peterms Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 Oh wow, that's pretty grim. It seemed like under Fatah, they were possibly heading towards the direction of more stability/a better managing of issues with Israel; however, that has gone out the window quickly. Was there some sort of mass movement of followers to Hamas, like in the sense that the population of Palestine became highly disillusioned under Fatah leadership and Hamas step forward and promised people they would get their land back and rid the Middle East of the Jewish state? Hamas became stronger because of Israel. It excluded Hamas from the peace talks, because it found Fatah more pliant. But typically, Israel failed to give ground. Fatah was seen not to deliver. Playing divide and rule (of which there can be no better illustration than the map of Palestinian reservations in their own land), Israel sought to set the two movements against each other. It worked for a period. Hamas is the elected government of Gaza. Israel and the west don't like that. But if the alternative government was prevented from actually delivering anything, it is completely unsurprising that people would vote for something else. Bismarck understood that, by the way. Give concessions to avoid something worse. The corrupt Arab dictatorships didn't support Hamas, fearing destabilisation at home. Egypt under Mubarak, for example, closed the border and did Israel's bidding. Things are changing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 Things are changing. Wishful thinking there I feel. Who exactly do you think is going to step up to Israel? Turkey have got their hands full with Syria, Jordan are trying to contain their Arab spring before it really starts, Egypt still rely on US money and are financially in the poop, the only player willing to have a go is Iran and even they can't do much more than they already are doing apart from setting Lebanon on fire. No, the Arabs don't give a **** about the Palestinians when it comes down to it (otherwise some of that oil money would have had them in homes instead of refugee camps in neighbouring countries), they are like the Romany of the Middle East. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LockStockVilla Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 Hamas is a creature of Iran not Saudi, and are allied to the Muslim Brotherhood running Egypt. The rockets they are firing come from Iran via Sudan mostly hence the Israeli air raid to destroy the factory that assembled them in Khartoum a few weeks ago. From there they were transported through Egypt to Gaza. The Izzies know they have loads more which is why the ground invasion will probably go ahead to destroy them. Likewise Hezbollah is basically an arm of the Iranian military and can be expected to start poking Israel soon, although at the moment they are devoting a lot of resources and manpower to supporting Assad in Syria. Sorry, my comment before was a bit unclear, I meant more so the financial backing came from charities originating in Saudi Arabia, not the Saudi government itself. Though, it probably doesn't really matter due to Iran's large role here. At the moment, that part of the Middle East is somewhere I would stay well clear of. On a side note, I did not even realize Hezbollah was backing Assad in Syria. For some reason I thought the two were foes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 Hamas is a creature of Iran not Saudi, and are allied to the Muslim Brotherhood running Egypt. The rockets they are firing come from Iran via Sudan mostly hence the Israeli air raid to destroy the factory that assembled them in Khartoum a few weeks ago. From there they were transported through Egypt to Gaza. The Izzies know they have loads more which is why the ground invasion will probably go ahead to destroy them. Likewise Hezbollah is basically an arm of the Iranian military and can be expected to start poking Israel soon, although at the moment they are devoting a lot of resources and manpower to supporting Assad in Syria. The Middle East conflict (and beyond) is a creature of western interference. We've been at it for a hundred years in relation to oil, centuries before that for other reasons. In about 1970, some US strategists realised that the effect of Iraq, Iran and Venezuela having oil reserves and growing populations would be to put pressure on them to produce oil to create growth; that this would destabilise the market and make Saudi etc see that oil was worth more to them in the ground than ferrying Uncle Elmer up and down US motorways; that this would lead to further unpredictability of supply; and that future investment plans were therefore risky. Some people didn't realise this over the next couple of decades, like GW Bush, who lost millions investing in oil producing tech at a time when investment wasn't a great idea. Others thought a bit further ahead, and decided to secure these rogue supplies. This is why Iraq was invaded, and why Iran and Venezuela are on the list. The Palestinians are small players in this, and Israel a useful tool. Iran is the next goal. Because of oil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 On a side note, I did not even realize Hezbollah was backing Assad in Syria. For some reason I thought the two were foes. Iran is Shia, Hezbollah are a Shia outfit (or more properly an army without a state) and Assad's Alawite sect are Shia. The Syrian rebels are Sunni mostly whichb is why Saudi and Qatar are backing them and Iran backing Assad both directly and by proxy - Hezbollah. The big game is Sunni Saudi versus Shia Iran. If Israeli jets ever hit Iran's nuclear sites they will have flown through air corridors in Saudi airspace provided to them for the purpose. Most of the ME is anti-Israel in rhetoric only, they have good relations with most of the Gulf at government level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 Wishful thinking there I feel. Who exactly do you think is going to step up to Israel? Turkey have got their hands full with Syria, Jordan are trying to contain their Arab spring before it really starts, Egypt still rely on US money and are financially in the poop, the only player willing to have a go is Iran and even they can't do much more than they already are doing apart from setting Lebanon on fire. No, the Arabs don't give a **** about the Palestinians when it comes down to it (otherwise some of that oil money would have had them in homes instead of refugee camps in neighbouring countries), they are like the Romany of the Middle East. I don't think anyone's going to step up to Israel in the short term. No-one has the capability. (By the way, if several rich and well-armed countries don't have the capability, how would some ragged refugees in a prison camp? Someone explain to the BBC that this is not "retaliation" by Israel against deadly threats from a mighty foe which poses an existential threat to Israel). I imagine these changes will take many years to work through. We will see years of massacres in countries like Saudi and Bahrein, backed by the west, if there is any real possibility of a popular movement emerging. But I do think the direction of travel is turning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 We've seen uprising in Bahrain and less reported in Saudi dealt with an iron fist. They simply nip that shit in the bud out there by a shoot first questions later policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 The Middle East conflict (and beyond) is a creature of western interference. Not entirely...the whole area has been engaged in tribal warfare for 3,000 years...it's always been unstable. The UK, US and France are just the most recent agitators... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 Not entirely...the whole area has been engaged in tribal warfare for 3,000 years...it's always been unstable. The UK, US and France are just the most recent agitators... Precisely. If there is one thing Arabs hate more than infidels, it's other Arabs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 Not entirely...the whole area has been engaged in tribal warfare for 3,000 years...it's always been unstable. The UK, US and France are just the most recent agitators... Their 3,000 years (and more) of tribal conflict, like ours and that of other regions, was tribe against tribe. The more recent history is one of western states invading, then withdrawing and establishing puppet governments based on artificial frontiers, and maintaining instability by supporting some states against others to keep the region as a whole weak and dependent. Where the puppets have been overthrown, the west becomes anxious, and tries to secure a more biddable regime again. That's quite different to the kind of instability and tribal conflict we've seen in (for example) Europe over a similar period. Creating, supporting and arming Israel is a key part of this strategy. And it's wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 Creating, supporting and arming Israel is a key part of this strategy. And it's wrong. So out of interest if the very concept of Israeli nation is wrong in your opinion, do you subscribe to Bickster's view posted earlier in the thread @ #149 - crudely put "send them (the Jews) home"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 So out of interest if the very concept of Israeli nation is wrong in your opinion, do you subscribe to Bickster's view posted earlier in the thread @ #149 - crudely put "send them (the Jews) home"? What is wrong is the Israeli state as established. If the west wanted to support the establishment of such a state, then it could have tried to do so by agreement and consent, which would have involved the purchase of land, compensation for the owners, and incentives and support to relocate. The current setup is founded on theft, expropriation, murder, and repression. I wonder how much more costly it has been, even in money terms, to go down this route instead of seeking agreement and paying compensation and purchase costs. The bigger cost is obviously the well-founded and burning sense of anger and bitter resentment at the way this state was established, and the way it has expanded. The other apartheid state, at the other end of the continent, eventually found this untenable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted November 18, 2012 Moderator Share Posted November 18, 2012 So out of interest if the very concept of Israeli nation is wrong in your opinion, do you subscribe to Bickster's view posted earlier in the thread @ #149 - crudely put "send them (the Jews) home"? That wasn't my opinion about anything in the current time frame as you well know, nor was it phrased in any way like the way you have phrased it, so to then post as you have done totally misrepresents my opinion in such a way that it is actually a falsehood. I've never said that is a solution to the current situation. So please, stop misrepresenting mine and others opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 ...I should add to my post above that I don't imagine that all Palestinians would have been willing to relocate from all the areas which Israelis wish to occupy, though I'm sure that many areas would have become available. And rather like fancying a house or a piece of land anywhere else, if the owner doesn't wish to sell, then you have no right to steal it by force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 That wasn't my opinion about anything in the current time frame as you well know, nor was it phrased in any way like the way you have phrased it, so to then post as you have done totally misrepresents my opinion in such a way that it is actually a falsehood. I've never said that is a solution to the current situation. So please, stop misrepresenting mine and others opinions. And before you say anything else, the British involvement in the creation of Israel is another thing I'm personally deeply ashamed of in Britain's past. Possibly one of the most idiotic things we've ever done What do you suggest' date=' drive them into the sea? [/quote'] Help them to settle back in the country of their birth? If saying "help them settle back in the country of their birth" has a substantially different meaning to "send them home", then I apologise. It seems to me the first phrase is simply a more polite way of expressing the sentiment contained in the second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 Targetting journalists who dare to report from Gaza: alex thomson @alextomo #c4news #gaza Israel admits it knew journalists were in the two buildings they hit. A cameraman Khader al Zahhar lost his leg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 Tom Stevenson @TomStevenson_ Just imagine what would happen if anyone in #Gaza bombed media in Israel to stop Israelis communicating with one another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted November 18, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted November 18, 2012 Back to the old favourites for Israel - bombing a residential building to kill a Hamas leader, unsurprisingly manage to kill a few kids, amongst other residents/bystanders. In fairness they have a rule on when they're allowed to use this kind of strike. Unfortunately the rule amounts to 'whenever the **** we want to, we will'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 Blowing up kids is OK because they are only protecting their citizens which is of course laudable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted November 18, 2012 Moderator Share Posted November 18, 2012 If saying "help them settle back in the country of their birth" has a substantially different meaning to "send them home", then I apologise. It seems to me the first phrase is simply a more polite way of expressing the sentiment contained in the second. Apology accepted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts