I saw an article about them attacking Lebanon now. So, where will it stop? Have the Israeli government ever spoken about this?

  • ashenblood
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    … I just realized you think my comments about Israel being a bully mean you think I mean the U.S. is destabilizing the Middle East.

    And while that is true in limited contexts, I’m talking about Israel being a projection of U.S. power in the area, to prevent unity against the west. Obviously, the U.S. destabilizes countries that are opposed to the west, and fosters ones that aren’t.

    This sequence of words is utterly meaningless. “You think I meant the US is destabilizing the Middle East, but actually I meant that the US uses Israel in limited contexts in order to destabilize the Middle East”.

    Huh? You’re saying the US destabilizes countries opposed to the west in the Middle East, using Israel as a projection of power. So, you’re saying that the US is destabilizing the Middle East. My reading comprehension is just fine, but you just have absolutely no clue what point you’re even trying to make. Your position is completely incoherent and paradoxical.

    The U.S. has long needed a bully in the area to prevent the Middle East from being too unified, so the west can get relatively inexpensive access to its oil.

    No, it hasn’t. The Middle East has never been even remotely unified, why would the US be concerned about that?

    If anything, the existence of Israel is the most unifying force for many Middle Eastern countries who can barely agree on anything except hating Israel.

    pay attention to what it says about the

    FOH with this bullshit, quote the relevant passage that you claim contradicts me. You constantly dodge and run away from any points made against you and try to move the goalposts to distract from your glaring ignorance and wrongness.

    • Monument@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Alright. I’ll back up a bit. I was a bit distracted earlier and didn’t even realize I was dealing with a new account. They had commented on more than one of my posts - I just figured I was dealing with a persistent disinfo account.

      So - in my post, I specifically said that was my take. Let’s start from that. I’m not going to deliver evidence for my opinions. That’s a fools errand to try to offer outside sources for those.

      So - regarding access to oil. There’s a logical backing to that. Oil drives the world economy. But also the Wikipedia article I linked literally says that, and it provides sources.

      Regarding current production of oil - my statement still stands.

      The U.S. has a vested interest in keeping Middle East oil flowing and cheap until it’s no longer needed. Price shocks and further raises in oil prices are not conducive to the global economy. If global oil prices go up, it harms countries with free markets as their government can’t merely refuse to sell domestic supplies to stabilize domestic prices. Does it make sense how the U.S. free market system could cause a major domestic economic slowdown if global prices suddenly increased?

      They also have a vested interest in having their western allies not grow closer/dependent on to Russia or China. Is that also not self-evident?

      Taken together - a stable oil market means a healthy economy and unchanged projection of geopolitical power for the U.S., yes?

      Regarding technological change and de-carbonization, I figured that was common knowledge. But I’m realizing my familiarity with that technology/market space for energy production/consumption is something I’ve taken for granted.

      Right now renewables provide over 20% of electricity to the U.S. energy grid. I’ve heard (with my own ear) from an industry professional that the U.S. currently produces all of its electricity needs via renewables, but that electricity cannot reach the grid due to lack of investment in interconnection/distribution and regulatory roadblocks. With apologies - I cannot provide a source for their claims, but this was during a technical presentation while they were representing themselves and their organization.
      My point, though, is the world is changing quite rapidly. Obviously there won’t be 100% reduction in demand, but enough to make the economics viable the manner I’ve outlined.

      The rest of my statement about the U.S. then providing oil to its allies after a technological tipping point on price has been reached, as well as the one regarding no longer offering support to Israel after that is my own opinion, informed by the belief that the U.S. will take measures to stabilize the price of oil in its own domestic market, as too much of a drop in prices could lead to the closure of wells, harm to the domestic economy (due to loss of jobs, and uncontrollable price shocks), and a dependence on foreign oil. By becoming the go-to oil supplier for allies, it also makes those allies more dependent on the U.S. and brings them closer to it.

      But Israel is a liability and always has been. They aren’t liked by their neighbors - some of them quite powerful. The relationship with the U.S. is not very mutually beneficial. The U.S. isn’t going to just ice out Israel, but I do believe they are going to withdraw the military support they have traditionally provided, as geopolitical goals change. This is an opinion I hold. Why would the U.S. expend resources without a return on investment?

      I believe that all logically checks out as valid geopoliticals goal with solid reasoning - it does to me.

      Regarding Israel and pushing non-Jews out: Fact Sheet: Palestinian Citizens of Israel.

      You don’t have to read the whole thing, but I specifically wanted to highlight that Palestinians are not given political representation, and that laws exist to prevent the growth and spread of their minority within Israel.

      But the actions of Israel against the non-citizens, even non-combatants are fairly clear.

      Regarding the history  - I feel that is self-evident. I don’t know what they’re on about, but what they said does not align with any factual recounting I’ve ever heard.

      And the rest - My opinions, which I’d like to remind you, are fairly well informed.


      Skipping over the first part of your comment above, hopefully me stepping back helps to explain it.

      It’s not about internal unification, so long as it’s unified with Russia or before that, the USSR.

      Oh! The Wikipedia article says that the U.S. provided significant help to Israel. They said Israel won those on their own. Nah. They did alright in ‘67, fully stocked with U.S. weapons, because they knew it was coming. And in 73, the U.S. had to execute operation Nickel Grass to bail Israel out.

      And that’s it for today! Tip your servers!

      • ashenblood
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        You are completely and utterly confused and mistaken about everything that you just said. I wish I could help you, but the best I can offer is to stop offering opinions on topics that you know nothing about.

        How is it so impossible for you to respond to the words I have already written down?

        You have repeatedly stated that the US has been intentionally destabilizing the Middle East.

        Now you state that:

        The U.S. has a vested interest in keeping Middle East oil flowing and cheap until it’s no longer needed

        a stable oil market means a healthy economy and unchanged projection of geopolitical power for the U.S., yes?

        I know, I literally just explained that fact to you. How is Middle East oil going to keep flowing cheaply if the US destabilizes the region and causes wars and conflict? Please explain how that makes sense to you. You think that oil becomes cheaper when the country is at war? Wtf are you smoking?

        Please, for the love of God, respond to my argument instead of going on some tangent about how the Hebrews were enslaved in the Old Testament or some shit. Confront your own ignorance.

        Oh! The Wikipedia article says that the U.S. provided significant help to Israel. They said Israel won those on their own. Nah. They did alright in ‘67, fully stocked with U.S. weapons, because they knew it was coming. And in 73, the U.S. had to execute operation Nickel Grass to bail Israel out.

        Lmfao this would be funny if it weren’t so worrying for the future of humanity. The Yom Kippur war began when Egypt and Syria, supported by auxiliary forces from Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq, Algeria, Libya, Kuwait, Tunisia, Morocco, Cuba, and North Korea, launched a surprise attack on Israel on the Holy day of Yom Kippur, October 6th, 1973. The Arabic forces were supplied with weapons by their Soviet allies, and Israel was supplied by their American allies. Just in case you can’t count, that’s 12 Arabic and communist states versus Israel alone, with the advantage of surprise. Israel proceeded to absolutely rout the opposing forces in a matter of weeks.

        After three days of heavy fighting, Israel halted the Egyptian offensive, resulting in a military stalemate on that front, and pushed the Syrians back to the pre-war ceasefire lines. The Israeli military then launched a four-day-long counter-offensive deep into Syria, and within a week Israeli artillery began to shell the outskirts of the Syrian capital of Damascus. Egyptian forces meanwhile pushed for two strategic mountain passes deeper within the Sinai Peninsula but were repulsed, and Israeli forces counter-attacked by crossing the Suez Canal into Egypt and advancing towards Suez City. On 22 October, an initial ceasefire brokered by the United Nations unravelled, with each side blaming the other for the breach.

        By 24 October, the Israelis had improved their positions considerably and completed their encirclement of the Egyptian Third Army and Suez City, bringing them within 100 kilometres (62 mi) of the Egyptian capital of Cairo.

        Your argument is that the US provided significant help to Israel and they wouldn’t have been able to win without the US. It was a fucking surprise attack and they were able to turn the tide within three days. That not even enough time for supplies to get shipped into Israel from the States. Guess what else? The Soviet Union provided more help to Syria and Egypt than the US did to Israel, as it stated in the Wikipedia article which you linked, but apparently didn’t take the time to read.

        In the end, the military airlift shipped 22,325 tons of materiel to Israel. Additionally, the U.S. conducted its own seaborne re-supply operation, delivering 33,210 tons to Israel by 30 October.[17] During the same general time, the Soviets airlifted 12,500–15,000 tons of supplies, more than half of which went to Syria; they also supplied another 63,000 tons mainly to Syria by means of a sealift.

        66,00 tons of material from the Soviets versus 55,000 tons from the USA. Please stop spreading propaganda; you’re just a happy idiot, but bad actors move people like you around like pawns on a chessboard. Hamas is playing you like a fiddle and you don’t even realize.

        They did alright in ‘67, fully stocked with U.S. weapons, because they knew it was coming.

        I don’t know how to explain this to you, but the fact that they didn’t know it was coming in 73, or many times since then, is exactly why they have some moral ground to stand on. Invading another nation without declaring war in advance is barbaric and cowardly. Regardless of any other opinions that you hold, surely we can agree that any military action should be announced in advance and directed towards military targets? I don’t believe that any civilized person can fail to understand that principle. If armed conflict is inevitable, at least give forewarning and let the defenseless women, children, and elderly get to safety.

        Israel does that. Hamas does the exact opposite. They go out of their way to attack defenseless Israeli civilians and they actively put their own civilians in harms way so that they can use their preventable deaths for political maneuvering. Absolutely disgusting, indefensible behavior.

        • Monument@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          I said the U.S. supported Israel so it could be their bully in the region, and you said that I claimed the U.S. was destabilizing the Middle East. Aside from being pretty telling that you made that assumption, I don’t know how your misunderstanding of what I thought was a self-evident statement matters. In my later comment I acknowledged that the U.S. also does destabilize countries in the Middle East(and supports countries that support its aims), as a way of acknowledging (and correcting/clarifying) what you said, even though I thought it was a stupid fucking statement and I knew someone was going to try to get into the weeds with it.
          Now you’re asking me to defend my comments on clarifying your misunderstanding? lol.

          I note, however, you’ve never challenged the assertion that the U.S. uses Israel as a bully. Merely you’re arguing semantics of a fictional point of disagreement you imagined.

          The person I replied to said Israel has always held their own. I showed how they had not, and needed U.S. support to hold their own.
          An absolute statement is met with an absolute dismissal when any part of that statement is proven wrong. That’s how debate works, champ.

          As for the rest of your thoughts on the matter: I do not care. You do not rank.

          • ashenblood
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            Seriously dude wtf are you smoking and where can I get some?

            Has the US been following a geopolitical strategy of destabilizing the Middle East for the past 70 years? Yes or no?

            The person I replied to said Israel has always held their own. I showed how they had not, and needed U.S. support to hold their own.
            An absolute statement is met with an absolute dismissal when any part of that statement is proven wrong. That’s how debate works, champ.

            Define “held their own”. You claim that you proved they haven’t always held their own. You need to define the term first in order to prove the claim.

            As for the rest of your thoughts on the matter: I do not care. You do not rank.

            You are an absolute clown 🤡