Israel

[Pods 7637]

@hpslugga The vast majority of the screed you just posted has absolutely nothing to do with the post you were quoting. Here it what you were quoting and said every word of was false again. Every word is factual, with one speculative opinion. 

No. Massing troops on your enemies border throughout history has always been a valid casus belli and a good way to get your ass kicked if you are unprepared for the war you are starting. It doesn't matter if you're immediately going to attack or not. You are signaling intent and preparation. TRUE STATEMENTS

Also, keep in mind that the consequences for being wrong and the Egyptians actually attacking are genocide if they win. TRUE STATEMENT

You are ignoring that they had also blockaded Israel from accessing the Red Sea, which is another valid historical casus belli. TRUE STATEMENTS

All of that also only covers Egypt. The other Arab countries chose to attack Israel, including Jordan, who owned Jerusalem and the West Bank. They lost those in response and they are mostly the territories we are talking about. TRUE STATEMENTS

I'm sympathetic to the Palestinian plight, but a huge percent of their situation is being fucked by other Arabs. TRUE STATEMENT 

If the Arabs had won the Six Days War, do you really think there would be an independent Palestine? They'd have carved it up and eaten the pieces. OPINION

 

[hpslugga 4097]

3 minutes ago, Pods said:

@hpslugga The vast majority of the screed you just posted has absolutely nothing to do with the post you were quoting. Here it what you were quoting and said every word of was false again. Every word is factual, with one speculative opinion. 

 

 

You didn't even bother to read it. I literally went through every claim that you made, which you very humbly labeled "TRUE STATEMENT."

Edited May 24, 2018 by hpslugga

[Pods 7637]

You didn't even bother to respond to anything in the actual post you were quoting. 

Edited May 24, 2018 by Pods

[hpslugga 4097]

You'd know that to be incorrect if you read it.

[Pods 7637]

2 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

You'd know that to be incorrect if you read it.

I did read it. Nothing I posted in the post is incorrect. 

[hpslugga 4097]

4 minutes ago, Pods said:

I did read it.

If you did, you would have checked up on the evidence I presented instead of instantaneously dismissing it out of sheer refusal to believe anything else than what you already want to believe.

Edited May 24, 2018 by hpslugga

[Pods 7637]

1 minute ago, hpslugga said:

If you did, you would have checked up on the evidence I presented instead of instantaneously dismissing it out of sheer refusal to believe anything else than what you already want to believe.

It didn't address a single point on this list. You quibbled about whether the Egyptians were actually going to invade and whether that's a valid casus belli. Historically, it is. It doesn't matter what Egypt intended, there's plenty of room for Israel to interpret that as an act of war and they did. You are probably right that the Egyptians weren't ready to invade and were bluffing, but that's irrelevant. Don't start no shit, won't be no shit. 

No. Massing troops on your enemies border throughout history has always been a valid casus belli and a good way to get your ass kicked if you are unprepared for the war you are starting. It doesn't matter if you're immediately going to attack or not. You are signaling intent and preparation.

 TRUE STATEMENTS

Also, keep in mind that the consequences for being wrong and the Egyptians actually attacking are genocide if they win. TRUE STATEMENT

You are ignoring that they had also blockaded Israel from accessing the Red Sea, which is another valid historical casus belli. TRUE STATEMENTS

All of that also only covers Egypt. The other Arab countries chose to attack Israel, including Jordan, who owned Jerusalem and the West Bank. They lost those in response and they are mostly the territories we are talking about. TRUE STATEMENTS

I'm sympathetic to the Palestinian plight, but a huge percent of their situation is being fucked by other Arabs. TRUE STATEMENT 

 If the Arabs had won the Six Days War, do you really think there would be an independent Palestine? They'd have carved it up and eaten the pieces. OPINION

[hpslugga 4097]

I specifically quoted you on the two germane points, namely the "closing" of the Straits of Tiran and the troop concentration in the Sinai. I also referred to the rest of it, but just didn't quote it.

Look, I know when a person is lying. That post of mine takes up 6.25 pages on a Word Doc with a 12-point font. There's no way you could have read all of that and checked even a portion of the source material in less than 15 minutes...unless you already had a response prepared before you even read it. 

"You are ignoring that they had also blockaded Israel from accessing the Red Sea, which is another valid historical casus belli." Quoted and addressed
"Also, keep in mind that the consequences for being wrong and the Egyptians actually attacking are genocide if they win." Addressed but not quoted.
"No. Massing troops on your enemies border throughout history has always been a valid casus belli and a good way to get your ass kicked if you are unprepared for the war you are starting. It doesn't matter if you're immediately going to attack or not. You are signaling intent and preparation." Quoted and addressed

The fact that you didn't read it does not mitigate the fact that those points were specifically addressed. 

Edited May 24, 2018 by hpslugga

[Pods 7637]

13 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

I specifically quoted you on the two germane points, namely the "closing" of the Straits of Tiran and the troop concentration in the Sinai. I also referred to the rest of it, but just didn't quote it.

Look, I know when a person is lying. That post of mine takes up 6.25 pages on a Word Doc with a 12-point font. There's no way you could have read all of that and checked even a portion of the source material in less than 15 minutes.

I saw both of those. You are quibbling and trying to justify acts of war. It doesn't matter whether you intend to invade, you mass troops on someone's border without their consent and it's been treated as an act of war since armies existed. Israel may well have jumped on an excuse, but it doesn't change that Egypt committed an act of war.

If you block someone's port access, it's an act of war. I don't give a shit why Egypt did it, just as I wouldn't give a shit why if they Iranians blocked the Straits of Hormuz. You institute a blockade, it's an act of war.  

I have a history minor and love world history. I don't need to chase down your sources looking for a justification for why two historical acts of war should not be taken as facts of war. At any point in history, if a belligerent country had acted like Egypt to their neighbor, they have given valid casus belli. World history is literally filled with wars fought over far less.  

These are facts. Both of these events are historically considered acts of war. It is your opinion that they should not be treated the same way they would historically, because the Egyptians didn't really mean it and had their fingers crossed. It's a ludicrous position that is guided purely by your obvious emotional connection to the issue. 

The rest of my post, you didn't address. You even admit you pasted 6.5 pages of a Word document rather than address the specifics of my post. 

I freely admit I didn't spend any time at all reading the links you posted to try to justify acts of war. You're clearly emotionally connected to the issue and that overrides your consideration of basic historical facts, so I'm going to step aside from engaging with you further on it. 

Edited May 24, 2018 by Pods

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

 

Look, I know when a person is lying. That post of mine takes up 6.25 pages on a Word Doc with a 12-point font. There's no way you could have read all of that and checked even a portion of the source material in less than 15 minutes...unless you already had a response prepared before you even read it. 

Lol I’m dead

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Again, Jordan attacked Israel in 1967.  Israel took the West Bank from them after beating them in a war they started.

[David Dennison 19542]

1 hour ago, Johnny Sack said:

Again, Jordan attacked Israel in 1967.  Israel took the West Bank from them after beating them in a war they started.

Then take it. Make it part of Israel. Same with Gaza.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

5 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Then take it. Make it part of Israel. Same with Gaza.

That's already happening with the parts that it wants.   But Israel doesn't want Gaza.   So it'll be there waiting for the Palestinians, along with what's left of the West Bank, whenever they finally accept their situation. 

[JBJ 3827]

Closing Tiran was definitely the tipping point.  While not an official cassus belli, you have to ignore Suez and the preceding decade to think that closing the strait would not be met with force. 

The argument that Tiran was an existential threat to Israel is false.  The one lung analogy is equally false.  It is important to the Negev and Eilat, though.  Imagine a closure of the Port of Miami.  We do way more business through Mobile, New Orleans, and Galveston, but it sure is important to Florida.

I don't think war was the goal for Egypt. The role of false intelligence from the USSR/Syria to Egypt can't be ignored, nor can we ignore Nasser wanting to make a showing of a strong Egypt.  Nasser wanted to show that he was willing to stand up to the UN and Israel, but the last thing Egypt wanted was armed conflict.  Hence the withdrawal of UN peacekeepers, the "closing" of the strait, and the defense treaty with Jordan.  These projected the image of a strong independent Egypt, which Nasser thought was important to maintain power. 

Syria and Jordan both played a dumb hand.  They didn't realize how successful Israel's attack on Egypt was and that Egypt's response would be non-existent.  They were trying to seize an opportunity that didn't exist.

 

EDIT: I don't really put much weight into the history when discussing what the future should be.  I'm of the opinion sometimes you gotta put the past behind you and just do what's right in the present.

Edited May 24, 2018 by JBJ

[David Dennison 19542]

2 hours ago, Mojo Hand said:

That's already happening with the parts that it wants.   But Israel doesn't want Gaza.   So it'll be there waiting for the Palestinians, along with what's left of the West Bank, whenever they finally accept their situation. 

Then Israel should recognize the state of Palestine.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

Just now, David Dennison said:

Then Israel should recognize the state of Palestine.

And when attacks are launched from that sovereign nation the next day, then what? 

[David Dennison 19542]

1 minute ago, Mojo Hand said:

And when attacks are launched from that sovereign nation the next day, then what? 

Now you see why the state of Israel's long term outlook is not so bright.

[realgreggym 838]

6 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Now you see why the state of Israel's long term outlook is not so bright.

Not so bright? Israel is one of the world's great technological powers. Countries come from all over the world to learn more about  Israeli technology. Your 401k has Israeli tech in it. The Arab countries now understand that they need Israel to deal with Iran. The only thing not so bright was your comment.

[David Dennison 19542]

Just now, realgreggym said:

Not so bright? Israel is one of the world's great technological powers. Countries come from all over the world to learn more about  Israeli technology. Your 401k has Israeli tech in it. The Arab countries now understand that they need Israel to deal with Iran. The only thing not so bright was your comment.

Nothing lasts forever. Israel as a nation state has major existential issues. 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

I think Israel will eventually cut deals with the major powers in the region, who will sell out the Palestinians 

[David Dennison 19542]

Just now, Mojo Hand said:

I think Israel will eventually cut deals with the major powers in the region, who will sell out the Palestinians 

This is very possible. It also does nothing to stop the next intifada.

[realgreggym 838]

Palestinians are considered to be second class citizens in every Arab country. Their main problem is their own stupidity. They keep following leaders that don't care about them. They could have had their own country years ago and the scum Arafat turned it down and started the intifada. Every time there is talk of peace. Hamas threatens violence. Meanwhile Israeli kids can follow their dreams and can be business owners, attorneys. doctors or whatever they desire. Palestinian children sadly have no opportunity for the same.

[Orca of Peace 109]

51 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

I think Israel will eventually cut deals with the major powers in the region, who will sell out the Palestinians 

the only deal that matters is the Pals not some silly outside Arab nation who we all acknowledge doesn't care about the Pals anyway. The other Arab nations are completely irrelevant at this point. 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

1 minute ago, Orca of Peace said:

the only deal that matters is the Pals not some silly outside Arab nation who we all acknowledge doesn't care about the Pals anyway. The other Arab nations are completely irrelevant at this point. 

Right. Hamas builds its weapons from the rocks on the ground. 

[Orca of Peace 109]

On 5/17/2018 at 2:46 AM, Pods said:

Claiming Jews are squatting because of ancient history is fairly ironic.  Palestine hasn't even been Arab controlled, aside from an 8-year Egyptian occupation, since 1517. It was Ottoman controlled for the 400 years prior to WWI and there has never been an independent Arab Palestine. The Jewish claim may be ancient, but at least they controlled the land as a Jewish state called Israel at some point in the past.

Britain was attacked by the Ottomans and they defeated the aggressor. The Turks lost control of Palestine. 

At that point, we're dealing with 1917 standards. The British possess Palestine by right of conquest. No one has a claim to sovereignty of the region that is less than 400 years old. The guys you just took it from had launched religiously influenced invasions of Europe that had made it as far as Vienna. The British weren't too keen to turn control of the Holy Land back over to people who view them as infidels. 

The Balfour paper says they'll give it to the Jews, but they don't, they split it between Arabs and Jews. Jews migrate there, many of which are facing extermination if they don't. The British sharply restrict immigration in 1939 after Arab revolts and a whole shitload of Jews are killed, because there is nowhere for them to go. 

The UN then divided it between Jews and Arabs after WWII. The Jews accepted this division, the Arabs did not. The Arabs launched several attempted wars of conquest, intent on exterminating the Jews and they got the shit kicked out of them. Many of these Jews had fled extermination once already, now the Arabs were set on it again. I don't think I'd be fucking around if I was in their shoes either. Each time, the Arabs are punished with territory loss.

Starting wars of aggression and losing them usually means you lose territory. It's the punishment for starting them. It should be doubly so when one of the stated goals of the war is genocide.

I wouldn't give Jerusalem back if I was Israel either. They've won it by defeating multiple attempted conquests. 

lots of likes on this post so i will answer.  The Brits are irrelevant even though they beat the Turks, conquest doesn't mean it's yours. Suppose someone conqured 1 billion Chinese, it's still not yours to give away to someone else. It's a silly argument that justifies racial overtones. The people who actually live there should decide their own sovereignty, simple. Doesn't matter if they never had that for 500 or 1000 years, the local demographics should matter the most. 

[Orca of Peace 109]

2 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Right. Hamas builds its weapons from the rocks on the ground. 

actually this isn't too far fetched, they do make their own rockets 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

They rely on extensive funding and supplies from elsewhere the region, so yeah, it's pretty far off. 

[Orca of Peace 109]

26 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

They rely on extensive funding and supplies from elsewhere the region, so yeah, it's pretty far off. 

it's not extensive and like i said, the other Arab nations are irrelevant , no longer interested.

Hamas is hardly anything but is exaggerated in importance to make it appear that superpower Israel is under some huge threat, to justify their military dictatorship. 

Edited May 24, 2018 by Orca of Peace

[realgreggym 838]

From 1948 to 1967, the Arab could care less about the west bank or Jerusalem. Then the Israelis took over after winning in battle and thats when the Arabs started to care. Its like a little kid playing with a toy and all of a sudden his brother who has never shown interest in the toy now wants to play with it.

[David Dennison 19542]

1 minute ago, realgreggym said:

From 1948 to 1967, the Arab could care less about the west bank or Jerusalem. Then the Israelis took over after winning in battle and thats when the Arabs started to care. Its like a little kid playing with a toy and all of a sudden his brother who has never shown interest in the toy now wants to play with it.

Palestinians cared.

[realgreggym 838]

Actually they didn't until 67.

[Fozzz 152]

Beyond parody.

https://twitter.com/AP/status/999758577299611654

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

19 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Now you see why the state of Israel's long term outlook is not so bright.

You mean Palestinians right ?  They'll start shit within 24 hours of becoming a state, and be turned to desert dust in less than 48 hours.

[hpslugga 4097]

1 hour ago, Fozzz said:

Beyond parody.

https://twitter.com/AP/status/999758577299611654

That's not the first time they've wiped their ass with human rights/international legal requests/opinions, and it likely won't be the last. This is the same court that rejected the unanimous 2004 ICJ Advisory Opinion regarding the West Bank wall, citing "property rights" as if that was anywhere in the same universe as a valid claim.

[Orca of Peace 109]

12 hours ago, realgreggym said:

Actually they didn't until 67.

Arabs wanted sovereignty over themselves, not ruled by another racial group. That has been the case since independence from the Turks. 

[JBJ 3827]

6 minutes ago, Orca of Peace said:

Arabs wanted sovereignty over themselves, not ruled by another racial group. That has been the case since independence from the Turks. 

Not quite.  The PLO was attacking Israel from Jordan and Syria since the Brits left.  They didn't want their own land (which has been offered to them multiple times) they want Jewish lands.

Edited May 25, 2018 by JBJ

[hpslugga 4097]

12 hours ago, realgreggym said:

Actually they didn't until 67.

That makes no sense even according to Israeli propaganda. They allege that the Arabs started a war over it in 1948. What do you think that was about?

You claim to follow this issue closely, so you'd have to know who Israel's main scholars are. So, for example, when you read the writings of Benny Morris, who's widely regarded as Israel's main historian, you'll notice that he wrote a book called Righteous Victims. In it, he says:

"The fear of territorial displacement and dispossession was to be the chief motor of Arab antagonism to Zionism down to 1948" (p. 37)

“In the 1880's there were already Arabs who understood that the threat from Zionism was not merely a local matter or a by-product of cultural estrangement.‘The natives are hostile towards us, saying that we have come to drive them out of the country,’ recorded one Zionist settler” (p. 46)

“[T]he major cause of tension and violence . . . was . . . the conflicting interests and goals of the two populations. The Arabs sought instinctively to . . . maintain their position as [Palestine’s] rightful inhabitants; the Zionists sought radically to change the status quo . . . and eventually turn an Arab-populated country into a Jewish homeland. . . . The Arabs, both urban and rural, came to feel anxiety and fear." (p. 49)

Regardless of what one's feelings are about the Partition, the facts are clear: there was an indigenous population in Palestine prior to 1948 (let alone 1967). A population cannot be "displaced and dispossessed," cannot "maintain their position as Palestine's rightful inhabitants," and cannot be "driven out of the country" if they aren't already there and already care about it. We as Americans cannot, for example, "displace and dispossess" the indigenous Nepalese population of Florida because there is no such thing. We can (and did) displace and dispossess, for example, Cherokees in Tennessee/North Carolina...because they were there before we were. Again, it's 2018 and things like this shouldn't have to be broken down into such simplistic terms, but that's where we are in modern discourse. This is right up there with Morris' "Hamas chickens!!!"

4 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Not quite.  The PLO was attacking Israel from Jordan and Syria since the Brits left.  They didn't want their own land (which has been offered to them multiple times) they want Jewish lands.

The PLO has only been an organization since 1964. That second statement you made is even less accurate.

Edited May 25, 2018 by hpslugga

[Orca of Peace 109]

6 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Not quite.  The PLO was attacking Israel from Jordan and Syria since the Brits left.  They didn't want their own land (which has been offered to them multiple times) they want Jewish lands.

Brits left in 1948, PLO was formed many years later.   Arabs wanted their own land, which in their view was all of Palestine, since they saw teh Jews as a European colonial imposition on them, which it was. They don't have to accept any "offering" if they feel they are getting screwed in the first place. 

[JBJ 3827]

Just now, hpslugga said:

The PLO has only been an organization since 1964. That second statement you made is even less accurate.

Well, 1964 is three years before 1967.  Whatever guerilla groups came before that were attacking Jewish lands before that.

[David Dennison 19542]

1 hour ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

You mean Palestinians right ?  They'll start shit within 24 hours of becoming a state, and be turned to desert dust in less than 48 hours.

No, I mean the state of Israel. Its long-term existence as a nation state is precarious. Its leaders know this. It dictates their entire foreign policy.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

48 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

No, I mean the state of Israel. Its long-term existence as a nation state is precarious. Its leaders know this. It dictates their entire foreign policy.

Yeah it is a bit. When all your neighbors stated goal is to push you into the Med.

[hpslugga 4097]

1 hour ago, JBJ said:

Well, 1964 is three years before 1967.  Whatever guerilla groups came before that were attacking Jewish lands before that.

Like someone else already said, you were deeming that as the PLO and used the British exit as the reference point. The British exit and  the PLO’s birth were separated by 17 years.

But more importantly, what you said about the PLO being offered “their own land” (presumably Palestinian land) “multiple times” is grotesquely false. The only way it could be true is if you analyzed such offers on the premise of “what Israel wants” instead of “what both sides are legally entitled to.”

Edited May 25, 2018 by hpslugga

[David Dennison 19542]

14 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Yeah it is a bit. When all your neighbors stated goal is to push you into the Med.

I don't envy Israeli leaders. It's a hell of a problem.

Edited May 25, 2018 by David Dennison

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I don't envy Israeli leaders. It's a hell of a problem.

Yep, sucks all around, lots of blame on both sides.

[Brian Fantana 6866]

19 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Yeah it is a bit. When all your neighbors stated goal is to push you into the Med.

It's crazy to me that people are still surprised that plopping a Jewish state in a spot sacred to all Abrahamic religions has caused this type of conflict.

Then we get people like Smokey spewing their "damn dirty ay-rabs" rhetoric as if they are a horde of barbarians without a good reason to be upset.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, Brian Fantana said:

It's crazy to me that people are still surprised that plopping a Jewish state in a spot sacred to all Abrahamic religions has caused this type of conflict.

Then we get people like Smokey spewing their "damn dirty ay-rabs" rhetoric as if they are a horde of barbarians without a good reason to be upset.

Yeah, Miami would have been a better choice.....

[David Dennison 19542]

14 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Yeah, Miami would have been a better choice.....

It would certainly eliminate the right of return issue.

[JBJ 3827]

1 minute ago, Orca of Peace said:

Brits left in 1948, PLO was formed many years later.   Arabs wanted their own land, which in their view was all of Palestine, since they saw teh Jews as a European colonial imposition on them, which it was. They don't have to accept any "offering" if they feel they are getting screwed in the first place. 

But this isn't really true or at least not that simple.

The Levant was a wasteland after the Crusaders left.  It stayed that way under the Mamluks.  Settlement restarted with Ottoman encouragement.  When the Ottomans took over, there were less than 200k people living in all of Palestine.  It was an empty desert. And the Ottomans found that the Jews were the ones willing to settle there (largely because they were persecuted elsewhere).

There were early minor migrations around Jerusalem, but the first major migration came from Russia just prior to the Russian civil war.  Jews received land from the Ottomans to start farming communes.  Tel Aviv, Rishon, and other major cities were founded/rebuilt during this time.  Jews persecuted in Iraq and Yemen quickly followed (although Yemeni jews are the original settlers, they weren't as signicant in numbers.)

The Jewish presence was already established before British control and before they stated pouring in from Germany and Poland.  They moved there when no one wanted it.  They developed it from scratch.

What claim do the Palestinians have to Israel proper?  They never controlled it as a state, they didn't settle it, they didn't develop it.

[JBJ 3827]

1 hour ago, hpslugga said:

Like someone else already said, you were deeming that as the PLO and used the British exit as the reference point. The British exit and  the PLO’s birth were separated by 17 years.

But more importantly, what you said about the PLO being offered “their own land” (presumably Palestinian land) “multiple times” is grotesquely false. The only way it could be true is if you analyzed such offers on the premise of “what Israel wants” instead of “what both sides are legally entitled to.”

The claim Orca made was that all the Palestians want is autonomy.  This is false.  They were attacking Jewish lands from their own lands which were occupied by others at the time.  They didn't care about autonomy - they cared about Jews being present in the Levant. 

They were offered autonomy and they refused it.  It wasn't an ideal situation (see Pakistan), but it was a good compromise and much better than what they had or have now.

Edited May 25, 2018 by JBJ

[Orca of Peace 109]

33 minutes ago, JBJ said:

But this isn't really true or at least not that simple.

The Levant was a wasteland after the Crusaders left.  It stayed that way under the Mamluks.  Settlement restarted with Ottoman encouragement.  When the Ottomans took over, there were less than 200k people living in all of Palestine.  It was an empty desert. And the Ottomans found that the Jews were the ones willing to settle there (largely because they were persecuted elsewhere).

There were early minor migrations around Jerusalem, but the first major migration came from Russia just prior to the Russian civil war.  Jews received land from the Ottomans to start farming communes.  Tel Aviv, Rishon, and other major cities were founded/rebuilt during this time.  Jews persecuted in Iraq and Yemen quickly followed (although Yemeni jews are the original settlers, they weren't as signicant in numbers.)

The Jewish presence was already established before British control and before they stated pouring in from Germany and Poland.  They moved there when no one wanted it.  They developed it from scratch.

What claim do the Palestinians have to Israel proper?  They never controlled it as a state, they didn't settle it, they didn't develop it.

the recanting of 500-1000 years ago is very amusing to me as if that matter more than more recent times. Oh look, the Jews developed some farmland , therefore all the Euro Jews are entitled to it also and have their own state over an Arab majority peasant class.  What claims do Arabs have over anything? There was never a Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, Syria, Saudi, Algeria etc. Oh, they just lived there forever under the Romans, Turks, Brits and others. What most people don't realize is that this entire conflict is about Arab sovereignty alone and European opinions are meaningless.