Middle East Conflict

halfcenturyup said:
Personally, I am interested to see how BRICS+ works, who joins and what sort of alternative it will pose to the western view of the world in the next decade or so.
Click to expand...
I think the theme is "reducing the use of the US dollar", allowing energy, raw materials, technology and markets to flow within BRICS.

In the past, the US could buy everything they wanted in our country by continuously issuing currency. To be more precise, through the international capital market, the interest rate cycles of the US dollar, not only export inflation, but also control the capital prices to acquire assets around the world. Sorry, I am not a professional in this field, so I cannot explain the specific principles in detail.

In short, not only are we being plundered by the US in some way, but the US also uses this as a coercive means to force us to do things that are in line with US interests, or else we will be subject to sanctions. This situation obviously needs to be contained. Please don't misunderstand, it won't happen that "the US is replaced"（or someone in BRICS want to rule the world）, we are just trying to avoid being plundered by the US.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Not really the thread for it, but I will give it a quick go.

Europe isn't ready yet for any sort of autonomy from the US, politically, socially or economically. Until it is, it clearly makes sense to "hide behind" the US. I suspect the US will gradually lose interest in Europe as they will have bigger issues to deal with soon and so, at some point in the not-too-distant future this autonomy will have to happen. Especially if Russia keeps up its aggressive posture. That's for the future, though. As of now, Europe still needs the US which is why you see subservience to their policies.

Personally, I am interested to see how BRICS+ works, who joins and what sort of alternative it will pose to the western view of the world in the next decade or so.
Click to expand...
The US is slowly becoming irrelevant in the world due to its totally absent government, its reach exists through its military but its influence is waning. That's because the US political system is bankrupt and absent because politicians are fighting their own battles and don't have time to do anything else. They will obsess over the next president but they'll never consider why the only choice is one of two completely useless candidates.

It's the exact same here in the UK, we're in for a relentless and depressing election year where someone will win but either way let's face it in 5 years time the country will remain in the same dysfunctional state. Nothing will work and the resources don't really exist anymore to make it work, it requires huge change beyond which party is in charge but turkeys don't vote for Christmas.

China meanwhile will become the dominant force in the world, that's just an absolute fact. China however is prioritising growth and stability above internal and external political warring. China is not going to suffer itself over Gaza, a place thousands of miles away and of total irrelevance to China. Even the Middle Eastern countries aren't burdening themselves with the Palestinians.

The west meanwhile treats these questions as existential, people protest here in their thousands over something that doesn't affect them. It's because our politics has become so poisonous and dysfunctional that people feel they have to. This isn't to reduce the Palestinian problem but we have our own things to worry about however zero energy is going into them because political life is more about a daily scrap for headlines and small gains.

It's no wonder that our ability to problem solve has fallen apart, we're too busy being angry about quite literally everything. The truth is in the west we love to have a moan and we love to protest whether it's climate change or whatever, but our ability to be productive and make real change seems to always fall into a black hole.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
LesBleuMiserable said:
Me thinks a certain South African legal matter has scared most of these war criminals
Click to expand...

One way or another, what was said was said. Can't remove that.

And, for what it's worth, incitement to genocide is a crime under the Genocide Convention.

I doubt a finding of genocide will be made against Israel, but that wouldn't prevent individual charges of incitement in view of the situation on the ground, I think.

In any case, it's pretty fucking embarrassing for Israel, of all countries, to be accused of genocide. Let's see if they have the balls to say in front of the court that South Africa is criminally complicit in the October attack for bringing the case, or, for that matter, that the ICJ is criminally complicit for considering it. That sort of bullshit may work with a baying mob, not sure it will be looked on too favourably in a court of law.

Apologies for seeming oblivious to the suffering, but it will be fascinating to see what happens.
 
Last edited:
halfcenturyup said:
One way or another, what was said was said. Can't remove that.

And, for what it's worth, incitement to genocide is a crime under the Genocide Convention.

I doubt a finding of genocide will be made against Israel, but that wouldn't prevent individual charges of incitement in view of the situation on the ground, I think.

In any case, it's pretty fucking embarrassing for Israel, of all countries, to be accused of genocide. Let's see if they have the balls to say in front of the court that South Africa is criminally complicit in the October attack for bringing the case, or, for that matter, that the ICJ is criminally complicit for considering it. That sort of bullshit may work with a baying mob, not sure it will be looked on too favourably in a court of law.

Apologies for seeming oblivious to the suffering, but it will be fascinating to see what happens.
Click to expand...
Most of the world has been oblivious to the suffering, but that’s true of many conflicts. But oblivious can mean unaware or unheeding - some grammarians would define "oblivious of" to mean ignorance while "oblivious to" means knowing about it but not caring (literally "forgetting" about it). I assume you do mean the latter.

It's the justification for flattening housing that will be hard to defend. The aim of stopping rocket attacks will come under examination as whether the remedy is proportionate (revenge will not be a justification). But it may also prompt discussion about equivalennce, e.g. if every settler in the West Bank is armed and Palestinian villages are attacked, does that justify the bombing of settler homes?

There was a Haaretz article last week saying Israel is not committing genocide but it has "genocidiares". Whether it's envisioning Greater Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates, implying displacement of millions, or citing biblical genocide (Hamas as Amalek), there are statements that sound genocidal, but whether they amount to incitement will be a harder test - does incitement apply to any words or only when genocide has been committed?

(See also the original Hamas charter compared to more recent policy - pogrom or programme.)
 
Brewster's millions said:
I see he’s not wearing his Nazi uniform in this interview.

Must be at the dry cleaners or something.
Click to expand...
I guess you have been visited more of the multiracial multireligious villages in Palestine and Israel compared to Roger Waters. By him only visiting dozens of villages, and only speaking with the true Jews, Christians, Druzes, Muslims, still do not hold a candle on the grandiose commitments that you have had for more than 20 years.

You’re right, he’s just an armchair critic and you should be in the limelight
 
cucumberman said:
I guess you have been visited more of the multiracial multireligious villages in Palestine and Israel compared to Roger Waters. By him only visiting dozens of villages, and only speaking with the true Jews, Christians, Druzes, Muslims, still do not hold a candle on the grandiose commitments that you have had for more than 20 years.

You’re right, he’s just an armchair critic and you should be in the limelight
Click to expand...
He’s definitely owned and worn more Nazi uniforms than me, I’ll give him that.
 
Vic said:
Most of the world has been oblivious to the suffering, but that’s true of many conflicts. But oblivious can mean unaware or unheeding - some grammarians would define "oblivious of" to mean ignorance while "oblivious to" means knowing about it but not caring (literally "forgetting" about it). I assume you do mean the latter.

It's the justification for flattening housing that will be hard to defend. The aim of stopping rocket attacks will come under examination as whether the remedy is proportionate (revenge will not be a justification). But it may also prompt discussion about equivalennce, e.g. if every settler in the West Bank is armed and Palestinian villages are attacked, does that justify the bombing of settler homes?

There was a Haaretz article last week saying Israel is not committing genocide but it has "genocidiares". Whether it's envisioning Greater Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates, implying displacement of millions, or citing biblical genocide (Hamas as Amalek), there are statements that sound genocidal, but whether they amount to incitement will be a harder test - does incitement apply to any words or only when genocide has been committed?

(See also the original Hamas charter compared to more recent policy - pogrom or programme.)
Click to expand...

Your assumption was correct, of course.

Incitement to genocide is, afaik, an inchoate crime; it is a crime to incite genocide even if the crime of genocide isn't actually committed. But, it has to be "direct and public". The statements made are clearly public, but I doubt whether they are direct (in the sense that the speaker and the listener must both understand the alleged incitement to be a "call to action"). Anyway, let's see what happens.

Incidentally, I wondered why South Africa had gone straight in with an accusation of genocide rather than the easier to prove ethnic cleansing or other war crimes and it appears Israel didn't sign up to the ICC which hears "ordinary" war crimes, and so couldn't be held accountable, but did sign up to the Genocide Convention which is heard by the ICJ, and so can be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top