[anarchist23]

This has come onto my feed, that's a coincidence.

[anasawad]

claiming that a bunch different religious and ethnic people living on a land and never had their own country and unique culture is just ridicilous

Lebanon older than Israel? seriously? ok here is something new for you. the Phoenicians are completely diffrent nation that was extinct long ago and have nothing to do with the Lebanese people of today expect the fact that some Lebanese are descendants of the Phoenicians

Except i never claimed anything about the phoenicians.
Because an idiot who could only read basics of any language that read the history of Lebanon would know that the people currently living in Lebanon were also living there in the 1800s, and the 1500s, and even better, the 1100s.
The Christians who live in Lebanon currently are from the same tribes that lived there 800 years ago.
And the Shia currently living in Lebanon are also from the same clans that moved and lived there 700-800 years ago. (thats when the Persian expansion started into the Arabian parts of the mideast BTW. where entire clans would move to a different land to basically spread our culture.)
And the Sunnis that lives in Lebanon are also the decendents of the Sunni tribes living there since over 800s years.

I know history I think you are the one who dont know it.

Its questionable whether you even read anything about the history of the region since you clearly get almost everything wrong, all the times about the history of the mideast.

Jordan is also fake country of Bedouins from Saudi Arabia and Syria is same as Lebanon. many Syrians actually consider Lebanon as part of greater Syria

For Syria, well, again, the same tribes that lived there a 1000 years ago are still living there.
The only thing different now is that instead of having Aleppo as a state and Damascus as a different state, they're now the same state.
Jordan also the people living there have moved there since around 1300 years ago.
You know, like Al-Ghazawi tribe for example which its branches are almost the entire population of northern Jordan have moved there under the reign of Abu- Bakr. Thats over 1300 years ago if you're wondering. (Jordan was also 2 states instead of one because its 2 nations)


And the entire region including parts of Turkey is called Syria. Including Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan, Parts of Iraq and Turkey.
The region was also known since over a 1000 years to have several nations in it. Infact this name was first called for the region since the days of the kingdom of Tyre.
Thats where its modern name comes from BTW.

Ooh and, all of those, even under various empires had atonomous rule over them selves. Like a Federation of nations, which all empires are.

[Zionist Nationalist]

I think you dont understand what Im trying to say. Im not saying that the people in Jordan Syria or Lebanon didnt lived there for 100s or 1000s of years I just say that they are Arabs and they are part of one big nation that happen to have 22 countries.
Syria is an ancient region but it can be easily split into 3 or 4 parts thus it means that its not a real nation just a collection of religions and nationalities

[noemon]

Can you seize this "ethno-reality" conversation in this thread please, Anasawad let ZN have this one and say the last thing please and focus on the topic please.

[anasawad]

We call it Syria now because its the name of the country.
Again, there is a difference between nation itself, and nation-states.
Modern Syria is a nation-state. but it has 2 nations in it uniting under one flag. The north is an entire different nation that even has its own culture and history unique of that of the south.
Lebanon has been the same, it became a nation when all those tribes from different origins and backgrounds started merging with each other and forming a new nation.
Look at it this way, if there was two tribes, and from each of them a clan split away and those 2 clans resulting merged with each other, you have an entire new tribe which has a different culture and possibly even language than the original two because its a merger of the two.
You know, like how the Kurds became a different nation than Persians and Turkics.

Arabs are those who speak Arabic, not a nation nor even a shared culture or a religion or race or anything, just simply the native speakers of Arabic.
Like how English is the native language of several countries but each is an entirely different nation and culture. Thats exactly the same with Arabic.
And thats why "Arabs" collide with each other sometimes. Its not them killing them selves, its two or more different nations having a conflict with each other.

Saudi Arabia for example is formed from two main nations which one (najdi) simply conquered the other (hijazi) and forcing it to live under its rule (with American help).

And also its simillar to Israel BTW, people and groups from several different nations came together, merged, and became a different nation.
A nation is not the same as a nation state.
In Iran for example you have Persians who rule over them selves, a nation. And Azaris who rule over themselves, a nation. And Kurds who rule over them selves, a nation. And some Iraqi tribes and the Baloch who also rule over themselves, and both different nations. Why is it called just Iran ? Because we're simply stronger and forced them to live under our empire, and now they're simply after the empire collapsed, all are living in a federation with each other with the central government basically controls foreign affairs and foreign trade with approval of everyone.

@noemon
Ok, the last post was made before i saw yours.

[noemon]

Listen you 2, there is a British academic professor, Anthony D. Smith of Oxford University who has written the conclusive guide of ethnic and national identity.

He has created 4 categories to distinguish nation-states and nations in the planet:

Nations by design
Ethnic-recurrence
Ethnic-continuity
And one more that I forget, you really need to read some of his work before you make any more.

[anasawad]

@noemon
Margaret Canovan covered the topic better.

[starman2003]

I don't think that is as true as it seems and people have historically been happy & eager to be violent, and especially back then they were encouraged to be violent with games, gladiators, stoning, crucifixions people attended these events because they enjoyed them quite a lot and if and when they were given tools to commit violence they took it up willingly especially when they thought about the loot that comes after.

There's no doubt the Greeks of the eastern Mediterranean hated the jews. Also eagerness to fight goes beyond just being a spectator. There's always some violence but there was the Pax Romana at the time.

They are absent now, I know few Jewish people compared to other nationalities and the fact I know any is because I am a very social person, normal people who are not as social as I am hardly ever meet a Jewish person in their whole lifetime.

The issue was the reason for dislike of them prior to the significant reduction in European jewish numbers by the mid/late '40s.

This is one problem that exists indeed, but can't really blame the Jews for using it to their advantage, we can only blame the serious people for their lack of courage, however it is difficult to discern between serious people and antisemites.

A large part of the problem is lack of education. People have been brainwashed to think Israel is a great asset when in fact it is a liability, certainly from an American and European etc point of view. I've long felt only big Israeli atrocities, and a severe setback linked to support of Israel, will wake people up to reality.

Noir, could Disraeli prove his ancestors were priests in the temple of solomon? Only a tiny fraction of ancient jews were sadducees or temple priests. The vast bulk were illiterate peasants. All peoples were once "brutal savages." Judging by the behavior of jewish zealots as reported by Josephus, plenty of jews were brutal savages; Disraeli's ancestors were probably more likely to have been cutthroats than priests.
ZN, lack of trust, coupled with the jewish character of the state =second class status for arabs. No doubt an arab can't be prime minister. It's a master race democracy.

[noemon]

There's no doubt the Greeks of the eastern Mediterranean hated the jews. Also eagerness to fight goes beyond just being a spectator. There's always some violence but there was the Pax Romana at the time.

It is usual that the enslaved hate their masters and it is not only usual but a historical fact in this case as well, Jews have well-developed anti-Greek texts from the era, just like they have well developed hate towards Egyptians and their Babylonian captors because they posed an existential threat to them. Greeks have had no reason to hate a people that they never fought but who surrendered willingly to them. Greeks have well-developed hate for the Persians from the literature of the era because well you know they posed an existential threat seeking to utterly destroy the Greek states and all of them, but not much relating to Jews for the same reason they never posed an existential threat at best they would claim 1% of the Greek domain which was also their own homeland but they never posed a threat to Greek people and that really excludes them from being "hated" by definition, for many mainland Greeks like the Spartans for example their revolts against Greek kingdoms and the Romans were very well received as they weakened potential adversaries. Jews though have literature about their hatred towards Hellenised Jews and Greeks in general for creating the Hellenised Jews. Jews at the time have Greek names, speak Greek and were traditional vassals of the Ptolemies in Egypt, why would anyone give a toss to hate them when the Greeks were fighting each other a lot more regularly than they ever fought the Jews(in fact the Jews being themselves proxies within Greek against Greek wars)? Alexander erased Thebes(a Greek city) from the map, he erased several Persian cities from the map, do you know of any Greek general ever erasing or attempting to erase any Jewish city from the map? Seleucus treated them badly but relatively better than he treated other enemies and for a very brief period of time because they fought on the side of the Ptolemies against him, but again on that and only instance they fought for Greeks against other Greeks.

Loot was the traditional way of paying discontent people. People happily joining in the loot was a very traditional thing happening regularly for all people involved in the area whenever given the opportunity.

The issue was the reason for dislike of them prior to the significant reduction in European jewish numbers by the mid/late '40s.

The issue is about the present-day, clearly stated.

A large part of the problem is lack of education. People have been brainwashed to think Israel is a great asset when in fact it is a liability, certainly from an American and European etc point of view. I've long felt only big Israeli atrocities, and a severe setback linked to support of Israel, will wake people up to reality.

Israel is a western foothold in the Middle-East, how is that not an asset? It is only a minor liability when it pushes the boundaries stretching the limits of UN conventions, and the UN is a very important asset for the global security order but that is mere nuisance when compared to the benefits of having a western state in that corner of the world. It pushes the western border further east. How is that not beneficial to the west?

[starman2003]

Jews at the time have Greek names, speak Greek and were traditional vassals of the Ptolemies in Egypt, why would anyone give a toss to hate them

Josephus mentioned a great deal of animosity between Greek and jewish communities in Caesaria. Evidently such animosity was widespread and exploded during the Kitos revolt.

Israel is a western foothold in the Middle-East, how is that not an asset? It is only a minor liability when it pushes the boundaries stretching the limits of UN conventions, and the UN is a very important asset for the global security order but that is mere nuisance when compared to the benefits of having a western state in that corner of the world. It pushes the western border further east. How is that not beneficial to the west?

It surely says something that no foreign state supports Israel likes the US does, and that support stems from internal political pressure not strategic interests. Arab and muslim states needn't be our enemies just because they aren't "western." As Walt and Mearsheimer noted, US backing of Israel was a key reason for 9/11. It wasn't an attempt by terrorists to "take away our freedom" necessitating a "war on terror" as the propagandists put it. Arabs struck at the US for backing their archenemy. And there's no good reason to back Israel at the expense of relations with the vastly bigger arab/muslim world, which is also tremendously more important economically. Most other states, in Europe and Asia, have long sensed this. US State Dept pros and academics may privately concur but they're totally overshadowed by the pro-Israel bunch.
True, in recent years (despite clashes with Hez and Hamas) the arab-Israel conflict has been "back burnered" by wars in Iraq and Syria. But I think we're experiencing only an intermission, not a real end to arab/muslim-israel fighting. Within a few years or so, the worst of the present mess in the levant should be cleared up, and the perennial arab-israel dispute resume center stage--with further consequences for the Israel's backer here....

[noemon]

Josephus mentioned a great deal of animosity between Greek and jewish communities in Caesaria. Evidently such animosity was widespread and exploded during the Kitos revolt.

I have read Josephus and he does not give me the impression that he propagates the view that there exists collective hatred at least not on the part of the Greeks and certainly not of the kind like in the examples I mentioned and we don't really need Josephus when we can see that ourselves by examining literature, when there are so many Greek works in theatre, song, poetry, history taking the piss out of Persians but we do not observe anything not even near that against the Jews and the reasons are also obvious, namely that they never posed an existential threat. The fact is that the Jews revolted against their imperialist masters which at the time happened to be the Romans, but they could not take it out on the Romans because there were hardly any Romans in the East so they took it out on the Greeks whom they saw as the agents of the enemy and to animate the rebels they had to build a narrative, in response I am most certain that Greeks in the area responded in kind and animosities took place without a doubt but this did not even register in the Greek mainland, Greek historians, philosophers and schools did not even bother. Cassius Dio who is a Greek and who wrote the history of the Roman-Jewish wars reported it because he obviously had to but we don't observe any "widespread" narrative. Plutarch who is the proverbial Greek folk historian, a priest of Delphi, educated in Athens, he took it upon himself to define the Greek narrative of the time, he lived during that period and he does not even mention it because he simply did not consider it worthy of mention.
You believe it was 'widespread' but how is that possible when they could have retaliated by killing the Jews in Athens, Asia Minor, Byzantium and all the other Jewish communities scattered across the Greek heartlands but they didn't. So I think you have misinterpreted the situation.

It surely says something that no foreign state supports Israel likes the US does, and that support stems from internal political pressure not strategic interests.

I don't think that is true. Western states support Israel tacitly, the US supports it brazenly and goes a step further than others but that does not mean that this is the actual standard that defines 'support' in international relations.

The extra bit that Israel manages to get from the US is probably because of internal pressure but it would get regular support without that kind of internal pressure regardless because Israel as a western country is indirectly integrated within the defensive dogma of NATO even if it is not officially in NATO.

Arab and muslim states needn't be our enemies just because they aren't "western."

Ofc not, in Greece I reckon we have a good balance between the Arab world and Israel because we need the Arab world more than other Europeans do, the Israeli political establishment has come to terms with that reality.

Other western states and more specifically the US have different requirements from the "Arab world", first of all they have bought out half of it and so they can afford to be more pro-Israel.

As Walt and Mearsheimer noted, US backing of Israel was a key reason for 9/11. It wasn't an attempt by terrorists to "take away our freedom" necessitating a "war on terror" as the propagandists put it. Arabs struck at the US for backing their archenemy.

This is very partly true, Arabs struck at the US because it is the prime banner-man of the colonial powers that divided the M-E in Sykes-Picot, Israel is relevant only in so far as it acts as the most obvious thorn of that Sykes-Picot reality within the Arab narrative.

And there's no good reason to back Israel at the expense of relations with the vastly bigger arab/muslim world, which is also tremendously more important economically. Most other states, in Europe and Asia, have long sensed this. US State Dept pros and academics may privately concur but they're totally overshadowed by the pro-Israel bunch.

True, but what makes you think that the long-term interests of the west is to have permanent peace? If the west wanted, it would have put Israel in order, would have made peace long time ago. It is easy to believe that Jewish lobbyists are the only ones preventing this but that is hardly true, they play their part for sure but the M-E and Africa are the only places left as playground. This is important for imperial powers and their industries. Israel is part of the western designs to maintain these conditions in the M-E and not the other way around and it is funny that people believe that Jews can actually take over the entire western apparatus and enforce their global designs when in fact they are merely cogs within it, like all western nations have their cogs within that infrastructure.

Within a few years or so, the worst of the present mess in the levant should be cleared up, and the perennial arab-israel dispute resume center stage--with further consequences for the Israel's backer here...

Think about this, if the Jews were as omni-powerful as people assume they are, they would not be living in conditions of permanent existential fear.

[Rich]

I think there's a lot of truth in that. The Western gentiles' obsession with the Jews has always puzzled me. And I say that as a Western gentile myself.

Why is that puzzling? We've spent the last seventeen hundred years worshipping the Jewish God as have the adjacent Muslim cultures. Given the incredible rate of technological, economic, social and cultural change over the last few hundred years, given the continual, puling apart and remaking of peoples social identities, it seems entirely natural for those seeking to forge any kind of national / ethnic group to obsess about the Jews. Asking who are the Jews, is inextricably entwined with asking who we are?

[noir]

World Chaos and World Order: Conversations With Henry Kissinger
The former secretary of state reflects on war, peace, and the biggest tests facing the next president.

http://www.theatlantic.com/internationa ... os/506876/

Goldberg: What is the right way to make peace between the Israelis and the Arabs?

Kissinger: The conflict in and around Syria has complicated the prospect of a two-state solution. How could another small state survive in a region in which Syria and Iraq have collapsed and cannot govern themselves, let alone safeguard regional security? How can it be done when Jordan is under pressure from every side and in every direction? And how could a negotiation between a single Palestinian group and Israel guarantee general peace? If you call a peace agreement “final,” you create all kinds of problems, one of which is its designation as “final.”

If a so-called final agreement were negotiated with Israel—and Netanyahu pressured to accept it—as conventional wisdom urges, which Arab state could afford to defend it? Would the King of Saudi Arabia rejoice at the prospect of being able to say, “We’ve ceded this Arab territory forever?” From which Arab quarter do you hear demands for an overall settlement?

Netanyahu would be well-advised to establish unilaterally a government on the West Bank and clothe it with the attributes of maximum Palestinian sovereignty. The Israelis should make their presence less obtrusive. But issues like Jerusalem and the symbolic return of refugees should be part of a separate negotiation. I expect Obama will put forward a comprehensive plan before he leaves office.

Goldberg: Which the Israeli government might not listen to.

Kissinger: They never have a majority of more than two or three in parliament, and the survival of any government is always precarious. They have to go through a searing process of proving that they got the last drop of blood out of the stone. I learned these lessons negotiating with Golda Meir.

Goldberg: She was tough?

Kissinger: Oh, my God! And she made you defenseless because she looked like everyone’s favorite grandmother. When she went on television, you couldn’t win.

Goldberg: Do you think the two-state paradigm is relevant?

Kissinger: The creation of a Palestinian state is at the core of the so-called two-state solution. It is designed to end the threat of a permanent guerrilla war in the part of Palestine occupied by Israel. It assumes a “final” negotiated outcome between Israel and Palestinian leaders to be supported by the UN Security Council and the Middle Eastern states. I agree with the concept, but it has up to now encountered insuperable obstacles. The subject is inherently difficult. The borders have been essentially delineated, but the remaining issues—such as the return of refugees; the disposition of some settlements; the status of Jerusalem—go to the core of each side’s conviction and thus inhibit flexibility.

Israel’s long-term strategic problem is that all the countries around them will sooner or later become technologically adept enough to threaten their survival. Hence, the Israelis negotiate so fiercely to prove to themselves that they have taken account of their premonitions. The Arab side is ambivalent about the very term “final” agreement.

After a final peace agreement, radical Arabs are certain to accuse the Arab signatories of betraying the cause of defending Arab territory. That is the inherent weakness of an agreement sponsored by outside powers. But I’ve had another thought. Is it conceivable that Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, Egypt, Jordan, and Israel, now cooperating against ISIS, extend this cooperation into new efforts? Could they come to an agreement to improve the lives of Palestinians to the greatest extent possible, perhaps including quasi-sovereignty, as their own initiative? It would not be a final agreement, but it would remove obstacles to movement and other measures to improve the lives of Palestinians—that is, de facto autonomy without a legalistic superstructure. I don’t think it’s impossible that they could be persuaded to do this. The times seem propitious for such an initiative. Look at the disengagement agreement that was negotiated in Syria in 1974 that is still in force. They continue to observe those lines. They never cross the border.

“Netanyahu would be well-advised to establish unilaterally a government on the West Bank and clothe it with the attributes of maximum Palestinian sovereignty.”
Goldberg: I was just up there, at Quneitra—

Kissinger: At one point—when I was conducting negotiations 40 years ago—I knew more about Quneitra than any living person. The Israelis have developed a way to make deterrence work without verbal threats. They have managed to come up with reactions of a magnitude that discourage hostile initiatives.

[starman2003]

Cassius Dio who is a Greek and who wrote the history of the Roman-Jewish wars reported it because he obviously had to but we don't observe any "widespread" narrative.

I meant fairly widespread in the eastern Mediterranean-in Egypt, Libya and Cyprus besides Palestine.

I don't think that is true. Western states support Israel tacitly, the US supports it brazenly and goes a step further than others but that does not mean that this is the actual standard that defines 'support' in international relations.

The US is the only power that annually shells out billions in military and economic aid to Israel. With the exception of Portugal, European states wouldn't even let US transports refuel on their territory en route to Israel in '73.

The extra bit that Israel manages to get from the US is probably because of internal pressure

Extra bit....Probably...

but it would get regular support without that kind of internal pressure regardless because Israel as a western country is indirectly integrated within the defensive dogma of NATO even if it is not officially in NATO.

The US doesn't really need Israel for anything. Its supporters here have long claimed it's the "only US ally" in the region. Had the US dumped Israel years ago, virtually every other state in the region would've been our ally.
As an "ally" Israel is virtually worthless largely because it's a regional pariah. Back in '91 not a single IDF military unit fought in the Gulf alongside our troops; Israel couldn't even retaliate for SCUD attacks because arab and western leaders alike were concerned about the arab reaction to "fighting on the same side' as Israel.
In the long run I doubt even the US can afford what is really a costly luxury.
In fact it's not in our interest to support Israel, precisely because there won't be any lasting peace. I predicted an eventual revived arab/muslim-Israel conflict, in which US backing of Israel could have disatrous consequences.
Try reading Walt and Mearsheimer The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy.
The jews are in fact more powerful politically than the oil and arms industries. If the latter two, and US business generally, had really had their way, Israel would've been thrown under the bus long ago to increase economic dealings with arab/muslim states, including arms sales. Instead, to cite one example, the US, under heavy internal pressure, sacrificed its access to arab oil in '73 to ship arms to Israel. US backing of Israel is based on values not real interests --precisely why the US is virtually alone in backing Israel to the degree it does. Only a fantastically rich superpower imagines it can afford horrific luxuries and foolishness. Other states know they must be more practical.
As for "existential fear" there is such a thing as paranoia. The circumstances of 75 years ago bear no resemblance whatsoever to the present, but they still cast a long shadow..

[noir]

You are wrong. In the ME post Arab Spring, Israel is not pariah. Your logic is very outdate.

[starman2003]

You are wrong. In the ME post Arab Spring, Israel is not pariah. Your logic is very outdate.

Generally it's still a pariah, especially on the popular level. Decades of Egypt/Jordan-Israel peace haven't converted the bulk of the arab street. Peace exists between Israel and various arab governments but only because the US is rich and won the Cold War. For state actors, it's too risky to fight Israel inasmuch as the only superpower is pro-Israel. That could easily change if Russian power (or assertiveness) continues its rennaissance, or if other states like China help out.
Some claim the arab/muslim-Israel conflict is essentially over but I wouldn't bet on it. I think we're experiencing only a temporary--albeit lengthy--calm before the worst. It's not just Iran, Hamas and Hez. It's quite likely that in coming years the Israeli rightists will finally seize the whole West Bank for their people, and drive out the Palestinians. If, or when that happens, you'll see just how ephemeral and thin is the veneer of arab-israel peace.

[noir]

Generally, of course. After all it's a Jewish amongst Muslim. But right now Israel is the ultimate protector of the Sunni world, strange as it sounds.

[starman2003]

Generally, of course. After all it's a Jewish amongst Muslim.

The day Israel has formal diplomatic relations with a third of the states in the Mideast and North Africa is the day it's no longer a pariah. I don't think religion has much to do with it. Arab relations with the USSR were good despite the latter being atheistic.

But right now Israel is the ultimate protector of the Sunni world, strange as it sounds.

The US protects the sunnis of the gulf. Egypt can protect itself and Israel doesn't protect Sunnis in ISIS areas in Iraq and Syria. Or in Aleppo.

[noir]

The Sunni world doesn't see Obama administration as its protector.

[starman2003]

The Sunni world doesn't see Obama administration as its protector.

Even Obama would've intervened strongly if Iran attacked Saudi Arabia or Kuwait. He's not in a good position to protect Sunnis in ISIS areas.