zazen

Yes. The US has already been forcing their hand indirectly by not enforcing any conditionality upon Israel, who then act forcefully upon the Palestinians. Despite many among them feeling entitled to all the land, I’m sure they’d at least welcome autonomy, statehood and safety. Its better than the alternative status quo they’v had to deal with. Security is a valid concern, the primary one in fact. If we forget about the factions in Israel who desire to dominate and expand territory, the ones who want to just live in peace with what they have are concerned with the possibility of ending occupation threatening their security. Heres a quote from Thomas Jefferson in regards to abolition: “We have the wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go” That quote captures the tension: the fear of both continuing the institution of slavery and the fear of what might happen if it were abruptly abolished. Just as slavery was morally wrong despite concerns about security and stability, so too is occupation today. How to end Hamas:

Crazy.

Nice tik tok breakdown. Here are three videos that compliment your post very well focusing on how imperialism works today: Gotta be careful when critiquing the West as it can offend many Westerners self perception. Critiquing the West challenges the very myth upon which many Westerners have built their identity. The Spiral dynamics framework can even subtly reinforce this notion of being 'higher than' the global south. When you highlight ways in which the West aren't that far removed from attitudes and actions reminiscent of lower stages they reflexively recoil. Its important to not become self loathing which extreme stage green is inclined towards.

@royce In relation to that: https://x.com/maxblumenthal/status/1845241058936094812?s=46&t=DuLUbFRQFGpB8oo7PwRglQ Not sure why my Twitter links never embed anymore.

Sad to see most are against it. It’s almost as if the solution has to be imposed by international players as a last resort. But like Leo said, that means the US going against Israel’s military which will never happen. That’s what bugs me with this whole situation - I almost feel more disappointed in the US than Israel. Whilst Israel is pulling the trigger, US is loading the gun. And that’s all fine if the gun is used for actual defence but when it so clearly isn’t and hasn’t been for a long enough time, they still do. Israels like a drunk friend who got into a fight and wants revenge on the guy that K.O’d him at the bar. He goes on a rampage shooting up the whole bar and the more sober friend being America who is distant enough to clearly see the situation just keeps giving him the bullets. Then again, the US elite have a vested interest in this flaring up also without suffering the loss of life Israelis themselves may have to. It’s mutually beneficial for the few, but mutually destructive for the many. @royce That Gaza doc is shocking. It’s one thing watching atrocities drip fed over the course of a year, but seeing them all compiled like that is something else. How anyone can be on the fence after a year is mind boggling.

That's why Tim Pool and Ben Shapiro are more enlightened then both of us haha.

When you say scarf do you mean head scarf or shawl / loose cloth for the body? Women have worn scarves even predating Islam and across different cultures and continents. The main motivation is for modesty. Modesty isn't oppression, in fact its a shield against potential oppression and harassment done at the hands of men who let nature get the better of them. It's to avoid objectification and the wrong kind of attention. A distinction can be made between sexy and beautiful. Being sexy invites lust - the wrong kind of predatory attention, whilst beauty doesn't. Though, extreme absolutist interpretation of religion or traditions go so far as to even hide beauty which is taking things to the extreme. The perception of modesty as oppressive is when that modesty is enforced rather than chosen voluntarily. We can easily understand why modesty is important around the body, which is the most visibly provocative form, but the reasoning for covering the hair in particular isn't so obvious. It used to be a status symbol to be veiled or cover the hair because the hair was seen as a symbol of beauty, fertility and health. To cover it was to take pride in the fact that it holds a special place in their life, it was like the virtue signalling of the day. There is also a spiritual/esoteric reasoning. I read in some of Osho's work once regarding this also - that the covering the of the head is a way to conserve energy leaking out from it, and to accumulate energy at the crown chakra to help one ascend in their journey. It's interesting that this occurs across cultures and continents - somehow, they seem to come upon the same practices despite not being able to communicate or interact back in the day. So there may be something there also. Regarding Islam and women:

According to Sachs Russia has pursued peace and cooperation with the West despite the West continuously crossing its lines. The act of invading Ukraine was the moral quagmire I had mentioned on the other thread - that I sympathised more with Russia than with Israel though they both visibly have transgressed. But then when looked at with context, it seems Russia goes to war more out of necessity (due to provocation from the West as you've rightly pointed out) whilst the West goes to war just looking for the next one to perpetuate their hegemony and war economy. ''Provocations work in the shadows, manipulating circumstances without crossing overt lines. They give those that do the provoking plausible deniability while creating conditions that almost guarantee an eventual reaction from the cornered party that they can then paint as the villain.'' I won't derail the thread further with the topic.

This is a under appreciated factor in what influences the psychology behind US foreign policy and by extension what influences Israel. The geopolitical insulation of the US gives it the unique position to be violent and commit violence across the world - and suffer little consequence for it, at least in the short-medium term. This attitude and sense of superiority rubs off on and only amplifies any existing sense of trauma induced entitlement Israel has, which becomes a moral hazard to them. The combination of impunity, arrogance and being hypersensitive (due to historic trauma) to threats that are amplified is what we're seeing. Neocons don't appreciate the gravity of violence, which means they can't appreciate the value of peace. Watch the following from 3:50sec - Wesley Clark talking about the neocons desire to destabilise and dominate the Middle East. The Clean Break report, a policy document prepared in 1996 by a study group led by Richard Perle and Benjamin Netanyahu is quite a eye opener to everything we have seen transpire and are seeing today. Richard Perle served in the Bush administration and is now notoriously known to have architected the Iraq war. This is why Israel and the US work in unison, using each other for plausible deniability and to achieve their outcomes of domination. The same attitude but in different latitudes that drives this whole shit show is that of domination.

@hundreth The video above covers exactly what you outline. Sadly, I also see that as the most possible outcome. Just imagine, the anger of the people Israel will have to preside over in this occupation of Gaza - the parents and relatives of over 15'000 killed children. We are banking on the Palestinians transcending their loss and suffering to make peace with the same Israelis who killed their loved ones and will still be occupying them except more closely. The instinct of revenge is so relatable to the human experience that the revenge arc makes many movies famous - Kill Bill, John Whick, Revenant, Gladiator. As if the Palestinians aren't going to resist their new reality, as if some of them aren't going to exact revenge. It seems Israel and its backers can't stop because stopping would mean reckoning with what they've done, rather than obfuscate their crimes which the world has clearly witnessed by continuously opening new fronts of war and being provocative. Israel and the US are almost in a death spiral they can't get out of, a blood soaked ponzi scheme.

I like the trigonometry podcast. He's already false when he says the core premise of the argument that 'History didn't begin on October 7th' is that the state of Israel is illegitimate and shouldn't exist which is a view you can find amongst the more extreme crowds usually younger, un wise and un serious. But serious people question how Israel exists, not its existence. He also seems to understand Russias invasion of Ukraine as illegal and morally wrong, but can't acknowledge Palestinian occupation as illegal and morally wrong. To him international law is a buffet to pick and choose from. Here's a good video where you can hear all his viewpoints whilst being rebutted: Also:

I get you. Its just that its easier and more efficient to say'' the West'' or ''Israel'' or ''China'' when referring to the actions of the government rather than always having to write Western Elites or the deep state. When people critique countries, cultures or civilizations theirs usually a shared assumption that they're referring to the actions of the state or ruling classes within them. I personally have family in both Israel and US, so I don't mean to generalize that all Westerners and Israeli's are complicit in the crimes or flaws I point out. I think a question can be asked though, at what point is the society to blame and not just the state or elites? That gets complex. I also think a distinction can be made where you can call a state a terrorist state but not the society that state governs over. Check this new clip going around of Smotrich claiming Israel can encompass Jordan and Syria (correct the translation if wrong?). This is currently who's in government. This plan and what we have seen the past decades up to now aligns with ''A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm (commonly known as the "Clean Break" report)'' which is a policy document prepared in 1996 by a study group led by Richard Perle for Benjamin Netanyahu. Richard Perle was ''A key advisor to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in the Bush administration, Perle was an architect of the Iraq War.'' (Source: Wiki). Here's some information on it: ''The report explained a new approach to solving Israel's security problems in the Middle East with an emphasis on "Western values." It has since been criticized for advocating an aggressive new policy including the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and the containment of Syria by engaging in proxy warfare and highlighting its possession of "weapons of mass destruction". ''Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq—an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right—as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions.'' ''It is understandable that Israel has an interest supporting diplomatically, militarily and operationally Turkey’s and Jordan’s actions against Syria, such as securing tribal alliances with Arab tribes that cross into Syrian territory and are hostile to the Syrian ruling elite.'' ''Ian Buruma wrote in August 2003 in The New York Times that: Douglas Feith and Richard Perle advised Netanyahu, who was prime minister in 1996, to make "a clean break" from the Oslo accords with the Palestinians. They also argued that Israeli security would be served best by regime change in surrounding countries. Despite the current mess in Iraq, this is still a commonplace in Washington. In Paul Wolfowitz's words, "The road to peace in the Middle East goes through Baghdad." It has indeed become an article of faith (literally in some cases) in Washington that American and Israeli interests are identical, but this was not always so, and "Jewish interests" are not the main reason for it now. What we see, then, is not a Jewish conspiracy, but a peculiar alliance of evangelical Christians, foreign-policy hard-liners, lobbyists for the Israeli government and neoconservatives, a number of whom happen to be Jewish. But the Jews among them—Perle, Wolfowitz, William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, et al.—are more likely to speak about freedom and democracy than about Halakha (Jewish law). What unites this alliance of convenience is a shared vision of American destiny and the conviction that American force and a tough Israeli line on the Arabs are the best ways to make the United States strong, Israel safe and the world a better place..''

When there is moral bankruptcy, there is a place for moral anger to be used in the form of charged language that helps draw attention to injustices caused by that moral bankruptcy. Speaking with some emotion rather than as a robot also keeps readers engaged long enough to get to the point of why that injustice is wrong. We can talk about tier 1 and 2 or on the countless tears and misery caused by those injustices and how to make them stop. I was responding with the same energy to Gennadiy1981 who was saying Americans should be ashamed of living on stolen land from Native Indians. I want to highlight that if he can see that as a shameful act done in the past, why can't he also see how its shameful for Israeli's to be doing similar acts (not the exact same) in the present. So Americans should be ashamed for acts they didn't commit, that are behind them in the past and that a lot of their society have acknowledged as wrong, but Israeli's shouldn't be ashamed of actions their society is currently committing in the present moment that they can actually help stop? One thing many Americans are increasingly ashamed of and enraged by is not so much that their country was found on ethnic cleansing but that their country is fully facilitating and backing one right now. Stage green and leftists misplace their compassion and become too self loathing about past wrong doings but at least they resist present wrong doings. As highlighted in your post, the past should be learned from. As for why I focus on the US and by extension Israel - I'm focusing on the worlds largest military power, responsible for the most extensive and destructive network of wars, interventions and occupations in modern times. To make matters worse, its own population is subject to such sophisticated propaganda which is only starting to get shredded today thanks to social media. The cognitive dissonance imposed upon the American people is akin to mental abuse - to virtue signal to the world about values that it itself doesn't even embody. The hypocrisy and lack of integrity is not only sickening, it isn't even pragmatically in the US's favor as the worlds power dynamics shift towards multi polarity and regional rising players are beginning to challenge its hegemony. Israel is a much smaller player but serves as a linchpin for US interests in the Middle east - one of the most critical strategically placed, resource rich, demographically rich regions in the world which is a geographic bridge between East and West. This region was destabilized in the name of defense, at devastating human cost. But it wasn't defense, it was domination dressed up as defense. It was bombed into the stone age, the irony being that the ones doing it seem to be acting with a stone age mentality of barbarism, just with shinier gadgets which they think make them 'civilized'. They think giving minority rights domestically and proudly waving the colorful LGBT flag, entitles them to dominate majority of the world who they expect will submit to their domination with a pasty white flag. Israel and the US are each others insurance, they help each other in their plausible deniability for their actions. The US says their helping their ally in the region whilst dominating that region, and Israel name drops the US as its back up so no one messes with them. Netenyahu boasted in his UN speech that the 'long arm of Israel can reach anywhere' but it isn't Israels long arm, its Americas. Ignoring the US while talking about global injustice is ignoring the elephant in the room.

The Houthis didn’t just appear to spread chaos, they’re the result of chaos heavily caused at the hands of the US. Same with Hamas and Hezbollah but at the hands of Israel causing that chaos. Dictatorships versus the West? The US wants to dictate to the world how it should live and breath, Israel wants to dictate to Palestinians and the region it’s in - who’s the dictator? They want the world and entire regions to be okay with the IDF and American cowboy boot on their necks, and when they get bit on the ankle they cry self defense.

The idea or ideal of a chosen people gave moral cover to European settlers in the new Americas and set the tone for justifying their “manifest density” - that they are divinely ordained to expand and claim land. This is where Israel and America are similar, except that America has fulfilled its manifestation (domestically) and Israel hasn’t - though this same attitude still causes America to seek and maintain global hegemony which is why critics claim America or ‘the West’ hasn’t evolved from its colonial days. Or if it has, it has only evolved along the horizontal plane of the material world and not the moral plane of the vertical. Its lopsided development, that they flaunt as progress and superiority. America started with genocide, and its chapter as a global hegemon ends with being complicit in a plausible genocide. Above is a triple threat axis of finger wagging lecturing. I’m interested to hear what people think. Respectfully.

Former CIA officer and executive director of The Council for the National Interest on whether Israel is a good ally of the US:

Maybe the best we can do beyond voicing our opinion via protests etc is to vote with our wallets and feet. If money dictates outcomes, influence the flow of that money. Financial consequences is a domain vested interests actually have skin in the game for.

Basically asking the Lebanese to go to civil war or they’ll be Gaza’d.

Interesting tweet on China: https://x.com/rnaudbertrand/status/1841329313427460347?s=46&t=DuLUbFRQFGpB8oo7PwRglQ This translated discussion (link at bottom) between two of China's top international relations scholars - Zhang Yunling and Tang Shiping - is really interesting. It illustrates just how profoundly different Chinese thoughts on foreign affairs are, and how much more sophisticated they are than what we're used to hearing in the West. First of all, small bio: - Zhang Yunling is the Director of the Institute of International Studies at Shandong University (next to the birthplace of Confucius) and a Member of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, China's most prestigious institution for social sciences. - Tang Shiping is a distinguished professor at the School of International Relations and Public Affairs of Fudan University, Shanghai's top university. He's on Twitter by the way: @ShipingTang A summary of some of the more interesting points: External constraints are helpful for China Zhang Yunling says that "external constraints—as long as they do not lead to confrontation or attempts to destroy China—are actually helpful for our country". Which at first glance is completely counter-intuitive: if you listen to Western international relations scholars like Mearsheimer, a country's foremost objective should be to have as little constraint as possible. So how does it make sense? Zhang explains that "all major powers have a tendency towards self-centredness and hegemony. [On account of] today's challenging international landscape, maintaining hegemony involves enormous costs." So in effect he believes that external constraints help check these natural impulses to be self-centered - aka hubristic and not listening to the world - and/or hegemonic, which he says "involves enormous costs", meaning it is not sustainable or beneficial for China (or any other power). Zhang further emphasizes that this view is based on his "basic judgment" that "in today's world, no country has the ability to invade China anymore." Which means that external constraints shouldn't be too worrying as they effectively aren't existential. One way to view it is like in a competition between companies. A company that's unconstrained, with no competition, will become a fat complacent monopoly and in the long run this sows the seeds of its eventual demise. Against black and white thinking This is typically the one thing that we in the West have the hardest time with in Chinese thought, because it comes so naturally to us to think in absolutes, to see something as either "good" or "bad" and someone as either "with us" or "against us", which always necessarily leads us towards confrontation. This way of thinking is however almost completely absent from Chinese thought, they simply do not think like this. This is reflected in the discussion here. For instance Zhang argues that in reaction to the U.S. forcing countries to take side, China shouldn't start doing so in turn but instead opt for the concept of “choosing projects, not sides” [选项不选边]. And in case some countries do choose to side with the U.S. the concept with them should be “choosing sides but still choosing projects” [选边亦选项] whereby "these countries may have to side with the US on certain issues, but this does not mean they will completely refuse to cooperate with China." As Zhang explains, the overall objective of all this is to "create a flexible space for coexistence" as opposed to "be swayed by our emotions" and "define relationships based on the choice of sides". Similarly for China's periphery they speak of the concept of "my neighbours and I", meaning that "China and its neighbours jointly create a region of coexistence, with the goal of achieving coexistence and coprosperity". This is in stark contrast with, for instance, the US's Monroe doctrine of establishing a "backyard" through brute force. As Zhang explains, China's approach purposefully establishes no hierarchy between countries, prioritizes dialogue and negotiations "instead of traditional military force", considers others' interests, all with coexistence and mutual prosperity as ultimate objectives. Also, they have a concept of "close but not intimate" [近而不亲], meaning that they purposefully seek to maintain certain distances or boundaries with their neighbors in order to avoid situations of dependence and to uphold the concept of China not imposing sides. Some will immediately say "but the South China Sea" or "but the Philippines", but looking at the bigger picture it's absolutely undeniable that all in all China's neighbours have become prosperous thanks to China's rise. For instance it's incredible to think that ASEAN's economy added more to global economic growth between 2000 and 2020 than did the whole of the EU! And a big part of the reason is because China-ASEAN trade exploded from $40 billion in 2000 to $975 billion in 2022. It's also undeniable that despite skirmishes here and there, peaceful coexistence is a fact: there have been no wars in the region in over 4 decades and it's undeniable that countries in the region aren't forced by China to choose sides. On the contrary, countries that are involved in these skirmishes like the Philippines are those that - quite the coincidence - unequivocally chose to vassalize themselves to the U.S... All in all, this shows that China doesn't see the world in binary terms but rather seeks the emergence of self-reinforcing mutually beneficial system with its neighbors and the world. Which is less costly for China (in terms of military, paying off vassals, etc.) and in the end more beneficial: if your neighbors thrive, if the world thrives, you also benefit in multitude of ways. At the end of the day it's a more sustainable and flexible approach than a Monroe doctrine imperialist approach with all the negative consequences we witness today. On the new world order They say that "China does not seek to replace or defeat the United States" but still "hopes to change the world", in particular by "giving more space to developing countries and creating opportunities for shared participation in and distribution of global wealth". For this Zhang proposes the idea of “building temples, renovating temples, but not demolishing temples”. He defines it as such: "China can establish new systems [i.e. economic, regulatory, political etc.]. If you are able to, go ahead and build them, [but] your ideas must be widely accepted. This is not about forming alliances or drawing together military cliques; rather it is more about reflecting China's economic interests. 'Renovating temples' means supplementing existing systems. 'Not demolishing temples' means being a builder, not a destroyer." They also differentiates the notion of "responsible major power" as opposed to the U.S. which they see as a "destructive power". More concretely, they argue that a "responsible major power" has three roles: "defender [捍卫者], contributor [贡献者] and builder [建设者]" which is to be contrasted from "the traditional path of hegemonic expansion". This is in the context of them believing that in the new world order "power will shift from being overly concentrated to being more dispersed", so China sees itself as playing a crucial role in shaping a more balanced global system that better represents the interests of non-Western and developing countries, while still working within and improving upon existing international frameworks rather than overturning them entirely. Overall conclusion: This discussion reveals a level of strategic depth in Chinese foreign policy thinking that often goes unrecognized in the West, and one that's also more and more absent in Western thinking. What's particularly striking is the emphasis on sustainable, long-term strategies that see the world holistically as opposed to a sum of parts. By advocating for a "flexible space for coexistence" and rejecting the binary thinking that often dominates Western approaches, it shows that China is simply playing a different game altogether. We're very, very away from the halfwitted neocon thinking we've been too used to... Ultimately, this discussion underscores the need for Western policymakers and scholars to engage more deeply with Chinese strategic thinking. If only to understand what China actually seeks instead of our usual habit of assuming they think like us, but also because it offers fascinating ways of redefining how international relations could potentially work.

On point and sharp. Check this short 1 min clip also: https://x.com/utism_/status/1843006917012226388 "We are going to take out 7 countries in 5 years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and finishing it off with Iran" and here we are.. Israel and the US are terrorist states, not terrorist societies - but its political elite and vested interests.

Reporters are sick of the bullshit: 'We hear that Putin, Khomeini are war criminals, they're terrorists, as if they're too inherently evil or immoral for us (West) to be able to negotiate with but meanwhile, this administration has financed a genocide in Gaza for the last year and everyday your up there denying accountability for it. So what gives you the right to lecture other countries'' 'It is a genocide, you are abetting it, and risking nuclear war in Ukraine''

This 13min video shows how Iran got to where it is today really well: Kim Dotcom: ''Iran is a victim of decades of injustice perpetrated by the US and the UK in an effort to control Irans oil. They couped the democratically elected leader of Iran in 1953 and installed a US puppet until the Iranian revolution in 1979. Over 500,000 Iranians have died in the US-Iraq war against Iran. Even more died because of US sanctions. Iran is not a terrorist state. Iran has been forced to defend itself against regime change efforts and colonial aggression from the US and their satellites in the Middle East. The Iranians should be applauded for aiding the Palestinian people in their struggle against the illegal occupation by Israel and decades of injustice, theft and dehumanization. Iran has a long history of standing up to bullies. The Persians have fought the Romans, the Turks and the Mongols. Survival is deeply encoded in the Iranian DNA. A war with Iran would be a massive miscalculation by Israel and the US. Iran has prepared for this war. It has a formidable army and a significant arsenal of long range ballistic and hypersonic missiles. Russia and China would support Iran in a war against the US and Israel. Ukraine in reverse. With the big difference that the US can never defeat Iran unlike Russia which is currently destroying the Ukrainian army and its NATO equipment in the US proxy war. The Rand corporation should have titled its infamous warmongering research paper more accurately: ‘Overextending and Unbalancing America and the EU.’ A war against Iran would result in an acceleration of the inevitable decline of US empire and the destruction of Israel. The risk of Israel utilizing nuclear weapons against Iran is significant. It would not lead to victory but to global condemnation and punishment against the Jewish people. Whoever is in charge of the US Govt right now should establish urgent client control and stop the mass murdering war criminal @netanyahu before it’s too late. Jews everywhere should demand the resignation of this lunatic for the purpose of self preservation. Watch the video below to understand that the so called ‘terrorists’ in Iran are simply the victims of endless bullying and deserve nothing but respect from any fair minded person. Resisting evil bullies who want to steal your natural resources is not terrorism.''

Is a occupier balanced with who he occupies? Is a business owner in balance with who works for him? Is a person with a rock and a person with a gun equally responsible for the violence they commit between one another? The problem isn't that Palestinians want a state, the problem is Israel obstructing them from one which is their right by law. If you win the lottery for a million dollars and I get in the way of you receiving that million dollars - am I right or wrong for doing so?

Seems like the ethnic cleansing and dispossession will continue if this video indicates what looks like West Bank 2.0 in the making : New buffer zones created in Gaza by dividing it into fractured blocks to be monitored via check points stationed in multiple corridors. So instead of occupying it from outside, they will occupy it from within. Any Hamas fighters or ''resistance'' to this dystopia that pops up from the tunnels will be stamped out like a game of whack a mole as the IDF will be watching like hawks over it. This isn't a solution, only a escalation of a already intolerable reality. As if we haven't seen what Israel has already done with their power except nothing but abuse it in the West Bank with settlement expansion. This reality will be copy and pasted onto Gaza as the precedent is already set. All this done in the 21st century, backed by the West. The world failed the Palestinian people, shame.

Twitter thread from Mouin Rabbani: 1. The Axis of Resistance is a coalition rather than a formal alliance. It consists of states, movements, and militias that share the common objective of confronting and reducing US and Israeli influence in the Middle East, and at times of weakening governments allied with the West as well. 2. Iran is the most powerful member of this coalition and therefore a central and highly-influential player. But it does not command the Axis of Resistance. It is more the Germany of the European Union than the Soviet Union of the Warsaw Pact. Its influence is also far from uniform and, as demonstrated by the shifts in Iranian-Syrian relations during the past quarter century, changes over time. Some militias operating in Iraq and Syria have all the hallmarks of Iranian proxies. Yemen’s AnsarAllah clearly does not. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps was closely involved with the establishment of Hizballah, which for good measure fully subscribes to the Islamic Republic’s system of rule. But it is today powerful enough to make its decisions in Beirut rather than Tehran. Hamas for its part has had an ambivalent relationship with the Axis. At the outset of the Syrian civil war Hamas broke with Damascus, and its exile leadership moved not to Beirut or Tehran but Doha, and a rupture with Iran lasting almost half a decade ensued. 3. It’s transparently clear that the 7 October attacks were neither an Iranian initiative nor coordinated with the Axis of Resistance. So transparently clear that US and Israeli intelligence have come to the same conclusion to preserve their credibility. I don’t believe Hamas ever expected its coalition allies to immediately unleash similar offensives of their own upon Israel. It must have understood that just as Hamas prioritized its own interests and agenda, others would do so as well. 4. Nevertheless, Hizballah on 8 October opened what it termed a support front against Israel, and over the next two months was joined by Yemen and militias in Iraq and Syria. Iran played a supporting role, except when it was directly targeted by Israel. 5. The purpose of the support fronts has been to engage in multi-front attritional warfare against Israel, and to a lesser extent against its allies, in order to raise the costs to Israel and its Western sponsors of continuing the genocidal campaign against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. To this end, they have repeatedly stated that their attacks would cease the moment a ceasefire takes hold in the Gaza Strip. 6. Preventing coordinated or unified action by its adversaries has been a guiding principle of Israeli statecraft going back to the 1949 Armistice negotiations that ended the Palestine War. De-linking the support fronts from the Gaza Strip, and then from each other has therefore been an Israeli priority. 7. As a rule, states and conventional militaries prefer to avoid wars of attrition, particularly when these are prosecuted on their territory. They are too costly in terms of the social, economic, and manpower losses involved. This forms the crucial context for the dramatic escalations of the past week. 8. Israel’s dilemma in this respect is two-fold: Its campaigns to de-link and suppress the support fronts risk their escalation into additional full-scale conflicts independent of the war against Gaza. And secondly, the longer this campaign continues the greater the prospect of a full-scale regional conflagration. 9. In other words, the combination of Israel’s inability to achieve a decisive outcome in the Gaza Strip, and refusal to accept a ceasefire agreement, has forced it to play double or nothing. Either Hizballah capitulates and dismantles its support front, or it will face the full force of the Israeli military. Yemen has withstood similar efforts by the US-UK naval task force in the Red Sea. Short of a mortal Israeli blow against Hizballah and its military capabilities, a scenario that no one takes seriously, it also won’t work in Lebanon. 10. Yet from Israel’s perspective the challenge is also a unique opportunity. With Biden wrapped firmly around his finger, Netanyahu believes that the period until January 2025 is ideal to provoke a direct US-Iranian confrontation. And he seems to have decided that the road to Tehran goes through the southern suburbs of Beirut. 11. Just to be clear, tails don’t wag dogs. Dogs wag tails. Washington may well have liked for Israel to approach things differently, but it is geopolitically invested in preventing an Israeli defeat. And that is what makes this moment so particularly dangerous. END