As noted before in this newsletter, a video recently emerged of some Israeli activists who crossed the border of the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights and holed themselves up in a property lying between Majdal Shams (part of the Golan Heights) and the town of Hadr (controlled by Syria, and a Druze locality like Majdal Shams) for several hours before the IDF (which has launched incursions into southern Syria since the regime fell) took them back into Israel.
I really like what Al-Sharaa said: "Israel occupied the Golan Heights in order to protect Israel, and now they are imposing conditions in the south of Syria in order to protect the Golan Heights. So after a few years, maybe they will occupy the center of Syria in order to protect the south of Syria. They will reach Munich on that pathway." If he hadn't gone to Iraq to fight against U.S. forces after becoming too "woke" in his teens, he would have become a comedian and then gone on to become president.
Then don't create situations which foster further instability, and which degrade Israel's international position such that responding to instability becomes harder.
Stability doesn't exist. It's an illusion. History is dynamic.
Your basic framing is dumb and gay: Israel needs to RESPOND to instability, and for this, it needs permission from the International Community.
But in the actual reality we inhabit, the range of options available to Israel (not just to respond, but to drive and shape reality) today is far, far greater than it was on October 6th.
Part of the reason is that exercising optionality creates more optionality, all things being equal. Making moves gives you the space to make more moves. Continuing to do the same thing cements the expectation that you'll keep doing it.
You seem to view it as stability or no stability, and my point is that there are varying degrees of instability and tumult.
As for your concept of "permission", managing relationships is basic geopolitical realism. Every country only has so much credit and resources to work with. Getting the country sanctioned and negatively affecting the Israeli budget adds costs and reduces Israeli ability to respond to things. Israel has more options now than October 6, and being stupid will mean fewer options.
The Golan heights of 1967 included territory Israel moved into in December of 2024. The 1974 agreement transferred a small portion of that back to Syrian control on condition that it remain a buffer.
The territory they're in now is part of the buffer of 1967.
I used to defend Israel, arguing that it was unfair to label it an inherently evil settler-colonial state; I believed that the wrongs committed during Israel's founding were essentially the sort of things people generally did in the context of the 20th century. Back then, I lost friendships with a number of somewhat progressive acquaintances because of this stance. Now, however, I realize that settler-colonial culture is indeed embedded in the very core of the country's ideology—something that has become glaringly apparent in the wake of the war. Israel is essentially doing the same sort of thing in Syria as what was done to "protect Russian-speaking populations."
Judging by the disordered mindset displayed by this settler, within a year or two, Israel will begin to declare that "the borders of Israel do not end" and start to oppose NATO's middle-eastward expansion.
Consider a powerful nation that has long occupied a strategic area of a neighboring country and—under the pretext of protecting a minority population—wantonly harasses another part of the border; its leadership’s rhetoric framing the neighbor as an enemy is becoming increasingly unhinged, while the president of the weaker nation appears at a NATO summit—we could almost start making misdirection memes out of this.
This man is amazing, I studied at Ariel University to get a master's degree in molecular biology and I can say that many academics in Israel are right wing and support our country, unfortunately this is very rare in the US.
Buncha crazies who are like "oh we need a buffer" and then are gonna be like "we need a buffer for the buffer".
I really like what Al-Sharaa said: "Israel occupied the Golan Heights in order to protect Israel, and now they are imposing conditions in the south of Syria in order to protect the Golan Heights. So after a few years, maybe they will occupy the center of Syria in order to protect the south of Syria. They will reach Munich on that pathway." If he hadn't gone to Iraq to fight against U.S. forces after becoming too "woke" in his teens, he would have become a comedian and then gone on to become president.
Yes, history is dynamic. Stability doesn't exist.
Then don't create situations which foster further instability, and which degrade Israel's international position such that responding to instability becomes harder.
You need to work on your reading comprehension.
Stability doesn't exist. It's an illusion. History is dynamic.
Your basic framing is dumb and gay: Israel needs to RESPOND to instability, and for this, it needs permission from the International Community.
But in the actual reality we inhabit, the range of options available to Israel (not just to respond, but to drive and shape reality) today is far, far greater than it was on October 6th.
Part of the reason is that exercising optionality creates more optionality, all things being equal. Making moves gives you the space to make more moves. Continuing to do the same thing cements the expectation that you'll keep doing it.
You seem to view it as stability or no stability, and my point is that there are varying degrees of instability and tumult.
As for your concept of "permission", managing relationships is basic geopolitical realism. Every country only has so much credit and resources to work with. Getting the country sanctioned and negatively affecting the Israeli budget adds costs and reduces Israeli ability to respond to things. Israel has more options now than October 6, and being stupid will mean fewer options.
Yes, after all this is already a "buffer for a buffer."
The zone the Israelis are in was already a buffer per the 1974 agreement
The occupied Golan Heights is the original "buffer" and now Israel wants a buffer for its buffer.
The Golan heights of 1967 included territory Israel moved into in December of 2024. The 1974 agreement transferred a small portion of that back to Syrian control on condition that it remain a buffer.
The territory they're in now is part of the buffer of 1967.
I used to defend Israel, arguing that it was unfair to label it an inherently evil settler-colonial state; I believed that the wrongs committed during Israel's founding were essentially the sort of things people generally did in the context of the 20th century. Back then, I lost friendships with a number of somewhat progressive acquaintances because of this stance. Now, however, I realize that settler-colonial culture is indeed embedded in the very core of the country's ideology—something that has become glaringly apparent in the wake of the war. Israel is essentially doing the same sort of thing in Syria as what was done to "protect Russian-speaking populations."
Judging by the disordered mindset displayed by this settler, within a year or two, Israel will begin to declare that "the borders of Israel do not end" and start to oppose NATO's middle-eastward expansion.
Consider a powerful nation that has long occupied a strategic area of a neighboring country and—under the pretext of protecting a minority population—wantonly harasses another part of the border; its leadership’s rhetoric framing the neighbor as an enemy is becoming increasingly unhinged, while the president of the weaker nation appears at a NATO summit—we could almost start making misdirection memes out of this.
This man is amazing, I studied at Ariel University to get a master's degree in molecular biology and I can say that many academics in Israel are right wing and support our country, unfortunately this is very rare in the US.
What does Ariel have to do with Hader?
What does supporting the country have to do with a bunch of people doing stuff in defiance of the government and the military?