4/28/2026 at 1:35:01 PM
Context:(1) “The United Arab Emirates,” today “made a shock request of [Pakistan] — repay $3.5bn immediately” [1].
(2) Saudi-Emirati relations were at an all-time low before the Iran War [2]. (Saudi Arabia just bailed Pakistan out of its Emirati loan. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan agreed a mutual-defence treaty last year [3].)
Put together, we’re seeing an Emirati-Israeli axis emerging to balance Saudi hegemony in the Gulf and Iranian hegemony over the Persian Gulf. I’d expect to see an Emirati deal with Egypt and India next if this hypothesis is correct.
What I don’t yet see is the ambition of the endgame. Is it Saudi Arabia backing off in Africa? Or is it seizing the Musandam Peninsula, islands of the Strait and possibly even territory on the other side?
[1] https://www.ft.com/content/99073d6e-4b57-417f-88fb-7a2c0e55e...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/30/world/middleeast/yemen-sa...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Mutual_Defence_Agree...
by JumpCrisscross
4/29/2026 at 3:07:34 PM
No, way off on Egypt aligning with UAE. It is Turkey, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt who are considering forming a military alliance, specifically against Israel, because they don't trust today's deranged Israeli politicians and the American military when it comes to Israel - The Security Pact America Was Not Invited To - https://houseofsaud.com/turkey-saudi-egypt-pakistan-security... . And, according to a Pakistani journalist, UAE asked Pakistan to attack Iran (activate the Saudi-Pakistan defence pact) or pay back all it owes to UAE. Pakistan decided to pay back because it didn't really want to be seen joining Israel in attacking a muslim nation with which Pakistan has no enmity - https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/525590/Iran-s-military-stre... .by thisislife2
4/29/2026 at 1:01:28 AM
Shouldn’t UAE be upset their entire economy has absolutely rammed by the war started by Israel? At least the Saudis have pipelines - UAE is fuckedby huntertwo
4/29/2026 at 4:23:28 AM
It's more complex than that.Saudi Arabia has the East-West Pipeline [1] that takes ~7Mbpd (million barrels per day) of oil to Red Sea ports to avoid the Strait of Hormuz. They were already using it so there's not a lot of extra capacity they can get out. If we continue up the escalation ladder, the next big risk is that the Houthis close Bab al-Mandab, which is a not-quite-as-narrow but still vulnerable chokepoint to the Red Sea.
The UAE has the ADCOP (Abu Dhabi Cross Oil Pipeline) [2], which takes ~1.8Mbpd to the Gulf of Oman. This is beyond the Strait of Hormuz but not that far so technically is still vulnerable to drone attacks (in particular) from Iran if, again, we climb the escalation ladder.
The real issue is American security guarantees to GCC nations have been shown to be an illusion. Heck, the US can't protect their own bases in the region. Also, the US can't protect maritime traffic through the Strait. I mean this is in all seriousness: there is no military solution to this problem short of the use of nuclear weapons.
That means we are now in a situation where the US has to either split with Israel and offer Iran significantly better terms than they had before the war, likely including the lfiting of economic sanctions, or the US has to sit and watch the world plunge into recession and Asian countries in particular are going to burn. And who knows what a prolonged impasse will do to Europe, particularly come winter.
So far, the US seems to prefer letting the world burn rather thans plitting with Israel.
A protection racket ceases to be a protection racket if it no longer offers protection.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East%E2%80%93West_Crude_Oil_Pi...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habshan%E2%80%93Fujairah_oil_p...
by jmyeet
4/29/2026 at 12:24:08 PM
> […] or the US has to sit and watch the world plunge into recession and Asian countries in particular are going to burn.Perhaps worth noting that the US is not unscathed in this, as oil/petroleum is a global market that includes the US. US domestic gas pump prices (which is input into everything, including groceries) go up when global oil prices go up. Not to mention things like fertilize (and, as a lot of people suddenly found out, the importance of helium).
And it's not like the US can practically stop exports, as a lot what the US produces can't be processed by their own refineries (at least at prices palatable to the consumer).
* https://blog.drillingmaps.com/2025/06/this-is-why-us-cant-us...
So it's not wrong to say that the world may end up in a global recession, and Asian countries have more acute problems that will hit sooner than the US, but the US will also face those issues if things drag on.
by throw0101c
4/29/2026 at 4:57:51 AM
> Asian countries in particular are going to burnThey won't sit still, though. Eventually, if this were tried, we'd see Chinese-flagged tankers buying passage rights from Iran and being escorted by PLAN ships.
No way does Commander TACO take that shot. The US interdiction threat in the gulf is empty, and everyone know it. Iran gets paid at the end of every story. The whole boondoggle has been a failure for the US in every analysis.
by ajross
4/30/2026 at 12:23:48 AM
+1 for "Commander TACO".Mass killing, global recession, fertilizer shortages potentially leading to widespread famine and....Slashdot references?
Oh man, this timeline is the worst, but it is absolutely the most entertaining.
by i_think_so
5/1/2026 at 12:53:13 AM
Commander TACO isn't a reference to CmdrTaco from Slashdot.by me-vs-cat
5/1/2026 at 3:08:18 AM
For the record: it was both, more or less. Some of the elders in this community were around in the Slashdot days, so it was sort of a pun on our shared cultural heritage, albeit not geopolitical strategy.by ajross
5/2/2026 at 6:07:24 AM
Elder? Just look here, I'm too young to be called that nonsense, and get off my lawn.by me-vs-cat
5/1/2026 at 8:25:20 AM
[dead]by i_think_so
4/29/2026 at 8:36:20 AM
I suspect USN commanders have been ordered to leave Chinese flagged tankers well alone, even in the absence of a PLAN escort.by bigfatkitten
4/29/2026 at 8:41:07 AM
The escorts wouldn't be for defense, they'd be for PR.by vkou
4/29/2026 at 4:58:19 PM
I think China can threaten to give Iran a few anti-carrier missiles. That could be the step to break the US blockade.by aurareturn
4/29/2026 at 5:07:35 PM
Again, there's no need to "break" a blockade that is an empty threat. I mean, yes, they could try to open it with military force or the threat thereof, but literally just painting a red flag would do just as well. Trump won't fire on a Chinese vessel, period.by ajross
4/29/2026 at 10:40:03 AM
> escorted by PLAN shipsThis would be a blunder by Beijing. It would involve trotting their ships through half a world of American and allied sensors, only to put an untested-in-blue-waters navy perilously far from nearest bases or support if anything goes wrong.
I’m not saying the likes of Xi, Putin or Trump couldn’t do it. But it would be an intelligence bonanza for the West, India, Japan and Taiwan.
by JumpCrisscross
4/29/2026 at 1:33:32 PM
PLAN already sails routinely to Africa, with port calls in Pakistan along the way.by greedo
4/30/2026 at 12:06:16 PM
There is a Chinese naval base in Djibouti. They don't need to travel very far. Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Liberation_Army_Sup... > untested-in-blue-waters navy
by throwaway2037
4/29/2026 at 4:32:20 PM
The PLAN has routinely operated in the region for several years. They have a permanent base in Djibouti and free use of port facilities in Pakistan.by nradov
4/30/2026 at 2:14:46 AM
Even if PLAN ships aren’t as capable or matching the U.S, it doesn’t really matter. They just have to be there. The U.S is not going to risk an escalation with China.by nirav72
4/29/2026 at 6:33:43 AM
>That means we are now in a situation where the US has to either split with Israel and offer Iran significantly better terms than they had before the war, likely including the lfiting of economic sanctions, or the US has to sit and watch the world plunge into recession and Asian countries in particular are going to burn. And who knows what a prolonged impasse will do to Europe, particularly come winter.I have the impression that somehow if the world will go into a recession, China will come out ahead. It looks like they either prepared for it or they have enough space to maneuver.
by DeathArrow
4/29/2026 at 11:11:00 AM
> So far, the US seems to prefer letting the world burn rather thans plitting with Israel.That is the plan: After decoupling the EU from Russia gas by provoking the Ukraine war, now it is time for the Asian countries to be cut off from gulf oil/gas, so the US fracking projects become economical and the entire "allied" countries depend on the US petrostate.
It is the only way to preserve US hegemony. Since this long term project is bipartisan, higher gas prices in the US don't matter before the midterm elections.
The only difference in foreign policy between Trump and Biden is that Trump is more risk taking and often spells out the real intentions, such as "we'll take the oil".
by 1293-1827
4/29/2026 at 9:14:04 AM
The UAE is over-collateralized. They can sustain such a conflict for a very long time.by csomar
4/29/2026 at 12:32:00 PM
Iran started the war. They threatened the USA funded Hamas and Hezbollah and the Houthis. The US decided to respond but that’s more a surprise they didn’t do something earlier.by nailer
4/29/2026 at 12:44:05 PM
When your opponent in an argument is this disconnected from reality, that's when you realizing engaging rationally is fruitless. This is just hasbara propaganda and Zionist lies and it has no place in a civil discussion.by basilgohar
4/29/2026 at 6:15:08 PM
> When your opponent in an argument is this disconnected from reality, that's when you realizing engaging rationally is fruitless.Yes precisely.
> This is just hasbara propaganda and Zionist lies and it has no place in a civil discussion.
Oh I thought you meant the Islamist propaganda. Iran threatening the US, funding Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis are documented facts. Iran even wanted a ceasefire against Hezbollah in the recent negotations. And Jewish people deserve to be able to live in their own homeland, thinking otherwise is racist.
by nailer
4/29/2026 at 6:38:37 PM
Jewish people live peacefully in Palestine for centuries before the Zionists came from Europe.What's absent from your comment entirely is the humanity and rights of the Palestinians whose presence the Israelis deny entirely. This is what I mean by being detached from reality.
by basilgohar
4/29/2026 at 9:04:49 PM
First thing: your response failed to address anything in the comment you're replying to:> > Iran threatening the US, funding Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis are documented facts. Iran even wanted a ceasefire against Hezbollah in the recent negotations. And Jewish people deserve to be able to live in their own homeland, thinking otherwise is racist.
Do you actually want to respond to that or will you just want to rant about people thinking Jews should dare live in their homeland?
> Jewish people live peacefully in Palestine
No. There is documented history of violence and suppression by Muslim colonisers towards Jewish people. This is consistent with how Islam has treated other minority groups in areas it has controlled for the last thousand years. This is why the British partitioned the area into Jewish and Arab states.
> Zionists came from Europe.
Jewish people are from Judea. The key is in the name. A name which is older than the Bar Kochba rebellion which caused the Romans to rename Judea to Philestinia, which Yassar Arafat and the other people that invented the "Palestinian" identity in the 1960 are not.
> rights of the Palestinians whose presence the Israelis deny entirely.
Arabs in Israel have more rights than Arabs in Arab countries.
Jewish people in Gaza and Palestinian parts of Judea/Samaria are torturedm raped and killed.
Who is denying rights?
by nailer
4/29/2026 at 12:36:31 PM
totally. iran’s navy was advancing towards us east coast, their bombers were getting ready to fly over the atlantic and rain down on us heavily. we were all sitting here scared shitless of iran :)by bdangubic
4/29/2026 at 6:16:17 PM
It only takes one nuke and they hit targets 4000 in their recent missile attacks.by nailer
4/29/2026 at 10:01:44 PM
yes, this also makes sense, they will deploy a nuke (which they don't have and never will have) knowing fully well that this will cause full and total destructions of their country and all of their citizens. c'mon mate, be real :)by bdangubic
4/29/2026 at 1:05:04 AM
UAE is the third largest producer in OPEC, and has options to avoid the straight, yet Their economy recently get shocked though by the war they wanted to avoidby stogot
4/29/2026 at 8:49:59 AM
straitby checker659
4/29/2026 at 2:28:55 AM
davidf18 your post (and all your recent posts) is flagged dead.by _DeadFred_
4/29/2026 at 1:58:26 AM
[dead]by davidf18
4/29/2026 at 1:27:21 AM
[flagged]by grumple
4/29/2026 at 1:34:44 AM
Even when Israel strikes first, someone else started it. Brilliant!by huntertwo
4/29/2026 at 3:07:28 AM
hmm isn't the whole thing a continuation of "revenge against hamas's attack on Oct 7th 2023" ?hamas being a proxy to iran, I don't get why people think iran as some "peace loving, innocent country"
well, are they?
raping/killing some *foreigners* and displaying their bodies as parade...
well that's not very "peace loving and innocent" is it?
by sysguest
4/29/2026 at 3:28:28 AM
When you make a ceasefire and then strike first, that’s called being the aggressor.How many civilians has Israel killed since oct 7? When is it enough?
Israel killed >50k civilians since October 7 between all the conflicts
Revenge is not a justification for destroying civilizations.
Israelis also rape, kill, and do other vile things to prisoners, innocent or guilty, who they imprison with or without charge.
by huntertwo
4/29/2026 at 11:22:46 AM
> When you make a ceasefire and then strike first, that’s called being the aggressor.Oh boy, let me tell you about October 7th. Attacks by Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, and Iran followed. Oh, and half a dozen other Palestinian groups were involved in 10/7 but they don't like to talk about that.
> How many civilians has Israel killed since oct 7? When is it enough?
Probably not too far off from how many Iran has killed in the same timeframe (of course, they are killing their own). Iran killed 30,000 of their own just this year.
And just so we're clear, Iran supported Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria, and the Houthis in Yemen, both or whom are responsible for easily 10x as many deaths as Israel (total). The civil wars in Lebanon and Syria left millions dead, and the one in Yemen also resulted in hundreds of thousands dead.
by grumple
4/29/2026 at 4:55:23 AM
> Israelis also rape, kill, and do other vile things to prisoners, innocent or guilty, who they imprison with or without charge.well but do israelis parade their dead rape victims openly?
> When you make a ceasefire and then strike first
well that's between trump and iran? did netanyahu agree?
I agree that netanyahu is being a dick here: he should have focused on iran, instead of invading lebanon. That alone is a huge political/PR mistake
but... how's that ceasefire related? is israel a proxy of usa? does Trump control israel directly?
Ethically, the israel politicians goes at great length NOT to damage civilians: the walkie-talkie bomb is a classic example of "try to kill all the militants WITHOUT carpet bombing"
(though they failed to "kill all" with that scheme, and... well they did bomb a lot after that)
by sysguest
4/29/2026 at 5:05:56 AM
> well but do israelis parade their dead rape victims openly?1) why is that an important distinction?
2) but since you asked, they do, western media just refuse to show it but all you need to do is follow a bunch of israeli instagram accounts and you'll see more than enough sooner rather than later
by krige
4/29/2026 at 5:14:43 AM
> 2) but since you asked, they do, western media just refuse to show it but all you need to do is follow a bunch of israeli instagram accounts and you'll see more than enough sooner rather than laterwoah... big claims here! maybe you should post source?
by sysguest
4/29/2026 at 5:04:30 AM
> well but do israelis parade their dead rape victims openly?Ah, this is where you draw the line?
by justsomehnguy
4/29/2026 at 5:11:33 AM
well where do YOU draw the line then?One side openly tries to do maximum death on everyone including infants (eg. fire random missiles, intifada, and the oct 7th attack)
The other side at least tried their best NOT to attack back (expensive missile defense systems) or at least kill only the militants selectively (walkietalkie boomboom)
I mean, you should be ashamed of even comparing israel vs iran/hamas/etc
by sysguest
4/29/2026 at 6:00:01 AM
> One side openly tries to do maximum death on everyone including infantsThat would be israel with special focus on journalists and doctors
> The other side at least tried their best NOT to attack back
As idiotic as it is, Iran shown more restraint then Israel and USA against other countries. Internaly not, but ouyside yes. They played tit for tat.
by watwut
4/29/2026 at 12:35:22 PM
Those “doctors and journalists” have repeatedly been shown to have second jobs working for Hamas, wearing Hamas uniforms, and having Hamas funerals.by nailer
4/29/2026 at 8:35:25 AM
> Iran shown more restraint then Israel and USA against other countries > They played tit for tat.like... firing missiles at UAE...? launching drone to dubai tower?
did India do anything to iran to get its ships fired upon?
blocking hormuz strait... that alone was enough to trigger global coalition -- though due to Trump's trade dick move to allies... no one sent troops...
if it's "tit for tat", then why does iran make so many un-related countries suffer (eg india?)
well simple: iran is the new pirate of 21st century. nothing more or less.
if anyone says "that's because US attacked", then if I got hit by a car, can I have my revenge on nearby pedestrians?
by sysguest
4/29/2026 at 1:57:18 AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Iran%E2%80%93Israel_confl...by grumple
4/29/2026 at 2:03:04 AM
First paragraph> On 1 April, Israel bombed an Iranian consulate complex in Damascus, Syria, killing multiple senior Iranian officials.[28] In response, Iran and its Axis of Resistance allies seized the Israeli-linked ship MSC Aries and launched strikes inside Israel on 13 April.[6]
Not to mention, Israeli occupations in Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, and the West Bank. Iran is not the only bad actor.
by huntertwo
4/29/2026 at 11:14:38 AM
Yes, they hit the building in Syria where Iran and proxy military leadership were meeting two weeks prior. That’s a lot different than attacking another country directly, let alone recklessly targeting civilians as Iran has in every attack they’ve led or had proxies lead.And it's really important that you understand this was after 45 years of proxy warfare by the Islamic regime against Israel, which resulted in tens of thousands of Israeli dead. This was entirely instigated by the Islamic regime - Iran was friendly with Israel prior to the Islamic revolution. Israel did not pick the fight with Iran, Iran picked the fight with Israel and has maintained it for decades because it drives support for their regime - the holy war is great motivation for the cultists.
by grumple
4/29/2026 at 2:42:31 AM
That’s 2024, you said the proxies started it in 2023?by stogot
4/29/2026 at 4:00:57 AM
https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/hamas-fighters-trained...https://israel-alma.org/special-report-for-years-iran-planne...
There was extensive planning for a multi front attack including Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah.
The story of this war is the previous idea in Israel that you could work out with an extremely religious enemy at the border as underneath their claiming to want to destroy you, they are rational.
After Hamas decided to go on a national suicide for no achievement except for a single day of an orgy of violence and the complete destruction of gaza, that view has changed.
This puts Hezbollah similar to Hamas, and their patron Iran ballistic and nuclear weapon program in a different light, and makes preemptive strikes and the complete destruction of the Iranian Axis (largely successful) as an important goal for Israel
by breppp
4/29/2026 at 11:10:32 AM
Yes, this was about the direct strikes between Iran and Israel.I assumed you were aware of the most widely publicized conflict in human history, but just in case you’re serious: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_7_attacks
by grumple
4/29/2026 at 3:38:51 AM
Iran has been using Hezbollah to attack Israel for over 30 years now. The explicit goal of Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas is the destruction of Israel.by UltraSane
4/29/2026 at 6:53:46 AM
Absolute bullcrap. Hezbollah was created to stop illegal Israeli occupation of Lebanon. What hezbollah has done to the Israelis is nothing more than what they deserveby b345
4/29/2026 at 2:54:12 PM
"Hezbollah was created to stop illegal Israeli occupation of Lebanon" Hezbollah fires thousands of rockets at Israel civilians. They actually murdered 12 Syrian Druze children playing soccer because they just love firing rockets so indiscriminately at Israel.by UltraSane
4/29/2026 at 11:30:19 AM
Israel only ended up in Lebanon due to PLO attacks from Lebanon.Hezbollah is responsible for the deaths of nearly a million Lebanese and Syrians. They are much better at killing other Arabs than Israelis. They are a tool for Shia clerics and Iran, not a legitimate force for good in any way.
by grumple
4/29/2026 at 4:27:32 AM
[flagged]by fortran77
4/29/2026 at 5:35:25 AM
This sentiment strikes me as somewhat beneath the usual caliber I see here. Perhaps it would serve you well to step away from the keyboard for a while: take a walk, grab a drink at a bar, enjoy a quiet evening, and allow some real-world perspective to settle in.by razster
4/29/2026 at 12:55:13 PM
[flagged]by fortran77
4/29/2026 at 5:33:42 AM
You don't have to support Iran, to condemn Israel.by franczesko
4/29/2026 at 5:45:12 AM
Agreed. One doesn’t dictate the other’s signal—step away from the monitor, let the noise fade, and you’ll notice they’re running on parallel tracks.by razster
4/29/2026 at 9:37:22 AM
Is that what I’m doing? Am I providing support to Iran? Or am I just expressing an opinion that criticizes Israel?by huntertwo
4/29/2026 at 6:27:55 AM
Lol you mean until two years from now, when tides will inevitably shift?The so-called "Zion-don" won't be in office forever, despite what he seems to believe.
Look at the polling. The current U.S. stance on Iran and Israel is extremely unpopular. It's only a matter of time before a natural course correction occurs, and the voters' voice is heard, whether at the upcoming midterms or the next presidential election.
And let me tell you, if you think HN is bad, you better not check Zoomer social media.
by DaSHacka
4/29/2026 at 8:59:34 AM
protesting an idiotic war started for Israel is not supporting Iran. Seems obvious!by nielsbot
4/29/2026 at 3:54:38 AM
> Shouldn’t UAE be upset their entire economy has absolutely rammed by the war started by Israel?It's pretty convoluted logic to blame Israel for Iran attacking the UAE.
by wdr1
4/29/2026 at 4:38:26 AM
The problems the UAE has are not based on Iran attacking the UAE but Iran closing the Strait - which is a direct and foreseeable result of Israel attacking Iran.by KingOfCoders
4/29/2026 at 11:07:53 AM
The US and Israel attacking Iran. Also with the Saudis heavily lobbying Trump to do it as well.The Saudi crown prince wants Trump to continue the war still.
1: https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/us-israel-attack-iran-iran-i... 2: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/24/us/politics/saudi-prince-...
by elcritch
4/30/2026 at 6:46:09 AM
"It's pretty convoluted logic to blame Israel for Iran attacking the UAE"That was the argued point, not the US.
by KingOfCoders
4/29/2026 at 11:45:58 AM
Careful, you'll break its world view.by bfivyvysj
4/30/2026 at 6:46:19 AM
Mentalist, huh?by KingOfCoders
4/29/2026 at 12:49:22 PM
Finding myself in the awkward position of defending Saudi Arabia here, but this is not at all a consensus of the political analysis community.Relying on statements by the Trump administration as proof of this makes it even more spurious.
That said, MBS has done worse and it's not impossible, but alignment with UAE is faltering more and more so it's possible even if they once favored that action by the US they no longer hold the same view.
I am not claiming Saudis want what's best for the region, only that, even if they wanted war with Iran, they likely now no longer do, or at least would like the conflict to wrap up due to the heavy costs its inflicted on the region.
UAE will see the the whole region burn if it means MBZ can keep his seat.
by basilgohar
4/29/2026 at 4:58:56 PM
Sure, but the Saudi Crown prince comments seem reasonable, and don’t seem to have been denied by the Saudi’sRegardless, my point was that people have a political axe to grind and call this “Israel’s war”.
They intentionally ignore the political realities that the Iranians have pissed off almost everyone in the region and the longstanding tension of the IRGC and the US and our new “Cold War” with China.
by elcritch
4/29/2026 at 9:44:42 AM
[dead]by cumshitpiss
4/28/2026 at 1:43:57 PM
Someone's going to have to provide me with an explainer of how many different proxy forces are involved in Yemen. I can barely keep up with Lebanon and have forgotten Syria.by pjc50
4/28/2026 at 1:53:41 PM
> an explainer of how many different proxy forces are involved in YemenRealLifeLore has been doing a decent job covering it [1].
The broad summary is you have the Saudi-backed unity government, the Iranian-backed Houthis, who claim all of Yemen but practically want North Yemen, and the UAE-backed STC, who also claim all of Yemen but practically want South Yemen. Emiratis bring the Israelis to the party. The Iranians bring the Russians. The Saudis bring various international elements (I know less about them than the Houthis and STC).
[1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IgD7zmJN3_A&pp=0gcJCVACo7VqN5t...
by JumpCrisscross
4/28/2026 at 2:09:03 PM
Johnny Harris has a pretty decent video on the topic as wellby Raed667
4/28/2026 at 9:38:03 PM
Johnny Harris is astoundingly wrong about most things, so I'll skip it thanksby nakedrobot2
4/28/2026 at 11:00:48 PM
Years ago I had found his channel and liked it, and then some video (I don’t remember the title or even subject at this time) came up on a subject I happened to know quite a bit about. He got to some point in an explanation, bungled it, and then hand-waved it away, saying the details were unimportant.Stopped caring about anything he had to say after that, and I also then realized that there was a an entire genre of “person with no actual expertise reads Wikipedia articles and explains them with good lighting and high production quality.”
by sgarland
4/28/2026 at 11:55:57 PM
Same. It was the "How The U.S. Ruined Bread" video for me after which I started watching critically and found the editing style to be over the top and makes it harder to think about the content while it's being presented. So I eventually stopped watching.by eddythompson80
4/29/2026 at 10:43:06 AM
Interesting. I had a similar experience with Veritasium’s video on kinetic bombardment, where I think they dismissed the concept based on tossing bowling balls out of helicopters onto sandcastles.by JumpCrisscross
4/29/2026 at 12:12:20 PM
And you'll see the exact same thing here on HN.Comments here should be read as opinions, not as facts. I see it every time there is a subject I know deeply about, 90%+ of the comments are either factually incorrect or just bad opinions.
by wallst07
4/29/2026 at 11:48:35 AM
Try Sarah Pain for middle/eastern history.by bfivyvysj
4/29/2026 at 1:02:03 AM
Most things? That's a really strong claim, do you have anything to back it up with? Just a couple videos here and there wouldn't cut it, given how strong your claim is.For what it's worth I watch his videos and he seems to touch on incredibly valuable topics I would never hear about otherwise, like [1].
by dataflow
4/28/2026 at 10:15:31 PM
Do you have a reputable sources to back up your claims here? Johnny cites sources pretty consistently.by samschooler
4/28/2026 at 10:30:53 PM
https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/critical-thinking-health-a...> The quick cuts and dazzling montages, as well as the dramatic shots of Harris absorbed by a document he’s unearthed, highlighting it suspensefully in tight close-ups, all lend credence to the often-excellent work he does. But it also makes it easy to mask his mistakes. And for someone who takes journalism to heart, his mistakes are big, leading to oversimplification and an occasional lapse in skepticism.
[...]
> In a video that garnered 8.5 million views and which Harris thumbnailed with the words “WE HAVE PROOF,” Harris explores the recent craze over UFO sightings—sorry, UAP sightings, meaning unexplained anomalous phenomena. In passing, he mentions Mick West, who has done excellent work debunking a lot of blurry footage of what is alleged to be high-tech spy drones or aliens.
> But the bulk of the video is spent leering at report after report—a total of 144 are being investigated by the U.S. government right now!—while original music amps up the mystery. The emphasis on evidence over context is key to Harris’ style: flood the space with visuals that keep your attention and elicit questions and only occasionally pull back to explain.
by michaelt
4/29/2026 at 1:31:57 PM
Thanks! I think he's better than a lot of opinion creators, but does make me look at his videos with more skepticism.by samschooler
4/28/2026 at 9:15:26 PM
STC was defeated after a Saudi bombing campaign, and their independent nation quashed. While there might be holdouts here and there, they are a non-entity now.by fakedang
4/28/2026 at 11:46:00 PM
Quite impressive how they folded. UAE bluff was called spectacularly and I think that, in the future, looking back, that event might mark the beginning of the end of their geopolitical ambitions.by rafale
4/29/2026 at 12:53:10 AM
> that event might mark the beginning of the end of their geopolitical ambitions.i hope so, they have been one of the biggest sources of discord in the Middle East, funding civil wars in Libya, Sudan, Yemen, funding a coup in Egypt.
by oa335
4/29/2026 at 4:26:16 PM
Unfortunately, they're now in league with Israel and just left OPEC which was under the Saudi umbrella. While it's basically trading one devil for another, the Saudis are at least more pragmatic about regional stability unlike the UAE (the Saudis support the legitimate government, against the UAE, in literally every conflict in the region).I wouldn't be surprised if the UAE starts scheming to foment within Saudi Arabia next. And unfortunately, the only counter to that would be for Saudi Arabia to become further entrenched in its Salafi culture.
by fakedang
4/29/2026 at 4:46:44 PM
> I wouldn't be surprised if the UAE starts scheming to foment within Saudi Arabia nexti think next moves of us-israeli-uae axis will be against Turkey and Qatar. we are already seeing this rhetoric in democratic party and in israel.
by oa335
4/28/2026 at 1:51:04 PM
Best of luck! These proxy wars have existed since the days of Assyria. 3000 years and running.Kind of depressing thought actually.
by boringg
4/28/2026 at 4:10:22 PM
> Kind of depressing thought actuallyI gotchu: https://youtu.be/-evIyrrjTTY ("This Land is Mine", 3 min)
by anonymars
4/28/2026 at 8:22:40 PM
Finally, a history video I fully understandby dansmith1919
4/29/2026 at 3:48:42 AM
Brilliant video. Thank you.by frm88
4/28/2026 at 4:35:31 PM
Lots of things have existed throughout history, yet we have overcome them in the last few hundred years. There is peace in Europe (west of Russia) which had as ancient conflict as Yemen; there is democracy, freedom, women have equal rights in much of the world, starvation and many diseases are mostly overcome, warfare is very rare and not an omnipresent threat, ...Thank goodness our predecessors didn't think this way. They thought that through reason, hard word, and humanism they could overcome these things, and they did. No doubt there were plenty of naysayers.
What will we do with our turn?
by mmooss
4/29/2026 at 8:49:30 AM
I wouldn't get too complacent about peace in Europe. The peace in the last 80 years or so was the result of very specific conditions that no longer apply.by laughing_man
4/29/2026 at 11:09:54 AM
The EU is at heart the European peace project, and it very much still applies.I think your assessment of whatever the "specific condition" is, is wrong.
by SideburnsOfDoom
4/29/2026 at 11:25:49 AM
Lately, sure. But for most of that time the threat from the Soviet Union was the heart of the European peace project. Without the USSR the fractures in the EU look to be getting more serious, at least from the outside. Russia's invasion of Ukraine will probably save either the EU or NATO, but probably not both.by laughing_man
4/29/2026 at 12:03:06 PM
Odd take, as the EU was founded as a peace project (1) and external threats of invasion obviously are not. But please, no more of these idiosyncratic opinions.1) source, 1950: https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-histor...
by SideburnsOfDoom
4/29/2026 at 7:20:30 PM
Not every opinion you disagree with can be reasonably labeled idiosyncratic. You say the EU was founded as a peace project, but a less idealistic view would be the EU was founded as a Franco-German alliance to control the rest of Europe.by laughing_man
4/29/2026 at 9:38:51 PM
Thank you for expressing your views, but this conversation is of no further interest to me.by SideburnsOfDoom
4/28/2026 at 6:02:34 PM
While I commend the positive attitude and I tend to have a positive view on the trajectory of humanity.This part of the planet has been almost intractable since the age of Hammurabi - it is quite fractured without any current overarching unity or framework. There isn't a dominant religion (similar to Europe) or shared values. I could say almost meaningless things like "thought that through reason, hard word, and humanism they could overcome these things" which would make little of the hard truths of the long histories of the varied peoples and fractions of the area.
It would almost seem naive to say things like because we've solved some tough problems in the last century we can solve all problems.
I think you gloss over much and certainly give yourself a mightier than thou feeling with your "Thank goodness our predecessors didn't think this way".
I too hope for peaceful resolution and stability but fall back to the historic record of success especially in a place that is constantly, recently and historically decimated by war among fiefdoms.
by boringg
4/28/2026 at 9:34:27 PM
No dominant religion in the Middle East? Haha!The reason is fractured is because of the inherent tribalism within the cultures of the region. Strip away the tribalism (Oman, Qatar, UAE to an extent), concentrate the people near a few cities (Egypt), or provide them a unifying overarching culture (Iran, Turkey), and you get some success. In fact, the early Islamic empires were heavily mired in infighting even though they were "unified" under the Caliphate, in spite of the Prophet's calls for the "Ummah" (One Islamic Nation). I would even argue that Islam's biggest contribution to the region was in providing a specific administrative framework with which to shed the tribal infighting and unite culturally similar but disparate peoples together. It's also why Israel succeeded as a nation with its European flavor of nation-state identity.
An Israeli intelligence officer perhaps correctly attributed it to the past culture of water scarcity and needing to protect your water sources. That is, in the desert, there are only so many sources of water, and if someone steals it away from you, you simply die. So that created a culture of inherent suspicion of outsiders and people outside the clan, even though they all share the same customs and culture.
by fakedang
4/29/2026 at 5:55:50 PM
So to add to my point and including yours. The scarcity of water forces the region to be inherently unstable.This lines with my core opinion that it is rarely at peace except when under dominance of one flag (e.g. Achaemenid and Cyrus the Great) before Alexander the great defeated Darius III.
Yes, many different sects of Islam are in the region.
by boringg
4/28/2026 at 9:31:32 PM
Europe didn’t have a common religion after the Reformation (at least not in the sense people who lived there at the time would recognise).In fact it was wars with a strong religious element between Protestant and catholic factions that tore Europe apart for centuries afterwards
by ifwinterco
4/29/2026 at 6:17:58 AM
Europe didn't have a common religion before the reformation as well. There were literal crusades inside Europe including against other christians: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Crusadesby usrnm
4/28/2026 at 4:23:57 PM
I tried to make sense of middle eastern politics once. My conclusion has been „It’s complicated.“by dgb23
4/28/2026 at 8:38:45 PM
Reminds me of this (by now completely outdated) middle east friendship chart I once came across.[0]: https://www.slate.com/blogs/the_world_/2014/07/17/the_middle...
by Koffiepoeder
4/28/2026 at 6:59:41 PM
I'd go to you for information before I'd go to the people who say, "It's really all pretty simple..."by hackeraccount
4/29/2026 at 1:06:53 AM
Yes - but complicated by what.by DANmode
4/29/2026 at 2:26:54 AM
Not really there are time of instability but large stretches of stable government usually under a single empire the Persians, Rome, Caliphs and then Ottomans. The current shit show is due to a western induced collapse of the ottomans and then western powers ensuring no single nation can once again enforce that stability.by edgyquant
4/29/2026 at 6:53:30 AM
>Not really there are time of instability but large stretches of stable government usually under a single empire the Persians, Rome, Caliphs and then Ottomans.The Gulf countries now are in a far better condition than they were under the Ottomans (and than modern Turkey). "Stability" is what led the Ottoman Empire to devolve into a backwards, economically undeveloped society that was incapable of competing with the west.
by logicchains
4/28/2026 at 2:55:32 PM
[dead]by nradov
4/28/2026 at 1:52:46 PM
In the Middle East everyone fights with everyone else and everyone is in covert or open alliance with everyone else. Simultaneously.by ReptileMan
4/28/2026 at 5:13:33 PM
Arab Bedouin saying:"I and my brother against my cousin, and I and my cousin against the stranger."
by hannofcart
4/28/2026 at 2:24:53 PM
And for extra fun, the U.S. sometimes likes to jump into the fray.by trollbridge
4/28/2026 at 3:41:53 PM
The US is more of a bouncer on behalf of Israel than anything else, really.by Ladioss
4/28/2026 at 4:33:42 PM
-- Moshe, why are you keep reading anti-Semitic papers? -- I just like to hear how powerful and clever we are.by deepsun
4/28/2026 at 5:21:41 PM
Defense of Israel was the primary justification offered in a recent State department memo asserting the legal basis for the war with Iran. Unusually, its publication was not announced on social media or to the press, unlike most state department official pronouncements. Anyway, rather than being opinion, this is (for the present) the official position of the United States government.https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-legal-adviser/2...
by anigbrowl
4/28/2026 at 9:26:27 PM
> Defense of Israel was the primary justification offered in a recent State department memo asserting the legal basis for the war with Iran.It's funnier than that. The justification is "self-defense of its [the USA's] Israeli ally".
by thaumasiotes
4/28/2026 at 2:54:57 PM
Sometimes?by Cyph0n
4/28/2026 at 3:45:25 PM
Every ~10 year or so. As opposed to the locals who experience it daily, either war or the conflicts-between-wars.by missingua
4/28/2026 at 10:17:26 PM
The US has been doing air strikes in the Middle East on a regular basis since ~1990, and they extensively support the military adventures of allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia.by appointment
4/28/2026 at 1:49:50 PM
I think there are only 3. Houthis (iran), PLC (saudi), and STC (UAE).I guess Al-Qaeda and Isis are also there.
by bawolff
4/28/2026 at 2:44:49 PM
On whose side is Turkey? Or is it charting its own path?by renticulous
4/29/2026 at 2:09:26 AM
Turkey’s main goal is preventing the establishment of a Kurdish state for fear of losing it’s Kurdish region.by wombatpm
4/28/2026 at 3:10:23 PM
It’s doing its own thing, mainly in Syria, Libya, and Somalia afaik.by Cyph0n
4/28/2026 at 2:56:16 PM
[flagged]by 21asdffdsa12
4/28/2026 at 3:49:54 PM
No it doesn't.by za3faran
4/28/2026 at 2:30:48 PM
You are missing this interesting, and confidential until now, deployment of Israeli forces in UAE:"Israel sent "Iron Dome" system and troops to UAE" - https://www.axios.com/2026/04/26/israel-iron-dome-uae
Also...their central bank governor quietly asked the US Treasury for a dollar swap line...Combined with the Pakistan $3.5B recall and OPEC exit, that is three coordinated moves of a cashflow stressed country...and of course the US is being asked to extend taxpayer backed dollar credit to the same royal family that bought 49% of Trump's crypto company four days before inauguration...
https://fortune.com/2026/04/19/uae-talks-us-possible-financi...
by tcp_handshaker
4/28/2026 at 3:59:23 PM
UAE is in a tough spot because while they have diversified from oil, the industries they have diversified into like tourism, air travel and banking, were relying on a halo of safety that turns out to not exist.by bobthepanda
4/28/2026 at 9:32:41 PM
Also, for tourism they aren't exactly welcoming to western culture. They don't even allow trans or non binary people (X) to transit to other places at dubai or abu dhabi. Can't have your cake and eat it.by wolvoleo
4/29/2026 at 6:43:35 AM
That Western culture is only a few years old and only affects a tiny percentage of people who opt into it.by olalonde
4/28/2026 at 10:19:35 PM
While true, that doesn't really factor into this given that that market is so small that they don't lose anything by banning things that aren't compatible with their values.So no, they most definitely can have their cake and eat it, and have done so for over two decades.
by markdown
4/28/2026 at 10:33:09 PM
Emirates is one of the world’s largest airlines, and in many parts of the world Dubai offers the best and most frequent air connections between various cities. So while UAE itself may be a small market, it’s quite a major transit route.They also turn a blind eye to plenty of other things that go against conservative islamic values: alcohol is served onboard, gay flight attendants are employed, etc. So it’s surprising to me that they aren’t a bit more tolerant here.
by Reason077
4/29/2026 at 7:10:36 AM
You always choose where to draw your lines.It may be confusing to others but it's ultimately your choice.
by inemesitaffia
4/29/2026 at 10:14:38 AM
[dead]by l23k4
4/28/2026 at 8:52:44 PM
I think it's not so much that they don't have liquid assets they can sell.The issue is those liquid assets are US Treasuries and US public market equities (mag7 etc.).
They don't really want to sell them, and they also know that the US really doesn't want them to sell them - the last thing Trump wants heading into the midterms is an S&P500 bear market and 10y treasuries heading back to 5+%.
So they ask for a swap line and they're negotiating from a position of strength, the US doesn't have much of a choice but to give them as much as they need and damn the consequences
by ifwinterco
4/28/2026 at 7:57:44 PM
This kind of cooperation is not unprecedented, for example they've collaborated in the occupation of Socotra.by cess11
4/28/2026 at 2:44:23 PM
Sometimes foreign aid is good, other times it's bad.by draw_down
4/28/2026 at 1:44:09 PM
> EgyptAlready aligned with the KSA [0]
> India
Already aligned with the UAE [1]
---
IMO the Pakistan aspect is overstated. This is a reversion to the norm of KSA-Pakistan relations before Imran Khan completely destroyed it by fully aligning behind Qatar and Turkiye when both were competing against KSA.
[0] - https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/1/5/egypt-says-it-shares...
[1] - https://thediplomat.com/2026/01/india-uae-embark-on-a-strate...
by alephnerd
4/28/2026 at 1:48:05 PM
> Egypt is aligned with the KSAIt’s complicated [1]. My low-key guess is cutting off Pakistan was intended to send a message to Cairo.
> Already aligned with the UAE
Aligning. To my understanding there isn’t a treaty yet.
> the Pakistan aspect is overstated
Pakistan isn’t the cause. It’s the canary. These moves happening in quick succession (strategically, over the last year, and tactically, in the timing of these announcements) speaks to previous assumptions being fair to be questioned.
[1] https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/egypts-t...
by JumpCrisscross
4/28/2026 at 1:58:12 PM
> My low-key guess is cutting off Pakistan was intended to send a message to CairoAbu Dhabi and Cairo have been misaligned for years since the Sudan Civil War began (UAE backs the RSF and KSA+Egypt back the Army) as well as the UAE backing Abiy Ahmed in Ethiopia at the expense of their traditional partner KSA.
> To my understanding there isn’t a treaty yet.
This is as close as it will get. New Delhi doesn't "sign" defense treaties unless pushed to a corner, because it reduces maneuverability.
The Pakistan-KSA alignment was already cooking after IK was overthrown. I think I mentioned it before on HN (need to find the post I wrote) but given the primacy Pakistan has had in US-Iran negotiations well before the war as well the PRC's increasingly miffed attitude at Pakistan following the CPEC attacks, the US most likely brokered a back-room realignment between PK and KSA.
A neutral-to-ambivalent India with a pro-America Pakistan is better for the US than a completely aligned India with a pro-China Pakistan.
TODO: citations
by alephnerd
4/29/2026 at 12:10:14 AM
India is doctrinally non-aligned (being a founding father of the Non-Aligned Movement), and the chance of a completely US-aligned India has always been zero. Even with Russia, its closest "ally" (only by a history of cooperation, not in any formal pact-ratified sense like Russia-China), it maintains only an arms-length relationship.India is actually the true neutral major power. I don't really count Switzerland because it was obvious it would align with the EU/NATO/US axis when things got hot, as it did in the context of Ukraine-Russia.
by roncesvalles
4/29/2026 at 12:28:29 AM
Yep. There's nothing wrong with that, but it means US-India relations tend to remain fairly transactional while allowing both autonomy from a strategic standpoint, such as India signing a RELOS with Russia and Pakistan under Munir returning to the American fold at the expense of the Chinese.by alephnerd
4/28/2026 at 2:01:17 PM
> Put together, we’re seeing an Emirati-Israeli axis emerging to balance Saudi hegemony in the Gulf and Iranian hegemony over the Persian Gulf. I’d expect to see an Emirati deal with Egypt and India next if this hypothesis is correct.Don't Egypt and Israel hate each other though? Could UAE feasibly align with both?
by delecti
4/28/2026 at 2:13:41 PM
Virtually all Arabs hate Israel but Arab governments are more varied. The modern Egyptian state is oriented toward close partnership with the US, and a large part of that was peace with Israel post '73.So yes, the UAE could align with both.
by slibhb
4/28/2026 at 11:36:57 PM
> Virtually all Arabs hate IsraelThis is true, but Emiratis are a notable exception. The UAE may be the only Arab country where Jews are not only allowed to live, but can do so safely without fearing either their neighbors or their government.
For example, last year when a rabbi was murdered, the Emirati government reacted forcefully and made a point to sentence the perpetrators to death. Note, the perpetrators were not Emiratis.
> The modern Egyptian state is oriented toward close partnership with the US, and a large part of that was peace with Israel post '73.
While also true, the relationship between Israel and Egypt has been tense lately.
They are at peace, and the border is stable. And economic integration is tightening, for example with the recent $35B gas deal [1]. So it's plausible that UAE could align with both, as you say.
But at the same time, it's just as plausible that this alignment will become increasingly complicated for geopolitical reasons. As Israel grows stronger in the region, Egypt seems to have adopted a strategy of indirectly undermining them.
For example, Egypt's handling of the Gaza war has indicated that they were playing a double game - openly containing Hamas, while covertly allowing them to grow stronger. When the IDF captured Rafah in 2024, they uncovered massive smuggling tunnels under the Egypt-Gaza border, which could not possibly have been unknown to Egypt.
Sisi is also known for having cracked down on the Muslim Brotherhood domestically, as they were his primary political rival. But externally, he has shown a willingness to support them as a tool to weaken his rivals, including Israel. This is a dangerous game which could easily backfire.
One more example: just this week Egypt is conducting a live fire military exercise 100m from the Israel border - a deliberate decision that is escalating tensions. [2]
[1] https://www.egyptindependent.com/all-you-need-to-know-about-...
[2] https://defencesecurityasia.com/en/egypt-live-fire-drills-is...
by shykes
4/29/2026 at 3:46:01 PM
> The UAE may be the only Arab country where Jews are not only allowed to live, but can do so safely without fearing either their neighbors or their government.That's not entirely true. Judaism is one of the legally recognised minority religions of Iran and Iran still retains an ancient Jewish community of 10,000 - 15,000 Iranian Jews that also have 30+ synagogues in Iran - Tehran’s embattled Jewish community endures despite Israeli bombing of synagogue - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/apr/22/tehran-embattl...:
> By the time he got up the next morning to get ready for work, an Israeli airstrike had completely destroyed the synagogue ... “We condemn this attack. It disrespects our faith. Iran’s Jewish community doesn’t have good relations with the Zionist Israeli government,” he said. Iran’s Jewish community is the largest and oldest in the Middle East outside Israel, dating back about 2,500 years to when Jews were exiled eastwards by Assyrian and Babylonian rulers ... About two decades ago, Israel encouraged Iranian Jews to emigrate, offering cash incentives in an attempt to prompt a mass migration. At the time, the Society of Iranian Jews dismissed the offer as “immature political enticements” and said their national identity was not for sale.
by thisislife2
4/29/2026 at 3:54:57 PM
Iran is not an Arab country.by tgma
4/29/2026 at 3:58:41 PM
Ah, true. Good catch.by thisislife2
4/29/2026 at 5:42:58 PM
There are a few layers to this:1. As another commenter already pointed out, Iran is not an Arab country
2. It is very true that the Iranian people absolutely does not hate Jews. In most Arab capitals, simply to walk around while visibly Jewish is either risky or downright suicidal. The same is true in other Muslim countries such as Pakistan, and increasingly in majority Muslim neighborhoods in Western cities. Iran does not have this problem. In fact the Iranian and Jewish peoples share a deep bond that goes back to the time of Cyrus the great, who famously freed the Jews of Babylon in 538 BCE, and allowed them to return to their homeland and rebuild their temple. To this day, Iranians and Israelis tend to get along. For example, the Iranian diaspora is conspicuously absent from anti-Israel protests in the US, and you will often see Israeli and pre-revolutionary Iranian flags flying together in anti-IRGC "Free Iran" protests (to the dismay and confusion of pro-IRGC protesters).
3. The current islamic government of Iran - the IRGC - has historically persecuted and executed Iranian Jews, especially in the early days of the revolution. There is a reason so many Iranian Jews live in the US... It is true that they have not implemented a Nazi-style policy of total eradication of their Jewish population, even though their foreign policy is entirely built on total eradication of Jews abroad. But let's be clear: Jews in Iran live in a state of submission and fear. In theory the IRGC is "anti-zionist" and not "anti-Jewish"; in practice the difference is blurry and arbitrary: Jews are eternally suspected of duplicity and disloyalty, and must continuously prove that they are not secretly "zionists". When Iranian Jews make public statements criticizing Israel, they are doing so because of this pressure from a totalitarian regime, and their safety depends on it. A statement by the Jewish community in Iran only reflects what the IRGC wants them to say. A useful comparison is Soviet anti-zionism, which followed similar patterns: Soviet Jews often denounced zionism loudly and publicly, and from the outside it appeared that Jews were a "protected minority" living peacefully. But ask Jews who actually lived in the Soviet Union at the time, and you will hear a very different story...
by shykes
4/30/2026 at 3:38:17 AM
Yes, the Iranian government has indeed targeted Jews suspected of working against Iran, especially when things were in a turmoil post-revolution, and that did lead to around 70%-80% of the community migrating to US and Israel. But I don't believe it is just the fear of persecution that was their motivation in migrating - for some it was zionism, for others it was more of the political ideological difference with the revolutionaries (they were in the Shah's camp) and the real uncertainty and lack of political stability and violence during and after the revolution.> the Iranian diaspora is conspicuously absent from anti-Israel protests in the US
Iranians who migrated to the west are largely supporters of the Shah, who was overthrown by the revolutionaries, and thus they despise the revolutionary government. Israel hates the Iranian revolutionaries too and so the Iranian diaspora found themselves in favour of Israel because of this shared sentiment of hate against the current Iranian government. However, anti-Israeli sentiments in Iranian diaspora has increased now because of Netanyahu's foolish genocide in Gaza, and the supporters of Shah (and Israel) have now increasingly have resort to intimidation to suppress many of them from speaking out for Palestinains and against Israel. As this MEE article outlines - How pro-Israel Iranian Americans are silencing Palestine supporters - https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/war-gaza-how-pro-israel-i... :
> Several Iranian-American activists who spoke to Middle East Eye on condition of anonymity have said they fear speaking out in support of Palestine, saying that anyone who does so publicly has been faced with doxxing campaigns and even threats to their lives. "It's one of those things where it's caused a huge divide in the community," said one Iranian activist ... They say the reason that it appears that most Iranians in the diaspora are pro-Israel is because most of the ones who do support Palestine are afraid to speak up. "The vocal presence of Iranian Zionists online and at rallies might create a misleading perception. In reality, many Iranians are afraid to speak out and do not align with this viewpoint," said one Iranian activist who spoke to MEE on condition of anonymity. "The loudness on social media doesn't accurately represent the broader sentiment."
> But let's be clear: Jews in Iran live in a state of submission and fear ... jews are eternally suspected of duplicity and disloyalty, and must continuously prove that they are not secretly "zionists".
This is a common propaganda for fear mongering amongst the minorities. Interestingly, Pakistanis say the same thing about Muslims living in India. And yes, while there are isolated incidents of minority violence against Muslims in India too (just as there are against the Jews in Iran), it is not a common occurrence in society driven by hate against these minorities.
by thisislife2
4/30/2026 at 5:14:33 AM
Your entire argument is built on a single source: Middle East Eye. That source is a known Qatar propaganda outlet, they do not meet even the lowest bar of journalistic integrity or credibility. You might as well be quoting Russia Today about the war in Uraine.A few facts about MEE:
1. During the 2017 diplomatic crisis with Qatar over their support of terrorism, Saudi Arabia and the UAE issued a list of demands to Qatar. One of these demands was to shutdown their propaganda outlets - including MEE. Other demands included the severing of ties with Hamas and Hezbollah, and the handing over of internationally wanted terrorists harbored by Qatar. Another demand was to cut off collaboration with Iran's REvolutionary Guards... [1]
2. MEE is entirely controlled by a single individual, Jamal Awn Jamal Bessasso - formerly director of planning and human resources at Al Jazeera in Qatar [2]. Bessasso was also a director at Samalink TV, a company that broadcasts Al-Quds TV - a Hamas-controlled station. [3][4] He has a history of social media posts praising Hamas and advocating for violence against the enemies of Islam.
3. Several other MEE employees have previously worked at Al-Jazeera. At least one MEE employee has previously worked for a Hamas-funded nonprofit.
4. Over the years, MEE has often gained exclusive access to Hamas leadership, and acted as their de facto PR arm.
5. MEE does not disclose its sources of funding. It is a complete black box.
In short: you are uncritically quoting a known propaganda outlet of Qatar, that was explicitly designated by several countries as part of Qatar's terrorism support network, has several links to Hamas, does not disclose its sources of funding, and is controlled by a known supporter of Hamas.
So, I hope you'll forgive me for not taking any of your derived arguments seriously. I took the time to share this information to make sure that nobody reading this exchange takes them seriously, either. This uncritical amplification of obvious propaganda has got to stop.
[1] https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-... [2] https://honestreporting.com/behind-middle-east-eyes-viral-re... [3] https://www.terrorism-info.org.il/en/18388/ [4] https://honestreporting.com/behind-middle-east-eyes-viral-re... [5] https://www.aei.org/foreign-and-defense-policy/middle-east/q...
by shykes
5/1/2026 at 5:30:13 PM
In my country, Qatar is not considered as a "terrorist" sponsor. Neither is Hamas considered a terrorist organisation (like in most parts of the Global South). Neither is RT nor MEE nor Al-Jazeera banned or considered a part of any "terrorism network" - I treat them the same as any State run media outlet (including the BBC, DW, or NPR).by thisislife2
5/1/2026 at 7:52:48 PM
> In my country, Qatar is not considered as a "terrorist" sponsor. Neither is Hamas considered a terrorist organisationMay I ask what country that is?
by shykes
4/29/2026 at 12:26:03 AM
By the way that's just Qatari propaganda meant to put a wedge between Israel and Egypt. Qatar(Muslim Brotherhood) hates Egypt (that cracked down on MB) and hates Israel. They paid Netanyahu's advisors to push those lies about Egypt's double game and the cross border tunnels. Netanyahu the clown he is, "leaked" those lies to journalists. Qatar also paid Haaretz journalist to push those lies. The current situation with Egypt is good. They need to pretend to be somewhat cold to satisfy the hostile to Israel population, but there is cooperation and good relationship.by myth_drannon
4/29/2026 at 12:32:57 AM
I did notice that Al-Jazeera was actively covering this issue. So your explanation would make sense.What about the military exercise though? Al-Jazeera is eagerly covering it, but it is in fact happening...
I'm thinking that two things can be true at once - Egypt sees Israel as a "soft rival" and will undermine it when it can, without risking the peace itself; and Qatar is actively trying to put a wedge between them. No?
(thanks for the thoughtful discussion).
by shykes
4/29/2026 at 1:34:40 AM
The military exercises too, just pure nonsense. Sinai peninsula has complicated security issues that they are trying to control. Egypt depends on Israel for cheap gas and really there is no indication whatsoever for any attempts to undermine. They do exercise soft power and play regional games. Egypt had and has very good leadership (with Sadat being the greatest modern leader in the middle east).by myth_drannon
4/28/2026 at 9:36:11 PM
Various Arab states maintain this balancing act between a virulently anti-Israel population and a US-aligned (in most cases, US-installed) regime that’s tacitly okay with the existence of Israel.It’s actually surprising it’s achievable for so long but in the long term doesn’t feel stable given the direction things are headed
by ifwinterco
4/28/2026 at 10:51:13 PM
Which Arab regimes, today, are "US installed"? Iraq is the only plausible answer.As far as stability, I don't know. My view is that Arab democracies are unstable because they will elect Islamists. Dictatorship/monarchy has proven far more stable. Syria is trying to buck the trend; we'll see how it goes.
by slibhb
4/29/2026 at 6:19:16 AM
Maybe more accurate to say “Western-installed” although generally I don’t like grouping Europe and the US together as some coherent entity in this case it’s probably accurate.All of the Gulf monarchies as well as Jordan are essentially western creations that were created as states mostly by the British and then heavily reinforced by the US from the 70s onwards
by ifwinterco
4/29/2026 at 1:05:22 AM
> Arab democracies are unstable because they will elect Islamists.why does that imply instability?
by oa335
4/29/2026 at 1:09:21 AM
Fundamentalists tend not to be pragmatists.by slibhb
4/29/2026 at 2:27:52 AM
i don't think you know much about islamist parties and are just grasping for reasons to justify suppressing democracy in certain places.ennahada (tunisia), pks (indonesia), jui (pakistan) are all examples of islamist parties that have compromised or reached across the aisle at various points just off the top of my head.
besides, isn't the point of democracy to allow people to be led by those who represent their principles? if they are in power, why should the majority expect their elected leaders to compromise those principles?
by oa335
4/29/2026 at 10:48:22 AM
> ennahada (tunisia), pks (indonesia), jui (pakistan) are all examples of islamist parties that have compromised or reached across the aisle at various pointsWould love to read more on this. Naïvely, I shared OP’s view of Islamist parties’ intransigence. (Note to third parties: Islamist != Islamic majority or even Islamic parties, and certainly separate from Arab parties.)
> isn't the point of democracy to allow people to be led by those who represent their principles?
Yes. But nothing says democracies are fundamentally stable. It absolutely follows that intolerant populations can systematically elect intolerant leaders who then cause instability.
by JumpCrisscross
4/29/2026 at 1:05:31 PM
> Would love to read more on this.Brookings Institute has a series of papers about Islamist movements around the world: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/rethinking-political-isla...
which includes both analyses from Western academics as well as responses from members of Islamist parties.
> It absolutely follows that intolerant populations can systematically elect intolerant leaders who then cause instability.
Intolerant of what, and what do you mean by "instability"? If the ideology of the political parties and institutions reflects that of the (vast) majority of the population, why would we expect "instability"?
Democracy can descend into demagoguery; I believe that occurs when the "people" feel like the state has been captured by an elite (oligarchy) that doesn't represent their interests (i.e. interests of the majority), "intolerant" or not - e.g. Gracchi brothers, Hugo Chavez, etc etc.
by oa335
4/29/2026 at 2:56:47 PM
I was writing about Arab Islamism. I don't have strong views about Pakistan or Indonesia, though I have negative opinions about Islamism across the board.One reason I'm skeptical of Arab democracy is that Arab nationalism is weak. In the Arab world, Islam and hatred of Israel seem like the most powerful forces. Much stronger than nationalism. Would countries governed by those forces be stable? Would their policies be desirable from the perspective of the rest of the world?
There are Arab democracies that may prove that Islamists can be pragmatic. Tunisia like you said, Iraq, and possibly the new Syrian government. We'll see. The world is always changing.
by slibhb
4/29/2026 at 2:18:06 AM
Because every Islamic theocracy to date has been profoundly destabilising for its neighbours and the world, and always ends up imprisoning and immiserating its own people. No one wants more Irans or Afghanistans. (Or Saudi Arabias, though that's not said out loud as often.)by troad
4/29/2026 at 2:30:47 AM
but neither Saudi Arabia nor Afghanistan's leaders were voted in ...and secular/socialist/monarchic dictatorships have arguably worse effects on their neighbors and citizens - e.g. Saddam, Assad, Nasser, MBZ in UAE, MBS
by oa335
4/29/2026 at 2:50:11 AM
Yes, there are a lot of bad options in the Middle East; Islamic theocracy has no monopoly on awfulness.I think the broader point is that a democracy is unstable when the electorate just votes for their favourite warlord / cleric, who promptly ends / rigs any further elections.
In the Middle East, there appears to be a pattern of electorates voting for / staging a revolution in favour of Islamists, which either leads to a terrible Islamist regime, or leads to an elite coup, which of course destroys the democracy in the process. Worst case scenario all of this happens at once in different places, and you get a terrible civil war.
Democracy is great, but it requires an electorate that actually wants to sustain and retain a democracy. Those appear to be few and far in between.
by troad
4/29/2026 at 3:12:41 AM
> In the Middle East, there appears to be a pattern of electorates voting for / staging a revolution in favour of Islamists, which either leads to a terrible Islamist regime, or leads to an elite coup, which of course destroys the democracy in the process.that pattern is hardly unique to middle east/islamists though. look at central/south america. guatemala, chile, brazil etc all had democracies overthrown by "elite" coups.
like almost every instance in the middle east, there is actually a common denominator between these coups... resistance to the US-led order magically seems to invite instability.
by oa335
4/29/2026 at 3:16:15 AM
That seems rather Whataboutist to me. I never claimed this only ever happens in the Middle East. We are, however, talking about the Middle East, so local examples would seem apposite. You seem to desire to make this conversation so abstract that it becomes about nothing.> resistance to the US-led order magically seems to invite instability
Or perhaps 'resistance' is an awfully popular rallying cry for demagogues who bring instability, and the US is just the hegemon du jour. "It's the US' fault your crops are wilting! And international capital! And immigrants! And, oh, I don't know, the gays, why not. Rise up for El Generalissimo! Enlist your sons in the blood struggle, that will definitely improve things!" /s
Much sexier to be a revolutionary fighting shadowy foreign forces than to actually fix any of your own problems. No, no, tomorrow's problems will be America's fault too.
by troad
4/29/2026 at 3:44:59 AM
> I never claimed this only ever happens in the Middle East.you said
> Arab democracies are unstable because they will elect Islamists.
whereas my claim is that governments (democracies or not) that run afoul of their local hegemon tend to have a short shelf life. this is not unique to US hegemony.
see: Brezhnev doctrine (USSR), or the canonical example of Athens and Melos from Peloponnesian war
> Rise up for El Generalissimo! Enlist your sons in the blood struggle, that will definitely improve things!" /s Much sexier to be a revolutionary fighting shadowy foreign forces than to actually fix any of your own problems. No, no, tomorrow's problems will be America's fault too.
I'm sorry, you seem triggered by this discussion, it doesn't seem productive to continue on my end.
by oa335
4/29/2026 at 4:18:11 AM
Real heads know that the strong do what they can while the weak suffer what they must.by nixon_why69
4/29/2026 at 4:41:06 AM
lol yes exactly.Realism has more way explanatory power in geopolitics than idealism. Idealist explanations are typically incoherent (e.g. above thread).
by oa335
4/29/2026 at 5:24:38 AM
> I'm sorry, you seem triggered by this discussion, it doesn't seem productive to continue on my end.I suppose shall have to make do without 101-level instruction in Chomskyian anti-Imperialism, woven through with whataboutism and international conspiracies.
> whereas my claim is that governments (democracies or not) that run afoul of their local hegemon tend to have a short shelf life. this is not unique to US hegemony.
Wow, big if true. Someone let Iran know.
How many trillions of dollars and gallons of blood did the US expend to make Afghanistan non-Taliban, or Vietnam non-Communist? And who rules Afghanistan and Vietnam today? You mention the Brezhnev doctrine, and yet literally not one of these countries is Russian-aligned today. The Russian invasion of Afghanistan failed just as hard as the British and American ones, all at the height of those respective countries' powers. Not very powerful, these alleged hegemons.
My overall point is that the Middle East (and Latin America, etc) has many local issues (e.g. corruption, misgovernance, sectarianism, organised crime), and an unhelpful habit of blaming some ill-defined global hegemony for misfortunes that are readily explicable as the consequences of these local phenomena. The US is no innocent lamb, but it does no service to the people of any of these regions to pretend that another hundred years of anti-Imperialist rhetoric will somehow bring benefits that the previous hundred years did not.
In these countries, this brand of tired anti-Imperialism is a figleaf for authoritarians. In the West, it is masturbatory politics for a certain type of narcissistic Westerner with a saviour complex, who fundamentally believes only Westerners have agency in the world, and everyone else are just motes of dust floating in the West's shadow. It's this confluence that results in absolute travesties like Chomsky supporting the Khmer Rouge, a far greater evil than all the worst allegations against America stacked together.
If you want to help the Middle East, get involved in civil society building efforts that help bridge the gap between sectarian communities; support charitable and poverty relief efforts that are not affiliated to the Muslim Brotherhood; get involved in civil rights advocacy on behalf of the oppressed in the Middle East (women, LGBT communities, religious and ethnic minorities, the list goes on); partake in initiatives aimed at tackling corruption, organised crime, etc. Or at the very least encourage and support the people who do these things, rather than regurgitating half-remembered anti-Imperialist tropes from your polsci 101 class, as though that were a contribution of any value whatsoever.
The one thing that will absolutely not help them, at all, is more meandering, false narratives about how they have no agency in the face of shadowy global hegemons, and how should just lie down and wait impassively for some sort of new, more just world to be given to them by their Western betters.
by troad
4/29/2026 at 9:34:00 AM
Ok, lot of stuff to unpack here, but I'll stick to just pointing out obvious misinfo, which is often repeated:Chomsky never backed the Khmer rouge, he questioned some of the claims and western focus on the Khmer rouge, which was ignoring US culpability. He also never denied that the Khmer rouge were committing atrocities.
Was he wrong? Yes, at least in specific instances. But he was never outright supportive of the Khmer rouge. This is very old propaganda.
by tovej
4/30/2026 at 2:58:16 AM
I've read Chomsky's work (more extensively than most people here, I'd wager, given I have degrees in both polsci and linguistics) and his sympathy to the Khmer Rouge was pretty clear.Chomsky was about as pro-Khmer Rouge as Tucker Carlson is pro-Russia; he's not out there waving flags and singing patriotic songs for them, but he's sure as hell doing a lot of very useful work "just asking questions" about biolabs in Ukraine / the extent to which the US may have "provoked" the Khmer Rouge to do what it did. If someone wrote equivalent things about the atrocities in Nazi Germany, we would not be mincing words about that person's sympathies. Chomsky ought to be treated with the same intellectual honesty.
Chomsky was a useful idiot for murderous tyrants. And a truly wonderful linguist. Ah, the duality of man.
by troad
4/30/2026 at 1:57:05 PM
Oh, Chomsky is by no means perfect. He's an Epstein associate.But you should still not spread misinformation. Also, America _has_ been accused of worse things than the Cambodian genocide (as far as genocides can be compared, but I'm following your lead on comparing atrocities here): take the genocide of the indigenous American population for one.
But you're extrapolating quite a bit here. Could you please 1) provide the reference for this "provoke"-bit, so that we can evaluate it ourselves, and 2) explain exactly what the damning evidence is.
Show me the smoking gun, please.
by tovej
5/1/2026 at 12:13:30 AM
Only on the Internet would someone so bombastically demand you do their homework for them. :)Thus far we have your claim v. mine. Not sure why an absence of evidence would somehow make you right and me wrong, nor am I sure why I bear any burden of proof when you're the one who's shown up out of nowhere to bandy around accusations of bad faith and demand to be disproven.
For what it's worth, I don't consider your factually-deficient posts to be "misinformation"; I just think you're making a good faith error out of an unfamiliarity with the sum of Chomsky's work. You could read more of him if you think that would be of merit, though I don't consider a lot of the time I spent reading his political works time well spent, so make of that what you will. :)
Read his linguistics works instead! This would be a much better world if all the people who read Chomsky's politics had read his linguistics instead.
by troad
5/1/2026 at 9:50:28 AM
You are the one making a positive claim that Chomsky has done something. I can't prove the negative, therefore the burden of proof is on you."The necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges"
If by "factually deficient" you mean false, then that is the definition of misinformation. Which is of course separate from disinformation, which is when you do that purposefully.
by tovej
5/1/2026 at 2:16:06 PM
On the contrary, if you wish to learn about Chomsky's views towards the Khmer Rouge, the onus is entirely on you to investigate Chomsky's work. Failing that you're entirely at the mercy of intermediated secondary sources of indeterminate levels of trustworthiness, including myself.Considering the nuanced nature of the claim - a conclusion as to his sympathies borne of deep familiarly with his work - there's no reason for me to think you wouldn't find additional reasons to quibble over any specific citations and passages. I have no evidence that you're a good faith interlocutor, so I really see no reason to expend that effort. If you're actually interested, I do encourage you to read the original works. (If it wakes you up to Chomsky's sympathies and immunises you against some of his bad politics, perhaps not a total waste of time.)
by troad
5/2/2026 at 7:25:16 AM
Look, you are making a claim without evidence. One which I know has been peddled by right-wing propagandists, who have put words into Chomsky's mouth (e.g. David Horowitz).Therefore, without further clarification, I must assume that when you say "Chomsky backed the Khmer rouge", this is what you meant.
The burden of proof is on you. And if you are (as you say) so familiar with Chomsky's work, and if his sympathies with the Khmer rouge are "pretty clear", you should have no issue actually producing the "pretty clear" statements to this effect.
If anyone is asking someone else to do their homework for them, it's you. You made the claim, not me.
by tovej
5/3/2026 at 2:53:30 AM
The disconnect here is that I have a degree in polsci and have read much of Chomsky, and you're repeating a "debunking" (replete with declarations of "fallacies") in a manner that is popular with people whose level of familiarity with political science is "I am active on Reddit"."Therefore, without further clarification, I must assume" (what a mouthful!) that you are an argumentative teen with a "debate me bro" mindset.
One of the key problems of online exchange is that it is impossible to synthetise expertise without someone much less knowledgeable driving by, and demanding ELI5 level proof. They believe that they must be capable of reaching the same conclusion as someone who has spent years on the topic, and they must get it now, and they firmly believe that the onus is on the expert to give it to them (for some reason). The implication being that years of familiarity are irrelevant unless you replace your nuanced point with "pan in the face"-level direct evidence, such as would satisfy the "debate me bro" teenager who is demanding it. All expertise is invalid except that which an inexperienced Redditor can see with his own eyes (an obvious parallel exists here to conspiracists who "do their own research").
Consider that it would be relatively trivial for me to just type "Chomsky khmer rouge" into Google and throw some random refs at you, and that there may be some reason I haven't done so.
It is both (a) pointless - in that I truly do not care one jot if I have provided a satisfying level of evidence to you (and what about the next Redditor that comes along? and the next one? are we to be stuck at this level of discourse forever?), and (b) fairly deleterious to discussion that happens at a level more sophisticated than first principles.
Consider the implications for the progress of society of being forever stuck in ELI5 performative debate for the benefit of random lay people. The FOX News-ification of all of academia. The reduction of all human knowledge to that which is digestible to the average Redditor.
I note also your reference to right-wing propaganda, etc. From an academic perspective, this is just such an irrelevance. I am not a Marxist, for example, but I find Marxism to offer an occasionally useful lens on economic power relations. If you're still indulging in partisan "he says she says", then I respectfully do not think we're operating at the same level on this topic. That's not to diminish your intellect or knowledge in other fields. I'm sure there are many other skills you have that I do not.
You are entirely free to walk away completely confident you're right and I'm wrong, and this is something that will never matter to me in any way for the rest of my life (I will forget that this exchange ever happened within days). I suppose I engage only in the (probably vain) hope that I might plant a seed in you or someone reading this. I'd consider you going back to read Chomsky a win here, even if I disagree with a lot of his conclusions, because at least there's more to him than this "debate me bro" hellscape.
I won't reply again - this is not a good use of my time. Up to you whether you choose to interpret that as a win (epic Redditor destroys boring academic with facts and logic!) or an opportunity for contemplation.
by troad
5/3/2026 at 6:11:13 AM
Look at how much energy you're using to not give a reference for something you're claiming.I'm asking for one (1) source where he is "pretty clear" about his Khmer rouge sympathies. You are writing up a storm to make that seem like an unreasonable thing.
And you would start this exercise by googling "chomsky khmer rouge"? Implying you have no mental model about what Chomsky said and when. Strange, considering your posturing about your political science degree and familiarity with Chomsky's work.
I must assume you have a PhD (or that you're working towards one), because you call yourself an academic. Any decent researcher would be able to identify sources for something they claim to be an expert on. At least, that is my experience, having worked in academia for a while. But you can't tell me what Chomsky said or where, even in broad terms?
by tovej
5/3/2026 at 6:21:02 AM
2026 and yet another wall of BS about Chomsky supporting Pol Pot, still without any sound evidence.by defrost
4/29/2026 at 11:27:07 AM
Chomsky is deep in the Epstein files. Turns out he might have been doing some “manufacturing consent” himself!by Der_Einzige
4/28/2026 at 3:37:03 PM
[flagged]by nkmnz
4/28/2026 at 8:33:07 PM
Arabs dont have equal standing and treatment in israel. Also, Israel is increasingly far right and best estimate is less rights in the future.by watwut
4/28/2026 at 9:20:37 PM
There are 2 million muslim, mostly arab, citizens who are officially and legally equal to jews. They are distinct from the arabs in Gaza or the west bank, who are not citizens.by perpetualpear
4/28/2026 at 9:44:25 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_Penalty_for_Terrorists_L...> The law imposes the death penalty on persons convicted of fatal terrorist attacks. In military courts, the death penalty is the "default"; only Palestinians are tried. In civilian courts, both Israelis and Palestinians are tried, but the law applies only to those who "'intentionally cause the death of a person with the aim of denying the existence of the State of Israel'—a definition designed to exclude Jewish terrorists". It therefore "effectively enshrines capital punishment for Palestinians alone".
And to preempt the "but that's Palestinians, not Israeli Arabs" bit, nope:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terms_for_Palestinian_citizens...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_citizens_of_Israel lists all sorts of other smaller inequities:
> In 2005, the Follow-Up Committee for Arab Education said that the Israeli government spent an average of $192 a year on Arab students compared to $1,100 for Jewish students.
> In the 2002 budget, Israel's health ministry allocated Arab communities less than 1% of its 277 m-shekel (£35m) budget (1.6 m shekels {£200,000}) to develop healthcare facilities.
by ceejayoz
4/28/2026 at 10:17:04 PM
I don't think I implied they are not discriminated. But they do, generally, enjoy the same rights. I just thought to correct what I perceive as factually incorrect.by perpetualpear
4/28/2026 at 10:28:50 PM
These are explicit government actions, not random civilians doing discrimination.by ceejayoz
4/28/2026 at 9:20:11 PM
I agree that we should hold Israel to highest standards (which are, unfortunately, eroded especially by the US, these days).Nevertheless, you should always ask yourselves: would you prefer being an gay Arab in Tel Aviv or a gay Jew in Gaza?
by nkmnz
4/28/2026 at 4:57:21 PM
If they join a religion that isn't on the state approved list, they can't get married there and hard or extra expensive to get buried. There are some limits on religious freedom.by cma
4/28/2026 at 6:05:13 PM
They can just get married abroad. There are even online ceremonies now.A decent number of Israeli Jews have to do that as well, since Israel recognizes Jewish marriages only under orthodox rabbis. Some Israeli Jews are not even considered Jews under strict orthodox rules.
by dlubarov
4/28/2026 at 8:43:15 PM
> They can just get married abroad.They don't have to if they are one of the approved religions. That's a restriction on religious freedom.
> since Israel recognizes Jewish marriages only under orthodox rabbis
I don't get how is this evidence of religious freedom.
by cma
4/28/2026 at 9:36:58 PM
And religion and marriage really shouldn't have anything to do with one another. Atheists can marry too.by wolvoleo
4/28/2026 at 10:10:50 PM
They can. It’s called a civil union. Complaining about marriage laws in Israel in this uninformed way is just an antisemite dog whistle.by nkmnz
4/29/2026 at 3:51:41 PM
Israel's domestic civil unions have restrictions on interfaith couples, and common-law/reputed spouse outside of that system doesn't grant the same citizenship pathway, though they can become residents.A marriage isn't just a state recognition of a civil union as religious, interfaith marriages between recognized religion and non-recognized have to marry abroad to get the similar rights, with special exclusions on this pathway if the immigrant spouse is from the West Bank or Gaza.
by cma
4/29/2026 at 12:45:21 AM
A civil union is not the same as a marriage. And I'm not just talking about Israel.by wolvoleo
4/29/2026 at 10:49:24 AM
Ideally, this is true:marriage = civil union + religion
Of course everyone should be free to call their civil union whatever they like and the government shouldn’t differentiate at all if your civil union has a religious blessing as well. Just because some governments appropriated the religious terminology and/or the civil union developed from a union sanctioned by a priest doesn’t mean that a government needs to guarantee everyone a religious marriage. To the contrary. Everyone should be able (and required) to register the civil union if they want to be treated as married by the state. I’m not here to defend the status quo of all the laws in Israel - I’m here to emphasize that your reading of the laws about civil unions and marriages in incomplete and the standards you apply to Israel are a hundred times higher than those you seem to apply to any other country. Honi soit qui mal y pense.
by nkmnz
4/28/2026 at 6:50:31 PM
So, not a religiously free state, as OP said.by IAmBroom
4/30/2026 at 12:38:47 AM
It's not like it's designed to be discriminatory. In practice it's Jews that are most affected (if they don't conform to strict Orthodox rules), so if anything it's discriminatory against Jews, which wouldn't make much sense.For a much more serious example of lack of religious freedom, we could look to Palestinian law, which only permits Islamic or Christian marriages. Not to mention that selling land to a Jew is high treason.
by dlubarov
4/28/2026 at 9:17:36 PM
That’s a lie. You can form a civil union, which is very similar to the religious marriage. On the other hand, does Hamas recognise a Jewish marriage?by nkmnz
4/28/2026 at 9:33:04 PM
> You can form a civil union, which is very similar to the religious marriage.Yeah, we tried "separate but equal" here too.
> On the other hand, does Hamas recognise a Jewish marriage?
Being the good guys is about more than being "second worst".
by ceejayoz
4/28/2026 at 10:07:59 PM
You might be surprised, but a civil union is the only legally binding form of marriage in many countries, e.g. Germany. The Churches - even though they are state churches - aren’t even allowed to provide a wedding ceremony if the civil union hasn’t been performed beforehand. Which different legal provisions do you think make the „religious marriage“ vs. „civil union“ morally equal to „separate but equal“?> Being the good guys is about more than being "second worst".
If you cannot think about any group that’s not as bad as Hamas, but worse than Israel, I‘m happy to help… just ask!
by nkmnz
4/28/2026 at 10:10:36 PM
> You might be surprised, but a civil union is the only legally binding form of marriage in many countries, e.g. Germany.That's great.
That's not Israel's setup.
> If you cannot think about any group that’s not as bad as Hamas, but worse than Israel, I‘m happy to help… just ask!
"Others are worse" is not the moral standard one should aspire to, either.
by ceejayoz
4/29/2026 at 10:54:21 AM
Israel’s setup is not perfect (and so is the one in Germany), but as long as you cannot show that there is any meaningful legal difference in the eye of the state between a couple that’s married (Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Druze) or in a Civil Union, I cannot see the difference to the system in Germany. I think (not an expert) the system in the UK in the same: you can get married either by the Church of England or by a civil institution - both are valid, both are equal before the law.Edit: just check it, it’s true. “You can choose to have EITHER a religious ceremony OR a civil ceremony if you’re getting married.” [0]
So since we’ve established that it’s a common practice in some countries that marriages can be either religious or civil, but still equal before the law, could you please elaborate how exactly civil unions in Israel are discriminated against compared to religious marriages?
[0] https://www.gov.uk/marriages-civil-partnerships/plan-your-ce...
by nkmnz
4/29/2026 at 3:54:43 PM
> as long as you cannot show that there is any meaningful legal difference in the eye of the state between a couple that’s married (Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Druze) or in a Civil UnionCitizenship pathway. An Israeli Chrisitian of recognized denomination can marry someone from abroad domestically of same denomination and have a citizenship pathway (as long as they aren't from Gaza or West Bank). Same Israeli marries a Muslim (or Muslim Israeli marries a recognized denomination Christian) and they can't. This isn't religious freedom, there are state religious courts handling the intricacies of this.
by cma
4/29/2026 at 10:58:10 AM
Everyone can get (civil) married: Fine!No one gets (civil) married, everyone can get a civil union: Fine!
Certain people can get (civil) married, others get a civil union: Not fine.
This is very simple. "Separate, but equal" never works.
by ceejayoz
4/29/2026 at 11:04:06 AM
But what is the DIFFERENCE between the two, other than the name? Please enlighten me, I cannot find any meaningful information on this.Also: this kind of discrimination - if there is any - is targeting Arabic and Non-Arabic Israelis in the exact same way. So I don’t fully understand why you pointed this out as an Act of discrimination against Arabs.
by nkmnz
4/29/2026 at 11:49:25 AM
> But what is the DIFFERENCE between the twoYou, in your own comments, acknowledged they are similar, not identical.
For starters, you have to go abroad for one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_civil_marriage_...
They also aren't valid abroad sometimes.
"In 2017, the Florida Third District Court of Appeal held that although Israel recognizes 'reputed spouses' as a legal union, the union is not a marriage under Israeli law, and therefore, Florida law does not recognize the relationship as a marriage."
And some people (an atheist marrying a religious person, for example) can't get one at all within Israel.
"In 2010, Israel passed the Civil Union Law for Citizens with no Religious Affiliation, 2010, allowing a couple to form a civil union in Israel if they are both registered as officially not belonging to any religion."
> Also: this kind of discrimination - if there is any - is targeting Arabic and Non-Arabic Israelis in the exact same way.
"It's fine, we discriminate against other minorities!" is not the argument you imagine it to be.
by ceejayoz
5/3/2026 at 8:57:32 PM
> For starters, you have to go abroad for one.You're barely able to read, are you? Otherwise, you wouldn't have linked the article about the recognition of "marriages performed outside Israel", but even though this article is about marriages performed OUTSIDE Israel, it contains the clear notion that "In 2010, Israel passed the Civil Union Law for Citizens with no Religious Affiliation, 2010, allowing a couple to form a civil union IN ISRAEL" - still, I agree that the status quo is not good enough. They should do better.
by nkmnz
4/29/2026 at 11:02:54 AM
Opting for a separate comment for this one:> "Others are worse" is not the moral standard one should aspire to, either.
OP stated that all Arabs hate Israel. This opens up the debate if living in an Arabic ethnofascist state such as Gaza or a Muslim fundamentalist state like Saudi Arabia would be the better choice for those 2 million Arabs. So yes, I think being the lesser of two evils is already the answer to that binary choice.
by nkmnz
4/28/2026 at 2:09:57 PM
They're not buddies per se, but Egypt was the first ME country to normalize relations.by bilegeek
4/28/2026 at 2:13:24 PM
They've also been cooperating on blockading Gaza for a couple of decades. Israel gets most of the attention for that, mostly rightfully so, but people seem to forget that there's a border with Egypt too and that has also had very limited access.by wat10000
4/28/2026 at 3:35:05 PM
Egypt learned on other's mistakes for once. They saw how Jordan welcomed Palestinians on their land and they repaid the kindness by launching a coup against the government in 1970. No wonder not a single anti-Israeli coalition country is willing to deal with Palestinians directly at their own home and are keeping borders watertight :) .by Yizahi
4/28/2026 at 11:54:48 PM
Don't forget that after being expelled from Jordan, Arafat relocated to Lebanon where he proceeded to take over the South ("Fatahland"), start a civil war, and pull in Israel with constant attacks across the border. Until Israel kicked them out in 1982, the Palestinians played the disruptive, parasitic role in Lebanon that Hezbollah plays today. In fact, Hezbollah rose to power precisely by filling the void left by the Palestinians in 82.by shykes
4/29/2026 at 10:44:40 AM
You're probably aware of your bigotry, as the stupid smiley at the end of your comment seems to suggest, but your reasoning only serves to support the pre-made conclusion of 'Palestinians are genetically evil'.by constantius
4/29/2026 at 11:34:11 AM
How can you not acknowledge that essentialism is basically correct?Some cultures go thousands of years without ever forming civilizations that escape barbarism. Slavs in particular seem especially unable to find their way out of tyranny, for literally thousands of years.
Sometimes you call a spade a spade. Essences exist. Copes against it like “intersectionality” have been thoroughly rejected by the body politic and that’s why you see zoomer and gen alpha talking like they’re all from 4chan - because 4chan was the only place where essentialism was not only accepted but encouraged.
by Der_Einzige
4/29/2026 at 2:00:01 PM
We need a name for this genre where some heinous idea is presented as if it was obviously correct, with no evidence because apparently it's so obvious it doesn't even need any.by wat10000
4/29/2026 at 12:02:45 PM
> and that’s why you see zoomer and gen alpha talking like they’re all from 4chan - because 4chan was the only place where essentialism was not only accepted but encouraged.This bodes well for the future, you say?
by tolerance
4/29/2026 at 1:41:31 PM
Pure racism.by greedo
4/28/2026 at 4:21:38 PM
As an Arab friend summed it up, 'All Arab governments like to trumpet the Palestinian cause when it serves them, but none of them are willing to lift a finger to help the Palestinians.'by ethbr1
4/28/2026 at 11:43:16 PM
Are you sure? Jordanians tried and it burned them spectacularly. And if my memory served, Egypt also tried to some extent and eventually was eagerly and happily offloading Gaza into Israel's hands. Then, they built a huge border defensive line to keep Gazan out that would make Trump's Mexican border a joke in comparison.At some points people need to wonder why.
by anvuong
4/28/2026 at 11:57:36 PM
Egypt is trying to have their cake and eat it too. Total crackdown on islamists at home - whether Hamas or any other incarnation of the Muslim Brotherhood - but also making sure they remain a thorn in the side of Egypt's rivals. See for example the massive smuggling tunnels discovered by the IDF in Rafah in 2024, which had been keeping Hamas covertly resupplied through Egypt. Hard to imagine that Egypt was unaware.by shykes
4/29/2026 at 10:49:23 AM
> At some points people need to wonder why.Could you imagine me making the same argument with other historically 'unwanted' groups, like for example Black people or Jews? If these populations keeep getting kicked out and marginalised through millennia, surely you have to start wondering why.
by constantius
4/29/2026 at 11:37:24 AM
We need actual coherent answers to that question, because whenever the myriad number of kids in school ask such questions and get non answers, they start to actually buy the “global conspiracy” framing of everything.It’s probably more anti-Semitic to lie and say “jews don’t control Hollywood” rather than try to explain correctly why they do. Yet, most people don’t even want to try to explain historical factors.
by Der_Einzige
4/29/2026 at 2:01:48 PM
What is the answer to why Jews are historically persecuted, if not "people are awful and minorities are convenient scapegoats"?by wat10000
4/28/2026 at 2:16:47 PM
To be fair, part of the peace deal between Egypt and Israel gave Israel some control over the crossing, and they seized it entirely during the war.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafah_Border_Crossing
> The Rafah crossing was opened by Israel after the 1979 peace treaty and remained under Israeli control until 2005...
> Under a 2007 agreement between Egypt and Israel, Egypt controls the crossing but imports through the Rafah crossing require Israeli approval.
by ceejayoz
4/28/2026 at 2:26:41 PM
This is to a large part to give Egypt plausible deniability. They don’t want to deal with Gaza, refugees, or a humanitarian crisis, but also don’t want the political fallout of taking action like the Israelis do.by trollbridge
4/28/2026 at 2:43:51 PM
Eh, 50/50. Israel would not respond positively to Egypt throwing the gates wide open.by ceejayoz
4/29/2026 at 12:00:08 AM
On the contrary, I believe Israel would be delighted. It would lessen the humanitarian burden on them, and force Egypt to deal with the Hamas problem more directly. It will never happen, though. No Arab country will "throw the gates wide open" for Palestinians. They have done so before, several times, and it went very badly.by shykes
4/28/2026 at 5:23:37 PM
The Israeli openly proposed for the Gaza Palestinians to move to Egypt (effectively ethnic cleansing Gaza, their obvious goal), not that long after 7.10.Egypt said 'HELL NO', first, because they don't want to deal with Palestinians (both political and economic nightmare), and second because it would have been viewed as ceding to Israelis and helping them cleanse Gaza, which would be highly unpopular among their population.
by don_esteban
4/28/2026 at 5:45:04 PM
> The Israeli openly proposed for the Gaza Palestinians to move to EgyptYeah, that's not "wide open". Israel would absolutely be happy with a one-way exit gate.
by ceejayoz
4/29/2026 at 12:14:25 AM
[flagged]by shykes
4/29/2026 at 10:53:52 AM
No they wouldn't, it's their land and they demonstrated after 80 years of ethnic cleansing that they will not be driven out it. I already addressed another one of your racial fantasies elsewhere, here you descend into genocide apology.by constantius
4/28/2026 at 3:17:16 PM
That is very reductive of the whole situation. The Egyptians are not singularly focused on helping Palestinians; it is far more nuanced than that.Bottom line, Egyptians are not interested in supporting millions of refugees inside their border. So the border stays closed to mass immigration.
by philistine
4/28/2026 at 3:26:58 PM
All that may be true.Also true: If Egypt opened the border and Israel objected, Israel would take swift military action.
by ceejayoz
4/28/2026 at 4:38:21 PM
No, why? Israel would celebrate.But NONE of the Arab countries want to help Gaza people really.
by deepsun
4/28/2026 at 5:06:09 PM
> No, why? Israel would celebrate.This is directly contradicted by Israel's actions in the Gaza War. Egyptian control of the crossing was not enough, so they took it. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-05-07/israel-ra...
by ceejayoz
4/28/2026 at 10:40:53 PM
Israel would object to aid and weapons flows into Gaza. It would be fine with Gazans leaving the Strip. The problem is there are currently zero takers globally for a significant Palestinian refugee population, in part, as other comments have mentioned, due to the history of Palestinian refugee populations in the Middle East. (To my knowledge, Palestinian Americans have been fine and productive members of society.)by JumpCrisscross
4/29/2026 at 11:05:24 AM
Racial theorists are out in full force today.I do wonder if you all can hear yourself: a lot of subtle implications of genetic defects in Palestinians' character and selective understanding of geopolitics in the region, or just basic societal dynamics.
I invited another commenter to transpose their reasoning to groups it's less popular to openly discriminate, I'd suggest you do the same.
by constantius
4/29/2026 at 7:33:09 PM
Saying that no nations want to take Palestinian refugees does not make you a racist.The fact remains; no Middle Eastern nation wants Palestinian refugees, not for their genes, but for their politics.
by philistine
4/30/2026 at 1:59:54 PM
"Saying that gays steal does not make you homophobic": technically true, but you're being selective with your understanding of facts.Most states (talking about decision-makers, not populations) don't want to take in large groups of refugees, not because of their genes or politics, but because it has a cost and risks (in terms of integration, gov perception, fuelling far right parties, etc.). Nothing to do with Middle-Eastern/Palestinian.
Even though there are examples of massive refugee intakes by states, everywhere, including in the Middle-East, including of Palestinians, including voluntary.
by constantius
5/1/2026 at 1:38:42 PM
I'm not saying anything about Palestinians themselves. Only the opinion of others about them.I'm saying shop owners think that gays steal.
by philistine
4/29/2026 at 12:15:56 AM
[flagged]by shykes
4/28/2026 at 5:31:35 PM
if egypt opened the border, it would mean weapons and bombs flowing from egypt into gaza.thats not something israel would be excited about
by 8note
4/28/2026 at 9:41:54 PM
More like refugees flowing out, which Egypt doesn't want to deal with.The Palestinians didn't help their cause with Yasser Arafat's Black September uprising in Jordan. Then they topped that up with strong support for Saddam when he invaded Kuwait. Like the ones in Kuwait were literally betraying Kuwaitis to the Iraqi troops.
Oh, and did I forget Lebanon? They literally fomented the civil war.
by fakedang
4/28/2026 at 8:50:59 PM
I mean "open the border" to allow Gazans to leave to Egypt. But Egypt (and none other Arab countries) are accepting refugees from Gaza.by deepsun
4/28/2026 at 3:17:52 PM
At the same time, neither would Egypt. Refugee crisises are messy.by pixl97
4/29/2026 at 12:04:32 AM
Yes, the "refugee crisis" in Jordan and Lebanon was indeed quite messy...https://www.thoughtco.com/black-september-jordanian-plo-civi...
https://www.historiascripta.org/post-ww2/the-palestinians-of...
by shykes
4/28/2026 at 2:25:22 PM
People don't forget it. But Egypt is a dictatorship aligned with US/Israel, so there's again not much we can do there. Ending foreign aid to Egypt is probably very aligned with ending foreign aid to Israel in terms of popularity among American votersby aprilthird2021
4/28/2026 at 2:29:25 PM
> Ending foreign aid to Egypt is probably very aligned with ending foreign aid to Israel in terms of popularity among American votersI strongly suspect the average American has absolutely zero sense of how much foreign aid we give Egypt. That's not to contradict your point directly, just that it isn't a very salient part of American politics (unlike Israeli foreign aid).
by woodruffw
4/28/2026 at 3:24:27 PM
> it isn't a very salient part of American politics (unlike Israeli foreign aid).I feel like Israeli aid, while vastly more salient than it used to be, is still mostly salient as a left-of-center wedge issue, otherwise being about as salient as your average major foreign policy issue - ranking just under the least salient domestic policy issue, which ranks just under the most minor personal quality of any candidate, which ranks under the current state of the economy, which ranks under the current perceived state of the economy. Wow, that's way too many times to use "salient" in one sentence.
And for the record, I'm not arguing about how much people should care, just how much they do.
by BobaFloutist
4/28/2026 at 7:43:07 PM
It's also become a right-of-center (right of far-right?) wedge issue in the past 12 months. But I otherwise completely agree with you; I think there's a veritable chasm between how much the media talks about the US's foreign aid (both to Israel and in general) and how much it actually matters to the average voter.by woodruffw
5/2/2026 at 10:31:35 AM
There's no tension with a policy not being the top or even top 10 priority for voters and the policy being very popular with voters.by aprilthird2021
5/2/2026 at 10:30:26 AM
Egypt doesn't actively and loudly influence our politics the way Israel does, part of why it's so much less known. Netanyahu on the other hand pitched our current Iran War disaster to Trumpby aprilthird2021
4/28/2026 at 2:21:58 PM
If Egypt were a democracy, its government would hate Israel. That's why the current dictator overthrew the last democracy and had its elected leader die in jail, and that same dictator is now supported heavily by US fundingby aprilthird2021
4/28/2026 at 2:25:57 PM
The briefly elected Muslim Brotherhood government of Egypt was .. not as liberal as the Tahrir Square protests demanded.by pjc50
4/28/2026 at 11:02:37 PM
I think you might be overestimating how liberal the protesters were. Source: I was in Tahrir square during the protests and spoke with many Egyptians.Almost all of the complaints I heard while I was in Egypt were about corruption and lack of opportunity. It was more frustration with rampant nepotism/cronyism and less a desire for liberalism. From the ground, it appeared to be driven by economic forces and not political ideology.
In fact, many Egyptian men that I spoke to made the argument for the continued oppression of women (e.g. the full burqa and absence from work). In general, the populace was decidedly anti-liberal.
The election of the Muslim Brotherhood happened after I left the country, but it was no surprise to me at all. The fact that they attempted to change the constitution so quickly after their victory was unwise, and the subsequent coup by the West was just as unsurprising.
by zoogeny
4/29/2026 at 7:59:29 PM
I have a feeling that people in the West have assumptions about democracy being better for the society based on their own education levels and social advancement. Democracy is better if the general population have cultural affinity towards fairness, equality and respect for other religions. Democracy does not mean fairness, human values or such high moral standards that general people in the West assume. Democracy is just the will of the people. If they are uneducated, racists and supremacists, the elected government would represent that.by ivell
5/2/2026 at 10:32:03 AM
Sure but they were elected in a democratic vote. The only time that ever happened in Egyptby aprilthird2021
4/28/2026 at 2:35:44 PM
And the UAE played a large role in covertly supporting the movement that toppled it.by g8oz
5/2/2026 at 10:40:51 AM
… for which (if you think women are equal) they should receive the Nobel Peace Prize.(Husband and father of daughters).
by ta20240528
4/28/2026 at 2:10:51 PM
Egyptians and Israelis hate each other, not their governments. They're on friendly terms relatively speaking.by j_maffe
4/29/2026 at 12:05:42 AM
Israelis do not hate Egyptians... The Arab world has a major Jew-hatred problem, but the reverse it not true.Remember that 20% of the Israeli population is Arab.
by shykes
4/29/2026 at 12:59:22 AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_to_Arabs> Death to Arabs" or "Death to the Arabs" (Israeli Hebrew: מָוֶת לָעֲרָבִים, romanized: Mávet la'Aravím) is an anti-Arab slogan originating in Israel.
by huntertwo
4/29/2026 at 7:02:30 AM
Your source documents a real phenomenon but doesn't support the universal claim that "Israelis hate Arabs". Please provide evidence proportional to the scope of your argument.by shykes
4/29/2026 at 1:45:54 PM
Please provide evidence of yours.by g8oz
4/28/2026 at 2:14:19 PM
[dead]by diogenes_atx
4/29/2026 at 9:45:58 AM
Saudi Arabia and Somalia agreed upon military cooperation early this is year. Egypt and Turkey are in this axis as well. Somaliland was recognized by Israel late last year. UAE and Ethiopia are on this axis. Part of the endgame might be lifting the Middle East from a transit zone to a logistics hub.by sharpshadow
4/28/2026 at 1:52:58 PM
As I recall, it was Saudi Arabia that largely bank rolled Pakistan's "not party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty" weapons program [Ω](?) .[Ω] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_and_weapons_of_mass_d...
So there's that.
by defrost
4/28/2026 at 2:09:20 PM
> ... bank rolled Pakistan's not party to ...They bank rolled Pakistan's not party to the treaty? Sorry I can't parse this sentence.
Did you munge two sentences i.e. Saudi Arabia bankrolled Pakistan's nuclear weapons, and also Pakistan is not party to the treaty?
by quietbritishjim
4/28/2026 at 2:23:25 PM
My bad, it's late in the evening here and I typed something that works when spoken with emphasis and timing (at least in my head).I added quotes, it should say that Pakistan's weapons program is one that is outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as Pakistan is not a party to it.
by defrost
4/29/2026 at 5:53:09 AM
We all know Israel isn’t party to it either.by ameen
4/29/2026 at 7:11:53 AM
Nor India, nor South Sudan. North Korea was, but didn't comply and then went backsies.Of the four never did non signatories, South Sudan is not like the others (wrt one metric at least).
by defrost
4/28/2026 at 2:02:30 PM
We all live in a yellow cake submarine..Its a pakistani submarine, with exclusive saudi-royalty members on the bridge.
We should build a city that is a statistical bunker- basically a line, for the edge case of jihadist insurgents getting the forbidden eggs in the cake.
by 21asdffdsa12
4/28/2026 at 8:32:19 PM
Oh like mark Zuckerberg 30th through 40th mansions?by 2ndorderthought
4/29/2026 at 3:32:49 AM
"Emirati-Israeli axis"I'd add the US to that as well. Both the UAE and Israel are highly (practically solely) dependent on US for their military tech and supplies.
by oa335
4/29/2026 at 1:27:28 AM
Thank you for this analysis! MSM doesn’t seem to be covering this and it’s hard to know what’s going on if you’re not familiar with the region.by rayiner
4/29/2026 at 12:43:43 AM
[dead]by aaron695