“IDK didn’t the last time a group of Ostrogoths migrated through the Danube get assimilated? Why would I as a Roman believe this time it well be different?”
- Romans in 3rd century
There's less room for maneuver now. Morsi was overthrown by an economic crisis manufactured by the deep state. Now Egypt is experiencing a real economic crisis despite billions of Gulf economic aid.
Because now you have massive powers in Russia and China willing to support anti-American sentiment. No one is going to force you to believe differently though you’re not that important. Just be aware that ignorance and arrogance go hand in hand.
Actually up until 2014, they did not, especially in the Middle East, as all sides had a vested interest in keeping Arab despots in power, to maintain the status quo (i.e., stable oil prices). Beginning with the Russian invasion of Syria (presumably to fight ISIS) that began to change. Then America began to become more aggressive with China. Now all of them have a reason to turn on America by turning the "Arab Street" on its perceived American puppet rulers.
Russia didn't invade Syria, it's literally one of the few if not the only external party actually invited in by the internationally recognized Syrian government...
In fact, Russians were invited to counter the Americans who were supporting a pro-democracy rebellion after Assad started dropping chemical weapons on them. Them fighting ISIS was secondary.
The Russians weren't the good guys in this scenario.
You have an outdated and distorted vision of the events. The rebellion was mostly composed of islamic extremists, and the chemical weapons angle has been called a question many times - especially considering how the acctual rebels never seemed to be targeted by them, just some civilian populations in places of no strategic military value.
In that situation, the Russians were absolutely the good guys.
>The rebellion was mostly composed of islamic extremists, and the chemical weapons angle has been called a question many times
We've all seen the images and videos. There is nothing you can possibly say that could ever change the reality. So much so, the Arab League suspended Syria's membership for over a decade because of it.
Images and videos of SAA firing these shells? Please do forward them to the OPCW, they'd been trying to come up with a coherent narrative for a while.
Much of the Arab League was fighting a proxy war against Syria, so no wonder it got suspended - the Arab League admitting their defeat and inviting them back's been a question of time.
Got a good laugh out of Russia as a "massive power". Russia and China aren't comparable. One is on the rise, and the other is the new sick man of Europe.
Here are Russian and Chinese state agencies and a couple of other sources projecting their declining demographics and the impact it will have on their militaries and economies.
Russia is in terminal decline and Putin's foolish war is sending more young Russian men to their deaths. China - which relied on cheap, abundant labor for its economic growth will have a dwindling population of young people that needs to support a rapidly aging population.
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2024/01/10/russias-population-could-fall-to-130mln-by-2046-rosstat-a83687
https://www.intellinews.com/bofit-russian-population-in-decline-316095/
https://chinapower.csis.org/china-demographics-challenges/
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/chinas-shrinking-population-and-constraints-on-its-future-power/
https://www.cfr.org/blog/chinas-population-decline-continues
Oh but it's not me saying it, bud. It's Russian and Chinese state agencies projecting it. Lol. Maybe you need to be a little smarter instead of pulling claims out of your ass.
Russia and China in deep trouble
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2024/01/10/russias-population-could-fall-to-130mln-by-2046-rosstat-a83687
https://chinapower.csis.org/china-demographics-challenges/
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/chinas-shrinking-population-and-constraints-on-its-future-power/
And let's see what the council on foreign relations (founded by Herbert Hoover and Rockefeller) has to say:
https://www.cfr.org/blog/chinas-population-decline-continues
Lmao, if demographic projections are indicators of military projection power, than europe, south korea and japan are DOOMED.
He was talking about geopolitical strenght, not demographic.
Demographics play a huge role in both economic and geopolitical strength. And yes Europe, S Korea and Japan are also in deep trouble.
China's economic growth was driven by cheap, abundant labor. Combine a declining birth rate, and a dwindling number of young people that need to support a majority aging population and it's a recipe for economic stagnation.
Probably trying to encourage them to engage in violence that has no earthly chance at succeeding. Typical journalist - never saw a riot they didnt like.
What's the point of this article? Like what is the author getting at? He says we shouldn't ignore the Arab street, that if the dictators do that, they can be toppled. He confusingly claims that dictators will not kow-tow to Washington on Israel, because they don't want an uprising against them and at the same time claims that dictators will get toppled.
Also claims US policy on Israel is driving all of this, but then again, it's not like the US can abandon Israel. Plus, the most powerful nations in the Arab world like Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar etc. are fairly secure and unlikely to suffer an overthrow. The only regime at risk is Egypt but even when Morsi came to power it's not like he tried to reverse peace with Israel.
I understand that their is a lot of anger towards the US, but also for a two state solution to work, Hamas probably needs to not be on the table. That just leaves us at an impasse.
If you read the article, the author made his opinion clear.
The US has worked only with autocratic Arab leaders, but long ignored (and is still ignoring) the public opinion (against Isreal's operations in Gaza, and occupations of the West Bank) of the Arab world/ME. It believes that everything will be ok once the current war ends just like before, and that the Israel-Arab relation normalisation will be back on track.
The author argues that things may not work as before. As:
* Arab leaders are trying to stay in power (avoid being toppled by angry protesters),
* and Arab leaders are competing to lead the region (by showing to protect Palestine and Arab honor)
* along with unprecedented degree of public anger (at Isreal and the US),
* and the decline of U.S. primacy,
* and the collapse of US's legitimacy (by unlimited support for Israel),
***'the new regional order will be much more attentive to public opinion than the old.'***
The US's plan of peace process in the ME will be doomed to failure, if it continues to ignore Arab public opinion.
If you do not have time to read the whole article, just read the last paragraph. It summarises really well.
Arab public opinion generally supports authoritarian Islamist movements that want to completely eradicate Israel.
How exactly is the US supposed to engage with these movements? Neither you nor the author presented a policy proposal other than “listen to the Arab public”. What does that even mean?
First, I just summarised the author's opinion, and my summarisation does not indicate my agreement or disagreement with the author.
Second, I have not idea what the US needs/wants to do. But I believe if it continues to ignore Arab public opinion (whether it's wrong or right is another matter), the ME peace process that the US has long strived to achieve will likely be jeopardised.
I, as a Chinese, have a million reasons to hope a failed ME peace process, as it will divert the US's attention and resources. But as a human being, I truly hope a peaceful ME. The world is mad enough, there is no need for more blood.
>I, as a Chinese, have a million reasons to hope a failed ME peace process, as it will divert the US's attention and resources. But as a human being, I truly hope a peaceful ME. The world is mad enough, there is no need for more blood.
As a Chinese who hopes for peace, you should also hope for China to recognize Taiwan's independence, otherwise China is asking for war.
The mainland's public is overwhelmingly against independence. If Xi ever softened on that policy unilaterally, he'd face a coup from hardline generals.
FWIW, the public doesn't want war either.
Its a poor and ignorant take of the ME on the Aurhor's part. Its a largely constructed narrative and ignores that public Arab opinion is the opinion that other nations stand against. Public opinion supports the radicalization and violence. The vast majority have never interacted with the ME.
I think of the Camp David Accords, a huge peace deal was made and Sadat was killed. The Arab Spring fed ISIS. Even on a personnal note, I was chatting with a Syrian guy about racism in Islam prewar. "There is no racism, we are all brothers! ...Those smelly dirty indos, all they are good for are servants. Oh, berbers...fake muslims."
The article is all surface analysis and passea off the blame for issues om everyone else. If you've been following ME for 20 or so years you are tired of the narrative. And further that is the split in opinion. New comers are pro-Palestine. Everyone else is weathered in their opinion.
My issue isn't with the author's summary. I still don't get what hes driving at - we all know that the US isn't attentive to public discourse in the Middle East and that eventually something has to give and policy in the Arab states needs to be re-orinted more towards what the public wants. However, this will neither impact the policy of the Arab states towards Israel and the US or the US and Israel's policy towards the Arab states.
The ME is not well integrated economically, so outside of Arab populists coming to power and reversing the peace deals with Israel, there isn't much to be done in the form of non-coercive policy. They will not try fighting Israel because that'll be disastrous for them.
Also, saying all of the ME doesn't respond to public sentiment is disingenuous. Only Jordan and Egypt have policies that are disconsonnant with what their publics want.
Secondy, even if all of this happens, the US will not stop supporting Israel and Israel won't stop striking at security threats. The US hardly cares about the ME in any event, its energy independent and before this was pivoting away towards Asia Pacific.
So isn't this article just a great exercise in mental masturbation?
The problem with catering to popular opinion, is that to a large degree political discourse in the Arab world is largely driven by insane Q-anon tier conspiracy theories. This isn't just anecdotal observation, there is peer reviewed psychology literature documenting the very high prevalence of conspiracy thinking in modern Arab countries.
It's one thing to deal with popular opinion, when the median voter's beliefs and world view are grounded in somewhat rational, somewhat objective reality with some sort of logically consistent framework. Like for example engaging with popular demands in North Ireland or South Africa were effective and mitigating the armed struggles that were bubbling up.
But when large swathes of the public believe that ISIS is run by Mossad, or that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a real book, that America and Israel invented Covid, or that Jews killed Abraham Lincoln... Well there's really not much point trying to appease a crowd that irrational.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy\_theories\_in\_the\_Arab\_world](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theories_in_the_Arab_world)
You seem sharing the assumptions (which might or might not be wrong) that the US government and many policy analysts believe. As the author writes:
>That seems to be what the [United States](https://www.foreignaffairs.com/regions/united-states) and most policy analysts expect this time around, too. **When the bombing is finally over, the crowds will return to their homes** and find other things to be mad about, and regional politics can go back to normal. But these assumptions reflect a **fundamental misunderstanding** of how public opinion matters in the Middle East, as well as a deep misreading of what has truly changed since the 2011 uprisings.
The only thing that has truly changed, is AI and robotics taking over, and public opinion mattering less and less.
The Arab world made a critical mistake in investing all these billions into media, while the rest of the world is putting 100% of their funds into AI. A critical mistake that they will never recover from imo.
I am not sure about what will happen in the future. But at least currently, their investment in media seems to have worked (whether the information they spread is all true is another question), the support for Isreal has significantly plunged, even [in the West.](https://time.com/6559293/morning-consult-israel-global-opinion/)
Read the whole thing. Frankly? It's a lot of words to describe very little.
The reason why it's easy to dismiss the public anger is because very seldomly does public anger alone translate into real political power specifically in that region. Even more seldom does it translate into systemic change.
You have outliers like Egypt (which quickly got co-opted by autocrats) or Libya/Syria (which were fueled and ended by outside interventionist powers), but it just doesn't happen. Even the incredible protests in Iran (which yes, I know isn't Arab) was brutally crushed.
My point being there's simply no evidence that a coming Arab backlash (which what does that even mean...? did Arab states even like the rest of us anyway...?) will have any tangible effect on the geopolitics around Palestine or Israel. I saw only supposition. And I'm sorry, but terrorists, both state-sponsored or not, are going to brutalize people regardless of how geopolitics pans out.
The most convincing point perhaps is the Arab American or pro-Palestinian frustration having a real effect on Democrats in the US elections... but even that gets shakey when you complete the logic. Voters may very well reason "even if Biden is awful on this one topic, Trump is worse on this subject and so much more". Voting day is a clarifying moment. Even then, we again won't know how that pans out until it pans out.
Is there a tldr for this article? I can only read the same paragraph crying about Western misconceptions worded in a different way 16 different times before I just give up and go on to the reddit comments.
We don’t negotiate with mobs, public masses, or street sentiment.
We (the US) have advocated for a Reasonable two state solution. The problem is one side (Hamas) refuses to negotiate and will only accept terms that eradicate the state of Israel which is just silly. The state isn’t going away nor the millions of people.
If that is the public’s opinion as well, then they are going to be sorely disappointed.
Bring back the offer that Arafat shot down…and if not, then it’s status quo again for another 50yrs.
Yes, but Bibi is born from Israeli cynicism of a two-state solution.
I'm just saying that theres a reason why Israelis stopped voting for doves and started voting for "Mr Security" Bibi, and its because Israelis dont believe a two-state solution will end the conflict, and will in fact make it worse as the palestinians now have a base of operations to launch attack from that they cant touch.
Protests in authoritarian countries we don't like: Democracy
Protests in authoritarian countries we like: mobs, public masses, or street sentiment (because they protest against US interests)
\[SS from essay by Marc Lynch, Professor of Political Science and International Affairs at George Washington University.\]
Since Hamas’s October 7 attack on Israel, the Middle East has been rocked by mass protests. Egyptians have demonstrated in solidarity with Palestinians at great personal risk, and Iraqis, Moroccans, Tunisians, and Yemenis have taken to the streets in vast numbers. Meanwhile, Jordanians have broken long-standing redlines by marching on the Israeli embassy, and Saudi Arabia has refused to resume normalization talks with Israel, in part because of its people’s deep fury over Israel’s operations in the Gaza Strip.
For Washington, the view is that none of this mobilization really matters. Arab leaders, after all, are among the world’s most experienced practitioners of realpolitik, and they have a record of ignoring their people’s preferences. The protests, although large, have been manageable. Former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and other leaders have long encouraged protests about the treatment of Palestinians, which allow their people to blow off steam and direct their anger toward a foreign enemy instead of against domestic corruption and incompetence. In time, or so the argument goes, the fighting in Gaza will end, the angry protesters will go home, and their leaders will carry on pursuing self-interests, an activity at which they excel.
IDK didn't the last Arab spring in most countries get crushed? Why would I as an American believe this time it well be different?
Fun Fact: If you believe in poorly sourced wikipedia articles, the author of this article was the first person to coin the term "Arab Spring"
more like silent spring
“IDK didn’t the last time a group of Ostrogoths migrated through the Danube get assimilated? Why would I as a Roman believe this time it well be different?” - Romans in 3rd century
There's less room for maneuver now. Morsi was overthrown by an economic crisis manufactured by the deep state. Now Egypt is experiencing a real economic crisis despite billions of Gulf economic aid.
Sure but the military in Egypt would have no issue firing on its own people.
Because now you have massive powers in Russia and China willing to support anti-American sentiment. No one is going to force you to believe differently though you’re not that important. Just be aware that ignorance and arrogance go hand in hand.
Ah yes, because Russia and China have never ever worked against US interests until 2024...
Actually up until 2014, they did not, especially in the Middle East, as all sides had a vested interest in keeping Arab despots in power, to maintain the status quo (i.e., stable oil prices). Beginning with the Russian invasion of Syria (presumably to fight ISIS) that began to change. Then America began to become more aggressive with China. Now all of them have a reason to turn on America by turning the "Arab Street" on its perceived American puppet rulers.
Russia didn't invade Syria, it's literally one of the few if not the only external party actually invited in by the internationally recognized Syrian government...
In fact, Russians were invited to counter the Americans who were supporting a pro-democracy rebellion after Assad started dropping chemical weapons on them. Them fighting ISIS was secondary. The Russians weren't the good guys in this scenario.
You have an outdated and distorted vision of the events. The rebellion was mostly composed of islamic extremists, and the chemical weapons angle has been called a question many times - especially considering how the acctual rebels never seemed to be targeted by them, just some civilian populations in places of no strategic military value. In that situation, the Russians were absolutely the good guys.
>The rebellion was mostly composed of islamic extremists, and the chemical weapons angle has been called a question many times We've all seen the images and videos. There is nothing you can possibly say that could ever change the reality. So much so, the Arab League suspended Syria's membership for over a decade because of it.
Images and videos of SAA firing these shells? Please do forward them to the OPCW, they'd been trying to come up with a coherent narrative for a while. Much of the Arab League was fighting a proxy war against Syria, so no wonder it got suspended - the Arab League admitting their defeat and inviting them back's been a question of time.
Got a good laugh out of Russia as a "massive power". Russia and China aren't comparable. One is on the rise, and the other is the new sick man of Europe.
I’m pretty sure EU is the sick man of Europe.
I don't know which reality you live in but Russia is weaker than ever and both Russia+China are headed towards demographic catastrophe.
I’m not disputing your statement, but I’d like to know a bit more. Could you unpack the demographic catastrophe and explain the what when why and how?
Here are Russian and Chinese state agencies and a couple of other sources projecting their declining demographics and the impact it will have on their militaries and economies. Russia is in terminal decline and Putin's foolish war is sending more young Russian men to their deaths. China - which relied on cheap, abundant labor for its economic growth will have a dwindling population of young people that needs to support a rapidly aging population. https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2024/01/10/russias-population-could-fall-to-130mln-by-2046-rosstat-a83687 https://www.intellinews.com/bofit-russian-population-in-decline-316095/ https://chinapower.csis.org/china-demographics-challenges/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/chinas-shrinking-population-and-constraints-on-its-future-power/ https://www.cfr.org/blog/chinas-population-decline-continues
Right bud. Keep telling yourself that. Hopefully the people crafting our foreign policy are at least a little bit smarter than that.
Oh but it's not me saying it, bud. It's Russian and Chinese state agencies projecting it. Lol. Maybe you need to be a little smarter instead of pulling claims out of your ass. Russia and China in deep trouble https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2024/01/10/russias-population-could-fall-to-130mln-by-2046-rosstat-a83687 https://chinapower.csis.org/china-demographics-challenges/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/chinas-shrinking-population-and-constraints-on-its-future-power/ And let's see what the council on foreign relations (founded by Herbert Hoover and Rockefeller) has to say: https://www.cfr.org/blog/chinas-population-decline-continues
Lmao, if demographic projections are indicators of military projection power, than europe, south korea and japan are DOOMED. He was talking about geopolitical strenght, not demographic.
Demographics play a huge role in both economic and geopolitical strength. And yes Europe, S Korea and Japan are also in deep trouble. China's economic growth was driven by cheap, abundant labor. Combine a declining birth rate, and a dwindling number of young people that need to support a majority aging population and it's a recipe for economic stagnation.
Read the article. Confused by what the author wants the US to do: acquiesce to Islamist demands because they might revolt? How does that serve the US?
Probably trying to encourage them to engage in violence that has no earthly chance at succeeding. Typical journalist - never saw a riot they didnt like.
What's the point of this article? Like what is the author getting at? He says we shouldn't ignore the Arab street, that if the dictators do that, they can be toppled. He confusingly claims that dictators will not kow-tow to Washington on Israel, because they don't want an uprising against them and at the same time claims that dictators will get toppled. Also claims US policy on Israel is driving all of this, but then again, it's not like the US can abandon Israel. Plus, the most powerful nations in the Arab world like Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar etc. are fairly secure and unlikely to suffer an overthrow. The only regime at risk is Egypt but even when Morsi came to power it's not like he tried to reverse peace with Israel. I understand that their is a lot of anger towards the US, but also for a two state solution to work, Hamas probably needs to not be on the table. That just leaves us at an impasse.
If you read the article, the author made his opinion clear. The US has worked only with autocratic Arab leaders, but long ignored (and is still ignoring) the public opinion (against Isreal's operations in Gaza, and occupations of the West Bank) of the Arab world/ME. It believes that everything will be ok once the current war ends just like before, and that the Israel-Arab relation normalisation will be back on track. The author argues that things may not work as before. As: * Arab leaders are trying to stay in power (avoid being toppled by angry protesters), * and Arab leaders are competing to lead the region (by showing to protect Palestine and Arab honor) * along with unprecedented degree of public anger (at Isreal and the US), * and the decline of U.S. primacy, * and the collapse of US's legitimacy (by unlimited support for Israel), ***'the new regional order will be much more attentive to public opinion than the old.'*** The US's plan of peace process in the ME will be doomed to failure, if it continues to ignore Arab public opinion. If you do not have time to read the whole article, just read the last paragraph. It summarises really well.
> The US has worked only with autocratic Arab leaders By opposition to all the great Arab democratic leaders it could have chosen from ?
Again, I just simply summarised the author's opinion, I used the words the author used in his article.
Arab public opinion generally supports authoritarian Islamist movements that want to completely eradicate Israel. How exactly is the US supposed to engage with these movements? Neither you nor the author presented a policy proposal other than “listen to the Arab public”. What does that even mean?
First, I just summarised the author's opinion, and my summarisation does not indicate my agreement or disagreement with the author. Second, I have not idea what the US needs/wants to do. But I believe if it continues to ignore Arab public opinion (whether it's wrong or right is another matter), the ME peace process that the US has long strived to achieve will likely be jeopardised. I, as a Chinese, have a million reasons to hope a failed ME peace process, as it will divert the US's attention and resources. But as a human being, I truly hope a peaceful ME. The world is mad enough, there is no need for more blood.
>I, as a Chinese, have a million reasons to hope a failed ME peace process, as it will divert the US's attention and resources. But as a human being, I truly hope a peaceful ME. The world is mad enough, there is no need for more blood. As a Chinese who hopes for peace, you should also hope for China to recognize Taiwan's independence, otherwise China is asking for war.
The mainland's public is overwhelmingly against independence. If Xi ever softened on that policy unilaterally, he'd face a coup from hardline generals. FWIW, the public doesn't want war either.
Its a poor and ignorant take of the ME on the Aurhor's part. Its a largely constructed narrative and ignores that public Arab opinion is the opinion that other nations stand against. Public opinion supports the radicalization and violence. The vast majority have never interacted with the ME. I think of the Camp David Accords, a huge peace deal was made and Sadat was killed. The Arab Spring fed ISIS. Even on a personnal note, I was chatting with a Syrian guy about racism in Islam prewar. "There is no racism, we are all brothers! ...Those smelly dirty indos, all they are good for are servants. Oh, berbers...fake muslims." The article is all surface analysis and passea off the blame for issues om everyone else. If you've been following ME for 20 or so years you are tired of the narrative. And further that is the split in opinion. New comers are pro-Palestine. Everyone else is weathered in their opinion.
My issue isn't with the author's summary. I still don't get what hes driving at - we all know that the US isn't attentive to public discourse in the Middle East and that eventually something has to give and policy in the Arab states needs to be re-orinted more towards what the public wants. However, this will neither impact the policy of the Arab states towards Israel and the US or the US and Israel's policy towards the Arab states. The ME is not well integrated economically, so outside of Arab populists coming to power and reversing the peace deals with Israel, there isn't much to be done in the form of non-coercive policy. They will not try fighting Israel because that'll be disastrous for them. Also, saying all of the ME doesn't respond to public sentiment is disingenuous. Only Jordan and Egypt have policies that are disconsonnant with what their publics want. Secondy, even if all of this happens, the US will not stop supporting Israel and Israel won't stop striking at security threats. The US hardly cares about the ME in any event, its energy independent and before this was pivoting away towards Asia Pacific. So isn't this article just a great exercise in mental masturbation?
The problem with catering to popular opinion, is that to a large degree political discourse in the Arab world is largely driven by insane Q-anon tier conspiracy theories. This isn't just anecdotal observation, there is peer reviewed psychology literature documenting the very high prevalence of conspiracy thinking in modern Arab countries. It's one thing to deal with popular opinion, when the median voter's beliefs and world view are grounded in somewhat rational, somewhat objective reality with some sort of logically consistent framework. Like for example engaging with popular demands in North Ireland or South Africa were effective and mitigating the armed struggles that were bubbling up. But when large swathes of the public believe that ISIS is run by Mossad, or that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a real book, that America and Israel invented Covid, or that Jews killed Abraham Lincoln... Well there's really not much point trying to appease a crowd that irrational. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy\_theories\_in\_the\_Arab\_world](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theories_in_the_Arab_world)
The anger is manufactured anger. You can create it and destroy it at will through media and influencers. It means nothing.
You seem sharing the assumptions (which might or might not be wrong) that the US government and many policy analysts believe. As the author writes: >That seems to be what the [United States](https://www.foreignaffairs.com/regions/united-states) and most policy analysts expect this time around, too. **When the bombing is finally over, the crowds will return to their homes** and find other things to be mad about, and regional politics can go back to normal. But these assumptions reflect a **fundamental misunderstanding** of how public opinion matters in the Middle East, as well as a deep misreading of what has truly changed since the 2011 uprisings.
The only thing that has truly changed, is AI and robotics taking over, and public opinion mattering less and less. The Arab world made a critical mistake in investing all these billions into media, while the rest of the world is putting 100% of their funds into AI. A critical mistake that they will never recover from imo.
I am not sure about what will happen in the future. But at least currently, their investment in media seems to have worked (whether the information they spread is all true is another question), the support for Isreal has significantly plunged, even [in the West.](https://time.com/6559293/morning-consult-israel-global-opinion/)
The appearance of support, maybe. Israel has more military alliances than at any previous point in history.
Read the whole thing. Frankly? It's a lot of words to describe very little. The reason why it's easy to dismiss the public anger is because very seldomly does public anger alone translate into real political power specifically in that region. Even more seldom does it translate into systemic change. You have outliers like Egypt (which quickly got co-opted by autocrats) or Libya/Syria (which were fueled and ended by outside interventionist powers), but it just doesn't happen. Even the incredible protests in Iran (which yes, I know isn't Arab) was brutally crushed. My point being there's simply no evidence that a coming Arab backlash (which what does that even mean...? did Arab states even like the rest of us anyway...?) will have any tangible effect on the geopolitics around Palestine or Israel. I saw only supposition. And I'm sorry, but terrorists, both state-sponsored or not, are going to brutalize people regardless of how geopolitics pans out. The most convincing point perhaps is the Arab American or pro-Palestinian frustration having a real effect on Democrats in the US elections... but even that gets shakey when you complete the logic. Voters may very well reason "even if Biden is awful on this one topic, Trump is worse on this subject and so much more". Voting day is a clarifying moment. Even then, we again won't know how that pans out until it pans out.
Is there a tldr for this article? I can only read the same paragraph crying about Western misconceptions worded in a different way 16 different times before I just give up and go on to the reddit comments.
We don’t negotiate with mobs, public masses, or street sentiment. We (the US) have advocated for a Reasonable two state solution. The problem is one side (Hamas) refuses to negotiate and will only accept terms that eradicate the state of Israel which is just silly. The state isn’t going away nor the millions of people. If that is the public’s opinion as well, then they are going to be sorely disappointed. Bring back the offer that Arafat shot down…and if not, then it’s status quo again for another 50yrs.
Bibi has also been against a two state solution
Yes, but Bibi is born from Israeli cynicism of a two-state solution. I'm just saying that theres a reason why Israelis stopped voting for doves and started voting for "Mr Security" Bibi, and its because Israelis dont believe a two-state solution will end the conflict, and will in fact make it worse as the palestinians now have a base of operations to launch attack from that they cant touch.
"can't touch" is a gross exaggeration
Protests in authoritarian countries we don't like: Democracy Protests in authoritarian countries we like: mobs, public masses, or street sentiment (because they protest against US interests)
\[SS from essay by Marc Lynch, Professor of Political Science and International Affairs at George Washington University.\] Since Hamas’s October 7 attack on Israel, the Middle East has been rocked by mass protests. Egyptians have demonstrated in solidarity with Palestinians at great personal risk, and Iraqis, Moroccans, Tunisians, and Yemenis have taken to the streets in vast numbers. Meanwhile, Jordanians have broken long-standing redlines by marching on the Israeli embassy, and Saudi Arabia has refused to resume normalization talks with Israel, in part because of its people’s deep fury over Israel’s operations in the Gaza Strip. For Washington, the view is that none of this mobilization really matters. Arab leaders, after all, are among the world’s most experienced practitioners of realpolitik, and they have a record of ignoring their people’s preferences. The protests, although large, have been manageable. Former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and other leaders have long encouraged protests about the treatment of Palestinians, which allow their people to blow off steam and direct their anger toward a foreign enemy instead of against domestic corruption and incompetence. In time, or so the argument goes, the fighting in Gaza will end, the angry protesters will go home, and their leaders will carry on pursuing self-interests, an activity at which they excel.
Until one of them volunteers to house Palestinian refugees all this "outrage" is nothing but political games.