Trump has made a personal and vicious attack on Pope Leo. He posted on Truth Social (then deleted) a Messianic image of himself. I read a report that he had called the Iranian leadership “deranged scumbags” who he had the honour to kill.
Do you think this was gutsy behaviour by the President of the United States? Do you think it was truthful? Do you think it was wise?
Trump is no statesman. He's a businessman through and through.
He's super politically incorrect.
His primary weakness IMV is alienating his old allies through his business buffoonery and bravado.
Iran already has quasi-democratic processes, so "any kind" is a bit of a stretch.
Regime change worked in Germany and Japan in 1945, more or less, but Iran isn't Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan and doesn't justify the enormous price paid in those cases, nor is there an external threat from communism to keep the conquered on side.
I’m really not. Supporting and fostering terrorism is an evil thing. And Iran is the main culprit in the Middle East. That’s a given.
I'm not sure it is a given. A good argument can be made that Israel is the main culprit, providing the definition of "terrorism" isn't limited to non-state actors. There are regular acts of terrorism committed in the West Bank by settler groups. The current bombing of civilian targets in Lebanon, and the destruction of Gaza over the last couple of years, meets many of the definitions of terrorism.
It all comes down to whether it is self defence or not doesn't it?
At least the Israeli government are regularly telling people in Lebanon to leave certain areas where they are targeting Hezbollah.
You mean they ordered over a million people to move before turning South Lebanon into a free fire zone and blowing up villages?
It’s pretty clear he believes in the art of the deal. My concern for ages has been that when it comes to international deals (let’s call them treaties), the logic of business deals simply doesn’t apply. As posted earlier, 24 hours is a ludicrously short time to expect to negotiate a deal with Iran, given the huge differences between the initial positions.
I’m pretty sure it was Churchill who observed that “Jaw, jaw, jaw is better than war, war, war”.
In any case, that’s a statesmanlike observation. The best I can say about Trump’s understanding is that it is inferior to statesmanship. He’s impatient for results, prejudiced about those who think different, throws out words like “weak” and “scumbag” without any real thought about their meaning, truth and impact. I don’t know but maybe he really does believe he’s some kind of Jesus-like Messiah.
These are just some of the reasons why I think he’s hopelessly deluded and increasingly dangerous to the lives of other people. This is the cost of electing someone who is not a statesman, nor has the desire to become one.
His buffoonery and capacity for alienating friends demonstrate his unsuitability for high office. The disaster in Iran is just the most recent example.
As for setting back Iran's nuclear plans last year. Yes I imagine it did some. But have you noticed they have a huge other arsenal that they are wreaking havoc with? That's part of the problem. Certainly from an Israeli perspective.
Which they weren't doing until they were attacked. The Israeli perspective is currently conducting ethnic cleansing in Southern Lebanon, which is a few steps beyond anything the Iranian government is doing.
I don't see any evidence for ethnic cleansing in Lebanon.
Israel has a right to defend itself against Hezbollah.
There are serious allegations that Israel’s actions in Lebanon amount to genocide, alongside strong evidence of unlawful attacks and likely war crimes. But no international court has yet ruled that Israel is committing genocide in Lebanon, and the legal question—especially around proving genocidal intent—remains contested
The cynic in me notes that smiting one's neighbour, killing children, engaging in ethnic cleansing, and trying to annex land, is par for the course for Israel. Much of the Old Testament seems to bear witness to this.
That implies that having cake and eating it are the only options. There are others. For example a state can do the right thing for the wrong reason.
Consider two axes: sensible vs foolish and guts vs no guts: That's four options.
Sensible, guts or no guts: doesn't start war that does more harm than good;
Foolish, no guts: starts stupid war, when they don't meet with immediate success they bluster, announce victory, and cast around for a way out that saves face;
Foolish, guts: starts stupid war, doubles down.
In the circumstances, given that Trump is acting stupidly anyway, it's probably better for the world that he has no guts than that he doubles down. But that doesn't mean he's doing it for the right reason.
You're premises for your other options on the cake and eat it too discussion is heavily laden with the presumption Trump is an idiot.
So the TACO discussion is still you trying to have your cake and it too. Trump is an idiot to star the war and a coward for withdrawing. That's fine. But you can't have it both ways.
You're just repeating yourself while apparently ignoring what I said. You're going to have to explain in detail why you think it being idiotic to starting a way is incompatible with showing no guts for withdrawing.
The only way I see that it's having cake and eating it, is if you're claiming that starting a war, spending billions of dollars, killing hundreds of people, and throttling the world oil and fertiliser supplies, and then withdrawing, amounts to the same as not starting the war in the first place. It does not amount to the same.
And no, the thought that Trump was idiotic to start the war is not a presumption. (I don't believe I said Trump was an idiot. I said the war was stupid and foolish. Trump did a stupid and foolish thing. It's a subtle difference but important.) It's a claim that starting the war has achieved little to nothing of strategic value to the US, has done little to nothing to reduce the actual threat Iran poses to its neighbors, has done little to nothing to reduce Iran's ability to develop nuclear weapons (judging by Iran's terms in the negotiations and the US reaction), has set back Iran's internal opposition by decades, and has prompted Iran to take de facto possession of the Strait of Hormuz which it had not done before, has cost the US billions of dollars, has weakened the US' commitments in areas where it does have strategic interests (such as Taiwan and Ukraine), and has weakened the relations of the US with its allies. That's not a presumption. That's a judgement of events.
By the way, see the thread I started in the Styx about the procedure for questioning hosting decisions here. If I have attacked you personally, rather than the way you conduct your arguments, then I apologise.
Your statements above are certainly a judgement of events.
But not the only one.
As I've said before, the current war can be seen as an attempt to curtail the danger of Iran which is not a new thing. The timing was rife because of the revolts in Iran.
The hostage situation with the strait of hormuz and bombing other neighbouring countries can't be blamed on the US and Israel. It's just a result of warring with someone that doesn't play by the rules.
I definitely agree it has weakened US commitments in the area of Taiwan, which is of great concern to me being in Australia.
I’m really not. Supporting and fostering terrorism is an evil thing. And Iran is the main culprit in the Middle East. That’s a given.
I'm not sure it is a given. A good argument can be made that Israel is the main culprit, providing the definition of "terrorism" isn't limited to non-state actors. There are regular acts of terrorism committed in the West Bank by settler groups. The current bombing of civilian targets in Lebanon, and the destruction of Gaza over the last couple of years, meets many of the definitions of terrorism.
It all comes down to whether it is self defence or not doesn't it?
At least the Israeli government are regularly telling people in Lebanon to leave certain areas where they are targeting Hezbollah.
You mean they ordered over a million people to move before turning South Lebanon into a free fire zone and blowing up villages?
Israel is not going out of its way to kill the lebanese. It's targeting Hezbollah in self defence.
Given the fairly well documented phenomena of blowing up villages and warning Christian and Druze communities against sheltering displaced Muslims it's a policy of targetting the Shia community (who make up 30% of the Lebanese population).
Given the fairly well documented phenomena of blowing up villages and warning Christian and Druze communities against sheltering displaced Muslims it's a policy of targetting the Shia community (who make up 30% of the Lebanese population).
Asserting that isn't so isn't a serious argument.
Indeed it seems that Israel's policy against Hezbollah follows this line of reasoning:
Hezbollah are Shia muslims.
In order to eradicate Hezbollah, we must kill all Shia Muslims in case they grow up to become Hezbollah, or join Hezbollah in response to our killing their families.
Therefore, for our own security, whether they are now members of Hezbollah, or even have the potential to become Hezbollah, we must kill them all.
I think it’s just about weakening the terrorist movement, AFF.
You can’t defeat terrorism by killing real or potential terrorists. The analogy is the futility of cutting off hydra heads. Cut off one and two grow back. I think the Israeli government know that. They probably figure they are in an indefinite fight. But knocking them back, damaging their weapons support etc, probably seems worth while.
Does that mean war crimes? Very probably yes, but I’m not sure how much the assertion of battle for survival can be used in mitigation. In international court terms, I think probably a fair bit.
I think it’s just about weakening the terrorist movement, AFF.
You can’t defeat terrorism by killing real or potential terrorists. The analogy is the futility of cutting off hydra heads. Cut off one and two grow back. I think the Israeli government know that. They probably figure they are in an indefinite fight. But knocking them back, damaging their weapons support etc, probably seems worth while.
Does that mean war crimes? Very probably yes, but I’m not sure how much the assertion of battle for survival can be used in mitigation. In international court terms, I think probably a fair bit.
You just said you can't defeat terrorism by killing real or potential terrorists, so why are they killing everyone that moves? How is that weakening the terrorists?
Trump was arguing for example that the damage done to Iran’s military, its infrastructure and its leadership will take Iran 20 years to recover from. That’s pretty much the Israeli idea. It slows down effectiveness for a period.
It’s the strategy of a country that has always seen itself under siege. Probably since the formation of the current state or pretty soon afterwards.
I’m not saying it’s right. I think the consequences are often horrible. But it is what it is.
Focusing on terrorism ignores the colonial aspect, but then colonial powers have often justified their land grabs by means of fighting terrorism. It reminds me of the British, who conducted various campaigns against terrorism as a means of holding on to land in Africa, Asia, etc. Israel is hungry for territory, and so far it is devouring Palestinian land, and now maybe Lebanese. Iran is a tougher proposition.
Trump was arguing for example that the damage done to Iran’s military, its infrastructure and its leadership will take Iran 20 years to recover from. That’s pretty much the Israeli idea. It slows down effectiveness for a period.
It’s the strategy of a country that has always seen itself under siege. Probably since the formation of the current state or pretty soon afterwards.
I’m not saying it’s right. I think the consequences are often horrible. But it is what it is.
They will always be under seige. Their position will never be secure until they have killed everyone who remembers the people they drove out and murdered in order to take and hold the territory they sit on.
They are correct in this assumption, but their position can never be legitimized. Not in law not in scripture and not in conscience. Same can be said for other colonizing and occupying forces worldwide.
I’ve argued a lot on these boards that the process of legitimising and establishing the State of Israel in 1948 and following is the main cause of the prevailing unrest and conflict in the Middle East. Even if there was substantial support in relatively new (and white) UN at the time, it was badly done and created long term emnity amongst both the displaced and the country neighbours of the new State. It was not wise.
But given it was done, then the Stateof Israel is also a victim of that lack of wisdom. The government and people knew they were not wanted. Almost 80 years later they still know they are not wanted.
The rest follows. There have been various attempts at rapprochement and at least one almost succeeded. But the underlying emnity remains very great, for understandable reasons.
The terrorist groups are the fruit of that emnity. And fostering those groups by other nations is another fruit.
I think the mess is insoluble. Israel isn’t going away voluntarily. Neither is the emnity.
The rest follows. There have been various attempts at rapprochement and at least one almost succeeded. But the underlying emnity remains very great, for understandable reasons.
Opposing and sanctioning the expansion of settlements would be a very easy thing to do.
I’ve argued a lot on these boards that the process of legitimising and establishing the State of Israel in 1948 and following is the main cause of the prevailing unrest and conflict in the Middle East. Even if there was substantial support in relatively new (and white) UN at the time, it was badly done and created long term emnity amongst both the displaced and the country neighbours of the new State. It was not wise.
But given it was done, then the Stateof Israel is also a victim of that lack of wisdom. The government and people knew they were not wanted. Almost 80 years later they still know they are not wanted.
The rest follows. There have been various attempts at rapprochement and at least one almost succeeded. But the underlying emnity remains very great, for understandable reasons.
The terrorist groups are the fruit of that emnity. And fostering those groups by other nations is another fruit.
I think the mess is insoluble. Israel isn’t going away voluntarily. Neither is the emnity.
This is what I call a heavy karma situation.
Years ago, Christ gave me the words of an exhortation for troubling spirits which I believe had been redacted from Luke 11.24 . Part of the command is "Go to Jerusalem". It became clear to me in that moment that Jerusalem will be the last place on earth to be healed, because before that, every unclean spirit must pass through it in order to receive its healing and restoration from the Living Christ who holds the blueprint for every form of consciousness.
The region is a particular karmic flashpoint which will not resolve itself for many many generations. Unless of course, the Living Christ just takes over everything and "in a twinkling of an eye, we shall be changed." But I believe that must be something we all call for with one voice and a single will. Only He has the blueprint to unravel what has been inextricably wound, and He will only do so with our full consent.
Trump was arguing for example that the damage done to Iran’s military, its infrastructure and its leadership will take Iran 20 years to recover from. That’s pretty much the Israeli idea. It slows down effectiveness for a period.
It’s the strategy of a country that has always seen itself under siege. Probably since the formation of the current state or pretty soon afterwards.
I’m not saying it’s right. I think the consequences are often horrible. But it is what it is.
They will always be under seige. Their position will never be secure until they have killed everyone who remembers the people they drove out and murdered in order to take and hold the territory they sit on.
I don't think that is necessarily the case. They could work with international partners to build up the West Bank and Gaza to Israeli standards of living and treat terrorism as a crime problem rather than a military one. There is a lot Israel could do if it weren't still intent on Jewish supremacy over all of Eretz Israel. The reality is that it's been decades since Israel's own internationally recognised territory was at risk of being taken; the ongoing dispute has been about their behaviour in the rest of Palestine.
I don't think that is necessarily the case. They could work with international partners to build up the West Bank and Gaza to Israeli standards of living and treat terrorism as a crime problem rather than a military one. There is a lot Israel could do if it weren't still intent on Jewish supremacy over all of Eretz Israel. The reality is that it's been decades since Israel's own internationally recognised territory was at risk of being taken; the ongoing dispute has been about their behaviour in the rest of Palestine.
I believe that ship has sailed.
That might have been a possibility a couple of years ago but it's down to bloody business now.
I don't think that is necessarily the case. They could work with international partners to build up the West Bank and Gaza to Israeli standards of living and treat terrorism as a crime problem rather than a military one. There is a lot Israel could do if it weren't still intent on Jewish supremacy over all of Eretz Israel. The reality is that it's been decades since Israel's own internationally recognised territory was at risk of being taken; the ongoing dispute has been about their behaviour in the rest of Palestine.
I believe that ship has sailed.
That might have been a possibility a couple of years ago but it's down to bloody business now.
AFF
If an election in Israel evicted Netanyahu and his outriders and delivered suspected war criminals to the ICC that would go a long way to indicating good faith. The truth is that the Israeli public are, in general, not interested.
I’m sure it’s a mixed bag. Fear of what others might do to you can produce baleful reactions. Like “let’s get our retaliation in first”. Of course Judaism as a faith is a corrective to that but I worry that Judaism and Israeli nationalism are drifting further and further apart.
I think it’s just about weakening the terrorist movement, AFF.
You can’t defeat terrorism by killing real or potential terrorists. The analogy is the futility of cutting off hydra heads. Cut off one and two grow back. I think the Israeli government know that. They probably figure they are in an indefinite fight. But knocking them back, damaging their weapons support etc, probably seems worth while.
Does that mean war crimes? Very probably yes, but I’m not sure how much the assertion of battle for survival can be used in mitigation. In international court terms, I think probably a fair bit.
The Hydra image is actually pretty close to what counter‑insurgency analysts have warned for decades. You can cut off one head, but unless you deal with the conditions that produced it, more will grow back. In modern conflicts it often works the same way: eliminate one militant and ten more may rise in his place, because every death can create new grievances, new martyrs, and new recruits. It’s not about excusing terrorism — it’s about recognizing that force alone can’t solve a problem whose roots are political, social, and generational.
And that is the fallacy of this war. No one is talking about dealing with the conditions that produced the terrorism in the first place
Terrorism in the Middle East doesn’t grow in a vacuum. It feeds on a mix of conditions: chronic political repression and lack of meaningful representation; foreign occupation or military intervention; corruption and failed governance; deep economic inequality, unemployment, and hopelessness among the young; unresolved national questions (Palestine, Kurds, etc.); sectarian manipulation by regimes and outside powers; and the steady experience of humiliation, displacement, and civilian casualties, None of these “justify” terrorism, but if they aren’t addressed—through accountable government, economic opportunity, rule of law, and fair conflict settlements—then killing militants is like hacking at the Hydra: the heads keep growing back.
I’m sure it’s a mixed bag. Fear of what others might do to you can produce baleful reactions. Like “let’s get our retaliation in first”. Of course Judaism as a faith is a corrective to that but I worry that Judaism and Israeli nationalism are drifting further and further apart.
I think Israeli Nationalism has a lot in common with US Christian Nationalism. The likes of Naftali Bennett are (or claim to be) religiously motivated Zionists. What seems to have died a death in Israel is the old moderate secular Zionism.
Very well put. Pete Hegseth’s so-called “Christian” nationalism seems a long way away from the Christian faith as I understand it. He makes me want to puke.
I’m sure it’s a mixed bag. Fear of what others might do to you can produce baleful reactions. Like “let’s get our retaliation in first”. Of course Judaism as a faith is a corrective to that but I worry that Judaism and Israeli nationalism are drifting further and further apart.
I think Israeli Nationalism has a lot in common with US Christian Nationalism. The likes of Naftali Bennett are (or claim to be) religiously motivated Zionists. What seems to have died a death in Israel is the old moderate secular Zionism.
Although it was under Mapai that Nakba took place, as did the first 20 years during which the remaining Palestinians in Israel itself lived under military rule, and the settlements have expanded under every government since, so this seems to be a case of wanting a moderate secular tendency which doesn't exist as such.
I’m sure it’s a mixed bag. Fear of what others might do to you can produce baleful reactions. Like “let’s get our retaliation in first”. Of course Judaism as a faith is a corrective to that but I worry that Judaism and Israeli nationalism are drifting further and further apart.
I think Israeli Nationalism has a lot in common with US Christian Nationalism. The likes of Naftali Bennett are (or claim to be) religiously motivated Zionists. What seems to have died a death in Israel is the old moderate secular Zionism.
Although it was under Mapai that Nakba took place, as did the first 20 years during which the remaining Palestinians in Israel itself lived under military rule, and the settlements have expanded under every government since, so this seems to be a case of wanting a moderate secular tendency which doesn't exist as such.
There is a certain amount of "grading on a curve" going on, to be sure. I suppose I think that, despite the atrocities they sanctioned, the earlier generation of Israelis could be reasoned with because their goal was Jewish safety, rather than Jewish supremacy for its own sake.
Very well put. Pete Hegseth’s so-called “Christian” nationalism seems a long way away from the Christian faith as I understand it. He makes me want to puke.
Comments
Trump is no statesman. He's a businessman through and through.
He's super politically incorrect.
His primary weakness IMV is alienating his old allies through his business buffoonery and bravado.
Greenland was a disaster.
Regime change worked in Germany and Japan in 1945, more or less, but Iran isn't Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan and doesn't justify the enormous price paid in those cases, nor is there an external threat from communism to keep the conquered on side.
You mean they ordered over a million people to move before turning South Lebanon into a free fire zone and blowing up villages?
https://www.hrw.org/news/2026/03/23/israels-displacement-of-civilians-in-lebanon-is-a-possible-war-crime
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/apr/12/how-israeli-offensive-destroyed-entire-villages-in-lebanon
It’s pretty clear he believes in the art of the deal. My concern for ages has been that when it comes to international deals (let’s call them treaties), the logic of business deals simply doesn’t apply. As posted earlier, 24 hours is a ludicrously short time to expect to negotiate a deal with Iran, given the huge differences between the initial positions.
I’m pretty sure it was Churchill who observed that “Jaw, jaw, jaw is better than war, war, war”.
In any case, that’s a statesmanlike observation. The best I can say about Trump’s understanding is that it is inferior to statesmanship. He’s impatient for results, prejudiced about those who think different, throws out words like “weak” and “scumbag” without any real thought about their meaning, truth and impact. I don’t know but maybe he really does believe he’s some kind of Jesus-like Messiah.
These are just some of the reasons why I think he’s hopelessly deluded and increasingly dangerous to the lives of other people. This is the cost of electing someone who is not a statesman, nor has the desire to become one.
His buffoonery and capacity for alienating friends demonstrate his unsuitability for high office. The disaster in Iran is just the most recent example.
One of the things I learned from negotiating training was to wait out the impatient.
There are serious allegations that Israel’s actions in Lebanon amount to genocide, alongside strong evidence of unlawful attacks and likely war crimes. But no international court has yet ruled that Israel is committing genocide in Lebanon, and the legal question—especially around proving genocidal intent—remains contested
Has anything really changed?
Your statements above are certainly a judgement of events.
But not the only one.
As I've said before, the current war can be seen as an attempt to curtail the danger of Iran which is not a new thing. The timing was rife because of the revolts in Iran.
The hostage situation with the strait of hormuz and bombing other neighbouring countries can't be blamed on the US and Israel. It's just a result of warring with someone that doesn't play by the rules.
I definitely agree it has weakened US commitments in the area of Taiwan, which is of great concern to me being in Australia.
Thread in Styx noted.
The question is, when do casualties of war turn into "genocide" or "ethnic cleansing".?
Well it depends on whose side you're on.
Israel is not going out of its way to kill the lebanese. It's targeting Hezbollah in self defence.
You're not taking into account the DECADES of continuing negotiations.
There is a line you have to draw. Churchill was aware of that.
You mean the decade of negotiations that he overturned when he tore up the JCPOA treaty put in place in 2015?
Given the fairly well documented phenomena of blowing up villages and warning Christian and Druze communities against sheltering displaced Muslims it's a policy of targetting the Shia community (who make up 30% of the Lebanese population).
Asserting that isn't so isn't a serious argument.
Indeed it seems that Israel's policy against Hezbollah follows this line of reasoning:
Hezbollah are Shia muslims.
In order to eradicate Hezbollah, we must kill all Shia Muslims in case they grow up to become Hezbollah, or join Hezbollah in response to our killing their families.
Therefore, for our own security, whether they are now members of Hezbollah, or even have the potential to become Hezbollah, we must kill them all.
AFF
You can’t defeat terrorism by killing real or potential terrorists. The analogy is the futility of cutting off hydra heads. Cut off one and two grow back. I think the Israeli government know that. They probably figure they are in an indefinite fight. But knocking them back, damaging their weapons support etc, probably seems worth while.
Does that mean war crimes? Very probably yes, but I’m not sure how much the assertion of battle for survival can be used in mitigation. In international court terms, I think probably a fair bit.
You just said you can't defeat terrorism by killing real or potential terrorists, so why are they killing everyone that moves? How is that weakening the terrorists?
AFF
Trump was arguing for example that the damage done to Iran’s military, its infrastructure and its leadership will take Iran 20 years to recover from. That’s pretty much the Israeli idea. It slows down effectiveness for a period.
It’s the strategy of a country that has always seen itself under siege. Probably since the formation of the current state or pretty soon afterwards.
I’m not saying it’s right. I think the consequences are often horrible. But it is what it is.
They will always be under seige. Their position will never be secure until they have killed everyone who remembers the people they drove out and murdered in order to take and hold the territory they sit on.
They are correct in this assumption, but their position can never be legitimized. Not in law not in scripture and not in conscience. Same can be said for other colonizing and occupying forces worldwide.
AFF
I’ve argued a lot on these boards that the process of legitimising and establishing the State of Israel in 1948 and following is the main cause of the prevailing unrest and conflict in the Middle East. Even if there was substantial support in relatively new (and white) UN at the time, it was badly done and created long term emnity amongst both the displaced and the country neighbours of the new State. It was not wise.
But given it was done, then the Stateof Israel is also a victim of that lack of wisdom. The government and people knew they were not wanted. Almost 80 years later they still know they are not wanted.
The rest follows. There have been various attempts at rapprochement and at least one almost succeeded. But the underlying emnity remains very great, for understandable reasons.
The terrorist groups are the fruit of that emnity. And fostering those groups by other nations is another fruit.
I think the mess is insoluble. Israel isn’t going away voluntarily. Neither is the emnity.
Opposing and sanctioning the expansion of settlements would be a very easy thing to do.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/israel-approves-dozens-of-new-settlements-in-west-bank-watchdog-says/ar-AA20w8Gp
This is what I call a heavy karma situation.
Years ago, Christ gave me the words of an exhortation for troubling spirits which I believe had been redacted from Luke 11.24 . Part of the command is "Go to Jerusalem". It became clear to me in that moment that Jerusalem will be the last place on earth to be healed, because before that, every unclean spirit must pass through it in order to receive its healing and restoration from the Living Christ who holds the blueprint for every form of consciousness.
The region is a particular karmic flashpoint which will not resolve itself for many many generations. Unless of course, the Living Christ just takes over everything and "in a twinkling of an eye, we shall be changed." But I believe that must be something we all call for with one voice and a single will. Only He has the blueprint to unravel what has been inextricably wound, and He will only do so with our full consent.
AFF
I don't think that is necessarily the case. They could work with international partners to build up the West Bank and Gaza to Israeli standards of living and treat terrorism as a crime problem rather than a military one. There is a lot Israel could do if it weren't still intent on Jewish supremacy over all of Eretz Israel. The reality is that it's been decades since Israel's own internationally recognised territory was at risk of being taken; the ongoing dispute has been about their behaviour in the rest of Palestine.
I believe that ship has sailed.
That might have been a possibility a couple of years ago but it's down to bloody business now.
AFF
If an election in Israel evicted Netanyahu and his outriders and delivered suspected war criminals to the ICC that would go a long way to indicating good faith. The truth is that the Israeli public are, in general, not interested.
Sure, but so do religious fanaticism and a lack of empathy. Many of the worst offenders among West Bank settlers are recent US immigrants.
The Hydra image is actually pretty close to what counter‑insurgency analysts have warned for decades. You can cut off one head, but unless you deal with the conditions that produced it, more will grow back. In modern conflicts it often works the same way: eliminate one militant and ten more may rise in his place, because every death can create new grievances, new martyrs, and new recruits. It’s not about excusing terrorism — it’s about recognizing that force alone can’t solve a problem whose roots are political, social, and generational.
And that is the fallacy of this war. No one is talking about dealing with the conditions that produced the terrorism in the first place
Terrorism in the Middle East doesn’t grow in a vacuum. It feeds on a mix of conditions: chronic political repression and lack of meaningful representation; foreign occupation or military intervention; corruption and failed governance; deep economic inequality, unemployment, and hopelessness among the young; unresolved national questions (Palestine, Kurds, etc.); sectarian manipulation by regimes and outside powers; and the steady experience of humiliation, displacement, and civilian casualties, None of these “justify” terrorism, but if they aren’t addressed—through accountable government, economic opportunity, rule of law, and fair conflict settlements—then killing militants is like hacking at the Hydra: the heads keep growing back.
I think Israeli Nationalism has a lot in common with US Christian Nationalism. The likes of Naftali Bennett are (or claim to be) religiously motivated Zionists. What seems to have died a death in Israel is the old moderate secular Zionism.
Very well put. Pete Hegseth’s so-called “Christian” nationalism seems a long way away from the Christian faith as I understand it. He makes me want to puke.
Although it was under Mapai that Nakba took place, as did the first 20 years during which the remaining Palestinians in Israel itself lived under military rule, and the settlements have expanded under every government since, so this seems to be a case of wanting a moderate secular tendency which doesn't exist as such.
There is a certain amount of "grading on a curve" going on, to be sure. I suppose I think that, despite the atrocities they sanctioned, the earlier generation of Israelis could be reasoned with because their goal was Jewish safety, rather than Jewish supremacy for its own sake.
Ditto!