- Hamas remains undefeated while tens of thousands of civilians lay dead.

- Israel's international reputation has evaporated and it is probably the most isolated it has ever been in its history.

- Israel now finds itself at war with another adversary, Hezbollah, in a war that it is equally unlikely to win.

- Tens of thousands Israelis have already left the country.

- Recent seismographic anomalies suggest Iran may have tested a nuclear weapon.


A right clusterfuck if ever I saw one.

So what I would really like to understand is: is it geopolitical and historical reasoning that is blind to universal humanitarian concerns or is it universal humanitarian concerns that are blind to geopolitical and historical reasoning? I think the second is way more likely, hence the spectacular and endless frustration of the universal human rights activists. — neomac


I'm not sure what you mean by "historical reasoning" — boethius

By “historical reasoning” I’m referring to reasoning over the historical genesis of the “universal human rights” institutions in Western societies or in the World.
By “geopolitical analysis” I’m referring to analysis about the role “universal human rights” appeals play in the geopolitical context.

but both geopolitical analysis and humanitarian concerns can be as informed or then blind to the other. — boethius

My claim is not about possibility, but about what I find more likely.

There are plenty of geopolitical analysts and actors that wish to minimize human suffering, and there are plenty of humanitarian actors that are aware of the geopolitical realities. You can also find the opposite cases, of geopolitical analysts and/or actors that have zero concern for human rights (there are plenty of brutal dictatorships that understand the geopolitics of their situation but are unconcerned with human rights). — boethius

↪neomac
First time I've seen the video so I couldn't have posted it before.

is it geopolitical and historical reasoning that is blind to universal humanitarian concerns or is it universal humanitarian concerns that are blind to geopolitical and historical reasoning?

Yes and no. The latter opposes – struggles against – the inhumane and counter-productive (i.e. destabilizing) excesses – strategic blindness – of the former. — 180 Proof

The reasons why I find it way more likely that people driven by humanitarian concerns are blind to historical and geopolitical reasoning can be found in the nature of their political engagement: the most obvious reason is that humanitarian activists, organizations and the like (as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty international, Unrwa, etc.) focus on monitoring violations, and denouncing behaviour that is breaching certain international norms (like war crimes, genocide, cleansing, torturing, etc.) to provide assistance accordingly, than on investigating either the historical and geopolitical reasons for such violations, or the geopolitical consequences of denouncing such violations. The other reason is that when geopolitical and historical analysis are taken into account, it is not to critically engage them as such, but to use their results to play the blame game (who started it? Who is the primary/mostly/only responsible for human rights violations? Who did worse?) and spin some pro-humanitarian propaganda (like, to restore human rights on earth one has always to take the initiative to cooperate, make concessions, redistribute, equalise, etc. that’s always possible it’s only bad government that makes you believe it’s not etc.).
For them, the point is not to interpret the world, but to change it.
Gideon Levy is an obvious example of this attitude. Many people in this thread reason in the same way.

In terms of "historical force", most conflicts are framed and limited by humanitarian concerns. The rules of war and international law and WMD treaties and other self-imposed constraints on state actors are the result of a humanitarian tradition to minimize the harms of war and strive to maximize a liveable peace after war, all while recognizing that wars do happen.. — boethius

If there was no humanitarian concern every state would stockpile chemical weapons and strive to attain nuclear weapons and not hesitate to use such weapons, as well as any other weapon on hand, on civilian populations. And not just weapons of mass destruction, there is a long list of weapons that states agree not to use (sound weapons, pain inducing weapons, various forms of terrorism, laser and other blinding weapons and radiation weapons of various kinds) all while competing with each other using as much force as they can muster within this broader humanitarian framework. — boethius

But this can be framed also as a coordination problem: a state can contribute to the respect of some universal humanitarian rights, to spare inhuman treatment for its own people by enemies in war time in return. That doesn’t mean that a given state is inherently compelled to feel concerned by violations of universal human rights for the sake of other nations. Nor that a given state is inherently compelled to respect other nations’ universal human rights at the expense of its own people.

There's all sorts of things states could do but choose not to, and the argument that they don't do it because they would look bad simply circles back to the fact they look bad because enough people genuinely believe in the humanitarian principles (such as striving to minimize rather than maximize harm, avoid intentionally harming civilians and so on) that therefore those actions look bad. — boethius

The problem is what it means “enough people”, and what states can be pressed to do by said “enough people”.
From a prescriptive point of view, everybody should comply with universal human rights, and every individual is compelled to abide by those principles by their own initiative without any need of being pressured by others, and history is no excuse. When one is talking about “enough people” and what happens if “enough people” look state actions as bad we are no longer in the domain of a-priori prescriptions but in the empirical domain of psychological and material pressures, and how they scale to the level of nations and political decision makers. There is where geopolitics and history may offer precious insights. For example: is Gideon Levy “enough people” to change Netanyahu’s decisions? is Gideon Levy+Chomsky+Mearhsimer “enough people” to change Netanyahu’s decisions? Is Gideon Levy+Chomsky+Mearhsimer+pro-Palestinian students in American colleges “enough people” to change Netanyahu’s decisions? Is Gideon Levy+Chomsky+Mearhsimer+pro-Palestinian students in American colleges+UN judges+Humanitarian ONGs+all Benkeys in this thread+ALL SOUTHAFRICA+ALL THE MUSLIM IN THE UNIVERSE “enough people” to change Netanyahu’s decisions in accordance to universal human rights principles? And if they aren’t enough, why aren’t they enough?

Which is one area where I diverge from Mearsheimer in that states in the current system strive to maximize power but within a collaborative framework of self-imposed constraint due to the genuine belief in principles opposed to power-maximization. — boethius

Not sure to understand what you are saying here. But how is your claim that “states in the current system strive to maximize power but within a collaborative framework of self-imposed constraint due to the genuine belief in principles opposed to power-maximization" consistent with your other claims that international order (which includes international laws of war) is “ornamental” and “with no meaning”? BTW do you see Russia, China, Iran, South Korea, Hamas “within a collaborative framework of self-imposed constraint due to the genuine belief in principles opposed to power-maximization”?

And, as mentioned above, these constraints are due to the values and not some second order practical consideration, for we can easily find periods in history where there were no such values and we never find such constraints simply arising anyway due to practical lessons. When it was completely compatible with people's values to be torturing, crucifying (including a tenth of your own men on occasion), poising enemy water supplies, general raping and pillaging and eradication or enslaving conquered people's etc. we never find in history groups of people who have these values (i.e. see no problem with any of these things) but stop doing them because of practical considerations (like "torture doesn't work" for example). — boethius

I don’t doubt that ordinary people at large reason in terms of values, however I doubt that political decision makers are not compelled by “second order practical consideration”. By the way, this suggests me another way to put my original claim “that people driven by humanitarian concerns are blind to historical and geopolitical reasoning”: people driven by humanitarian concerns reason in terms of values, decision makers reason ALSO, if not mostly or exclusively, in terms of second order practical considerations that’s why the former are more likely blind to geopolitical and historical reasoning than the latter about universal rights values.

- Hamas remains undefeated while tens of thousands of civilians lay dead. — Tzeentch

Give me a military definition of "Hamas's defeat"

- Israel's international reputation has evaporated and it is probably the most isolated it has ever been in its history. — Tzeentch

Yes that's why Arab States helped Israel when attacked by Iran.
They care so much about Hezbollah and Hamas:
https://www.trtworld.com/middle-east/why-are-some-syrians-celebrating-israeli-strikes-on-hezbollah-18213844

- Recent seismographic anomalies suggest Iran may have tested a nuclear weapon. — Tzeentch

Suggest to whom?

"While Iran has previously acknowledged the existence of the "Imam Khomeini" space centre and missile headquarters southeast of Semnan, the site is more than 100 kilometres from the earthquake's epicentre."
source: https://www.euronews.com/2024/10/09/social-media-abuzz-with-claims-of-irans-secret-nuclear-test-after-44-magnitude-earthquake

"Iran is one of the most seismically active countries in the world, being crossed by several major faults that cover at least 90% of the country.[1] As a result, earthquakes in Iran occur often and are destructive. "
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_earthquakes_in_Iran

Benkei, the Jews invented the idea. How can they be wrong about what it means? :chin:

Jews can't be wrong about Zionism?

Well, then I have some unfortunate news for you...

You can be an anti-Zionist Jew. The logical conclusion of anti-Zionism is the destruction of Israel. You cannot be "anti-Zionist, pro-Israel."

And I'm pretty sure those guys in your vid were excommunicated.

Excommunicated? But...

How can they be wrong about what it means? :chin: — BitconnectCarlos

' :chin: ' indeed...

I think it's quite reprehensible for IDF to attack UN peacekeepers. A Finnish officer that I know who was in Lebanon in UNIFIL just last spring commented that it was a miracle that nobody died there. Well, now UN blueberets have been killed or wounded. Well, now the

Israeli forces fired on the headquarters of the UN peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon for the second time in two days on Friday, injuring four peacekeepers.

See here

Even the US noticed this:

US President Joe Biden has said he is "absolutely, positively" urging Israel to stop firing at UN peacekeepers during its conflict with Hezbollah in Lebanon, following two incidents in 48 hours.

At least in the Finnish newspapers an security analyst told the reality how it is, because lets face it, UNIFIL has been in Lebanon since 1978 and to for a tank to fire on UN base (HQ) is no accident: Israel is trying to get the UNIFIL troops to be withdrawn so that IDF can create a new security parameter in Southern Lebanon. And although there was one before and it didn't work so well, who cares. Netanyahu is on the roll.

And on what the future holds for Gaza, here's an interesting possibility what Bibi has in mind now:



The Open air prison is divided to many open air prisons to handle the prison riot.

MOST MORAL ARMY IN THE WORLD! UN ARE ANTI-SEMITES! ANTI-ZIONISM IS ANTI-SEMITISM! HAMAS IS EVIL. CIVILIANS ARE COLLATERAL DAMAGE. ZIONISM = DECOLONISATION! SELF-DETERMINISM FOR JEWS NOT FOR PALESTINIANS!

I forgot: WOULD YOU RATHER LIVE UNDER ISRAELI RULE THAN HAMAS RULE? EVERYTHING WE DO IS MORAL BECAUSE WE IS GOOD GUYS!

The sad part about that last post is all of that has actually been said in this thread. The world is going insane.

Well, Israel banned the UN general secretary.

Since you will have the backing of the US (Biden sent just more US soldiers to protect Israel and deployed there the THAAD system), why care? You can do anything you want, so now is the time to do that anything.

Never underestimate the impact how a large terrorist attack can be put to use to rouse people to support war.

And anyway, both this thread and the Ukraine thread were put into the "lounge", because they didn't fit to the main page. Wouldn't that be telling too? :wink:

UNIFIL needs to leave. Weren't they supposed to enforce resolution 1701? That clearly didn't happen and the IDF has found Hezbollah tunnels a few dozen meters from their sites. Let the grown ups do their jobs and have the blue helmets go play soldier in another location.

Explain to me how Hezbollah was able to build tunnels (that took years to build and were used to attack Israel) ~100 meters away from UNIFIL. It's impossible UNIFIL didn't know. They've simply neglected their mission and now they're in a warzone that is a direct result of their own failure. Get them out of there.

The world is going insane. — Benkei

Tell me about it. Never thought I'd see so many westerners out on the streets protesting in favor of totalitarian organizations that rule by hardline religious rule, murder LGBTQ, and suppress women's rights and dissent in what has become a progressive cause. Wokeism has degenerated into support for jihadism & intolerance against the only western, democratic state in the Middle East.

They're protesting against oppression, apartheid, war crimes and for self-determination of Palestinians. That's not protesting for Hamas (which is in any case a reaction to Israeli oppression) or a particular political setup to begin with. So nice strawman as usual.

Edit : also Israel is neither western nor democratic.

Then why are they constantly flying Hamas and Hezbollah flags at protests and cosplaying as terrorists? Why are they chanting for the same goals as these groups -- namely, the annihilation of Israel? Why are they tearing down hostage posters and desecrating memorials to terror victims? The most straightforward explanation is that they are terror supporters.

Nice guilt by association fallacy going on there. But yes there are plenty of people who support the violent resistance against oppressors. As is their right. You do the same each time you defend Israel, except you defend a colonizer and oppressor hell-bent on doing to others what you complain protestors to want to do to Israel. And each protestor wielding an Israeli flag is no different than people wielding Hamas flags. It's Israel actually and factually and practically annihilating Palestinians and their culture. People calling for the end of Israel are still less evil than actual Israeli soldiers and politicians committing crimes. But yes, why don't you complain about those protesters as if it had any bearing at all on the war crimes of Israel.

The most straightforward explanation is that people are done with the double standards: where are the memorials for Gaza terror victims?

Never underestimate the impact how a large terrorist attack can be put to use to rouse people to support war. — ssu

What the Israelis don't seem to understand is that it goes both ways. How many Oct 7s have happened to the people in Gaza and now Lebanon and how many civilians have been radicalized as a result?

Zero. There has been no cases where IDF soldiers and/or Israeli civilians went house to house murdering, raping, and torturing Palestinians in a manner comparable to 10/7.

You can say that you're a Hamas/Hezbollah supporter, it's ok. Sure, maybe you think sometimes (e.g on 10/7) they go a little over the top, but you're fundamentally onboard with their purposes. Is it fair to say at least that you're a sympathizer?

Hell, I'll support a side without condoning its every action. The Red Army committed many atrocities but I'll still take them over what they were fighting against.

Is it fair to say at least that you're a sympathizer? — BitconnectCarlos

Nope.

My point has been consistently that what Hamas does and our opinions on that are irrelevant. They are the evemy and for peace you'll have to negotiate with them. Trying to categorically wipe them out serves exactly one agenda and it isn't saving hostages.

(I decided to put my response in this thread, because the main topic is becoming the Middle-East)


Personally, I think it is self-evident that the US action is guided by a geopolitical strategy. The idea that a nation achieves, maintains and defends hegemony 'by accident' is just not a very convincing argument to me. I also think there is plenty of historical and contemporary evidence to suggest that the US follows deliberate geopolitical strategies.

That does not presuppose that the US is always correct in its assumptions or successful in its execution.

Nor does it deny that there is a wide variety of domestic and external factors that impose limits on what those strategies can feasibly entail.


As for the list of things you named - I don't think those are very self-explanatory at all. Take the draft for example. Vietnam showed the draft to be completely unfeasible for the types of foreign intervention wars the US was fighting.

I could go through the whole list, but I don't think that is very constructive. If you want we can zoom in on one or two items which you think best illustrate your point.


On the topic of Israel's genocide:

I did not call Israel's crimes part of a "US cryptic plan." What I said was that the US may tacitly agree to let Israel carry out the genocide.

The US is supplying the very ordnance Israel uses to bomb refugee camps, and the US could stop those weapons deliveries today if it wanted to.

Israeli hardliners clearly believe genocide is in their interest and worth the cost, because otherwise they wouldn't be pursuing it with such fervor. Perhaps the US government agrees, but doesn't want to be seen agreeing with it in public.

Like I said, in the case of a large-scale conflict, Israel is completely strategically compromised for various reasons, one of them being the existence of a large Palestinian population which will likely rise up the moment the Israeli state gets under military pressure.

So it's not hard to see (albeit from an utterly cynical perspective) why the Israelis want to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians, and will even resort to genocide.

Yes, it kills any chance for a rapprochement in the Middle-East, but perhaps that was never feasible to begin with, and perhaps the US isn't even interested in a rapprochement. Since the Middle-East is slipping from the US' grasp, it will be more interested in denying the use of the Middle-East to its rivals.


To be clear, I have often argued that Israel's belief that it can survive without first becoming a normal Middle-Eastern nation is foolish. In the long-term, the balance of power will inevitably shift against it at some point, and that's when it will be presented with the bill of decades of belligerence.

However, as I said before, the fact that I believe the Israeli government is deliberately pursuing a strategy of belligerence does not mean they are correct in the assumption that it will bring them long-term security.

The Americans on their part may understand the long-term implications of Israel's actions, but ultimately Israel's long-term survival may not be something that concerns Washington.

Washington is gearing up for a massive clash between itself and the rising powers. Israel is going to be used as a pawn in that clash, and its survival is of secondary importance to the defense of US global dominance.

The US will happily entertain Israeli delusions if it means the Israelis will voluntarily put themselves before Uncle Sam's cart. That's exactly how the US played Ukraine.

And second, solve that strategic weakness to do what exactly? Conquer the whole Middle-East in a giant US-Israeli war on everyone and then occupy the place forever? — boethius

First of all, Israel is (correctly, in my opinion) anticipating a period in which power relations in the Middle-East will shift, and Israel itself may come under heavy pressure from other actors in the region, most notably Iran. The fact it is housing an oppressed population of several million within its borders means it is defensively completely compromised.

And secondly, the Israelis themselves are openly talking about 'remaking the Middle-East' - they clearly have great plans for what the Middle-East should look like in the future, and they're probably correctly assessing that this may be the last window of opportunity they will have to drag the United States in.

I do not know the details of such a plan, if it even exists, but the most obvious part of such a plan would be a 'reset' on Iran, aka, knock it down from 'regional power' status. This is what the US has already done once with Iraq, and what the Israelis are hoping it will do again with Iran.

And the reason the US may be willing to take part in this is because Iran, as I have argued, is an incredibly important trade corridor that connects all US geopolitical rivals to each other - Russia, China and India.

Note that Iran doesn't just cover Persia (the gateway between Central Asia and the Middle-East) but also touches the southern Caucasus (the gateway between Russia and the Middle-East).

It is of paramount strategic importance, which is why US meddling in Iran goes back almost a century.


By the way, not to be snarky, but your posts have a tendency to be a bit long-winded, with it being difficult to discern exactly what parts of my argument you take issue with, and what you want me to react to. Usually I respond to sentences that have a '?' at the end, but they're sprinkled all over so responding to all of it would become rather tedious.

Lets try to discuss topics one at a time, to avoid overly lengthy exchanges. I'll let you decide what you want to discuss first.