Oil wealth is a temporary matter. Some Gulf countries accumulated wealth by selling their single non-renewable resource, but the rest is poor and insignificant as anything else but a source of migrants the West doesn't want.
True. In fact, I think I argued that in this very thread. But the lack of a diversified economy doesn't make a nation poor. It makes them
short-sighted, but still rich, though not wealthy.
You're right, I mixed the two lines... edited.
Don't worry, happens to all of us. I was all set to argue with Nylan for insulting me in another thread, when what he'd said had absolutely nothing to do with me.
How many of these countries have anything at least partially resembling a working democracy?
I see one failed state, one genocidal state, a theocratic absolutist monarchy, a pseudo-secular baasist dictatorship, an American protectorate, the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (
) and a bunch of more or less authoritarian countries. Not a single truly democratic country (maaaaybe with one exception that is Tunisia).
Mauritania had a working democracy last I checked. Tunisia had one, but actually seem to be heading backwards in that area lately. Several of those nations are constitutional monarchies, with a varying degree of freedom, and the UAE, while somewhat oppressive, is making remarkable progress as a modern day 'enlightened despotism,' though admittedly the 'enlightened' part depends on who you're talking to. Similar to Singapore in a way. Competent, yet repressive leadership.
Now, many of those nations are corrupt, dictatorships, or both, and the less said about Somalia the better. But not all of them are corrupt or dictatorships.
No, and claiming so isn't an argument. The countries in which the Palies would be resettled have working central governments, which have much to lose in case of Israeli retaliation. This is why they'd actively suppress Palestinian terrorism, much unlike the Palestinian Authority which either doesn't care or doesn't have the means to do something about the terrorist groups.
Simply put, Jordanian, Syrian and Egyptian governments would suppress terrorism for their own benefit - both out of fear of being targeted by Israel in retaliation and out of need to uproot organizations which could challenge government's control.
More likely, several of them would actually incite Palestinian terrorism in their neighbours. Kind of like what Syria and Iran are doing now, with Hezbollah and other groups, and what Nasser did during the aforementioned Black September. They'd want to stop the groups from acting up in their own countries, but would be willing to support their actions elsewhere. And I think relocating Palestinians to Jordan would actually result in them outnumbering the locals. Syria and Egypt certainly wouldn't want large numbers of Palestinians either, even though they wouldn't face the same problems as Jordan.
And look how it ended
If it wasn't for already destabilized Lebanon, the suppression of Palestinian terrorism would have been effective.
Or they'd have moved into Syria, and become a paramilitary arm of that nation. The point is that you send large numbers of Palestinians into foreign countries against their will, and they
will arm themselves and become radicalised. Not to mention that Palestinians have enough support in many countries that they might be able to co-opt military and civilian officials, as they did during and before Black September.
On the contrary. The conflict is driven by the fact that Jews and Palies are living on the same piece of land. They meet each other every day and that fuels the conflict. If they were separated, the conflict would become much less intense, although it would never disappear. There are precedents for that, in post-WW2 expulsions and the settlement in Bosnia.
Sometimes, the two groups simply hate each other too much to be living side by side.
It might become momentarily less intense, while the Palestinians regroup, but the forcible expulsion would be murder - in many cases, quite literally - to execute, and result in numerous deaths on both sides. But that would only be the start of the troubles.
The Palestinian refugees, upon establishing themselves in their new nations, would seek out others of their own kind, creating ghettoes. In these ghettoes, certain strong groups would emerge, taking charge of first the undreground, then becoming more open in their actions. Their primary source of gaining recruits would be blasting Israel. Once these groups reach a critical mass, they will be capable of launching paramilitary activities - and they'll
have to, in order to gain recruits that might otherwise go to other groups. Something like this is what caused the creation of Fatah and even more radical groups to begin with.
Fatah was weakened by the collapse of their main source of arms, the USSR. But now, Iran, Russia and others have emerged as potential armourers for these new organisations. The creation, on a large scale, of brand new groups now would only be beginning the process all over again; and at a time where these armourers are incapable of exercising the sort of restraint that the Soviets were able to exercise on Fatah when it felt the need.
No, I really haven't noticed any improvement. When Israel makes a concession, Arabs simply wait a while and then attack Israel again. Israel left southern Lebanon and Hezbollah took over the territory and triggered a war. Israel left Gaza, and Hamas took over and attacked Israel. Giving up land isn't a way to solve the conflict, it only enables more Arab aggression.
If Israel hadn't invaded Lebanon to begin with, Hezbollah wouldn't be able to find as many anti-Israeli recruits. They'd still be targetting Christians in their own country, and probably wouldn't be as strong as they are now. They wouldn't have a string of successful actions against US and Israeli forces to use as propaganda for recruitment purposes, or excesses of goodwill from people whose communities they paid to rebuild and develop after Israeli actions. Hezbollah is a textbook case of what I described above, actually.
Hamas was freely democratically elected, then attacked by Israel, which overturned the election in an effort to put the now pro-Israel Fatah in charge. Quite ironic, since Israel created Hamas to weaken Fatah to begin with. Pretty effective of them. they were willing to negotiate with Israel, but
Israel attacked them. Israel's current actions in Gaza are gaining Hamas more support than they would have gained from trying to run Palestine.
The answer is to forcibly separate Arabs from their victims; in civil life, that's what we do with stalkers, violent ex-husbands, sex offenders etc. Arabs have a long record of aggression against Israeli people, ergo it's them who has to pay the price.
This is pathetic. You realise that Israelis have a record of aggression against the Arab people that's just as long? The unprovoked invasion of Lebanon, the invasion of Egypt during the Suez Crisis, the massacre of Egyptian P.O.W.s, turning a blind eye to Maronite sprees of rape and murder in Palestinian refugee camps under Israeli guard... The Arab world has many very legitimate reasons to hate Israel. And vice versa.
If you want to make an analogy to civil life, it's less like an abusive husband, and more like two guys who are constantly getting drunk and starting fights with each other, and occasionally innocent bystanders. What you're proposing is to arrest one guy, and let the other off scot-free.
No, it would be like cutting down some trees in order to stop forest fire from spreading.
The trees leading to the sparsely inhabited rural regions, while planting new growth in the area leading to a major city.
You see, both Israeli and Arab populations are growing and at the same time the region's resources (land, water) are being depleted and eaten away by climate change. This is especially dangerous in small, crowded countries like Israel/Palestine (or Rwanda). It's the most common recipe for genocide - two tribes struggling to survive in an area of diminishing resources. As the situation gets worse, the conflict will only intensify, not subside as you believe.
The future intensification of the conflict is why it needs to be nipped in the bud, and soon. Unfortunately, your proposal is more like pruning than nipping. You're gaining a (very) temporary respite, in exchange for massive future problems.
Even if Israel gave the Palies their own state, such a state would not be viable and would sooner or later collapse into Somalia-like chaos, or the power there would be seized by another Hamas/Hezbollah-like fanatics who would immediately begin to shell Israel with rockets - how could that possibly be beneficial to Israel? It would only make the situation worse, because Israeli population centers would be in reach of even the most rudimentary weapons.
Japan has been pouring money into Palestine in order to make it viable. If Palestine is developed, it will become viable. As it stands, it's not, but development is certainly possible. If you build up the nation economically to the point where it becomes a viable nation, you'll find that people will begin caring more about their cars than driving them into Israeli checkpoints. I don't see Croatians and Serbs still doing battle with one another.
The only solution is to remove Palestinians from the area of Greater Israel and let them assimilate into the neighboring Arab populations. It will take a long time, but it's better than what would happen if they stayed.
Like the Roma have assimilated into your culture? Or Jews assimliated into the culture of the nations we went to? Palestinians don't
want to assimilate into neighbouring cultures. They want to remain Palestinian. Even if you send them to foreign countries and teach them a few new tricks - like what happened to the Diaspora - they'll still retain their culture, and they won't forget the violent manner in which they were forced from it.
Especially if they are removed in large numbers, and are therefore capable of forming large-scale ghettoes.
thats the point.... if we assumed that in a total open war against a united arab state and israel, these weapons and stuff can be transported from morocco to sinai in Egypt... i dont think if 22 Arab states have a war with israel, i believe Europe will stand neutral, it cant afford to interveane greatly... it is too close to the issue... while the US will start using economic sanctions on the Arab state and might go to using the UN to ensure a cease fire, but it wont go as far as bombing the Arab State, Arabs ARE (believe it or not) America's Allies as well...
You can't transport massive amounts of materiel from Morocco to the Sinai overnight. This isn't
Civ, railroads don't let you move for free. Any sort of mass movement of troops would provoke a pre-emptive Israeli action, since they're not stupid enough to let Arab nations mass their forces in preparation for an invason. They'd attack, and while they wouldn't do so as effectivley as the Six-Day War, they would wreak havoc on their neighbours, thus making the transfer of troops and and materiel even
more difficult.
And America favours Israel more than any Arab state. In a war between the two, they would always favour Israel. Domestic political concerns would demand it, even if they didn't think it best from a foreign policy standpoint. Europe too, though support for Israel there isn't as strong as the US.
Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria, Egypt, Mauritania, Jordan, with NATO, Egypt, Morocco, Bahrain, Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia with the United States, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Morocco, Tunisia, with the European Union...
Lebanon? Really? That surprises me. These numbers are more than I thought. This doesn't negate my point about an effective military bureaucracy though.
Arabs are anything but backstabbing... we leave that to the French and English (Sykes-Picot treaty)... anyways, i know Israel needs some concrete assurances from its neighbors... but what kind... Israel is the aggressor here and not the Arabs (regardless what the media says), Israel is the one who was created due to Zionist movements promoting to Jews around the world how peaceful and abandoned the land or Palestine is...
Arabs are just as backstabbing as anyone else. Politics makes monsters of us all. And I linked Winner to the Black September incident, which involved Arabs backstabbing each other regularly. The Palestinians made an agreement, then broke it, the Jordanian government made an agreement, then broke it, was, rinse, repeat.
Israel has been the aggressor on occasion. Just as the Arabs have been the aggressors on occasion. Don't make the mistake of thinking that just because one side is at fault the other is innocent. Both sides have done terrible and unjustified things in the Arab-Israeli Conflict.
Besides which, Israel's creation had more to do with a backlash from the Holocaust than the Zionist movements anyway. Many Jews went there because they had nowhere else to go, not because of Zionism.
and most of these uni-based economies are becoming more diversed, for example can you believe that Egypt is Saudi Arabia's Largest Wheat Importer, we (Egypt) import as much wheat from saudi arabia alone, as we do from other places in the world, like russia, ukrain and syria.
My father, who is a banker, does business with Australian wheat exporters, so yeah, I know a little about Egypt's wheat imports. Surprised to here that they get that much from Saudi Arabia though. But what do imports have to do with a diversified economy?
Exports have more to do with that.
plus egypt has a strong and diversed economy, yes, yet it has a population of around 85 million, living in an area as large as switzerland or so...
I think you mean the UAE, since Egypt is more than a dozen times larger than Switzerland. Good for them. I believe I mentioned them as the a well-diversified economy in my post.
and your missing mine... thats what exactly what im saying... since wealth doesnt have to do with a country's fighting skills, in a total war, against a Unified Arab state and Israel, Arabs would have the High Tech military toys, from the Wealthy countries that currently lack skills, and will be merged with the Skills of those who have an older military experiance, and less wealth to get all high tech toys...
You are
STILL missing the point.
You can't just take Moroccan troops, put them in expensive Saudi equipment, and expect them to use it with skill and aplomb. It takes years of training to master modern military equipment, especially when you're used to old Soviet gear. I have friends in both the Australian and Israeli militaries that have difficulties checking out on new equipment,
and they have experience with new equipment to begin with. you can't hand a spearman a sword and expect him to be proficient, and you can't put a Syrian in a Black Hawk and expect him to be proficient.
Not only that, but even assuming these troops master their individual aircraft, tanks, etc., this does not mean that their officers, with no experience at utilising these new items in their arsenals, will know the best ways to order them around. I remember reading a story - in a comic, so not true but alleghorical - about American soldiers getting tanks in Sicily. They tried to incorporate the tanks into their force when taking a hill. The tanks couldnt' handle the rocky terrain, and many became stuck, therefore being easy picking for the Italians and actually hampering the advance. The C.O. declared them useless.
Later, they came to a plain with Italian troops in fortified positions. They used the tanks to shell the fortifications, and also as cover for advancing infantry. The C.O. realise that tanks where a useful tool in warfare, but only in the hands of a soldier that knew how to use them. arab nations with no experience of these hi-tech gadgets
won't know how to use them, just like the C.O. in my story didn't know how to use tanks.
i think the west would not fear the United Arab State, it is as you said, no threat to them, as well as most of the arab states are allies with the west, and a unified arab state, will also have very good relations with Europe and the US as for china, Arabs and Chinese have Always had very good relations (except for the Part where Arabs were raiding Canton and Chengdu in the 900's), and i believe will continue to have a strong relations till the end of time... its inevitable... we like each other hahaha... no seriously, China's Economic Growth is Extreamly Dependant on the Arab world, and its backyard (Sub-saharan Africa), which will lead to china simply ignoring any Military war, and will maintain strong economic relations,
China's no threat to the West, yet they still fear it. An Arab super-state, while not powerful enough to overtly threaten the US, Europe, China or Russia, would be a dramatic change in the global balance of power. While not a threat, it would be a much
greater threat than any individual Arab state. Balance of Threat Doctrine indicates that the nations it threatened would form alliances against it, much as Western Europe and Japan did in response to the Soviet Union, which was not much of a threat to many of them. Nations always try to isolate and neutralise threats, even potential ones.
What happened between Arabs and China 1,000 years ago has nothing to do with current relations. Japan and Australia were traditionally rivals and enemies, now we're close allies. If China perceives an Arab super-state as a threat - and it would, since such a state would dominate global petroleum supplies - it
will work to undermine it. if you think otherwise, you have no understanding of global politics. Britain and France were traditional enemies, yet both joined forces to combat the greater threat of Germany, past relations be damned.
Iran's status will be very hard, it will either have to search for its own Unity with other Persian states and Central Asian States, to try to forge a stronger Islamic Nation their, or will either try to suck up to the Arab world, but i dont believe an Islamist State in Iran would fight another stronger Muslim populated nation, just because it feals threatened... and would definatly not work with the west on that, it might have happened previously in Afghanistant, when the communists were their, which would have caused a Larger threat to Iran, than the arabs forging their Unified state.
Iran has fought plenty of Muslim nations in the past, why the hell wouldn't it now? Iran would be under great threat from an Arab super-state, and would thus also attempt to undermine it. It would be more than willing to work with the West, as it already did during the US invasion of Afghanistan. Nothing to do with the USSR invasion of the country. They assisted the West in dealing with another Muslim theocracy that was a threat to them both. And an Arab super-state would be a far greater threat to Iran than either a Muslim
OR Communist Afghanistan.
You seem caught up on nations forming George Orwell or Isaac Asimov-style regional associations. Iran has little interest in Central Asia other than geo-strategic, and Iran itself is the only majority Persian state in existence.
i couldnt find find a meaning for the word "Twit", which i cant tell if its a bad thing or not, please excuse my english, since its my third language, and not the strongest... i probably miss understood what you said ... cheers
Twit's an insult, but not a bad one. It basically means 'silly person.' Like 'fool,' but not as strong. And yeah, you must have misunderstood me, since I was agreeing with you on that point.
War is inevitable, it will happen, could happen in a year or in a hundred, unless Jerusalem is back, and Israel managed to integrate with the surrounding countries, and have strong economic relations...
Bullplop. You've been reading Samuel Huntington, or some other such author. War between Israel and the Arab world isn't inevitable. It's not even likely, except perhaps with Syria or Hezbollah again. War between Israel and Palestinian groups is near-inevitable, but that's an internecine conflict, as I already stated. Israel has managed to avoid a large-scale war since it pulled out of Lebanon in the '80s. There's no reason why it would go to war with Egypt or Jordan, and even less reason why Kuwait, Algeria, Sudan or others would want to involve themselves in a conflict with Israel.
All you're doing is the same 'all-or-nothing' crap I've been talking about. "Give us back your holiest city, which means as much or more to you as it does us, and also do exactly as we say in other areas, or we'll kill your family!"
Israel doesn't respond to that favourably. Intransigence breeds more intransigence.
i have an Arab Jewish Israeli friend of mine, living in Jerusalem, and when i told him why not go back to egypt, he said that eventho he feals homesick, he said that their is alot of hate for the jews in Egypt, so when i said its decreasing, he asked if he can wear the Kipa in the streets of cairo...
Arabs still resent Jews, and alot of Work needs to be done, by NGO's and the governmnt... to make the people understand the differance between a Jew and a Zionists, and an Israeli.
True, many people are incapable of telling the difference between a Jew, an Israeli, and a Zionist. Many people act aggressively towards me, asking me about Jewish actions in the region past-and-present. I've never even been to Israel, and I'm no Zionist. I don't agree with the creation of Israel to begin with.
yet france doesnt have a 20% population of Arabs, and doesnt adopt the language, their are more Arabs in Israel alone than their are in Somalia, Djibouti and Comoros together... Plus assuming their is perminant peace, Israel will sooner or later need to integrate within the middle east, which is made mostly out of Arabs, population and area.
Integration does not mean surrender. joining the Arab Leaue would effectively be an Israeli admission of weakness, which serves the same purpose. Israel could never do that. No nation could, it would be political hara-kiri.
Israel doesn't have a Western Culture, its absorbing the Arab culture, Music, Food, Lifestyle... Israel is more Arab than it is European (iv been to both, lived in france for 2 years, and visited Israel 7 times)
Israel's culture is a hybrid culture. It's still more Western than Arab, and becoming more Western all the time, so I'm told by friends.
well, Syria will simply not agree on making peace unless the Golan is back., so will Lebanon
Then Syria and Lebanon can do two things about it; shut up, and like it. Germany wouldn't agree to peace without being given the Sudetenland either. Look how well that worked. Israel is not about to give up such a beautifully defensive position, not without something of equal value in return. I don't think Syria and Lebanon combined can offer anything else that valuable.
i agree, yet well, at least Arabs are sticking to their demands, the Israeli Demands keep on Changing and going extreamer with each new Cabinete that comes into office...
Doesn't really matter when the Arab demands were ridiculously over-the-top to start with. Israeli demands change with the government, but they don't always grow harsher. Oftentimes, they grow softer. It depends on who is in power.
In any case, name one war which wasn't in one way or another started/provoked by the Arabs, then we can continue
The Suez Crisis. Unless you consider compensated nationalisation a provocation.
Ummm no.
The UN chose the 2-state solution, a Jewish state beside a Palestinian state, the Jews agreed, the Palestinians didn't, so when the Jews declared their independence (which was accepted by the UN as previously stated) the Palestinians launched their attack on the Jews with the help of neighbouring Arab countries.
You might say the Jews knew the Arabs would attack them if they declared their independence but still they had every right to do so and it was no grounds for an Arabian assault.
The Palestinians had every right to disagree with the partition plan, as it was horribly biased in favour of the Jews, a massive minority, and gave them all the best land. It doesn't excuse the actions of extremists in caling for a new Holocaust, but it doesn't mean that the Palestinians were wrong to fight back against people who were effectively taking large tracts of their homeland.
Of course the Jews would agree. They get almost half the land, sole access to the Red Sea and Sea of Galilee, and most of the Mediterranean coast, at a time when Jews only consists of around a third of the population.
We have a problem with occurs again and again in places with two sizable ethnic populations with a large wealth disparity - one group bought or come to own most of the land, which is largely inhabited by another group. The new owners made their own rules and brought their families along to (re)settle the land, but the original inhabitants won't leave. War follows.
Exactly. And the original inhabitants are often justified in fighting back, though not always.
Since the Partition Plan failed, the right thing to do would be to return to the negotiating table. Instead the would-be Israelis declared their independence unilaterally.
I think they were being granted independence the next day anyway. The Declaration didn't make a difference to the outcome. You are correct about returning to the bargaining table being the correct decision.
.svg/250px-Arab_League_(orthographic_projection).svg.png)
