5 ms·

Support / condemnation will be staunchly factionally split from within all Western Nations. Speaking about a National Unified Will is ridiculous at this stage i

Support / condemnation will be staunchly factionally split from within all Western Nations. Speaking about a National Unified Will is ridiculous at this stage in history. Eventually, the anti-Israel faction will dominate everywhere except for one or two select Nations that does not include the US. Though, its possible that the US also stays loyal for an indefinite time period. Accurate predication for support / condemnation is rooted in deeper history and geopolitical logic than most people consider.

sebzim4500 2y ago
I think this is very much up in the air. A high profile Islamic terrorist attacks would shift the narrative, for example. On the other side, if the war cools down a bit people will gradually lose interest in the same way that no one cares about Modi's past actions.
- mrangle 2y ago
  It could be up in the air. For perspective, I'm with Israel. Though, I'm for saving as many Palestinian lives as humanly possible. Which should be all of them, should the clerics and State Actors stop abusing them via radicalization and the Islamic World works with Israel toward offering appropriate options. But what I'm speaking about, in terms of prediction, isn't the way that the wind blows. What I'm speaking about is high level State intention. No one today can seriously believe that State political orientation is a grassroots effect. The reality is that, with the exception of extremely unstable States that are de facto puppets of other Nations, the broad political orientation of modern States is an effect of the allowable movements, opinions, revolutions, propaganda, and migrations that are facilitated by the agencies over decades. Ergo, the eventual orientation of any State toward or away from Israel has to be assumed to be in that State's geopolitical interest as dictated at the highest level. As we can easily observe, if there was an event and the resultant popular effect was not in the State's interest than, no matter what, the event would be minimized into oblivion by State Press. Conversely, the Press will manufacture events out of virtual non-events if that assists the State's interest. Only the State or God will determine whether or not it supports Israel, in any future. That's my starting point for prediction.
  - sebzim4500 2y ago
    >Only the State or God will determine whether or not it supports Israel Seems like in most cases the state is more pro-israel than the population. And God killed that Turkish guy so apparently he's pro-Israel too.
    - mrangle 2y ago
      >Seems like in most cases the state is more pro-israel than the population. In some cases. But like I said, Western Nations are now factional at a high level (in my observation, and whether or not this is an intentional result - in my view, it might be). And the short to medium term may not predict the long term. What is also possible is that what the State says, in any period, may not predict its long-term strategy.
    - ars 2y ago
      > Seems like in most cases the state is more pro-israel than the population. Not really. Go check the results of the popular vote for Eurovision. Israel came in second. There's a huge quiet population that is pro-Israel. They don't make noise with protests though, so some people don't realize they exist.
      - jltsiren 2y ago
        If there are 25 candidates, how many votes do you need to come in second? And how many supporters do you need for those votes, when it's pay-to-vote and everyone can vote as many times as they want? The fact that Israel didn't win the popular vote suggests that the support for them is not particularly strong in Europe.
        ars 2y ago
        > The fact that Israel didn't win the popular vote suggests that the support for them is not particularly strong in Europe. They came in second place. How is that "not particularly strong"? And the difference between the popular vote and the jury vote was especially dramatic for Israel. No one expected anything else though......
brabel 2y ago
The US seems to have been extremely strong in its reaction to the ruling. "“My colleagues and I look forward to make sure neither Khan, his associates nor their families will ever set foot again in the United States,” Republican Senator Tom Cotton wrote on X." "The ICC is the world’s first permanent international war crimes court and its 124 member states are obliged to immediately arrest the wanted person if they are on a member state’s territory." Source: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/5/21/no-equivalence-biden-defends-israel-after-icc-requests-arrest-warrants https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/5/21/no-equivalence-bide... I don't understand how the US and many other EU governments can be so extremely critical of a court which as far as I know has been considered legitimate by all of them (except the US which apparently removed its signature... anyone knows why?), and whose decisions have always been applauded by all of them (including Putin's arrest [1]), except for this last one. Quoting from the linked article [1]: "British journalist George Monbiot wrote in a Guardian op-ed that the ICC targeting Putin was an example of the organization's bias in favor of prosecuting crimes by non-Westerners, ...". Looks like that's the real issue here, doesn't it? Imagine a leader of a country saying that the judiciary's decision is wrong and that the judge won't be allowed to travel freely anymore because of that. That would be the end of the rule of law. Why is it different in this case? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court_arrest_warrants_for_Vladimir_Putin_and_Maria_Lvova-Belova https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court_a...
- nebula8804 2y ago
  You are making a conclusion based on rationality and governments operating correctly (ie. compromised based consensus between different sides of the political aisle) Tom Cotton is a clown senator that is an symbol of the dysfunction of the US government of the last few decades. He along with a few frequent imbeciles are the reason there is so much dysfunction. If there was any redeeming factor of the current US system, he would be impeached and removed a long time ago.

sebzim4500 2y ago

I think this is very much up in the air. A high profile Islamic terrorist attacks would shift the narrative, for example. On the other side, if the war cools down a bit people will gradually lose interest in the same way that no one cares about Modi's past actions.

mrangle 2y ago
It could be up in the air. For perspective, I'm with Israel. Though, I'm for saving as many Palestinian lives as humanly possible. Which should be all of them, should the clerics and State Actors stop abusing them via radicalization and the Islamic World works with Israel toward offering appropriate options. But what I'm speaking about, in terms of prediction, isn't the way that the wind blows. What I'm speaking about is high level State intention. No one today can seriously believe that State political orientation is a grassroots effect. The reality is that, with the exception of extremely unstable States that are de facto puppets of other Nations, the broad political orientation of modern States is an effect of the allowable movements, opinions, revolutions, propaganda, and migrations that are facilitated by the agencies over decades. Ergo, the eventual orientation of any State toward or away from Israel has to be assumed to be in that State's geopolitical interest as dictated at the highest level. As we can easily observe, if there was an event and the resultant popular effect was not in the State's interest than, no matter what, the event would be minimized into oblivion by State Press. Conversely, the Press will manufacture events out of virtual non-events if that assists the State's interest. Only the State or God will determine whether or not it supports Israel, in any future. That's my starting point for prediction.
- sebzim4500 2y ago
  >Only the State or God will determine whether or not it supports Israel Seems like in most cases the state is more pro-israel than the population. And God killed that Turkish guy so apparently he's pro-Israel too.
  - mrangle 2y ago
    >Seems like in most cases the state is more pro-israel than the population. In some cases. But like I said, Western Nations are now factional at a high level (in my observation, and whether or not this is an intentional result - in my view, it might be). And the short to medium term may not predict the long term. What is also possible is that what the State says, in any period, may not predict its long-term strategy.
  - ars 2y ago
    > Seems like in most cases the state is more pro-israel than the population. Not really. Go check the results of the popular vote for Eurovision. Israel came in second. There's a huge quiet population that is pro-Israel. They don't make noise with protests though, so some people don't realize they exist.
    - jltsiren 2y ago
      If there are 25 candidates, how many votes do you need to come in second? And how many supporters do you need for those votes, when it's pay-to-vote and everyone can vote as many times as they want? The fact that Israel didn't win the popular vote suggests that the support for them is not particularly strong in Europe.
      - ars 2y ago
        > The fact that Israel didn't win the popular vote suggests that the support for them is not particularly strong in Europe. They came in second place. How is that "not particularly strong"? And the difference between the popular vote and the jury vote was especially dramatic for Israel. No one expected anything else though......

brabel 2y ago

The US seems to have been extremely strong in its reaction to the ruling. "“My colleagues and I look forward to make sure neither Khan, his associates nor their families will ever set foot again in the United States,” Republican Senator Tom Cotton wrote on X." "The ICC is the world’s first permanent international war crimes court and its 124 member states are obliged to immediately arrest the wanted person if they are on a member state’s territory." Source: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/5/21/no-equivalence-biden-defends-israel-after-icc-requests-arrest-warrants https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/5/21/no-equivalence-bide... I don't understand how the US and many other EU governments can be so extremely critical of a court which as far as I know has been considered legitimate by all of them (except the US which apparently removed its signature... anyone knows why?), and whose decisions have always been applauded by all of them (including Putin's arrest [1]), except for this last one. Quoting from the linked article [1]: "British journalist George Monbiot wrote in a Guardian op-ed that the ICC targeting Putin was an example of the organization's bias in favor of prosecuting crimes by non-Westerners, ...". Looks like that's the real issue here, doesn't it? Imagine a leader of a country saying that the judiciary's decision is wrong and that the judge won't be allowed to travel freely anymore because of that. That would be the end of the rule of law. Why is it different in this case? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court_arrest_warrants_for_Vladimir_Putin_and_Maria_Lvova-Belova https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court_a...

nebula8804 2y ago
You are making a conclusion based on rationality and governments operating correctly (ie. compromised based consensus between different sides of the political aisle) Tom Cotton is a clown senator that is an symbol of the dysfunction of the US government of the last few decades. He along with a few frequent imbeciles are the reason there is so much dysfunction. If there was any redeeming factor of the current US system, he would be impeached and removed a long time ago.