this post was submitted on 09 Mar 2026
93 points (100.0% liked)
Chapotraphouse
14302 readers
597 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yeah this. Israel is a pawn. A very powerful one, perhaps the US most important pawn. But Israel does not control the US. The US has the power here. It makes no sense for Israel to somehow be controlling the US. The whole "Israel controls the US " narrative is just another convenient thing that Isreal does in support of US interests. They're quite happy to be a useful scapegoat in this instance because it helps placate the American public and keep their genocide engine moving
I want to say that I hate the frequency of chess analogies that I've seen in media recently. However, if we must use a chess analogy in this situation, Israel is not a pawn. A pawn is a defensive structure, with low aggression capabilities. A pawn has low piece value, there are 10 of them, they move slowly, and can only attack 2 squares.
Israel is not a pawn, Israel would be a high value, aggressive piece, like a rook or maybe even the Queen. Israel attacked Iran first this year. Israel attacked first last year. Israel attacked Lebanon, Yemen, Syria, Gaza, the list goes on. This is not to say that Israel controls the US or that the US controls Israel. Israel has it's own ambitions. Israel wants to control the entire region just as much as the US does.
Pawns are low value, defensive structures which are typically used to protect the king from attack. Pawns would be like Mexico and Canada. The land masses of Mexico and Canada prevent the US from being counter-attacked.
There's 8 pawns
Um... Ok India, UK, Taiwan, South Korea. We got two more to make the analogy sound, then we have to sort out the back row.
Germany, Australia?
Sure that works
You are right.
A pawn can be whatever you want it to be when you push it to the end of the table. I think it's a perfect example. Israel pretends to be weak but in actuality is whatever the US needs it to be
You both make good points, I think the best take I've read is that the relationship between
and 
is dialectical
The synthesis is
synthesis: Israel is a pawn that has been promoted to a queen by making it across the board.