"The fires of conflict are being doused" Topic

link

Brilliant diplomacy at work.

Never thought I would see this happen -- did not think it possible, to be honest. Cheers!

Great news, I hope this pans out in the long term!

Very touching ceremony.

Previously, the Arab nations would not make peace with Israel due to the Palestinian issue being unresolved.

The change is that the Arab states now feel that the Palestinians won't accept any reasonable deal, so they have lost patience with them.

The change is that the Arab states now feel that the Palestinians won't accept any reasonable deal, so they have lost patience with them.

What reasonable deal?

Please, could you explain what you consider as a "reasonable deal"?

Bill's comment is spot on. I also think that the Arab nations see Israel as their bulwark against Iran. They can spend all they want on defense, but it never seems to create a well trained force. Easier to invest in Israel.

The main reason is Iran. It has nothing to do with the Palestinians. In fact, the Palestinians are expendable and sacrificeable.

By the way, are the Iranians a real threat? NO. It is American and Zionist propaganda.

Iran is an impoverished country, with a Third World army, with obsolete weapons (from 1950-1960). It is not a real threat to Israel, to Arab lackeys or to Western countries.
But Western countries need to create an enemy, the typical bad boys. It is the typical childish reasoning in order to manipulate people who lack critical thinking.

Some interesting viewpoints. Fact is, we don't know all the details of the deal, it hasn't been made public.
What has been said, in part does specifically mentions Palestine. The deal was struck with the promise that the Palestinian issue would continue to be worked on. Also, that annexation of certain Palestinian areas, something proposed earlier in the year, would be suspended.

This deal is a great step forward.

By the way, are the Iranians a real threat? NO. It is American and Zionist propaganda.

Iran is an impoverished country, with a Third World army, with obsolete weapons (from 1950-1960). It is not a real threat to Israel, to Arab lackeys or to Western countries.
But Western countries need to create an enemy, the typical bad boys. It is the typical childish reasoning in order to manipulate people who lack critical thinking.

Wow talk about drinking the cool aid and carrying the party line ! IMO of course …

Bottom line anything that will limit the possibility a war in that region is a good move. And yes of course Iran is a big concern. Most in the region/world are Sunni and with Iran being Shite are a minority. The hatred between the two is nothing new. In the past only thing they could generally agree on was they hated Israel. There will always be a threat of a war. And as I have said before, the last thing a fundamentalist theocracy i.e. Iran, needs is to get nukes.

Academic intellectuals critical thinking is great in the class room. Where it needs to stay AFAIK. The reality of limiting a possible out break of war is the priority. Again me being a Vet who served in a number places in the World, I may be biased. 0 losses all around is the best option. But that is not always possible as we who study history know too well.

And as in any "deal" not everyone gets what they want. To paraphrase, "The Art of the deal is compromise." …

Agreed with Ruchel that the real reason is Iran. The Palestinians are indeed expendable. As for "reasonable offers" there have been none. Netenyahu opposed the Oslo Peace Accords of 1993 and his right wing nationalist coalition government will do anything to destroy the peace process as it's existence is based on this (he has to appease the Ultra Orthodox Jewish and Zionist parties that keep him in power).

And Iran is only as much a threat as Saudi Arabia, Qatar and UAE are.

Westerners don't understand that Islam is undergoing a number of major changes:

1. With the abject failure of western secularism in middle east (nationalist, socialist, and occasionally democratic), Islam is making a comeback as the ideological basis of the socio-political sphere in the Islamic world.

Basically politics abhors a vacuum and Islam is filling that vacuum.

2. With the above fact in mind, there is a return to the old Shia-Sunni conflict. After all the question is: "if Islam is the dominant underpinning of society, politics and the economy, then which brand of Islam should it be?"

In reality it makes little difference as to whose side the Americans pick. Both the Iranian Shias, Wahhabist Saudis and generally Islamic extremist UAE and Qatar are technically the extreme opposite of western cultural values.

But American foreign policy is partially based on illogical bearing of grudges (eg Cuba or Serbia or crippled ex-Soviet Russia in the 1990s) so of course the Iranians are the enemy.

As for Israel, here too is a country established on the pretence of perpetual war. Iran's ballistic missiles serve little or no threat to it. Israel is after all a nuclear power and the Iranians are not stupid. They understand any attack on Israel marks the end of Iran!

But for the nationalists in power in Israel since 2009, Iran serves as a valuable tool.

If Iran collapsed today, tomorrow the Israeli right wing would find a new enemy to focus on.

---

The current Israeli government for those who don't know is a coalition that relies on extremist right wing parties to stay in power.

Without the 17 ultra right wing Orthodox seats, the government would lose its mandate.

Israel itself is in a state of transformation. Ultra Orthodox Judaism (Haredis) is expanding rapidly due to high birth rates. They have an average of 7.1 children per woman compared to 2.2 for secular women or 4 children for Orthodox Jews.

The Orthodox Jews are generally right wing and oppose peace with Palestinians as they wish to repopulate the west bank.

By 2065 Haredis will be up to 32% of the population which will make them the biggest voting block in Israel.

Thus peace with Palestinians is impossible due to changing Israeli demographics.

And it will be a disaster for Israel as:

1. Haredis don't participate in national economy in a meaningful manner.

2. Haredis don't serve in the military.

3. Don't pay taxes!

4. Do not educate themselves beyond religious instruction.

link

And that demographic change means that Israel will probably get more militant on the foreign policy front be it against Iran or the Palestinians or Turkey or whoever.

Wow, some real anti-semitism is oozing out in this thread.

Bottom line anything that will limit the possibility a war in that region is a good move. And yes of course Iran is a big concern.

This deal is a great step forward.

Peace deals with Bahrain or UAE and Israel do nothing for the security situation. They are merely ceremonial.

Neither UAE nor Bahrain have ever sent troops en masse or at all to fight Israel!

These two are not major players in the Israeli-Palestinian saga. They aren't even players at all.

the last thing a fundamentalist theocracy i.e. Iran, needs is to get nukes.

Except like the North Koreans, the Iranians aren't stupid. The mullahs don't want their country destroyed.

As for fundamentalist theocracies having nukes, it is thought that the religious fundamentalists Saudis have nukes courtesy of Pakistan. They also have ballistic missiles courtesy of China.

Nukes are deterrent, not offensive weapons.

--------

Bahrain is 70% Shia but is ruled by an oppressive Sunni monarchy. The Shia rebelled but the Bahraini King allowed Saudi and UAE troops to quash them in 2011 with unspoken US approval. Viva la democracy!

The reality of limiting a possible out break of war is the priority. A

Well if America stopped arming and supporting the Saudis and friends, that would almost certainly limit current wars that have already broken out in Yemen, Libya and Syria.

Or is bombing Yemeni weddings and funerals with US supplied F-15s dropping US supplied bombs after they were refuelled by USAF tankers considered "limiting possibility of war?"

Wow, some real anti-semitism is oozing out in this thread.

No anti-semitism on my behalf. Debating Israeli politics and demographic changes is not anti-semitism.

The Jews are among the greatest people's to have ever lived. Despite thousands of years of oppression, they thrived and have contributed so much to development of sciences! They then created the only liberal democracy in the middle east despite Arab attempts to destroy it between 1947 and 1973.

That doesn't mean everything the Israeli government does is correct.

And arguably since 2009 Israel has done nothing to achieve peace and has in fact inflamed the situation and even tacitly supported ISIS by smacking the Syrians around. In fact according to the UN the Israelis were in regular contact with ISIS (ibtimes.co.in/un-report-israel-regular-contact-syrian-rebels-including-isis-616404 ).

Not the first time Israel has fostered Islamist extremists – originally Israel supported Hamas as they saw them as a counter to the secular PLO. And look how great that worked out for them.

As for the growing Haredi issue, it is well known in Israel. The link I provided for is from Haaretz, which is the oldest newspaper in Israel! Hardly anti-semitic.

Yikes! I would have hoped nowadays people could tell the difference between anti-semitism and being critical of Israel's foreign polices!

(and I don't even agree with much of the above…)

The POTUS defers to his son-in-law (whose grandparents were survivors of the Holocaust) when it comes to ME policy. Relocating the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and antagonizing Iran are part of the deal.

Otherwise he would have treated North Korea the same way he dealt with Iran instead of cozying up with Pyongyang and Kim Jong-Un at the beginning.

The recognition of Jerusalem as capital of Israel was also included in the recent deal for normalisation of economic relations between Kosovo and Serbia. Israel then recognised Kosovo in turn.

Of course this great deal was a real pain for the Europeans as it hampers integration of Kosovo and Serbia into the EU!

The Israeli recognition of Kosovo also might have damaged the original tripartite deal between Serbia, Kosovo and US in the first place as the Serbs were incensed.

link

In any case the current US position on Israel is clearly pro-Israeli:

- Any independent Palestine to lose 30% of territory including virtually all of Jersualem and access to Al Aqsa Mosque.
- Offers of slithers of arid land near Gaza Strip to Palestinian as "compensation" for loss of Jerusalem and fertile ground to Israel.
- No right of return for Palestinian refugees.

It comes with some impossible conditions – somehow the Palestinian Authority is to "teleport" itself to Gaza Strip and take power from Hamas.

The US is promising aid to Palestinians if they sign the agreement though in the mean time the US was actually massively slashing aid to Palestine. The Palestinian Authority then cancelled US aid entirely as the US issued new laws that allowed US citizens to sue recipients of aid such as the Palestinian Authority "over alleged complicity in acts of war."

The net result is clear: No peace in the middle east despite getting such non-players as Bahrain or in this case UAE to sign whatever treaties the US wants.

The Palestinians have been shunted into a corner and neutralised as a major issue. The Arabs don't care for their plight as they are too busy spreading their Islamist wings in Libya or Yemen or indeed Syria.

EDIT: Analysis from Israel on the treaties:

link

The conclusion is that the Palestinians got the short end of the stick and that the agreements don't even mention the two state solution.

I guess SOME Arab states are tired of being held hostage by intransigent Palestinian leadership. Since … 1948?

Let's see how long these deals last.
I'm not optimistic.

They're not held hostage. Very often the Arabs egged on the Palestinians or the Egyptians and Syrians and even Jordanians. Saudi Arabia pumped billions into weapons for Egypt and Jordan to wage war on Israel back in the 1960s and 1980s.

And as mentioned their main goal is the religious conflict with Iran.

Bahrain wants to crush dissent in its majority Shia population which is unhappy being oppressed. Chumming up to USA gives the Sunni leaderships security.

UAE wants F-35s (and other advanced weapons) and is viewing the peace deal as a back door to getting them. UAE wants F-35 so it can deter Iran but also throw it's military weight around Libya, Yemen and elsewhere where they are involved.

link

"Please, could you explain what you consider as a "reasonable deal"?"

In 1993 the Palestinians were offered 90% of their demands and they rejected the deal. The charter of Hamas calls for the destruction of Israel so they are hardly a boogy man.

"They understand any attack on Israel marks the end of Iran!"

Which would be true of a rational country, which Iran isn't. Many in their leadership believe in the 12th Imam who is prophesied to return at the end of the world to bring peace and an end to oppression. There are those in Iran that want to bring about his return through nuclear war.

Not to mention the fact that Iran is a leading exporter of terrorism and spent years killing Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's only internal politics in the US that prevented military retaliation against them to this point.

"Peace deals with Bahrain or UAE and Israel do nothing for the security situation. They are merely ceremonial.
Neither UAE nor Bahrain have ever sent troops en masse or at all to fight Israel!
These two are not major players in the Israeli-Palestinian saga. They aren't even players at all"

Disagree completely. While neither country took part in much active fighting against Israel, both were major financers of the Palestinians and their allies. This is a major blow to those who want Israel destroyed.

"And arguably since 2009 Israel has done nothing to achieve peace "

Except signing a peace treaty with two formerly sworn enemies.

"The conclusion is that the Palestinians got the short end of the stick and that the agreements don't even mention the two state solution."

True, but they brought it on themselves. The Arab countries attacked Israel in 1948 with the intent to wipe it out….they failed. They refused to recognize Israel and kept the region in a state of perpetual war. The Palestinians were used as a tool by the Arab states to attack Israel, and they were willing used. When given a chance to get most of what they wanted the Palestinians rejected peace. Their leadership is sworn to destroy Israel. Israel has made peace with Egypt, Jordan, and now UAE and Bahrain.

And when you use terms like, 'Zionist Propaganda' you are using a term deeply rooted in anti-Semitism whether intending to or not.

They might have used the Palestinians as an excuse in the past, but even the Arab states hate the Palestinians now. That's why they are in refugee camps and have not been absorbed into the general populations in the other Arab countries.

In 1993 the Palestinians were offered 90% of their demands and they rejected the deal. The charter of Hamas calls for the destruction of Israel so they are hardly a boogy man.

The only reasonable deal is from Oslo Peace Accords. Two states.

Which would be true of a rational country, which Iran isn't. Many in their leadership believe in the 12th Imam who is prophesied to return at the end of the world to bring peace and an end to oppression. There are those in Iran that want to bring about his return through nuclear war.

Have you studied the complexities of Shia Islam (many different schools of thought) from Islamic primary and secondary sources? Obviously you haven't. It is clear that you do not understand the Shia Doctrine of Imam.

Tabloids and Western misconceptions and distortions are not reliable sources. Usually they are rubbish and/or propaganda.

Not to mention the fact that Iran is a leading exporter of terrorism and spent years killing Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's only internal politics in the US that prevented military retaliation against them to this point.

Maybe because the US has spent years killing hundreds of thousands of people from Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, … Massive crimes and state terrorism: invasions, bombings, drones, support to criminal dictators, support to paramilitaries, and so on.

True, but they brought it on themselves.

At the outset, more than 700000 Palestinian families were expelled from their own homes and lands. And more people were expelled during the following decades.
So, in your opinion, the Palestinians had no rights then and they have no rights now. They should not protest and they should not fight for their rights. Because the Palestinians had no rights to live in their homes and lands.

So it is legal and moral to expel millions of people from their homes and lands, and to create a new state with new inhabitants. No, it is not legal, it is not moral. It is a crime and a disaster. You can see the consequences from 1948 until now.

Would Americans fight if they were expelled from their homes and lands? In your opinion the answer is NO, because they deserve their fate and "They brought it on themselves" like the Palestinians.

And when you use terms like, 'Zionist Propaganda' you are using a term deeply rooted in anti-Semitism whether intending to or not.

That is not true. Firstly, Zionism is a political ideology, not a religious or ethnical one. Judaism and Zionism are very different things. Many Jews are not Zionists. Hebrew culture and Judaism have nothing to do with Zionism. I have Jewish ancestors and relatives who disliked Zionism.

As any other political ideology, especially totalitarian ideologies, Zionism uses propaganda. So I can criticize Zionism. I consider it as a criminal and totalitarian ideology, nothing to do with original Judaism.

Regarding the anti-Semitism, the Arabs and most Palestinians are Semitic people too.

They might have used the Palestinians as an excuse in the past, but even the Arab states hate the Palestinians now.

No, the Arab states do not hate the Palestinians. Those Arab dictators, corrupt governments supported and paid by the US and other Western countries, hate the Palestinians. It is very different.
Those dictators will hate whatever you want as long as you pay them.

And the Palestinians do not want to be "absorbed" into other populations because they want to live in their own country with their own state. It is easy to understand.

This has everything to do with those Arab states getting their hands on US weaponry and little to do with the Palestinians.

Very simply the UAE and Bahrain are worried about Iran and they want the goodies to deter agression and punish meddling.

Washington is willing to provide what they want with fewer strings attached than the Chinese.

Anything that reduces tensions in that area is a plus, but my fear is that this just puts more weapons in the region to allow them to continue their centuries old tribal war.

Some good comments across the board.

The Palestinians are indeed expendable.

For better or worse that seems to be true. Geopolitical "Realpolitik" can be that way, as we know.

Westerners don't understand that Islam is undergoing a number of major changes:

Yes I agree with that and the other paragraphs you posted on this subject. And it is becoming clearer everyday but yes many don't see it.

The Jews are among the greatest people's to have ever lived. Despite thousands of years of oppression, they thrived and have contributed so much to development of sciences! They then created the only liberal democracy in the middle east despite Arab attempts to destroy it between 1947 and 1973.

That doesn't mean everything the Israeli government does is correct.

Agree totally … on all points there.

Well if America stopped arming and supporting the Saudis and friends, that would almost certainly limit current wars that have already broken out in Yemen, Libya and Syria.

Geopolitics is not always clean, with many dirty hands.

the Iranians aren't stupid. The mullahs don't want their country destroyed.

I agree with that. But again if fundamentalists get a nuke. And think they will go to a better place if they kill the Infidels[which AFAIK that is most of us here !] that is a 0-Sum game.

As for fundamentalist theocracies having nukes, it is thought that the religious fundamentalists Saudis have nukes courtesy of Pakistan. They also have ballistic missiles courtesy of China.

Yes very true. And many of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis. But I think the Royal Family, etc., albeit not popular with all Saudi Arabians, have those nukes to deter Iran. As for the same reasons Pakistan and India both have nukes to use most likely on each other.

Both situations are fueled by religious differences, etc.,. I.e. Sunni vs. Shia, and moslem vs. Hindu.

Nukes are deterrent, not offensive weapons.

Yes most certainly believe that, i.e. MAD … But would AQ and/or ISIS see it that way? Of course they hate each other, but what they have in common is hatred of the West/Infidels, etc. If either of them got a hold of a nuke(s), I'd think among their priority target(s) would be Israel and the US.

Maybe because the US has spent years killing hundreds of thousands of people from Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, … Massive crimes and state terrorism: invasions, bombings, drones, support to criminal dictators, support to paramilitaries, and so on.

Welcome to the "wonderful world" of geopolitics/"Realpolitik" … Nothing new there, has been going on for centuries. With no real end in sight, AFAIK.

In many cases it seems with all the factions in all these regions you need a play book with different colored numbered jerseys. To tell who is who, etc. ⚽🏀🏈 E.g. Syria is a good example.

Brilliant diplomacy at work.

That is, brilliant bribes at work.

Wow…shut down this thread now…there is too much propaganda oozing out, and zero wargame related posts.

We'll see how long it lasts before the shooting starts again…

Doused with water in some places but with gas in other places. Some groups will never be satisfied.

The Israeli-Palestinian issue is one of the most contentious and there will never be agreement. So we can agree to disagree.

Not saying that there aren't anything that we can agree on when it comes to Israel, like Gal Gadot (Wonder Woman) is a beautiful woman.

So we can agree to disagree.

Agreed !

we can agree on when it comes to Israel, like Gal Gadot (Wonder Woman) is a beautiful woman

Agreed !!!!

At least they all agree on all-beef hot dogs.

At least they all agree on all-beef hot dogs.

That's kosher, but some like their hot dogs without the bun if you catch my drift: link

After sorting through all the foregoing tears and
flapdoodle – one question:

Why isn't ALL this 'stuff' on the Blue Fez????

"At the outset, more than 700000 Palestinian families were expelled from their own homes and lands."

The vast majority were not expelled, they willing left in 1948 when instructed to do so by the invading Arab countries. They were told they could return as soon as the Jewish state was eliminated. They started a war of extermination and lost. Now they feel they should get through political intimidation what they failed to take militarily.

"Obviously you haven't. It is clear that you do not understand the Shia Doctrine of Imam. Tabloids and Western misconceptions and distortions are not reliable sources. Usually they are rubbish and/or propaganda."

Feel free to actually refute the claim that the doctrine of the 12th Imam requires an Armageddon like event. All you did was claim superior knowledge and dismiss it.

"Regarding the anti-Semitism, the Arabs and most Palestinians are Semitic people too."

Zionism has been used as an attack on Israel, the world's only Jewish state, since 1948. Anti-Semitism is a term associated only with Jews. To claim otherwise is laughable.

"And the Palestinians do not want to be "absorbed" into other populations because they want to live in their own country with their own state. It is easy to understand."

Yet this attitude is a relatively new desire. Up until 1967 they were part of Jordan and could have been granted their own country, but they didn't want it. They wanted Israel wiped out. Actions have consequences.

+5 Dn Jackson

I'll admit I'm a fan/student of the IDF and their combat effectiveness, etc. And biased because of it …

Save for the Jordanians at times the rest of that region's militaries have not demonstrated much tactical expertise, etc.

A bit of a fanboy of the IDF myself. Own a fairly large 15mm/1:100 Team Yankee Israeli army because I can't resist those cool Battlefront Merkavas.

The vast majority were not expelled, they willing left in 1948 when instructed to do so by the invading Arab countries. They were told they could return as soon as the Jewish state was eliminated. They started a war of extermination and lost. Now they feel they should get through political intimidation what they failed to take militarily.

The real fact is that millions of Palestinians were expelled from their homes and lands, from 1948 until now. This is an undeniable and unquestionable fact. Right?

The Palestinians had nothing to take militarily, they were fighting for their homes and their land. And nowadays they keep on fighting.

I repeat the question: if the Americans were expelled from their homes and lands, would they fight using all methods and supports at their disposal?

The Palestinians had (and have today) all the rights to defend themselves from the invaders, using any strategy at their disposal and receiving any support from other Arab countries. It is logical and evident.

The State of Israel was artificially created and imposed by force of arms and with the support of the US and other Western countries. It was an invasion which has caused violence and massive deportations of people, Palestinians who lived in their homes and in their lands. Their homes and lands were stolen and occupied by invaders, foreign people. It was an illegal and immoral act. This is undeniable.

Feel free to actually refute the claim that the doctrine of the 12th Imam requires an Armageddon like event. All you did was claim superior knowledge and dismiss it.

Well, this is not a forum devoted to religious matters, so I should not explain deeply the Doctrine of Imam (12th or 7th) here because it is very complex and it requires religious and philosophical knowledge. It is not suitable for common people who lack this kind of knowledge.

That Doctrine has nothing to do with "Armageddon" and other Western distortions. It is a Doctrine about spiritual eschatology, with both individual and universal approaches.

I recommend the works by Henry Corbin. They are the best introductory works on that Doctrine, and they are available in French, English and other Western languages.

Zionism has been used as an attack on Israel, the world's only Jewish state, since 1948. Anti-Semitism is a term associated only with Jews. To claim otherwise is laughable.

Zionism is a totalitarian political ideology. Zionism defends military expansionism and Lebensraum policies. So Zionism can be criticized and should be condemned as an immoral ideology. Zionism is a modern political ideology, and it has nothing to do with the original Jewish culture. It is another undeniable fact. It is a typical misunderstanding and misconception caused by ignorance. Many Jewish people are not Zionist and they dislike Zionism.

Thinking that any criticism against criminal policies carried out by Zionists can be considered automatically as Anti-Semitism behaviour, is a childish and laughable attitude. In short, it reveals a total lack of critical thinking.

Anti-Semitism is a concept commonly used, but its use is incorrect and inaccurate. In fact, it is a consequence of ignorant ethnocentrism. There are many other Semitic people.

Yet this attitude is a relatively new desire. Up until 1967 they were part of Jordan and could have been granted their own country, but they didn't want it. They wanted Israel wiped out. Actions have consequences.

Why should the Palestinian leave and renounce their stolen homes and lands? Why should they accept to live in a foreign country leaving their homes forever?

If the Americans were expelled from their homes and lands, would they accept to leave their country forever and agree to settle in Mexico or Canada?

Their country is not Jordan, their country is Palestine. So the only possible agreement is based on Oslo Peace Accords: two states.

Yes, actions have consequences. The Law of Cause and Effect. The disastrous and botched creation of the State of Israel has caused violence and injustice from 1948 until now: cause and effect.

If you expel millions of people from their homes and lands, you will cause endless wars and endless violence: cause and consequence.

Merkavas

They are pretty nice MBTs !

So the only possible agreement is based on Oslo Peace Accords: two states.

So would this fix everything after all these years?

if the Americans were expelled from their homes and lands, would they fight using all methods and supports at their disposal?

They were … the indigenous peoples of the Americas by the Europeans. Shall we all go back to where our ancestors came from in Europe, etc.?

Their homes and lands were stolen and occupied by invaders, foreign people. It was an illegal and immoral act. This is undeniable.

That covers most invasions since … like … forever. I don't think the Israelis will leave anymore than the Europeans would leave the Americas.

That Doctrine has nothing to do with "Armageddon" and other Western distortions.

So what was ISIS trying to do ? Realizing they are only a tiny minority of the followers of islam.

Ruchel,

"The real fact is that millions of Palestinians were expelled from their homes and lands, from 1948 until now. This is an undeniable and unquestionable fact. Right?"
Wrong, as explained above. The vast majority that left in 1948 did so in order to clear the way for their fellow Arabs to have clear fields of fire.

"The Palestinians had nothing to take militarily, they were fighting for their homes and their land. And nowadays they keep on fighting."
As were and are the Jews, which you continue to ignore because it doesn't fit your narrative.

"I repeat the question: if the Americans were expelled from their homes and lands, would they fight using all methods and supports at their disposal?"
No one told the Palestinians not to fight, just stop complaining when the Israelis defend themselves.

"The State of Israel was artificially created and imposed by force of arms and with the support of the US and other Western countries. It was an invasion which has caused violence and massive deportations of people, Palestinians who lived in their homes and in their lands. Their homes and lands were stolen and occupied by invaders, foreign people. It was an illegal and immoral act. This is undeniable."
This is straight up propaganda nonsense. First, every set of borders, every nation state on Earth was 'created artificially,' generally via armed conflict.

Are you really saying the Jews invaded in 1948??? The Jews were 'foreign invaders'??? And they did so with the backing of the US??? Where the hell are you coming up with this stuff? Sorry fella, but only one side had super-power backing in 1948. From then on out it became a pretty much bog-standard Cold War-type proxy war with Western gear (AMX/Super Sherman to M48/Centurion to M-60 vs T-34 to T-55 to T-62), so you're full of it AGAIN.

"Well, this is not a forum devoted to religious matters, so I should not explain deeply the Doctrine of Imam…"
You are correct there, but that's not why you should not explain. You should not explain because you clearly are uneducated on the subject matter.

"Zionism is a totalitarian political ideology."
More indoctrination, and your definition (above, I did not quote it here) is absolutely Anti-Semitic, and your definition of Anti-Semitic is revisionist at best, much worse otherwise. But please, let me educate you: Zionism means a home for Jews so that other nations cannot round them up and exterminate them if the idea catches their fancy, and it signals an imperative to defend themselves rather than meekly be marched off to the gas chambers.

"Thinking that any criticism against criminal policies carried out by Zionists can be considered automatically as Anti-Semitism behaviour, is a childish and laughable attitude."
Childish is criticizing the military that purposefully puts itself at risk to avoid civilian casualties in order to strike at the animals who hide amongst a civilian populace while launching rockets into a civilian populace.

If you'd ever actually been there you would know that the real tragedy is that of the hapless Palestinian civilians caught in a forever war by people claiming to be acting on their behalf, from the corruption that keeps them in poverty to the criminal that undermines the rule of law to the terrorist provocations that lead to military operations being carried out on their very doorsteps. I have heard pro-Israeli people say the civilian population should stand up and force the various militias to stand down, and I appreciate the sentiment, but my opinion is that it's really just not an option in that environment. But that environment is what you get when you carry out religious hatred for 60+ years rather than make peace.

So the militants can keep fighting, but how long do you go before you figure you ought to try something else? That land is Israel, and it's just as legitimate as any other nation on Earth, so why don't you either become a peace-loving Israeli (as countless other Israeli Arabs have), or go somewhere more amenable to your outlook? The problem for Palestinians of an anti-Jewish bent is that that outlook no longer reigns in the Arab world, as evidenced by the various peace deals the past four decades.

"Their country is not Jordan, their country is Palestine."
That is an outright falsehood, the Partition Plan was accepted by the Jews and rejected by the Arabs who then invaded and got their asses whooped, which had to be repeated in 1956, 1967, and 1973. A "de jure sovereign state, whose capital is Jerusalem," you say? BWAHAHAHAHA. Let me translate that for you: "A country that exists only in your head."

"So the only possible agreement is based on Oslo Peace Accords: two states."
I hate to be so damn disagreeable, but apparently not, as that was 1993 and this is 2020.

"Yes, actions have consequences."
Indeed they do, should have accepted the Partition Plan, but they just couldn't stomach living next to Jews and thought they'd be easy prey.

"The disastrous and botched creation of the State of Israel…"
That statement is despicable and marks you as a small-minded bigot; what next, Holocaust denial?

Jack

Are you really saying the Jews invaded in 1948??? The Jews were 'foreign invaders'??? And they did so with the backing of the US??? Where the hell are you coming up with this stuff? Sorry fella, but only one side had super-power backing in 1948. From then on out it became a pretty much bog-standard Cold War-type proxy war with Western gear (AMX/Super Sherman to M48/Centurion to M-60 vs T-34 to T-55 to T-62), so you're full of it AGAIN.

Agree with all of what you said in the entire post Jack! I've even wargamed all the Arab-Israeli wars at least with board games. And a few small miniature games. Seems the Arabs did the invading … The Israelis did the counterattacking. And were and are much better soldiers than their Arab adversaries, repeatedly.

Thanks. I think the dead-uns tell a story of the game and adds an extra layer to the visuals.

Thanks. I think the dead-uns tell a story of the game and adds an extra layer to the visuals.

That is not my message!!

Where is my message?

EDIT: Hmmm, I don't know where your message went, but I've responded nonetheless.

My goodness…

I don't support everything the government of Israel has done, or is doing, but I absolutely believe in the necessity of a Jewish state and the righteousness of their cause. No side is perfect and no side's hands are clean, but at its heart this issue revolves around the survival of a people surrounded by people that wish to see them wiped from the face of the Earth*, and none of your talk of 'fascists and Zionists' changes that. Israelis as fascists?? Another sign of your indoctrination, and pretty disgusting given the historical affiliations…

*At least through the Yom Kippur War. Happily this mindset appears to be going the way of the dodo bird, which is the point of the article that seems to be making you so angry.

That was a great point about revisionism, though. You're right that our views of things should change as we receive new information, I just don't believe you can make the new information up from whole cloth, or ignore other information because it doesn't suit your ideology.

"Those Arab dictators are mercenary lackeys."
Don't you see how unhinged this statement is? So, Arab dictators that kill Jews are great, but Arab dictators that don't are 'mercenary lackeys'?

"As long as you support and pay them, they will make peace with every country you desire, even with the Martians. They are not trustworthy 'allies'."
Don't you get how giant of a step forward that is from "all Jews must die" and "the Jews should be pushed into the sea"? Choosing greed over hatred seems like real progress to me, if you have any concept of history and ideology…

"So, should they have accepted an imposed Partition? should they have accepted the loss of their homes and lands? should they have accepted the invaders' terms? should they have accepted the decisions made by a band of thieves?"
So the Jews are living there, get pushed off their land, give resettling in various countries all over the world a shot, end up with 6 million of them being murdered, and the survivors of the death camps go HOME, where there are other Jews still living, to live on land they traditionally owned and that is legally provided to them by the current government (British), and that makes them invaders? And here I thought you were a 'right of return' kind of guy. You keep downplaying the Partition Plan, pretending it was the Jews that came up with and executed that. Someone isn't very good at their history again…

None of this is meant as a personal attack on you, I'm trying to show you how bigoted your views are. And I'm not intolerant, I'm not calling for the genocide of anyone; I'm actually hoping the good Palestinians can somehow cast off the yoke of the bad Palestinians who remain committed to the death of all Jews and/or the destruction of the Israeli state, which I see as the only viable solution to any of this. Israel will not, and should not (and no other nation would), abide by any two-state solution when the stated goal of the Palestinian state is the destruction of the Israeli state. You've been indoctrinated and live in a world that doesn't exist. To whit:

"Yes, the creation of the State of Israel was a disaster, a mess, a botch. It is evident if you analyse the consequences of it: wars, violence, terrorism, state terrorism, deportations, hatred, and so on, from 1948 until now."
You're absolutely correct! If the Jews would have just shut up and allowed themselves to be exterminated there would have not been any wars in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973, 1982, 2006, no problems in Gaza or the West Bank, no unpleasantness at the 1972 Olympics or Entebbe, etc… They're such s, what with their will to live, their willingness to defend themselves, and all. Auschwitz was so much cleaner, none of that vulgar violence or property destruction, just tidy piles of shoes, right?

Jack

Some good points again Jack !

Negative, his message was here for at at least 20 minutes, that's how I saw it and responded, even pulling a few quotes.

If one of the Editors deleted it because we're getting off course, then I would submit this whole thread should be nuked and we just get back to talking about playing with toy soldiers.

V/R,
Jack

👍👍

and none of your talk of 'fascists and Zionists' changes that. Israelis as fascists?? Another sign of your indoctrination, and pretty disgusting given the historical affiliations…

You miss the point again. Or you do not understand anything I wrote, maybe due to your own indoctrination.

Let's try again.
I have repeated several times the same message: TWO STATES. Right? So, evidently, it includes the State of Israel. Your accusations are meaningless.

Again, If Zionists carried out Lebensraum policies, expansionist policies, criminal policies or something similar, they should be criticized and condemned. It is a moral imperative. Please, use your critical thinking.

Have I written that all Israeli are Fascists? When and Where? It is your own imagination. Your own indoctrination and your own distortion.

So, Arab dictators that kill Jews are great, but Arab dictators that don't are 'mercenary lackeys'?

Again, your own imagination. Please, do not manipulate my words. Where I have mentioned anything about that 'Arab dictators that kill Jews are great'? Another childish comment.

I despise all dictators, from every country and from every continent around the world, including corrupt politicians such as Netanyahu.

And dictators such as Bin Sayed (from Emirates) and Bin Salman (Saudi) are criminal lackeys, warmongers and psychopaths. They are not trustworthy. They are despicable mercenaries.

Choosing greed over hatred seems like real progress to me

You fool yourself. Greed cannot remove hatred. Greed disguises hatred temporarily.

Do you want real and permanent peace? Two states is the solution.

So the Jews are living there, get pushed off their land, give resettling in various countries all over the world a shot, end up with 6 million of them being murdered, and the survivors of the death camps go HOME, where there are other Jews still living

Two thousands years ago (yes, 2000 years ago) Jewish people lived in several areas in Palestine. But from those times until 1948 the jews were a little minority. They no longer lived in Palestine. Two thousands years ago!!

Palestine was not their home. It is the typical demagogic reasoning used by the Zionists. It is an absurdity. Many peoples around the world can claim old territories and countries. Indo-European (currently European) peoples can claim rights over the Eurasian and Asian steppes where they came from.

For example, the Romans (Italians) lived in my country 1800 years ago. Then they disappeared, albeit not totally, due to the arrival of other people. So, following your reasoning, nowadays the Italians have the right to invade my country and expel me from my home.

The real fact is that 90% of population in Palestine were Palestinians (Muslims and Christians) in the first half of 20th century. The Jews were a little minority.

You keep downplaying the Partition Plan, pretending it was the Jews that came up with and executed that. Someone isn't very good at their history again…

No Jewish invasion, no Partition Plan. It is easy to understand. Palestinian people did not accept an imposed partition caused by a foreign invasion. They did not accept being forcibly evicted from their homes and lands.

I repeat the question: would the Americans accept the partition of their country imposed by foreign invaders?

Israel will not, and should not (and no other nation would), abide by any two-state solution when the stated goal of the Palestinian state is the destruction of the Israeli state. You've been indoctrinated and live in a world that doesn't exist.

It is evident that you have not read carefully my previous posts, maybe due to your own prejudices.
According to Oslo Peace Accord, there was no a declaration about the destruction of Israeli state. The goal of Palestinian state is create itself. From Oslo Peace Accord, most Palestinians accepted the existence of two states, the best possible solution.
So 'that world' does exist. And my indoctrination is the following: Peace and justice. Two states, Israel and Palestine. Nowadays both states have right to exist. Both states have rights to achieve sovereignty, wellfare and prosperity, both maintaining their own cultural identities.

Regarding your last paragraph, I read only demagogical reasoning, comparing apples and oranges.

It is easy to understand. Before Zionism and 1948, there were no ethnical or religious problems of importance in Palestine. 90% of Palestinians (Muslims and Christians) lived with other minorities (including some Jews).

The massive arrival of foreign Jews (from other countries) altered dramatically the previous balance. And those foreign Jews had the intention of creating a new state. The conflict was inevitable. So the conflict and the tragedy were caused by the arrival of foreign Jews, invaders in a country that was not theirs. Palestine was Palestinians' country.

So that conflict had other causes and characteristics, very different from other historical facts such as Auschwitz or the Holocaust.

Ruchel,

I must tip my hat to and say you might actually have a couple reasonable points in there somewhere, if you would bother to actually make them. You can't keep flinging out incendiary and later claim I missed your point, when you only put forth half a thought. I assure you I am not willfully missing your point(s) and I'm not twisting your words, I'm simply regurgitating what you wrote.

So, you want justice and peace? Well, to be honest, in my personal experience I've had a hard time finding people that don't want justice and peace, it's just that reasonable people can disagree what is actually just, and how much justice you're willing to sacrifice for peace, how much you're willing to sacrifice peace to obtain justice. For example, you and I do not appear to be able to agree on what justice is in this situation.

You're two state solution, for example, might appear to be just to you, but from my standpoint the Israelis would be fools to agree to it as the 'bad' Palestinians would continue to use their land as base for attacks into Israel, only now there would be even greater international pressure limiting the Israeli response (and indeed proactive operations). If anyone wishes to say the Palestinians would stop launching rockets and other terrorist attacks on Israelis then I would say I don't believe them and there is no empirical evidence to support that assertion.

I'm having a very difficult time reconciling your two-state solution idea with your statement "Yes, the creation of the State of Israel was a disaster, a mess, a botch. It is evident if you analyse the consequences of it: wars, violence, terrorism, state terrorism, deportations, hatred, and so on, from 1948 until now," and others, which seem to me to mean you don't believe Israel should exist at all. As I mentioned above, I wish you would fully flesh out your thoughts and ideas; if you find yourself consistently telling someone they're missing your point, perhaps a little self reflection is in order to determine if you actually made your point.

Your 90% numbers are nonsense, but that's really irrelevant, isn't it? The Jews did not kick Palestinians out in 1948, Palestinians left because war was coming because the Arab street was not going to allow the peaceful creation of a Jewish state. Furthermore, it really wasn't fair of me to bring up the Diaspora, was it? Yes, I'll admit, it was bait to get you to say exactly what you said: "it was 2000 years ago!" I don't care if it was ten million years ago, are you a man of principle or aren't you? Is razing temples and building mosques atop them (and vice versa) a heinous act, or isn't it? It's okay to kick someone off their land 2000 years ago, but not 80 years ago? What is the statute of limitations? It would appear your principles are quite malleable when it suits your purposes.

"For example, the Romans (Italians) lived in my country 1800 years ago. Then they disappeared, albeit not totally, due to the arrival of other people."
I think you're making my point. You say '…they disappeared…' Hmmm, people just… disappeared, eh? Just gave it up, decided they shouldn't be there, packed their stuff up and went home, eh? Or was there some sort of armed conflict that either decided the matter outright, or led to a treaty that ultimately set the borders for your country today? Surely you see the parallel here.

"So, following your reasoning, nowadays the Italians have the right to invade my country and expel me from my home."
Who's talking about rights, and who protects those rights? I'm not sure where you're going with this, but the history of mankind, from whatever you believe its origin to up to right this very second, is replete with aggression culminating in armed conflict, and is how pretty much every nation on earth had its borders fixed. You can think that's wrong and you can and moan about it all you like, but there's no denying that's how the world works. I don't know where you're from, what you claim as 'your country,' but I assume it's in Europe, and if that's the case, your country either expanded or contracted based on the outcome of WWII, just three short years before 1948, and if you're in the eastern portion, it possibly changed again with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Wars rage all over the Earth at this very minute, and we're still dealing with the last vestiges of "The Caliphate," so if you're one of those 'the end of history' guys that thinks humans are above all that, I respectfully submit that as further proof that you don't know what the you're talking about.

You can keep trying to obfuscate the matter, but here are the facts: Jews AND Palestinians were located on the land in 1948, there was a peaceable two-state solution in effect, the Jews accepted it and the Arabs didn't, the Arabs started a war to slaughter the Jews. Anything else is pure . And I'm not ashamed to admit that your characterization of survivors of the Holocaust coming home after six million of their family were murdered as a 'Jewish invasion' really, really grates on me… Again we see you and I having a differing view of justice.

"From Oslo Peace Accord, most Palestinians accepted the existence of two states, the best possible solution.
So 'that world' does exist."
That world doesn't exist; unfortunately, 'most Palestinians wasn't good enough,

"The massive arrival of foreign Jews (from other countries) altered dramatically the previous balance. And those foreign Jews had the intention of creating a new state. The conflict was inevitable. So the conflict and the tragedy were caused by the arrival of foreign Jews, invaders in a country that was not theirs. Palestine was Palestinians' country."
This entire paragraph is nothing but a giant cluster of lies. The return of Jewish Holocaust survivors to their ancestral homes was not an invasion, they could have lived peaceably side by side with the Arabs but the Arabs weren't having it. Whether the Jews had a plan for a new state or not is irrelevant, the British owned the land and they came up with the Partition Plan as a way to try and keep the peace (and quite possibly a betrayal of the Balfour Declaration, if you really want to get wound up).
You keep saying it but Palestine WAS NOT a country, it was a British governed territory ceded to it by the League of Nations following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, and you damned well know it! And if you don't already know that then you have no business in this conversation.

"So that conflict had other causes and characteristics, very different from other historical facts such as Auschwitz or the Holocaust."
That's some interesting sleight of hand. Your assertion is (or seems to be) that the Jews drove the conflict in 1948, whereas what actually happened is the Jews were immediately attacked by the Arabs following the British pullout from the Mandate, and I'm just pointing out the falsehood of your assertion and the absurdity behind any idea that they wouldn't defend themselves.

"Regarding your last paragraph, I read only demagogical reasoning, comparing apples and oranges."
I'm sure you do. I was merely trying to point out all of the wars in which Arabs attempted genocide on the Jews, and some of the lesser outrages against Jews in the international arena.

"I repeat the question: would the Americans accept the partition of their country imposed by foreign invaders?"
And I'll repeat my answer: no one said the Palestinians shouldn't fight if that is what they're inclined towards. But stop complaining when the IDF bombs your school after you launch rockets into Israel from the schoolyard. Humans fight, it's in our very nature. You want to believe we're past that, that humans will stop treating each other this way. Good luck. The cynic in me says "okay, you first," let the Palestinians stop their terrorist attacks and see what happens, you say "let the Israelis stop first," and look where that's gotten us.

Maybe you're right about hatred still being there despite the immediate greed motive, we'll see. But I'm hoping we're making progress. I remember the same was said when Egypt signed its deal with Israel, and then Jordan, but time has shown us that sine those deals were signed there have been no further wars by Arab coalitions seeking to destroy Israel. Now there is UAE and Bahrain, Saudi is carrying out military cooperation, things are looking up. And I think this may actually have the effect of helping the two-state solution.

You speak of 'Lebensraum' policies but you lack context, and possibly, compassion and empathy; Israel is 263 miles long, and between 71 miles (at its widest point) and a little over 9 miles wide at its narrowest, with 8.5 million souls crammed in there. So you can drive its length in 5 hours and its width in an hour or 15 minutes, depending on where you're at. Being surrounded on all sides by people that hate you, for and from your very existence, having been invaded by Egypt and Syria, with Jordan, Yemen, Iraq, Libya, and others throwing in troops and equipment, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that asking them to give up land might be seen as anathema to their continued existence. You're on a wargaming site; ever heard the term "an indefensible position"? They've worked hard to carve out a defensible position and are understandably reticent about surrendering it.

But if the Israelis can be convinced that their neighbors no longer hate them and aren't seeking to push the Jews into the sea, maybe the Israelis might actually become more amenable to the two-state solution. Justice is justice no matter how it comes, and though it may be late. So, I think the world should be applauding these diplomatic efforts and pushing for more of it.

Jack

Please delete this thread. Or move it to the Blue Fez.