Israel declares War - Destruction of Gaza / Growing conflict in Middle East

[gry60]

Yes, so ISIS helped the Saudi-Qatar-US-Turkey alliance to fight off Russia and Syria's pro-government forces.

What is this?


The US was mainly supporting the Kurds, who also happen to oppose Turkey. I could see Turkey and SA support the islamist groups that rose out of the Syrian civil war, but how do make that alliance you speak of work, especially when Islamists and secular opposition groups would actively fight each other?

It is clear the U.S. had negotiated with the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and ISIS to secure Big Oil’s holdings in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Yemen. Also, the Pentagon’s goal of aiding and then defeating ISIS was a fraudulent pretext for America’s occupation of Syrian eastern provinces and a land grab for oil.

The 90's want their geopolitics back.

The US, like many western countries, is currently turning away from the Middle East as alternatives to fossil fuels are becoming more common and countries that have invested in such technologies rely less on oil. In addition, the US has become a net exporter of oil products, and it's turning towards Asia/inwards because the 21st century will be driven by electricity tech and the raw materials needed to make everything from chips to batteries. Oil is more of a concern for countries that have not yet started the transition towards other forms of energy production/consumption.

This is what is driving Middle Eastern governments to work on an economic future that is less reliant on fossil fuels; this is also why they have softened their stance towards Israel, since it is the technological powerhouse of the region, and being friends with them will give Gulf countries (Saudi Arabia) proximity to American technologies.

We've gone over this here pages ago...ISIS are mercenaries used for proxy wars and as death squads for western governments and their allies.

Just because you repeat something many times doesn't make it true. I don't know many mercenary groups who would accept to be droned like ISIS has been in the Sahel in order to support their clients' PR efforts. Why would the US ally with ISIS when the Malian government already allowed them to have two bases in their country? Why would the French government fund terrorist groups that have often targeted their citizens for kidnappings/killings in countries whose governments are already in terms so good with the West they basically gift them access to resources?

 

[Belgium]

What is this?


The US was mainly supporting the Kurds, who also happen to oppose Turkey. I could see Turkey and SA support the islamist groups that rose out of the Syrian civil war, but how do make that alliance you speak of work, especially when Islamists and secular opposition groups would actively fight each other?


The 90's want their geopolitics back.

The US, like many western countries, is currently turning away from the Middle East as alternatives to fossil fuels are becoming more common and countries that have invested in such technologies rely less on oil. In addition, the US has become a net exporter of oil products, and it's turning towards Asia/inwards because the 21st century will be driven by electricity tech and the raw materials needed to make everything from chips to batteries. Oil is more of a concern for countries that have not yet started the transition towards other forms of energy production/consumption.

This is what is driving Middle Eastern governments to work on an economic future that is less reliant on fossil fuels; this is also why they have softened their stance towards Israel, since it is the technological powerhouse of the region, and being friends with them will give Gulf countries (Saudi Arabia) proximity to American technologies.



Just because you repeat something many times doesn't make it true. I don't know many mercenary groups who would accept to be droned like ISIS has been in the Sahel in order to support their clients' PR efforts. Why would the US ally with ISIS when the Malian government already allowed them to have two bases in their country? Why would the French government fund terrorist groups that have often targeted their citizens for kidnappings/killings in countries whose governments are already in terms so good with the West they basically gift them access to resources?

I assume their view is likely based on declassified documents explicitly stating that the US, "the West", unspecified Gulf states and Turkey, all "support" what was referred to as the "opposition" in Syria, which according to said documents included a number of terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda and ISI (the Islamic State of Iraq) that would eventually evolve into ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) as we know it today. Relevant documents' use of the word "support" likely refers to the foreign policy goals regarding Syria/Assad. Material support would be unlikely, given how that worked out with Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda in the past.

That's hardly new.
The documents describe the (at the time) positions of the stated countries on Syria (regime vs opposition). As we all know, all these stated countries later ended up sharing the same goal of fighting and eradicating ISIS. Both Russia and Iran have faced very deadly suicide bombings for which ISIS claimed responsibility during this time. After victory over ISIS was claimed, both Russia and Iran of course also touted their participation in doing so.

 

[DLF]

 

[Belgium]

The US is entirely wrong here but this hardly shakes the foundation of anything. The objection in this specific case is over the wording of one particular sentence, specifically the lack of an explicit evocation of UN Charter Article 7.
The US’ view on this seems to rely on a very strict/narrow legal interpretation of these UN Security Council resolutions and whether or not they fall under Article 6 or Article 7.

I assume this legal argument was probably a failed move to cater to both sides. Israel’s government was furious about the US not blocking the resolution’s passing. Netanyahu immediately cancelled his upcoming meetings in Washington, thus also complicating further efforts to negotiate. This gamble on using legal semantics to soften Israel’s reaction to the US not using its veto power clearly failed.

As other member states on the UN Security Council have pointed out, UNSC resolutions are considered international law. The US has ratified the UN Article establishing this.

 

[gry60]

I assume their view is likely based on declassified documents explicitly stating that the US, "the West", unspecified Gulf states and Turkey, all "support" what was referred to as the "opposition" in Syria, which according to said documents included a number of terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda and ISI (the Islamic State of Iraq) that would eventually evolve into ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) as we know it today. Relevant documents' use of the word "support" likely refers to the foreign policy goals regarding Syria/Assad. Material support would be unlikely, given how that worked out with Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda in the past.

I'm not disputing the above. it's the lumping every group within the opposition together that muddies their argument. There is a difference between saying "ISIS and Western interests aligned in Syria, with respect to eliminating the Assad regime and weakening Iran" and saying "ISIS is the West's version of the Wagner Group." They're saying the latter. And it's wrong and nonsensical. Believing that Western countries, which have a long documented history of fighting militant strains of Islam within their countries, are also funding islamist groups to do their bidding makes as much sense as claiming that the US was supporting left-wing armed groups during the cold war.

 

[me love nutella]

You mentioned documents earlier so I don't need to tell you where or when this document is from, correct?

Just for clarity: "The Regime"/"General situation" refers to Syria
...

It's already been established the U.S. and Western allies collaborate with ISIS and their alliances.

That didn’t only include the “non-lethal assistance” boasted of by the government (including body armour and military vehicles), but training, logistical support and the secret supply of “arms on a massive scale”. Reports were cited that MI6 had cooperated with the CIA on a “rat line” of arms transfers from Libyan stockpiles to the Syrian rebels in 2012 after the fall of the Gaddafi regime.

The paper: https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v36/n08/seymour-m.-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line

The policy document you shared reiterates the “possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality”, the Pentagon report goes on, “this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran).”

The report isn’t a policy document. It’s heavily redacted and there are ambiguities in the language. But the implications are clear enough. A year into the Syrian rebellion, the US and its allies weren’t only supporting and arming an opposition they knew to be dominated by extreme sectarian groups, they were prepared to help maintain the creation of some sort of “Islamic state”, despite the “grave danger” to Iraq’s unity, as a Sunni buffer to weaken the Syrian regime.

There was no al-Qaida in Iraq until the US and Britain invaded. And the US has certainly exploited the existence of ISIS against other forces in the region as part of a wider drive to maintain western control, especially for land grab and oil.

Also, there are links that have been well documented, with reports surfacing of oil purchases from the Islamic State [i.e., Daesh], which the Israeli government headed by Netanyahu has done.

 

[me love nutella]

I'm not disputing the above. it's the lumping every group within the opposition together that muddies their argument. There is a difference between saying "ISIS and Western interests aligned in Syria, with respect to eliminating the Assad regime and weakening Iran" and saying "ISIS is the West's version of the Wagner Group." They're saying the latter. And it's wrong and nonsensical. Believing that Western countries, which have a long documented history of fighting militant strains of Islam within their countries, are also funding islamist groups to do their bidding makes as much sense as claiming that the US was supporting left-wing armed groups during the cold war.

Why is this SO hard to believe? This is empire mantra and policy and you think only Russia does this? Many commanders of the ISIL groups are US-trained.

It is a FACT the US has at various times in recent history provided support to terrorist and paramilitary organizations around the world. It has also provided assistance to numerous authoritarian regimes that have used state terrorism as a tool of repression. Al-Qaeda and ISIS ARE US-funded and sponsored.

American support for terrorists has been prominent in Latin America and the Middle East, including terror groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS. That is Empire foreign policy 101.

Also, what you're talking about is the blowback where these groups then fight their sponsors. The empires and their military complex uses this as well to pursue their interests as this blowback is used a PRETEXT to fight and excuse for their presence to take over the region as a guise. Russia/Wagner does it too. Their mantra is that they help regimes fight the terror groups when they are also arming and funding these terror groups. It's always been done and the West is of no higher moral standard either. In fact, they are the most dominant and powerful to be able to do the most destructive terror and damage through these foreign policies.

 

[me love nutella]

What is this?


The US was mainly supporting the Kurds, who also happen to oppose Turkey. I could see Turkey and SA support the islamist groups that rose out of the Syrian civil war, but how do make that alliance you speak of work, especially when Islamists and secular opposition groups would actively fight each other?

You clearly are dismissing different motives and interests in alliances that SHIFT.

Turkey went against the Syrian regime and began aiding and arming the Syrian rebels, including the Free Syrian Army.

Turkey is known BIG TIME to be supporting ISIL in Syria. Go google search Turkish businessman and politician Berat Albayrak.

The Kurdish-led forces, however, were Washington’s main ally in the fight against ISIL, but Turkey was fighting them off in siding and funding ISIL to fight Assad. And over the course of the years-long battle, the Kurds, who have long campaigned for self-rule, built an autonomous administration in northeast Syria. That is a HUGE threat to Turkey and that is why Erdogan used this as a pretext to go against the Kurds in Syria as this can influence or be linked to Kurdish resistance in Turkey.

In 2019, the Kurdish-led administration in northern Syria made a deal with Assad regime to allow Syrian troops to deploy along the border with Turkey to stave off a military offensive by Ankara.

The 90's want their geopolitics back.

The US, like many western countries, is currently turning away from the Middle East as alternatives to fossil fuels are becoming more common and countries that have invested in such technologies rely less on oil. In addition, the US has become a net exporter of oil products, and it's turning towards Asia/inwards because the 21st century will be driven by electricity tech and the raw materials needed to make everything from chips to batteries. Oil is more of a concern for countries that have not yet started the transition towards other forms of energy production/consumption.

This is what is driving Middle Eastern governments to work on an economic future that is less reliant on fossil fuels; this is also why they have softened their stance towards Israel, since it is the technological powerhouse of the region, and being friends with them will give Gulf countries (Saudi Arabia) proximity to American technologies.

Seriously, this is just losing so much more nuance and insights and clearly you do not know about pipeline politics which still DOMINATES and runs foreign policy of Western powers. There's books written about this, you can start here: https://www.amazon.ca/dp/1645021475/.

Now, more than EVER, with the blockade on Russia, which Western Europe depended on their main source of oik and the US as well for regional power, and this has been cut off, there is even MORE reason to keep dominating and destabilzing the Middle East. It is all about trade routes, oil, resources, land, etc.

The Gulf countries are covering their bases but oil is still the dominant factor. Even Gaza now has to do with oil too. In fact, the normalization with Israel, is so the US can protect the Gulf oil bases and do like a NATO shield for the Middle East.

The control of oil has been at the CENTER of the struggle for power and wealth that has fueled conflict and endless wars throughout the Middle East and to this day is the dominant factor of Western foreign policy. Period. Look beneath the surface of the wars in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, Ukraine, and what do you find? Oil, gas, and contested pipeline transit routes. Never mind high-sounding talk of human rights, national sovereignty, international law and UN Resolutions are just a guise - fossil energy is the world's main driver of armed conflict. Period.

Just because you repeat something many times doesn't make it true. I don't know many mercenary groups who would accept to be droned like ISIS has been in the Sahel in order to support their clients' PR efforts. Why would the US ally with ISIS when the Malian government already allowed them to have two bases in their country? Why would the French government fund terrorist groups that have often targeted their citizens for kidnappings/killings in countries whose governments are already in terms so good with the West they basically gift them access to resources?

What do you mean why? You think these governments actually care? You think arms dealers, defense contractors, military industrial complex, psychopathic military leaders and the billionaire elites care? REALLY? So you really think these people have some moral compass???? This has been happening ALWAYS. I do not need to explain to you and it is clear why.

 

[Belgium]

It's already been established the U.S. and Western allies collaborate with ISIS and their alliances.

The paper: https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v36/n08/seymour-m.-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line

The policy document you shared reiterates the “possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality”, the Pentagon report goes on, “this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran).”

The report isn’t a policy document. It’s heavily redacted and there are ambiguities in the language. But the implications are clear enough. A year into the Syrian rebellion, the US and its allies weren’t only supporting and arming an opposition they knew to be dominated by extreme sectarian groups, they were prepared to help maintain the creation of some sort of “Islamic state”, despite the “grave danger” to Iraq’s unity, as a Sunni buffer to weaken the Syrian regime.

There was no al-Qaida in Iraq until the US and Britain invaded. And the US has certainly exploited the existence of ISIS against other forces in the region as part of a wider drive to maintain western control, especially for land grab and oil.

Also, there are links that have been well documented, with reports surfacing of oil purchases from the Islamic State [i.e., Daesh], which the Israeli government headed by Netanyahu has done.

Seymour Hersh was and remains the sole claim of material support taking place though. His credentials are very solid but it's rather odd that literally no other reporter has done a confirmation.
Generally it's a bad idea to rely on a single source.
Wikileaks' releases don't establish anything of that sort either, besides Turkey and the CIA lying about general CIA activity in Turkey. That involved the use of Turkey as a flight stop for flights containing CIA detainees.
Given the GOP's Benghazi investigations, it's extremely unlikely they would not have exploited this information against Obama. The particular claims were denied under oath.
The blowback would've entirely been on Obama's administration.

Again, there is no question that the US, Turkey and unspecified Western/Gulf nations supported the anti-Assad forces in Syria. Some of those forces were known by said countries to consist of terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda and ISI, which resulted in the formation of ISIS.
There is also no question that the US has a history of both indirectly and directly (Iran-Contra, ...) supporting militias/terrorist groups to further geopolitical goals. As the documents I referred to show, the aforementioned list of nations absolutely exploited the various terrorist groups operating in Syria to further their goal of getting rid of Assad.

If anything, the best case for material support is the UK trial of Bherlin Gildo, who was tried for terrorism offenses relating to his activities as a member of Al Qaeda. When the defense requested any records from MI6 relating to support (both material and non-material) of Al Qaeda in Syria, the prosecution ended up dropping the case entirely.
MI6 did not want to hand over anything to the prosecution, resulting in the case being dropped after the prosecution stated a "conviction was no longer likely" after a "full review of the case."
Gildo was later successfully prosecuted in Sweden for charges relating to his Al Qaeda membership.
This case seems much more substantial to support the argument of material support (at least when it comes to MI6) than the article's claims that have remained single-sourced to this day. That being said, it is not that entirely unusual that highly classified intelligence records have tanked a case.

As far Israel buying ISIS oil, I'm aware of those reports but I would add somewhat of a distinction. ISIS' main income came from trafficking oil, because obviously no one wants to be buying oil from ISIS. Through middlemen, they trafficked oil to various nearby countries such as Turkey and Kurdistan. Even the paper that originally unearthed this notes that through middlemen, ISIS oil was rebarreled and sold to a wide variety of knowing and unknowing vendors. Israel bought a lot of its oil from Kurdistan, which was prime trafficking grounds for ISIS.
Given Israel's intelligence services, I think it's reasonable to argue Israel might or should have known, or at least had reasonable grounds to assume sourcing oil from a country home to ISIS' main oil trafficking operation is likely to result in buying oil that was originally sourced from ISIS.
Ironically, ISIS issued a statement denying they've ever sold oil to Israel but for obvious reasons we can discount that.

Also, there is a very obvious disconnect between that prior support and the idea of supporting ISIS in current times, much less directly.

 

[gry60]

Why is this SO hard to believe? This is empire mantra and policy and you think only Russia does this? Many commanders of the ISIL groups are US-trained.

Doesn't mean much. Many officers in the Nigerien junta are US-trained as well, and they just kicked out the US, who were in their country to help the previous Niger government fight against islamist groups, including ISIS and their affiliates.

‘Huge blow’: Niger ends military cooperation with US

The suspension follows an earlier move that has seen thousands of French soldiers exit the West African nation.

www.aljazeera.com

U.S.-Trained Niger Junta Kicks Out U.S. Troops, Drone Base

A junta largely trained by the U.S. ordered the American military to leave the country, throwing out about 1,000 personnel and a drone base.

theintercept.com

It is a FACT the US has at various times in recent history provided support to terrorist and paramilitary organizations around the world. It has also provided assistance to numerous authoritarian regimes that have used state terrorism as a tool of repression.

And the commonality between all these paramilitary groups is that they were ideologically aligned with the US. They were not funding communist/leftist guerilla groups.

Al-Qaeda and ISIS ARE US-funded and sponsored.

Did the US train Bin Laden? Yes. Did they train Al Qaeda? No. Did they contribute to the creation of Al Qaeda? If you count the training Bin Laden received, suuuure! But to go from there to say that the US armed, trained, and supported a group whose leader they had to eliminate under the nose of Pakistan (a US ally) is quite the reach. Instead of wasting resources and time trying to hunt down every major leader of AQ, they could've simply cut them off.

Now, more than EVER, with the blockade on Russia, which Western Europe depended on their main source of oik and the US as well for regional power, and this has been cut off, there is even MORE reason to keep dominating and destabilzing the Middle East. It is all about trade routes, oil, resources, land, etc.

The Gulf countries are covering their bases but oil is still the dominant factor.

I am not ignoring the current importance of oil. I'm saying that your analysis downplays the importance of alternative energy sources and the fact that most nations are gearing up for a future where oil is much less important. Transportation, consumer, and energy policies are being introduced to reduce the use of oil and its byproducts. These changes are creating needs in other areas, and those needs will be met by resources that do not come from the Middle East. Still, the area will remain geopolitically important because of its trade routes. Because of that, I find it very difficult to believe that acquisition and control of oil-rich lands is worthwhile strategy to pursue.

 

[moderndarwin]

This sounds like it’s never gonna end and all these councils and such are powerless. Israel gonna israel. Militants gonna militant.

 

[Public Enemy]

 

[DLF]

Sick society in Israel. They’ve normalized bombing hospital and paramedics

 

[DLF]

Omg I’m shocked

 

[ahat]

 

[DLF]

Losers

 

[Public Enemy]

 

[DLF]

Anti-Semite alert.

Right?

 

[DripNick]

 

[DLF]

she was LIKELY killed by an Israeli apache shooting indiscriminately

 

[Belgium]

Finkelstein’s debate on Lex Friedman’s podcast was what, over a week ago? Yet after all that, he still seems salty about an interaction during the debate where he clearly didn’t know or didn’t understand the specific intent requirement for committing genocide.

I assume it’s not exactly common knowledge so I’ll explain it here.

Genocide has a unique intent requirement that is applied solely to the crimes of “committing genocide” and “aiding and abetting genocide.”
Rather than regular criminal intent, the statute requires the intent to specifically commit genocide. This highly specific genocidal intent is referred to as “dolus specialis.”
Alternatively, judges have stated that dolus specialis is interchangeable with “genocidal intent” or simply “special intent.”

Regular criminal intent is entirely irrelevant in the context of committing or aiding and abetting of genocide.

To further illustrate the distinction, the crime of “complicity in genocide” does not have this dolus specialis. The complicity statute only requires general criminal intent, which is a lower bar and thus easier to prove in court.

Note that complicity in genocide is a different statute than “aiding and abetting genocide.”
Aiding and abetting genocide does require the dolus specialis, just like the committing of genocide does.

So there’s the distinction.
During the debate, Finkelstein just kept repeating mens rea, mens rea, … ad infinitum and kept insulting the guest who tried to point out this distinction.

Mens rea is typically used as a synonym for criminal intent, as the Latin roughly translates to ‘guilty mind.’
Occasionally it is also used as a synonym for state of mind.
Fun fact: Dolus specialis translates roughly to ‘special deceit’, a bit of an odd translation.

I’m not sure what Finkelstein is trying to prove by pointing out that a judge used the word intent. Obviously the judge knows the intent requirement is dolus specialis instead of standard criminal intent.
Finkelstein during the debate clearly didn’t know or fully grasp that distinction, and judging by this tweet I’m not sure if he’s just salty or still doesn’t get it.

 

[smedroc]

 

[shibadekobe]

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/building-close-iranian-embassy-hit-syria-iranian-media-report-2024-04-01/

 

[smedroc]

Iran going to take the bait at some point.

 

[DLF]