A warning to the President

[hntnhole]

Mr. President,

It is becoming more and more dangerous for the entire world in the Middle East.  The war is spreading, expanding in all areas, and there's some measure of blame falling on many shoulders.  

We know that you and the Prime Minister of Israel have been friends for many years.  That fact does not obviate the clear intentions of said Prime Minister, which fall into conflict with virtually every Country on Earth, save the Iranian government.  

The largest shipping company in the world, Maersk Lines of Denmark, has decided that the Suez Canal has become too dangerous for their ships, which carry products to and from nations over the entire globe.  Presently, instead of using that canal, their ships are forced to sail around the horn of Africa to bring goods from the far East to markets in the Western world.  That is increasing the cost of goods exponentially, because Iranian proxies are firing rockets at them.  You will be blamed, regardless of fault.  

Iranian proxies are firing land-based munitions on American positions elsewhere in the area, provoking an American military response.  The current state of affairs in unsustainable, and on track  to a general war in the Middle East. 

The aforementioned Prime Minister is a small-minded, insistent, corrupt and intractable "ally" that has only his own myopic agenda in mind: you can send Blinken, Generals, every other American official available to attempt to stay his heavy hand in Palestine, and nothing seems to come of it.  You can insist that he cease his wholesale destruction of an entire population, total destruction of infrastructure, the complete and utter upheaval of an entire population, and he will not respect you.  You can demand that he heed the entire world's call for the looooong awaited Two State Solution, you can hem and haw until the cows come home, and he will not be moved.  What more indifference to his principal ally's "advice" can he demonstrate that might become clear to you?  

It is American bombs that have decimated an entire region.  The bombs that have wrought virtual total destruction on Palestine are American bombs.  It is the steadfast support of American aid, mostly military, that he depends on.  You have already ordered an  American military response to Iranian-backed attacks on American military presence in Iran.  While most of the Citizens of the World believe that Israel should exist, even more Citizens of the World believe that the decimation of an entire people is an outrageous violation of even the smallest measure of decency.

In the event that you allow American support to further enable this unspeakable behavior on the part of the calcified, myopic Israeli Government, the deterioration of the situation with Israel permanently occupying Palestine (as said Prime Minister has declared) instead of offering some small measure of cooperation with the will of the rest of the world's Governments, the chances of general war breaking out are multiplying daily.  That tragedy, if it comes, will fall in large part upon your shoulders, and you will surely lose your position as standard-bearer of the Free World.  All decent-minded citizens of the World believe that Israel should exist, peacefully.  While the Hamas terrorists definitely started this conflict, and while Israel definitely has the right and duty to defend itself, that "right" simply does not extend to wholesale slaughter of innocent civilians, or the wholesale destruction of infrastructure.  

Mr. President. I believe you are a man of character, generosity and good will.  I believe that you are a good and decent man.  Be warned, however, that if America gets sucked into a general war in the Middle East, it is you that will be blamed.  You simply must be at least as intractable as the aforementioned P.M. in your insistence that restraint be demonstrated by your "ally".  

Your re-election depends on it.  

 

[GyroLover]

I’m sorry sir but what is going on with our involvement in this is only political theater.   Furthermore the Israeli government does not hate the Palestinians nor do they hate the Iranians.  Conversely, many of the extremists born in Palestine and Iran and some other predominantly Muslim countries enter this world and are trained to hate the Jews, rape their women, and murder their children.  It’s allowed by their religion they claim. 
 

I realize that this is a hot topic and I respect your opinion regarding it.  But, Israel did not ask to be bombed, did not ask to be terrorized for decades, did not ask for any of it.  They only want to exist and others pick a fight and murder them.  
 

this conflict is as old as time itself.  I don’t think we will see real peace in our lifetime.   Peace is not profitable and Joe is not interested if it is not profitable.   This administration needs positive press and they will exploit whomever to deflect the microscope off of them.  
 

Make no mistake. I don’t like either party. Fuck the R’s and the D’s 

Again, I appreciate your convictions and opinion and value your posts in this lovely forum.  
 

regards
 

 

Edited December 28, 2023 by GyroLover

[viking8x6]

6 minutes ago, GyroLover said:

Furthermore the Israeli government does not hate the Palestinians nor do they hate the Iranians.  Conversely, many of the extremists born in Palestine and Iran and some other predominantly Muslim countries enter this world and are trained to hate the Jews, rape their women, and murder their children.

The Israeli government may not hate the Palestinians, but they certainly have abused the Palestinians for many years.

As for "many of the extremists..." - That may be true, but I think you overstate the case; very few of the Palestinian and Iranian people can accurately be described as extremists of the type you describe.

My opinion is that the nations of the West - aka the victors of the first and second World Wars - need to bear a good chunk of blame for having ignored important cultural and historical facts when they carved up the Middle East and created Israel. Yes, religious conflict over the region has been going on for centuries (or at least since the religions in question - all three of them - laid claim to the "holy land"), but the "solution" arrived at by the British and other nations was a disaster waiting to happen, and it's been happening ever since.

[GyroLover]

I feel like the abuse of the of the palestinian people is more from their leaders.  Those terror leaders use them as human shields, place headquarters in hospitals and schools.  They stoke the extremism which in turn grows.  
 

the genocide of the Jewish people was atrocious. They were given that land, right or wrong, and they have made it better.   They developed it, have water and electricity, a great infrastructure.  Cross over to the other side and you have mud huts and poverty.  If the Palestinian leaders wanted to get along and advance their people there would be a good chance of peace and they too could benefit from great infrastructure.  Those leaders however are millionaires and billionaires, send their children to the west for education, are financed by people and governments that profit by the conflict.  
 

it’s a terrible situation all around and it saddens me greatly.  
 

 

[BootmanLA]

2 hours ago, GyroLover said:

the genocide of the Jewish people was atrocious. They were given that land, right or wrong, and they have made it better.

No rational person disputes the first point here. But you can't simply wave away the entire drawing of the lines of the Middle East - not respecting long-standing ethnic boundaries, but simply dividing the former Ottoman Empire for the convenience of the victors of the first World War - with a "right or wrong" dismissal. The Jews were not "given" the land today known as Israel; they essentially migrated en masse after the second World War, seized the land which was then under British control, and declared a nation-state therein.

It's arguable that the world owed a homeland to a people who had been so abused over the centuries, but let's not pretend it happened because "they" were "given" anything. That's historically inaccurate.

As for making it better: they made it better for themselves. They did not make things better for the hundreds of thousands of non-Jews who were already living there.

2 hours ago, GyroLover said:

They developed it, have water and electricity, a great infrastructure.  Cross over to the other side and you have mud huts and poverty.

A huge amount of that development came because the U.S. poured billions into Israel over the years - resources that were long denied to "the other side," as you dismiss them. But even so, the "mud huts" canard is just that: a lie, because the Palestinian people, when today's West Bank was part of Jordan, had established many thriving cities over the centuries - perhaps not gleaming steel and glass and concrete mid-20th century structures, but certainly more than "mud huts". Those lands are now essentially under Israeli control, and Israel greatly restricts the movement of Palestinians throughout the West Bank - having seized most of the resources of that area for itself.

To be fair, the Palestinian people have mostly been pawns in a struggle between the major Arab states - Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, etc. - and the west, represented by Israel, the U.S. proxy in the area. The 1967 and 1973 wars between various Arab states and Israel was more about asserting dominance over the entire region than it ever was about providing any sort of state for the Palestinians. Jordan, in fact, is almost entirely a Palestinian nation, and could easily have absorbed many of the refugees in the West Bank, both economically and culturally; but the refugees make a potent political issue, and it's to Jordan's (and Syria's, and other states') advantage to maintain them as such. It's no different from the Republicans' refusal to actually address immigration reform in this country because "da border" makes a great political cudgel with which to beat up Democrats.

The situation in the West Bank has been ongoing since 1967, and over the decades has deteriorated, not improved - as more and more of the best land there has been seized by "settlers" (ie occupying colonialists), the plight of the rightful occupants of that land has grown worse and worse. In Gaza, Israel simply sealed the border around it, letting in very little and letting out very little - and you wonder why it's less developed than Israel proper? There's no question that Hamas's terroristic attacks over the decades have helped make things worse; but at the same time, how many decades does an occupying power get to control another people before those people will fight back using any means available?

And that's not to excuse Hamas terrorism or their leadership's criminal mismanagement of the government in Gaza, about which you are correct. But Israel had a hand in creating that situation - a deliberate choice by our ally - and as they say, the chickens are coming home to roost.

[tallslenderguy]

 

[ErosWired]

8 hours ago, hntnhole said:

Your re-election depends on it.  

I think this is debatable. The factors that will determine the outcome of the 2024 election are diverse, fraught, heavy on domestic focus, and reek with the stench of Donald Trump.

We are taught by the scriptures that “there will always be wars and rumors of wars”, and there has been no actual peace in the Middle East in my lifetime; indeed, it could be argued, since Partition. I suspect that for many an Israeli war with its neighbors is simply the inevitable and expected pot boiling over; one expects it much as one expects volcanic eruptions in Hawai’i. That Israel’s war-hawks have taken this opportunity to vent their pent-up military ambitions with as little restraint as possible seems likely to me so sour goodwill toward that nation among those who might have been sympathetic, but I don’t see the world casting the blame for the whole affair upon the United States, let alone its singular President.

[tallslenderguy]

To me, the president of the US is more of a symbol. They are often (mostly?) a puppet of forces both seen and unseen.  It's hard for me to disconnect US political power from the economic power structure of big business.   

As a symbol, the president can get both credit and blame... and while i think the position holds power, i think the president has far less control than the image the position portrays.  

One of things i believe Trump wants is to wield more of that apparent power as an individual. my feel is he wants to be king, not president.  i also feel he is just as he appears, volatile, shallow, narcissistic, easily manipulated by his massive ego.  To me, he seems more ruled by his image than substance.  He loves being the center of attention and prides himself on being outrageous, as though he equates that with being special, unique.  As long as one can feed and satisfy his toddler ego, one can control Trump.

In contrast,  i think career politicians like Biden simply sell their soul to play a role. They are the latest actor on the stage. While a president has limited control as any famous actor does, i don't believe they write the script or direct the play.

[hntnhole]

First, thanks to each of you for your thoughts; it's much appreciated.

20 hours ago, GyroLover said:

only political theater.

The prospect of general war (meaning wide-ranging, involving a number of nations) is hardly political theatre.  It is a "clear and present danger", as the saying goes.

 

20 hours ago, GyroLover said:

Furthermore the Israeli government does not hate the Palestinians

Perhaps you noticed that I took care to focus on the current Government of Israel?  That was intentional, to avoid addressing the cultural/religious situation, and focus on current U.S. policy, it's motives, and increasingly likely results.  I did not address the ancient hatreds or their causes, thus avoiding that which has been chewed over for ages.  That's a different discussion. 

20 hours ago, GyroLover said:

I respect your opinion regarding it

As I respect yours.  Thank you for your thoughts regarding the posted topic.  

 

20 hours ago, viking8x6 said:

for having ignored important cultural and historical facts when they carved up the Middle East and created Israel.

That grave error has created the fundamental, apparently intractable and ongoing crises.  It happened so long ago, I'm not really sure it can be properly corrected, since people on both sides have been living with the result for so long.  Yet, it seems the "Two State Solution" is the best possible (or least odious) basis to make the attempt.  

20 hours ago, GyroLover said:

I feel like the abuse of the of the palestinian people is more from their leaders.

My apologies, but I disagree.  The original and ongoing repressions of the Palestinians originated elsewhere.  The reactions of the Palestinians to those repressions may well have not occurred, had the other "partner" in negotiations done so in good faith, which has not happened to this day. 

 

21 hours ago, GyroLover said:

Peace is not profitable and Joe is not interested if it is not profitable

  That statement does nothing to address the original subject.  

Never the less, thanks for your input: it is much appreciated.

18 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

they made it better for themselves. They did not make things better for the hundreds of thousands of non-Jews who were already living there.

This reflects the "fatal flaw" in placing the entirety of any group's justification on some truly ancient belief system.  Presently, we - as a collective group of citizens - place our value on Intellect, Science, and Facts.  Religious belief-systems are great for those who need them, but in the "real" world, we honor facts first, and legends second.  Mr. Netanyahu actually quoted a truly ancient text (I'm guessing the book of Joshua, but I haven't researched it) wherein the deity actually instructed the Hebrew military commander to attack some village/whatever, and "kill every one of them".  Were it not so tragic, it would be laughable.  

 

 

Thanks so much, tallslenderguy, for posting that magnificent speech by such an esteemed Citizen of the World.  I hope every guy that views the page takes the time to listen carefully.  👍

 

 

14 hours ago, ErosWired said:

I think this is debatable

Of course it is; thus the original post.  However, if a general war breaks out and the US continues the same level of across-the-board military support (before the US election in November), the US will be drawn in, and he will surely lose his re-election bid.  Today, we're immersed in our own national issues.  We don't know what tomorrow will bring, but at least we can consider the future, take part in the political discourse (I rather doubt that Mr. Biden will be reading my thoughts here on BZ, but this isn't the only site I use either).  Perhaps Lady Graham might run across this thread though ..... 

14 hours ago, ErosWired said:

“there will always be wars and rumors of wars”

That quote appears in texts/verses predicting "the end of days", wherein the "deity", wreaks such judgement upon the world that humanity ceases to exist.  In ages past, that sounded like something that only a deity could manage, but in the present day, it's something we can manage perfectly well on our own; we can do it all on our own - with or without any deity's assistance. 

To your second point, I can't help but wonder if Israel could pull off much of an "end-of-days", let alone the current war, without arms, munitions, bombs, everything else provided by their closest ally.  I haven't researched the independent arms industry of Israel (outside of the US supply, I mean), and I'll be surprised if it would be enough to carry on the current war, let alone defend against the Iranians, should a general war break out.  

14 hours ago, ErosWired said:

I don’t see the world casting the blame for the whole affair upon the United States, let alone its singular President.

Well, I don't know if you listen to much major media, but it's already happening via television/radio/online ads placed by differing interest-groups promoting their specific agendas.  As the Presidential election draws closer, all political ads become more focused, more blunt in their messages, and often more coarse in their messages.  My use of "A letter to the President" was merely a literary contrivance to elicit readership, and hopefully responses like the above, for which I am most grateful.  As others have made clear above, the issue has been with us for decades.  Thanks for your response as well.

 

and now I need to eat .... but I truly love these debates, posting thoughts on issues, reading/absorbing what others viewpoints are.  It's fun to go on about the sex stuff, but this kind of ability to exchange viewpoints about the serious issues with serious-minded peers is fantastic.  Thanks so much to each of you that contributed so far, and I hope others will as well.  

❤️

[ErosWired]

59 minutes ago, hntnhole said:

To your second point, I can't help but wonder if Israel could pull off much of an "end-of-days", let alone the current war, without arms, munitions, bombs, everything else provided by their closest ally

Israel is widely believed to be a nuclear power, with estimates of between 80 and 400 nuclear warheads capable of delivery by sundry means including intercontinental - and they built them themselves (with a little help from France). I imagine they are quite capable of setting off a respectable armageddon.

Should this all go even further cockeyed (if this were possible) you might be right about Biden in the sense of his personal reelection prospects - I can see such a debacle weakening him as a potential candidate to the point that he’s no longer considered viable to head the Democratic ticket. Not that such blame would be accurate or fair, as his influence, such as it may be, is just that: He does not control the Israelis and is not answerable for the decisions of their leaders. But I just don’t see the issue pulling Trump to the top as the man of the hour to deal with the chaos. He cultivates chaos, eats it, shits it out, and flings the shit like a…well, like a trumpanzee.

[hntnhole]

Thanks for that information.  It wouldn't surprise me if Israel had a nuclear arsenal, but it's not something I've researched; I guess there are only so many hours in a day I can sit in front of a computer.  

If a wide-ranging, serious situation develops over there, and the Trumpanzee actually had been re-elected at the time, I can only begin to imagine the chaos ... 

[BlackDude]

Are people still voting with Israel as one of their top concerns? Serious question 

[BootmanLA]

1 hour ago, BlackDude said:

Are people still voting with Israel as one of their top concerns? Serious question 

Some are, though not a huge number (in my opinion).

The bigger problem is not people who think X is the top concern; it's the idiot voters who think "I want X position on A, Y position on B, Z position on C, and if anyone fails to live up to any of those, I won't vote for him."

Sensible voters know that it always comes down to a choice of which candidate is closer to what you want, not imposing an ideological filter that eliminates anyone with whom you disagree on some issue (unless that issue, like pro-choice for an awful lot of suburban women, is a firm line.) 

[ErosWired]

2 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

it's the idiot voters who think "I want X position on A, Y position on B, Z position on C, and if anyone fails to live up to any of those, I won't vote for him."

Anyone who believes any career politician will not flip on any given issue at any given time under the application of pressure is simply not paying attention.

[hntnhole]

15 hours ago, BlackDude said:

Are people still voting with Israel as one of their top concerns? Serious question

I would posit that the "Israel" issue, and it's potential to drag the US into a general war in the area may not be uppermost in the mind of most voters, since domestic concerns would naturally be uppermost in their minds.  I doubt that many voters would consider it the most crucial issue to base their vote upon though.  Women's healthcare rights, issues of advancing domestic justice, how to deal with the human misery in the Southern Hemisphere, thus causing mass migration, as well as perceptions of their own financial well-being would be paramount.  I'm guessing that those concerns are - as always - uppermost in most voters minds, and who knows whether a general war obliquely supported by the US will actually happen.  Of note, the two carrier groups have been withdrawn from the Middle East area, which could be interpreted in any number of ways.  

Generally, "one-issue" voters reflect a less interested - even to the point of not bothering to exercise their right to vote - segment of the population.  

14 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

Sensible voters know that it always comes down to a choice of which candidate is closer to what you want

Of course.  No one ever gets every single thing they want, nor should they.  So far, we're still a Democracy, which means ideally every voter gets some measure of which direction they want the country to go, and assumes a "good-faith" effort to negotiate with other citizens (via their political institutions) of different viewpoints is the best way to steer the Ship of State.  

 

12 hours ago, ErosWired said:

Anyone who believes any career politician will not flip on any given issue at any given time under the application of pressure is simply not paying attention

Unfortunately, that's absolutely true.  While Senators and Representatives are well paid (as I see it), the "special-interest" lobbies throwing a lot of money at every one of them in exchange for votes on whatever legislation affects almost every one of them.  Of course, that doesn't apply to the current House, since they've accomplished nothing of consequence lately.