October 7th: The Crumbling Facade of a Western Security Asset

October 7 wasn't the beginning, but it was the beginning of an end of sorts. For decades, the zionist state profited from its stature as a western security asset. Its position—surrounded by hostile neighbors, mired in protracted native resistance, and occupying a semi-pariah status as a serial violator of law—made it uniquely suited for the job. It served as a boondoggle for western arms dealers; a lab to test out weapons, methods of repression and the legal arguments to use them; a flex of western power in the region; a hitman, fixer and intelligence-gatherer; and a conduit to launder western backing for dictators and rogue actors. In exchange, the west gave Israel near-limitless material aid, diplomatic cover, propaganda, legal immunity, a free hand in occupied territory, and military-security guarantees. This patronage, together with Israel's historic victories in 1967 and 1973, secured a deterrent effect which let Israel menace the region with impunity; and the end of the Soviet union and the closing of the decolonial period made western hegemons the only real game in town.

October 7 changed that. The "al-Aqsa flood" operation revealed that Israeli intelligence is junk. Its response, on that day and afterward, confirmed that Israeli arms are good for nothing more than butchering civilians, including their own. Fifty years of shooting children in occupied territory (and a service made up largely of young people trying to move on and get a job) had left the military operationally too weak for actual war. Their attempt to bait Iran into the dilemma of capitulation or escalation backfired supremely, revealing Israel's strategic weaknesses, exposing the limits of its allies' sponsorship, and undoing a decades-long spell of status quo deterrence. Its "wild man" image—by which Israel used to cow its enemies into submission through disproportionate force, using what the U.S. calls its "qualitative military edge"—has reached diminishing returns, as have its western patrons' investments in it. Increasingly, the zionist state is less a security asset than a liability. Whatever the outcome of the present war, it's clear that Israel isn't quite the running dog of empire, but more like a barking dog, and rather more a whining one.

a reply to: BigRedChew

Interesting.

a reply to: BigRedChew

You could have just tacked this on to your last Israel bashing thread.

You spend a whole lot of time pontificating and bloviating just to say “I hate Israel and I don’t believe the Bible is true.”

a reply to: BigRedChew

Is Stormfront down for repairs?

I haven't seen this much Jewish hatred since Germany in 1939.

a reply to: Lapidoth

The essence of my original post goes well beyond a mere expression of dislike or disbelief. It's an analysis of geopolitical dynamics and shifts in strategic relationships over decades. By labeling it as mere pontification and bloviation, you seem to bypass the substantial arguments I presented about the changing role of Israel in the context of international politics and military strategy.

It’s critical to distinguish between criticizing state actions and policies, which are subject to political analysis and debate, and making sweeping generalizations about personal beliefs or sentiments towards a country or its people. My argument centers on tangible shifts in military effectiveness, strategic alliances, and the repercussions of these on global political stances.

I encourage you to engage with the specifics of these shifts, perhaps contesting or corroborating the strategic vulnerabilities and the implications I outlined. This could lead to a more fruitful discussion about the evolving geopolitical landscape and what it portends for regional and global stability.

a reply to: DBCowboy


It's crucial to differentiate between critical analysis of a state's policies and actions, and the hateful rhetoric you're associating with my discussion. My post does not express or support hatred towards any group; rather, it critiques the geopolitical role and strategies of a state from a historical and political perspective. The comparison to extremist views or historical acts of hatred is not only misplaced but also detracts from the opportunity to engage with the substance of geopolitical discourse.

To engage constructively, I would encourage a focus on the specific points raised regarding international relations, military strategy, and regional dynamics. These are subjects of legitimate scholarly and political analysis, and addressing them directly contributes more to our understanding than equating criticism with hate. Let's redirect our attention to these critical issues and explore them with the seriousness they warrant.

a reply to: BigRedChew

*yawn*

Basically a word salad to justify you hating on Jews.

a reply to: DBCowboy

It seems you might be dismissing the discussion too quickly. Labeling a detailed geopolitical analysis as mere "hate" or "word salad" does little to advance our understanding or engage in meaningful dialogue. If my initial points about the strategic and political shifts involving Israel didn't resonate with you, I'm here to discuss them further.

I encourage you to challenge the arguments presented with specific counterpoints rather than avoid the substantive issues at hand. By engaging directly with the content, we can elevate this conversation beyond simple accusations and move towards a more informed debate. Let’s focus on the substance and intricacies of the discussion. What specific parts of the analysis do you disagree with? Your insights are valuable, and addressing them directly could prove enlightening for us both.

a reply to: BigRedChew

I am disinclined to acquiesce to your request, as I feel that you make no salient nor meritable points in your loquacious diatribe.

I can use big words to sound smart too. But trying to use impressive language while communicating garbage is simply attempting to put lipstick on a pig.

It’s still a pig, just prettier.

duplicate

a reply to: BigRedChew

I don’t mind constructive debate. But that’s not really what you’re looking for. You seem like the Jehovah’s Witness of anti-Israel political propaganda. No matter what anyone tries to point out or bring up, you’ll always have your predetermined counter-argument ready because this is what you’ve trained for. Hating Israel is who you are. It’s your prime reality and anyone who gets near it gets sucked into its gravitational pull.
You don’t want debate, you want to prove why you’re right. And anyone who bites on your hook will only find themselves sucked into a Cambridge College Dictionary word-tornado that they’ll never get free from.

Double

a reply to: BigRedChew

No.

I call it as I see it.

If you want to argue for Jewish hatred, then that's on you, puddin.

a reply to: Lapidoth


Your latest response is rife with assumptions and dismissals that contribute nothing to the discourse except perhaps illustrating your own reluctance to engage with challenging perspectives. Labeling me as a propagandist simply because my analysis is thorough and critically oriented toward Israel’s geopolitical strategies is not just baseless—it’s intellectually lazy.

Debating complex issues requires more than just throwing around personal attacks and making wild comparisons to religious proselytizers. It requires grappling with the actual content of the arguments presented. My detailed critique of Israel’s strategic and political shifts is rooted in verifiable facts and legitimate geopolitical analysis, not blind hatred or bias as you’ve implied.

If you're prepared to discuss these matters seriously, then challenge the points I've made with evidence and reasoned argument, not by questioning my character or motives. If you can’t do that, then it’s clear who’s really avoiding the substantive debate here. Let’s see if you can rise to the occasion and address the issues head-on, or if you'll continue to hide behind rhetorical smokescreens.

a reply to: DBCowboy


Your refusal to engage with the substance of the discussion and defaulting instead to baseless accusations of "Jewish hatred" is intellectually dishonest and frankly, lazy. If you can't differentiate between a critical examination of state policies and actual bigotry, then you're not ready to participate in any meaningful political discourse.

Calling out political and strategic analyses as hatred without addressing any of the actual points raised is a tactic to shut down conversation, not enhance it. This isn't about personal attacks or catchy insults; it's about addressing real, tangible issues in international relations.

If you're going to accuse me of something as serious as hatred, you better be prepared to back it up with more than just flippant remarks and dismissals. Engage with the arguments presented, or admit that you might not have the depth to discuss these issues at this level.

a reply to: BigRedChew

Counter argument then.

If you are so bloody intellectually superior, then post something that supports the Nation of Israel.

a reply to: DBCowboy


Your challenge to present something supportive of Israel as a test of my intellectual objectivity is a transparent diversion from the issues we've been discussing. However, I'll entertain this briefly—not because my argument needs to balance criticism with praise to be valid, but to demonstrate that my understanding of Israel is comprehensive.

Israel is indeed a hub of innovation, contributing significantly to global technology, particularly in cybersecurity and medical research. It's also a democracy in a region where few exist, maintaining a degree of press freedom and judicial independence that are commendable.

However, acknowledging these facts does not invalidate the criticisms of its policies, nor does it serve as a counterweight to the geopolitical issues previously discussed. My critique of Israel's strategic decisions and their impacts stands independent of its internal or external merits. Let's not simplify this into a binary of endorsing or opposing; the real world is more complex than that.

Now, back to the main thread: if you’re ready to seriously engage with the points I've made rather than shifting goalposts, let's proceed. Otherwise, it's clear you're more interested in rhetorical games than in genuine debate.