Hamas Attacks Against Israel

[Renegade7]

1 minute ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Sorry, most countries at war are.

 

Prove this and ill listen.

[PeterMP]

46 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Thats sweet. Empirical evidence says otherwise. But you are free to have wrong opinions. Or you just disagree with what total capitulation is…

 

By occupying them, demilitarizing them, and assimilating them into our culture. Israel should of course follow the same route in Palestine.

there is a difference between total capitulation and punishment. Two different things.

 

If you tell Hamas, they have to totally capitulate, they aren't going to think that means the leaders get to survive.  I'm sorry, but that's just not how the words are used.  They are also aren't going to understand it to mean that you are going to pay large sums of money and carve out land for a viable Palestinian state.

 

And I'm not talking about just a lack of punishment.  I'm talking about proactively working to create viable states.

 

If your idea of total capitulation, includes potentially allowing the survival of the Hamas leadership and creating the conditions that will create a viable Palestinian state, then I agree.  But then you are doing an awful job of communicating that.

Edited February 13 by PeterMP

[PeterMP]

30 minutes ago, PokerPacker said:

My understanding is that Netanyahu didn't ignore Hamas, he actively propped them up because it is helpful to him politically to have them as an enemy rather than allowing another party to take hold in Gaza.

 

That was mostly early on I think.  When the PA/PLO was the dominant force, Israel was interested in supporting other organizations to prevent the PLO/PA from consolidating control.  I think in terms of Oct. 7, they just didn't believe Hamas had the ability to carry out such an attack and so were lax. 

Edited February 13 by PeterMP

[CousinsCowgirl84]

12 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Prove this and ill listen.

Which countries at war currently aren’t committing war crimes? Russia? Ukraine (which has targeted civilian buildings)? Somalia? 🤔

[Renegade7]

3 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Which countries at war currently aren’t committing war crimes? Russia? Ukraine (which has targeted civilian buildings)? Somalia? 🤔

 

Comparing the war crimes of Russia and Ukraine like they are on equal or similar footing helps explain your comparison between Israel and Hamas.

 

I'm seriously debating the level of effort to put into actual specific laws violated and on what level and by whom, but that's about to go to court and I'm not convinced doing it for you in this "debate" is worth it.

 

I'll think about it since you won't want to, either.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

4 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Comparing the war crimes of Russia and Ukraine like they are on equal or similar footing helps explain your comparison between Israel and Hamas.

 

 

I’m not comparing them. You stated you didn’t think countries at war were committing war crimes. That is incorrect.

Edited February 13 by CousinsCowgirl84

[Skins24]

26 minutes ago, PokerPacker said:

Israel is not some innocent party sitting around minding its own business when Big Bad Hamas came and hurt them out of nowhere.  Israel has been displacing and murdering Palestinians as they saw fit.  So let's turn that question around.  What should Palestine do when Israelis come in and murder and displace their people and the world turns a blind eye?  Should they declare war, put on uniforms and stand in long lines with their rifles and expect to trade fire back-and-forth against the much larger army that is funded by the wealthiest country with the most advanced military in the world?  Surely that will put an end to Israeli aggression.

 

First and foremost - this conflict has been raging for thousands of years and is not going to be solved by folks on a football message board

And there indeed have been several times when Israel was just sitting around and was simply attacked for existing.

 

What should the Palestinians do? Rewind the clock back to 2000 talks, for a starting point at least...

They are surrounded by wealthy Arab nations. Do things that would garner their support instead of things that make those nations shy away from supporting. Like voting for Hamas.

"But they voted for Hamas because Israel.........." and on and on it goes. Chicken or egg.

 

 

3 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

My solution is the same as we did after WWII and not after WWI and realistically after we did for Egypt after they lost to Israel in 1973.  To help create a situation where the states have the reasonable ability to succeed.  "We" (the allies that won WWI) contributed the failure of the German state that was created after WWI because of the requirements on that state that ended WWI.  Similarly, Israel's decisions after the various conflicts have contributed to the states around it being failures.

 

Knowing whether the Palestinian state that was created at the partition could be successful or not is hard because it was pretty much attacked immediately.  It never even had a chance at getting going.  But you can't separate the success of many states with the support that they get from the larger international community, including their neighbors.  No different than Japan and Germany are successes today partly because of the support we gave them after WWII, especially in the context of security from the Soviets.  If we defeat Japan in WWII and then walk away, there's a much better chance that Japan today is a failed state because they wouldn't have the means/ability to stand up to the Soviets and likely would have ended up giving up territory to the Soviets if not haven fallen under Soviet control.

 

Countries like Lebanon need support in terms of security from Iran (and Iranian agents (e.g. Hezbollah)), but instead of support they get attacked.

 

What Israel should do and should have done is worked with the aggressors (like we did after WWII and didn't do after WWI) with strong appeals to the international community to help those states have the potential achieve success.  And that likely includes Israel giving up land that they've claimed (and now settled on) during those disputes.  It potentially would have included money coming from somewhere (again with respect to Egypt in 1973 it came from us) to help those countries recover from losing the war (and after WWII for Germany and Japan, the money came from us).

I can generally agree with this in a perfect world.

Problem is, Israel can't make decisions for the other parties. The Palestinians and the nations surrounding Israel have some of the wealthiest nations on Earth as nearby neighbors. Israel can appeal to those nations and the international community at large all it wants to help prop up Lebanon or a Palestine State, but there's no guarantee they'd do that. As we've seen....
Nor is it Israel's job to ensure those nations are supported. I get the WWII analogy. But this really is different. No one was calling for the complete annihilation of the German or Japanese people. Israel calling for the strengthening of nations that will wipe it out as soon as they are strong enough seems counterintuitive.

 

I don't recall, and just looked it up briefly, any accord or peace deal in which Israel does not give up some land. I don't think that is a big issue. Well, past tense now.

[PokerPacker]

3 minutes ago, Skins24 said:

What should the Palestinians do? Rewind the clock back to 2000 talks, for a starting point at least...

They are surrounded by wealthy Arab nations. Do things that would garner their support instead of things that make those nations shy away from supporting. Like voting for Hamas.

"But they voted for Hamas because Israel.........." and on and on it goes. Chicken or egg.

Step 1: Break the laws of physics
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit

Got it.  Solid path for Palestinians to finally experience peace and prosperity.  Why didn't they think of that 6 months ago?

[Renegade7]

27 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

I’m not comparing them. You stated you didn’t think countries at war were committing war crimes. That is incorrect.

 

No, you said most were, I responded most weren't.

 

 

I even offered to believe you if you could prove it to keep the conversation honest.

 

That door is still open, otherwise I reserve the right move on.

[PeterMP]

3 hours ago, Skins24 said:

 

First and foremost - this conflict has been raging for thousands of years and is not going to be solved by folks on a football message board

 

 

I can generally agree with this in a perfect world.

Problem is, Israel can't make decisions for the other parties. The Palestinians and the nations surrounding Israel have some of the wealthiest nations on Earth as nearby neighbors. Israel can appeal to those nations and the international community at large all it wants to help prop up Lebanon or a Palestine State, but there's no guarantee they'd do that. As we've seen....
Nor is it Israel's job to ensure those nations are supported. I get the WWII analogy. But this really is different. No one was calling for the complete annihilation of the German or Japanese people. Israel calling for the strengthening of nations that will wipe it out as soon as they are strong enough seems counterintuitive.

 

The first part isn't really true.  Very few Jews lived in the area from the time of the Jewish diaspora until the birth of the Zionist movement post-WWI.  But there isn't much evidence of issues between the Jews and the Arab/Muslims that lived in the area during those centuries.  There's much more history of the Arabs/Muslims fighting.  And even at the time of the Jewish diaspora the issue wasn't conflict between the Jews and the Arabs but between the Jews and the conquering Romans.  When people say they've been fighting over there for thousands of years, they more mean the Arabs in the context of things like the Sunni/Shia divide and even sects within the Sunnis fighting.  But things were really relatively peaceful during most of the Ottoman Empire which was pretty religiously tolerant.

 

The current conflict is almost entirely the result of European Jews moving back to Palestine as part of the post-WWI Zionist movement that really picked up post-WWII and then the UN partition of Palestine.

 

You've got the analogy mixed up.  The issue wouldn't have been people calling for the destruction of Japan or Germany.  It would have been Japan and Germany calling for the destruction of other countries.  Which is exactly what happened.  You saying that Israel supporting the strengthening of said countries is no different than France post-WWII saying we don't support rebuilding Germany because they will wipe us out if they get strong enough.  Germany's European countries could have objected to rebuilding Germany because Germany had tried to destroy them (in WWI and WWII).  We did it anyway.

 

History tells us that sort of thing doesn't tend to be an issue. 

 

Even in this conflict.  After the war in 1973, we helped Egypt,  They got stronger, and after the Camp David Accords in 1978 we have continued to support them.  The end result has not been this stronger Egypt trying to wipe out Israel. 

 

Israel can't control what other countries do, but their actions haven't helped.  And they aren't a poor country themselves.  They spend a lot on their military.  An ounce of prevention can be better than a pound of cure.

Edited February 13 by PeterMP

[Skins24]

2 minutes ago, PokerPacker said:

Step 1: Break the laws of physics
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit

Got it.  Solid path for Palestinians to finally experience peace and prosperity.  Why didn't they think of that 6 months ago?

??

Definitely not a plan at all. First thing I said was this won't be solved from folks on a message board...

If I had a solution to end thousands of years of conflict, I would not be talking to you all

 

IMO, I see two acceptable paths for the Palestinians. I have NO IDEA how they can peacefully get to either one and peacefully stay there.
Path one (most desirable) - A strong Palestinian State.

Path two - Integrated, yet fully autonomous, within the State of Israel.

 

[tshile]

@Renegade7

im throwing this out there as a reference but I’m happy to use something else if you like it better. 
 

https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/

 

It seems to me the ones I looked at have some sort of atrocity tied to it. Are there ones you can find that do not have violations of international law going on?

[CousinsCowgirl84]

21 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

No, you said most were, I responded most weren't.

 

 

I even offered to believe you if you could prove it to keep the conversation honest.

 

That door is still open, otherwise I reserve the right move on.

 

yea, I clarified in my response I meant countries at war. Obviously countries not at war aren’t committing war crimes… 

[Skins24]

6 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

You've got the analogy mixed up.  The issue wouldn't have been people calling for the destruction of Japan or Germany.  It would have been Japan and Germany calling for the destruction of other countries.  Which is exactly what happened.  You saying that Israel supporting the strengthening of said countries is no different than France post-WWII saying we don't support rebuilding Germany because they will wipe us out if they get strong enough.  Germany's European countries could have objected to rebuilding Germany because Germany had tried to destroy them (in WWI and WWII).  We did it anyway.

 

History tells us that sort of thing doesn't tend to be an issue. 

 

Even in this conflict.  After the war in 1973, we helped Egypt,  They got stronger, and after the Camp David Accords in 1978 we have continued to support them.  The end result has not been this stronger Egypt trying to wipe out Israel. 

 

Israel can't control what other countries do, but their actions haven't helped.  And they aren't a poor country themselves.

 

I mean, technically we STILL have troops in Germany and Japan   Who would have or is going to support Israel posting troops in it's surrounding neighbors, ensuring they stay in check, while we (the international community) help prop them up?

 

History is showing this to be the fourth time Israel has had to deal with this.

Egypt pretty much just got tired of losing. After each of the two previous conflicts, the Arab nations were emphatic on not negotiating or giving consensus/recognition to Israel. Germany/Japan worked because all sides agreed to make it work. What would have happened if Germany or Japan refused to cooperate?

[Renegade7]

28 minutes ago, tshile said:

@Renegade7

im throwing this out there as a reference but I’m happy to use something else if you like it better. 
 

https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/

 

It seems to me the ones I looked at have some sort of atrocity tied to it. Are there ones you can find that do not have violations of international law going on?

 

I'm having trouble with the site, is it saying Ukraine is committing war crimes against Russia?

30 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

yea, I clarified in my response I meant countries at war. Obviously countries not at war aren’t committing war crimes… 

 

: /

 

I figured we were talking countries at war currently and most of those countries actively committing war crimes...that I specifically disagree with.

 

 

[tshile]

Just now, Renegade7 said:

 

I'm having trouble with the site, is it saying Ukraine is committing war crimes against Russia?

It’s just a list of ongoing conflicts around the globe. I don’t know that it says anything about war crimes, or that when it does it’s intended to be an exhaustive list. I was just providing a reference point for global conflicts as a starting point (cause fight now it’s like “you give me a list” “no you give me a list”)

 

it seems to me, most conflicts wind up involving war crimes. I’m just curious if you can look at any active conflicts and say you don’t believe war crimes have been involved. I’m happy to look into it and see what I find. 
 

the Middle East and Asia are full of them. South and Central America seems to have them too. 
 

we get accused of it. 
 

you seem to have a pretty strong stance that war crimes aren’t a typical thing in war between two countries. It doesn’t seem that way to me but I’m open to looking into any you list as ones you think don’t have that issue somewhere within the conflict. 

[PeterMP]

2 hours ago, Skins24 said:

 

I mean, technically we STILL have troops in Germany and Japan   Who would have or is going to support Israel posting troops in it's surrounding neighbors, ensuring they stay in check, while we (the international community) help prop them up?

 

History is showing this to be the fourth time Israel has had to deal with this.

Egypt pretty much just got tired of losing. After each of the two previous conflicts, the Arab nations were emphatic on not negotiating or giving consensus/recognition to Israel. Germany/Japan worked because all sides agreed to make it work. What would have happened if Germany or Japan refused to cooperate?

 

Israel isn't going to be able to do it.  The Palestinians aren't going to trust them.  Just like even though the Soviets were Allies and on the winning side, they weren't allowed to be part of the force in Japan.  And Israel never took on an occupation role in Egypt.

 

History shows that people that don't have a good choice never get tired of losing.  They just keep doing what the Palestinians are doing.  The Palestinians have been at it longer than Egypt.  Why don't they get tired of losing?  Because it isn't a matter of getting tired of losing.  It is a matter of feeling like there are no good options.  The key is to give them another good or better option.  Egypt was given a better option.

 

With Japan (and Egypt) all sides agreed because of negotiations in which the people that were the victors and normally make claims (money, land, the deaths of leaders, etc.) were instead offering assistance.  If you're Japan, the post-WWII deal is a pretty easy deal to agree to.  We'll let your leaders live.  We don't want any of your territory.  We'll give you a lot of support to rebuild your country.  You can have a self-defense force.  We'll protect you from the Soviets.  We do require some changes to your government.

 

The agreement that Egypt got was a good deal.  It was easy to say yes to.  We didn't destroy your army, and you can keep your army.  We'll give you back your land (Israel had occupied a large part of Egypt).  You don't have pay us anything.  The people in charge can stay in charge (we aren't going to put your leaders to death).  And the US will give you money/aid.

 

Those aren't deals that anybody says no to after losing a war.  Those are the sorts of deals that actually bring peace.  Those are also the sort of deals that the Palestinians have never been offered.

Edited February 13 by PeterMP

[PeterMP]

Pretty much except for in the case of Egypt (where we got more heavily involved), Israel has a pre-WWII mind set.  We won.  We get things (e.g. land).  You get punished (e.g. you lose land).  That's not conductive to creating peace.  That's conductive for having one conflict to lay the ground work for the next conflict just like WWI laid the ground work for WWII.  And you end up in cycles of conflict.

 

And that's where Israel is.

Edited February 13 by PeterMP

[PokerPacker]

10 minutes ago, Skins24 said:

??

Definitely not a plan at all. First thing I said was this won't be solved from folks on a message board...

If I had a solution to end thousands of years of conflict, I would not be talking to you all

I ignored the first part because either you want to discuss the topic or you do not want to discuss the topic.  Our inability to affect the outcome is irrelevant to the discussion.

 

10 minutes ago, Skins24 said:

IMO, I see two acceptable paths for the Palestinians. I have NO IDEA how they can peacefully get to either one and peacefully stay there.
Path one (most desirable) - A strong Palestinian State.

Path two - Integrated, yet fully autonomous, within the State of Israel.

And therein lies the problem.  An end without a means is not very helpful.  Israel, on the other hand, does have means to effect these end-states, but it is entirely unwilling.  So for all the finger-wagging at Palestine because Hamas responded to Palestine's situation as it did... what other options do they have?  Do nothing and Israel continues to put boot to throat and the world ignores it.  Do something big and now the world is paying attention.  Which do you think is worse from their perspective?  A stable but untenable position of an oppressed people, or chaos from which change is possible, for better or worse.

[Skins24]

1 hour ago, PokerPacker said:

I ignored the first part because either you want to discuss the topic or you do not want to discuss the topic.  Our inability to affect the outcome is irrelevant to the discussion.

 

And therein lies the problem.  An end without a means is not very helpful.  Israel, on the other hand, does have means to effect these end-states, but it is entirely unwilling.  So for all the finger-wagging at Palestine because Hamas responded to Palestine's situation as it did... what other options do they have?  Do nothing and Israel continues to put boot to throat and the world ignores it.  Do something big and now the world is paying attention.  Which do you think is worse from their perspective?  A stable but untenable position of an oppressed people, or chaos from which change is possible, for better or worse.

We can and are discussing it. You assumed(?) what I wrote was a plan, when clearly it was not.

 

And here is why I have stated before, that history cannot be ignored. You're assuming(??) Israel is putting "boot to throat" for no reason, when it has fought multiple wars in which the sole purpose of that war, was not resources, it was to wipe them from the face of the earth. Would that not put you on edge? Should they just roll over and allow that to happen?

Israel will claim, they are the oppressed people. Do you think they will listen to us when we tell them they are not?

 

 

(And of course, make absolutely no mistake, I am in no way advocating the harsh treatment of Palestinians.Two wrongs will never make a right)

 

 

[tshile]

1 hour ago, PokerPacker said:

what other options do they have?

Stop believe, and voicing, and acting in a context of “Israel and the Jews that live there shall not exist”

 

not voicing and acting on a sentiment of the other side shall not exist is a first step. 
 

(I get Israel has made things worse. I’m not trying to argue who shares what % of blame. Just answering that one question. 
 

Israel is not the only side that could, and should have by now, made some fundamental changes in what they’re about here. 

[PeterMP]

15 minutes ago, tshile said:

Stop believe, and voicing, and acting in a context of “Israel and the Jews that live there shall not exist”

 

not voicing and acting on a sentiment of the other side shall not exist is a first step. 
 

(I get Israel has made things worse. I’m not trying to argue who shares what % of blame. Just answering that one question. 
 

Israel is not the only side that could, and should have by now, made some fundamental changes in what they’re about here. 

 

I've made this point before, but Hamas has moved in that direction.  The updated Hamas Charter (in 2017) is much less of Israel can't exist and there can't be any Jews in Palestine than the older 1988 one.  It doesn't out right recognize the right for Israel exist, but it talks about a Palestinian state in the context of the 1967 borders.  Which then leaves the rest of Palestine to be a Jewish state, thought it doesn't explicitly state that.  It might not have moved to the point that Israel and many other people are happy with but it did move.

 

The PA has directly recognized a right for Israel to exist (and to my knowledge has not renounced that recognition).

 

So the two main Palestinian governing institutions appear resigned to allowing for a Jewish state in Palestine, and really a Jewish state that is the dominant entity in Palestine.

Edited February 13 by PeterMP

[tshile]

2 hours ago, PeterMP said:

Pretty much except for in the case of Egypt (where we got more heavily involved), Israel has a pre-WWII mind set.  We won.  We get things (e.g. land).  You get punished (e.g. you lose land).  That's not conductive to creating peace.  That's conductive for having one conflict to lay the ground work for the next conflict just like WWI laid the ground work for WWII.  And you end up in cycles of conflict.

 

And that's where Israel is.

out of everything you’ve said in this thread this one is new to me - this one caught my attention. Feels like a new thought to me - I’m sure others have made the argument, it just didn’t stick with me. This one I’ve been thinking about since you posted the ww2 analogy. 
 

I have a response. I quite literally can’t find anything to argue on this - I’m genuinely just curious what you think. 
 

when I think of the norm you describe (Germany and Japan are one example but I think it probably describes a lot…) both countries were in bad situations. Things were going to get worse. Hitler killed himself. The country was split in 2 and the center of the Cold War. Japan negotiated not only their heads of states escaping embarrassment, but they sorta agreed to turn a blind eye to the whole “the Japanese had concentration camps too…” thing

 

it was over for Germany. I shudder to think what history looks like if japan refused to surrender. I see a lot of dead no matter how refusing to surrender ends. 
 

Israel’s position at the end of its conflicts are nothing like what the allies was. It seems there’s a theory, that people seem to think is at least plausible, that Hamas attacked because Israel was improving relations with Egypt (and working on improving with others)… so that theory aside, Israel had spent most of its existence surrounded by enemies. Most of which stated goal/opinion/desire was for Israel to not exist (and on some level at least the Jews in Israel to not exist as people.)

I think juxtaposing Israel’s position over time, to that of the allies post ww2, then saying “see they should be offering to help…”, that seems unreasonable. Or naive of how generally people operate. Israel doesn’t end conflicts a global power, part of a huge global alliance with no known enemy at the moment,  with its enemies dismantled - it ends it in the same state the conflicts start. Surrounded by people that don’t think they should exist, and are willing to act on that. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

I've made this point before

Yes, I know, and I do appreciate you pointing it out. 
 

I think removing it from a charter is 1 step in a long walk to get from where they were to “hey we really think it’s ok for you to exist, we promise” and for it to be believed. 

Edited February 13 by tshile

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, tshile said:

I think juxtaposing Israel’s position over time, to that of the allies post ww2, then saying “see they should be offering to help…”, that seems unreasonable. Or naive of how generally people operate. Israel doesn’t end conflicts a global power, part of a huge global alliance with no known enemy at the moment,  with its enemies dismantled - it ends it in the same state the conflicts start. Surrounded by people that don’t think they should exist, and are willing to act on that. 

 

Israel is a global power.  They are one 9 nuclear states and have the 4th most successful economy in the world (in 2022 according to the IMF) and has support from the US and (at least historically) most of Europe. 

 

Israel becomes a nuclear power in the late 1960s which pretty eliminated any possibility of somebody wiping them out.

 

The last major war where you could even imagine there was a chance of Israel being destroyed was in 1973 (the Yom Kippur War) which happened because Israel had taken land from Egypt and Syria in their last war in 1967 and they were trying to get it back (not wipe out Israel, just reclaim land from a previous war).  Before that war, Israel was pre-warned by Jordan that at least Syria was going to attack (so helped by one of their neighbors and not a neighbor interested in attacking them).

 

The objective of that war by Egypt and Syria was not to "wipe out" Israel (because that would have almost certainly resulted in a nuclear response) but to reclaim land that was historically theirs that was lost in 1967.

 

Neither country ever comes close to entering into what we consider Israel today.  The war lasted days and ends up with Israel in control of even more territory and coming very close to completely wiping out the entire Egyptian army and within striking range of the Syrian capital.

 

After that war, Egypt leaves the Soviet sphere and moves closer to us pretty much eliminating any chance of another attack and in 1978 the Camp David Peace Accords are signed.  

 

Israel has had no more of a real threat to wipe them out than us or any other country in the world for essentially my whole life, or the majority of the existence of Israel.  Israel has not been "surrounded" by enemies for the vast majority of my life or for the majority of the existence of Israel.  Any claim otherwise just isn't credible.  It is not 1975 and certainly not 1967.  For them to behave the way they did in 1967 might have made sense.  But it doesn't make sense in 2024 if you want peace.

 

At some level, yes, I understand what I'm asking Israel to do is unreasonable.  But that's where intelligence and education are supposed to come in.  And if you think about it, is it really more unreasonable than to keep doing what they've been doing for the last few decades which certainly don't seem to be bringing them peace?  If they fail to see where they are that is a failure to understand basic history.

Edited February 14 by PeterMP

[PeterMP]

3 hours ago, Skins24 said:

Israel is putting "boot to throat" for no reason, when it has fought multiple wars in which the sole purpose of that war, was not resources, it was to wipe them from the face of the earth. Would that not put you on edge? Should they just roll over and allow that to happen?

 

Can we agree that rhetoric and propaganda is used to excite the masses but isn't actually the cause of the war?  In WWII there was a lot of racist propaganda and rhetoric in the US related to Japan but after the war US leadership had no problem putting that aside that rhetoric and being an ally with Japan.

 

How well do you know the history here actually?

 

For example, do you know that before the first Israeli/Arab War that the the leader of Transjordan (which was at the time considered the strongest country in the region and the leader of the Arab League) met with Jewish leaders (before the partition) offered them an autonomous Jewish canton within his kingdom and Golda Meir a seat in the countries parliament?  That Jewish leaders had agreed that when the UN plan went into place Transjordan would take over the land given to Palestinians?  That the Jewish leadership didn't pass any of this information onto anybody else?  And that the leader of Transjordan was mostly interested in land including land that was supposed to become the Palestinian state and claiming Jerusalem because of its religious significance (i.e. the presence of the Dome of the Rock)?    That while Jewish leadership did not think he would abide to the agreement that they had that they didn't think he would all of the land that was expected to be used to create the Jewish state?  And that the ruler of Transjordan actually preferred to have a Jewish state as its neighbor than a state ruled by Palestinians (Arabs can be pretty racist against other Arabs and other Arab groups have a history of looking down on Palestinians)?

 

Transjordan wasn't really interested in killing Jews.  They wanted land and they wanted the prestige that would come with being in control of Jerusalem.  And they seemed to like the Jews more than Palestinians.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_I_of_Jordan (Read the section on "Expansionist aspirations").

 

While there might have been talk of "wiping the Jews out" that wasn't really the leaders objective.  The objective was land, power, and prestige.

 

But no, they shouldn't just roll over and wipe them out.  But given they have the strongest military in the region and are the only nuclear state it seems unlikely they'll be wiped out.

Edited February 14 by PeterMP