Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Normalization of Arabs with Israel is now normal.

Rate this topic


Zainuu

Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

Salaam,

Jordan, Egypt, UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, Saudi Arabia (apparently) and now Morocco:

https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2020/12/10/israel-morocco-agree-to-normalise-relations-in-us-brokered-deal#click=https://t.co/banbRgkQLn

Who's next in the chain of normalization and how can this change the political situation in the Middle-East in favor of Israel? 

Edited by Zainuu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
18 minutes ago, Zainuu said:

I am suspicious about Qatar too.

They are turkey’s alliance, we all know the tensions between turkey and Israel, so for now they can’t.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
23 minutes ago, Diaz said:

They are turkey’s alliance, we all know the tensions between turkey and Israel, so for now they can’t.

Turkey is not that tough on Israel actually:

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/turkey-israel-relations

https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2020/12/turkey-name-ambassador-israel-ufuk-ulutas-fidan-erdogan.html

Actually, Turkey itself can normalize, you never know. 

Seeing the turkish position against Syria (which is itself a key player in the axis against Israel), I see Turkey's stances actually benefit Israel many times. 

And Qatar recently showed the signs to bring it's relations with Saudi back to normal. What if this might get extended towards Israel too? 

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/12/8/uae-official-lauds-efforts-to-strengthen-gulf-unity

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
3 hours ago, Zainuu said:

Salaam,

Jordan, Egypt, UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, Saudi Arabia (apparently) and now Morocco:

https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2020/12/10/israel-morocco-agree-to-normalise-relations-in-us-brokered-deal#click=https://t.co/banbRgkQLn

Who's next in the chain of normalization and how can this change the political situation in the Middle-East in favor of Israel? 

Saudi Arabia has always been friends with them. Considering their grand Mufti that looks like Dajjal said that it is haram to battle Israel and the Jews.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

While I completely oppose the aggression the Israeli government carries out against the Palestinians, I think the Arab states have given up and choosing to focus on their own selfish interests. Iran's strategy is leaving it more isolated. 

If it wasn't for Hezbollah, Lebanon would normalize ties, and Syria had nearly done so in the past. So it is not unforeseeable for the Arab states to normalize ties with Israel eventually. 

I think it is upto Iranians to decide, but I would wonder what the Iranian government gets out of this hostility toward Israel. It may seem like it is being on the side of justice, but in geopolitics, very often opposing oppression in one place leaves you no choices but to rely on oppressors on the other side. The Chinese which are undoubtedly an oppressive state, are close partners with Iran and Iran due to how battered its economy has gotten under US sanctions is increasingly reliant on their investment and help. How does this in any way aid the cause of opposing oppression? The Iranians are also supporting a brutal regime in Syria that has killed far more of its own people than the number of Palestinians Israel has killed.

Iran doesn't even need to recognize Israel, but I really question the wisdom of the hostile rhetoric and the arming of groups which are increasingly less relevant as other states try to isolate them and Iran. It will only hurt the Iranian people. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 12/11/2020 at 1:27 PM, Mohamed1993 said:

 

You dont need to worry about Iran nor the Iranian people, we will inshaAllah be fine without your worry. The IR could ally itself with the US regime and israhell tomorrow and 99% of its financial problems would be solved within a month if they wanted to and they (the scum of our era) in turn would dump saudi clan & co faster than you can blink and attach themselves to the IR like glue. Take a couple of more years and think about why the IR have not done that for the last 40+ years.

The enemy of israhell is not Iran, its God and those who fight the enemies of God are not Iranians, they are shias and they are the party of God. So if you have faith in God, then have faith in the defeat and destruction of His enemies.

Personally I think the official normalization between the crypto kafir leaders among the muslim nations and the devil zionists might have a positive outcome as the population of those nation do not to my understanding have the same sentiment as its detached rich leaders. An Islamic revival among those nations could be imminent inshaAllah. The lines are clearly being drawn and the truth will become more and more evident until only those who are pretending to sleep cannot be woken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, hasanhh said:

My guessimate is Tunis.

Do check this thread. It quite to a good extent confirms that Saudis and UAE are planning a coup on Ben Ali in Tunisia to install a much more ruthless regime their who would be in their interests. Just like Sisi in Egypt. 

So, in my opinion, Tunisia might be the next only if such a thing happens. If Saudis are pushing for something then Israeli interests are surely involved. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
10 hours ago, Diaz said:

Many Sunni are not happy normalizing with Israel either, Some Sudanese protested when the government accepted to become Israel alliance. It’s the government, not the people. 

That's not completely true. Emiratis didn't do anything except a small outrage as a showcase and then they try to prove 'how kind they are'. 

Sudanese were forced into normalization. Bahrain protested because Bahrain's regime is ruthless and completely against the people. 

Saudis will not protest in a millenia. Their are things happening in Saudi Arabia which are worse than this normalization but no one is able to come out except for Qatif. But in that region, they suppress the people a lot. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
10 hours ago, Mohamed1993 said:

While I completely oppose the aggression the Israeli government carries out against the Palestinians, I think the Arab states have given up and choosing to focus on their own selfish interests. Iran's strategy is leaving it more isolated. 

If it wasn't for Hezbollah, Lebanon would normalize ties, and Syria had nearly done so in the past. So it is not unforeseeable for the Arab states to normalize ties with Israel eventually. 

I think it is upto Iranians to decide, but I would wonder what the Iranian government gets out of this hostility toward Israel. It may seem like it is being on the side of justice, but in geopolitics, very often opposing oppression in one place leaves you no choices but to rely on oppressors on the other side. The Chinese which are undoubtedly an oppressive state, are close partners with Iran and Iran due to how battered its economy has gotten under US sanctions is increasingly reliant on their investment and help. How does this in any way aid the cause of opposing oppression? The Iranians are also supporting a brutal regime in Syria that has killed far more of its own people than the number of Palestinians Israel has killed.

Iran doesn't even need to recognize Israel, but I really question the wisdom of the hostile rhetoric and the arming of groups which are increasingly less relevant as other states try to isolate them and Iran. It will only hurt the Iranian people. 

I think instead of thinking about the future, we should think about the present. 

The large Oppressor right now in the world is US, Israel and co.. China is not something supported by Iran. But the relationship with China is based on mutual interests. China provides with great amount of constructive initiatives in response to the oil it recieves. What do these countries like US, israel provide. 

US promised to defend Iraq from ISIS but what happened. Nothing except a mere publicity stunt. It was Hashd al Shaabi whom they named 'Iranian Militias', which fought ISIS and liberated Iraq. 

US promised to build the electricity for Iraq, but what happened:

https://www.moonofalabama.org/2020/01/blowback-from-the-soleimani-assassination-increases-as-iraq-reveals-how-trump-tried-to-steal-its-oil.html

And resistance means that we should stand for ourselves. What Iran is doing will avoid the straight transfer of world power from US to China. 

When a power declines, 2 things happen:

Power Swap - This scenario will bring another imperialist country with enormous power which can't be controlled. If Iran doesn't resist imperialism, this would happen.

Power split - This scenario will split the power in segments. Resulting in a multi-polar world with regional powers balancing each other. This will happen if Iran stands strong and stays successful inshallah. 

Advicing Iran to 'think for itself'. Well:

Watch this:

 

If Arabs and Muslims keep their hatred and jealousy in their pockets and unite with the resistance, Israel would be out in a week. Also, as you speculate that they are 'supporting China', if that's true then even it will not happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
4 hours ago, Zainuu said:

That's not completely true. Emiratis didn't do anything except a small outrage as a showcase and then they try to prove 'how kind they are'. 

Sudanese were forced into normalization. Bahrain protested because Bahrain's regime is ruthless and completely against the people. 

Saudis will not protest in a millenia. Their are things happening in Saudi Arabia which are worse than this normalization but no one is able to come out except for Qatif. But in that region, they suppress the people a lot. 

I’m talking about all Sunnis not only these. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 12/12/2020 at 8:26 AM, Dubilex said:

And this is a good thing. The biggest threat to the stability of the Middle East are the ayatollahs of Iran and Erdogan and I'm glad that these arab leaders are realizing it.

Yes yes right. This is a good thing that they are open in air now. Now, we don't to argue with people to PROVE the real face of MBS or MBZ or any of these Arabs.

'Ayatullahs' are a real threat for hypocrites, war criminals, tyrants and their puppets. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 12/11/2020 at 6:46 PM, Soldiers and Saffron said:

Personally I think the official normalization between the crypto kafir leaders among the muslim nations and the devil zionists might have a positive outcome as the population of those nation do not to my understanding have the same sentiment as its detached rich leaders.

I think Arab publics are moving on, maybe Bahrain is an exception, but I doubt the younger generation of Saudis and Emiratis really care about anything else other than their ability to live nice lives. It is not perhaps the ethical position to hold but its reality.

On 12/11/2020 at 6:46 PM, Soldiers and Saffron said:

The enemy of israhell is not Iran, its God and those who fight the enemies of God are not Iranians, they are shias and they are the party of God. So if you have faith in God, then have faith in the defeat and destruction of His enemies.

Not sure what makes Israel's enemies, God, when the Chinese communist party is literally putting up signs in mosques advocating complete loyalty and devotion to XiJin Ping and the communist party, which at its essence is anti-theist in its ideology. Iran may not have other alternatives other than China at this point, but it's not inaccurate to argue that they are making choices on who to see as enemies of God and who to not see as so, despite there being clear evidence of some of the people they rely on as showing they are clearly hostile to the idea of God.

On 12/12/2020 at 12:14 AM, Zainuu said:

The large Oppressor right now in the world is US, Israel and co.. China is not something supported by Iran. But the relationship with China is based on mutual interests. China provides with great amount of constructive initiatives in response to the oil it recieves. What do these countries like US, israel provide. 

This is subjective. The US government is undoubtedly more aggressive internationally, but that does not mean the Chinese state isn't much more repressive internally. You say the relationship is based on mutual interests, yes, but that's how international relations work, people pick and choose who their partners and foes are based on their assessment of who is willing to cooperate and work with them and who isn't. It's very difficult to operate in international relations in some kind of absolutist moral way, because we live in a world where countries rely on each other for trade, investment, aid etc. The choices Iran seems to be making may well make sense, but it is also true that it has put aside any argument for behaving in a way in line with moral principles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
43 minutes ago, Mohamed1993 said:

You say the relationship is based on mutual interests, yes, but that's how international relations work, people pick and choose who their partners and foes are based on their assessment of who is willing to cooperate and work with them and who isn't. It's very difficult to operate in international relations in some kind of absolutist moral way, because we live in a world where countries rely on each other for trade, investment, aid etc. The choices Iran seems to be making may well make sense, but it is also true that it has put aside any argument for behaving in a way in line with moral principles.

No, my bad. The China Iran relation is based on mutual respect. It is not a master-slave relationship. 

Iran is not in Hong Kong. China is not in Syria. 

I don't know where you get your sources from but their is a huge difference between normalizing with an illegal entity and dealing with a legal state. 

Normalization with Israel is wrong because it is an illegal entity which was brought to existence forcefully in 1948. 

Also, the crimes of Zionists against Palestinians are crystal clear since it exists. And you can see about it in history. Even Zionists don't deny it now. While the issue of China is still debatable. What if it is exaggerated just like the conflict of Syria?? 

Also, who's setting the moral principles here except you??? Have you forgot Sulh Hudebiya and Sulh Of Imam Hasan (عليه السلام)?Wasn't that dealing with the oppressor? Was that incorrect? Who embraced or appreciated the crimes of China??

You are deviating a bit too. Do you have anything to justify the normalization of these countries? And please don't play the blame game. For Iran and China we can debate on another thread. This is about a betrayal to the Palestinians. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 12/13/2020 at 2:18 AM, Zainuu said:

No, my bad. The China Iran relation is based on mutual respect. It is not a master-slave relationship. 

Iran is not in Hong Kong. China is not in Syria. 

I don't know where you get your sources from but their is a huge difference between normalizing with an illegal entity and dealing with a legal state. 

Normalization with Israel is wrong because it is an illegal entity which was brought to existence forcefully in 1948. 

Also, the crimes of Zionists against Palestinians are crystal clear since it exists. And you can see about it in history. Even Zionists don't deny it now. While the issue of China is still debatable. What if it is exaggerated just like the conflict of Syria?? 

Also, who's setting the moral principles here except you??? Have you forgot Sulh Hudebiya and Sulh Of Imam Hasan (عليه السلام)?Wasn't that dealing with the oppressor? Was that incorrect? Who embraced or appreciated the crimes of China??

You are deviating a bit too. Do you have anything to justify the normalization of these countries? And please don't play the blame game. For Iran and China we can debate on another thread. This is about a betrayal to the Palestinians. 

The way in which Israel may have been established is deeply unjust, but the fact remains that is considered a state by the authority that legitimizes states, i.e. the UN, which recognizes Israel in its pre-1967 borders, but does not recognize its illegal occupation of the west bank, gaza and the golan heights. I mean if you want to argue beyond that as to whether the foundations of the state makes the existence illegal, then we have to start digging up why we consider any state legitimate. The US conquered lands through expansion for example, does that mean the US is now an illegal entity? Should white people in America that have lived here since the 18th century go back and hand the land back to Natives? Wouldn't that be the equivalent of Israelis saying we lived here thousands of years ago and that gives us a right to Judea and Samaria. History is filled with conquests and illegitimate acquisitions of land and territory, the framework that we are operating within is the framework that was established after WW2, which grants statehood and distinguishes between what is a state and what is not a state. 

I'm not arguing for normalization with Israel, I'm simply arguing about the benefits of arming groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, which are in no way shape or form a legitimate threat to Israel's existence as a state. They do not possess the capability of destroying Israel without Lebanon and Gaza getting wiped out in response. The Iranian leadership knows this much, but it tries to support these groups as a means of gathering leverage to respond to attacks against it by the US or Israel or any of the gulf states as a power that's militarily at least conventionally weaker than the US. This is part of its assymetric warfare doctrine, and it's a strategy weaker powers often adopt. 

Iran doesn't take the same uncompromising approach toward China that it does Israel. It doesn't arm the Uyghurs, in fact by trading with the Chinese state and refusing to condemn its atrocities against the Uyghurs it is in effect giving legitimacy to the Chinese state's atrocities. Tell me if Iran traded with Israel for example, would you say it is not legitimizing it and that it is simply just compromising with it? I mean I think you're trying to find excuses to defend what is clearly an unjustifiable position. Is a simple condemnation too difficult?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
9 minutes ago, Mohamed1993 said:

The way in which Israel may have been established is deeply unjust, but the fact remains that is considered a state by the authority that legitimizes states, i.e. the UN, which recognizes Israel in its pre-1967 borders, but does not recognize its illegal occupation of the west bank, gaza and the golan heights. I mean if you want to argue beyond that as to whether the foundations of the state makes the existence illegal, then we have to start digging up why we consider any state legitimate. The US conquered lands through expansion for example, does that mean the US is now an illegal entity? Should white people in America that have lived here since the 18th century go back and hand the land back to Natives? Wouldn't that be the equivalent of Israelis saying we lived here thousands of years ago and that gives us a right to Judea and Samaria. History is filled with conquests and illegitimate acquisitions of land and territory, the framework that we are operating within is the framework that was established after WW2, which grants statehood and distinguishes between what is a state and what is not a state. 

Let me go by your logic though it is lame to agree with it. 

The only illegitimate new state established and recognized by UN was Israel. UN not only gave them legitimacy but even the partition was unjust. So, by your logic too singling out Israel is correct. 

 

13 minutes ago, Mohamed1993 said:

I'm not arguing for normalization with Israel, I'm simply arguing about the benefits of arming groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, which are in no way shape or form a legitimate threat to Israel's existence as a state. They do not possess the capability of destroying Israel without Lebanon and Gaza getting wiped out in response. The Iranian leadership knows this much, but it tries to support these groups as a means of gathering leverage to respond to attacks against it by the US or Israel or any of the gulf states as a power that's militarily at least conventionally weaker than the US. This is part of its assymetric warfare doctrine, and it's a strategy weaker powers often adopt. 

Again stupid. Hezbollah was not created in 1948. Hezbollah was created in 1982 when Israel invaded Lebanon and massacred more than 17000 lebanese. No one was resisting then. Israel invaded them in a gangster style. Same with Hamas. Hamas was created way later when Israeli crimes were already enough to get a reaction. 

So, it doesn't make sense for Hezbollah or Hamas to give up. Because if they won't do it, Israel will still wipe them out. That's it. 

This is Norman. The most knowledgeable political analyst on the topic.

I don't understand how it is so difficult to understand 'resistance of occupation'.

20 minutes ago, Mohamed1993 said:

Iran doesn't take the same uncompromising approach toward China that it does Israel. It doesn't arm the Uyghurs, in fact by trading with the Chinese state and refusing to condemn its atrocities against the Uyghurs it is in effect giving legitimacy to the Chinese state's atrocities. Tell me if Iran traded with Israel for example, would you say it is not legitimizing it and that it is simply just compromising with it? I mean I think you're trying to find excuses to defend what is clearly an unjustifiable position. Is a simple condemnation too difficult?

No. Again it is merely a lame opinion based on presumptions. 

Firstly, I classified you a difference between a legal state and an illegal entity. China is a state while Israel is an illegal entity. Even a penny that goes into the pocket of zionists promotes pure occupation. And if you want to check how Iran is working or you follow their news, it is not difficult to understand that they are/have achieving/achieved self-sufficiency. 

Secondly, the claims about China are not yet substantiated. Even UN has spoken out many times against Israel but not once on China. 

You can watch these two discussions on the Uyghur topic. 

https://youtu.be/gygxrdNmzUQ

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
24 minutes ago, Zainuu said:

Again stupid. Hezbollah was not created in 1948. Hezbollah was created in 1982 when Israel invaded Lebanon and massacred more than 17000 lebanese. No one was resisting then. Israel invaded them in a gangster style. Same with Hamas. Hamas was created way later when Israeli crimes were already enough to get a reaction. 

So, it doesn't make sense for Hezbollah or Hamas to give up. Because if they won't do it, Israel will still wipe them out. That's it. 

This is Norman. The most knowledgeable political analyst on the topic.

After the camp David Accords were signed in 1978, the Israelis did not invade Egypt and reconquer the Sinai Peninsula they had lost in 1973. Israel isn't interested in giving up the west bank, but Iran does not have any influence there. But as far as Lebanon and Syria goes, based on the camp david accords with Egypt, it's not unfathomable that Israel would let Shebaa farms and golan heights go the same way they did Egypt in exchange for security guarantees.

24 minutes ago, Zainuu said:

I don't understand how it is so difficult to understand 'resistance of occupation'.

1 hour ago, Mohamed1993 said:

The Kashmiris are resisting occupation too, is Iran doing the same things to support them as it is doing in Gaza or Lebanon?

24 minutes ago, Zainuu said:

No. Again it is merely a lame opinion based on presumptions. 

Firstly, I classified you a difference between a legal state and an illegal entity. China is a state while Israel is an illegal entity. Even a penny that goes into the pocket of zionists promotes pure occupation. And if you want to check how Iran is working or you follow their news, it is not difficult to understand that they are/have achieving/achieved self-sufficiency. 

Secondly, the claims about China are not yet substantiated. Even UN has spoken out many times against Israel but not once on China. 

You can watch these two discussions on the Uyghur topic. 

The treatment of Uyghurs has in fact been documented over and over again by organizations that have frequently criticized Israel's occupation. https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/11/14/unprecedented-un-critique-chinas-xinjiang-policies#. The claims are not yet substantiated while they're substantiated by the same rights organizations that criticize Israel's occupation. So are we picking and choosing now on what is and is not convenient? Why is the Chinese state a legal entity btw? A lot of its territory was conquered through conquest and unjust means. So why is the modern day Chinese state, far larger than what China existed in its initial state legitimate?

Btw, you cite Professor Finkelstein, who I admire a great deal, but his position is not that Israel is an illegal entity in itself, it is that Israel is illegally occupying territory that does not belong to it by international law, which is the only framework we have at this point to evaluate what is and isn't legal. https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2012/2/28/finkelstein-bds-and-the-destruction-of-israel/. https://vimeo.com/36854424.

You seem to harp on and on about the fact that Israel is an illegal entity, but a lot of states throughout history have been established through force and injustice, if we want to overturn the decision in 1948 then who is to stop other people from saying we don't recognize x state's control over us because they carried out this injustice a couple of centuries ago? Where does one draw the line? What we do have is a framework for addressing these issues, and defining what is and is not legal based on the world that exists. You want a different world, that's fine, but that involves a lot more than just Israel's existence and it's not the world we live in.

Edited by Mohamed1993
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Mohamed1993 said:

After the camp David Accords were signed in 1978, the Israelis did not invade Egypt and reconquer the Sinai Peninsula they had lost in 1973. Israel isn't interested in giving up the west bank, but Iran does not have any influence there. But as far as Lebanon and Syria goes, based on the camp david accords with Egypt, it's not unfathomable that Israel would let Shebaa farms and golan heights go the same way they did Egypt in exchange for security guarantees

They reached Beirut in 1982, not Sheba Farms. Sheba Farms is actually something which they occupy to this day. Also, Sheba farms and Golan Heights belong to Lebanon and Syria respectively. Bring me a treaty, deal or anything that gave Israel a right to occupy these regions. You think that Israel should be given Shebaa Farms but none of the Lebanese people. You say Golan is a security guarantee for Israel but it's not acceptable unless the Syrians agree. 

1 hour ago, Mohamed1993 said:

The Kashmiris are resisting occupation too, is Iran doing the same things to support them as it is doing in Gaza or Lebanon?

Yes, don't you know about the solidarity of Iran with Kashmir. Well it's undeniable. Iran has been criticised in India dozens of times baselessly because it is raising the voice for the Kashmiris. It is not hidden. It is a well established fact. 

1 hour ago, Mohamed1993 said:

The treatment of Uyghurs has in fact been documented over and over again by organizations that have frequently criticized Israel's occupation. https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/11/14/unprecedented-un-critique-chinas-xinjiang-policies#. The claims are not yet substantiated while they're substantiated by the same rights organizations that criticize Israel's occupation. So are we picking and choosing now on what is and is not convenient? Why is the Chinese state a legal entity btw? A lot of its territory was conquered through conquest and unjust means. So why is the modern day Chinese state, far larger than what China existed in its initial state legitimate?

Yet no substantial proofs. I have shared two interviews with you. And no it was never brought up by UN. it is all coming from US. the same US and the west which supports terrorism in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. And no Israel has been outright criticised by the entire world. The only country with some vessels which protects Israel's occupation in the UN is US. 

1 hour ago, Mohamed1993 said:

Btw, you cite Professor Finkelstein, who I admire a great deal, but his position is not that Israel is an illegal entity in itself, it is that Israel is illegally occupying territory that does not belong to it by international law, which is the only framework we have at this point to evaluate what is and isn't legal. https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2012/2/28/finkelstein-bds-and-the-destruction-of-israel/. https://vimeo.com/36854424.

I cited Norman to show you why it doesn't makes sense for Hezbollah and Hamas to normalize and drop their Arms. If you admire him then watch how he insulted people like you by saying that 'it's disgusting to respect those who kill you'.  He even said that Arabs are beggars and don't have any self respect. He said that Hezbollah has some principles to work and they are protecting the Lebanese, if they don't do so Lebanese will be slaves to Israel. 

1 hour ago, Mohamed1993 said:

You seem to harp on and on about the fact that Israel is an illegal entity, but a lot of states throughout history have been established through force and injustice, if we want to overturn the decision in 1948 then who is to stop other people from saying we don't recognize x state's control over us because they carried out this injustice a couple of centuries ago? Where does one draw the line? What we do have is a framework for addressing these issues, and defining what is and is not legal based on the world that exists. You want a different world, that's fine, but that involves a lot more than just Israel's existence and it's not the world we live in.

Regardless, it doesn't justify normalization. Neither it justifies surrender. And yes, you can have an opinion, I am no one to force you what I think. 

I have provided all my evidences to support my claim. What you are saying is a mere opinion. 

Edited by Zainuu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
8 hours ago, Zainuu said:

I have provided all my evidences to support my claim. What you are saying is a mere opinion. 

On the contrary, when I supplied a report, you dismissed it and called the opinion of one person who is a hypocrite to substantiate that the entire thing was a fabrication. 

8 hours ago, Zainuu said:

They reached Beirut in 1982, not Sheba Farms. Sheba Farms is actually something which they occupy to this day. Also, Sheba farms and Golan Heights belong to Lebanon and Syria respectively. Bring me a treaty, deal or anything that gave Israel a right to occupy these regions. You think that Israel should be given Shebaa Farms but none of the Lebanese people. You say Golan is a security guarantee for Israel but it's not acceptable unless the Syrians agree. 

10 hours ago, Mohamed1993 said:

Yeah, they are out of Lebanon now except the Sheba Farms, which is Lebanese territory, if the Israelis give that up the way they gave up Sinai to Egypt in exchange for a security guarantee, they are no longer occupiers of those lands. They will remain occupiers of Palestine, but as I said Iran has no problem selling oil to India and helping the state that oppresses the Kashmiris it occupies. So why the focus on Israel? 

8 hours ago, Zainuu said:

Yes, don't you know about the solidarity of Iran with Kashmir. Well it's undeniable. Iran has been criticised in India dozens of times baselessly because it is raising the voice for the Kashmiris. It is not hidden. It is a well established fact. 

10 hours ago, Mohamed1993 said:

Is Iran severing ties to India? Is it stopping the sale of its oil to a state that occupeis and oppresses muslims internally and in Kashmir?

8 hours ago, Zainuu said:

I cited Norman to show you why it doesn't makes sense for Hezbollah and Hamas to normalize and drop their Arms. If you admire him then watch how he insulted people like you by saying that 'it's disgusting to respect those who kill you'.  He even said that Arabs are beggars and don't have any self respect. He said that Hezbollah has some principles to work and they are protecting the Lebanese, if they don't do so Lebanese will be slaves to Israel. 

10 hours ago, Mohamed1993 said:

They can hang onto their arms but why does Iran arm them? If the case is Iran is arming them because it's interested in fighting against oppression, then where are the arms for the Kashmiris? Why specifically Israel? You keep saying it's an illegal entity, but then you fail to provide a reason why its illegitimate in a way many states that conquered territory through force aren't that Iran trades with and has normalized ties with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
3 hours ago, Mohamed1993 said:

On the contrary, when I supplied a report, you dismissed it and called the opinion of one person who is a hypocrite to substantiate that the entire thing was a fabrication. 

Yeah, they are out of Lebanon now except the Sheba Farms, which is Lebanese territory, if the Israelis give that up the way they gave up Sinai to Egypt in exchange for a security guarantee, they are no longer occupiers of those lands. They will remain occupiers of Palestine, but as I said Iran has no problem selling oil to India and helping the state that oppresses the Kashmiris it occupies. So why the focus on Israel? 

Is Iran severing ties to India? Is it stopping the sale of its oil to a state that occupeis and oppresses muslims internally and in Kashmir?

They can hang onto their arms but why does Iran arm them? If the case is Iran is arming them because it's interested in fighting against oppression, then where are the arms for the Kashmiris? Why specifically Israel? You keep saying it's an illegal entity, but then you fail to provide a reason why its illegitimate in a way many states that conquered territory through force aren't that Iran trades with and has normalized ties with.

Israel will not leave Shebaa Farms, has taken Golan recognized by US now. Didn't you see the interview I shared??? 

Iran's ties with India are breaking apart steadily. 

What I shared with you about China did you see that??? 

And I asked you the question, did you answer me??

16 hours ago, Zainuu said:

Do you have anything to justify the normalization of these countries? And please don't play the blame game. 

Iran-India or Iran-China relations are no proof to justify Arab normalization with Israel. You can hold it as an opinion but leaving one oppressor because you cannot resist every oppressor in the world is just ridiculous. 

If you have anything to justify the actions of Arabs then put that up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 12/13/2020 at 7:51 PM, Zainuu said:

Israel will not leave Shebaa Farms, has taken Golan recognized by US now. Didn't you see the interview I shared??? 

Iran's ties with India are breaking apart steadily. 

What I shared with you about China did you see that??? 

And I asked you the question, did you answer me??

Yes, I watched the Uyghur interview, but you cite a video of one person and dismiss an entire report which doesn't conform to your worldview. 

Iran's ties with India are only weakened because the US put sanctions on countries trading with Iran, and India backed away because they needed the US more to confront their bigger adversaries i.e. China. 

Back when Hafez al Assad died, he was close to normalizing ties with Israel, it fell apart and Syria has repeatedly said it will normalize ties if Israel gives back the Golan. Israel is in a much stronger position now though and Syria is battered by civil war and is hardly much of a country and goodluck getting anyone to rebuild it while Assad is still in power.

On 12/13/2020 at 7:51 PM, Zainuu said:

Iran-India or Iran-China relations are no proof to justify Arab normalization with Israel. You can hold it as an opinion but leaving one oppressor because you cannot resist every oppressor in the world is just ridiculous. 

 

Well, it just shows you states align with people who fulfill their interests, oppression or the nature of the state is irrelevant. Arab states, or at least their dictators made that calculation. You have no argument to show why Israel's atrocities are worse than those of Indians in Kashmir or of Chinese against Uyghurs or of Russians against Chechnyans. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Mohamed1993 said:

Back when Hafez al Assad died, he was close to normalizing ties with Israel, it fell apart and Syria has repeatedly said it will normalize ties if Israel gives back the Golan. Israel is in a much stronger position now though and Syria is battered by civil war and is hardly much of a country and goodluck getting anyone to rebuild it while Assad is still in power.

Says who?? One who backed hezbollah and gave them all the necessary aide, was about to normalize with Israel. Lolzz

1 hour ago, Mohamed1993 said:

Iran's ties with India are only weakened because the US put sanctions on countries trading with Iran, and India backed away because they needed the US more to confront their bigger adversaries i.e. China

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/iransource/iran-issues-rare-criticism-of-india-over-kashmir/

https://m.economictimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/iran-continues-to-criticise-india-in-unusual-move/articleshow/74500570.cms

I have a plenty of Kashmiri links on instagram that know how Iran is standing with them. When Kashmiris don't think like you, I don't think you have any right to accuse anyone. Also, Iran is normal with Bahrain and Iran has never any militias in Yemen. 

1 hour ago, Mohamed1993 said:

Yes, I watched the Uyghur interview, but you cite a video of one person and dismiss an entire report which doesn't conform to your worldview. 

No, you didn't. She was working for NED which is a CIA implant and has supported many regime change projects before. I am not in favor of China but I cannot simply make up any opinion because of the lack of information. You can have your opinions, I am not stopping you. 

1 hour ago, Mohamed1993 said:

Well, it just shows you states align with people who fulfill their interests, oppression or the nature of the state is irrelevant. Arab states, or at least their dictators made that calculation. You have no argument to show why Israel's atrocities are worse than those of Indians in Kashmir or of Chinese against Uyghurs or of Russians against Chechnyans

So, what's your solution? 

Iran should also normalize with Israel like Arabs and stick their noses to the foots of Zionists? That's what you mean? Because somehow Iran is unable to form mujahideen in China or India, they should ignore Palestine?? 

If you have some sane courageous human being living in you then go and say these words of humiliation and cowardice to the Palestinians. If they agree with you, I have no problem. Go, educate them.

Again I would bring the words of Norman:

"If you want to live crawling on your knees, I don't have any problem but why should I not respect those who say they would rather die on their feet".

This is my last post on this debate because it is annoying to me to repeat my arguments again and again.

Wassalam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 12/15/2020 at 12:24 PM, Zainuu said:

Says who?? One who backed hezbollah and gave them all the necessary aide, was about to normalize with Israel. Lolzz

On 12/15/2020 at 11:02 AM, Mohamed1993 said:

Yes, interests change, you should really familiarize yourself with how geopolitics actually work; https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20201008-syrias-assad-agrees-to-normalise-relations-with-israel-if-conditions-are-met/

On 12/15/2020 at 12:24 PM, Zainuu said:

I have a plenty of Kashmiri links on instagram that know how Iran is standing with them. When Kashmiris don't think like you, I don't think you have any right to accuse anyone. Also, Iran is normal with Bahrain and Iran has never any militias in Yemen. 

On 12/15/2020 at 11:02 AM, Mohamed1993 said:

Maybe you should read your own articles, it says Iran issued a "rare" criticism of Kashmir and that in the past it has sought to not antagonize India because it needed to balance its relationships with Pakistan. They issued this after 370 was revoked, but Indian forces have been occupying and terrorizing Kashmiris for far longer when Tehran's criticisms have remain muted. 

On 12/15/2020 at 12:24 PM, Zainuu said:

No, you didn't. She was working for NED which is a CIA implant and has supported many regime change projects before. I am not in favor of China but I cannot simply make up any opinion because of the lack of information. You can have your opinions, I am not stopping you. 

On 12/15/2020 at 11:02 AM, Mohamed1993 said:

You saw one video of someone who you saw working for the CIA and used that as basis to conclude that the Uyghur thing isn't real or is exaggerated, and when I showed you a UN report, you dismissed it out of hand after inaccurately claiming the UN has not condemned China in a way it has condemned Israel. It isn't true. I mean your argument is like saying if one person who isn't credible says something on a particular issue, that particular issue is doubtful itself. There are numerous people beyond that woman that have reported on the Chinese states' atrocities in Xinjiang. You do not care to learn about them, because you;ve found one non-credible person and want to run with it.

On 12/15/2020 at 12:24 PM, Zainuu said:

So, what's your solution? 

Iran should also normalize with Israel like Arabs and stick their noses to the foots of Zionists? That's what you mean? Because somehow Iran is unable to form mujahideen in China or India, they should ignore Palestine?? 

If you have some sane courageous human being living in you then go and say these words of humiliation and cowardice to the Palestinians. If they agree with you, I have no problem. Go, educate them.

Again I would bring the words of Norman:

"If you want to live crawling on your knees, I don't have any problem but why should I not respect those who say they would rather die on their feet".

This is my last post on this debate because it is annoying to me to repeat my arguments again and again.

Wassalam

My solution is Iran should re-evaluate its interests, because its quite clear its foreign policy is not and never has been driven by any semblance of morality. It doesn't take the same moral position in other arenas, it doesn't take a moral position in its support for regimes that suppress their own people in the Middle East, it in fact supports those regimes. It's funny you talk of courage and all that, but Iran has no courage to go tell the Uyghurs or the Kashmiris that they are severing all ties with the governments oppressing them and arming them. It doesn't do that because it has a clear-eyed view of what its interests are and what they aren't. It isn't about moral courage, get that out of your head. So, given this it should evaluate whether this moral posturing, which is just posturing is actually doing it any good. 

It's annoying you because you can't explain the inconsistency of the government in Iran. I mean even the US harps on and on about its values, and supporting the aspirations of the people in Hong Kong and Tibet, and yet supports the oppression against Palestinians. Why? Because ultimately it is in their interests to show support for one and not another. It wants to weaken China. Iran wants to champion a regional order in which it delegitimizes governments that are allied with Washington and since it faces serious limitations in terms of its Persian and Shia identity, it uses the Palestinian cause to weaken the legitimacy of the region's governments and thus, Washington's influence. The actual concern for the people in Gaza is not what drives their policies. Otherwise, they would support the oppressed everywhere and they don't.

This is my final post too. 

Edited by Mohamed1993
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
26 minutes ago, Mohamed1993 said:

Yes, interests change, you should really familiarize yourself with how geopolitics actually work; https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20201008-syrias-assad-agrees-to-normalise-relations-with-israel-if-conditions-are-met/

Maybe you should learn how diplomacy works. The condition laid by Assad in this article are in such a way that it won't be fulfilled. And you will see it with your own eyes. Also, Syria is not mad to invest a hell on Palestine. Syria is not mad to keep fighting for a decade when Saudis offered them a convenient peaceful solution in 2011 i.e "To break with Iran and all the rebellion will end".

Iran also offered a 5-point plan to US. One of the compromise was the 'normalization with Israel' on a condition.

Palestinians were the most compromising end under PLO and even Hamas in all the peace accords and statements. Check on it with Norman and Chomsky's studies on this.

39 minutes ago, Mohamed1993 said:

Maybe you should read your own articles, it says Iran issued a "rare" criticism of Kashmir and that in the past it has sought to not antagonize India because it needed to balance its relationships with Pakistan. They issued this after 370 was revoked, but Indian forces have been occupying and terrorizing Kashmiris for far longer when Tehran's criticisms have remain muted. 

So, you will enlighten me on Kashmir? LoLzz. 

First of all, Kashmir is occupied by both India and Pakistan. Secondly, this was not occupation earlier as the treaty of accession was signed with Sheikh Abdullah and Hari Singh in 1947 only. So, India had a legal precedence to send it's forces to Kashmir on the basis of Article 370. I would not be surprised if you don't know what this article is all about. So, it was a betrayal. If you will ask India, the Indians will easily prove their point. Reason is the treaties and articles being signed. Kashmir is not as simple as you see it. Recent outrage is due to the brutalisation which was not their earlier. Let me remind you that Kashmir stood with India during the Kargil war against Pakistan. So, the recent happenings are actually a result of extreme right Hindu nationalist oarties on rise since 2014. 

So, to conclude you have nothing to educate me on Kashmir. And Iran is one of the rarest countries to raise voice for India and they are willing to do whatever is in their reach. Obviously, they are not god to condemn Indian forces with death suddenly.

47 minutes ago, Mohamed1993 said:

You saw one video of someone who you saw working for the CIA and used that as basis to conclude that the Uyghur thing isn't real or is exaggerated, and when I showed you a UN report, you dismissed it out of hand after inaccurately claiming the UN has not condemned China in a way it has condemned Israel. It isn't true. I mean your argument is like saying if one person who isn't credible says something on a particular issue, that particular issue is doubtful itself. There are numerous people beyond that woman that have reported on the Chinese states' atrocities in Xinjiang. You do not care to learn about them, because you;ve found one non-credible person and want to run with it.

Firstly, I shared two videos with you. Also, their are plenty of articles that speak for the other side. You sighted to me a UN report. Okay. I didn't deny anything on the matter and neither did I accept. I am not yet done with it. You and people like might be done with it. But let me remind you that the same people were hailing Obama when he said 'Assad must go'. Even the UN reports have oroven to be false. Because UN has no resource of itself. UN sights the reports that it considers 'legitimate'. They sited the info of 'white helmets' in Syria which was proved to be a hand of terror. 

So, my abstainment has reasons and so is the case of Iran.

57 minutes ago, Mohamed1993 said:

My solution is Iran should re-evaluate its interests, because its quite clear its foreign policy is not and never has been driven by any semblance of morality. It doesn't take the same moral position in other arenas, it doesn't take a moral position in its support for regimes that suppress their own people in the Middle East, it in fact supports those regimes. It's funny you talk of courage and all that, but Iran has no courage to go tell the Uyghurs or the Kashmiris that they are severing all ties with the governments oppressing them and arming them. It doesn't do that because it has a clear-eyed view of what its interests are and what they aren't. It isn't about moral courage, get that out of your head. So, given this it should evaluate whether this moral posturing, which is just posturing is actually doing it any good. 

It's annoying you because you can't explain the inconsistency of the government in Iran. I mean even the US harps on and on about its values, and supporting the aspirations of the people in Hong Kong and Tibet, and yet supports the oppression against Palestinians. Why? Because ultimately it is in their interests to show support for one and not another. It wants to weaken China. Iran wants to champion a regional order in which it delegitimizes governments that are allied with Washington and since it faces serious limitations in terms of its Persian and Shia identity, it uses the Palestinian cause to weaken the legitimacy of the region's governments and thus, Washington's influence. The actual concern for the people in Gaza is not what drives their policies. Otherwise, they would support the oppressed everywhere and they don't.

Your opinion is yours but it has nothing to do with facts. If all this would be debated, the thread can go as far as 10 pages considering the interests of Arabs, Israelis, Iran, China, Russia, West etc. in all these conflicts.

I shared you a documentary, an interview that really gives a broad perspective for all what's happening in thed mideast.  

So, it is sufficient for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
48 minutes ago, Zainuu said:

First of all, Kashmir is occupied by both India and Pakistan. Secondly, this was not occupation earlier as the treaty of accession was signed with Sheikh Abdullah and Hari Singh in 1947 only. So, India had a legal precedence to send it's forces to Kashmir on the basis of Article 370. I would not be surprised if you don't know what this article is all about. So, it was a betrayal. If you will ask India, the Indians will easily prove their point. Reason is the treaties and articles being signed. Kashmir is not as simple as you see it. Recent outrage is due to the brutalisation which was not their earlier. Let me remind you that Kashmir stood with India during the Kargil war against Pakistan. So, the recent happenings are actually a result of extreme right Hindu nationalist oarties on rise since 2014. 

 

It was not an occupation earlier? It was the most highly militarized zone on the face of the earth, with some of the worst human rights abuses committed by the Indian military documented by the same organizations that have documented Israeli atrocities against Palestinians. https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/INDIA935.PDF. This document was from back in the 1990's. The status of Kashmir needs to be decided by a referendum that will never be held because both India and Pakistan do not want to let this territory go. The Pakistanis hold that the accession was not legitimate because Singh had lost control of some parts of the territory, while India argues that the instrument of accession, which notably does highlight the need for a referendum once all foreign forces withdraw (which would include India, the invitation by Singh would not legitimize this presence because he was not a leader that was elected, rather  he was a monarch whose legitimacy was obviously questionable given that he was facing protests in some parts of the territory had lost territory even before the Pakistanis came in). And to hold onto an instrument from 1947 to legitimize the atrocities highlighted in the document I linked is ridiculous. 

48 minutes ago, Zainuu said:

Maybe you should learn how diplomacy works. The condition laid by Assad in this article are in such a way that it won't be fulfilled. And you will see it with your own eyes. Also, Syria is not mad to invest a hell on Palestine. Syria is not mad to keep fighting for a decade when Saudis offered them a convenient peaceful solution in 2011 i.e "To break with Iran and all the rebellion will end".

 

Um, your initial argument was they back Hezbollah and now they normalize ties, you never mentioned they would normalize ties under certain conditions, so now you're changing your argument? So you concede it is possible for them to have backed Hezbollah and then still want to normalize ties on certain conditions?

48 minutes ago, Zainuu said:

Iran also offered a 5-point plan to US. One of the compromise was the 'normalization with Israel' on a condition.

Palestinians were the most compromising end under PLO and even Hamas in all the peace accords and statements. Check on it with Norman and Chomsky's studies on this.

Yeah, one after 2003 post Iraq invasion, which included Iran demilitarizing Hezbollah and turning it into a political organization, and accepted the two-state peace process on Israel/Palestine in line with Arab initiative from 2002. This would be in exchange for full sanctions relief and a security guarantee that the US would not ever try to overthrow Iran's government. The US denied it then, because the Bush administration at the height of his arrogance thought they could just militarily win in Iraq and head to Iran. That failed. But today, if Iran made that same proposal under a Biden admin, the US/EU would take it. Not because they are interested in accepting Iran's government, but because they see China as the threat of the century, not Iran, which is a regional power but not a global one.

On PLO/Hamas, you're not wrong, but that still doesn't mean Iran should be pouring its resources into the conflict. It was willing to make a massive bargain in 2003 and drop military support for groups like Hamas and Hezbollah in exchange for restoration of full relations, so there are at least some elements of the leadership that have obviously contemplated this before. No reason they shouldn't now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
34 minutes ago, Mohamed1993 said:

Um, your initial argument was they back Hezbollah and now they normalize ties, you never mentioned they would normalize ties under certain conditions, so now you're changing your argument? So you concede it is possible for them to have backed Hezbollah and then still want to normalize ties on certain conditions?

This is why I said you don't understand diplomacy. Even Hezbollah has red lines. Even Hamas has red lines but they know that Israel won't concede so normalization is off the table.

39 minutes ago, Mohamed1993 said:

But today, if Iran made that same proposal under a Biden admin, the US/EU would take it. Not because they are interested in accepting Iran's government, but because they see China as the threat of the century, not Iran, which is a regional power but not a global one.

Biden won't do that in dreams. Though, Rouhani and Zarif have given the gesture. But you will see that it's US that is arrogant. 

43 minutes ago, Mohamed1993 said:

It was not an occupation earlier? It was the most highly militarized zone on the face of the earth, with some of the worst human rights abuses committed by the Indian military documented by the same organizations that have documented Israeli atrocities against

It was always a 'highly militarized zone'. Because what India has done was a betrayal. You need to read the article 370 to understand why it was so. 

Revocation of article 370 and complete annexation is an open and clear occupation which has happened just recently. Moreover, Iran has louded the voice for all the Indian muslims. And it is happening since the last 6 years. 

As I said, it has gone since 6 years because of the rise of extremed national far-right sentiments.

You can argue with any Kashmiri, whosoever he might be to understand the support of Iran for Kashmir. 

https://m.hindustantimes.com/world/iran-s-supreme-leader-backs-kashmir-struggle/story-eYm0w32ddZWciSW0vQ0wdJ.html

See what is Iran for Kashmir and this was 1998:

https://www.csmonitor.com/1998/0626/062698.intl.intl.2.html

The support for Kashmir by Iran was always their though it came just recently on your television.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Today is the 10th anniversary of Mahamed Bouzizi's self-immolation, touching off the Arab Spring.

Co-oped by the Satan-Says crowd, paramilitary support was rapidly given to protesters in Libya and Syria after Mubarak resigned.

Economies remain damaged and several are subject to repressive sanctions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...