I was just musing about past and future confrontations across history. After Bill Clinton's Israeli-Palestinian "peace process" collapsed during the late 90s, a huge wave of violence erupted in its wake with the Palestinian uprising ("intifada"), led by the PLO under Yasser Arafat. The teetering Israeli govt of Ehud Barak fell, and the more hardline Netanyahu came to power. It was also then that some of Israel's supporters among its diaspora in America decided they needed to spawn a new NeoConservative ideology as means to fight what they saw as the common enemies of Israel and America (ie. they needed a new justification for America to bail out Israel and stomp on its enemies). That's where NeoCons like Victoria Nuland came from, and why the US illegally invaded Iraq to destroy Saddam Hussein. It's also why Nuland is willing to spare no effort in harassing even faraway countries like India, in her determined pursuit of her aims.
Meanwhile, Netanyahu was looking to crush the Palestinian uprising at all costs. He decided that the best way to do this would be for him to support Hamas, the more radical rival of the PLO. ("The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend") By supporting the rise of Hamas in Gaza, he was able to use them to evict PLO from there, in a classic divide-and-rule strategy. So while PLO continued to rule in the West Bank, they were much weaker due to the loss of Gaza to Hamas.
Just like American support for AfPak jihadis boomeranged by causing 9/11, likewise Netanyahu's support for the Hamas jihadis boomeranged by causing Oct 7. He knows this, and is trying escape accountability for his own shortsightedness, by heaping destruction on the entire population of Gaza. He's basically carrying out a Final Solution, while US watches awkwardly and obediently ships them more bombs.
Netanyahu has no intention of allowing any future possibility of a Palestinian state, and this also means wiping out the existing Palestinian presence "from the river to the sea."
The Hebrews are so named for being "the people beyond the river" - the particular river being the Jordan river.
The Hindus are likewise another "people beyond the river" - the particular river being the Indus.
But America showers Israel's side of the river with petals - and that's why the Israelis love to promote American world dominance., since they get to ride on America's shoulders.
Meanwhile, America pisses all over us on our side of the river - and that's why we don't want a US-dominated world like India does, because that just means Washington will keep pissing all over us. We'd like a more multi-polar world where we won't be as pissed upon.
So there's a key difference in what Israeli nationalists want and what Indian nationalists want. Israelis, unlike Indians, need America as their Far Emperor.
But it's also worth remembering that America's founding fathers, who had fought to overthrow the British Empire, did not want their own country to become an empire. Had they felt otherwise, they would not have architected the US Constitution in the way that they did. That's why they wrote in separation of powers, and fundamental protections for political freedoms, including freedom of speech. The Israelis need for those protections to be more permanently removed, so that they can further collar America as their Far Emperor. A more aggressively imperialist interventionist America may be in their interest, but it's not in our interest.
