This is an interesting discussion with Mosab Hussan Yousef, a former Palestinian ex-militant who later sides with Israel and moved to the US.  He's also the son of a Hamas founder.  He knows from the inside and exposes the evils of Hamas.

More entertainingly is the journalist taking the side of Hamas.  Going over the talking points and making like she  represents the Palestinians.  It's like she thinks she's a Palestinian herself. 

This is an interesting discussion with Mosab Hussan Yousef, a former Palestinian ex-militant who later sides with Israel and moved to the US.  He's also the son of a Hamas founder.  He knows from the inside and exposes the evils of Hamas.

More entertainingly is the journalist taking the side of Hamas.  Going over the talking points and making like she  represents the Palestinians.  It's like she thinks she's a Palestinian herself. 

Honest journalism is gone.  I mean, look at this 1 example.  We also saw this while they were trying to get Trump kicked out of the WH.  And then with covid.  TBH, the main stream media is more on an entertainment source than anything else.  As Alonzo Harris would say "This news paper is 99% BS, but I read it because it entertains me."

Angle?  Explain why it's not a fact that Israel is THE non-Muslim country in the Middle East surrounded by nearly HALF A BILLION Muslims in no fewer than 16 other countries/nations?

Population in 2024:

Egypt - 112,716,598   
Sudan - 48,109,006   
Libya - 6,888,388
Jordan - 11,337,052
Lebanon - 5,353,930
Palestine - 5,371,230
Syria - 23,227,014
Iraq - 45,504,560
Saudi Arabia - 36,947,025
Yemen - 34,449,825
Iran - 89,172,767
Oman - 4,644,384
UAE - 9,516,871
Qatar - 2,716,391
Bahrain - 1,485,509
Kuwait  - 4,310,108
------------------------------------
Total of 16 = 441,750,658
=====================

Israel - 9,174,520

So, explain why such a small area like Israel with about 10M citizens needs to give up land to Palestine with a population over half the size of Israel's?  Just how cramped must Israel make it's people live in order to surrender their land to another nation when the Muslim world refuses to do the same?

Give reasons for why the other 15 Muslim nations should not offer to give the Palestinians part of their massive land area?  With over 436M people collectively, Palestine would only increase their combined population by just over 1% -- not exactly a huge drain on the Muslim world's resources, is it?

What gives Palestine the right to take the land Israel claims?  Why not lay claim to land in one or two Muslim countries?  if you read the history of the Palestinians, they existed as part of the Ottoman Empire.  So, technically, they can claim any part of those 15 other nation's land as "ancestral homeland."  Why go after Israel alone?

Why is Iran so supportive of Hamas and Palestine in their fight against Israel, but they draw the line at giving them a place within Iran to make their home?

It's logic, not propaganda.

Has any other country tried to claim Israel as theirs?

Fun fact, I was wondering if Israel is part of Africa and google said no, they're part of Asia, so is Palestine.  So technically, this is an Asian fight. This part is meant as a joke and not to cause a serious debate.  What brought it up was in Bruno film, Bruno said the country his baby is from is Africa.  He was corrected that Africa isn't a country, but a continent.  Even he tried to broker peace there.

Has any other country tried to claim Israel as theirs?

Fun fact, I was wondering if Israel is part of Africa and google said no, they're part of Asia, so is Palestine.  So technically, this is an Asian fight. This part is meant as a joke and not to cause a serious debate.  What brought it up was in Bruno film, Bruno said the country his baby is from is Africa.  He was corrected that Africa isn't a country, but a continent.  Even he tried to broker peace there.

I've done studies on Egypt, the Sudan and the rest of that region.

Egypt includes Sanai which is a peninsula having the Mediterranean Sea to the north and the Red Sea to the south.  It borders on the Gaza Strip in Asia and the rest of Egypt in Africa, making it the only land bridge between Africa and Asia.

Egypt is mostly an African country with the exception of the Sinai Peninsula which is officially in Asia.

Angle?  Explain why it's not a fact that Israel is THE non-Muslim majority country in the Middle East surrounded by nearly HALF A BILLION Muslims in no fewer than 16 other countries/nations?

Just wanted to correct it as Israel is almost 20% Muslim population.

....
So, explain why such a small area like Israel with about 10M citizens needs to give up land to Palestine with a population over half the size of Israel's?  Just how cramped must Israel make it's people live in order to surrender their land to another nation when the Muslim world refuses to do the same?

Give reasons for why the other 15 Muslim nations should not offer to give the Palestinians part of their massive land area?  With over 436M people collectively, Palestine would only increase their combined population by just over 1% -- not exactly a huge drain on the Muslim world's resources, is it?

Technically Israel doesn't have to give up land.  Gaza belongs to Egypt.  West Bank belongs to Jordan.  Not sure about the younger populace, but the older ones are citizens of those respective nations.  Egypt and Jordan are the ones that supposed to take care of their people, the Palestinians.  But they're like homeless people.  No one wants them.

Israel was forced into managing their problems.

Technically Israel doesn't have to give up land.  Gaza belongs to Egypt.  West Bank belongs to Jordan.  Not sure about the younger populace, but the older ones are citizens of those respective nations.  Egypt and Jordan are the ones that supposed to take care of their people, the Palestinians.  But they're like homeless people.  No one wants them.

Thanks.  When I call a country "Muslim" it's based on the governing bodies, not the population.  Every country has a variety of demographics, especially regarding religion.  Islam is pretty unique in that the government and religion are inseparable.

No non-Muslim countries have "Islamic Religious Police" patrolling communities.  They identify and accuse citizens of violating Islamic law, no different than other government agencies enforcing state law.

I'd submit that any nation that establishes Islamic Religious Polcie is a Muslim country regardless of demographics.  It's not the only factor, but I'd put it at the top of the list when classifying Muslim vs. non-Muslim countries.

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

So, explain why such a small area like Israel with about 10M citizens needs to give up land to Palestine with a population over half the size of Israel's?  Just how cramped must Israel make it's people live in order to surrender their land to another nation when the Muslim world refuses to do the same?

Give reasons for why the other 15 Muslim nations should not offer to give the Palestinians part of their massive land area?  With over 436M people collectively, Palestine would only increase their combined population by just over 1% -- not exactly a huge drain on the Muslim world's resources, is it?

What gives Palestine the right to take the land Israel claims?  Why not lay claim to land in one or two Muslim countries?  if you read the history of the Palestinians, they existed as part of the Ottoman Empire.  So, technically, they can claim any part of those 15 other nation's land as "ancestral homeland."  Why go after Israel alone?

Why is Iran so supportive of Hamas and Palestine in their fight against Israel, but they draw the line at giving them a place within Iran to make their home?

It's logic, not propaganda.

That's not logic. You never make a point. It's just a bunch of half truths packaged up in pro-war propaganda.

When the dollar crashes, your retirement accounts get wiped out and taxes get jacked to the moon because all our national wealth has been wasted on middle east wars, will the temporary emotional high from righteous indignation still be worth it?

The main reason we got involved with middle East was was oil.  Back then it was extremely important to our interests.  Not as much nowadays since we can produce all of our own oil.  However other countries still depend on that oil, and the US depends on those countries for trade and security.

For Israel, the US was important to it's creation, it's like our renegade child.  The world knows the US will protect Israel.  And that gives the US military credibility.  If another nation messes with US interests, they know the US will respond.  This has led to a relatively peaceful era.

And there are economic interests.  We provide aid to Israel, but we get a lot in return.  Israel is an important trade partner.  They purchase a lot of US military equipment.  They also do joint development with the US.  A lot of US corporations operate in Israel like Intel who has a large chip manufacturing plant and does a lot of R&D there.

That's not logic. You never make a point. It's just a bunch of half truths packaged up in pro-war propaganda.

When the dollar crashes, your retirement accounts get wiped out and taxes get jacked to the moon because all our national wealth has been wasted on middle east wars, will the temporary emotional high from righteous indignation still be worth it?

In your opinion, right?

I did make a point:  Facts are not propaganda. 

Also, show me where I ever said I was pro-war.  Pretty sure I never said anything supporting war.  You seem to think supporting the aims of Israel and opposing the aims of Hamas somehow equates to an inevitable war.  There are solutions besides war, although Hamas seems to enjoy provoking war in their use of terrorism and missile attacks to advance their political goals.

Please show me where anything I posted was a "half truth."

What does any of that in red have to do with what i posted?  If anyone wants to see a perfect example of fear-mongering, I'll refer them to your comment.

The main reason we got involved with middle East was was oil.  Back then it was extremely important to our interests.  Not as much nowadays since we can produce all of our own oil.  However other countries still depend on that oil, and the US depends on those countries for trade and security.

For Israel, the US was important to it's creation, it's like our renegade child.  The world knows the US will protect Israel.  And that gives the US military credibility.  If another nation messes with US interests, they know the US will respond.  This has led to a relatively peaceful era.

And there are economic interests.  We provide aid to Israel, but we get a lot in return.  Israel is an important trade partner.  They purchase a lot of US military equipment.  They also do joint development with the US.  A lot of US corporations operate in Israel like Intel who has a large chip manufacturing plant and does a lot of R&D there.

Thank you for the honest answer!

In my opinion that international order is rapidly falling apart due to gross mismanagement, the fracking/shale revolution was a flash in the pan, and now we face a severe predicament.
Do we take the British approach and intentionally roll back the empire, accept the economic ramifications that follow, and focus on fixing all the problems in our own borders while maintaining some dignity in the process?
Or do we go with the Thelma and Louise ending and put the pedal to the metal that would result in Soviet-style collapse and balkanization while risking a WW3 that our corrupted and dysfunctional military is totally unprepared for?

The main reason we got involved with middle East was was oil.  Back then it was extremely important to our interests.  Not as much nowadays since we can produce all of our own oil.  However other countries still depend on that oil, and the US depends on those countries for trade and security.

For Israel, the US was important to it's creation, it's like our renegade child.  The world knows the US will protect Israel.  And that gives the US military credibility.  If another nation messes with US interests, they know the US will respond.  This has led to a relatively peaceful era.

And there are economic interests.  We provide aid to Israel, but we get a lot in return.  Israel is an important trade partner.  They purchase a lot of US military equipment.  They also do joint development with the US.  A lot of US corporations operate in Israel like Intel who has a large chip manufacturing plant and does a lot of R&D there.

I know a few people who work in oil in the US and all of them said that the US has lots of oil.  So much that we don't and won't ever need to use any one elses.  But the hold up is the regulations on drilling.  This puts the US at a handicap and causes us to buy oil from other countries.  This was both land and off shore oil workers.

I never looked into the matter, but makes sense.  More EPA regulations, just like more gun laws.  All in the name of the public interest.  And coincidently, the AFT's power to change rules (chevron deference) comes originally from the EPA doing the same for oil.

I know a few people who work in oil in the US and all of them said that the US has lots of oil. 

If that were true then why would we be trying to break up Russia via proxy war in order to get at their oil?

If that were true then why would we be trying to break up Russia via proxy war in order to get at their oil?

i thought you'd have already known the answer to your question.

One of the biggest issues with the Middle East is lack of stability.  Obama's administration severely destabilized the region worse I've seen happen since the 1970s.

Unstable oil production and OPEC pricing affects the world, not just us.  Oil is bought and sold using US dollars for the very purpose of offering stability since our currency has historically been more stable than almost all other major world currencies.

9/11 started the dominos to start falling.  Benghazi was a wake up call, that the so-called Arab Spring was far more than just leadership change in a couple of countries.  Obama and Clinton took the opportunity to successfully remove country leaders they were having difficulty with.  The US played a big part in creating the very instability we had been trying to preserve for decades.  Even the invasion into Kuwait was a limited conflict, pushing Iraqi forces back into their own country but stopping short of ousting Hussein.  After 9/11, way too many objectives were put on the table, and the lowest priority seemed to be stability -- at least until Hussein and Bin Laden were erased.

It really doesn't matter how much oil we have here in the US or can receive via pipelines when Biden is keeping those efforts at a bare minimum to appease the climate change zealots.  That has the side effect of raising oil and gas prices, which reduces consumption.  Obama famously stated that we needed European-type prices at the pump of over $10/gallon to force US consumers off of oil consumption and onto alternative energy sources. 

The "we want their oil" aspect is a complicated one.  Keeping the production and pricing stable for everyone is critical, not just for the US.

If that were true then why would we be trying to break up Russia via proxy war in order to get at their oil?

Our fight with Russia is more ensuring they don't get away with it than oil.  Making sure Russia knows their place in the world and doesn't attack other countries, to include NATO, or do other shenanigans.  If it was about oil, we'd have troops in Ukraine.  It's also about sending a message to China not to attack Taiwan which is a vital US interest for their microchip manufacturing.  Russia's economy and population is wrecked and will be for a generation.

Oil and gas is involved.  Weening Europe off Russian oil and gas and getting other countries to reduce.  Russia currently occupies Ukraine's oil and gas fields.  If they retain that and the seaports, Ukraine will be more broke in the future allowing for Russia to take over in a third invasion, military or politically

Our fight with Russia is more ensuring they don't get away with it than oil.  Making sure Russia knows their place in the world and doesn't attack other countries, to include NATO, or do other shenanigans.

With all due respect, this is pure US imperial propaganda.

The US empire always wanted the destruction and balkanization of the Russia and China for that matter.  Why else would the US empire continue to expand NATO after the fall of the Soviet Union?

Your statement of "making sure Russia knows its place in the world" is also very imperialistic as what nation on Earth has the authority to dictate another country's national interests?

If it was about oil, we'd have troops in Ukraine.

There would be WWIII if the US empire did that and that's why there currently is no US/NATO troops in Ukraine.

It's also about sending a message to China not to attack Taiwan which is a vital US interest for their microchip manufacturing.  Russia's economy and population is wrecked and will be for a generation.

The US empire legally agreed that there is only one China.  The Republic of China was never and is not a recognized nation state; hence, it is not the US empire's business to interfere in the domestic policies of another nation.

Oil and gas is involved.  Weening Europe off Russian oil and gas and getting other countries to reduce.

Was that the EU's policy or the dictates of the US empire?  With the US empire destroying the Nord Stream pipeline, I guess we already have the answer to that question.

Russia currently occupies Ukraine's oil and gas fields.  If they retain that and the seaports, Ukraine will be more broke in the future allowing for Russia to take over in a third invasion, military or politically

Pure conjecture based on the false belief that Russia wants to take over its neighboring countries.

As for the Ukrainians, they should have never trusted the US empire or allowed them to instigate the coup in 2014 that started the ongoing tragedy in their nation

please prove the "US empire" instigated the 2014 coup and that the Ukrainians "allowed them"...

With all due respect, this is pure US imperial propaganda.

The US empire always wanted the destruction and balkanization of the Russia and China for that matter.  Why else would the US empire continue to expand NATO after the fall of the Soviet Union?

Your statement of "making sure Russia knows its place in the world" is also very imperialistic as what nation on Earth has the authority to dictate another country's national interests?


There would be WWIII if the US empire did that and that's why there currently is no US/NATO troops in Ukraine.


The US empire legally agreed that there is only one China.  The Republic of China was never and is not a recognized nation state; hence, it is not the US empire's business to interfere in the domestic policies of another nation.


Was that the EU's policy or the dictates of the US empire.  With the US empire destroying the Nord Stream pipeline, I guess we already have the answer to that question.


Pure conjecture based on the false belief that Russia wants to take over its neighboring countries.

As for the Ukrainians, they should have never trusted the US empire or allowed them to instigate the coup in 2014 that started the ongoing tragedy in their nation

please prove the "US empire" instigated the 2014 coup and that the Ukrainians "allowed them"...

I believe I previously posted the smoking gun video of the now former Assistant Secretary of the State Victoria Nuland discussing who the US empire should have as their puppet leader in Ukraine in 2014; but here it is again.

lul
that isn't "proof" nor a "smoking gun"...

I believe I previously posted the smoking gun video of the now former Assistant Secretary of the State Victoria Nuland discussing who the US empire should have as their puppet leader in Ukraine in 2014; but here it is again.

...
Pure conjecture based on the false belief that Russia wants to take over its neighboring countries.

...

Right.  There's no historical evidence that Russia has ever wanted to take over its neighboring countries.

This list is  only after the collapse of the Soviet Union.  The list prior is massve.

1991 - Georgian Civil War
1991 - South Ossetian War
1992 - War in Abkhazia
1992 - Transnistria War
1992 - Tajikistani Civil War
1994 - First Chechen War
1999 - War of Dagestan
1999 - Second Chechen War
2008 - Russo-Georgian War
2014 - Russo-Ukrainian War
2015 - Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War
2018 - Central African Republic Civil War
2021 - Mali War
2024 - Jihadist insurgency in Burkina Faso

Yep.  Pure conjecture.  No basis for believing anything other than Russia is just a pacifist nation which only wants to live and let live.

 

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

Also note, these are just the conflicts involving military forces.  How many other takeover attempts have been made through election and government interference?

I never took you for a Russian propagandist. 

lul
that isn't "proof" nor a "smoking gun"...

You are entitled to your opinion.