The Big Middle Eastern Thread

[OrangeKhrush]

The Syrian situation is volatile,  it has a chance to be for the better but if HTS and Al Julani cant unify the factions it will end up like Libya and Iraq or it may lead to the creation of new states out of the carcass of Syria.

There are some distressing things coming out with Jihadis already attacking Christian's and Kurds and certain factions already breaking away with their own jihadi aspirations.

It was always a risk,  it was a counter balance against Irans state terrorism that has led to a high risk situation.   Turkey has everything to gain here.   Erdogan has spoken about the Ottoman Caliphate even if somewhat lofty but he has now made enemies out of Tehran and Moscow.   

I dont think the rebels are as well armed or dangerous as made out.   The syrian government was just very weak

[OrangeKhrush]

11 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I think the likelihood they will work with/for the US is actually quite low - at least directly. These are radical Islamicists, after all. They're not known to be truly friendly to western interests - otherwise we wouldn't have ISIS attacks pop up in the west. The main group of rebels is backed heavily by Turkey, where the US has an obvious influence, but Turkey has always skirted the line between the US & Russia despite being a NATO member.

I think it's likely they're trading a secular tyrant for a religious tyrant - but this is most likely going to go the way of Afghanistan/Libya. I think the US has already conducted airstrikes on some rebel targets, or has announced that they imminently will be striking (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/biden-offers-a-blueprint-for-us-support-in-syria/ar-AA1vuyGB?ocid=BingNewsSerp) - it's not so cut and dry how this all will turn out.

Russia and Iran still have many military bases in the country - I don't see them being quite so willing to abandon these entirely. Russia can easily trade Assad back to the rebels as a token of goodwill to foster better relations with whatever ends up as the next government of Syria. Iran's already faced 2 recent ISIS attacks and is probably not going to be extraordinarily comfortable with a substantial ISIS and ISIS-offshoot presence in a neighboring country. What they can do though is less clear - considering the diminished state of their largest and most well armed proxy, Hezbollah.

Crazy though how Russia and Iran badly miscalculating both the Ukraine invasion and Hamas's attack of October 7th has led to the downfall of their biggest ally in the region and created a moment of instability in the Middle East probably not seen since the US invasion of Iraq and the subsequent power vacuum that led to the creation of ISIS and the Syrian civil war itself.

For Russia this is a massive strategic loss. Syria's their stopping point for their military adventures in Africa as well as the port that was most used to ship to Venezuela. For Iran it's a similar situation - as well as a massive national security risk with ISIS and groups like ISIS on their border. No more access to the Mediterranean for them and no more supply chain to Hezbollah in Lebanon. And as mentioned before, Hezbollah is so much weaker in both Lebanon and Syria than they were a year ago.

Saudi Arabia and Turkey are probably both licking their lips though, this is probably the most influence Turkey's had in the region since the fall of the Ottoman empire & the most influence Saudi Arabia's had since Al Qaeda and ISIS were at their height.

As usual, though, scary times for the Middle East as we enter a new level of instability in the least stable part of the world.

Saudi and Turkey have been cozying up together.  Saudi want to use Turkey as their arms provider with the US not making it easy for Saudis to get the good stuff

[Dr. Gonzo]

7 hours ago, Azeem said:

I don't think Hamas attack had any input from Iran or anyone else. 

It was just purely them because they were seeing everyone normalizing with Israel throwing Palestine under the bus.

It was a success from that point of view since there is no going back to normal after this. 

The attack was planned by sepah (irgc) who also trained the attackers, the only thing Iran didn’t know was the timing of the attack supposedly.

The conspiracy theorist in me says: it was on Putin’s birthday, it took attention away from Ukraine big time, it was a gift from Iran to Putin.

Iran also has the most to lose from Saudi-Israeli normalisation.

And ultimately I think the attack simply slows Saudi-Israeli normalisation, not ends it. MBS and most Arab leaders don’t actually give a fuck about Palestinians.

[Dr. Gonzo]

Israel’s illegal land grab in Syria is absolutely fucked up and needs harsh condemnation from the international community.

[Michael]

38 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Israel’s illegal land grab in Syria is absolutely fucked up and needs harsh condemnation from the international community.

I completely agree. They are just taking advantage of the situation that's going on in Syria.  They have not only illegally taken control of a chunk of Syrian land, but they have also destroyed a Syrian naval fleet. 

[Michael]

On 06/12/2024 at 18:31, Dr. Gonzo said:

Looks like Assad's days as ruling Syria are numbered.

He's an awful guy, propped up by two truly evil dictators in Putin and Khamenei... but these rebels in Syria are imo the worst of the worst in terms of radical Islam. Syrians are siding with the rebels because under Assad they've got no real hope or future for their country - it is just a vassal state for Iran and Russia. But they're siding with some evil people who've probably got even less respect for human rights than Assad does (which is to say they've got less respect for human rights than someone who has virtually no respect for human rights).

It's also absolutely mental the international community has just let Syria turn into this fucked up warzone for the past... decade(?) - it feels like more than a decade. You've got so many international players fucking around in Syria. Russia, Iran, the US, Turkey, Kurdish separatists, Israel, Saudi Arabia, etc. But no real regard for what any of this means for the people living in Syria.

Also bizarre it doesn't get the same sort of attention as Palestine v. Israel.

There are international players messing around in Syria, because they want Syria to benefit them. The Russians and the Iranians backed the former regime led by Assad, because the regime had very good relations with them. The Assad regime even allowed the Russians to have an air base and a naval base on Syrian land.

The Kurdish separatist groups from Turkey, such as the PKK have operated in Syria and have been joined by their Kurdish cousins in Syria, to fight for what they believe are Kurdish territories. The YPG and PYD are basically the names that PKK combatants use when fighting in Syria. The Saudis have huge sway and control over the Syrian tribal Arabs, who make up most of the population in Eastern Syria, The tribal affiliations and familial ties that the Saudis have with these Syrian Arab tribes, makes many of these tribes loyal to the Saudis. 

Turkey fully supports the Syrian National Army(SNA) rebel group in Syria and the Turks themselves have taken over some Syrian land for years now. Turkey has a very strong influence in many parts of Northern Syria. While the US have backed the Kurdish lead Syrian Democratic Forces(SDF) for years now. As for Israel, well they seem to do what they want in Syria. They bomb Syrian cities, they destroy Syrian naval fleets and they take large chunks of Syrian land. It wouldn't be surprising at all if Syria were to split into different countries. There are so many different ethnicities and religious groups within Syria. The fear is that an extremist Islamist group takes over. It should be noted, that HTS, the rebel group that toppled Assad's Syrian regime, are still considered a terrorist group by the British government.

[OrangeKhrush]

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Israel’s illegal land grab in Syria is absolutely fucked up and needs harsh condemnation from the international community.

 

1 hour ago, Michael said:

I completely agree. They are just taking advantage of the situation that's going on in Syria.  They have not only illegally taken control of a chunk of Syrian land, but they have also destroyed a Syrian naval fleet. 

Taking out weapons before they end up in the hand of Jihadi's is sound policy,  those weapons will be turned on Israel so causing as much damage will take away that ability. 

there doesn't seem to be any proof of the IDF pushing beyond the DMZ.   

[OrangeKhrush]

In Australia there was a arson attack on the Chabbad Shul in Melbourne,  we have seen pogroms on the rise throughout Europe and North America and in Cape Town an explosive device was thrown into the Jewish community centre.    How is attacking Jewish people in these countries helping anything other than enforce that anti semitism and stigmatisation is rampant. 

[Rucksackfranzose]

17 minutes ago, OrangeKhrush said:

 

Taking out weapons before they end up in the hand of Jihadi's is sound policy,  those weapons will be turned on Israel so causing as much damage will take away that ability. 

there doesn't seem to be any proof of the IDF pushing beyond the DMZ.   

You know "Wagging a war of attack " is considered a war crime since the end of WWII? So Israel is clearly committing war crimes here, and you're defending them.

So spare us your whining, if some Israelis are killed by terror attacks. You don't mind war crimes and terror attacks from a combattant you sided with, so shut up if they've got take what they dish out .

Edited December 10 by Rucksackfranzose

[OrangeKhrush]

1 minute ago, Rucksackfranzose said:

You know "Wagging a war of attack " is considered a war crime since the end of WWII? So Israel is clearly committing war crimes here, and you're defending them.

So spare us your whining, if some Israelis are killed by terror attacks. You don't mind war crimes and terror attacks from a combattant you sided with, so shut up if they've got take what they serve .

Pre-emptive attacks are not war crimes,  they are conducted against military targets and weapons facilities.   Moving troops to re-enforce the Golan Heights is more deterrent than intended to be an invasion and here is why;

1) Israel does not have the population size capable of expansionism

2) the entire Syria region is full of people that will be impossible to govern.    

The operation is purely preventative and ensuring that the rebels cannot use these left overs.   

Maybe you can go spare your pity for the Kurds who are already under attack.  

[Spike]

4 hours ago, OrangeKhrush said:

In Australia there was a arson attack on the Chabbad Shul in Melbourne,  we have seen pogroms on the rise throughout Europe and North America and in Cape Town an explosive device was thrown into the Jewish community centre.    How is attacking Jewish people in these countries helping anything other than enforce that anti semitism and stigmatisation is rampant. 

No suspects, no motives, no evidence for cause, but it's a 'terrorist attack'. @Azeem you are 100% right 'terrorist' and 'terrorist act' is a racist dog whistle. Look at this news article from a similar incident on a mosque but with actually evidence in that it was tagged with 'fuck islam'

https://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/28/asia/western-australian-mosque-attack/index.html

[Rucksackfranzose]

4 hours ago, OrangeKhrush said:

In Australia there was a arson attack on the Chabbad Shul in Melbourne,  we have seen pogroms on the rise throughout Europe and North America and in Cape Town an explosive device was thrown into the Jewish community centre.    How is attacking Jewish people in these countries helping anything other than enforce that anti semitism and stigmatisation is rampant. 

Got Australia bored with its geographical position on the globe and moved to middle east? Or why did you post this in the middle east thread?

Edited December 10 by Rucksackfranzose

[Spike]

3 minutes ago, Rucksackfranzose said:

Got Australia bored with its geophracical position on the globe and moved to middle east? Or why did you post this in the middle east thread?

Israel is known not to respect geographical boundaries so it makes sense...

[Dr. Gonzo]

4 hours ago, OrangeKhrush said:

 

Taking out weapons before they end up in the hand of Jihadi's is sound policy,  those weapons will be turned on Israel so causing as much damage will take away that ability. 

there doesn't seem to be any proof of the IDF pushing beyond the DMZ.   

They've gone beyond Golan Heights, per IDF reporting on their own actions... so yes, there is proof the IDF is pushing beyond the DMZ. Netanyahu's even said as far as Israel's concerned, they're not going to respect Syrian sovereignty or international law at all and are claiming Golan Heights as permanently part of Israel.

Those are both illegal land grabs. They deserve condemnation. I say this as someone who thinks Israel's right to defend themselves and thinks the Palestinian leadership has badly let down Palestinians in their quest for statehood and human rights (while I don't condone Israel's human rights abuses and war crimes).

Nobody deserves a pass when they're violating international law. Doesn't matter how powerful they are or who their friends are.

5 hours ago, Michael said:

I completely agree. They are just taking advantage of the situation that's going on in Syria.  They have not only illegally taken control of a chunk of Syrian land, but they have also destroyed a Syrian naval fleet. 

Yeah, it's just taking advantage of the chaos and the power vacuum going on in Syria. I can't understand how it's not broadly being condemned, honestly.

I mean I can... the same reason you don't see western governments issue strong condemnation of the carnage in Gaza... it's because Israel's got powerful friends and even amongst supposed "friends of the Palestinians" in Saudi Arabia and their puppets like the UAE - they are more interested in making money from the west than truly condemning human rights abuses.

4 hours ago, Michael said:

There are international players messing around in Syria, because they want Syria to benefit them. The Russians and the Iranians backed the former regime led by Assad, because the regime had very good relations with them. The Assad regime even allowed the Russians to have an air base and a naval base on Syrian land.

The Kurdish separatist groups from Turkey, such as the PKK have operated in Syria and have been joined by their Kurdish cousins in Syria, to fight for what they believe are Kurdish territories. The YPG and PYD are basically the names that PKK combatants use when fighting in Syria. The Saudis have huge sway and control over the Syrian tribal Arabs, who make up most of the population in Eastern Syria, The tribal affiliations and familial ties that the Saudis have with these Syrian Arab tribes, makes many of these tribes loyal to the Saudis. 

Turkey fully supports the Syrian National Army(SNA) rebel group in Syria and the Turks themselves have taken over some Syrian land for years now. Turkey has a very strong influence in many parts of Northern Syria. While the US have backed the Kurdish lead Syrian Democratic Forces(SDF) for years now. As for Israel, well they seem to do what they want in Syria. They bomb Syrian cities, they destroy Syrian naval fleets and they take large chunks of Syrian land. It wouldn't be surprising at all if Syria were to split into different countries. There are so many different ethnicities and religious groups within Syria. The fear is that an extremist Islamist group takes over. It should be noted, that HTS, the rebel group that toppled Assad's Syrian regime, are still considered a terrorist group by the British government.

I think part of it is Syria, like Iran, is geographically located in a strategic place to project power in the Middle East. Even while Assad looked relatively powerless, he was propped up by Russia and Iran due to the strategic benefit Syria's location posed - and they used that to project power in the Middle East, despite Syria falling into a state of absolute chaos.

I think it would be quite sad to see a Balkanisation of Syria along ethnic ties. I'm sure many of the power players in the region are absolutely all for it... but I think it is sad when ethnic tensions boil over into ethnonationalism and long-standing multiethnic cultures fall apart due to the actions of extremists and foreign powers. Would the Druze get a state? Because many of the Druze consider themselves very much Syrian. If they want to break away... would the Arab jihadis want to ceade that land? I doubt it. Will anyone be stepping in to protect the Druze? Would it be Israel? Would it be the US? If it's the US... would they simply be an ally of convenience, like they are with the Kurds? If so... that's a bit sad because the US continually abandons the Kurds only to turn back to help them when it's convenient for their own imperialism in the region? To me, balkanisation of Syria and countries like Syria, that have historically been multiethnic for millennia would genuinely be a tragedy. These are parts of the world where multiple ethnicities have called home and lived alongside each other for thousands of years. I think ethnonationalism is one of the ugliest things about humanity. It only promotes hatred and creates tension amongst people that typically boils over into war and atrocities.

If we take the SNA rebel leader's words at face value and assume he isn't lying through his teeth (which, unfortunately, with the region's history & who is backing him... I think is a bold assumption to make), he wants a Syria with a democratically elected government within the next 2 years where all ethnic groups have representation and a say in Syria's government and sovereignty. This is the best case scenario & I truly hope it happens. Granted, I think there is a lot Syrian society needs to overcome before this can be a reality. But it would be the best possible thing for the region. The worst case scenario is I think more likely - Syria goes from life under a secular tyrant to life under a religious tyrant. Looking at some of the groups involved in this rebellion against Assad's Syria - the types of religious tyrants possible are absolutely horrific.

The world's largely against imperialism since the end of WW2. Yet with the Middle East, it seems to be completely accepted - regardless of what that means for the people there. From the illegal settlements in the West Bank, to the absolute international shitshow of Syria, to the largely ignored by the West (because they condone and actively participated in it) genocide in Yemen... it's all regional and world powers fucking around playing their imperial games. And the world just accepts it.

I honestly think it's accepted largely because of racist views that aren't truly challenged... and often are just societally accepted. There's a general view that "these people" in "that part of the world" are "violent and prone to extremism" - without really examining why this part of the world has struggled with violence and extremism, and without really considering the role imperialism (since the days where empires were not considered taboo) has played in creating the modern day situation we're familiar with.

[OrangeKhrush]

6 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

They've gone beyond Golan Heights, per IDF reporting on their own actions... so yes, there is proof the IDF is pushing beyond the DMZ. Netanyahu's even said as far as Israel's concerned, they're not going to respect Syrian sovereignty or international law at all and are claiming Golan Heights as permanently part of Israel.

Those are both illegal land grabs. They deserve condemnation. I say this as someone who thinks Israel's right to defend themselves and thinks the Palestinian leadership has badly let down Palestinians in their quest for statehood and human rights (while I don't condone Israel's human rights abuses and war crimes).

Nobody deserves a pass when they're violating international law. Doesn't matter how powerful they are or who their friends are.

Yeah, it's just taking advantage of the chaos and the power vacuum going on in Syria. I can't understand how it's not broadly being condemned, honestly.

I mean I can... the same reason you don't see western governments issue strong condemnation of the carnage in Gaza... it's because Israel's got powerful friends and even amongst supposed "friends of the Palestinians" in Saudi Arabia and their puppets like the UAE - they are more interested in making money from the west than truly condemning human rights abuses.

I think part of it is Syria, like Iran, is geographically located in a strategic place to project power in the Middle East. Even while Assad looked relatively powerless, he was propped up by Russia and Iran due to the strategic benefit Syria's location posed - and they used that to project power in the Middle East, despite Syria falling into a state of absolute chaos.

I think it would be quite sad to see a Balkanisation of Syria along ethnic ties. I'm sure many of the power players in the region are absolutely all for it... but I think it is sad when ethnic tensions boil over into ethnonationalism and long-standing multiethnic cultures fall apart due to the actions of extremists and foreign powers. Would the Druze get a state? Because many of the Druze consider themselves very much Syrian. If they want to break away... would the Arab jihadis want to ceade that land? I doubt it. Will anyone be stepping in to protect the Druze? Would it be Israel? Would it be the US? If it's the US... would they simply be an ally of convenience, like they are with the Kurds? If so... that's a bit sad because the US continually abandons the Kurds only to turn back to help them when it's convenient for their own imperialism in the region? To me, balkanisation of Syria and countries like Syria, that have historically been multiethnic for millennia would genuinely be a tragedy. These are parts of the world where multiple ethnicities have called home and lived alongside each other for thousands of years. I think ethnonationalism is one of the ugliest things about humanity. It only promotes hatred and creates tension amongst people that typically boils over into war and atrocities.

If we take the SNA rebel leader's words at face value and assume he isn't lying through his teeth (which, unfortunately, with the region's history & who is backing him... I think is a bold assumption to make), he wants a Syria with a democratically elected government within the next 2 years where all ethnic groups have representation and a say in Syria's government and sovereignty. This is the best case scenario & I truly hope it happens. Granted, I think there is a lot Syrian society needs to overcome before this can be a reality. But it would be the best possible thing for the region. The worst case scenario is I think more likely - Syria goes from life under a secular tyrant to life under a religious tyrant. Looking at some of the groups involved in this rebellion against Assad's Syria - the types of religious tyrants possible are absolutely horrific.

The world's largely against imperialism since the end of WW2. Yet with the Middle East, it seems to be completely accepted - regardless of what that means for the people there. From the illegal settlements in the West Bank, to the absolute international shitshow of Syria, to the largely ignored by the West (because they condone and actively participated in it) genocide in Yemen... it's all regional and world powers fucking around playing their imperial games. And the world just accepts it.

I honestly think it's accepted largely because of racist views that aren't truly challenged... and often are just societally accepted. There's a general view that "these people" in "that part of the world" are "violent and prone to extremism" - without really examining why this part of the world has struggled with violence and extremism, and without really considering the role imperialism (since the days where empires were not considered taboo) has played in creating the modern day situation we're familiar with.

Syria is a land bridge country,  it holds strategic and geographical value to enemies and friend.  Iran and Russia have been using it to prop up their militarization through Lebenon, Gaza and Russians as a land pass to get to Africa.

Would imperialism not have helped,  sure,  the way Russia, France and the Brittish dealt with the post WW1 middle east was not good but we can also remember that the predominant religion is Islam and Islam has a rather deep history of imperialism and conquest.  At the fall of the Ottoman empire you had the Hasemites wanting their empire,  you had the Greater Syria players and they didnt want the creation of new states,  they wanted empires.   

Yemen is a strange one as it wasnt imperialism but rather religion that destroyed the country,  they were anti monarch and pro theocratic islam with a religious head of state.   They sided with iraq then flipped to iran.   Oman on the other hand has thrived while Yemen is in the grip of a famine.   The golf states could help Yemen but after decades of terror attacks, there is no love lost.

The day after issue is a touchy one,   I am pretty sure Turkey has no desire to have a Kurdish state bordering them and what will the other factions think,  will it lead to a holocaust style event.

I would be open to the Druze getting a sovereign state in the Golan heights but the Druze are hated by islamic groups,  the druze will also be supported by Israel which will create friction.

As for the last,  2 nights ago threats were made on live television of HTS intending to march on Jerusalem and the Ka'aba,  I would regard them as humour if it wasnt amidst a 14 month conflict,  moving troops into the buffer zone is intended to be a deterrent.

The peace talks in Gaza are ongoing with Hamas having played a wait and see game,   they are more interested in HTS starting a new front,  but in recent weeks they have dropped a few terms,  they are prepared to cede the philadelphi line but a transitional government is better for the chance to create a new outlook,   hamas, fatah, PA all the same brush and paint,  there needs to be a real government and civil society being created and propped up.  

 

[Azeem]

14 hours ago, Spike said:

No suspects, no motives, no evidence for cause, but it's a 'terrorist attack'. @Azeem you are 100% right 'terrorist' and 'terrorist act' is a racist dog whistle. Look at this news article from a similar incident on a mosque but with actually evidence in that it was tagged with 'fuck islam'

https://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/28/asia/western-australian-mosque-attack/index.html

Terrorist word has lost all meaning. There are genuine bad faith actors who just want to create chaos for their goals, but it is used to describe anyone someone doesn't like nowadays. 

People were even calling Trump voters as terrorist sympathizer after he won the election. he's a cunt but like bro chill. 

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

12 hours ago, OrangeKhrush said:

The golf states

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

6 hours ago, Azeem said:

Terrorist word has lost all meaning. There are genuine bad faith actors who just want to create chaos for their goals, but it is used to describe anyone someone doesn't like nowadays. 

People were even calling Trump voters as terrorist sympathizer after he won the election. he's a cunt but like bro chill. 

 

Tbf Trump does have a large block of domestic terrorists as his voting base - don't forget he had his mob storm the US capitol building.

[6666]

17 hours ago, OrangeKhrush said:

There needs to be a real government and civil society being created and propped up.

Extremely insulting coming from someone that supports a country that thinks raping, torturing, and displacing Palestinians is their birth right.

[Azeem]

10 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Tbf Trump does have a large block of domestic terrorists as his voting base - don't forget he had his mob storm the US capitol building.

Then it's not a good look for US as a country that a majority is a terrorist sympathizer lol

[Dr. Gonzo]

14 hours ago, Azeem said:

Then it's not a good look for US as a country that a majority is a terrorist sympathizer lol

The US hasn't had a good look for a long time mate 

[Dr. Gonzo]

20 hours ago, 6666 said:

Extremely insulting coming from someone that supports a country that thinks raping, torturing, and displacing Palestinians is their birth right.

It's a rare moment where he's not wrong though, especially with Gaza. Hamas hasn't built a civil society. Prior to Oct 7th they'd just let Gazan desperation fester for their own benefit, while going after any dissenting voices with extreme brutality. They've squandered all the aid and support they've received for the international community. Turning things like irrigation and plumbing into weapons isn't indicative of a serious government that wants to benefit the people it governs.

Palestinians deserve better. Their leadership sees them as pawns in a game where they're up against a country that the west is always going to back. Palestinians need real leaders that actually give a shit about the future of Palestine. They don't need to be led by puppet groups of foreign countries that simply do not give a shit about the people in Palestine. The Palestinian diaspora needs to rally against the leadership they've left back at home and push for new leadership in exile and work with the international community to do things that actually support the will of Palestinians, rather than simply tow the line for Hamas and Hezbollah (... and Hezbollah aren't even Palestinians...); the idea that all resistance is good resistance is a flawed idea.

Granted, he gets a lot of other shit in his post wrong lol so there is that and I do agree he's got a very fucked up worldview. He'll never see the truth that Palestinians are in fact horrifically oppressed by Israelis - even when the IDF isn't slaughtering Palestinians, they're oppressed in ways that are unconscionable. But Palestinians also need to face the reality that their leadership has done fuck all for them other than put them in the firing line and demonstrate strong resistance to them as well.

This is all easier said than done, though. It's easy to say these things while not actively facing the oppression Palestinians are facing from both sides. It's incredibly difficult to live through the feeling of oppression coming from internal and external sources - and in the case of the Palestinians, they've lost allies. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Jordan, Egypt... they've all turned their backs on Palestine. Lebanon is a failed state. Syria is busy dealing with their own problems, which are massive. Palestine's only got 2 "friends" - a two faced Qatar and an evil regime in Iran.

[Spike]

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

It's a rare moment where he's not wrong though, especially with Gaza. Hamas hasn't built a civil society. Prior to Oct 7th they'd just let Gazan desperation fester for their own benefit, while going after any dissenting voices with extreme brutality. They've squandered all the aid and support they've received for the international community. Turning things like irrigation and plumbing into weapons isn't indicative of a serious government that wants to benefit the people it governs.

Palestinians deserve better. Their leadership sees them as pawns in a game where they're up against a country that the west is always going to back. Palestinians need real leaders that actually give a shit about the future of Palestine. They don't need to be led by puppet groups of foreign countries that simply do not give a shit about the people in Palestine. The Palestinian diaspora needs to rally against the leadership they've left back at home and push for new leadership in exile and work with the international community to do things that actually support the will of Palestinians, rather than simply tow the line for Hamas and Hezbollah (... and Hezbollah aren't even Palestinians...); the idea that all resistance is good resistance is a flawed idea.

Granted, he gets a lot of other shit in his post wrong lol so there is that and I do agree he's got a very fucked up worldview. He'll never see the truth that Palestinians are in fact horrifically oppressed by Israelis - even when the IDF isn't slaughtering Palestinians, they're oppressed in ways that are unconscionable. But Palestinians also need to face the reality that their leadership has done fuck all for them other than put them in the firing line and demonstrate strong resistance to them as well.

This is all easier said than done, though. It's easy to say these things while not actively facing the oppression Palestinians are facing from both sides. It's incredibly difficult to live through the feeling of oppression coming from internal and external sources - and in the case of the Palestinians, they've lost allies. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Jordan, Egypt... they've all turned their backs on Palestine. Lebanon is a failed state. Syria is busy dealing with their own problems, which are massive. Palestine's only got 2 "friends" - a two faced Qatar and an evil regime in Iran.

'Civil society' doesn't mean anything outside of it being a dog whistle for cultural supremacists. I'd say Palestinians are plenty 'civil'; the state existing in a mode doesn't decide what is 'civil' or not but is an apparatus that exaggerates or limits the cultural and societal expression. For instance what is 'civil' about the USA government exasperating anti-immigration sentiments? Yet by one of the definitions 'a civil society'. He is wrong; he means 'civil' in terms of colonial justification, of barbarian vs. civility, animals vs. humans. NOT ONLY that but depending on what you are defining 'civil society' as, it is actually a third pillar separate from the private and or public sector, that being independent organisations that are invested in 'improving' material or societal conditions, which would have nothing to do with Hamas.

Hamas have indeed failed as a state in terms of material support for it's people but under the situations I don't see how any state could succeed; not only that but most states fail to support the material needs of their people.

Edited December 12 by Spike

[Dr. Gonzo]

8 minutes ago, Spike said:

'Civil society' doesn't mean anything outside of it being a dog whistle for cultural supremacists. I'd say Palestinians are plenty 'civil'; the state existing in a mode doesn't decide what is 'civil' or not but is an apparatus that exaggerates or limits the cultural and societal expression. For instance what is 'civil' about the USA government exasperating anti-immigration sentiments? Yet is is by all measures of the definition 'a civil society'. He is wrong; he means 'civil' in terms of colonial justification, of barbarian vs. civility, animals vs. humans.

Hamas have indeed failed as a state in terms of material support for it's people but under the situations I don't see how any state could succeed; not only that but most states fail to support the material needs of their people.

Fair points that I can't disagree with

[Spike]

Just now, Dr. Gonzo said:

Fair points that I can't disagree with

Don't miss my edit
NOT ONLY that but depending on what you are defining 'civil society' as, it is actually a third pillar separate from the private and or public sector, that being independent organisations that are invested in 'improving' material or societal conditions, which would have nothing to do with Hamas.

It's really a nebulous term, that IMHO is mostly used by people that don't want to call people what they really want to, that being 'savages' or 'animals'