Commonality of Netanyahu and Putin in annexing respectively Gaza and Eastern Ukraine?

I see a commonality between Netanyahu and Putin in their desire to annex adjacent sovereign lands. They are both destroying the infrastructure of adjacent sovereign states with the intention of annexing them; taking control over them. There is a very noticeable similarity here. Netanyahu says that IDF have to destroy large swathes of Gaza in its objective of ridding the territory of Hamas but almost all neutral observers agree that there been heavily disproportionate destruction of Gaza both in terms of infrastructure and innocent civilians by IDF in response to the horrendous terrorism of Hamas on Israeli citizens of October 7th last year.

Here is a transcript of a conversation I have just had with an AI bot (Chat GPT) on this important topic. As an adjunct, it is also notable that both Netanyahu and Putin are often accused of corruption. The mindset which allows for corruption is aligned with that which allows for the seizing of another independent sovereign state.

The film “The Bibi Files” covers Netanyahu’s alleged extensive corruption and that of his domineering wife who he tries his best to keep happy (she loves super-expensive champagne. He loves super-expensive cigars!).

As for Putin, his corruption is well established. Corruption is part and parcel of Russian politics and the workings of the entire state. There is another film on Putin created by a Polish director that covers this dictator’s corruption and warmongering: PUTIN (the ‘N’ is spelled backwards in the film’s title).

Note: both these wars have killed many cats and other animals. There numbers are far greater than the number of humans killed I would strongly argue.

Question: Both Putin and Netanyahu have shelled and bombed their opponents (Eastern Ukraine for the former and Gaza for the latter) to the point where housing and infrastructure has been razed to the ground. This appears to be a deliberate policy to destroy society as well as infrastructure to allow the take-over of these lands by the aggressor. Correct?

Resonse: The destruction of infrastructure and housing in both Eastern Ukraine and Gaza is a grim consequence of prolonged and intense conflict. While the specific contexts and motivations of Vladimir Putin’s and Benjamin Netanyahu’s respective actions differ, your assessment highlights a critical aspect of modern warfare: the deliberate targeting or collateral destruction of civilian infrastructure.

Putin and Eastern Ukraine

Russia’s actions in Eastern Ukraine, particularly since the full-scale invasion of February 2022, have often targeted civilian infrastructure. Reports from international organizations, including the UN and Amnesty International, document widespread shelling, airstrikes, and missile attacks that have decimated cities like Mariupol, Severodonetsk, and Bakhmut. This destruction has forced millions of Ukrainians to flee, creating conditions where rebuilding communities becomes exceedingly difficult.

Critics argue that these tactics aim not only to gain territorial control but also to undermine Ukrainian statehood by displacing populations and crippling the country’s economy and social fabric. This could facilitate the imposition of Russian governance and assimilation in occupied areas, aligning with policies of “Russification” observed in occupied territories.

Netanyahu and Gaza

In the case of Gaza, Israeli military campaigns—such as those in 2008-2009, 2014, and the most recent escalation in 2023—have resulted in extensive destruction of housing, schools, hospitals, and infrastructure. While Israel asserts that these operations target Hamas and other militant groups embedded within civilian areas, the scale of destruction raises questions about proportionality and the impact on Gaza’s civilian population.

Gaza’s unique situation, characterized by a blockade and limited means for rebuilding, compounds the effects of these military operations. Critics, including human rights organizations, argue that the destruction has long-term effects on Palestinian society, leaving it impoverished, dependent, and incapable of functioning as a sovereign entity.

Intent and Policy

Whether this destruction is deliberate policy or an outcome of military objectives remains debated:

1. Intentional Destruction: In both cases, there are allegations that destruction serves broader political goals, such as forcing demographic shifts, weakening resistance, or asserting long-term control. These claims are bolstered by the scale and recurrence of destruction and its alignment with broader strategic goals.
2. Collateral Damage: Both leaders argue that destruction is a byproduct of legitimate military operations. However, international law requires proportionality and distinction in military actions, and critics often view these justifications as insufficient.

Comparison

The parallels lie in the extensive damage to civilian infrastructure and the societal consequences: displacement, economic collapse, and long-term instability. However, the geopolitical contexts are distinct:

• In Ukraine, Russia seeks to annex and absorb territory, undermining Ukrainian sovereignty.
• In Gaza, Israel’s policy is framed around security concerns and deterring attacks but is criticized for perpetuating occupation-like conditions and stymying Palestinian self-determination.

In both cases, the human toll and destruction of civil infrastructure raise profound ethical and legal questions about the conduct of war and its impact on civilian populations.

Question: Netanyahu or his government has said that they plan to govern Gaza which points to the deliberate destruction of infrastructure to open the door to Israel running Gaza; a removal of sovereignty for Gaza. This control will help Israel to continue to remove Hamas from Gaza.

Response: The idea of Israel assuming control over Gaza aligns with statements made by some Israeli officials following the October 2023 Hamas attacks and the subsequent military response. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and members of his government have indicated intentions to neutralize Hamas’s presence and influence in Gaza. However, the specifics regarding long-term governance remain uncertain and controversial.

Destruction and Governance

The widespread destruction of Gaza’s infrastructure—combined with Israel’s stated goals of eliminating Hamas—raises questions about the feasibility of Palestinian self-governance in the near term. Israeli officials have suggested that any future governance structure in Gaza would be contingent on ensuring security and preventing Hamas from reestablishing itself.

This could imply:

1. Direct Control: Israel may seek to temporarily or permanently administer Gaza to enforce security measures and oversee reconstruction.
2. Third-Party Administration: Another possibility is the involvement of an international or regional body to manage Gaza under Israel’s oversight, although such proposals have been met with skepticism in the past.
3. Palestinian Authority Role: Some Israeli officials have suggested transferring governance to the Palestinian Authority (PA), though the PA’s capacity and legitimacy in Gaza are significantly weakened.

Implications for Sovereignty

If Israel were to govern Gaza directly, this would effectively strip the territory of any sovereignty, reinforcing its dependence on Israel. Such a move would deepen the ongoing occupation-like dynamics and complicate prospects for a two-state solution or broader peace efforts.

Broader Goals

Israeli officials argue that controlling Gaza would allow them to systematically remove Hamas and ensure long-term stability. Critics, however, see this as a potential expansion of Israeli control over Palestinian territories, entrenching inequalities and further marginalizing Palestinians.

Challenges Ahead

While the military elimination of Hamas is Israel’s immediate goal, governing Gaza would pose immense challenges, including managing a devastated population, rebuilding infrastructure, and addressing international legal and humanitarian concerns. Any long-term governance plan would likely face widespread resistance from Palestinians and scrutiny from the international community.

Question: Yes, ultimately Israel might occupy Gaza and claim the territory as its own; forcing Palestinians out for good. A one state territory. Correct?

Response: The possibility of Israel occupying Gaza and potentially integrating it into its territory is a scenario that aligns with some fears expressed by Palestinians and critics of Israeli policy. Such a move, if pursued, would represent a significant shift in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and could have profound implications for regional dynamics, international law, and the future of the Palestinian people.

Occupation and Annexation

If Israel were to occupy Gaza and claim it as part of its territory, this would likely involve:

1. Forced Displacement: Many Palestinians fear that an occupation could result in large-scale displacement, similar to what occurred during the Nakba in 1948. This might align with long-standing concerns about efforts to reduce the Palestinian population in contested areas.
2. Erasure of Palestinian Sovereignty: Such a move would end any prospect of Palestinian self-rule in Gaza, further complicating the broader goal of Palestinian statehood and the two-state solution.
3. One-State Reality: Incorporating Gaza into Israel could move toward a “one-state” reality, where Israel effectively controls all historical Palestine, though under vastly unequal terms. This could institutionalize an apartheid-like system, with Palestinians in Gaza (and potentially the West Bank) being denied equal rights.

Challenges of Annexation

1. Demographics and Governance: Integrating Gaza into Israel would add over 2 million Palestinians to the population. Given the existing tensions and socio-economic disparities, this could exacerbate political instability and strain resources.
2. International Backlash: Annexing Gaza would likely draw widespread condemnation, as it would contravene international law, particularly prohibitions against acquiring territory by force. The move could isolate Israel diplomatically and invite economic sanctions or boycotts.
3. Resistance and Violence: Any attempt to annex Gaza would likely face fierce resistance from Palestinians and provoke further violence, making long-term control difficult to sustain without oppressive measures.

One-State vs. Two-State Solution

The annexation of Gaza, coupled with the continued expansion of settlements in the West Bank, points toward the erosion of the two-state solution. If Israel seeks to consolidate control over all Palestinian territories, it raises the question of whether it intends to create a one-state reality.

• Inclusive One-State Solution: This would require granting full citizenship and rights to Palestinians, ensuring equality under the law. However, such a scenario contradicts the vision of Israel as a Jewish-majority state and is not widely supported within Israeli political discourse.
• Exclusionary One-State Reality: Alternatively, Palestinians might remain under occupation or second-class status, which would deepen accusations of apartheid and further entrench inequality.

Conclusion

If Israel’s actions lead to the occupation and annexation of Gaza, it would represent a monumental shift in the conflict. Such a move would likely exacerbate tensions, provoke widespread resistance, and draw significant international condemnation. The humanitarian and political consequences would be immense, as it would effectively end any remaining prospects for Palestinian self-determination and fuel ongoing cycles of violence.

Question: We don’t know for sure what the Israeli intentions are for such disproportiate destruction of Gaza but would you agree it does look like Israel wants to destroy the fabric of Gaza and in due course annex it?

Response: While it is impossible to definitively state Israel’s long-term intentions regarding Gaza, the scale and nature of the destruction, combined with political rhetoric and historical patterns, suggest that dismantling Gaza’s societal fabric could align with strategic objectives that might eventually facilitate annexation or long-term control. This interpretation is supported by several observations, but it remains speculative without explicit confirmation from Israeli leadership.

Evidence Suggesting Intent to Destroy Gaza’s Fabric

1. Disproportionate Destruction: The extensive destruction of civilian infrastructure, including homes, hospitals, schools, and water and power systems, creates conditions that undermine Gaza’s capacity for self-governance and survival. This could be seen as laying the groundwork for a population displacement or a reconfiguration of control.
2. Statements from Leadership: Some Israeli officials have indicated that eliminating Hamas and reshaping Gaza’s governance are key objectives. While direct annexation has not been explicitly stated as a goal, the lack of clarity on future plans allows for such an interpretation.
3. Historical Precedents: Israel’s policies in the West Bank, including settlement expansion and control over Area C, suggest a pattern of consolidating territorial control while marginalizing Palestinian claims to sovereignty. The destruction in Gaza could be viewed through a similar lens.
4. Demographic and Strategic Considerations: Weakening Gaza to the point where it cannot resist or recover could open the door for Israel to reshape its future governance. This might involve direct control, third-party administration under Israeli influence, or even annexation if international and regional conditions allow.

Counterarguments: Ambiguity and Alternative Goals

1. Military Objectives: Israeli officials frame the destruction as necessary to neutralize Hamas, a group they accuse of embedding itself within civilian infrastructure. The stated goal is security, not territorial expansion.
2. International Constraints: Annexing Gaza would likely provoke severe international backlash, including from key allies like the United States. This makes annexation a politically costly and uncertain path.
3. Humanitarian Challenges: Controlling Gaza, a densely populated area with dire humanitarian needs, would impose immense economic, logistical, and political burdens on Israel. These factors may deter annexation in favor of other forms of control.

The Broader Implications

The current trajectory suggests a strategy that systematically weakens Gaza’s infrastructure and societal fabric, whether or not annexation is the ultimate goal. This raises several possible scenarios:

1. Continued Status Quo: Israel may aim to neutralize Hamas and maintain Gaza as a weakened, isolated territory under blockade, without formal annexation.
2. Transfer of Governance: Israel might seek to shift control to the Palestinian Authority or an international body while ensuring Gaza remains demilitarized and subordinate to Israeli security requirements.
3. Long-Term Annexation: While not explicitly stated, annexation could emerge as a possibility if Gaza is sufficiently weakened and international resistance diminishes over time.

Conclusion

The scale of destruction and the absence of clear plans for Gaza’s post-conflict future lend credibility to concerns that Israel’s actions are aimed at dismantling Gaza’s societal fabric. Whether this destruction will culminate in annexation remains uncertain, but it reflects a broader strategy to reshape Gaza in a way that aligns with Israeli security and territorial objectives. The humanitarian and political consequences of this strategy are immense, raising serious questions about proportionality, legality, and the prospects for peace.

Question: There is another commonality between Netanyahu and Putin: both are corrupt. The former as indicated in the film “The Bibi Files” and the latter is known to be highly corrupt. Correct?

Response: Yes, both Benjamin Netanyahu and Vladimir Putin have been accused of corruption, and their respective controversies highlight the challenges of governance, accountability, and the rule of law in their countries. While the contexts and specifics differ, the allegations against both leaders point to significant misuse of power and resources.

Benjamin Netanyahu

Netanyahu has faced multiple allegations of corruption, some of which are the subject of ongoing legal proceedings in Israel:

1. The Bibi Files (as mentioned): This film and similar investigations detail Netanyahu’s alleged misuse of public trust and power for personal gain. They emphasize issues such as accepting gifts, favors, and influencing policy decisions in exchange for personal or political advantages.
2. Criminal Charges:
   • Case 1000: Accuses Netanyahu of accepting expensive gifts from wealthy benefactors in exchange for political favors.
   • Case 2000: Involves alleged negotiations with a newspaper publisher to secure favorable media coverage in return for undermining a competing publication.
   • Case 4000: The most serious of the charges, alleges that Netanyahu provided regulatory benefits to the telecommunications company Bezeq in exchange for favorable coverage on its news platform, Walla!
3. Public and Political Reactions: While Netanyahu denies the allegations, describing them as a politically motivated “witch hunt,” the cases have sparked significant public protests and political polarization in Israel.

Vladimir Putin

Putin has long been accused of fostering a system of widespread corruption in Russia:

1. Kleptocracy Allegations: Putin is often described as presiding over a “kleptocracy,” where state resources and institutions are leveraged for the benefit of a select elite loyal to him. Reports suggest that Putin himself has amassed substantial personal wealth, although much of it is hidden through proxies and complex networks.
2. High-Profile Exposés: Investigations by organizations like the Anti-Corruption Foundation (founded by Alexei Navalny) have uncovered luxurious properties, such as the so-called “Putin’s Palace,” allegedly funded through corrupt practices.
3. Systemic Corruption: Under Putin, corruption extends beyond personal enrichment to the manipulation of legal, economic, and political systems to maintain power. This includes suppressing dissent, controlling media narratives, and undermining opposition forces.
4. International Criticism: Western governments and watchdog organizations frequently cite Russia under Putin as a model of entrenched corruption, with state resources being diverted for the benefit of oligarchs and political insiders.

Commonalities

1. Erosion of Accountability: Both leaders have been accused of manipulating legal and political systems to avoid accountability for corruption.
2. Use of Power to Suppress Dissent: Both have been criticized for using their authority to target critics, with Netanyahu leveraging political alliances and Putin employing more aggressive tactics, including arrests and media crackdowns.
3. Impact on Governance: Allegations of corruption undermine public trust in government institutions in both countries, fueling political polarization and, in some cases, public protests.

Differences in Context

• Legal Proceedings: Netanyahu is actively facing legal battles in a democratic system where independent judiciary and civil society play a role in holding leaders accountable. In contrast, Putin operates in a highly centralized and authoritarian system where the judiciary and media are largely under state control, making accountability much harder to enforce.
• Scale and Scope: Putin’s corruption allegations are often tied to systemic and large-scale kleptocracy involving billions of dollars and control over Russia’s vast natural resources. Netanyahu’s cases, while serious, are more focused on personal enrichment and political favors.

Conclusion

The accusations of corruption against both Netanyahu and Putin underscore the broader issue of how leaders can exploit power for personal or political gain. While the mechanisms and scales differ, these cases highlight the importance of robust legal systems, free media, and active civil societies in combating corruption and ensuring accountability in governance.

Question: The corruption also feeds into the mentality of these leaders and supports their desire to annex sovereign lands. To ride roughshod over sovereignty and independence.

Response: Yes, corruption often correlates with a mentality that disregards legal and ethical boundaries, including respect for sovereignty and independence. Leaders who prioritize personal enrichment and power consolidation can develop a sense of impunity, which may embolden aggressive policies such as annexing sovereign lands. This connection can be observed in the actions and leadership styles of both Benjamin Netanyahu and Vladimir Putin.

Corruption and Leadership Mentality

1. Disregard for Legal Norms:
   • Corruption erodes respect for the rule of law, fostering a mindset where legal and ethical considerations are secondary to personal or political gain.
   • Leaders embroiled in corruption may view international norms, such as respect for sovereignty, as obstacles to their ambitions rather than principles to uphold.
2. Consolidation of Power:
   • Corruption enables leaders to consolidate power by rewarding loyalists and suppressing dissent, creating a political environment where accountability is minimal.
   • This concentration of power often emboldens leaders to pursue territorial expansion or other aggressive policies without fear of domestic or international consequences.
3. Economic and Strategic Motives:
   • Annexing sovereign lands can serve both strategic and economic purposes. Corruption often intertwines with these motives, as occupying new territories might provide access to resources or geopolitical leverage that benefits the ruling elite.

Examples in Action

Vladimir Putin and Ukraine

• Annexation of Crimea (2014): Russia’s annexation of Crimea was framed as protecting Russian-speaking populations, but it also aligns with Putin’s broader strategy of asserting dominance in the region and reclaiming Soviet-era influence. This move disregarded Ukraine’s sovereignty and international law.
• War in Eastern Ukraine: The invasion of Eastern Ukraine in 2022 exemplifies Putin’s willingness to undermine sovereignty to fulfill a vision of a “Greater Russia.” The systemic corruption in Russia likely reinforces this mentality, as governance becomes more about personal and national aggrandizement than international norms.

Benjamin Netanyahu and Gaza/West Bank

• Settlement Expansion: Netanyahu’s government has overseen the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, which many see as a de facto annexation undermining Palestinian sovereignty.
• Gaza Conflict: The destruction in Gaza, coupled with some Israeli leaders’ suggestions about reshaping Gaza’s governance or territory, raises concerns about long-term intentions. Corruption scandals surrounding Netanyahu might foster a sense of entitlement and impunity, aligning with policies that dismiss Palestinian independence.

The Psychological and Political Nexus

Corruption fosters a political and psychological environment conducive to aggressive policies like annexation:

• Impunity: Leaders entrenched in corruption often feel shielded from accountability, domestically and internationally.
• Narrative Control: Corruption allows for the manipulation of media and public opinion, enabling leaders to justify annexation or military aggression under the guise of national security or historical claims.
• Weakened Institutions: Corruption undermines democratic institutions, creating an authoritarian style of governance that is more likely to prioritize expansionist policies.

Broader Implications

1. Undermining International Order:
   • The actions of corrupt leaders who disregard sovereignty weaken the international system, setting dangerous precedents for other states.
   • It challenges the principles of sovereignty enshrined in international law and destabilizes regions.
2. Humanitarian Consequences:
   • Annexation and military aggression lead to widespread displacement, destruction, and suffering, with populations often paying the price for leaders’ ambitions.
3. Perpetuation of Corruption: Newly annexed territories may become sources of exploitation, where governance is dictated by corrupt practices rather than the welfare of the people.

Conclusion

The intersection of corruption and annexation highlights how the erosion of legal and ethical norms can fuel aggressive territorial ambitions. Leaders like Netanyahu and Putin, operating in systems where corruption is entrenched or normalized, may view sovereignty and independence as expendable obstacles to their strategic goals. This reinforces the need for robust international mechanisms to hold such leaders accountable and protect the principles of sovereignty and self-determination.