Israeli-Arab Relations, Trump Peace Nobels, etc.

[RETAC21]

23 minutes ago, Mikel2 said:

Golda Meir said "this will only stop when they love their children more than they hate us".

I wonder if the millions of Germans that were brutally ethnically cleansed in 1945-46 would get the same sympathy from the international community had they behaved like the Palestinians for the last seventy years.  I'm sure France, the Czechs, the Russians and Poles would be good sports as rockets from angry Germans rained on them on a semi-daily basis.  Luckily for everyone, post-war displaced Germans had better things to do with their lives.

Both are fallacies. It can never stop since they are contesting the same ground, it has nothing to do with the children: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheikh_Jarrah note this: "Lawyers for the Jewish families argued that documents from the Ottoman Empire originally used to prove that a Jewish Sephardic organization had purchased the land in question in the 19th century are indeed valid, while Palestinian lawyers brought with them documents from Istanbul's Ottoman archives indicating that the Jewish organization that claims to own the land only rented it, and as such was not the rightful owner"

So property it's pivoting on what the Ottoman empire documented or didn't = recipe for disaster.

The Germans (and others) that were forcefully displaced didn't have a chance of resisting because they were being killed if they didn't move and sometimes as they were being displaced forcefully, but just the possibility of resistance brought reprisals: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werwolf#Allied_reprisals

 

 

[BansheeOne]

Though I like to ask what locals would think if militants affiliated with the Federation of Expellees launched four-digit numbers of rockets at Poland every year, etc. As it is, while the various organizations within the federation have their share of radicals, those remain in the political arena, and the leadership has been supportive of reconcillation and recognition of post-war borders ever since the issue came to the practical test with German reunification.

[seahawk]

I do not remember the Palestinians invading all neighbouring countries and committing a huge amount of atrocities there. So maybe it is not the same.

[BansheeOne]

Well obviously nobody was talking of Palestinians yet when the Arab armies invaded just-established Israel in 1948; they sorta got invented around 1967.

Of course historical comparisons are always imperfect, and it would certainly have been better for Israel if they could have avoided getting dragged into a decades-long occupation regime chained to some settlements which make a bad case under international law even according to Israeli jurisprudence. 

[Josh]

It does strike me that the current situation explicitly started because of Israeli settlement policies. I have no horse in this race; I think the Pals and Israelis kinda deserve each other and there certainly is no solution that would be politically acceptable to either side at this point. The IDF is just going to invade Gaze every 5-10 years for the rest of time. It's kinda like mowing the lawn when it gets really feral looking. Rinse, repeat. 

[bojan]

21 minutes ago, BansheeOne said:

Well obviously nobody was talking of Palestinians yet when the Arab armies invaded just-established Israel in 1948; they sorta got invented around 1967.

Going full Roman, ain't you? I have noted previously in the discussion with you that "No nation exists until it decides do do so". Hence Ukrainians, Macedonians (oh, wait, North Macedonians), Palestinians decided to exist as a nation. And that does not make Palestinians* or any other any less valid as a nation than Germans, English or Americans (who are also "newcomers" in the nations game).

*OTOH, based on their behavior... Pox on them. But that is who I support, not if I think they are nation or not.

Edited May 14, 2021 by bojan

[seahawk]

1 hour ago, BansheeOne said:

Well obviously nobody was talking of Palestinians yet when the Arab armies invaded just-established Israel in 1948; they sorta got invented around 1967.

Of course historical comparisons are always imperfect, and it would certainly have been better for Israel if they could have avoided getting dragged into a decades-long occupation regime chained to some settlements which make a bad case under international law even according to Israeli jurisprudence. 

They got invented on the same day in 1948 as Israel, as both nations were part of the UN´s plan.

[rmgill]

And the Pals felt that they could take over property that the jews had been ejected from. 

It's been pointed out before, how many Jews still have land in the surrounding Arab Nations? Did they have a choice in keeping it? Considering that alone and that Arabs who didn't side with the Arab League in '48 still have their land and property in Israel and still enjoy citizenship and positions of power. 

Where are the Jews in power/positions of goverment in Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, etc? 

[BansheeOne]

1 hour ago, bojan said:

Going full Roman, ain't you? I have noted previously in the discussion with you that "No nation exists until it decides do do so". Hence Ukrainians, Macedonians (oh, wait, North Macedonians), Palestinians decided to exist as a nation. And that does not make Palestinians* or any other any less valid as a nation than Germans, English or Americans (who are also "newcomers" in the nations game).

I didn't question their validity, I said nobody really talked of Palestinians before 1967, least of all the Arabs living in Palestine; they were considered, by themselves and the neighbours, part of "the Arabs" who invaded Israel, hence the German-Polish example having some relevance. Just like Austrians invading Poland as members of the Wehrmacht would have been lumped in with the Reich by either side. 

That's notwithstanding the UN partition plan BTW, which spoke of a Jewish and an Arab state in the area of the British Mandate (so if anything, there would have been Jewish and Arab Palestinians). They certainly did exist as a geographically and ethnically determined entity, just like Germans or Italians did before the modern national idea arose. But it's indeed hard to claim they were a nation before they even thought of themselves that way. Ca. 1770, there were no folks thinking of themselves as part of an American nation either, just more-or-less disgruntled British subjects living in America.

[Ivanhoe]

2 minutes ago, BansheeOne said:

I didn't question their validity, I said nobody really talked of Palestinians before 1967, least of all the Arabs living in Palestine; they were considered, by themselves and the neighbours, part of "the Arabs" who invaded Israel, hence the German-Polish example having some relevance. Just like Austrians invading Poland as members of the Wehrmacht would have been lumped in with the Reich by either side.

I'm a little fuzzy on the history of the area in the 1945-1967 time frame (American textbooks are quite crappy on the 20th century Levant), but I have the impression that both Arab nations and the ROW had no problem lumping West Bankers into Jordan. It would be interesting to learn how the average grunt-level Arab in the surrounding regions viewed the situation at the time. An Iranian friend back in the 1980s indicated that there was tribal friction between all the Arab groups, I think implying that the folks that we call Palestinians weren't ever going to be happy Jordanians.

[RETAC21]

14 minutes ago, Ivanhoe said:

I'm a little fuzzy on the history of the area in the 1945-1967 time frame (American textbooks are quite crappy on the 20th century Levant), but I have the impression that both Arab nations and the ROW had no problem lumping West Bankers into Jordan. It would be interesting to learn how the average grunt-level Arab in the surrounding regions viewed the situation at the time. An Iranian friend back in the 1980s indicated that there was tribal friction between all the Arab groups, I think implying that the folks that we call Palestinians weren't ever going to be happy Jordanians.

No one recognised the annexation of the West Bank by Jordan, and it was given up in 1989 in order to "ease" negotiations. Palestinians never thought of themselves as Jordanians and the PLO tried to take over the country in 1970, which led to their violent eviction ("Black September") to Lebanon, where they repeated the act until kicked out in 1982.

Tribal, religious and national "sensivities" kept the Pan-Arab movement solidly on the ground, and nothing has changed ever since.

Note that Gaza was never annexed by Egypt and kept out of the Peace treaty although the Egyptians offered to take over all of Rafah and were turned down, so the city was divided. Nowadays, Egyptian Rafah has been razed to the ground.

[BansheeOne]

I suspect that in 1948, the Arab monarchies saw Palestine, and in particular Jerusalem, as a price which they hoped would finally win them the contest for leadership of the Arab nation that had been going on since the times of Mssrs. Lawrence, Sykes and Picot. Prior to that, the area was considered part of "Syria" - meaning essentially the whole of the Levant, governed from Damascus - though the special administrative district of Jerusalem that made up most of modern Israel was under direct control of Istanbul. While that bordered Jordania directly, it would arguably have created some local identity, though apparently the final Ottoman reform of its boundaries had the rather practical reason of allowing to issue Christian travellers a single visa for visiting all the holy sites in the area. 

I further suspect that if the Arabs had succeeded in Driving the Jews Into the Sea (TM), they would soon have fought over the spot among themselves. 

[Ivanhoe]

https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/05/12/why-wont-israelis-let-themselves-be-killed/

Author does an illuminating compare-and-contrast with other regional conflicts.

 

[RETAC21]

32 minutes ago, BansheeOne said:

I suspect that in 1948, the Arab monarchies saw Palestine, and in particular Jerusalem, as a price which they hoped would finally win them the contest for leadership of the Arab nation that had been going on since the times of Mssrs. Lawrence, Sykes and Picot. Prior to that, the area was considered part of "Syria" - meaning essentially the whole of the Levant, governed from Damascus - though the special administrative district of Jerusalem that made up most of modern Israel was under direct control of Istanbul. While that bordered Jordania directly, it would arguably have created some local identity, though apparently the final Ottoman reform of its boundaries had the rather practical reason of allowing to issue Christian travellers a single visa for visiting all the holy sites in the area. 

I further suspect that if the Arabs had succeeded in Driving the Jews Into the Sea (TM), they would soon have fought over the spot among themselves. 

Each Arab government of 1948 had different objectives, the Egyptians weren't particularly interested but Fear of missing out had them join.

The Jordanian King, Abdala I, dreamed of a "Greater Syria" within the borders of what was then Transjordan, Syria, Lebanon, and the British Mandate for Palestine under a Hashemite dynasty with "a throne in Damascus".

Syria was a chaotic mess whose ambitions included Lebanon and N. israel.

Other countries were just playing to domestic audiences with a minimal effort. 

The locals were supposed to shut up and accept their brotherly Arab overlords. Palestinians were rather unhappy with the Jordanian rule, as the Jordanian Army avoided defending the locals from reprisals if they could, as they didn't GAS about them. And they were particularly happy with Israeli rule 1967-73 to the point that PLO had to launch their attacks from neighbouring countries and they went out of their way to help the Israelis in 1973.

[Ivanhoe]

40 minutes ago, BansheeOne said:

I suspect that in 1948, the Arab monarchies saw Palestine, and in particular Jerusalem, as a price which they hoped would finally win them the contest for leadership of the Arab nation that had been going on since the times of Mssrs. Lawrence, Sykes and Picot.

Just to be clear, you are saying that whichever leader's army captured Jerusalem would be on the fast track to becoming the head of a pan-Arabian quasi-state?

That makes sense to me, though by 1967 I'm wondering if it was still Jerusalem as being the key to the kingdom, versus having the perception of the strongest army and the best win/loss record on the battlefield. I've always had the perception that Saddam Hussein didn't obsessively want to defeat Israel, he really wanted to beat down his Arab rivals.

[BansheeOne]

That was my idea, though RETAC's more detailed take is probably closer to the truth. 

[RETAC21]

48 minutes ago, Ivanhoe said:

Just to be clear, you are saying that whichever leader's army captured Jerusalem would be on the fast track to becoming the head of a pan-Arabian quasi-state?

That makes sense to me, though by 1967 I'm wondering if it was still Jerusalem as being the key to the kingdom, versus having the perception of the strongest army and the best win/loss record on the battlefield. I've always had the perception that Saddam Hussein didn't obsessively want to defeat Israel, he really wanted to beat down his Arab rivals.

Not in 67 and not in 48. If you want to lead Pan Arabism, Mecca is the key if only because it's the place to go to become a Hajji https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hajji but it's controlled by the Sauds, which are the mortal enemies of the Husseins, so Jerusalem was a "consolation" prize. Religion went out of fashion with Baathism, and Nasserism became the role model to follow. This was eventually replaced (and in Egypt, preceded) by old fashioned nationalism. Only Saddam and Ghaddafi harbored pan-arab illusions after 1967.

[lucklucky]

7 hours ago, seahawk said:

I do not remember the Palestinians invading all neighbouring countries and committing a huge amount of atrocities there. So maybe it is not the same.

You see  them firing rockets indiscriminately over cities...

Then we have their behavior in Jordan and Lebanon. 

 

Quote

Well obviously nobody was talking of Palestinians yet when the Arab armies invaded just-established Israel in 1948; they sorta got invented around 1967.

Basically Palestinians only -politically- exist because of Israel. And because Israel change from socialist brotherhood to evil capitalism.

If this 2 points did not happened Palestinians would be at most at Druze level but i even doubt that , ruled by Jordan, Egypt, Syria and maybe even by in North bit from Lebanon. Or in case Israel went to Communist bloc they would be ruled in Soviet style and almost no one in media would care. They would be called dissidents by journalists instead of refugees...

Unless there would be another case that fit into Cold War utilitarian political need there would never be Palestinians. They could even be ruled violently by a Saddam Hussein type and no one would care because it would not matter politically to the Western political combat (i am including Soviet Union in Western political world because Marxism and its derivation Communism is a Western creation)

What appears in the News is what the groups that have power to control the narratives wish it to appear.

In fact most of the News do not appear in the News. 

No one talks that Assyrians should have a country. That Zoroastrians should have a chunk of Iran, that Baha'i should have another chunk, that Yazidis should have a part of Iraq. Middle East is full of Palestinian like possible nations that don't not appear in the media because they are not part of the meta/proxy political combat in the Western world. 

Edited May 14, 2021 by lucklucky

[Ivanhoe]

https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-overnight-bombardment-targeted-hamass-tunnel-network-under-gaza-city/
 

Quote

 

Some 160 aircraft flying simultaneously conducted a massive attack on a network of tunnels dug by the Hamas terror group under the northern Gaza Strip around midnight Thursday in the largest Israeli strike since the outbreak of fighting earlier this week, the military said Friday.

According to the Israel Defense Forces, in this air campaign, which lasted nearly 40 minutes, some 450 missiles were dropped on 150 targets in northern Gaza, particularly around the city of Beit Lahiya.

 

 

https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/idf-deception-leads-to-massive-aerial-assault-on-hamass-metro-668182

Quote

 

According to reports, due to the deployment along the border and the news coming out in the foreign media of a ground incursion, Hamas and Islamic Jihad sent their first-line of defense into the tunnels to start taking up positions. These were the anti-tank missile teams and mortar squads meant to strike at incoming Israeli ground forces.

What these Hamas operatives did not know was that there was no ground offensive. Instead, once they were out of the tunnels, they were exposed to Israeli aircraft. Within minutes, the “Metro” attack went ahead. This led to speculation that the tweet about the ground incursion was intentional and made to get Hamas to believe it was safe to enter the tunnels. 

 

I assume Joe Biden has been yelling and throwing things in the WH.

 

[Ivanhoe]

I know Twitter is 50% fluff and 49% crap, but there are gems;

[rmgill]

On 5/14/2021 at 11:23 AM, Ivanhoe said:

I'm a little fuzzy on the history of the area in the 1945-1967 time frame (American textbooks are quite crappy on the 20th century Levant), but I have the impression that both Arab nations and the ROW had no problem lumping West Bankers into Jordan. It would be interesting to learn how the average grunt-level Arab in the surrounding regions viewed the situation at the time. An Iranian friend back in the 1980s indicated that there was tribal friction between all the Arab groups, I think implying that the folks that we call Palestinians weren't ever going to be happy Jordanians.

Tribal friction was covered in Seven Pillars of Wisdom. That frition  almost being like bumper cars or balls from a game that can only rest in certain areas where there were resources for water, grazing, growing crops and trade. The less ideal places being where you gathered strength to eject some tribe that was in a better place from their more idylic location. The locations were more or less centered around/along water sources that were periodic or constant. I suspect that this is why so many towns are named Wadi something or other. They're along that particular wadi which was a source of water either just below the surface in wells OR above ground. 

And the Palestinians were NOT happy Jordanians when given the opportunity. They fomented a full on civil war in 1970-1971 in Jordan with Syria getting involved a little bit too. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_September

Edited May 15, 2021 by rmgill

[Ivanhoe]

Yeah, I know about the PLO hijinks in Jordan. The thing is the willingness of the general world to just seemingly accept the post-WWII map (and really, the post-WWI map) in the region; at least until some folks saw an angle in the conflict of political philosophies that used the Pals as pawns.

 

[rmgill]

The Fact that the Jordanians do not WANT the West Bank is telling. The same for Egypt vis a vis the Gaza Strip. 

Edited May 15, 2021 by rmgill

[Ivanhoe]

https://www.the-american-interest.com/2014/08/01/why-they-fight-hamas-too-little-known-fascist-charter/
 

Quote

 

It’s not exactly hard to find out. Hamas published a “Covenant” of 36 articles on August 18, 1988, that details its aims and ideology precisely. Its philosophy is rooted in the totalitarianism and radical anti-Semitism that has undergirded Islamism since its rise in the 1930s and 1940s. Far from moderating its core ideology, Hamas’ seizure of power in 2007 gave it the opportunity to make policy based on its guiding goal—namely, the destruction the state of Israel.1 But even though the Covenant is the declaration of intent of a group now governing millions of people, it goes unnoticed by reporters, editors, and pundits who race to comment on Hamas’ war with Israel.

There is no reason for this ignorance. The briefest Google search brings one to an English translation of the Covenant, provided by the Avalon Project of the Yale Law School over a decade ago. Hamas has not revised or modified its Covenant in all that time. The public statements of its leaders and its continued terror offensive against Israel are clear evidence that Hamas in 2014 remains inspired by the ideas expressed in founding text. This should be every policy maker’s, and every journalist’s, first stop in their efforts to understand Hamas. And it is of utmost importance that they read the text itself, as any student of literature will tell you. There is no substitute; to understand a person one must read him in his own words, noting everything from the cadence and syntax to the allusions to key figures of his ideological tradition. The Gaza war will be incomprehensible to anyone who refuses to take Hamas at its word—these words.

 

Quote

The above paragraph of Article 22 could have been taken, almost word for word, from Nazi Germany’s anti-Jewish propaganda texts and broadcasts.7 Echoing the European, but also American, anti-Semites of the twentieth century, Hamas repeated the assertion that the Jews used their money to control both “the world media” and the established social order. At the same time, these Jewish scions of the status quo were “behind” the French and Communist revolutions—one of European fascists’ favorite theories during their heyday. In the same manner as their anti-Semitic predecessors, the authors of the Hamas Covenant claimed that the Jews “control imperialistic countries” and advocate colonization and exploitation of other nations. Notably, it is Israel that controls the U.S. in this account, a reversal of the Soviet-era anti-Zionist propaganda. This paranoid vision of powerful, wealthy, and evil Jews echoes such works as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Hitler’s Mein Kampf, and the daily diet of Nazi newspapers and Arabic-language radio broadcast from Nazi Berlin by Arab collaborators.

Those asserting a moral equivalence have an uphill battle.

 

[Ivanhoe]

https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3113222,00.html

Quote

TEL AVIV - Close buddies? Top terrorist Zakaria Zubeidi made a “guest appearance” in a video prepared by the staff of Reuters news agency in Israel and the Palestinian Authority as a “going away” gift for a colleague, Ynetnews has learned.

 

 

Quote

 

A Reuters spokeswoman confirmed the video’s existence, but said the London-based news organization is “not associated with any group or faction in any conflict.”

The screening, which occurred in a Jerusalem restaurant last March, involved the showing of a video during a private party.

"The video's theme was what Israel would be like in 10 years," said an Israeli government official who attended the party and viewed the video.

"All of a sudden, at the end, there is Zakaria Zubeidi, playing the head of Reuters. Zubeidi was sitting in Reuters' Jenin office, saying he was Reuters’ chief,” the official said.