Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and other Related Conflicts in the Middle East (read the rules in the first post)

_killuminati_

_killuminati_

Senior Member
Registered Member
tankphobia said:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...
Reportedly, allegedly.. - The Atlantic
Source article is written by an Ashkenazi Jew based in Washington. This looks like a propaganda piece akin to the earlier alleged reports of beheaded babies, picked up and propagated by MSM. Except here, The Atlantic is a bloody magazine, not even a proper news channel.
 
vincent

vincent

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
tankphobia said:
Crown prince of SA really just said out loud what many ME leaders think. Palestine is simply not an important issue for them, just a useful tool to stoke some fervour amongst the population, It is also a useful bargaining chip when dealing with the US.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...
“
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman told
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Secretary of State Antony Blinken that he does not personally care about what he referred to as the "Palestinian issue", according to a
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in The Atlantic.”

Western media never lie….
 
S

sheogorath

Major
Registered Member
When an article doesnt have a defined author, it usually means its bs written by one spook or another

_killuminati_ said:
Reportedly, allegedly.. - The Atlantic
Source article is written by an Ashkenazi Jew based in Washington. This looks like a propaganda piece akin to the earlier alleged reports of beheaded babies, picked up and propagated by MSM. Except here, The Atlantic is a bloody magazine, not even a proper news channel.
Click to expand...
Also the editor in chief is an Israeli citizen who served as a prison guard in the IDF. You can kinda guess the moral character of such a person given what we know now of israeli prison guards
 
E

enroger

Junior Member
Registered Member
kwaigonegin said:
False equivalence but since this entire forum has become extremely anti-US in the last few years, there is no point for me to discuss further. I'm only responding to you because I've 'known' you for a very long time.
Anything post, discussion or notion that is even partially not 100% anti-US in nature is quickly mocked and ridiculed.
American or 'western' inferiority or lost is vehemently celebrated. I've always find this to be quite ironic considering I know for a fact that many members here reside in the US, Europe yet it as if they really hate their country of domicile.

As to your Afghanistan example again erroneous dynamics. The Soviets invaded Afghanistan with the sole purpose of occupying it. The US NEVER wanted to invade nor occupy Vietnam.
One of the primary reasons why the US pulled out was also the final realization that the S. Vietnamese leaders were totally useless and corrupted. Kennedy actually wanted to withdraw but got assassinated.
The US did NOT lose militarily. For you and others here to keep peddling that narrative is intellectually dishonest.
But hey, since I'm just one against many here who believe in the narrative that the US is just absolutely evil, while China, or in this specific case NVA, Viet Cong, HCM etc. are all pure and good and totally 'kicked US asses' with total military victories... there is no point for me to push my correction. It will fall on deaf eyes and only prolong unnecessary dissention.
Click to expand...

You want to know why the US is being clowned on? It's the hypocrisy, simple as that.

If the west actually practice what they preach then there is nothing to clown on. Basic human right for every human beings, where Palestinians are treated as equal to the Israelis and has the same human right just for example. If this is the case I won't even joke about them would I? They'd be an inspiration right? Alas the truth is the opposite.

OTOH, if the west is honest about their imperialistic nature then there is nothing to clown on as well. "Oh we invade this country to get their stuff, we invade that country for geopolitics, we don't really care how many life's are lost or ruined...etc". If this is the case the west may invite hatred or even fear but still never ridicule.

What we have in reality is the west that is imperialistic to the core yet loves to preach like they're saint. This makes them grade A material for clowning yeah? Why would anyone not want to do so? If I met a grade A hypocrite like this in real life I'd clown on them relentlessly just for lols

But of course, if you feel so insecure about all this I suggest you go to some safe space on the internet. From what I heard r/China is especially intellectually stimulating for a mind of your caliber
 
M

Michael90

Junior Member
Registered Member
vincent said:
“
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman told
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Secretary of State Antony Blinken that he does not personally care about what he referred to as the "Palestinian issue", according to a
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in The Atlantic.”

Western media never lie….
Click to expand...
So you really belive that KSA and Arab states leaders care about the Palestinians?lol
They might have some personal.feelings for Palestinian sufferings but they will in no way put their country's economic and strategic interests in jeopardy for the Palestinians. They already gave up on eliminating Israel after trying several times in the late 40s to 70s invane. They have come to accept reality that Israel isn't going anywhere and that they will need to come to terms with living with Israel in the region for the long term. So some form of settlement and peace deal was imperative. I think all sides need to come to some form of understanding and make a deal with some concessions. Those thinking they can still eliminate Israel and retake Palestinian lands by force will only play in Israels hand and justify use of force which at the moment is in Israels favour. So yeah it's a complex issue. That's realpolitik unfortunately.
KSA and Arab states considered Iran to be their biggest threat since the islamic revolution and Ayatollahs hijacking power in Iran, since they rightly view this as the biggest threat to their rule even today with islamists groups/muslim brotherhood being against the monarchy regime in the Arab world. Reason they despise islamists groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, Muslim brotherhood, Islamic Jihad etc etc
Their apprehension have calmed down with time but they are still wary of the Ayatollah regime in Tehran more than anybody else. Israel is not viewed as an existential threat for them in this regard(and rightly so, since Israel has no issue with Arab government/leadership model), Iran is for obvious reason. So I think ironically, the Iranian Islamic revolution was a good thing for Israel in this regard since it made the Arab countries to have to face a new more powerful enemy and thus take attention away from Israel who used to be the only country the Arabs viewed as an enemy back then and thus they could focus only on them, that changed with the Islamic revolution in Iran.
 
Last edited:
T

tamsen_ikard

Junior Member
Registered Member
Michael90 said:
So you really belive that KSA and Arab states leaders care about the Palestinians?lol
They might have some personal.feelings for Palestinian sufferings but they will in no way put their country's economic and strategic interests in jeopardy for the Palestinians. They already gave up on eliminating Israel after trying several times in the late 40s to 70s invane. They have come to accept reality that Israel isn't going anywhere and that they will need to come to terms with living with Israel in the region for the long term. So some form of settlement and peace deal was imperative. I think all sides need to come to some form of understanding and make a deal with some concessions. Those thinking they can still eliminate Israel and retake Palestinian lands by force will only play in Israels hand and justify use of force which at the moment is in Israels favour. So yeah it's a complex issue. That's realpolitik unfortunately.
KSA and Arab states considered Iran to be their biggest threat since the islamic revolution and Ayatollahs taking power in Iran since they rightly view this as the biggest threat to their regime even today with islamists groups/muslim brotherhood being against the monarchy regime in the Arab world. Reason they despise islamists groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, Muslim brotherhood, Islamic Jihad etc etc
Their apprehension have calmed down with time but they are still wary of the Ayatollahs regime in Tehran more than anybody else. Israel is not views as an existential threat for them in this regard, Iran is for obvious reason. So I think ironically, the Iranian Islamic revolution was a good thing for Israel in this regard since it made the Arab countries to have to face a new more powerful enemy an d thus take attention away from Israel who used to be the only country the Arabs viewed as an enemy back then and thus they could focus only on them..
Click to expand...

The conflict in the middle east between Israelis and "Muslims" is not just a conflict over land. Its a religious conflict. Muslims will never allow Jews with a tiny population to gain control over Al Aqsa permanently, which is their 3rd holiest site. It doesn't matter whether its Arabs, Iranians or others, all muslims will continue to oppose and fight Israel as long as they exist in the "Levant" area. Current Gulf Arab leaders maybe pro-israel but that doesn't mean the next will be. Leaders will change but the fight will remain as long as Israel exists. The more developed muslim countries get, the more powerful they become, the bigger the conflict with Israel will be. There will be no peace for Israel ever in that place.
 
M

Michael90

Junior Member
Registered Member
tamsen_ikard said:
The conflict in the middle east between Israelis and "Muslims" is not just a conflict over land. Its a religious conflict. Muslims will never allow Jews with a tiny population to gain control over Al Aqsa permanently, which is their 3rd holiest site. It doesn't matter whether its Arabs, Iranians or others, all muslims will continue to oppose and fight Israel as long as they exist in the "Levant" area. Current Gulf Arab leaders maybe pro-israel but that doesn't mean the next will be. Leaders will change but the fight will remain as long as Israel exists. The more developed muslim countries get, the more powerful they become, the bigger the conflict with Israel will be. There will be no peace for Israel ever in that place.
Click to expand...
That's not true. Arabs countries have already normalised relations with Israel which would have been unthinkable just 30/40 years ago since they were blood enemies. Things were getting even better and ties where moving to a quasi normalisation and even closer level. This is why Hamas got scared seeing Arab countries where moving to a direction of all having normal friendly ties with Israel . Reason Hamas rushed to orchestrate the 7th October attacks to spoil this. That's the only way yhamas could think of to stop this. So if I was you I wouldn't say that will never happen. As I said before Israel isn't going anywhere, the earlier groups like that understand that the better. So once they have come to terms with this then we can start talking of a peace settlement and deal to normalise relations and move to a peace deal and even 2 state solution. As long as some keep thinking they can get rid of Israel by force this will only justify and legalise Israel use of force to defend herself which actually plays in Israels favour as I said before .
 
M

Michael90

Junior Member
Registered Member
tamsen_ikard said:
Current Gulf Arab leaders maybe pro-israel but that doesn't mean the next will be. Leaders will change but the fight will remain as long as Israel exists.
Click to expand...
You could also say the same for Iran. Next Iranian government after the Islamic regime is deposed or collapses might actually normalise relations with Israel and the West like Iran was before the Ayatollahs came to power. I will actually argue that the Islamic state of Iran has more chance of its people revolting and toppling the regime than the Gulf Arab states( we have already see mass protests against the regime in Tehran several times this past 2 decades) the regime had to use disproportionate firce and its vast network of security establishment/basij to suppress/killed and scared protesters to be able to stop this .
However not sure if the next times they will be that successful.
By contrast, Gulf Arab states have been very successful in building their countries and giving their people the best living standards in the muslim world(i can attest to this, having been to there several times) where people all over the region and even the world travel there for work and a better life(including Iranians) which is not the case for Iran. So in this regard, they have fulfilled their priority and contract with their people which is the first thing a leader or government is meant to do(giving their people the best life ). So I will be more worried about that happening in Iran earlier than Gulf Arab states to be honest.
 
T

tamsen_ikard

Junior Member
Registered Member
Michael90 said:
You could also say the same for Iran. Next Iranian government after the Islamic regime is deposed or collapses might actually normalise relations with Israel and the West like Iran was before the Ayatollahs came to power. I will actually argue that the Islamic state of Iran has more chance of its people revolting and toppling the regime than the Gulf Arab states( we have already see mass protests against the regime in Tehran several times this past 2 decades) the regime had to use disproportionate firce and its vast network of security establishment/basij to suppress/killed and scared protesters to be able to stop this .
However not sure if the next times they will be that successful.
By contrast, Gulf Arab states have been very successful in building their countries and giving their people the best living standards in the muslim world(i can attest to this, having been to there several times) where people all over the region and even the world travel there for work and a better life(including Iranians) which is not the case for Iran. So in this regard, they have fulfilled their priority and contract with their people which is the first thing a leader or government is meant to do(giving their people the best life ). So I will be more worried about that happening in Iran earlier than Gulf Arab states to be honest.
Click to expand...

If giving people the best living standards is the only thing governments do then Western countries wouldn't be fighting all over the world trying to impose their will on others. Its human nature to not just look at money or comfort, humans also look for security and if they are secure enough, they look for dominance. Religious, ethnic feelings have put many historical countries into huge wars they didn't want. Arab muslims have their own pride due to their historical glories and I don't think they like Gulf arab leader bowing their heads to US. This is the big reason that Al Qaeda did the 911 attacks. Frustration against Arab leaders was a big reason for the rise of terrorism.

Muslims tolerate Israel not because they like Israel, its because they don't have enough power to destroy it yet. But that is changing. All poor countries are getting richer and more developed. They now have sophisticated Arms industry that they didn't have.

The more powerful muslims get, they more they will want US and its ally Israel out of their land. Even former pro-US turkey is becoming anti-Israel these days because it is also getting powerful and no longer needs to bow to US. If gulf arab leaders make themselves unpopular by being pro-israel then this might be the trigger that causes a coup or a revolution that kicks them out. No amount of monetary comfort is enough if there are political discontent.
 
vincent

vincent

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
Michael90 said:
So you really belive that KSA and Arab states leaders care about the Palestinians?lol
They might have some personal.feelings for Palestinian sufferings but they will in no way put their country's economic and strategic interests in jeopardy for the Palestinians. They already gave up on eliminating Israel after trying several times in the late 40s to 70s invane. They have come to accept reality that Israel isn't going anywhere and that they will need to come to terms with living with Israel in the region for the long term. So some form of settlement and peace deal was imperative. I think all sides need to come to some form of understanding and make a deal with some concessions. Those thinking they can still eliminate Israel and retake Palestinian lands by force will only play in Israels hand and justify use of force which at the moment is in Israels favour. So yeah it's a complex issue. That's realpolitik unfortunately.
KSA and Arab states considered Iran to be their biggest threat since the islamic revolution and Ayatollahs hijacking power in Iran, since they rightly view this as the biggest threat to their rule even today with islamists groups/muslim brotherhood being against the monarchy regime in the Arab world. Reason they despise islamists groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, Muslim brotherhood, Islamic Jihad etc etc
Their apprehension have calmed down with time but they are still wary of the Ayatollah regime in Tehran more than anybody else. Israel is not viewed as an existential threat for them in this regard(and rightly so, since Israel has no issue with Arab government/leadership model), Iran is for obvious reason. So I think ironically, the Iranian Islamic revolution was a good thing for Israel in this regard since it made the Arab countries to have to face a new more powerful enemy and thus take attention away from Israel who used to be the only country the Arabs viewed as an enemy back then and thus they could focus only on them, that changed with the Islamic revolution in Iran.
Click to expand...
Wow, a long piece over a simple comment. I don’t care if MbS cares about Palestine or not (his actions are limited by the attitudes of the Saudi population), my reply is about what the Atlantic reported on what he said to Blinken.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top