A moderate arab's point of view on the lebanese conflict

[FinnAgain]

[QUOTE=pantom]
That’s from your own little quote.
[/quote]

My ‘own little quote’?
You mean, the direct citation of HRW’s claims?
Kay.

And certainly we didn’t just hear about four UN agents who ‘came under fire’, that the UN took Israel to task for… while they participated in a coverup and didn’t mention that one of the UN’s own agents at that UN post had confirmed that Hezbollah was operating all around them with static positions. Odd that the UN hid that fact, and lying, said that they knew there were no Hezbollah fighters around them when in fact they knew that they were.

Luckily we don’t even have the UN’s word here, or a definition of what ‘under fire’ means, whether they were in (or near) the blast zone of missiles with other targets, or targeted directly by cannon fire, or what. But you don’t need to focus on these little details, as you’ll just ignore it and refuse to actually debate.

Or do you plan on addressing the flaws in HRW’s methodology?
Any time now.
I know you ‘forgot’ to do so in your most recent post.

[QUOTE=pantom]

Those guys wear blue helmets, I believe. Shiny blue ones. That reflect light. That can easily be seen from a helicopter.
[/quote]

:rolleyes:
After all the dust and debris kicked up by an attack, it’s perfectly easy to clearly tell that people on the ground are UN.
So says pantom, military expert without peer.

And, of course, it’s not like Hezbollah has ever used UN uniforms before. And the UN didn’t lie and cover up evidence that they had a freaking video tape that could have possibly helped free other kidnapped IDF soldiers. Ignore all of that, pantom, nay, General pantom, nay, Grand Commander pantom knows all about targeting from a helicopter. He’s an expert. Trust him.

Funny, then that the only source given for this attack on UN agents was not a UN source, but the same Lebanese testimony that HRW used to ‘prove’ that Hezbollah wasn’t anywhere near the strike. Check HRW’s own citation for that claim. It’s numbered 10.

[QUOTE=pantom]

But there’s a lot more in there.
[/quote]

Based on the same questionable methodology that… wow, you totally didn’t even address as you went merrily skipping along with your expert opinion on targeting-via-helicopter.

Ignoring refutations and changing the subject? That’s sure novel behavior.

Here, instead of fleeing as fast as you can from the actual discussion, I’ll help you out and start a sentence for you: “Witness testimony is totally reliable, a single person’s testimony is a perfectly accurate source for intel about an entire village, convoy, or area, and there is no need to collect physical evidence or hear counter testiomny and evidence from those who planned and executed the strike because…”

See, now, if you’re interest is debate rather than flailing about, you’ll fill in the information after that ‘because’. I won’t hold my breath.

[QUOTE=pantom]

If you choose to disbelieve this and the sheer weight of hundreds dead, while the number of Hizbullah dead might number maybe 100 (0 dead in the initial ambush, 0 dead in the rocket strike that killed the 12 reservists; as for the rest, all we have are Israeli claims, which, this being war, should be discounted as mere propaganda), well, there’s not much to say, is there?
[/quote]

Not much to say, other than that your argument is the very height of hypocrisy and you believe that Israeli claims should be discounted as mere propaganda, but Lebanese claims, in isolation and without being connected to any actual factual examination, are proof of HRW’s claims.

And, no, I don’t choose to ‘disbelieve’ anything. HRW hasn’t proven anything except that they have testimony of people who in many cases couldn’t possibly know the things they claimed for sure. You remind me of the tinfoil hatters who claim that because witnesses at the WTC described certain things happening “like a bomb” means that the US government really wired the building for detonation. Certainly a witness or two saying that there were no Hezbollah in the area proves that, and that the US bombed the WTC.

You also have no idea, at all, how many Hezbollah fighters have been killed. Unless, of course, you correctly ID’d them all while expertly directing firing solutions from your vantage point high in an attack helicopter.

[QUOTE=pantom]

As for answering what the alternative would be, in depth, I have elsewhere, repeatedly, and been ignored, repeatedly. So, no. Not doing it again.
[/quote]

Tell you what, why don’t you cite the relevant posts?
If, you know, they exist.

[QUOTE=pantom]

Feel free to dig up the relevant posts and answer them, if you wish.
[/quote]

Feel free to support your own claims instead of shifting the burden of proof, if you wish.

[QUOTE=pantom]

Besides which, this BS about how the only alternative is that the Arabs were proposing peace & love is your usual tactic of the excluded middle.
[/quote]

Or, I never said that, anywhere, and you’re making it up.
What’s that about usual tactics and BS?
Did you read me writing that imaginary post from your gunner’s seat in an attack 'copter?

[QUOTE=pantom]

Which you know, but you don’t care.
[/quote]

That you claim I’ve said things that I didn’t, and pretend that your imaginary ‘gotcha’ means I’ve commited the fallacy of the excluded middle? Naw, doesn’t really bother me. I don’t expect much more from you.

[QUOTE=pantom]

Meantime, you ignore pretty much the entirety of Lebanese history and the pre-war words and actions of Saad Hariri (Sunni), Walid Jumblaat (Druze), and the leader of the Maronite Christians (Christian, just in case that passed you by), all of whom, at one time or another, called for the disarming of Hizbullah.
[/quote]

What on earth are you talking about? What, exactly, is your point? I’ve ignored… what exactly?

I could’ve sworn that President Emile Lahoud, a Christian (his religion is irrelevant, just in case that passed you by), came out strongly in support of Hezbollah.

See, because I have been reading the news, which you so very adorably accuse me of not doing, I know things like

[

Sunni and Christian politicians often publicly declare their solidarity with the Shiite Hezbollah, which routinely refers to itself as a Lebanese national “resistance movement.”

](http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060807fa_fact)

But I’m wary to engage you on this tangent, as I’m sure you’ll crow about how this is relevant… somehow. Please explain how we’re all ‘ignoring’ the fact that there are opposition groups in Lebanon?

Do these groups somehow prove that Hezbollah is not launching rockets at Israel? No? More obfuscation that has nothing to do with your original (abandoned) claim that the HRW demonstrated anything? Care to touch on that point, or is supporting a driveby simply too difficult?

[QUOTE=pantom]

No, no cites, because this stuff is ridiculously easy to find, for everyone but Israeli intelligence, Fox News, and you guys.
[/quote]

Again, what are you ranting about? There was opposition to Hezbollah in Lebanon? No shit, really? :rolleyes: You’re claiming that Mosad didn’t know that… why? Did you read their intel briefs from your attack 'copter, too?

What exactly do you think that proves? Nobody has denied that. Nobody. Care to stop doing battle with that strawman and come back to at least pretending to be in a debate while you can’t be bothered with discussing the claims that you raised? Or you can continue kicking ass on the big ol’ pile of straw, slapping yourself on the back, and yelling at the strawman “Hah, I got you guys!”

Are you at the stage where you think people are ‘ignoring’ conclusions that you’ve drawn in your head? Should I be able to see whatever using here that exists solely in your noggin? Can I see that from a 'copter, too?

Because you’ve certainly made no claims of logical conclusions to be drawn from those facts.

[QUOTE=pantom]

But like my posts on the alternative to what’s happening now, feel free to, you know, do a little research.
[/QUOTE]

Or, feel free to, ya know, actually debate the cite that you’re championing, and explain how their methodology is valid and their conclusions accurate.

Or run away, evade, obfuscate, and then toss in some pablum about how a well known fact (that Hezbollah had oposition) somehow constitutes people ignoring… something. Who the fuck knows, as you certainly made no claims in this thread regarding that. Much like your other posts that people have cruely ignored, but that you can’t be bothered to repeat, let alone actually cite.

Mmm hmmmmmmm.

[Least_Original_User_Name_Ever]

[QUOTE=xtisme]
You tell me. Why do YOU think Hezbollah started things then? Do you consider it justification?

The debate? Certainly its turning into such (been there for a while from my perspective)…simply because you STILL refuse to actually engage in the debate. And most of the folks on your side are exactly the same. You toss out raw statistics without context as if that proves something (but…but…BUT…Israel has killed more civilians than Hezbollah has! :eek: ). You make statements without backing any of it up…even with logic. You refuse to engage the points brought up by Finn or myself or any of the other people in the various threads…you just keep recycling the same bullshit over and over again. When your bullshit IS engaged, you move on to the next point and don’t engage on the points covered…until you figure enough time has gone by, or you are in a different thread. In which case, you bring the point up again, as if its fresh and new.

So yes…calling this thing a ‘debate’ is mislabelling it. Only one side seems to be even attempting to engage IN the debate thus far. And I’ll give you a clue here…it isn’t your’s (or you).

Can you say ‘strawman’? IOW, who exactly do you think is saying that this thing started 23 days ago, blah blah blah? Who was this meant to reply too…because I don’t see anyone saying this.

And what, by gods hairy balls, does Palestinian voting have to do with the situation in Lebanon? Are you seriously contending that if Israel gave Palestinian’s the vote (after anexing all of Palestine I suppose…why else would they let them vote?), this would some how magically fix things between Israel and Hezbollah? If so…well, why?

Can you say ‘strawman’ too? YOu are putting words into Weirddave’s mouth, assuming you know what his position is…based on one rough summary post of the history of the '48 conflict. I note also that you didn’t answer my own questions by engaging them, but instead answered with this strawman post of what you THINK is Wierdave’s position. Your strawman being more factually incorrect than Dave’s btw.
I think I’m winding down at this point folks. (listens for the cheers of joy that XT is finally going to shutup ). I know I promised some cites to DMC (one of the few on the other side to even attempt to engage the debate), but I’m not sure I’m up for continually beating my head against the wall here. We’ll see…

-XT
[/QUOTE]

Are you kidding me? I asked you and it’s somehow acceptable for you to say “go first”?

Bleh. Why would Hizbollah kidnap an Israeli or do such things? It’s a response to Israeli actions.

Saying there’s a debate doesn’t make it a debate. Saying that my position is wrong doesn’t simply make it go away.

Has Israel done anything wrong in this entire prolonged situation?

Is the UN trying to pass (and has been trying to pass) resolutions on Israeli actions because they simply aren’t happening or is it because the rest of the world has a different perspective, or is there another reason?

Additionally, I don’t get how saying that if Palestinians could vote in Israeli elections how that’d make things better.

[XT]

Not much more to really add to what Finn just said, but:

[QUOTE=pantom]
But like my posts on the alternative to what’s happening now, feel free to, you know, do a little research.
[/QUOTE]

That exploding sound was my trusty dusty irony meter. It pegged out around the second sentence of your post, and then went critical. I’m cleaning off the dust shards (and something that smells remarkably like bullshit) from my desk now as a result of your post.

Do you think that anyone but the faithful are buying that tripe you posted? Dude…its ALL HERE IN THE FUCKING THREAD! Its like you think that no one can, you know, scroll back and LOOK at whats been said. By you. By me. By Finn. By the others. It hasn’t all magically changed. Your strawman haven’t suddenly sprang to life from our previous posts. You haven’t, you know, actually ENGAGED in the debate…just posted bullshit. Even your bullshit hasn’t, you know, been ignored. In fact, though you’ve posted tripe, you have actually BEEN engaged with that tripe. Hell, even your follow up tripe has been engaged in the debate.

Anyway, its obvious that thing all is going no where.

-XT

[Least_Original_User_Name_Ever]

The first thing (actually, second. I think you said something about how killing people is bad) you’ve said that I agree with.

[FinnAgain]

[QUOTE=Least Original User Name Ever]

Bleh. Why would Hizbollah kidnap an Israeli or do such things? It’s a response to Israeli actions.
[/quote]

:rolleyes:
A response to which actions, in specific, on what dates, in specific?

Or, as you’ve done each and every time you’re challenged on factual grounds, change the subject.

[XT]

[QUOTE=Least Original User Name Ever]
Are you kidding me? I asked you and it’s somehow acceptable for you to say “go first”?
[/QUOTE]

Gee…here I thought this was Great DEBATES. I figured, well, asking you to actually engage in the debate was, I don’t know…like, something valid to do. I didn’t realize that it would be such a strain.

[QUOTE=Least Original User Name Ever]
Bleh. Why would Hizbollah kidnap an Israeli or do such things? It’s a response to Israeli actions.
[/QUOTE]

So, you’ve been putting in your two cents worth (ok, its over priced) for gods know how many posts now…and you don’t have a clue as to what has been going on? Why am I not surprised? :smack:
The rest of your post is…well, its classic. I can’t resist:

[QUOTE=Least Original User Name Ever]
Has Israel done anything wrong in this entire prolonged situation?
[/QUOTE]

This gets a WTF?, Doh! AND LMFAO…all in one!

[QUOTE=Least Original User Name Ever]
Is the UN trying to pass (and has been trying to pass) resolutions on Israeli actions because they simply aren’t happening or is it because the rest of the world has a different perspective, or is there another reason?
[/QUOTE]

(The REALLY funny thing is…you don’t know why this is so funny, do you?? I’m literally on the floor here)

[QUOTE=Least Original User Name Ever]
Additionally, I don’t get how saying that if Palestinians could vote in Israeli elections how that’d make things better.
[/QUOTE]

You know, had you actually read what I posted, included the part I quoted from (I belive) phantom there, you’d have realized something vital…it wasn’t MY strawman bullshit. It was someone else’s and I was asking pretty much the same question you are. Maybe you should take it up with him, ehe?

Anyway, thanks for the laughs. It was a hell of a rough week last week, and its bad already this week as well. I really needed a good laugh.

-XT

[Least_Original_User_Name_Ever]

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
:rolleyes:
A response to which actions, in specific, on what dates, in specific?

Or, as you’ve done each and every time you’re challenged on factual grounds, change the subject.
[/QUOTE]

Um. Squatting in Palestinian land to start the Israeli state? Creating settlements in Palestine?

Pick one.

[Weirddave]

[QUOTE=Least Original User Name Ever]
Um. Squatting in Palestinian land to start the Israeli state? Creating settlements in Palestine?

Pick one.
[/QUOTE]

You really, really need to read some basic history if you’re going to pretend to have any inkling of what you are talking about. Prior to 1948, the land belonged to the BRITISH, and it was theirs to dispose of as they saw fit, which they did by creating Israel. They were supposed to create Palestine too, which (warning: The following statement is conjecture on my part, because it never had a chance to happen) they probably would have done shortly thereafter except that the Arabs in the area completely wigged out at the outrageously provocative existence of Israel and attacked, putting paid to THAT idea.

Now I’m going to wait for Gozu to come in and tell me what I really think.

[XT]

[QUOTE=Least Original User Name Ever]
Um. Squatting in Palestinian land to start the Israeli state? Creating settlements in Palestine?
[/QUOTE]

:rolleyes: Here is a brief, quick and dirty Wiki history of Palestine. Its far from comprehensive, but it has most of the basic facts (at least from what I skimmed looking for it…I usually use another cite, but I can’t remember where I get it from now. I have it saved on my computer at home). Do yourself a favor…read through the Wiki cite carefully and learn something of the history before posting this kind of thing here.

I’ll just post a few highlights here (note: if you are going to toss out a cite, this is what you SHOULD do. Keep it in mind in the future, when you want to toss in cites of your own. As opposed to your standard…drop in link with no explaination and hope someone puzzles out your point):

Ottoman period

After the Ottoman conquest, the name disappeared as the official name of an administrative unit, as the Turks often called their (sub)provinces after the capital. Since its 1516 incorporation in the Ottoman Empire, it was part of the vilayet (province) of Damascus-Syria until 1660, next of the vilayet of Saida (seat in Lebanon), shortly interrupted by the 7 March 1799 - July 1799 French occupation of Jaffa, Haifa, and Caesarea. On 10 May 1832 it was one of the Turkish provinces annexed by Muhammad Ali’s shortly imperialistic, Egypt (remained nominally Ottoman), but in November 1840 direct Ottoman rule was restored.

Still the old name remained in popular and semi-official use. Many examples of its usage in the 16th and 17th centuries have survived.[1] During the 19th century, the “Ottoman Government employed the term Arz-i Filistin (the ‘Land of Palestine’) in official correspondence, meaning for all intents and purposes the area to the west of the River Jordan which became ‘Palestine’ under the British in 1922”. [2] Amongst the educated Arab public, Filastin was a common concept, referring either to the whole of Palestine or to the Jerusalem sanjaq alone.[3]

The Ottoman Sultan discouraged all large-scale immigration to Palestine, replying to a request by Rabbi Joseph Nantonek for permission to settle Jews in 1876 that “almost all lands in Palestine were occupied, and that the autonomy sought by Nantonek was incompatible with the administrative principles of the state” and decrees against mass settlement were issued by the Ottoman government in 1884, 1887 and 1888.[4] Significant numbers of Jews began making Aliyah to the Holy Land in 1882[5] to build collective farms and eventually established the new city of Tel Aviv in 1909.[6] However, during 1891-1900 the total number of Jews in Palestine was never more than 60,000 people out of a total population of 500,000, which demonstrated that “the Ottoman policy of allowing individuals to immigrate and to settle, but prohibiting large groups from doing the same, was successful”.[7] When Ottoman control came to an end, following World War I, the number of Jews in Palestine had declined to 55,000.[8]

The 19th and 20th centuries

In European usage up to World War I, “Palestine” was used informally for a region that extended in the north-south direction typically from Raphia (south-east of Gaza) to the Litani River (now in Lebanon). The western boundary was the sea, and the eastern boundary was the poorly-defined place where the Syrian desert began. In various European sources, the eastern boundary was placed anywhere from the Jordan River to slightly east of Amman. The Negev Desert was not included. [Biger]

Under the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916, it was envisioned that most of Palestine, when freed by Ottoman control, would become an international zone not under direct French or British colonial control. Shortly thereafter, British foreign minister Arthur Balfour issued the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which laid plans for a Jewish homeland to be established in Palestine eventually.

The British-led Egyptian Expeditionary Force, commanded by Edmund Allenby, captured Jerusalem on 9 December, 1917 and occupied the whole of the Levant following the defeat of Turkish forces in Palestine at the Battle of Megiddo in September 1918.[9]

British Mandate (1920-1948)

Formal use of the English word “Palestine” returned with the British Mandate. During this period, the name “Eretz Yisrael” (Hebrew: ארץ ישראל) was also part of the official name of the territory.

In April 1920 the Allied Supreme Council (the USA, Great Britain, France, Italy and Japan) met at Sanremo and formal decisions were taken on the allocation of mandate territories. The United Kingdom accepted a mandate for Palestine, but the boundaries of the mandate and the conditions under which it was to be held were not decided. The Zionist Organization’s representative at Sanremo, Chaim Weizmann, subsequently reported to his colleagues in London:

“There are still important details outstanding, such as the actual terms of the mandate and the question of the boundaries in Palestine. There is the delimitation of the boundary between French Syria and Palestine, which will constitute the northern frontier and the eastern line of demarcation, adjoining Arab Syria. The latter is not likely to be fixed until the Emir Feisal attends the Peace Conference, probably in Paris.”[10]

UN Partition

On 29 November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine (United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181), a plan to resolve the Arab-Jewish conflict by partitioning the territory into separate Jewish and Arab states, with the Greater Jerusalem area (encompassing Bethlehem) coming under international control. Jewish leaders (including the Jewish Agency), accepted the plan, while Palestinian Arab leaders rejected it. Neighboring Arab and Muslim states also rejected the partition plan. As armed skirmishes between Arab and Jewish paramilitary forces in Palestine continued, the British mandate ended on May 15, 1948, the establishment of the State of Israel having been proclaimed the day before (see Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel). The neighboring Arab states immediately attacked Israel following its declaration of independence, and the 1948 Arab-Israeli War ensued. Consequently, the partition plan was never implemented.

Following the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, the 1949 Armistice Agreements between Israel and neighboring Arab states eliminated Palestine as a distinct territory. It was divided between Israel, Egypt, Syria and Jordan.

In addition to the UN-partitioned area, Israel captured 26% of the Mandate territory west of the Jordan river. Jordan captured and annexed about 21% of the Mandate territory. Jerusalem was divided, with Jordan taking the eastern parts, including the old city, and Israel taking the western parts. The Gaza Strip was captured by Egypt.

For a description of the massive population movements, Arab and Jewish, at the time of the 1948 war and over the following decades, see Palestinian exodus and Jewish exodus from Arab lands.

From the 1960s onward, the term “Palestine” was regularly used in political contexts. Various declarations, such as the 1988 proclamation of a State of Palestine by the PLO referred to a country called Palestine, defining its borders with differing degrees of clarity, including the annexation of the whole of the State of Israel. Most recently, the Palestine draft constitution refers to borders based on the West Bank and Gaza Strip prior to the 1967 Six-Day War. This so-called Green Line follows the 1949 armistice line; the permanent borders are yet to be negotiated. Furthermore, since 1994, there has been a Palestinian Authority controlling varying portions of historic Palestine.

-XT

[Gozu]

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Hadn’t intended to jump back into this, but since my name was mentioned…
[/quote]

You are again making assumptions here. First off, that HRW ARE impartial observers. I have my doubts.

Then why don’t you go ahead and discredit them? They carry more weight than you I think.

Secondly, that they have PROOF that Israel has ‘indeed deliberately targetted civilians’. They CLAIM to have such proof, but in the response you chose to ignore from me on this I asked (and ask again)…show me the money! Lets see this proof. They can SAY anything they want…and it will still be a load of hot air until they come up with said proof.

Here is your proof: Propelled explosives shot within the vicinity of human beings can kill them. If you’re in a car with my nemesis and i decide to unload an Ak47 on the car to kill him and end up killing you as well, did I deliberately target you? Same goes with building full of people and a hizbollah gunman or a hizbollah cache of weapons.

You see, what they HAVE is anecdotal information from folks who were bombed (not exactly unbiased or even reliable sources), claiming that, nope…there was no Hezbollah in these parts. Israel just bombed us 'cause we are civilians.

Yes. And they must be liars. I’m sure Israel’s intel, aim and individual actions of soldiers are blessed with divine perfection. Couldn’t possibly screw up.

At least, thats all the ‘proof’ I’ve seen from HRW thus far on the subject. Now, if you want to dig up what they are contending is their proof and present it, then I can look it over and see if it shifts my position on this.

You want him to dig up bodies and show’em to you? Or maybe attach brain readers to the heads of the israeli soldiers and read their thoughts? How do you suppose one can give proof of such things? How do cops do it? Evidence and testimony. I’ll let you interpret them.

Lo
Again, you are making assumptions…namely that if Israel chose to do nothing and just take it up the ass without batting an eye or lifting a finger, that this would have somehow translated into good will and fellowship from their buddies the Lebanese. Again…I have my doubts. History does not seem to be on your side on this one, though I suppose there is a first for everything.

I believe this is called false dichotomy . Do try to avoid it in the future.

Here’s your big chance to actually engage the question. What SHOULD Israel have done?

Increased security at the border maybe? I dunno, seems logical to me.

What was the ‘correct’ response to the constant cross border raiding, most recently marked by the capture of these two soldiers?

Oh, I don’t know…defend themselves with all those state-of-the art weapons they got? Not go out alone in the dark?

How long should they have let things just go on?

Years and years. Decades. In fact, it would’ve taken hundreds of years of kidnapped soldiers to get to the body count we have now. Counter-productive I say. And it’s not like one day, nobody is going to be kidnapped or killed. Happens all the time, even here in the good old U.S of A. Do you see the U.S army bombing the projects to get back at drug dealers? It’s called m-e-a-s-u-r-e-d response.

Forever?

Nah. Conflict probably won’t last more than a century or two at the very most.

What should their response been to the buildup in recent years of Hezbollah’s paramilitary capabilities?

THIS! This was the perfect solution! I’m so glad everything is finally working out! Oh wait…

Nothing?

Probably would have been a lot better than this.

Uhuh. I can see that their long term security prospects were certainly on the rise from not doing anything before. Hell, their various neighbors were all just starting to trust and love Israel before they willfully attacked poor Lebanon and started laying the country to rest. Just the other day, before all this nasty Israeli aggression, Iran was saying how much they burn for Israel and wanted to give them a present.

Hatred for Israel before: ***********************************
Hatred for Israel after : ***********************************************

Draw your own conclusion.

I’m sure the constant raids on Israel were just the various peaceloving groups in the region being playful and showing Israel that they care…

Yes. Darn those constant raids. They made Israel a living hell. I would much rather live in southern Lebanon or the west bank. It’s all groovy over there. Seriously though, don’t blow things out of proportion. Why don’t you get us some numbers on those raids you speak of. Ya know, show us how many Israelis are killed at the lebanon border every year. And how many lebanese for good measure.

-XT
[/QUOTE]

[FinnAgain]

[QUOTE=Least Original User Name Ever]
Um. Squatting in Palestinian land to start the Israeli state? Creating settlements in Palestine?
[/quote]

Remind me again, where in Lebanon is Palestine?

And, damn, deja vu all over again. I already responded to this falsehood. You ignored it and instead of providing proof talked about that land was ‘in their minds’ taken away. I tried to get you to actually debate and/or provide proof for your claims. rather than the current behavior you changed the subject.

You are making stuff up. Stop it.

xtisme was absolutely right about what you do. You pretend to debate, but instead toss out false claims. When asked to provide proof, you evade, and change the subject. After a certain ammount of time has passed, you make the first false claims again. Lather, rinse, repeat.

And then you complain that there can’t be a debate. :smack:
There can’t be because you refuse to discuss topics that you bring up. People have tried to debate your claims with you, but you just drop them as soon as they’re contradicted and make new claims. Then drop those and move on to new ones, or earlier ones, not deigning to actually engage in the debate that’s been offered to counter your claims.

Freakin’ stop it.

[QUOTE=Least Original User Name Ever]

Pick one.
[/QUOTE]

How about neither, and you actually answer why Hezbollah would have a valid reason to attack Israel in response for Israeli actions?

Instead of, ya know, yet again ignoring that people are trying to engage you in debate while you change the subject? Instead of, yet again, refusing to substantiate your claims, in this case that Hezbollah was responding to Israel, and trying to change the subject to Palestine?

Or is this like **Gozu’s argument that if India wasn’t directly attacked, but objected to cows being killed, then they could violate the Nuremberg Principles and launch a war of aggression?

[istara]

[QUOTE=xtisme]

They are fighting Israel…of course they are going to be popular. Oh, thats right! :smack: I forgot that the Arab World™ had just recently started to love Israel and accept them as a neighbor! Before all this started of course…

-XT
[/QUOTE]

No - you’re missing the point. Hezbollah were already “fighting” Israel before this took place, but they weren’t universally popular. The point is that Israel’s actions against them have made them popular.

[Gozu]

[QUOTE=Weirddave]
You really, really need to read some basic history if you’re going to pretend to have any inkling of what you are talking about. Prior to 1948, the land belonged to the BRITISH, and it was theirs to dispose of as they saw fit, which they did by creating Israel.
[/quote]

Tell me. How did the land you aforemention come to be in the possession of the british? Didn’t they colonize it like they did India and Egypt among others? Did they own the land there too? Was it simply due to their immense generosity that they didn’t give large chunks of land to the amish or the hippies to create their own states? Please answer these questions.

They were supposed to create Palestine too.And they probably would have done shortly thereafter except that the Arabs in the area completely wigged out at the outrageously provocative existence of Israel and attacked, putting paid to THAT idea.

Yeah! Darn those pesky arabs! What were they doing there in the first place? Sheesh. Always in the way I tell ya.Shit, man. You’re right. Here is what I’m going to do. First, I’m gonna send my good friend Charles to kick your ass, then he’s gonna make you his bitch for a few months. Then I’m gonna come to your house and take over a couple of rooms, and a bathroom, and the kitchen. But don’tcha worry! Before Charles leaves, He probably will make an XTian state for you to live in the apartment. Just be cool and everything’s gonna be alright.

Now I’m going to wait for Gozu to come in and tell me what I really think.

It is my opinion that you think crooked or that you are a hypocrite.

[XT]

[QUOTE=Gozu]
Then why don’t you go ahead and discredit them? They carry more weight than you I think.
[/QUOTE]

You, um, want me to prove a negative? Its not up to me to disprove THEIR claim my friend…its up to THEM to prove their own claim. that you belive them with no proof speaks more towards your own bias in this than it does to anything else.

I’ve already given why I require said proof, as well as why I’m skeptical of their claims.

[QUOTE=Gozu]
Here is your proof: Propelled explosives shot within the vicinity of human beings can kill them. If you’re in a car with my nemesis and i decide to unload an Ak47 on the car to kill him and end up killing you as well, did I deliberately target you? Same goes with building full of people and a hizbollah gunman or a hizbollah cache of weapons.
[/QUOTE]

This proves what exactly?

[QUOTE=Gozu]
Yes. And they must be liars. I’m sure Israel’s intel, aim and individual actions of soldiers are blessed with divine perfection. Couldn’t possibly screw up.
[/QUOTE]

To repeat the above…this proves what exactly? How do these events relate?

(Here is a clue…if Israel screwed up and hit the wrong target, its not a war crime as defined by your precious HRW. See, they claim Israel is deliberately and indiscriminately targetting Lebanese civilians. Fuckup does not equal deliberate targetting…least not in this universe. So…which is it Gozu? Fuckup or war crime? What exactly are you argueing here my man?)

[QUOTE=Gozu]
You want him to dig up bodies and show’em to you? Or maybe attach brain readers to the heads of the israeli soldiers and read their thoughts? How do you suppose one can give proof of such things? How do cops do it? Evidence and testimony. I’ll let you interpret them.
[/QUOTE]

You don’t seem to be getting the point (though hats off that you are actually engaging the points I made…for a change). You see, HRW claims that Israel is committing war crimes, based on their own narrow definition of that. Digging up the bodies and showing them to me or anyone else is worthless…it proves nothing. You see, its about INTENT…not about raw statistics.

So…do you HAVE ‘evidence and testimony’ from Israeli soldiers or Israeli military/civilian officials stating that Israel is deliberately and indiscriminately firing on Lebanese civilians? If so, trot that shit out. If not…they you are again blowing smoke.

Hey, its not MY definition of war crimes being used here. And unfortunately for you, its rather easy to see the intent for anyone who has a clue about how the military actually works between what Hezbollah is doing wrt its rocket attacks vs what Israel is doing wrt its interdiction and logistics bombing efforts…if we put events into context.

[QUOTE=Gozu]
I believe this is called false dichotomy . Do try to avoid it in the future.
[/QUOTE]

Sure it is.

[QUOTE=Gozu]
Increased security at the border maybe? I dunno, seems logical to me.
[/QUOTE]

Thats it? Well, thats certainly a comprehensive answer there Gozo. I’m sure Israel NEVER thought to increase their border security, considering the history of suicide bombers slipping across the border, of cross border raids, etc. Naw…its too ‘logical’ for them to have every given it a whirl I’m sure.

This leaves aside how ‘increaded security at the border’ would help with things like rocket attacks…but I’m sure you will work that part in at somepoint.

[QUOTE=Gozu]
Oh, I don’t know…defend themselves with all those state-of-the art weapons they got? Not go out alone in the dark?
[/QUOTE]

Maybe the Easter Bunny will save them? Or, er, the Jewish equivelant I suppose.

[QUOTE=Gozu]
Years and years. Decades. In fact, it would’ve taken hundreds of years of kidnapped soldiers to get to the body count we have now. Counter-productive I say. And it’s not like one day, nobody is going to be kidnapped or killed. Happens all the time, even here in the good old U.S of A. Do you see the U.S army bombing the projects to get back at drug dealers? It’s called m-e-a-s-u-r-e-d response.
[/QUOTE]

Years and years, ehe? Decades? Hm…that seems about right. The situation HAS gone on about that long now. And of course, you are glossing over the fact (once again) about those suicide bombings, attacks on civilians and the odd rocket attack tossed into Israel. Years and years…decades worth.

BTW, another bad analogy on your part. How about we modify it somewhat. Lets say those drug dealers liked to slip across the border occationally to blow things up. Once in a while, just to be playful, they also toss a few rockets at our border towns. Then lets say they slip across and kidnap a few of our soldiers (who also happen to be, you know, citizens). This goes on for a few years.

What do you suppose the US’s ‘measured’ response would be in that case Gozu? How about France’s response? The UK’s? India? China? I don’t know…why don’t you pick ANY county in the world who would put up with that shit without a military response. I’m sure there are a few out there somewhere…

[QUOTE=Gozu]
Nah. Conflict probably won’t last more than a century or two at the very most.
[/QUOTE]

True enough. In addition, since Israel is a democracy, eventually the people are going to get pissed off at inaction and demand the government Do Something™…and if the current government is unwilling, then they will vote in some folks who will.

[QUOTE=Gozu]
THIS! This was the perfect solution! I’m so glad everything is finally working out! Oh wait…
[/QUOTE]

hehe…glad we are finally in agreement.

[QUOTE=Gozu]
Probably would have been a lot better than this.
[/QUOTE]

From Hezbollah’s/Lebanon’s perspective? Undoubtably true. From Israel’s though? :dubious: What do you base this on besides your own preconceptions both of how things are going and how things will turn out?

[QUOTE=Gozu]
Hatred for Israel before: ***********************************
Hatred for Israel after : ***********************************************

Draw your own conclusion.
[/QUOTE]

That no matter what Israel did or does, they aren’t going to win any friends in the region…unless they decide to roll over and let the Arabs walk all over them.

My conclusions from these series of threads are remarkably similar, interstingly enough.

[QUOTE=Gozu]
Yes. Darn those constant raids. They made Israel a living hell. I would much rather live in southern Lebanon or the west bank. It’s all groovy over there. Seriously though, don’t blow things out of proportion. Why don’t you get us some numbers on those raids you speak of. Ya know, show us how many Israelis are killed at the lebanon border every year. And how many lebanese for good measure.
[/QUOTE]

Naw…I’ll let you do it, since its your assertion that its no big deal.

-XT

[Gozu]

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Or is this like Gozu’s argument that if India wasn’t directly attacked, but objected to cows being killed, then they could violate the Nuremberg Principles and launch a war of aggression?
[/QUOTE]

My argument was not that they could but whether or not they would be morally justified in doing so. I don’t think the Nurememberg Principles had anything to do with it.

Just making sure we’re clear.

[XT]

[QUOTE=istara]
No - you’re missing the point. Hezbollah were already “fighting” Israel before this took place, but they weren’t universally popular. The point is that Israel’s actions against them have made them popular.
[/QUOTE]

No, I got the point…I was being sarcastic.

Hezbollah has been engaged in low level fighting with Israel for some time…and due to this continued fighting they were relatively popular, both in Lebanon and in the wider Middle East (especially with the Shia). They are now QUITE popular because they are fully engaged with Israel in what is to all intents and purposes a full scale war…both with the Shia (who they already enjoyed a measure of popularity) and even with Sunni groups (who they didn’t before) The point of course being…if you fight Israel you are going to gain in popularity with certain large blocks of people in the region. People pre-disposed to dislike or even hate Israel, reguardless of the actual situation.

Why do you think Israel should factor this in when responding to attacks? Do you think they should just allow these various groups to take pot shots at them, kidnap their soldiers, occationally send in some mope with explosives strapped to him/herself who walks into a bus station or cafe? What do you feel is a reasonable response for Israel…and one that won’t cause its neighbors to hate them more?

Finally, is it your contention that if Israel did nothing in response to these periodic attacks and abductions that they would gain in popularity with their neighbors? That somehow this would lessen their antipathy toward Israel, would lessen the attacks? If so…why?

-XT

[Gozu]

[QUOTE=xtisme]
You, um, want me to prove a negative? Its not up to me to disprove THEIR claim my friend…its up to THEM to prove their own claim. that you belive them with no proof speaks more towards your own bias in this than it does to anything else.

I’ve already given why I require said proof, as well as why I’m skeptical of their claims.
[/quote]

No, I wanted you to discredit them. Organizations and people are discredited all the time. if I say that Doctors without Borders are full of shit, I will have to explain why. I can then say: well look at their books, they take in 4 times as much money as they appear to be spending. And here is a Times article that exposes the ties of 3 members of the board with the New jersey mob. And so on and so forth.

(Here is a clue…if Israel screwed up and hit the wrong target, its not a war crime as defined by your precious HRW. See, they claim Israel is deliberately and indiscriminately targetting Lebanese civilians. Fuckup does not equal deliberate targetting…least not in this universe. So…which is it Gozu? Fuckup or war crime? What exactly are you argueing here my man?)

Should I shoot the car with you in it? You tell me, man.

You don’t seem to be getting the point (though hats off that you are actually engaging the points I made…for a change). You see, HRW claims that Israel is committing war crimes, based on their own narrow definition of that. Digging up the bodies and showing them to me or anyone else is worthless…it proves nothing. You see, its about INTENT…not about raw statistics.

So…do you HAVE ‘evidence and testimony’ from Israeli soldiers or Israeli military/civilian officials stating that Israel is deliberately and indiscriminately firing on Lebanese civilians? If so, trot that shit out. If not…they you are again blowing smoke.

I do not believe Israel is deliberately and indiscriminately firing on Lebanese civilians. I just believe they don’t give a shit if they kill them as long as they get their targets. Again, should I shoot the car? As far a screw ups, they happen as well and they only make things worse. That’s why they’re called screw ups I guess. If they made things better, they’d be called something else.

Hey, its not MY definition of war crimes being used here. And unfortunately for you, its rather easy to see the intent for anyone who has a clue about how the military actually works between what Hezbollah is doing wrt its rocket attacks vs what Israel is doing wrt its interdiction and logistics bombing efforts…if we put events into context.

I didn’t use the word warcrime. I don’t actually give a shit about whether something is called a warcrime or not. Already addressed the other half of your quote earlier.

Thats it? Well, thats certainly a comprehensive answer there Gozo. I’m sure Israel NEVER thought to increase their border security, considering the history of suicide bombers slipping across the border, of cross border raids, etc. Naw…its too ‘logical’ for them to have every given it a whirl I’m sure.

You asked for possible courses of actions. I gave you some. If you give me a six figure salary, a staff and flow me to Israel and let me study the situation. I ought to have more viable suggestions for you within a year or so.

This leaves aside how ‘increaded security at the border’ would help with things like rocket attacks…but I’m sure you will work that part in at somepoint.

Give me hard numbers on the damage these rocket attacks do and the amount of casualties per year. Then we’ll talk about how dire the situation is.

Maybe the Easter Bunny will save them? Or, er, the Jewish equivelant I suppose.

Everybody dies.

[quote]
Years and years, ehe? Decades? Hm…that seems about right. The situation HAS gone on about that long now. And of course, you are glossing over the fact (once again) about those suicide bombings, attacks on civilians and the odd rocket attack tossed into Israel. Years and years…decades worth.

BTW, another bad analogy on your part. How about we modify it somewhat. Lets say those drug dealers liked to slip across the border occationally to blow things up. Once in a while, just to be playful, they also toss a few rockets at our border towns. Then lets say they slip across and kidnap a few of our soldiers (who also happen to be, you know, citizens). This goes on for a few years.

Wow! Those are some evil dealers. I wonder why they’re doing all of this. Care to enlighten me?

What do you suppose the US’s ‘measured’ response would be in that case Gozu? How about France’s response? The UK’s? India? China? I don’t know…why don’t you pick ANY county in the world who would put up with that shit without a military response. I’m sure there are a few out there somewhere…

Yeah, they should TOTALLY invade mexico and bomb the shit out of Tijuana. It’s not like anyone is gonna miss a few hundred mexicans. Heck, i got 200 right here in my neighborhood. *

True enough. In addition, since Israel is a democracy, eventually the people are going to get pissed off at inaction and demand the government Do Something™…and if the current government is unwilling, then they will vote in some folks who will.

I guess that’s also why Hamas and Hizbollah exist. Because people wanted something to be done. Human nature is the same everywhere.

From Hezbollah’s/Lebanon’s perspective? Undoubtably true. From Israel’s though? :dubious: What do you base this on besides your own preconceptions both of how things are going and how things will turn out?

Well, a hundred Israelis are dead now. I’m sure things would’ve been better for them if this invasion hadn’t taken place. I’m sure their families also think like me.

Preconceptions of how things are going? What preconceptions? I just heard about the hundreds of dead and the billions in damages to lebanon.All from the american press. If they’re lying to me, you let me know. Also, what preconceptions? How does the word even apply here? Moving on…

preconceptions of how things will turn out. Ok, now that makes sense. From what I have witnessed, hizbollah is now more popular than ever thanks to the israeli invasion. Won’t that mean more young men will join their ranks? Won’t it mean that more rich saudis will give them money to buy weapons? Won’t it mean that Israel will gain some more antipathy from the rest of the arab world? Doesn’t all this mean that the current events suck for everybody concerned? (except maybe hizbollah and the israeli politicians who will gain political capital for this)

That no matter what Israel did or does, they aren’t going to win any friends in the region…unless they decide to roll over and let the Arabs walk all over them.

The arab animosity is not groundless as you make it sound. And once again, this is a false dichotomy. There is plenty of middleground between rolling over and invading a country.

My conclusions from these series of threads are remarkably similar, interstingly enough.

Probably true.

Naw…I’ll let you do it, since its your assertion that its no big deal.

HA! It was YOUR assertion that they WERE a big deal. Don’t you try to weasel your way out of it! I only demanded you provided a valid cite for YOUR claims.

[FinnAgain]

[QUOTE=Gozu]
My argument was not that they could but whether or not they would be morally justified in doing so. I don’t think the Nurememberg Principles had anything to do with it.

[/QUOTE]

The NP’s have everything to do with it. Violation of one’s religion, association with other races or cultures, etc… is not justification for launching a war of aggression.

As for HRW, just look at their rush to judgment in Jenin, in Quana, in the blast that killed serveral Palestinians on a beach recently. Look at the fact that their own report discredits itself, as it is based on nothing other than non-expert testimony, that it deliberately states that it won’t even consider the difficulties in precise targeting that Hezbollah has caused.

What else needs be said?

And by the way, will you please stop repeating this falsehood that Britain went in and took land that the Palestinians owned away from them? I’m reasonably certain that you’re no longer speaking for other people’s incorrect views, so please stop repeating them.

It’s not equal to someone coming into your house, beating you up, and stealing some of your land.

It’s equivelant to someone buying public land, you (or the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem) launching a series of pogroms, the current owner of the land having the public land partitioned along ethnic majority lines, getting to keep living on the land and become a citizen of the partition area you are part of, but then rejecting the partition, wanting all of the land which did not belong to you in the first place, and launching a war whose stated goal was genocide.

[FinnAgain]

[QUOTE=Gozu]

Wow! Those are some evil dealers. I wonder why they’re doing all of this. Care to enlighten me?
[/quote]

“So, the Klan kept lynching ‘uppity’ blacks. I wonder why they were doing all of that. Care to enlighten me?”

Why is it every time some genocidal faction tries to take out a bunch of Jews, we are asked what they did to deserve it? :dubious:

[QUOTE=Gozu]

Yeah, they should TOTALLY invade mexico and bomb the shit out of Tijuana.
[/quote]

Either that or hit the targets and logistical supply routes that are of military value.
I have no idea why these discussions always have this canard about the ‘value of life’. A sovereign state, especially a democratic one, is tasked with the protection of its citizens. That is its first priority and, for the most part, the only valid role of governments; the protection of life and property of their citizens.

[QUOTE=Gozu]
Won’t it mean that more rich saudis will give them money to buy weapons?
[/quote]

Probably not, because Iran is one of the major supporters of that proxy force and the Saudis do not want Iran to be the prime power of the region.

[QUOTE=Gozu]

Won’t it mean that Israel will gain some more antipathy from the rest of the arab world?
[/quote]

Israel existing is all the excuse that most of its enemies need, based on, among other things, the very falsehoods you keep repeating about ‘stolen’ land that the Palestinians ‘owned’ in '48. That and blatant racism and stated genocidal goals.

What, do you think, would happen if Israel announced that its goals included the murder of every Muslim on earth?
Why, then, is there a virtual null-reaction to Israel’s enemies saying that their goals include the murder of every Jew on earth?

I would ask, how much good will did Israel’s offer of returning its 1967 gains earn? Was it not responded to with the Three Noes?

What good will did Israel gain from recently dismantling settlements? From pulling out of Gaza? Lebanon?

Racism is inherently irrational. Blacks could not sit down over tea and ask the Klan, politely, if they’d please stop killing them. Israel has tried, again and again and again, to negotiate for peace. Egypt and Jordan agreed to it. How many times has Israel had to fight with them, recently?

Other nations responded to Israel’s pleas for peace with renewed calls for genocide. How many times has Israel had to fight with them, recently?

[QUOTE=Gozu]

The arab animosity is not groundless as you make it sound.
[/quote]

No, much of it is firmly based in genocidal racism and deliberate lies about the founding of Israel.

[QUOTE=Gozu]

And once again, this is a false dichotomy. There is plenty of middleground between rolling over and invading a country.
[/quote]

No, not in this case. Anything less than protecting its citizens from attack is rolling over. A country that respond to being attacked, unprovoked, by giving things up only signifies weakness and suggests a future course of action for any wackjob with a grudge. A country that does absolutely nothing to stop military attacks shows that they are impotent, and encourages more attacks.

Or would you have advised Lebanon to give up territory that Israel had no legitimate claim to if Israel just started, unprovoked, randomly bombing Lebanese cities? Would you have advised Lebanon to simply sit there and allow itself to be attacked?

And please don’t complain when you make suggestions that simply have no chance of working. No, guarding the border does nothing to stop rockets sailing over it. And no, they don’t have to be the most lethal weapon possible to still constitute a deliberate attack upon a country, and especially upon the country’s civilian populace.

Israel has tried just guarding its border, it was met with cries of an “apartheid wall”. Israel has tried negotiating, again and again, they have been met with calls for genocide. Israel has unilaterally given up territory, that territory became a base for military forces to attack Israel from.

It’s quite easy to say “This isn’t the best course of action.”
But I’ve not seen one person, not one single person who said that, who could come up with a better one.

This is a situation where Israel has to choose the least-bad option. There are no good ones, and certainly no perfect ones. Should the occupation of the territories end as soon as possible? Yes. Should Palestine be a full state with viable economic and agricultural abilities? Yes. But tell me how Israel can do that when it can’t find any partners willing to negotiate for peace?

Every nation on earth has a right to self defense. All Israel wants is to live in peace. If Lebanon and Hezbollah agreed to that, if Hezbollah laid down their arms, there would be peace tomorrow. If every Arab country did, there would be peace tomorrow. There would be peace and prosperity tomorrow if the agressors simply agreed to peace, as Israel has been requesting, pleading, and negotiating for for deacades. Recognize Israel, agree to peace treaties, stop unprovoked attacks, renounce terrorism, crack down on terrorists and certainly don’t fund and equip them. And there would be peace tomorrow.

What would happen tomorrow if Israel laid down its arms?

[FRDE]

Gozu

There are a few things that need pointing out.

Eire, or Southern Ireland, was nervous of the IRA

• while the IRA were concerned with getting a united Ireland, they had a political agenda that does not fit well with democracy.
• now the IRA is little more than a criminal organization making money from protection rackets, bank robbery and drug dealing

While some foolish people in Eire supported the IRA, the IRA were a lot more of a threat to Eire than anywhere else.

The British did /not/ set up Israel, it was actually the USA that swung the UN vote.

The British inherited the area from the Turks, who happened to be on the wrong side in WWI.

I once read that about 1900 the population of ‘Palestine’ was about 100,000
As others have posted, the migration had started well before the British were on the scene.

Until 1948 the Jews /bought/ the land from the land owners, this annoyed the Felahin who were tenant farmers. There was steady friction.

It is likely that a British officer called Orde Wingate trained up young Jews in his speciality, guerilla warfare. He was recalled from the area.

The Jewish guerillas (Irgun, Hagannah) targeted the British, remember the explosion in the King David Hotel ? Also they hung British soldiers, something they are not very proud of.

There was a problem at the end of WWII, one heck of a lot of displaced Jews wanted to get to ‘Palestine’, the British tried to prevent them, the novel Exodus by Leon Uris gives a feel for what was going on.

Incidentally, a relative of mine was a British Officer who was killed out there. A load of Jews were working themselves up into a tantrum on one end of a bridge, he went over to talk to them, they stoned him. Not very civilized.

Before 1967, the West Bank was under Jordanian control, the Ghaza Strip was under Egyptian administration. It is interesting that neither state wants to regain their lost territory.

You are quite right that demographics is at the root of Israel’s problems, they and the Palestinians have been conducting a breeding race. If the WB and G palestinians got Israeli citizenship then they would ‘democratically’ control the government.

It took Israel quite a long time to wake up to the fact that ‘occupying’ other people is not really acceptable nowadays, the trouble is that the WB and G are full of the less desirable ‘Palestinians’ - the smart ones have got out and are doing very well in the Middle East, USA etc.

You probably don’t know, but it is common knowledge that the British Foreign Office, is and long has been, sympathetic to Arabs in general. Probably this dates back to recruitment of people who studied Arabic and Arab culture at Oxford and Cambridge.

You may be surprized, but I was told around 1975, by a very well informed USA guy, that the USA solution for the Middle East was to set up a triangle consisting of Egypt, Israel and Iran. Israel to supply the technology, Egypt the manpower and Iran the money.

Egypt did a deal with the USA, unfortunately Iran, which was developing nicely, suddenly reverted to a medieval state. Iranian students and the growing middle class started objecting to the Shah, like Russia in 1917, the Revolution was hijacked by ruthless hardliners who got the backing of peasants.

It is very likely that some of this is behind Iran’s loathing of both the USA and Israel.

The big problem in the Middle East (certainly Saudi, Syria, Egypt and ‘palestine’) is that the population is seriously skewed towards young males who don’t have much to keep them occupied. Young males are easily radicalized. The first three of the above have governments that are extremely nervous of their own populations.

We in the West tend to get fed a biased form of history, and I suspect that Middle Eastern history is equally inaccurate.

There is another point, one heck of a lot of Israelis are Middle Eastern Jews, they sort of ‘belong’ in the area. I’m not entirely sure, but I think that the large majority of Israelis were born there, and their parents were born there.