Like bicicleur said, Hamas is mainly funded by Iran and Qatar nowadays, but it is also Israel's own Frankenstein monster. Hamas arose from the ranks of the Muslim Brotherhood which was ruthlessly persecuted in Egypt. Some of its people found their way into Gaza. So while Israel didn't exactly form Hamas, it did sponsor it from its earliest days. It was a means to weaken and divide the PLO, a far greater adversary in those days. Its other role, particularly after the murder of Ytzhak Rabin, was to justify the Israeli extreme right's definite rejection of the two-state solution. For that purpose, it's more useful to have an adversary who pursues the destruction of Israel rather than someone you can negotiate with. I don't claim to understand why the Gazans voted for Hamas in the first place. Israel may have sponsored Hamas but the elections were fair and no one forced the Palestinians to vote for Hamas. Was it the disappointment with the Fatah/PLO who were largely perceived as corrupt sell-outs who use the "Palestinian cause" to fill their pockets? Was it an act of desperation that makes people invest their hopes in anyone who looks like a man of action, not empty promises and big speeches? Or was it plain blind hatred, accumulated over decades? I guess all of it played a role. There have been no elections in Gaza since 2006 and I doubt Hamas is as popular as it once way. In any case, it is a terrorist organisation. Had they just attacked military targets, once could say it's an episode of a dirty war. But they went on a killing spree of innocent civilians and whoever does that needs to be put down like a rabid dog. Israel has the right to smash Hamas once and for all (and reflect on the role it played in its creation and empowerment) but it has no right to collective punishment. It was decided by the Nuremberg Trials that there can be no such thing and it is a war crime according to the Geneva Convention. Yet the Israeli minister of defense openly calls Gazans animals and demands they be treated as such. There is no justification for collective punishment. In 2014 the settlers from Sderot were cheering and organising picnics when the IDF was bombing Gaza. Nevertheless, Hamas had no right to punish Israeli civilians for the crimes of the Israeli army.
Israel will be forced to send in its troops and this may exactly be what Hamas wants. The IDF is not experienced in urban warfare and it would be very costly. The IDF is used to being a police force, beating up teenagers at checkpoints, dragging people out of their homes or bombing schools and hospitals from afar. The Israeli leadership understands that but there is no other way to confront Hamas in a meaningful way. If they bomb the place into the stone age, it will be last time Israel got away with it and there is a great risk of other regional powers getting involved. Israel may end up feeling cornered and existentially threatened which could provoke it to use nuclear weapons, most likely against Iran. We have too many conflicts popping up at once. The war in Ukraine is pretty much decided. Barely anyone is talking about it. John Kirby said "we may very well be at the end of the rope here." The collective West thinks it can fight Russia, China and in the Middle East at once. We have a very serious crisis of leadership. These are not rational people.
I don't think Taiwan wants to go to war with China. The next elections will see the Kuomintang back in power and they are very pro-China. It's the US that thinks it can use Taiwan as a battering ram against China as it used Ukraine against Russia. I doubt the Taiwanese are that stupid. Besides, it is internationally recognised that Taiwan is part of China. There is not much of a struggle.
I agree with a lot of what you said, not so much with the rest.
Some points:
IMO, WW3 has started, if not WW3, maybe the very early phase, akin to the invasions happening before Poland in WWII. A warring kingdoms age of instability and score settling.
One of the key points I got from Blinken on Israel Hamas war, was "Israel has the right to defend itself" but "how its done it matters" or something along those lines. This IMO is because if both sides of the global "teams" openly, flat out start genociding, then its a world war with no rules, that no one wants.
The other point, the US despite all its current flaws, and a less than stellar state department, has in the past 70 years laid a great foundation, not to fight Russia, China and Middle East on its own. It couldn't. But their long standing policy of "military vassals" and network of allies can be the key, nonetheless it will be tested. South Korea, Japan, Philipines, Taiwan, Australia... India (will be forced once stuff hits the fan) to counterbalance China. And Israel, Saudi in the ME along with less relevant (yet very rich) states as a counterbalance to Iran.
Another point is that the collective West is not into war mode yet. Pearl Harbor was a measure to castrate the US ability to wage war on its terms against Japan, destroying 70-90% of their Western Navy (couple dozen war ships). I read a long time ago that the Japanese were surprised when 2 years after the attack the US navy numbered couple of thousand war ships. Thanks to the first and second War Powers Act, coupled with capitalism and industrialization.
In 1939 the US Navy had 15 battleships, 5 aircraft carriers, 18 heavy cruisers and 19 light cruisers.
At its peak, the U.S. Navy was operating 7,601 ships on V-J Day in August 1945, including 28 aircraft carriers, 23 battleships, 71 escort carriers, 72 cruisers, over 232 submarines, 377 destroyers, and thousands of amphibious, supply and auxiliary ships.
and had over 70% of the world's total numbers and total tonnage of naval vessels of 1,000 tons or greater.
Whether they could pull off something like that again, I would not bet against it. Along with modern warfare relying on drones, manpower will be an issue only in factories. Now instead of thousands of ships, one can expect quite a lot of drones and intercontinental missiles.
Plus who knows what R&D is under the surface, critically listening to Trumps last rally speech, he always seems to slip some interesting inuendos, "trust me I have seen it".
Auditors found that the Pentagon could only account for
39% of its $3.5 trillion in assets, causing it to fail its fifth consecutive audit.
The black budget is mostly classified because of security reasons. The black budget can be complicated to calculate, but in the United States it has been estimated to be over US$50 billion a year, taking up approximately 7 percent of the US$700 billion American defense budget.
Lastly, recognition vs soverignty. There is a huge distinction. Taiwan might not be recognized, but it is more sovereign than many recognized states (que Bosnia and its political system). Exactly why I find funny the big fuss about the "recognition" of Kosovo. Even if (lol) Serbia and 120 (or whatever is the threshold) of countries recognize Kosovo, - China, Russia or whoever from the permanent SC will veto it. Hence why de facto sovereignty is the key metric, at least till the UN is phased out and transforms into its spiritual successor (post-WW).
But yeah, feels like we haven't seen the last of this.
