Middle East conflict

[facthunter]

 Your support seems very  strong as you have presented it. Nothing I write is REGARDLESS of the FACTS Many Jews feel as I do. Netanyahu cannot  be permitted to see every criticism Of his actions to Be invalid or antisemitic, He goes after His OWN People viciously in Israel who do this. When HE did this to People HERE it was crossing the red Line for ME. Jerry I can't see Any Point in You and Me continuing this conversation IF you consider I have No idea what I'm talking about and Haven't researched the subject. Netanyahu and HIS ultra  right supporters are very Much a concern of Mine. THEY are NOT NICE People. Nev

[Jerry_Atrick]

Can you please point to anywhere I I state you write something regardless of the facts? 

 

For the record, this is what I wrote:

 

1 hour ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

What I do is push back on is what I perceive to be abject attribution of blame and crticism if Israel, regardless of the facts. 

 

In the context of the post, it was a general statement asd to what is the motivation behind my point of view and posts.. i.e. it is not a whole hearted non-critical support of Netanyahu, which is what you perceive my position to be. 

 

Again, can you please read the posts and not put words into my mouth (or keyboard).

 

I am a strong supported on Israel's right to exist and live in peace. I am also a strong supporter of a Palestinian state where Palestinians can live in peace as well. I am not a supporter of a Palestinian state founded and ruled through terror.  

 

Notice, I don;t use the word Netanyahu in any of that.

 

I don't subscribe to the notion that it is Israel that is denying that to the Palestinians (unless of course, people think that Palestine should be all of what is now Israel, Gaza and the West Bank). I agree that a Palestinian state at the moment - when it is ruled by terrorists is not the right time, unuil a more peaceful and pragmatic leadership and government (on a sustained basis) is installed. If Israel now never want a peaceful Palestinian state, then I would obviously be very critical of Israel.. I am sure there are people, and organisations in Israel that do not want to ever see a Palestinian nation, but that does not mean Israel and the vast majority of Israelis don't want to. 

 

42 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Many Jews feel as I do. Netanyahu cannot  be permitted to see every criticism Of his actions to Be invalid or antisemitic,

I think I understand what you mean here (I know typing isn't easy for you - I can't talk - my typos are far worse), so pls forgive me as I take ot to mean many jews agree that Netanyau should be criticised.  I also agree.. But many Arabs also support the Israeli action and that of Netanyahu as well. You don't see it reported much, but looking around the internet, it is not hard to find such support. In fact, the son of a Hamas founder, is very vocal of his support.. And I would suggest he knows more about Hamas than most Jews outside of Israel. But there are many more as well. Interestingly, both the Iranian and Iraqi who work for me (the latter being a Muslim) have similar views to me on this war. 

 

My support may seem strong, but that is because there are far more people that see the headlines and the horror and automatically attrinute it wholly to Israel - just look at the protests against Israel when they were dragged into the war - some even before a shot was fired. And look at the protests when the IRGC killed almost as many in a few weeks as Israel did in a year. Oh - what protests? No Jews, no news. Also, on here, allegations of Israel that are not substantiated, and when I challenge them with facts, they are never responded to. For the record, I am not referring to you, Nev. 

 

So you can tell me a lot of the vitriol, ahem, criticism against Israel is not driven by anti-semestism, but you will have to permit me to have drawn a different conclusion. Not all of the criticism is anti-semetic, and I would suggest not the majority on this forum. But I am referring to outside the forum on a lot of occasions as well. 

 

Oh, and for the record, you will find me pushing back on Islamophobia and other forms of discrimination. And in pushing an agenda with only part of the facts (again, I am not asserting yourself, specifically). 

 

And I am sure I, too, submit to confirmation bias.. But at least I will admit it (usually). @Marty_d - I started tooking into the issue wiuth Journalists.. Ironically, finding objective resources seems difficult, but I will get back to it. Again, if II was deficient in the facts I had, I will happily admit I was wrong. No one is perfect, not even me! 🙂

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 22 hours ago by Jerry_Atrick

[old man emu]

I think that we could agree that your average Achmed and Fatima only want to live in peace, with its attendant safety. No doubt Abraham and Ruth feel the same. The problem is that both sides are dictated to by war lords and their thugs against whom our average Arab and Jew are powerless. There may be some hope of change in the fact that elections are due in Israel later this year. That is if Netanyahu doesn't postpone them due to the 'emergency situation'.

 

About the word "thug"

thug(n.): 1810, "member of a gang of murderers and robbers in India who strangled their victims,"

The thugs roamed about the country in bands of from 10 to 100, usually in the disguise of peddlers or pilgrims, gaining the confidence of other travelers, whom they strangled, when a favorable opportunity presented itself, with a handkerchief, an unwound turban, or a noosed cord. The shedding of blood was seldom resorted to. The motive of the thugs was not so much lust of plunder as a certain religious fanaticism. 

 

thuggery(n.) 1839, "system of ritual killing as practiced by the thugs,"  Also thugee, from the native Hindi form of the name for the system of religious assassination.

[facthunter]

Yes, Dog works  in Mysterious ways we are told. Nev

[facthunter]

Personally, I reckon he's gone somewhere else. Nev

[red750]

𝐓𝐑𝐔𝐌𝐏 𝐃𝐈𝐃𝐍’𝐓 𝐃𝐄𝐋𝐀𝐘 𝐎𝐏𝐄𝐍𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐒𝐓𝐑𝐀𝐈𝐓 𝐎𝐅 𝐇𝐎𝐑𝐌𝐔𝐙 𝐁𝐘 𝐀𝐂𝐂𝐈𝐃𝐄𝐍𝐓 — 𝐇𝐄 𝐃𝐄𝐋𝐀𝐘𝐄𝐃 𝐈𝐓 𝐎𝐍 𝐏𝐔𝐑𝐏𝐎𝐒𝐄
James E. Thorne (@DrJStrategy) published a piece on X that has racked up 𝟐 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰𝐬 in hours, and it deserves every one of them — because it explains the single most misunderstood element of Trump’s Iran strategy.

The conventional criticism is that Trump is too slow to reopen Hormuz. The reality, Thorne argues, is that the delay 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐠𝐲. Trump is deliberately withholding the American security guarantee at the moment of maximum stress — not because he can’t clear the Strait, but because doing so too quickly would let Europe go back to sleep.

For decades, Western allies built their economies and green energy mandates on a silent assumption: 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐚𝐥𝐰𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐨𝐟𝐟 𝐇𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐮𝐳. They ran down their militaries, underfunded NATO — the U.S. carries 𝟔𝟐% 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐛𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐍𝐀𝐓𝐎 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐞 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 — and lectured Washington about multilateralism from the comfort of a security blanket they never paid for.

Then Trump pulled the blanket. On March 15, he told the world that countries receiving oil through Hormuz should “take care of that passage” themselves. The initial response was exactly what Thorne’s thesis predicts: EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas declared “𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘌𝘜 𝘵𝘰 𝘫𝘰𝘪𝘯 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱’𝘴 𝘏𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘶𝘻 𝘤𝘰𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯” and added “𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘌𝘶𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘦’𝘴 𝘸𝘢𝘳.” Japan, Australia, South Korea, and the UK all initially rejected the call.

Then the pain arrived. Oil surged from $𝟕𝟎 𝐭𝐨 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 $𝟏𝟎𝟎 𝐚 𝐛𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐥. Tanker traffic through the Strait dropped 𝟕𝟎%. Over 𝟏𝟓𝟎 𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩𝐬 anchored outside waiting for safe passage. European energy prices spiked. The “not our war” posture became economically untenable.

Two weeks later — on April 2 — 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝟒𝟎 𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 launched a coalition to secure the Strait. The UK hosted the inaugural meeting. Europe didn’t just join — they’re now scrambling to lead, with British Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper chairing the talks. The very nations that said it wasn’t their problem are now volunteering ships.

Thorne frames it in Hegelian terms: Trump “𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘯 𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘺 𝘴𝘺𝘯𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘰 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘭𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘦.” The contradiction being that Europe’s energy systems, industrial bases, and geopolitical sermons 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐧 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐝-𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐟𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐧𝐞𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐫 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐭.

The prize isn’t just reopening a chokepoint. It’s a reordered system where access to secure oil flows is 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐨𝐧 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 — not assumed as a right. A world where the United States sits at the center of the hydrocarbon chessboard.

𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐬𝐚𝐢𝐝 𝐢𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬𝐧’𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐰𝐚𝐫. 𝐓𝐰𝐨 𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐤𝐬 𝐨𝐟 $𝟏𝟎𝟎 𝐨𝐢𝐥 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐝.

[facthunter]

Just WHY would you take a lot of notice of THAT theory .Trump has NO idea of what he is doing and is well out of his depth. Nev

[Marty_d]

1 hour ago, red750 said:

𝐓𝐑𝐔𝐌𝐏 𝐃𝐈𝐃𝐍’𝐓 𝐃𝐄𝐋𝐀𝐘 𝐎𝐏𝐄𝐍𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐒𝐓𝐑𝐀𝐈𝐓 𝐎𝐅 𝐇𝐎𝐑𝐌𝐔𝐙 𝐁𝐘 𝐀𝐂𝐂𝐈𝐃𝐄𝐍𝐓 — 𝐇𝐄 𝐃𝐄𝐋𝐀𝐘𝐄𝐃 𝐈𝐓 𝐎𝐍 𝐏𝐔𝐑𝐏𝐎𝐒𝐄
James E. Thorne (@DrJStrategy) published a piece on X that has racked up 𝟐 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰𝐬 in hours, and it deserves every one of them — because it explains the single most misunderstood element of Trump’s Iran strategy.

The conventional criticism is that Trump is too slow to reopen Hormuz. The reality, Thorne argues, is that the delay 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐠𝐲. Trump is deliberately withholding the American security guarantee at the moment of maximum stress — not because he can’t clear the Strait, but because doing so too quickly would let Europe go back to sleep.

For decades, Western allies built their economies and green energy mandates on a silent assumption: 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐚𝐥𝐰𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐨𝐟𝐟 𝐇𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐮𝐳. They ran down their militaries, underfunded NATO — the U.S. carries 𝟔𝟐% 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐛𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐍𝐀𝐓𝐎 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐞 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 — and lectured Washington about multilateralism from the comfort of a security blanket they never paid for.

Then Trump pulled the blanket. On March 15, he told the world that countries receiving oil through Hormuz should “take care of that passage” themselves. The initial response was exactly what Thorne’s thesis predicts: EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas declared “𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘌𝘜 𝘵𝘰 𝘫𝘰𝘪𝘯 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱’𝘴 𝘏𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘶𝘻 𝘤𝘰𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯” and added “𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘌𝘶𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘦’𝘴 𝘸𝘢𝘳.” Japan, Australia, South Korea, and the UK all initially rejected the call.

Then the pain arrived. Oil surged from $𝟕𝟎 𝐭𝐨 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 $𝟏𝟎𝟎 𝐚 𝐛𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐥. Tanker traffic through the Strait dropped 𝟕𝟎%. Over 𝟏𝟓𝟎 𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩𝐬 anchored outside waiting for safe passage. European energy prices spiked. The “not our war” posture became economically untenable.

Two weeks later — on April 2 — 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝟒𝟎 𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 launched a coalition to secure the Strait. The UK hosted the inaugural meeting. Europe didn’t just join — they’re now scrambling to lead, with British Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper chairing the talks. The very nations that said it wasn’t their problem are now volunteering ships.

Thorne frames it in Hegelian terms: Trump “𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘯 𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘺 𝘴𝘺𝘯𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘰 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘭𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘦.” The contradiction being that Europe’s energy systems, industrial bases, and geopolitical sermons 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐧 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐝-𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐟𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐧𝐞𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐫 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐭.

The prize isn’t just reopening a chokepoint. It’s a reordered system where access to secure oil flows is 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐨𝐧 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 — not assumed as a right. A world where the United States sits at the center of the hydrocarbon chessboard.

𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐬𝐚𝐢𝐝 𝐢𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬𝐧’𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐰𝐚𝐫. 𝐓𝐰𝐨 𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐤𝐬 𝐨𝐟 $𝟏𝟎𝟎 𝐨𝐢𝐥 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐝.

Absolute shite. Trump couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery.