• sousmerde{retardatR}OP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Jews started out legally buying lands in Mandatory Palestine until they were massacred and had war waged on them on when they declared statehood. Any lands annexed was a result of this.

    The Ottoman Empire forbade them to buy these lands during the XIXth century, and would never have accepted the british decisions, were the arabs just supposed to let them declare statehood ?

    Polling indicates Palestinians want intifada and a one-state solution where Jews are denied equal rights, and they outnumber Israelis.

    And what do israelis want ? A two-states solution ? Why won’t they put an end to the settlements then, and why is it anything else than a net gain for them and a loss for palestinians ?
    What are the compromises that we(sterners) are making ?

    Anger will not change their situation, it has led to it being this way.

    The anger of israelis led to them killing thousands of people, no ?
    But yeah, you’re probably right, i don’t really know what they expected, some kind of victory perhaps, they’re at war as well, and seized an occasion.

    If ummah were a factor here I suspect Egypt wouldn’t be keeping Rafah closed, they clearly care more about using them as pawns with claims to land than they do the lives of Gazans stuck there.

    If Egypt cared about palestinians they would help Israel in deporting them ?

    While there is only one Jewish state there are many Arab/Islamic ones in the area and none of them seem willing to help Palestine, probably because those who did suffered for it with coups and terrorist organizations within their borders.

    Most of them are still suffering because of their support/principles. Every single one of them is willing to help Palestine, but the more you’re trying to put pressure and the more you’re exposing your citizens for reprisals, so the extent of their actions may vary, i still think that they could win but what do i know really.

    (And realpolitik don’t look at morals, it is machiavelism, looking for what’s fair/right/virtuous and then the realist ways to do this seems a better practice)

    • DarkGamer@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      The Ottoman Empire forbade them to buy these lands during the XIXth century, and would never have accepted the british decisions, were the arabs just supposed to let them declare statehood ?

      Yes. You skipped a few steps in there though, the Ottomans were deposed, the British allowed them to buy land, Arab nationalists started massacring Jews because they didn’t like them legally buying land, a 2-state solution became impossible, the UN divided them into countries because of this, Israel declared themselves a country with the borders the UN drew, Palestinian Arabs declared war on them and tried to destroy their state, they lost, and those were were belligerent or left had lands annexed (Nakba.) Not murdering your peaceful neighbors for legally buying seems like a low bar to clear, as does letting them have their own home where you can’t murder them. If they had remained peaceful the levant might be one multiethnic country today. Heck, if they had stopped trying to murder the Jews at any time for the past 70 years Palestine might not be in this situation.

      And what do israelis want ? A two-states solution ?

      Good question, I’d be interested to see polling on this matter if you’ve read any.

      Why won’t they put an end to the settlements then

      Probably because:

      • It puts pressure on Palestine to negotiate for viable peace because if they don’t they will lose everything.
      • If Palestine is unwilling to pacify themselves, the distance created from slow annexation via settlers will eventually create safety for Israel via distance from belligerent nations hostile to them.
      • Dismantling the settlements in Gaza as part of their 2005 unilateral withdrawal didn’t work out so well for Israel in hindsight.

      why is it anything else than a net gain for them and a loss for palestinians ?

      These nations are at war, which is arguably a zero-sum game. Israel is negotiating from a place of strength, which means they can further their own interests far more effectively than Palestine can.

      What are the compromises that we(sterners) are making ?

      I don’t follow. Why should westerners make any compromises, and for whom?

      The anger of israelis led to them killing thousands of people, no ?

      They were able to do that because of a modern military, not because of anger.

      But yeah, you’re probably right, i don’t really know what they expected, some kind of victory perhaps, they’re at war as well, and seized an occasion.

      A Pyrrhic victory at best, given the destruction the attack has caused their nation.

      If Egypt cared about palestinians they would help Israel in deporting them ?

      If Egypt cared more about Palestinian lives than land claims and putting pressure on Israel, they would let Gazans voluntarily leave en masse, (even if Egypt were not their final destination;) deportation implies they are forced to leave.

      Most of them are still suffering because of their support/principles. Every single one of them is willing to help Palestine, but the more you’re trying to put pressure and the more you’re exposing your citizens for reprisals, so the extent of their actions may vary, i still think that they could win but what do i know really.

      The kinds of “help” they are offering are very limited, diplomatic stuff mostly. Many of the surrounding countries that let Palestinians stay have to deal with terror groups launching attacks on Israel from within their borders and reprisals, like Hezbollah in Lebanon who are now part of the government. The PLO caused civil war in Jordan when too many Palestinians settled there.

      Every Arab nation that went to war with Israel on behalf of Palestine got their asses handed to them, and many lost territory for it. That’s how Egypt lost Gaza (which they no longer want back, refusing it in the Camp David accords.)

      (And realpolitik don’t look at morals, it is machiavelism, looking for what’s fair/right/virtuous and then the realist ways to do this seems a better practice)

      It’s good to have morals, but morals don’t win wars, nor does righteousness. Acknowledging the reality of one’s political and military situation is nessicary if one is to improve the situation of their nation.

      • sousmerde{retardatR}OP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Your answer for the past is that Israel should have been allowed to take “back” these (holy )lands, important for all the “children” of Abraham, perhaps that the arabs are also attached to these lands and would prefer to see them ruled by arabs/muslims, and not israelis/jews, they also had/have an importance for christians(, crusades). If they ever agree to lose one of their “hearts”, then fairness would require to give one of our “hearts” in exchange to palestinians(, with a lot of money, e.g. 0.1% of the g.d.p. of every country for a year, as well as the promise to leave the Middle-East alone, to lift sanctions, to ensure the security&‘total separation’ of both Israel and this state, etc.)
        I think that it is the root of our disagreement, you’re starting from their right to take these lands to explain that the sins done by Israel were necessary(, if so are they still sins ?,) since they had hostile neighbours who wanted their destruction. Destroying Israel would be awful, but destroying Palestine is justified because they didn’t accepted Israel in the first place. Perhaps, i think that their desire to expand their borders is more important than their desire for security, but to get back to the “root” of our disagreement, you’ve seen that i’m not among those who want israelis to g.t.f.o., but i can’t blame those who do(, would you have accepted if they took one of our “hearts” by force ? It’s not Mecca or Medina but still).
        You may think that it’s not such a big deal to take/keep these lands, perhaps you’re right, everything is relative, then perhaps that in the same sense it wouldn’t be such a big deal to give them a territory as well(, it could be the occasion to seal an alliance).

        If you’d like a one sentence summary : You probably wouldn’t have accepted it either if islamists took a portion in the heart of our lands, not by might at least, but possibly if you/we were given something which would ‘be satisfying’/‘made it acceptable’.

        Now that i think about it, i can’t resolve myself to say that they don’t have any legitimate right to revive their culture on their ancient lands(, still don’t agree with their refusal to be christian or muslim as well though, John and Muhammad ﷺ were prophets, the disagreements aren’t worth such profound schism, we follow Abraham, and more importantly (virtues and )God, christianity and judaism could be considered as sects of islam, or all of them sects of abrahamism(, that’s diversity without unity here)), but i know that we(sterners) wouldn’t owe arabs anything in exchange if it was totally just/fair to take these lands, so i’ll stay with my conclusion : the problem isn’t that Israel’s existence isn’t accepted by palestinians&muslims, but that we didn’t made its existence acceptable, in other words it’s up to us to make this right.
        You’ll probably say that we won’t make their loss acceptable, then i don’t see why they should accept it, or why they should care if Israel disappears, if it’s the law of the strongest then they have a chance to win( for all i know).

        • DarkGamer@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          I appreciate your tone and demeanor, it’s nice to have a civil discussion with someone who disagrees, especially in this domain where emotions can run so hot.

          Your answer for the past is that Israel should have been allowed to take “back” these (holy )lands, … perhaps that the arabs are also attached to these lands and would prefer to see them ruled by arabs/muslims, and not israelis/jews, they also had/have an importance for christians(, crusades). … You may think that it’s not such a big deal to take/keep these lands, perhaps you’re right, everything is relative,

          I know that’s the motivation for many Jews and Muslims, I don’t personally care about ancient claims nor do I believe they are very relevant to the present conflict. What matters more is who controls it now, and fighting over holy cities just ensures that this will never end because it’s hard to compromise with people who believe God is on their side and granted them access to specific lands. On some level I think the world would be better off if neither party had Jerusalem and it was independent, like the original partition plan called for, but now that ship has sailed and Israel controls it. I don’t see this changing any time soon.

          If they ever agree to lose one of their “hearts”, then fairness would require to give one of our “hearts” in exchange to palestinians(, with a lot of money, e.g. 0.1% of the g.d.p. of every country for a year, as well as the promise to leave the Middle-East alone, to lift sanctions, to ensure the security&’total separation’ of both Israel and this state, etc.)

          Unfortunately I don’t think any of that is viable except perhaps for the security and separation part, it would be hard for the losing side to get the winning side to agree to such terms and pay war reparations for a war they didn’t start and won.

          I think that it is the root of our disagreement, you’re starting from their right to take these lands to explain that the sins done by Israel were necessary(, if so are they still sins ?,) since they had hostile neighbours who wanted their destruction.

          I’m not sure they have the right, legally speaking annexation hasn’t been legal internationally since WWII although it still happens, but it’s certainly justifiable in the name of self-defense. Returning territories while their enemy remains belligerent seems like a bad strategy. The problem is that war is not a transitory state in this part of the world like the UN assumes are their nature, it is a permanent condition. Palestine refuses to concede despite being defeated time and time again. From the polling I’ve seen, most Palestinians don’t want to compromise for anything less than the '48 lands back with a one-state solution they control, which is a non-starter. International laws regarding war seem to be written with the idea that wars end when peace is sued for, and this conflict doesn’t fit into that mold because of a desire for endless resistance regardless of realpolitik.

          Destroying Israel would be awful, but destroying Palestine is justified because they didn’t accepted Israel in the first place. … then perhaps … it wouldn’t be such a big deal to give them a territory as well(, it could be the occasion to seal an alliance).

          I don’t think either should be destroyed, but that’s probably what will happen if Palestine doesn’t surrender and pacify itself. Endless intifada will just push Israel to keep responding to violence with harsh responses and annexations, and they hold all the cards militarily speaking. If I were in charge, I think the best solution would be to eventually make the entire west bank the state of Palestine, contiguous and autonomous, provided it remains peaceful. This is not possible while the population wants revenge more than viable peace.

          Perhaps, i think that their desire to expand their borders is more important than their desire for security,

          I just looked up current polling regarding what Israelis want regarding Palestine, evidently it’s a contentious issue with the Israeli public generally split regarding how to proceed:

          • Strive for peace based on a two-state solution: 36%
          • Strive to annex the West Bank and establish a single state with privileged status for Jews: 28%
          • Strive to annex the West Bank and establish one state with full equal rights for all: 11%
          • Don’t know: 25%

          You probably wouldn’t have accepted it either if islamists took a portion in the heart of our lands, not by might at least, but possibly if you/we were given something which would ‘be satisfying’/‘made it acceptable’.

          Certainly I can understand their outrage, but how to logically respond would depend upon a nation’s ability to change that situation. I’m reminded of the saying, “give me strength to change what I cannot accept and wisdom to accept what I cannot change.”

          • sousmerde{retardatR}OP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            Certainly I can understand their outrage, but how to logically respond would depend upon a nation’s ability to change that situation.

            We’re arriving at the end of the discussion then, because we can argue about their chances but in the end none of us (can pretend to )know.s the future. Here’s why i think that the law of the strongest doesn’t necessarily work against them :

            Afghanistan is the best modern example of people who won against impossible odds.
            Since you mentioned “realpolitik”, and while you may have heard of it before, you could have heard it again recently with John Mearsheimer and others during the war in Ukraine, it is linked to Afghanistan in that, if all ukrainians were (traitors )like those in eastern Galicia, i doubt that Russia could have kept these territories : they would have had to face constant “terrorism” by more numerous inhabitants.
            In the same spirit, wars for decolonization could also count as other examples of successful fights against overwhelming odds.
            Yet when i’m thinking of such examples it’s about locals united in their perception of foreign armies as the enemy, and couldn’t be applied for Israel(, not occupied by a majority of locals/palestinians).

            Even without that, they can win(, i.d.k. if they will,) if the ummah was united.
            If it wasn’t enough of a weight(, i doubt it), they would certainly change the scale by uniting with Africa, the rest of Asia, Russia, and also South America. That’d mean even more coups by the west in order to keep control, and then by the rest, we(sterners) are lucky that they’re still closer to us.
            (What interest me more is whether they should win(, and on what terms), the law of the strongest shouldn’t matter, but even through that lens, )Here’s a (naive )picture of how it could happen :

            • they’ll throw a lot of propaganda to make their citizens f*cking hate to death israelis, painting them as monsters by recycling their war crimes and implying that they’re doing so because they’re evils, not because they want to survive, antisemitism could also help in that ;
            • they’ll progressively cut all economic ties with the west as long as we dont accept their request, and have prepared beforehand as much as they can to withstand sanctions/‘economic war’ ;
            • they’ll strengthen their link and, this is important, pledge publicly and repeatedly that they’ll invade each other if(when) someone is elected(, or placed after a coup,) that intend to break this oath ;
            • they’ll regularly make military threats to Israel, but without acting upon it unless they know how to get rid of the bomb, so mostly to mark a point before diplomatic meetings and eventually take a habit of strengthening popular support like that, rejoicing in the fear that they think it may bring israelis, and of the coming day when they’ll conquer back their lands, as well as enact laws against israelis or even perhaps westerners ;

            If ‘fairness is excluded’/‘might makes right’/‘the only factor is strength’, then they’re not weak.
            Only God would know how to solve this situation in the most perfect manner(, ideally if we were perfect/‘never doing anything that another being would consider bad for h.er.im’ then we wouldn’t rely on states, laws, borders, …, for protection, just freely join and leave communities with their own rules and paradise would come unto Earth, lands wouldn’t belong to anyone and we wouldn’t possess anything else, only living to do good to each other, but since we’re not perfect it’s useless to point that out(, Israel would be destroyed if they acted like that, and Palestine wouldn’t be recovered, and more generally societies would collapse, Christ is/shows the Way but if the other don’t also believe that he’s one with you it obviously quickly becomes useless, sry for the unproductive rambling).

            • DarkGamer@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              6 months ago

              Afghanistan is the best modern example of people who won against impossible odds.

              Israel is literally fighting for its existence and has nowhere to retreat to should they lose. Afghanistan, like Vietnam, was not an existential threat to the US. It’s not really comparable because of this.

              Since you mentioned “realpolitik”, and while you may have heard of it before, you could have heard it again recently with John Mearsheimer and others during the war in Ukraine, it is linked to Afghanistan in that, if all ukrainians were (traitors )like those in eastern Galicia, i doubt that Russia could have kept these territories : they would have had to face constant “terrorism” by more numerous inhabitants.

              • Ukraine is also fighting for its existence.
              • Realpolitik just means acknowledging the political realities of their situation. Political realism.
              • Guerilla warfare can sometimes be effective, however I do not believe this approach will lead to victory against Israel. They have been dealing with terrorism/intifada relatively effectively for the past 70 years and have built a sophisticated system that insulates them from Palestinian belligerents. While it failed spectacularly on Oct7, I don’t suspect that will happen again. The only domain where Palestinians seem to be able to gain territory is in the court of public opinion.

              In the same spirit, wars for decolonization could also count as other examples of successful fights against overwhelming odds.

              For Israel this isn’t a fight to colonize, it’s a fight to exist. There are many Arab nations that could take in Palestinians, not so for Jews who have already been expelled from the Muslim world, and are facing enemies who quite explicitly want to genocide them.

              Even without that, they can win(, i.d.k. if they will,) if the ummah was united.

              Wasn’t that what happened in '48 and '67? It didn’t work out well for other nations who went to war on their behalf. Israel is much stronger now than it was then.

              If it wasn’t enough of a weight(, i doubt it), they would certainly change the scale by uniting with Africa, the rest of Asia, Russia, and also South America. That’d mean even more coups by the west in order to keep control, and then by the rest, we(sterners) are lucky that they’re still closer to us.

              Interesting

              • I believe you are overestimating both international support for Palestine and the military capabilities of most African and South American nations.
              • Palestinian resistance groups are getting support from Iran, who is using them as a proxy, but most of their Arabic neighbors recognize that making an ally of the United States and the EU is far more strategically valuable than backing this group that wants endless war and seeking unreasonable demands. Hamas launched this attack because Saudi Arabia was about to recognize Israel, after all, and SA is dependent upon the US for security. If they alienate the US they have Iran to contend with.
              • Russia has its own issues right now and cannot afford another front, and there are many Russian Jews in Israel. Given their behaviors in Chechnya, they do not seem to be sympathetic to Muslims.

              If ‘fairness is excluded’/‘might makes right’/‘the only factor is strength’, then they’re not weak.

              It is not the only factor but it is the most relevant one in this conflict, because it’s so very asymmetrical.

              Only God would know how to solve this situation in the most perfect manner

              If such creatures exist, they haven’t weighed in, which is curious given that Allah/Yahweh supposedly care so much about their followers and who controls their holy cities. Funny how gods are always concerned with the same things that their followers and the men who claim to speak for them are, rather than what I’d expect from omnipotent creatures beyond our understanding. It would be like humans trying to control ant societies in our backyards, why would we care?

              freely join and leave communities with their own rules and paradise would come unto Earth

              I hope we get there one day, albeit through secular means.

              • Sparlock@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                6 months ago

                Israel is literally fighting for its existence and has nowhere to retreat to should they lose. Afghanistan, like Vietnam, was not an existential threat to the US. It’s not really comparable because of this.

                Really? ? A bunch of half starved poorly armed guerrillas are an “existential threat” to Israel? Get the fuck outta here with that bullshit.

                Come on, if you are gonna try to be the one calling for rational discourse you have got to at least try not to be so intellectually dishonest.

                • DarkGamer@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  Spare me your insults.

                  A bunch of half starved poorly armed guerrillas are an “existential threat” to Israel?

                  They are unlikely to win but if they did, yes, the consequences would be existential. It wasn’t long ago that Israel was the underdog in this conflict.

                  • Sparlock@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    6 months ago

                    Because they don’t have the means to fight back and win. Because if they insist on intifada they will end up with nothing. --DarkGamer

                    They are unlikely to win but if they did, yes, the consequences would be existential. It wasn’t long ago that Israel was the underdog in this conflict. --DarkGamer

                    So they are both weak and strong. Hrm right out of the fascists handbook.

                    Keep telling us who you are when you get back from your goose-stepping practice.

                  • Sparlock@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    6 months ago

                    They are unlikely to win

                    One of the most modern and well funded militaries in the world backed by the world superpower VS guys with ak-47s of vietnam era vintage. You cannot be serious.
                    If you really think this is true that Israel would be defeated by hamas you are beyond rational discussion and of in some fantasy world of victimhood.

                    Spare me your insults.

                    How bout you spare me your inane fictions and we can talk. If you cannot manage that then just piss off.

              • sousmerde{retardatR}OP
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                6 months ago

                Hi,
                I was thinking about what you said.
                In a word, you were saying that if Israel’s enemies take every necessary step to ensure Israel’s safety in a permanent manner, then a two-states solution(, including giving back the “illegal” settlements,) could be envisioned, that’s a unilateral loss enabled by the law of the strongest. An inversed unilateral loss, in favor of the pro-palestinians, would see them taking back the holy lands. And a balanced exchange would have those who take(, western countries,) give something back(, of equal value,) in exchange.
                At least expressed like that the first unilateral loss doesn’t seem more moral than the second one, but it is true that this loss can be more or less important(, e.g., disparition of Palestine, or a two-state solution, or only a jewish territory in a small part of the current israeli territory). Yet the second choice could(should?) also be seen as the most moral of the three, when it takes the year 1900 as a baseline for saying that Israel’s destruction is a neutral gain/loss for both sides(, instead of a unilateral gain/loss for one of them if we take the year 1960 as a baseline).
                I’m in favor of making a trade by giving something worthwhile in exchange of the holy lands, but as you pointed out this is unrealistic, so let the strongest prevail i guess.
                “I do agree that palestinians could get back the new settlements of the last decades and end any future palestinian persecution if they&‘their allies’ recognise Israel” is what i wanted to add, not sure that we would have followed the path of least resistance if the roles were reversed, but as you said giving them something of equal value in exchange is out of question

                It’s just an addition, please don’t feel any obligation to answer, and thanks for the chat

              • sousmerde{retardatR}OP
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                6 months ago

                Afghanistan, like Vietnam, was not an existential threat to the US. It’s not really comparable because of this.

                It’s not comparable because the disparition of Israel would be an existential threat to the u.s. ?

                Realpolitik just means acknowledging the political realities of their situation. Political realism.

                Without discussing what should be, only how to do it(, and usually without considering the morality of the path taken, only its assumed effectiveness, there’re reasons to believe that Machiavel wrote The Prince as a criticism and not a support b.t.w.).
                If i remember correctly J.Mearsheimer liked realism for its predictive power.

                Guerilla warfare can sometimes be effective, however I do not believe this approach will lead to victory against Israel

                Only because Israel’s territory isn’t populated by palestinians, which is why i mentionned Ukraine, whose annexed/liberated territories aren’t anti-russians like in eastern Galicia, perhaps because they believe that Russia is large enough to become a.n ‘future continent’/‘original culture’ by itself, and want to believe in this idea, and/or perhaps for other reasons. But w/e.

                For Israel this isn’t a fight to colonize, it’s a fight to exist. There are many Arab nations that could take in Palestinians, not so for Jews.

                They can go in “the first&free world” if that’s your argument.
                And they’re colonizing more territories because it’s a fight to exist ?
                As this comment pointed out : palestinians are at most a threat in the future, but aren’t strong enough currently to be deemed a serious threat, a fight for survival implies an enemy strong enough to kill you, and as you previously recognised, if we’re only talking about palestinians, then they’re not there( yet).
                Israelis were relatively safe all these decades(, compared to their neighbours), and i could only imagine that Palestine’s destruction would enhance their security if arabs/muslims accept it and refuse to stand for palestinians, and if israelis stop there, because they would still have to invade/coup such countries as Iran or political movements such as Hezbollah, and would continue as long as they’re not accepted.
                If you presented Israel’s survival as ‘a moral argument’/‘what should be’, which would probably not be “realist” to do so, then i could return the same argument for palestinians, and ask you why you don’t support the intifada on these same moral grounds, but you more likely said that to explain their motivation and give an estimation of their strength/resolve.

                I believe you are overestimating both international support for Palestine and the military capabilities of most African and South American nations

                As you saw afterwards, i wasn’t talking of a military fight, but of a.n economic&diplomatic one(, even if coups generally imply a military role, sometimes bloodless but very often not).

                most of their Arabic neighbors recognize that making an ally of the United States and the EU is far more strategically valuable than backing this group that wants endless war and seeking unreasonable demands.

                Unreasonable because they won’t ever win ? Well, who knows ?
                I don’t see them supporting Israel and abandoning palestinians(, only Morocco’s gains would be significant, yet they’re still seemingly hesitant), i’ll agree that they still have a margin of retaliation/pressure towards the west though, perhaps are they forced to wait for a more opportune time to act or, as you said, have accepted such unconditional loss, not sure that we would have if the roles were reversed. As previously mentioned, they wouldn’t win anything by complying, and i don’t see clearly the extent of what they’d lose by resisting(, some could include their honor or other immaterial examples).

                Hamas launched this attack because Saudi Arabia was about to recognize Israel, after all, and SA is dependent upon the US for security. If they alienate the US they have Iran to contend with.

                In my opinion Saudi Arabia has more reasons to be afraid of the u.s.a.&co than of Iran, since, except for the Gulf monarchies, every single one of their neighbours ‘has been’/‘is being’ destroyed : the color revolutions, Mohamed Morsi, Lybia, Sudan, Eritrea, Yemen, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and even Lebanon is in an economic crisis(, and kinda Türkiye as well), you just have to open a map and list every country. If we’re going a bit further then we have Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nagorno-Karabakh, almost all countries destroyed by the west, and i haven’t counted kurd separatists or the islamic state, it’s not a stretch to think that they desire stability, but what a f*cking world, we don’t understand that, Ethiopia, Somalia, Kenya, Congo, Chad, Niger, central asian republics, Georgia, …, these countries seems far away, if the realist choice is just to always follow the strongest regardless of what’s right/fair, then i don’t want to be a realist.

                Russia has its own issues right now and cannot afford another front

                Is there a single non-western country more active than them around the world currently ?

                Given their behaviors in Chechnya, they do not seem to be sympathetic to Muslims.

                As if they didn’t lose enough historical territory in 1991, V.Putin’s party isn’t called United Russia for nothing, of course we(sterners) supported the separatists terrorists(, but hated them when these “orks” fought on the side of Russia&‘south-eastern ukrainians’ recently).
                The first hostage released by Hamas was an israeli who also had a russian nationality, and there were other gestures if this kind of things matter, the timing of the l.g.b.t. ban may perhaps also be linked in some way, i.d.k.(, they also have their own muslim republics in the russian federation, Chechnya is apparently very homophobic, and it’s not only inside their borders or in the Middle-East, but in Africa as well), just to say that i wouldn’t count on their islamophobia.

                If such creatures exist, they haven’t weighed in

                The (uncaused )Cause is the only being which isn’t a creature(, and the only to be the Being), i don’t think a direct visible interference would be that desirable, everything would just be solved and there wouldn’t be anything else to do, i prefer to feel free, but in any case there’s always determinism and God as the Cause for this kind of interrogation.

                It would be like humans trying to control ant societies in our backyards, why would we care?

                Not sure that despite our imperfection we wouldn’t be a part of the All/One, and there’s always the law of karma among other laws of our reality, parts of the All do care, and if we look/seek the Greatest we/ants do care.

                I hope we get there one day, albeit through secular means.

                You didn’t wrote that to imply that we should only get there through secular means(, by fighting other paths), but i find interesting that we fight communism and islamism : apart from these two, and royalism, do you know of a single large ideology that survived the colonization and isn’t the western one of a constitutional capitalist secular republic ?
                I wrote about these communities with their own rules because i feel that we’re unfortunately looking for unity at the expense of diversity, instead of looking for a permanent peace in harmony, ensuring both our unity and our diversity, we’re not looking towards this direction, and there’s even this selfish nationalism saying that it’s not our role to help each other, i can’t like it, we should aim to live together.