Yeah but the same thing was going on during the original cold war. The US and Russia were both doing hot proxy conflicts in other places, just not directly with each other. Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan were three really notable examples but there were more.
Not for the Russians, for them it’s still a special operation since their leader is also very special…they are not involved in any war from their very special point of view.
I don’t think Iran needed Dark Brandon to remind them a direct conflict with Israel would be a stupid risk for them. Iran’s strategy was always to use proxy groups to attack Israel even when Israel attacked Iranian territory. If they won’t start a war as a response to a direct aggression it’s pretty obvious they would never risk themselves trying to save what they see as disposable tools¹.
¹ if you disagree with this assessment, look at who contributes more foreign aid for Palestine, even when accounting for the donor’s GDP
not with an american battle group in the area, certainly. there may have been a few others that biden wanted to send message to, but if so, it was by sending an open letter to Iran.
Yeah, that what it's there for. It's not that intimidating to Hamas, the USA doesn't do much at the moment. They shot down some rockets, but ultimately are "just" a cocked gun to anyone in the region thinking about entering this war.
I think this is something a lot of people don't realize. If Israel showed any weakness after the Hamas terrorist attacks, it is likely Iran, Lebanon, who else knows who, would attack as well.
Israel was put in an impossible situation and did what it had to do to protect itself.
Lol did I say that? Was Israel ignoring the intelligence about the attack justified? Is murdering children justified? Is stealing people’s homes justified?
I'm talking about Israel's response to being attacked by terrorists. Terrorists who use civilians as human shields and have no respect for anyone's lives. Terrorists who have very clearly stated they will attack Israel again.
Of course Israel is going to defend its people and do everything they can to stop future attacks.
I'm not saying what has happened in the west bank is good. I am saying that it does not justify terrorism.
I’m not saying what has happened in the west bank is good. I am saying that it does not justify terrorism.
Anyone who steals someone’s home is a terrorist. Maybe if they weren’t forcing families out of their homes, they would have had better security at the border fence. It’s almost like they wanted it to happen.
Gaza has been under military occupation by Israel since 1970 (including after the disengagement in 2005; the blockade is very much a form of military occupation). Being attacked by the people you're occupying is the obvious outcome, setting aside the specific details of the attack because I know Hamas did some unspeakable things in Oct 7. If Israel wanted to protect themselves they'd stop their occupation of Palestine and retreat to 1967 borders.
“We make peace with enemies,” Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin reassured a concerned citizen shortly after the September 13, 1993 conclusion of the Israel-PLO Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements (DOP, or Oslo I). “I would like to remind you that the [March 1979] peace treaty with Egypt had many opponents, and this peace has held for 15 years now.”[1] True enough. But peace can only be made with enemies who have been either comprehensively routed (e.g., post-World War II Germany and Japan) or disillusioned with the use of violence—not with those who remain wedded to conflict and war. And while Egyptian president Anwar Sadat was a “reformed enemy” eager to extricate his country from its futile conflict with Israel, Yasser Arafat and the PLO leadership viewed the Oslo process not as a springboard to peace but as a “Trojan Horse” (in the words of prominent PLO official Faisal Husseini) designed to promote the organization’s strategic goal of “Palestine from the [Jordan] river to the [Mediterranean] sea”—that is, a Palestine in place of Israel.
Arafat admitted as much five days before signing the accords when he told an Israeli journalist, “In the future, Israel and Palestine will be one united state in which Israelis and Palestinians will live together”[3]—that is, Israel would cease to exist. And even as he shook Rabin’s hand on the White House lawn, the PLO chairman was assuring the Palestinians in a pre-recorded, Arabic-language message that the agreement was merely an implementation of the organization’s “phased strategy” of June 1974. This stipulated that the Palestinians would seize whatever territory Israel surrendered to them, then use it as a springboard for further territorial gains until achieving the “complete liberation of Palestine.”
Almost every Palestinian around wants a one-state solution. That's bad because? A one-state solution is better than a two-state solution in every way possible, except in securing Israel's Jewish majority state where they can practice apartheid.
It’s bad because if your goal is peace, it’s a non-starter. No moral judgement about either side, that’s just how it is. Maybe if we get peace through a two-state solution, 100 years from now there might be a chance for unification, but right now the wounds are too deep.
I mean Palestinians (including Hamas, believe it or not) are currently working towards (or would like to, but the other side is a genocidal state that has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo) a two-state solution, but the fact that one state encompassing all of Palestine is no secret. The article you linked uses that as a proof that the Oslo process was doomed from the start. That's unadulterated bullshit. The Oslo peace process was the closest the conflict ever came to ending, until a Zionist terrorist assassinated Rabin. There's just no way that can be blamed on the Palestinian side.
I agree, but the simple fact is Arafat and other Palestinian leaders were telling the people they were negotiating with one thing, and their own people another thing. The simple fact is neither side has ever wanted anything but “from the river to the sea”. The Oslo process wasn’t necessarily doomed, and it was the closest to peace we’ve been, but it would have been (if it had succeeded) far from the end of the peace process.
Iran or Israel’s plan? Iran is well known for enlisting terrorists to do their dirty work for them, and Israel is probably eyeing up some border territory they can grab.
Apparently the sentiment among settlers is that the “natural borders of the Jewish Homeland” extend from the Nile to the Euphrates.
Iran and Hamas just wanted to stop Saudi Arabia from establishing diplomatic ties with Israel, further marginalizing Iran in the region. They succeeded there, and the majority of the retribution fell on the citizens of Gaza.
Iran got everything they wanted and came out clean.
One side is doing Genocide and colonialism. The other side just tries to live in peace. Wanna know how they got peace in South Africa? They kicked out the white nationalist government
My intent was not to put equal blame on both sides. But if Israel wants peace and good relations, it won’t happen unless the people of Palestine are agreeable to the terms. And just accepting some cease fire or peace agreement doesn’t imply they like the terms, it just implies they prefer those terms over being bombed and invaded. They will need terms they can be happy with otherwise there will be another terror attack down the line and the cycle of violence might start up again.
Realistically, I don’t think this situation will be resolved in a way that eliminates violence completely. But they might be able to get to a place where they can agree to blame individuals involved in the violence rather than blaming the other group.
And yeah, as long as the current regimes have power, it will be hard to separate the intent of the individuals from the groups.
I would like to remind everyone of the current year and that in this year a nation of 90 million people are ruled by a council of shamans. You know just in case anyone was kinda happy that this was isn’t going to explode even more so.
China is on track to reduce their electricity production from fossil fuel sources by next year. They never bought into the natural gas hype for energy security reasons, and that’s a good thing. Whereas other countries have used the claims of clean natural gas to increase electricity produced from fossil fuel sources at astonishing rates, China does not have the luxury of domestic natural gas sources and so has opted to move towards plateauing fossil fuel use as a whole.
As is fairly well known, fugitive methane emissions from natural gas are a huge and largely underreported source of GHGs. Moreover, methane is somewhere on the order of 80x worse than carbon dioxide over a 20-year period (methane decays more quickly than carbon dioxide, though, so over a 100-year period it’s only about 30x worse). Based on all-in estimates, natural gas might only become emissions-equivalent to coal after 100 years.
The Chinese are also pretty cognizant of their emissions. Might be weird to hear, but I've been working on a painful research project for the last few months and see a lot of very frank discussion of it in the research. Example, which starts with a pretty matter-of-fact statement about the "unsatisfactory" state of recycling and carbon emissions in the Chinese construction industry.
Clearly, this kind of frank writing doesn't get you in trouble with the authorities. They know they have a problem that will need to be addressed. They aren't bullshitting about it. Their officials aren't pretending the problem of climate change is made up woke propaganda they can ignore. And they have a command economy, so they can simply order businesses, labs, and universities to focus efforts on developing solutions.
Lot of bad things to say about China. It's an authoritarian state led by a dictator. They definitely put the economy ahead of addressing climate issues. But the also see the harsh reality -- failing to address climate will destroy their economy. Failing to address climate will result in anyone else who does out-competing them on the global stage. And soon.
I dont know how you could say that out of any place but ignorance? If they are a dictatorship, they are putting on a massive act of civic democratic engagement, and if they were, there would be leaks because you can not keep something like that secret when the scale is a country of 1.4 billion people.
They have a different style of democracy which prioritizes a different set of rights over western bourgeois democracy.
I would encourage you to try to talk to Chinese people about their government without putting assumptions into your questions or asking leading questions. Actual Chinese people, who live in China. Thanks to the internet this is very easily done.
I would also encourage you to research how Chinese theorists have looked at making stronger democratic mechanisms, and to generally learn the differences between proletarian and bourgeois democracy.
Literally a bunch of muslim delegations from governments that don’t like each other all went to investigate and found all was well.
I am guessing you did not actually trying asking them, I am guessing you read some atrocity propaganda from a corporate newspaper whos owner is terrified of the implications of socialist China.
Grade A tankie shit is taking advice on how to respect religious freedom and human rights from Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, Syria, Bahrain, Tunisia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina.
These countries probably care more about the religious freedom of Muslims then the US though, which loves killing Muslims and has killed millions of muslim civilians in recent history in their own “war on terror”
You think Muslim majority countries care less about the right to practice Islam than the US, which routinely spies on mosques in the US and has killed millions of Muslim civilians in recent history? Who are supportive of the client state of Israel committing genocide against Palestinians as we speak? Which media depicts Muslims as brown savages? Who’s soldiers commonly refer to Muslims as Sand N-words?
Are you being literal or is their another meaning you are trying to imply?
Okay, thank you for demonstrating that you unironically believe muslim countries are more bigoted against Muslims than a country which has routinely committed genocide against muslim populations over the last half century and is current involved in supporting one as we speak.
Well that proves it, religion is always peaceful and gets along well with those of different believes.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to trust the investigation performed by the international community. Backed up by my own interactions with Uighur refugees in my own country (They were probably hired by le Zenz to personally feed me propaganda). And support the victims of genocide rather than an authie state.
Because taking advice from the country of “don’t say gay”, “oops I invaded Iraq”, “hundreds of thousands murdered in the Middle East”, “oops I couped another democratically-elected government”, “rape on foreign military bases”…
Those countries also have economic and otherwise incentive to agree with the world hegemon, the US.
The anglophone corporate media that is pushing out the atrocity propaganda (well, was, China reopening put a real damper on their stories) also has financial incentive to produce propaganda about the main rival of the US.
Or an economic incentive to agree with china, the major world power challenging the US on its position on the world stage. In fact, even more incentive to side with china over the US, as those specific nations all have multiple direct monetary conflicts with US enterprise and military pursuits. Pursuits they would gladly like to take over, and have reason to do business with whomever sides with them over the US on said enterprises.
Youre being played, and letting people die because of it. Just like whats happening in gaza.
Youre being played, and letting people die because of it.
Even the worse claims say that the “repression” is over, and have never included mass murder, so I dont know what you’re on about.
I guess I should ask, why do you have faith in US affiliated media reporting on this, considering that the US has a vested interest in destabilizing China, and obviously cares very little for the lives of Muslims?
Also, just look at it from a historical basis. Has any anti-terrorism program that revolved around repression ever worked, and not just created more terrorism? Does China have a reality altering device that lets them do repression without creating more terrorism, or have you been lied to, given that terrorism has precipitously declined as China has invested in their counterterrorism program primarily based around improving the material conditions in the region?
The same applies to you? Why do you have faith in chinese affiliated media, who has a vested interest in usurping US footholds and making deals with chinese markets?
Dont act like china doesnt have a history of repression like every other major world power. China isnt special, or new. They arent your friend, theyre the next US. They dont care that some historians say it doesnt work, the same argument applies to the japanese concentration camps in the US during WW2.
Its embarassing to watch you, in the same paragraph, try and mock trusting 1 faceless monoliths propaganda while unquestionably parroting anothers. Calling a historically suppressed minority a terrorist population? Fucking shame on you.
The same applies to you? Why do you have faith in chinese affiliated media, who has a vested interest in usurping US footholds and making deals with chinese markets?
Why do you think I primarily rely on Chinese media? I primarily rely on looking at US media through a critical lense oriented around Marxism and anti-colonial theory. I also talk to Chinese exchange students about their experiences in China.
Dont act like china doesnt have a history of repression like every other major world power. China isnt special, or new.
I’m not arguing that, but that is not an equivalent claim to the claim you are making. You are making much worse claims.
They arent your friend, theyre the next US.
Nah this is just enlightened centrism. China is of course a state and states do repression but they are significantly less economically exploitative than the US. They are also exceeding their climate goals while the US lags behind.
They dont care that some historians say it doesnt work, the same argument applies to the japanese concentration camps in the US during WW2.
They aren’t doing concentration camps though, because if they were, we would see violent resistance increasing. This has always historically been the case. You must learn from history or you’ll believe anything.
Its embarassing to watch you, in the same paragraph, try and mock trusting 1 faceless monoliths propaganda while unquestionably parroting anothers.
I’m not parroting their propaganda. Their propaganda paints a much rosier picture about it. Things are not great but the way they have dealt with extremism has respected their culture, even though there are cases of nonsystemic abuse and their methods toe the line on what we would consider acceptable standards of evidence. (Although detaining someone in school is different than detaining someone in a labor camp like the US does to its prisoners, and the standard of evidence that the US uses also often falls behind our acceptable standard of evidence)
Did you actually read the report? They literally cite CIA front groups like VoCMF.
Also, just look at it from a historical basis. Has any anti-terrorism program that revolved around repression ever worked, and not just created more terrorism? Does China have a reality altering device that lets them do repression without creating more terrorism, or have you been lied to, given that terrorism has precipitously declined as China has invested in their counterterrorism program primarily based around improving the material conditions in the region?
I have, and they use many multiple sources (including their own) to reach their conclusion, of which the ‘Xinjiang Police Files’ are but one part and backed up by other documentation.
I assume your talking point regurgitation is done without you having the foggiest clue about the actual contents of the report.
Also just take a look at historical basis, genocide has happened many times throughout history. Do you assume genocide has never “worked” and only creates more resistance?
Oh my god, the police files that included ai generated mugshots, published by Adrian Zenz, a literal German fascist who says God has given him a mission to destroy China?
Also just take a look at historical basis, genocide has happened many times throughout history. Do you assume genocide has never “worked” and only creates more resistance?
Genocide creates more violent resistance when it is escalating, even if it eventually wipes out most of a population. Can you name an example of a time when this doesn’t hold true?
telegraph.co.uk
Oldest