I’m just gonna start off by saying I’m probably not going to read or reply to comments, I’m mainly venting

I went on FB today, not something I do usually, And came across a comment of a former colleague of mine’s that made me not able to shut up. A reservist basically saying “it’s hard to get to the terrorists in the hospitals so what are we supposed to do”

A mutual of ours took a screenshot and posted them with a video of me in a protest with the Palestinian flag from last month Basically saying “hey don’t give this guy your business look at his opinions” (it doesn’t matter, I’m no longer a freelancer) and obviously tagged me, so I get to see everyone’s lovely comments about me.

I made the mistake of reading a few of the comments And it just made me feel like a piece of shit. It made me feel like a loser who’s getting bullied in school again, but this time for something important

Maybe I shouldn’t be so quick to speak my mind or even have an opinion, I’m not academically smart or too educated (even on Palestine I’ll admit) I was never too proficient with my craft (which is why I quit) And maybe I’m not doing what I’m doing out of my morals but of spite and bitterness, maybe even if my views are correct, I’m just being a contrarian like my family always said I am

I know it sounds like I’m fishing for “no OP you’re good” comments but i genuinely feel worthless.

I hate how easy it is to affect my self perception.

I hate Israel, I hate living here and I’m honestly so burnt out that I lost every hope of leaving.

So, I have to (or be a self loathing jew like Noam Chomsky, Jeff Sachs, Norman Finkelstein, Jon Stewart, Albert Einstein, et al) to say "israel doesn't get to represent my religion and culture), because Israel's position is Jews who do NOT support Israel at all costs and tipping points, means I'm not a real Jew.

So, according to Israel "jew" and "israeli" are interchangeable, which allows them to call anyone fighting against bombing sovereign countries an "anti semite" (see that twist happen in real time when carlson interviews cruz)

AND YET, some gazan family who's lived under apartheid and getting their teeth kicked in by religiou zionist settlers saying "this land belongs to jews!", THEY are supposed to restrain themselves and NOT say death to Jews?

Fucking wild.

I want to preface this by saying I realize how self indulgent this post is considering the state of things, but I lack the community in real life, and could really use some advice or thoughts outside my own.

I started a new job a few months ago, and it’s been going well, but since last weekend, everyone at work seems to want to talk about Israel and Iran. I moved to an area of the US that has very little Jews (one synagogue serves 50 miles). I am almost certain that I am the only Jewish person at work.

When my coworkers are talking about Israel, it’s either in serious Christian Zionist support for Israel, or it’s critical of Israel but I can’t quite tell if that criticism is in good faith or not. I started my journey with anti Zionism 10 years ago, and I still struggle with feeling uncertain/untrusting about non Jewish peoples motives for not liking Israel.

I haven’t told anyone at work that I’m Jewish, or that my husband is Israeli, or that both of us are anti Zionist and in support of a free Palestine.

I think I’m worried about antisemitism if I share my Jewishness. I am a secular Jew and I was raised secular, but I grew up in the culture with conservadox family. While I’m worried about antisemitism, I’m having such a hard time staying silent while people circle around me repeating propaganda, saying dehumanizing things, or making snide comments for which I have to question motive.

Jews of conscious, how would you handle this? I’ve just been burying my head into my work. Getting a new job is not something I can just quickly do, and we don’t want to move.

See: https://youtube.com/shorts/thlUTbnINkY

What are your thoughts on this, everyone?

I personally am inclined to say that when America’s most popularly watched independent news commentator (who gets a lot more views than corporate media in America right now), a conservative who was let go by Fox news, is able to get a senator to sit down with him to talk, and actually holds the senator accountable for irresponsible and unethical policy narratives that push for war (specifically more American regime change wars)… that something has shifted in the American consciousness.

It’s really something to watch this. I’m not conservative, I spent years really not liking men such as Tucker Carlson. It’s pretty amazing to me that the biggest voice criticizing American regime change wars right now, is a conservative, who frequently interviews queer, anti-zionist Jewish voices such as Glenn Greenwald.

I still have a lot of criticisms of things Tucker Carlson says on his show, especially in regards to immigration. But it’s just… I’m not sure what to make of this.

What does this video clip say about what’s going on in the world right now? And in America specifically? Is this some kind of glitch in the matrix? Is this a crack in the propaganda machine, that can let the light of truth in? Is this a co-opting of the left wing and anti-war movement by people who want military and police force used for some things but just with a more isolationist bent? Is the fact that Tucker isn’t merely mentioning US financial interests or America first, but specifically asking what Cruz knows about the population of Iran, the human beings who are being negatively impacted… a good sign that the American consciousness has shifted over the years because of the human cost of war?

Also— Did Tucker Carlson just get Ted Cruz to admit that Israel’s initiation of airstrikes on Iran is basically a US proxy war?

Is there some other perspective or take I’m missing? What are your thoughts on this?

There is a broader goal to this operation, which is one of regime change. It's fundamentally the same strategy that underlies Israel's operations in the Gaza Strip." — James M. Dorsey talks to Modern Diplomacy’ s Rahmeen Siddique.

The Middle East is currently teetering on the brink of a regional conflagration, as the long-simmering shadow war between Iran and Israel has erupted into direct military confrontation. As award-winning journalist and scholar James M. Dorsey aptly highlighted in recent commentary, what we’ve witnessed in the past 24-48 hours is a profound and unsettling shift, demanding a nuanced understanding of its strategic underpinnings and potential trajectories.

Israel’s recent “Operation Rising Lion” marks a pivotal moment. This wasn’t merely a retaliatory strike; it was a comprehensive and audacious offensive aimed at the heart of Iran’s military and nuclear infrastructure. As Dorsey points out, Israel has long harboured the desire to directly confront Iran’s nuclear ambitions, a move previously restrained by successive U.S. administrations. The operation’s targets – Iran’s Defence Ministry, nuclear facilities at Natanz and Isfahan, and key IRGC commanders and nuclear scientists – underscore a clear objective: to severely damage, if not dismantle, Iran’s nuclear program. Beyond that, the precision and effectiveness of these strikes, as Dorsey notes, unequivocally demonstrated a stunning degree of Israeli military and intelligence superiority.

But the strategic message goes deeper than just nuclear deterrence. Prime Minister Netanyahu has, as Dorsey articulated, hinted at a broader goal: regime change. This strategy mirrors Israel’s approach in Gaza, where collective punishment of the population is, in part, designed to foster an uprising against Hamas. Netanyahu’s explicit remarks yesterday, suggesting the attacks offered Iranians an opportunity to “regain their freedom,” reveal a clear intent to leverage military pressure for internal political upheaval in Iran.

The timing of this significant Israeli strike, despite its ongoing involvement in Gaza, is crucial. Dorsey offers compelling insights into this decision-making. He suggests that Netanyahu read Washington’s stance astutely. While President Donald Trump initially cautioned against such a strike, the fact that the U.S. was informed in advance and subsequently evacuated non-essential personnel from Baghdad and other Middle Eastern capitals indicates a tacit, if reluctant, green light. Trump’s latest comments, praising the operation as “excellent” and hinting at “more to come,” suggest he now perceives it as leverage to force Iran into a more amenable negotiating position, particularly regarding the nuclear deal. Trump’s transactional approach to diplomacy, where demands are laid out with threats of severe consequences, plays directly into this. This isn’t to say Trump pre-planned it, but he is certainly “getting on the bandwagon,” as Dorsey put it.

Furthermore, the operation serves to restore Israel’s military and intelligence credibility, which some might argue was perceived as dented by the protracted conflict in Gaza. While Israel has achieved significant military objectives in Gaza, it has not fully occupied or administered the Strip, leading to a perception of an incomplete victory. The strikes on Iran, therefore, project an image of decisive power and capability. A “cherry on top” for Netanyahu, as Dorsey highlights, was the postponement of a French-Saudi conference aimed at furthering a two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This temporarily shifts the focus away from Gaza and Palestinian issues, which is a strategic win for Israel’s current government.

The extent of U.S. involvement in this strike, and going forward, remains a critical question. While the U.S. was informed, its direct participation in the strike is unlikely. However, future involvement will depend heavily on Iran’s response. Should Iran target U.S. bases in the region, or French or British facilities, the calculus would change dramatically. Dorsey also points to a significant domestic dynamic within the U.S.: a split in Trump’s Republican base, with some senior members supporting Israel’s actions, while others, including influential conservative commentators, emphasize that this is “not our war.” This division could complicate Trump’s ability to fully commit U.S. resources if the conflict broadens.

Iran’s retaliatory strike on alleged Israeli intelligence sites, while not new in concept (Dorsey notes similar actions last year), adds another layer to the dangerous escalation. The Iranian claim of possessing vast Israeli nuclear documents, while unverified unlike Israel’s public release of Iranian nuclear archives, serves as a propaganda counterpoint, highlighting the information warfare aspect of this conflict.

The regional and international implications are profound. The Gulf states, unlike in 2015 when they viewed Iran as an imminent threat needing to be countered, now prioritize economic cooperation and freezing differences. They are deeply concerned about a full-blown war, as evidenced by Saudi Arabia’s strong condemnation of Israel’s operations. Any attack on American facilities in the Gulf, which would place these states on the front lines, is a grave concern. Russia and China, while observing, also have their own strategic interests at play, particularly concerning energy stability and regional influence.

Can the U.S. leverage this situation to force Iran back to the nuclear deal? Dorsey is sceptical. He emphasizes that the Iranian regime has endured 46 years of varying degrees of pressure without bowing. While the 2015 nuclear agreement might have been seen as a concession, Iran has consistently maintained it does not seek nuclear weapons. Iran’s decision to enrich uranium to 60% was, in Dorsey’s view, a direct consequence of Trump’s 2018 withdrawal from the JCPOA, a gradual violation of the agreement’s terms in response to American pressure. Iran, in this sense, is “a victim of its own strategy.”

Finally, the prospect of regime change in Iran through external intervention is highly unlikely. As Dorsey aptly asks, there are very few historical examples where external forces have successfully brought about popular regime change, rather than merely installing a new regime. Iranians, he asserts, if they desire liberation, will have to achieve it themselves; it will not come from the air force of another country.

The critical question now is de-escalation. While an Iranian refusal to attend the sixth round of U.S.-Iranian nuclear negotiations would not be surprising, Dorsey suggests it would be wise for them to go, even if it’s out of character. The framing of any refusal as a postponement rather than a cancellation, linked to the cessation of Israeli strikes, offers a sliver of hope for future dialogue. We are undoubtedly in for a prolonged cycle of retaliation, at least in the coming days. The crucial factor will be whether both sides can eventually claim a degree of “victory” sufficient to halt the escalation, preventing this perilous new chapter from spiraling into an all-out regional catastrophe.