Does US Money fuel the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank.

Moderator: PoFo Middle-East Mods

Forum rules: No one-line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum moderated in English, so please post in English only. Thank you.
#15104061
Metoo wrote:Our policy in the meantime is that we need to 'feed the cat'. Fight a classic defensive battle, while waiting out for the better times and avoiding annihilating the Arabs all together.


Practically it would be impossible to annihilate Arabs. And of course, Nazis had done that to Jews without success. So IMHO there's no such thing to avoid.


Metoo wrote:In the short term however, I fear to say that a direct confrontation might be in store for us. We are trying to avoid it, but it seems that we are failing here. There will be another war, with 'morality' being one of the 'casus belli'.


I can see it happening much closer to me too, though we are on different sides strength-wise :lol:
#15104117
Patrickov wrote:Practically it would be impossible to annihilate Arabs. And of course, Nazis had done that to Jews without success. So IMHO there's no such thing to avoid.


I disagree. It is very possible and that IS the problem, because it is possible. There are many workable scenarios whereby, for example, the Arab population decides to move, just like many Arabs moved, back in 1948. Annihilation has many meanings, all the way from catastrophic to more palatable. Moving is more palatable, even though this is not what we necessarily want, so the term annihilation does apply.

Look, - every time there is a war in the Middle East, people die. Lately the death toll has not been great all things considered, but still even one person dying is too much. The problem is that in the future it might get a lot worst. If we get into a full scale confrontation, happening in the same time, with Hamas and Hezbollah, AND the Arabs from West Bank decide to support them, we now at the point of full scale war, in which the consequences for the Arabs will be totally catastrophic, with no precedent in the history. THis is what i am talking about and this IS what we are trying to avoid. Is it possible? Absolutely, - possible and doable, given the current state of affairs and preparation.

Speaking of the Nazis, - well... they came real close to succeeding. Had it not been for the war with USSR, they would have murdered all the Jews in Europe. Those who managed to survive would have run away to UK or the Americas.

Patrickov wrote:I can see it happening much closer to me too, though we are on different sides strength-wise :lol:


Not sure I get what you mean here, but ok...
#15104191
Metoo wrote:Those who managed to survive would have run away to UK or the Americas.


This is exactly what I see as the Nazi's "failure". In some sense, the British, Spanish and the United States Whites all did it more thoroughly against aboriginals.
#15147762
skinster wrote:Right of Return in international law applies to all refugees who've been forced out of their land, not just Palestinians.
.....:


True, but there is a difference. The UN UNRWA was responsible for creating the definition of a Palestinian Refugee. And that was somebody who was forced out in 1948 .... and all their descendants in the male line, forever

That is why there are several million Palestinian 'refugees', instead of a couple of hundred thousands.

And here's the rub. This definition has never been used before, or since. It is UNIQUE in defining PALESTINIAN refugees, and no other refugee in the world, in all of history, to the current day.

So the "right of return", as defined for Palestinians by the UN, IS unique to Israel, and is not applied anywhere else in the world.
#15147768
Roofgardener wrote:True, but there is a difference. The UN UNRWA was responsible for creating the definition of a Palestinian Refugee. And that was somebody who was forced out in 1948 .... and all their descendants in the male line, forever

That is why there are several million Palestinian 'refugees', instead of a couple of hundred thousands.

And here's the rub. This definition has never been used before, or since. It is UNIQUE in defining PALESTINIAN refugees, and no other refugee in the world, in all of history, to the current day.

So the "right of return", as defined for Palestinians by the UN, IS unique to Israel, and is not applied anywhere else in the world.



Why do Jews have an endless right of return to Israel but non-Jews do not,
#15173018
pugsville wrote:Why do Jews have an endless right of return to Israel but non-Jews do not,

Because Israel makes its own laws, like any other country does.
If you don't like it, you may complain.
Israel is a Jewish state, the only one in the world. All other ethnic groups have their own countries to live in. The Jews have Israel.
#15173019
Metoo wrote:Because Israel makes its own laws, like any other country does.
If you don't like it, you may complain.
Israel is a Jewish state, the only one in the world. All other ethnic groups have their own countries to live in. The Jews have Israel.


Yeah because fuck Multiculturalism, am I right?

Nice to see you back MeToo.
#15173021
skinster wrote:
This is hasbara/bullshit. Palestinians agreed to giving up 55% of their country to the Zionist thieves/invaders and it wasn't enough so you stole an extra 28% in 1967 and today control 100% of what was meant to be Palestinian territory according to international laws.

Because, again, all Zionists wanted is land belonging to others, not peace like they tell the newspapers. If they wanted the latter, given their upper hand and other power, they would've conceded to Palestinian's offer of 78% of their land, leaving them with 22% of historic Palestine. But Zionist greed and theft knows no bounds, so here we are, 72 years later.



You say that, but I'm not sure what are you plan to do to 6 million Palestinians who live there. Maybe go full Nazi?






When did Palestinians agree to giving up 55% of "their country"?
#15173293
colliric wrote:Yeah because fuck Multiculturalism, am I right?

Nice to see you back MeToo.


You know in the previous life I studied Physics, and while a student, was introduced to a concept of ' spherical chicken'. It proved to be an extremely useful concept. Works for a physicist, but fails in the trenches. And I say this based on experience.

Multiculturalism IS a ' spherical chicken'.

I would not say fuck it, but I would smile when it is mentioned. It's great to have, if you can have it.
#15224100
JohnRawls wrote:Israel is the only trustworthy ironclad ally that US and Europe have in the middle east.


It's not a true ally in the sense of a mutually beneficial relationship. Israel is just a parasite attached to the USA by treasonable people here who consider it more important than anything, including the US itself. Had the US been anti-Israel virtually the whole region would've regarded us much more favorably from the start.


So there is no problem in giving/selling weapons to Israel whatsoever.


We have better uses for the money; and the US is in no shape to be afflicted with parasites.
#15224103
starman2003 wrote:It's not a true ally in the sense of a mutually beneficial relationship. Israel is just a parasite attached to the USA by treasonable people here who consider it more important than anything, including the US itself. Had the US been anti-Israel virtually the whole region would've regarded us much more favorably from the start.




We have better uses for the money; and the US is in no shape to be afflicted with parasites.


Yeah, we can't really trust the dictators and religious fanatics honestly even if we really wanted to since
1) They are not democratic states so they will repress their people eventually even the most wealthy oil autocracies
2) Their radical religious believes are only held back by their need to trade in oil for now or need something from the West. For them, religious policies will eventually overtake the economic reasoning when the hard times happen.
3) General cultural and societal Israel is way closer compared to other societies in the region.

On a fundamental level these are the 3 main advantages why Israel is a better ally and is our ally basically. Those are fundamental problems for the middle east and why EU/US are close allies with Israel.

Sure we don't like the Palestinians and Israeli conflict while giving a lot of blame on Israel for it(Which Israel doesn't like by the way), this doesn't change the fundamentals in any shape or form and it is for the middle eastern countries own fault in this regard. If they still want to be autocracies, religious kingdoms or tribal states or a variation of the previous then it is much easier and more understandable to be friends with Israel despite the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Even if you exclude 3 then it is much easier to do diplomacy with countries that are not tribal, not autocracies or don't base their earthly outlook on religious texts.
#15224258
JohnRawls wrote:On a fundamental level these are the 3 main advantages why Israel is a better ally and is our ally basically.


Oh sure, policy is based on values as opposed to interests. The two aren't the same--far from it. In 1990-91 a coalition of western nations acted to preserve its interests in the region but our "ally" played no role at all, despite the vast sums blown on arming it. Prior to that, in '73, arming our "ally" cost us dearly economically….I don't believe the arab/muslim--Israel conflict has ended; I suspect we've yet to see the worst of it. Basing policy on values at the expense of interests is an awful luxury. No wonder few if any other countries support Israel like the US...Only Uncle Sam imagines he can afford it but he's asking for trouble, even worse than what's happened already.
#15224281
starman2003 wrote:Oh sure, policy is based on values as opposed to interests. The two aren't the same--far from it. In 1990-91 a coalition of western nations acted to preserve its interests in the region but our "ally" played no role at all, despite the vast sums blown on arming it. Prior to that, in '73, arming our "ally" cost us dearly economically….I don't believe the arab/muslim--Israel conflict has ended; I suspect we've yet to see the worst of it. Basing policy on values at the expense of interests is an awful luxury. No wonder few if any other countries support Israel like the US...Only Uncle Sam imagines he can afford it but he's asking for trouble, even worse than what's happened already.


Do a retrospective analysis of the 2nd half of 20th century along with 21st century. Majority of really long term alliances are values based and interest based alliances crumble relatively fast in historical scope if they are not also values based. Interest based alliances are also kind of barbaric and outdated in the first place.

The reason for this is that liberal democracies are pretty picky over a long period of time who they can support since we don't tolerate mass abuse of human rights within any society or other norms. Since Israel is a liberal democratic state then it just does not do them to the same scope and scale as not liberal democratic societies in the region. And if you are going to bring up the palestinian-israeli conflict then the situation is in the name, it is a conflict.
#15224311
JohnRawls wrote:Do a retrospective analysis of the 2nd half of 20th century along with 21st century. Majority of really long term alliances are values based and interest based alliances crumble relatively fast in historical scope if they are not also values based. Interest based alliances are also kind of barbaric and outdated in the first place.

The reason for this is that liberal democracies are pretty picky over a long period of time who they can support since we don't tolerate mass abuse of human rights within any society or other norms. Since Israel is a liberal democratic state then it just does not do them to the same scope and scale as not liberal democratic societies in the region. And if you are going to bring up the palestinian-israeli conflict then the situation is in the name, it is a conflict.


Israael is not a liberal democratic state,. It's crazy extrme Religious people running an state based on race.
#15224348
pugsville wrote:Israael is not a liberal democratic state,. It's crazy extrme Religious people running an state based on race.


That Iran or Saudi Arabia you are talking about, not Israel.

@litwin is clearly an Alex Jones type conspirac[…]

Candace Owens

She has shown to many Americans what Zionism is s[…]

Both of them have actually my interest at heart. […]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

As predicted, the hasbara troll couldn't quote me […]