#escalatory

[mad-hunts]

just imagining one of the doctors from arkham trying to get through to barton by calling an unprompted, sort of intervention-like therapy session even though he has been TOTALLY uncooperative even during the previous normal one's he's had with them and this doctor telling him something like ' you know, you can't just keep on fighting people who said something you don't like / did something you don't like towards you. you've got to communicate with them that you didn't like it ' while they're just staring at a barton who has like. the BIGGEST shiner on his face and dried blood underneath his nose from fighting someone that day is 💀 idk but for some reason, it's making me cackle JSJSJ he is so bad and for what reasonnn

[chiosavince]

Finally made the decision to get off and delete Reddit and I already feel my mental health recovering holy shit.

[discipulusmaleficus]

'It wasn't meant to happen.'

He was shaken, but not as much as one might expect for someone covered in blood, blade in hand as they stood over a corpse - almost like someone who's numb, at least in part, to that kind of thing.

Rynn didn't know how long Kalmar had been there; once the survival instinct had kicked in, he was lost to the rest of the world. Maybe the footsteps he'd heard had been the last of a set, or maybe Kalmar had been there for as long as Rynn had, shouting for him to stop.

Deep down, he hoped the mage hadn't watched him commit such a disgusting act.

'It's not my fault. He was threatening me.' Like a time so many decades ago that the elf wished could be a distant memory, though it refused to fade away. It's okay, it's okay, it's okay.

It was self-defence. You or him. You made the right choice.

Then aloud he repeated, 'It's not my fault.'

@elfblcd - :)

"I see-ee." His voice is bright and brittle, sitting in a slightly higher register than usual. His hands are folded tightly behind his back, the grin Rynn can't see wide and nervous.

He's trying very hard not to stare at the fresh, warm, bloody corpse. He doesn't want to take his eyes off the elf for too long, not until they've put the damn knife down, anyway. He's not sure he should step any closer.

"The bastard pulled your knife out of your belt, shoved it into your hands, and then manhandled you into stabbing him half a dozen times in the chest, yes?" A quickly stifled giggle.

(That. Isn't what he saw, of course. It didn't occur to him to start yelling, though. Or do anything else about it. So. You know.)

It's not like he hasn't ever watched shit happen, okay? Doesn't mean it was entirely pleasant. Doesn't mean he can't feel his entire body trembling all of a sudden, or that he doesn't feel a tiny bit sick, or --

He just wasn't expecting this. Here, now, from them. That's all. Kalmar circles slowly around Rynn, gives them a cautious berth as he gets closer to the body.

"I must say," he adds, something inadvisably sharp and bitter seeping into his tone, "I admire your elven fucking pacifism."

[txttletale]

as an ml, do you believe acab and why? honest question, just seeking to understand, I’m aware of messed up things cops have done but idk if I can accept that every cop is inherently morally compromised or that policing is inherently evil

acab is not about every single cop being individually or interpersonally 'evil'. it is about the role of police in society and the role of police as an institution. the police in a bourgeoisie state exist to enforce the power of the bourgeoisie against the proletariat--this means, first and foremost, protecting private property rights and suppressing resistance to the bourgeoisie state.

however, to be clear, almost all cops are corrupt violent racist pieces of shit. this is not because of some magic Cop Curse that turns them evil, but because the institutions of policing are designed to filter out anyone who has any genuinely good intentions. ''good cops'' flunk out of police training, quit, or get killed by the rest of them. cops are taught to be violent, racist, and escalatory and are rewarded professionally for doing so and bullied and driven out of the force if they refuse to be.

under a socialist state, the role of the police is no longer to protect the interests of a bourgeoisie class. however, there still exists a very real danger of them still becoming an oppressive force in their role as 'special bodies of armed men' as lenin puts it, existing in a role in society that inherently separates them from the rest of the proletarian class rather than allowing them to exist within it as 'self-arming autonomous organizations' (lenin goes over this distintction in the first part of state & revolution)

tldr: all cops are bastards

[snovyda]

How many dead Ukrainians can be considered "an escalation"? So far we see that only the damage to the invading army's military potential is seen as escalatory, while killing Ukrainian civilians is just part of the norm.

[thekeypa]

“Calling in police enforcement on nonviolent demonstrations of young students on campus is an escalatory, reckless, and dangerous act. It represents a heinous failure of leadership that puts people’s lives at risk. I condemn it in the strongest possible terms.”

[fuckyeahmarxismleninism]

🔴 Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine:

The martyrdom of the prominent leaders Ibrahim Aqil and Ahmed Wehbe, along with a group of field commanders, is a heavy loss. However, the will to resist is unbreakable, and the response will be will be proportionate to the crime.

Popular Front mourns the martyrs Ibrahim Aqil and Ahmed Wehbe.

The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine mourned in a statement the prominent leaders of Hezbollah, Ibrahim Aqil and Ahmed Wehbe along with a group of field commanders who were martyred due to a treacherous zionist bombardment that targeted Dahiye (the southern suburb of Beirut) yesterday.

The Popular Front extended its deepest condolences and sympathies to the brotherly Lebanese people and to the members of Hezbollah and its Secretary-General, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, for the martyrdom of the group of leaders and civilian martyrs, wishing a speedy recovery for the wounded.

The Front expressed its full solidarity with the brotherly Lebanon and its valiant resistance, which has lost prominent symbols among its fighters and leaders of Hezbollah, who left significant marks in the struggle against the zionist enemy over many years. The great martyr leader Ibrahim Aqil, who led and participated in numerous battles that drained the zionist enemy, played a pivotal role in the Al-Aqsa Flood battle, which changed the rules of engagement in support of Gaza. As for the prominent martyr leader Ahmed Wehbe, he played an important role in leading the Radwan Force on the support fronts, taking responsibility for training and preparing fighters for decisive battles, which contributed to enhancing the qualitative capabilities of the resistance.

The two martyrs, leaders Aqil and Wehbe, alongside the martyr leader Fouad Shukr, represented bright symbols in enhancing the resistance's capabilities at all levels in recent months. They played a leading role in the field of qualitative military operations and in strengthening the strategic and tactical capabilities of Hezbollah during the Al-Aqsa Flood battle.

The martyr leader Ibrahim Aqil had distinguished confrontations not only with the zionist enemy but also with the American enemy. He played a prominent role in countering American forces in Lebanon, participating in the famous attack on the American Marines, which led to their withdrawal from Lebanon after the explosion that shook the American presence in the region. This was a pivotal event in the course of the resistance.

This new zionist massacre, which resulted from a coordinated planning and execution between the American administration and the zionist entity, falls within a deliberate escalatory policy aimed at targeting infrastructure, civilian facilities, and innocent civilians, in a failed attempt to subdue the resistance, break its resolve, and weaken its popular support. However, they are mistaken if they believe that targeting the leaders will undermine the will of the resistance or weaken the steadfastness of our people.

The loss of these great symbols is a profound loss, but the resistance has always proven its ability to compensate for its losses. Its will does not waver in the face of challenges and the escalation of zionist crimes.

We firmly believe that the martyrdom of the leaders, despite its severity, cannot break the will of the resistance or weaken its determination. Rather, their pure blood will remain a fuel to ignite the fronts supporting Gaza from Lebanon and other arenas, strengthening the resolve of the fighters to confront the enemy by all possible means.

Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine

Central Media Department

September 21, 2024

https://t.me/PalestineResist/58320

[mariacallous]

In the early hours of Sunday, Sept. 8, a Russian drone flew into Romanian airspace during a nighttime attack on Ukraine’s Danube River ports. Romania scrambled two F-16s to monitor the situation, according to the Romanian Defense Ministry. A day earlier, an Iranian-type Shahed drone armed with explosives flew from Belarus into Latvia—which is neither close to Ukraine nor on a direct flight path—and crashed near the Latvian city of Rezekne, about 35 miles from the closest section of the Belarusian border. Throughout the war, by accident or design, Russian missiles and attack drones have repeatedly infringed the airspace of Romania, Latvia, Poland, and other NATO members —and hit the alliance’s territory.

In late August, Kyiv asked European Union and NATO ministers to start shooting down Russian missiles and drones heading toward NATO over Ukraine. At first glance, this might seem like a request for NATO to step into the firing line and become a party to the war. For the Biden administration and some allied governments, becoming a direct participant in the war against Russia has been the darkest of red lines from the moment that Western intelligence services noticed Moscow’s preparations for invading Ukraine.

Establishing an air defense shield to protect NATO’s own eastern flank, however, does not translate to NATO’s entry into the war. The escalatory risk of NATO protecting its own territory can be controlled—even while a shield to head off Russian missiles and drones would have the secondary effect of providing parts of western Ukraine with much-needed air cover. Ultimately, a firm decision by NATO to act against repeated breaches of its airspace is likely to be de-escalatory. That’s because the real risk lies in letting Russia continue to test Western decision-making—and for the Kremlin to believe that it will meet no resistance when it escalates.

Ground-based air defense from various NATO member states—including Britain, France, the Nordic countries, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, and other willing allies—could be deployed on the territory of Poland, Slovakia, and Romania at strategic locations along their borders with Ukraine. Allied aircraft operating in NATO airspace could also be used. The bloc would operate the shield entirely from allied territory and airspace, no weapons or troops would be placed inside Ukraine, and NATO aircraft would not enter Ukrainian airspace. The primary purpose of the air defense shield would be to prevent Russian attack drones and missiles from entering NATO airspace and hitting objects on the alliance’s territory.

Such an operation could be carried out on a bilateral basis or by a coalition of the willing. And it would not be a NATO-wide operation, given that Hungary would likely block any action by the alliance.

There have been regular instances of Russia breaching NATO airspace since the start of the invasion. Some of these incursions may well be accidental. In the first weeks of the invasion, a drone carrying explosives flew unhindered through Romanian and Hungarian airspace until it crashed next to a student dormitory in the outskirts of the Croatian capital Zagreb. In November 2022, a S-300 air-defense missile, possibly fired from Ukraine at a Russian target, went astray and killed two farmers in Poland.

But other instances do not seem so accidental. In March, a Russian missile—whose target and flight path were preprogrammed—spent 39 seconds traveling through Polish airspace before reentering Ukraine. Especially in light of deliberate Russian incursions in the Baltic Sea region and elsewhere, some of these incidents seem to be part of a systematic attempt by Russia to test NATO’s resolve and decision-making process.

This probing is dangerous and comes with a high risk of escalation. Not only could it lead to a Russian drone or missile hitting NATO territory and potentially killing civilians, but NATO would also then have to decide whether to respond to such an attack—including whether to invoke Article 5, the collective defense clause that requires the alliance to defend its members. The more that Russia probes without any NATO response, the greater the risk of an incident that would trigger Article 5.

An air defense shield to protect NATO would be a clear response to that Russian probing, with the welcome secondary effect of helping Ukraine. It would signal a more serious posture by Ukraine’s supporters and show that they are willing to regain the strategic initiative rather than merely reacting to events and drawing no red lines for Russia.

For Ukraine, the shield could help provide a degree of security along a corridor running along its western border, where drones and missiles would be engaged by the shield lest they cross into NATO territory. The depth of this corridor would depend on the types and number of air defense assets deployed. It would reduce or eliminate attacks on Ukrainian cities and critical infrastructure close to the border, such as the Danube ports and various electricity substations, transmission lines, and gas storage facilities.

It would also mean greater security for Ukrainian businesses and factories operating within the corridor, as well as a degree of humanitarian protection for civilians and civilian infrastructure, such as hospitals. Parts of Moldova, which is not in NATO, would fall within the corridor as well. The shield would not provide perfect protection everywhere, but it would certainly contribute more than what exists today.

A NATO air defense shield along the alliance’s eastern flank would also enable Ukraine to move some of its air defense systems from its western border closer to the front and the cities in the east, such as Dnipro and Poltava. This would strengthen Ukrainian air defense without additional systems leaving the armories of its Western allies.

The main objection to the air defense shield has been that it would prove to be escalatory by drawing NATO into direct confrontation with Russia. By shooting down Russian drones and missiles flying over Ukraine, the argument goes, NATO would become a party to the conflict and invite military retaliation by Russia, setting off a cataclysmic Russia-NATO war.

The opposite, however, is more likely to be true.

First, enforcing an air defense shield would not mean shooting down Russian fighter jets and killing Russian pilots. Russia does not fly crewed aircraft in western Ukraine precisely because of the high risk of Ukrainians shooting them down. Hence, the shield would only target uncrewed drones and missiles. For all its huffing and puffing, Moscow would be hard-pressed to make a credible case for retaliation against a country exercising its right of self-defense to shoot down a missile entering its airspace or heading in its direction.

Indeed, one could make a compelling case that NATO border states have an obligation to protect their citizens. Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski has stated that his and other countries have a duty to intercept Russian missiles before they enter NATO territory.

Second, an air defense shield would aim to prevent Russian missiles and drones from striking inside the territory of a NATO ally, which could trigger the Article 5 mutual defense clause. In this sense, the shield would actually be de-escalatory in averting a possible Article 5-level crisis that could quickly spiral out of control. Russia’s ability to routinely breach NATO airspace without a reaction weakens the bloc’s deterrence and raises the likelihood that Russia will probe and provoke further.

Ukraine’s partners, most notably the United States and Germany, have imposed strict caveats on Ukraine’s use of Western weapons—even including those delivered by Britain or other Western partners—and shown considerable restraint in their support for Ukraine. In their view, this cautious approach prevents escalation. But the effect has been the opposite: Not standing firm and pushing back has been an invitation for Russia to prod, provoke, and raise the stakes. Paradoxically, restraint comes with a high risk of escalation.

In showing that it will continue to push against the West if unobstructed, the Kremlin is staying true to Soviet leader Vladimir Lenin’s famous strategic adage: “You probe with bayonets: If you find mush, you push. If you find steel, you withdraw.” An air defense shield on NATO’s eastern border could provide that steel.

Would Russia retaliate against a NATO ally for intercepting a drone or missile that might strike its territory? This is highly unlikely. Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly shown that he takes Article 5 seriously, and a retaliatory strike against a NATO ally could draw in the entire alliance. He will not risk wider hostilities with NATO that he knows Russia would lose.

Putin would no doubt threaten retaliation and escalation, just as he did to try to stop the West from delivering tanks, missiles, and fighter jets to Ukraine. In each case, when allies finally provided the weapons, Putin’s threats proved hollow. Strangely, Western leaders still seem not to recognize how Putin uses threats to influence Western decision-making into the direction of restraint, self-deterrence, and an overabundance of caution.

Just like in Lenin’s adage, Russia often retreats when met with force. Take the case of the Russian Black Sea Fleet: After Ukraine managed to destroy one-third of the fleet, including its flagship, the battlecruiser Moskva, Russia responded by pulling back the surviving fleet from Crimea to get out of range, rather than step up its attacks. When faced with the choice between retaliation and retreat, Russia chose retreat. Similarly, following Ukraine’s incursion into Kursk—the first foreign occupation of Russia since World War II—Putin chose to play down the incursion’s importance rather than escalate.

When the history books are written about this war, a key lesson will likely be that the seemingly prudent but overly cautious approach by the West was a signal to Russia to start and expand its war. Much of what appeared de-escalatory on the part of the West was in fact escalatory, leading to a more brutal and longer war. And much of what appeared escalatory—such as Ukraine’s attacks on the Russian Black Sea Fleet, including with Western-provided missiles—was in fact de-escalatory.

Until decision-makers in Washington and Berlin understand this, Moscow will be pushing and probing where it can to test NATO’s resolve.

Throughout this war, the West has imposed red lines on itself. Putin has repeatedly threatened escalation and retaliation, but when tested, those threats and red lines have proved illusory. Providing an air defense shield operating from NATO territory would strengthen the alliance’s deterrence, help Ukraine, and lower the risk of escalation. It is time for Western allies to retake the strategic initiative and call Putin’s bluff.

[metamatar]

extremely funny and sad but the pattern of university administration being more aggressively escalatory with encampments than the mayor and city councilors is also repeating here.

[darkmaga-retard]

State of the Union: Putin had suggested that the greenlight for such strikes would constitute U.S. involvement in the conflict and result in Russian escalation.

U.S. President Joe Biden and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer met on Friday in Washington to consider allowing Ukrainian use of the American ATACMS missile system on targets within Russia. 

In response to this, Russian President Vladimir Putin has stated that a decision to allow the use of the ATACMS system would be escalatory, as the ATACMS system relies on American satellites for its GPS guidance and targeting. “If this decision is made, it will mean nothing less than the direct participation of NATO countries, the United States, the European countries, in the war in Ukraine,” Putin announced, adding, “This changes the very nature of the conflict.”

In his remarks, Putin pinpointed the use of American satellites and targeting data as the reason why such a decision would be escalatory:

The key point is that only servicemen of NATO countries can input flight missions into these missile systems. Ukrainian servicemen cannot do this. Therefore this is not about permitting or not permitting the Ukrainian regime to strike Russia with these weapons. This is about whether or not NATO countries take the decision to directly participate in the military conflict.

While Ukraine has used the ATACMS system in the ongoing conflict, its use has been limited by Washington to within the pre-2014 borders of Ukraine. Biden and Starmer's decision is expected shortly.

[warsofasoiaf]

"To Tywin, he is the man who single-handedly turned the fortunes around for House Lannister," Not disputing this, since it's absolutely Tywin's perspective, but factually, the Lannisters were never, not on Tytos' worst day, NOT super-rich with massive advantages in power. Also, he "restored" the status by 3 times committing mass murder & evading punishment because the king dies. The expression "born on third base, and acts like he hit a triple" comes to mind. Or am I missing something?

Well, Tytos's weak rule did have problems in the Westerlands. Aegon V is mentioned to have put down rebellions in the Westerlands three times, Quellon Greyjoy sacked Faircastle, and the lords were not paying back their loans to Tytos, openly mocking him instead. So in that sense, there was a diminishment in the authority and prestige of the Lannister name, according to medieval conceptions of ethics.

But even medieval ethics would say that Tywin went too far in the Reynes of Castamere. Even if Roger and Reynard had been executed as traitors to their liege lord, that would have been considered normal, but Tywin had an emotional fixation on ensuring that no one would ever doubt the Lannister capacity for reprisal. By damming Castamere and flooding it, he wanted people to know that if you had defied him, everything you had would be destroyed, including your home and your family, down to the youngest infant. Tywin even goes beyond the normal to the impractical, because Tarbeck Hall and Castamere would be valuable fiefs to distribute to loyal members, perhaps one of his brothers or a new retainer who had served him loyally.

Because if there's one thing that defines Tywin Lannister, it's escalatory brutality to the point of impracticality. He believes he is a perfectly rational man, in control of himself and devoted to advancing his cause, but he is actually ruled by irrationality and fear, and an omnipresent need to have other fear him to give him confidence.

Thanks for the question, Anon.

SomethingLikeALawyer, Hand of the King

[eretzyisrael]

Eitan Fischberger

Its recent series of targeted assassinations should send a stark warning to terrorist leaders worldwide: they are not safe. The moment they leave the safety of their underground bunkers—or their fancy accommodations in Qatar, in the case of Hamas leaders—they may find themselves in Israel’s crosshairs. To drive this message home even more powerfully, however, the international community, particularly the United States, should unequivocally express support for the strikes. Better yet, the U.S. should leverage its influence and pressure Qatar to expel the remaining Hamas officials enjoying safe haven in Doha.

Critics of the targeted assassinations will doubtless voice concern over potential escalatory responses from Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as other Iranian-backed proxies like the Houthis and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. But these critics forget that the escalation already occurred—on October 7, to be exact, when Hamas led thousands of terrorists in the most devastating mass slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust.

Others might worry that the assassination of Haniyeh will complicate a potential hostage deal for the Israeli (and American) hostages still held captive by Hamas in Gaza. The opposite is true. Perhaps for the first time since October 7, Hamas leaders and their Iranian overlords realize that they are not as bulletproof as they might have thought. Moreover, Israel has in the past exhibited a tendency to “over strategize” and allow concern about escalation and international pressure to stop it from enacting swift justice. This is no longer an acceptable standard for most Israelis. A society that fails to guarantee justice and security for its people by vanquishing those that threaten it is a society on course for collapse.

U.S. leaders should recognize that supporting a proactive Israel also safeguards American interests. Both Shakr and Haniyeh have American blood on their hands. Shakr, for his part, played a key role in the planning and execution of the 1983 attack on the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut that killed 241 American service personnel. And Haniyeh oversaw the October 7 massacre, in which dozens of American were murdered. Justice for these Americans has now been served, at least in part.

[leftistfeminista]

What is the role of female prisoners in the prisoners' movement, or in resistance from inside prison?  

Female prisoners are part of the prisoners' movement. [Male] prisoners would look at the female prisoners [and say], “No, we're scared for them, they don't need to take part in any escalatory collective action.” But that was also part of the feminist struggle: to declare that no, we, the female prisoners, are also a part of the prisoners' movement, and we can't be excluded or exceptionalized. This was an ongoing discussion, because the female prisoners wanted to practice their right to be part of the leadership of this movement. It is also a question of nidal (struggle) between a patriarchal mindset that looks towards the female prisoners a certain way—from their point of view it was a form of empathy towards women—but my point of view, women represent something different. We are also a part of this struggle, and so we are allowed to choose too, we don't want people to decide for us. 

[beardedmrbean]

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) are bleeding cash and facing a $2 million deficit, and Representative Ritchie Torres is celebrating.

Torres, a New York Democrat who has been staunchly pro-Israel amid its war with Hamas, expressed his content with recent reports that suggest the DSA's debts have reached the seven-figure mark.

"The DSA is collapsing in real time under the weight of its own antisemitism and extremism," he told The Sun on Monday. "It is fair to say that I will not be mourning its death or attending its funeral."

Newsweek reached out to the DSA via email for comment.

Over the weekend, a report emerged that the DSA—which has led pro-Palestinian protests against the U.S. response to the war—is facing financial headwinds that could result in layoffs. The Bread and Roses caucus in the DSA published a blog post on Thursday confirming those reports and saying while no one wanted to consider such drastic measures, staff costs would have to be reduced given the "great crisis for capital."

The January 18 post said that the DSA is projecting $5 million in income for 2024, but $7 million in expenses.

"That means we eventually need to come up with $2 million to break even," said Alex Pellitteri, Kristin Schall and Laura Wadlin—members of the 2023-2025 DSA National Political Committee from the Bread and Roses caucus.

The DSA leaders said that while the current sociopolitical climate should be a "really favorable time for DSA"—citing the growing support for Palestinians and for labor groups across the nation—the group has "still been treading water, and things are going to get more challenging before they get better."

A November poll from Quinnipiac University found that the number of U.S. voters who sympathize with Palestinians more than Israelis has grown in the wake of the war, although the majority still have more sympathy for Israelis.

"Biden's disastrous policy of fueling Israel's genocide in Gaza has created the kind of space for an independent alternative from the Democratic Party that has not existed since [independent Vermont Senator] Bernie [Sanders]," they said, but Pellitteri, Schall and Wadlin admitted: "We have not had strong figures at the top of the organization to lead with a political vision that inspires people to become committed socialists."

"Working people are inspired to transform the world, but they are doing it elsewhere," the post said.

Torres, whose office has been vandalized by pro-Palestinian protesters, has previously tussled with the DSA over the Middle East. The congressman, who represents the South Bronx, has accused DSA members of promoting antisemitism by supporting a Manhattan rally that was held in the wake of the October 7 Hamas attacks on Israel. "The NYC-DSA is revealing itself for what it truly is—a deep rot of antisemitism," Torres said in an October 8 statement. "The DSA should be universally condemned for its genocidal celebration of Israel's destruction in the wake of Israel's deadliest terrorist attack." In response, the DSA has held several protests outside his office.

Torres is not the only Democrat at odds with the organization since the fighting broke out in the Gaza Strip.

Representative Shri Thanedar, a Michigan Democrat, renounced his membership in the DSA after the October rally, saying: "I can no longer associate with an organization unwilling to call out terrorism in its form." The DSA has emphasized that it did not organize the rally but acknowledged that the New York City chapter promoted the event "in anticipation of escalatory violence to come" after October 7.

In the Hamas attack that triggered the war, some 1,200 people were killed and Hamas and other militants abducted about 250 people, according to the Associated Press. Israel subsequently launched its heaviest-ever air strikes on Gaza. As of Monday, at least 25,295 people have been killed in Gaza and more than 60,000 wounded, according to the Gaza Health Ministry, the AP said.

While Torres blamed the gap in funding on the DSA's outspoken position on the Israel-Hamas war, the Bread and Roses members pointed to mismanagement from top directors in the organization.

In Thursday's blog post, the DSA leaders said that senior staffers had withheld essential information from elected leaders and imposed their own political objectives that hindered the DSA from achieving its ultimate goal of "a rupture with capitalism."

"As a result, we are now left holding the bag and tasked with cutting expenses just to keep the organization afloat," they said. "It's our responsibility now to learn from our mistakes: not reckoning soon enough with a downturn in enthusiasm, and failing to understand that as a sign that we were not serving our role to champion independent politics as a socialist organization in a time of great crisis for capital."

[satellitebroadcast]

Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine: Telegram

The martyrdom of the prominent leaders Ibrahim Aqil and Ahmed Wehbe, along with a group of field commanders, is a heavy loss. However, the will to resist is unbreakable, and the response will be will be proportionate to the crime. Popular Front mourns the martyrs Ibrahim Aqil and Ahmed Wehbe. The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine mourned in a statement the prominent leaders of Hezbollah, Ibrahim Aqil and Ahmed Wehbe along with a group of field commanders who were martyred due to a treacherous zionist bombardment that targeted Dahiye (the southern suburb of Beirut) yesterday. The Popular Front extended its deepest condolences and sympathies to the brotherly Lebanese people and to the members of Hezbollah and its Secretary-General, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, for the martyrdom of the group of leaders and civilian martyrs, wishing a speedy recovery for the wounded. The Front expressed its full solidarity with the brotherly Lebanon and its valiant resistance, which has lost prominent symbols among its fighters and leaders of Hezbollah, who left significant marks in the struggle against the zionist enemy over many years. The great martyr leader Ibrahim Aqil, who led and participated in numerous battles that drained the zionist enemy, played a pivotal role in the Al-Aqsa Flood battle, which changed the rules of engagement in support of Gaza. As for the prominent martyr leader Ahmed Wehbe, he played an important role in leading the Radwan Force on the support fronts, taking responsibility for training and preparing fighters for decisive battles, which contributed to enhancing the qualitative capabilities of the resistance. The two martyrs, leaders Aqil and Wehbe, alongside the martyr leader Fouad Shukr, represented bright symbols in enhancing the resistance's capabilities at all levels in recent months. They played a leading role in the field of qualitative military operations and in strengthening the strategic and tactical capabilities of Hezbollah during the Al-Aqsa Flood battle. The martyr leader Ibrahim Aqil had distinguished confrontations not only with the zionist enemy but also with the American enemy. He played a prominent role in countering American forces in Lebanon, participating in the famous attack on the American Marines, which led to their withdrawal from Lebanon after the explosion that shook the American presence in the region. This was a pivotal event in the course of the resistance. This new zionist massacre, which resulted from a coordinated planning and execution between the American administration and the zionist entity, falls within a deliberate escalatory policy aimed at targeting infrastructure, civilian facilities, and innocent civilians, in a failed attempt to subdue the resistance, break its resolve, and weaken its popular support. However, they are mistaken if they believe that targeting the leaders will undermine the will of the resistance or weaken the steadfastness of our people. The loss of these great symbols is a profound loss, but the resistance has always proven its ability to compensate for its losses. Its will does not waver in the face of challenges and the escalation of zionist crimes. We firmly believe that the martyrdom of the leaders, despite its severity, cannot break the will of the resistance or weaken its determination. Rather, their pure blood will remain a fuel to ignite the fronts supporting Gaza from Lebanon and other arenas, strengthening the resolve of the fighters to confront the enemy by all possible means. Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine Central Media Department September 21, 2024

[mariacallous]

The Middle East faces a moment of peril. Since Hamas attacked Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, and Israel responded with a brutal campaign in Gaza, the region has been on edge. The longer the Gaza war rages, the more likely it is to set off a regional war. Following the assassination in Tehran of Ismail Haniyeh, Hamas’s political leader, a potentially calamitous cycle of escalation looms as Iran and its allies, including Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and militias operating under the banner of the Islamic Resistance in Iraq and Syria, prepare to retaliate.

While the outlook is dire, recent history suggests a dangerous escalation cycle between the longtime adversaries can be contained. Nineteen dramatic days in April showed how it can be done. After an Israeli strike on an Iranian consular facility in Damascus killed several senior commanders from Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Tehran launched an unprecedented and massive direct strike against Israel.

A degree of forewarning; the fact that Iran’s network of nonstate allies largely held their fire; and aerial defenses from Israel, together with the United States and other Western and some Arab countries, limited the damage, and Israel responded with a limited strike inside Iran.

But history may not repeat itself.

Worryingly, this time around, the public rhetoric from Iranian officials and what they are reportedly saying to diplomats suggests that a bigger and potentially more damaging retaliation is in the works, including coordinated attacks from Iranian allies. Iran’s leadership might fear an Israeli retaliation, but it appears to fear the impression of passivity even more.

It was deeply embarrassed by the Haniyeh assassination shortly after Iran’s new president was inaugurated in the heart of the capital. Iran’s national security establishment worries that anything less than a major retaliation could send the signal that it’s prepared to acquiesce to Israel killing Iranian officials and allied leaders. For its part, Israel has made clear that, should Iran attack, it will also up the pain in its counterstrike and might even take preemptive action.

In seeking to limit Iran’s retaliation for the Haniyeh assassination and Hezbollah’s response to the killing of one of its top commanders in Beirut the day before, the United States and its allies have been pushing a three-pronged crisis management strategy: seeking an immediate cease-fire in Gaza; sending additional defensive capabilities to Israel; and working through back channels to urge Iran to limit its fire.

Yet despite reported pressure from senior Israeli security officials and frustration in Washington, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu continues to reject the first plank—a Gaza truce—which would be critical to easing wider tensions in the region. As for the third plank, Iran seems intent on pushing forward with a large-scale offensive action.

If U.S. efforts to cap an escalatory cycle fail, the worst-case scenario could include an Iranian-led attack that causes significant casualties and damage in Israel, which could then prompt Israel to make good on its threats of an all-out assault on Lebanon that would leave much of the country in ruins, expand the battlefield in Yemen by striking the Houthis, and climb further up the escalatory ladder by attacking Iran’s command structure or key nodes in its nuclear program.

Such a move might lead Tehran to conclude that it has little left to lose. Attacks by Iranian proxies on U.S. forces in Iraq and Syria, which have resumed after a relative lull, could expand and draw U.S. forces back into larger-scale active combat. At some point, the local hostilities, discreet targeted attacks, and exchanges of fire beyond Gaza that have pockmarked the Middle East since Oct. 7 would merge into something bigger and far more consequential: a full-scale regional war with potentially devastating effects on global trade and energy supplies, with high rates of civilian casualties.

This scenario is still avoidable. Even if the U.S. effort to contain hostilities is currently struggling, that effort is aided by the reality that neither Washington (eager to avoid a Middle East entanglement at the height of an election season) nor Tehran (which does not want to shoulder the costs of all-out war for less than what it sees as existential stakes) is looking for a protracted fight. Nor does Hezbollah (which stands to lose some of its substantial arsenal in a major confrontation) appear to want a full-scale war with Israel.

But for the logic of de-escalation to prevail, it may well need a boost. At the heart of the region’s tensions is Gaza. Washington has tried to manage these flare-ups through a variety of diplomatic tracks and ad hoc efforts, but it is clear that the region will continue to teeter on the edge of major conflict absent a Gaza cease-fire. The U.S. government has made clear that it wants this, but it has not yet played its strongest cards to get one.

It is past time to do so. Washington should throw its full weight behind a cease-fire and hostage deal in Gaza on the terms that it previously proposed and to which Israel previously agreed. Of course this can only work if Hamas continues to be on board after Haniyeh’s killing, and the latter’s replacement by Yahya Sinwar (the mastermind behind the Oct. 7 attack), but the United States should actually test the proposition by genuinely pressing Israel.

To do so, Washington should make clear that it will withhold the provision of ammunition and weapons for non-defensive purposes to Israel if Netanyahu’s obstructionism remains an impediment to a deal. At the same time, it should look to those with channels to Hamas to convey that this may be their last chance for a near-term deal. It should also seek the United Nations Security Council’s unanimous support for a resolution that would create a binding commitment on all actors to support and comply with the cease-fire, going a step further than the council’s June cease-fire resolution on which Russia abstained.

If progress is made toward a cease-fire in Gaza, Washington could quietly encourage a parallel effort to de-escalate the hostilities that Iran’s Axis of Resistance partners have fomented around the region since Oct. 7, which could include an agreement by Hezbollah to pull its forces back in line with U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701, adopted to end the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war.

Some of these partners have already intimated that they would stand down upon the reaching of a Gaza truce. The goal would be to add greater certainty to that commitment. As in April, an understanding might be reached through back-channel talks facilitated by Oman or through trusted intermediaries such as Qatar or Switzerland.

The biggest obstacle to moving in this direction may be U.S. domestic politics. Pushing Israel this hard would entail political costs for the Biden administration (including Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic Party’s presumptive presidential nominee) just days prior to the Democratic National Convention and in the run-up to the November presidential election.

But a spiraling regional war could be even more costly for a president who ran for office promising to end endless wars—a commitment that Republican leaders have made as well—and whose foreign-policy legacy may well be judged through the lens of how he dealt with this moment of danger to the Middle East and the world.