International Events : How I learnt to stop worrying and love the-

[kissdbyfire]

35 minutes ago, Hmmm said:

That is mainly connected to the increasing belligerence of China and Russia. Particularly the latter. Are you claiming that Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin are secretly employed by Lockheed Martin or something?

If that’s your takeaway from TLW’s post perhaps you should read it again. 

[TheLastWolf]

2 hours ago, Hmmm said:

That is mainly connected to the increasing belligerence of China and Russia. Particularly the latter. Are you claiming that Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin are secretly employed by Lockheed Martin or something?

Why is it that belligerence of autocracies is the only factor considered in conflicts? It is not as if the replying 'democracies' are wholly innocent in choosing a plan of action (usually stupid but profitable). 

Edited May 1 by TheLastWolf

[AncalagonTheBlack]

On 4/29/2024 at 8:35 PM, Zorral said:

EXCLUSIVE
An assassination plot on American soil reveals a darker side of Modi’s India

Shared/gift link -- goes behind subscription paywall:

https://wapo.st/3w3RrgT

This is a long, in depth report.

Concluding paragraphs:

There is a breakout section, which might be called a Sidebar, but the WaPo captions as a 'carousel' -- 
 

 

More details in this interview with one of the authors of the WaPo article Gerry Shih in conversation with veteran Indian journalist Karan Thapar.

 

[Conflicting Thought]

5 minutes ago, TheLastWolf said:

Why is it that belligerence of autocracies is the only factor considered in conflicts? It is not as if the replying 'democracies' are wholly innocent in choosing a plan of action (usually stupid but profitable). 

I would go further and say that western democracies are a major force driving conflicts, often getting away with things that "shtihole" countries could never.

[Mudguard]

3 hours ago, DMC said:

Because the posts speak with a type of authority that is wholly bereft of informed analysis.  The ceasefire deal on the table right now is not permanent and the Biden administration absolutely has leverage with Hamas via intermediaries.  Otherwise the talks wouldn’t have advanced as far as they have.

I don't think the US has much leverage on Hamas.  What leverage does the US have?  We could restore funding to the UNRWA I suppose, but I don't really see much else that we can use as leverage.  And withholding funding to the UNRWA to use as leverage would be morally questionable, so I hope we aren't doing that.

From Hamas' point of view, there is little reason to agree to a temporary ceasefire in return for all the hostages.  Once they return all the hostages, Israel will have free reign to flood all the tunnels, and really go after Hamas without any restraints.  Maybe there could be an agreement for some of the hostages, but not all unless there is a permanent ceasefire.  Otherwise, they would be agreeing to their own destruction, which makes zero sense.

Since this last proposal doesn't include a permanent ceasefire, I don't think Hamas will agree to the terms.  They'll just reiterate the same demands for a permanent ceasefire that they have repeated for months now.

[Altherion]

3 hours ago, DMC said:

Because the posts speak with a type of authority that is wholly bereft of informed analysis.  The ceasefire deal on the table right now is not permanent and the Biden administration absolutely has leverage with Hamas via intermediaries.  Otherwise the talks wouldn’t have advanced as far as they have.

What "authority"? I always cite or quote sources when I am posting something that I believe to be a concrete fact. Otherwise, I'm simply saying what comes to mind at the time -- like pretty much everyone else here.

Regarding the leverage: if you go back to my post, I never said that that the US has no leverage with Hamas, just that we have much less leverage with them than we do with Israel (and more to the point, thus far not enough to secure the release of the hostages). I don't think this is controversial.

[kissdbyfire]

7 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

And withholding funding to the UNRWA to use as leverage would be morally questionable, so I hope we aren't doing that.

The US is withholding funding to UNRWA since 3 minutes after Israel said UNRWA had loads of HAMAS people among its employees - a claim that was nonsense from the get and has been debunked since. Coincidentally, that accusation from Israel came 3 minutes after the ICJ taking on South Africa’s case of possible genocide. 
 

ETA: I agree with you re HAMAS probably not seeing much in returning the hostages and the war resuming. 

Edited May 1 by kissdbyfire

[Padraig]

8 hours ago, TheLastWolf said:

You don't cut open the goose laying golden eggs. It's like fuel added to a fireplace not a boiler. I didn't think I'd have to explain this analogy. 

You are going to have to explain it more. If you wish.  How is what is quoted above different from "they are also telling them not to commit too much violence because they don't want to sell too many weapons."

The main point to take away from my posts is that influence definitely happens (as I said originally, I agree with a lot of what you say).  But you can push it too far, where people become puppetmasters.  Puppetmasters are very rare.  It is often incompetence, misguided beliefs, lack of power etc.

And I wasn't sure were you actually talking about the Pentagon.  Good to know you were.

[Mudguard]

7 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

The US is withholding funding to UNRWA since 3 minutes after Israel said UNRWA had loads of HAMAS people among its employees - a claim that was nonsense from the get and has been debunked since. Coincidentally, that accusation from Israel came 3 minutes after the ICJ taking on South Africa’s case of possible genocide. 
 

ETA: I agree with you re HAMAS probably not seeing much in returning the hostages and the war resuming. 

Yeah, I disagree with the US refusal to restore funding to the UNRWA at this point.  I can understand a temporary pause given the initial allegation and report.  I think there was credible evidence provided on a small number of UNRWA workers, maybe roughly 10 workers.  But Israel has failed to provide any evidence to support their claim that more than a thousand UNRWA employees were Hamas.  It's been months now, so it's well past time to dismiss that allegation and restore funding.

Many countries have restored funding.  I'm not sure why the US is still refusing.  I hope it's not to use as leverage in negotiations, because that would mean that we are deliberately contributing to the starvation of Palestinian civilians in an effort to apply leverage to Hamas, something I would find morally abhorrent.

[Padraig]

2 hours ago, Conflicting Thought said:

I would go further and say that western democracies are a major force driving conflicts, often getting away with things that "shtihole" countries could never.

I think many countries are willing to get away with a lot of terrible things but the West has more money and can thus cause more dangerous mischief in aggregate.  But morally, Russia (for example) is far more dangerous.  It just lacks the means (relatively speaking).

[kissdbyfire]

Just now, Mudguard said:

Yeah, I disagree with the US refusal to restore funding to the UNRWA at this point.  I can understand a temporary pause given the initial allegation and report.  I think there was credible evidence provided on a small number of UNRWA workers, maybe roughly 10 workers.  But Israel has failed to provide any evidence to support their claim that more than a thousand UNRWA employees were Hamas.  It's been months now, so it's well past time to dismiss that allegation and restore funding.

Many countries have restored funding.  I'm not sure why the US is still refusing.  I hope it's not to use as leverage in negotiations, because that would mean that we are deliberately contributing to the starvation of Palestinian civilians in an effort to apply leverage to Hamas, something I would find morally abhorrent.

Yes, this whole thing is awful. And while I agree w/ what you said there’s one minor point I disagree with. Given how dire the need for aid is in Palestine, they (they as in every country that jumped on this bandwagon, there are many) should not have withheld funds at all. They should have made a statement demanding a full independent investigation and warning of immediate withholding of funds if the case against UNRWA/its employees was made. Alas, too late now. Germany has resumed its funding and iirc this bill was voted down or not put forth in the house? This is probably all wrong but I do remember hearing about it but as usual it was buried and given no attention by the media. I also remember that b/c it didn’t go through it meant that at best the us funding could potentially resume next year? Or be voted/presented again next year? Sorry, that could all be wrong too!  

[Mudguard]

3 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Yes, this whole thing is awful. And while I agree w/ what you said there’s one minor point I disagree with. Given how dire the need for aid is in Palestine, they (they as in every country that jumped on this bandwagon, there are many) should not have withheld funds at all. They should have made a statement demanding a full independent investigation and warning of immediate withholding of funds if the case against UNRWA/its employees was made. Alas, too late now. Germany has resumed its funding and iirc this bill was voted down or not put forth in the house? This is probably all wrong but I do remember hearing about it but as usual it was buried and given no attention by the media. I also remember that b/c it didn’t go through it meant that at best the us funding could potentially resume next year? Or be voted/presented again next year? Sorry, that could all be wrong too!  

Yeah, I would have preferred that we never stopped funding to begin with, but I can understand the reasoning behind a temporary pause.  There should have been a demand for Israel to provide evidence for their broader allegations in an expedited manner, with failure to do so triggering an automatic restoration of funding.  If they gave Israel a couple weeks or maybe a month to do that, I don't think the pause would have hurt operations, since UNRWA had money in the bank and couple operate for a while on their reserves.  But it's been many months now.

[Zorral]

38 minutes ago, Altherion said:

like pretty much everyone else here.

Not everyone does that.  I source everything I can.  When it is just me speculating w/o proof I say that too.  Though I probably rely too much on people generally familiar with my methods, when why should I expect that people pay that much attention, because we see all the time that people do not pay attention to hardly anything, that I don't say "speculation: often enough!

Edited May 1 by Zorral

[DMC]

42 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

I don't think the US has much leverage on Hamas.

Again, the leverage is via the intermediaries, namely Egypt and Qatar.  Case in point, there is speculation Hamas leadership may be shopping for new headquarters due to frustration with Qatar’s pressure.

44 minutes ago, Altherion said:

What "authority"? I always cite or quote sources when I am posting something that I believe to be a concrete fact. Otherwise, I'm simply saying what comes to mind at the time -- like pretty much everyone else here.

Again, my issue is with how you present your arguments as authoritative.  Of course it’s not backed up by facts.  That’s my problem, and you asked.

[Mudguard]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Again, the leverage is via the intermediaries, namely Egypt and Qatar.  Case in point, there is speculation Hamas leadership may be shopping for new headquarters due to frustration with Qatar’s pressure.

Again, my issue is with how you present your arguments as authoritative.  Of course it’s not backed up by facts.  That’s my problem, and you asked.

What leverage does Egypt and Qatar have that they are applying on Hamas?  

ETA: I don't see a new HQ as meaningful leverage when the proposed agreement leads to their destruction.

Edited May 1 by Mudguard

[DMC]

…what I just said in Qatar’s case.  Allowing their leadership to reside there.  That’s just about as crucial leverage as you can get.

[Mudguard]

Just now, DMC said:

…what I just said in Qatar’s case.  Allowing their leadership to reside there.  That’s just about as crucial leverage as you can get.

Yeah, I edited my post to address that.  If Israel's proposal included a term that allowed leadership to exit Gaza safely in return for the hostages, that would be something, although everything I've read suggests Sinwar has no interest in leaving and would prefer to be become a martyr.  But if that's not in the proposal, it's meaningless if they move their HQ to Egypt if Israel just destroys Hamas after they get all their hostages back.

[polishgenius]

27 minutes ago, Padraig said:

 But morally, Russia (for example) is far more dangerous. 

 

Meh. Even as someone who because of my background really fucking hates Russia I'd suggest that this is largely dependent on where you live. Sure, Russia is willing to invade European nations directly, while, say, America typically doesn't do that to its central and south american neighbours but ask... well, quite a lot of the middle east who they think is more dangerous. 

 

[kissdbyfire]

1 minute ago, polishgenius said:

 

Meh. Even as someone who because of my background really fucking hates Russia I'd suggest that this is largely dependent on where you live. Sure, Russia is willing to invade European nations directly, while, say, America typically doesn't do that to its central and south american neighbours but ask... well, quite a lot of the middle east who they think is more dangerous. 

 

It doesn’t but it was super keen on funding and installing US-friendly military dictatorships all over the place not that long ago. 

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

It doesn’t but it was super keen on funding and installing US-friendly military dictatorships all over the place not that long ago. 

Hey now, we're incredibly keen on doing it now too!