Today, 19 June 2024, Judge Napolitano and I discussed the latest events in the Middle East, Ukraine, and East Asia on his podcast — “Judging Freedom.” As usual, it is not a pretty picture anywhere you look.
Plenty of sane people. Also plenty of algorithms crafted to demphasize/shadow ban online sane and rational statements of such persons desires NOT to have their nations continue the madness of their rulers. If you were important, you'd be rich too. So fuck off, annoying little people.
"... if these people were free to vote according to what they thought was in America's strategic interest or what was ethically or morally correct, the United States would have a fundamentally different policy." (24:12)
For once I find myself disagreeing with Prof Mearsheimer, on his assessment that the war will end in a frozen conflict. That would be unfinished business. Ultimately, both sides will have lost. Ukraine would have lost substantial territory; Russia would now have western nukes drawing ever nearer.
Surely Russia can't accept that. The whole point of this war is to remove an existential threat, right? Taking over four oblasts – or whatever they end up with – is pointless if it means the west get to station first strike nuclear missiles in Kharkov.
I can only assume that JJM meant a frozen conflict but on Russian terms i.e. Ukraine signs up to remaining outside NATO, and no western weapons stationed in the country that could hit Russia.
But does that fit the definition of a 'frozen conflict' if it's on one side's terms? I'm not a lawyer.
A frozen conflict would surely mean this whole 'project' has been a negative for so many countries. Ukraine. Russia. The USA has alienated so many countries you have to chalk it down as a big loss. Europe will have been backed into a them-or-us choice by the USA and will simply become a host for the American parasite to suck the money out of. You want oil, you buy ours, you want gas, you buy ours, you want computers, you buy ours, you want phones, you buy ours, you want hot dogs...
Today, the only country that seems to be a winner in all this is North Korea, who now have a friend.
Maybe someone should ask Victoria Nudelman if she was working for Kim Jong Un all this time...
Professor Mearsheimer, I'd love to hear your commentary on Col. Douglas MacGregor's view of how Iran, Turkey and Russia and of course us will react when Israel begins its aggression against Hezbollah. Peace.
As always thought provoking. Putin's peace plan which is a revival of the Istanbul accord, was a brilliant move in his diplomatic chessgame. I am convinced it was aimed at those who are trying to steer a more balanced course: Turkey, Brazil, South Africa+. Its rejection by the US now gives him free reign to smash Ukraine right up to the Polish border and replace the illegal Zelensky government with another that will revamp the Ukrainian constitution. I for one have never understood why Ukraine has never contemplated changing sides. Of course without Z.
I disagree with professor that Israel does not fit the US interests. There are numerous:
Moral interest.
The atrocities done to the Jewish people are well documented. The existence of the Jewish nation in the Land of Israel, which is now known as Palestine is a historical fact. Thus, the re-establishment of the Jewish nation state in Jewish ancestral land is a high moral ground in the fight against injustice.
Strategic interest.
Israel is in the strategically important location and guarantees the US influence in that part of the world.
Military interest
Israel serves as a know-how for weapons research and field testing.
Religious (for some)
For those who read the Bible, the support is obvious.
You did not understand what the professor said. He said, “That is why you need the Israeli lobby (the reason why the US supports Israel). If our (US) relationship with Israel made strategic and moral sense, you would not need a lobby. We (US) would just behave the way we now behave towards Israel because it’s in our strategic interest because it’s the morally correct thing to do.”
You’re wrong again to say “the lobby is needed to oppose the views…” The lobby is there to influence the politicians and administration of the US in its policy making in favor of Israel. That’s why it’s called “lobby.” From the dictionary, it means, “a group of people seeking to influence politicians or public officials on a particular issue.” Look it up.
hahaha, you do not understand how compounded statements work. Follow through until he mentioned the not ethical behavior of the lobby. But that’s ok. I can understand if english is not your first language.
He already made it clear in the beginning of his thought that if it was morally correct thing to do, you don’t need a lobby.
Professor Mearsheimer or anyone on this feed: is there any possibility that Israel will either cease to exist (ie dies out, fails, folds, or; becomes one nation with the Palestinians) or; that it will stop with the constant aggression and use of violence and become a reasonable, peaceably inclined state, that does not seek to expand at the cost of its neighbors?
The other day I listened to a distinguished former UK diplomat bemoaning the fact that power in Israel is increasingly falling into the hands of what can only be called religious fundamentalists.
You're effectively talking about the Jewish equivalent of groups like Islamic State, believing that we should be living according to how it was written in hieroglyphics on stone blocks thousands of years before "Here's George Jetson" and Taylor Swift and rose-pink stetsons.
On the spectrum of Judaism, you're talking about the very very very very mad people end, not just the mad people.
And yet, the very very very very mad Israelis are in the saddle with their war paint on.
And yes, I agree. Their religious extremists with - if they are to be believed - points of view and deeply held convictions that are anathema to any Western mind, or person who is moderately rational and intelligent.
It seems to me that the little piece of real estate that comprises the settler colonial project of Israel, which is the “cradle” of the three great intolerant and bat shit crazy “Abrahamic”religions of this sad old world, is just a caldera of human misery, inequity, cruelty and barbarism - and I place the blame on the three religions that claim it as their own. Rather than God’s Peace - an intractable evil emanates from the region; an evil that infects the world.
"the three great intolerant and bat shit crazy “Abrahamic”religions of this sad old world"
I couldn't agree more.
I'd put all of them in a cage and tell them the last one alive wins a prize.
The prize for the sole survivor would be a bullet in the head, in case he (or she) decided his (or her) winning bat shit crazy religion was something that ought to be perpetuated.
Meanwhile the rest of us would be having a grand old time without them.
I look at the Israelis bombing hospitals and it reminds me of Mel Gibson's "Apocalypto". The perpetrators are basically just savages. Apes in a rage.
Black swans are real. I have a gut feeling (for what it's worth) that Israel as we know it won't exist in 25 years.
Israel in its current form exists by grace of the US. I don't care how vaunted their military or their tech is; internally, they've got deep demographic issues and externally, they just have zero strategic depth. I don't see them surviving on their own in the face of Muslim pressure. It might be another thing if the Arabs (writ large) gave up polygamy, but that's very unlikely. As for US support, I think that soon will come the time when the US won't be able to project that to the Middle Est anymore, for various reasons, and the region will be dominated by Russia, China and India (each in competition with the other).
Israel would need at least one big ally to survive (or many small ones). And making allies isn't exactly their strength. I was reading a bit of Jewish propaganda the other day, and they made it very clear that Jews had always, throughout History, been persecuted by their neighbours. Which is just another way of saying that they've never been able to establish peaceful relations with said neighbours. Factually, it's a lie, of course. But Judaism is fundamentally tribal. It's what distinguishes it from the other great religions, which are all universal. So making friends is not in their DNA (because otherness is what supports them). At the same time, they evidently have managed to survive for millennia. They're a tough bunch.
But what about the nukes? one might ask. In 25 years, both Iran and Saudi Arabia will have nukes. Israel might survive for a while as a crusader state, supported by the US and Europe, while they have the strength and the will to do so. But we in the West are on a downward slope; it's not going to get better than now for a very long time. When the breaking point is reached, I reckon Israel will go, either with a bang or a whimper. Jews will still be there. But I wouldn't invest into Israeli real estate, that's for sure.
It become less likely as Orthodox influence grows but yea, most Israeli's would be happy if peaceful co-existence was possible. US would come down like a load of bricks on Israel and has offered to pay compensation to Palestinians in the past. To me the question should be reversed; what, if anything, would result in groups like Hamas to stop fighting? PA seems reasonable to me when it comes to actions; not so much when it comes to words but words can be ignored if conditions are right.
At 20:25, Pr. Mearsheimer says, in summary, that the US's unwavering support for Israel, objectively not being, as it were, in the US's national interest, poses a challenge to the realist theory.
I don't think it does. I don't think Israel is the tail wagging the dog. Part of it might be just me wanting to fit reality into what I find a very neat theoretical view, but here's how it figures to me:
Granted that support for Israel is not in the US's /national/ interests. But the US is not only a Nation, it is also an Empire (and the tensions between those two are very evident in American politics). Support for Israel, I would argue, is very much in the US's /imperial/ interests, i.e. in the interests of the US qua empire.
Firstly, Israel is the US's foot in the door of the Middle East. It can be used to stoke tensions and in a good cop, bad cop play to prevent unification of that region, the control of which, at least until the recent shale revolution, was absolutely crucial to the US.
Secondly, the Holocaust story is, I would argue, one of the fundamental soft power instruments through which the US controls Europe. Every time the Europeons pluck up, Uncle Sam basically comes in and chides: "uh uh, we can't let you do things your way, remember what happened to the Jews last time you were in charge?". Swiss bank secrecy laws, anyone?
I don’t know who you are, or why you bother to write your views for the world to read, because really Saynch, they are beyond the pale of rational ideas.
A moral interest in supporting Israel? Morality? Really? Since when has the United States been a bastion of international morality? When in the last 50 years has the United States government taken a moral position on anything? And don’t even use the words “moral” or “morality” when you refer to Israel. What sort of reptilian backwater does your mind occupy?
Military interest? The best you can come up with is that Israel provides weapons manufacturers with real time data and information on how their weapons perform against unarmed civilians?
You’re a goddamn cockroach, you miserable Zionist ass licking bitch. You’re a disgrace! A fucking disgrace as a human being.
Not many sane people left out there. Thank you 🙏
@JP Spatzier
Plenty of sane people. Also plenty of algorithms crafted to demphasize/shadow ban online sane and rational statements of such persons desires NOT to have their nations continue the madness of their rulers. If you were important, you'd be rich too. So fuck off, annoying little people.
"... if these people were free to vote according to what they thought was in America's strategic interest or what was ethically or morally correct, the United States would have a fundamentally different policy." (24:12)
The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous.
-George Orwell
Amazing how much wisdom he's managed to cram into one book, isn't it?
I enjoy your analyses, rosy or otherwise.
For once I find myself disagreeing with Prof Mearsheimer, on his assessment that the war will end in a frozen conflict. That would be unfinished business. Ultimately, both sides will have lost. Ukraine would have lost substantial territory; Russia would now have western nukes drawing ever nearer.
Surely Russia can't accept that. The whole point of this war is to remove an existential threat, right? Taking over four oblasts – or whatever they end up with – is pointless if it means the west get to station first strike nuclear missiles in Kharkov.
I can only assume that JJM meant a frozen conflict but on Russian terms i.e. Ukraine signs up to remaining outside NATO, and no western weapons stationed in the country that could hit Russia.
But does that fit the definition of a 'frozen conflict' if it's on one side's terms? I'm not a lawyer.
A frozen conflict would surely mean this whole 'project' has been a negative for so many countries. Ukraine. Russia. The USA has alienated so many countries you have to chalk it down as a big loss. Europe will have been backed into a them-or-us choice by the USA and will simply become a host for the American parasite to suck the money out of. You want oil, you buy ours, you want gas, you buy ours, you want computers, you buy ours, you want phones, you buy ours, you want hot dogs...
Today, the only country that seems to be a winner in all this is North Korea, who now have a friend.
Maybe someone should ask Victoria Nudelman if she was working for Kim Jong Un all this time...
Professor Mearsheimer, I'd love to hear your commentary on Col. Douglas MacGregor's view of how Iran, Turkey and Russia and of course us will react when Israel begins its aggression against Hezbollah. Peace.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXD8t7gYpTo
As always thought provoking. Putin's peace plan which is a revival of the Istanbul accord, was a brilliant move in his diplomatic chessgame. I am convinced it was aimed at those who are trying to steer a more balanced course: Turkey, Brazil, South Africa+. Its rejection by the US now gives him free reign to smash Ukraine right up to the Polish border and replace the illegal Zelensky government with another that will revamp the Ukrainian constitution. I for one have never understood why Ukraine has never contemplated changing sides. Of course without Z.
I disagree with professor that Israel does not fit the US interests. There are numerous:
Moral interest.
The atrocities done to the Jewish people are well documented. The existence of the Jewish nation in the Land of Israel, which is now known as Palestine is a historical fact. Thus, the re-establishment of the Jewish nation state in Jewish ancestral land is a high moral ground in the fight against injustice.
Strategic interest.
Israel is in the strategically important location and guarantees the US influence in that part of the world.
Military interest
Israel serves as a know-how for weapons research and field testing.
Religious (for some)
For those who read the Bible, the support is obvious.
Americas strategic and military interests negate any perceived moral and religious interests of the Israeli state.
You did not understand what the professor said. He said, “That is why you need the Israeli lobby (the reason why the US supports Israel). If our (US) relationship with Israel made strategic and moral sense, you would not need a lobby. We (US) would just behave the way we now behave towards Israel because it’s in our strategic interest because it’s the morally correct thing to do.”
Watch it again at 23:27.
No, you watch it again. he then continues @23:49
"Because it is not in our strategic interest, because it is morally incorrect thing to do"
So, the lobby is needed to oppose views of antisemites disguising as professors to explain Israel's position and its importance to the USA.
You’re wrong again to say “the lobby is needed to oppose the views…” The lobby is there to influence the politicians and administration of the US in its policy making in favor of Israel. That’s why it’s called “lobby.” From the dictionary, it means, “a group of people seeking to influence politicians or public officials on a particular issue.” Look it up.
hahaha, you do not understand how compounded statements work. Follow through until he mentioned the not ethical behavior of the lobby. But that’s ok. I can understand if english is not your first language.
He already made it clear in the beginning of his thought that if it was morally correct thing to do, you don’t need a lobby.
Compound my ass. It's been his message all alone that the US support for Israel is not in the US interest.
“Compound my ass.”
Vulgar language. That explains it. LOL
Professor Mearsheimer or anyone on this feed: is there any possibility that Israel will either cease to exist (ie dies out, fails, folds, or; becomes one nation with the Palestinians) or; that it will stop with the constant aggression and use of violence and become a reasonable, peaceably inclined state, that does not seek to expand at the cost of its neighbors?
The other day I listened to a distinguished former UK diplomat bemoaning the fact that power in Israel is increasingly falling into the hands of what can only be called religious fundamentalists.
You're effectively talking about the Jewish equivalent of groups like Islamic State, believing that we should be living according to how it was written in hieroglyphics on stone blocks thousands of years before "Here's George Jetson" and Taylor Swift and rose-pink stetsons.
On the spectrum of Judaism, you're talking about the very very very very mad people end, not just the mad people.
And yet, the very very very very mad Israelis are in the saddle with their war paint on.
And yes, I agree. Their religious extremists with - if they are to be believed - points of view and deeply held convictions that are anathema to any Western mind, or person who is moderately rational and intelligent.
It seems to me that the little piece of real estate that comprises the settler colonial project of Israel, which is the “cradle” of the three great intolerant and bat shit crazy “Abrahamic”religions of this sad old world, is just a caldera of human misery, inequity, cruelty and barbarism - and I place the blame on the three religions that claim it as their own. Rather than God’s Peace - an intractable evil emanates from the region; an evil that infects the world.
"the three great intolerant and bat shit crazy “Abrahamic”religions of this sad old world"
I couldn't agree more.
I'd put all of them in a cage and tell them the last one alive wins a prize.
The prize for the sole survivor would be a bullet in the head, in case he (or she) decided his (or her) winning bat shit crazy religion was something that ought to be perpetuated.
Meanwhile the rest of us would be having a grand old time without them.
I look at the Israelis bombing hospitals and it reminds me of Mel Gibson's "Apocalypto". The perpetrators are basically just savages. Apes in a rage.
Black swans are real. I have a gut feeling (for what it's worth) that Israel as we know it won't exist in 25 years.
Israel in its current form exists by grace of the US. I don't care how vaunted their military or their tech is; internally, they've got deep demographic issues and externally, they just have zero strategic depth. I don't see them surviving on their own in the face of Muslim pressure. It might be another thing if the Arabs (writ large) gave up polygamy, but that's very unlikely. As for US support, I think that soon will come the time when the US won't be able to project that to the Middle Est anymore, for various reasons, and the region will be dominated by Russia, China and India (each in competition with the other).
Israel would need at least one big ally to survive (or many small ones). And making allies isn't exactly their strength. I was reading a bit of Jewish propaganda the other day, and they made it very clear that Jews had always, throughout History, been persecuted by their neighbours. Which is just another way of saying that they've never been able to establish peaceful relations with said neighbours. Factually, it's a lie, of course. But Judaism is fundamentally tribal. It's what distinguishes it from the other great religions, which are all universal. So making friends is not in their DNA (because otherness is what supports them). At the same time, they evidently have managed to survive for millennia. They're a tough bunch.
But what about the nukes? one might ask. In 25 years, both Iran and Saudi Arabia will have nukes. Israel might survive for a while as a crusader state, supported by the US and Europe, while they have the strength and the will to do so. But we in the West are on a downward slope; it's not going to get better than now for a very long time. When the breaking point is reached, I reckon Israel will go, either with a bang or a whimper. Jews will still be there. But I wouldn't invest into Israeli real estate, that's for sure.
It become less likely as Orthodox influence grows but yea, most Israeli's would be happy if peaceful co-existence was possible. US would come down like a load of bricks on Israel and has offered to pay compensation to Palestinians in the past. To me the question should be reversed; what, if anything, would result in groups like Hamas to stop fighting? PA seems reasonable to me when it comes to actions; not so much when it comes to words but words can be ignored if conditions are right.
The troubles are never-ending and well deserved.
Unfortunately you’re right about that…
At 20:25, Pr. Mearsheimer says, in summary, that the US's unwavering support for Israel, objectively not being, as it were, in the US's national interest, poses a challenge to the realist theory.
I don't think it does. I don't think Israel is the tail wagging the dog. Part of it might be just me wanting to fit reality into what I find a very neat theoretical view, but here's how it figures to me:
Granted that support for Israel is not in the US's /national/ interests. But the US is not only a Nation, it is also an Empire (and the tensions between those two are very evident in American politics). Support for Israel, I would argue, is very much in the US's /imperial/ interests, i.e. in the interests of the US qua empire.
Firstly, Israel is the US's foot in the door of the Middle East. It can be used to stoke tensions and in a good cop, bad cop play to prevent unification of that region, the control of which, at least until the recent shale revolution, was absolutely crucial to the US.
Secondly, the Holocaust story is, I would argue, one of the fundamental soft power instruments through which the US controls Europe. Every time the Europeons pluck up, Uncle Sam basically comes in and chides: "uh uh, we can't let you do things your way, remember what happened to the Jews last time you were in charge?". Swiss bank secrecy laws, anyone?
Always have a better understanding after listening to John
Very interesting conversation!
Doesn't Israeli (foreign) interference in US politics undermine the sovereignty and self determination of the USA?
In Canada we have an issue with the Chinese.
"Israel is the tail that wags the American dog". Well said.
I don’t know who you are, or why you bother to write your views for the world to read, because really Saynch, they are beyond the pale of rational ideas.
A moral interest in supporting Israel? Morality? Really? Since when has the United States been a bastion of international morality? When in the last 50 years has the United States government taken a moral position on anything? And don’t even use the words “moral” or “morality” when you refer to Israel. What sort of reptilian backwater does your mind occupy?
Military interest? The best you can come up with is that Israel provides weapons manufacturers with real time data and information on how their weapons perform against unarmed civilians?
You’re a goddamn cockroach, you miserable Zionist ass licking bitch. You’re a disgrace! A fucking disgrace as a human being.