Hope for the Middle East? Is there any?

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Gianfar

You're not wrong.

The changes must come. They will come in some shape, fashion, or form... The longer it takes the bloodier it'll be, IMHO.

Outsiders, which most definitely includes the U.S./Europe/China, need to leave it alone.

The only ones who can change the Middle East are the folks who live there. The Saudi's. The Jordanians. Egyptians. Palestinians. Israel. ...and the rest of the region. They are the only ones who can change it for the better.

It's up to us, Americans, various Europeans, and Chinese to keep our govts. out of it. That's our only task in this region.

I know, very well, that this is a fanciful dream. It's one worth chasing, IMHO. ...and it would be fairly easy to do, if we were willing to do the necessary work...

I concur. If the masses were to demand it with one voice, and drive it home by kicking out the fanatics in the US Congress, undoubtedly something good would come of it. The business of war has been conducted without consideration for the cost in terms of security and economics.

The meddling and militarization that drives western economics these days also destroys it in the long run. Since the West openly did such unmerciful carnage upon the people of the Middle East for control of the eastern petroleum region, we've seen now how Russia and China have followed suit with their own regional "land grabs", in Eastern Europe and the China Sea. In other words, what the change in US policy toward outright aggression has done was to break down the wall of diplomacy and open a Pandoras' box of social chaos. Many of us are concerned about the escalation factors in this new game of aggressive, militarized resource acquisition. At some point in the near future, the US, Russia and China will be in deep conflict.

Its not just the potential for nuclear engagement, but more certainly (and expediently) the global economic impact imposed by military engagements within this axis of competitors. Such a collapse would contribute to the disaster of internal unrest affecting all nations with economic loss, hunger, revolution and mass extinction, before any nukes were ever dropped.

I would only dream that the many would see the plain truth and rise up in some order of protest that even the most educated, arrogant politician could not ignore. I've had this little chat with everyone from politicians, to professors to laborers, and they all seem to have the same bland response. When the future is staring everyone in the face, how bad does it have to get before its just to late to do anything?

I have compared the "teachings" of Mohammad and Jesus and have found them to be at least 90% correlated in context. I think it most poignant that the meaning in the story of the Jew who lived next door to Prophet Mohammad displays a very broad context relating to the most compelling teachings of Christ.


Yea I love the way Jesus taught honor killing for one’s wife or daughter and to kill the Jews and infidels yep they are so much alike./sarc

originally posted by: guitarplayer



...Yea I love the way Jesus taught honor killing for one’s wife or daughter and to kill the Jews and infidels yep they are so much alike./sarc

Your statement reflects a lack of religious and cultural history and fact. Honor killings have to do with the cultural traditions of tribes and your generalized references to the act of killing infidels were not taught by Mohammad or other prophets. If you knew the story of the Jew who lived next door to Muhammad, you would see the correlations between Jesus and Muhammad.

If you're interested in a real conversation, keep in mind the importance of distinctions between religious teaching and the false traditions of men. Religion and human ideologies are often combined and confused as legitimate culture. I would recommend that you study the Koran and the traditions of the Prophet Muhammad.

originally posted by: Gianfar


Iran would have no need for nuclear weapons if "Israel" hadn't been in the process of obtaining a nuclear capability since late 70s. Now that Israel has such a capability they are threatening a first strike on Iran. The Israeli government is a paranoid, arrogant hypocrite that wants to maintain a uniquely dominant military threat in the Middle East. That doesn't fly in the real world.

True that Iran probably provoked a need for "nuclear weapons" (although we both know they're not developing weapons, only nuclear energy much needed to keep their ice skating rinks cool... ) because Israel have them. Then again, had they not promoted religious Nazism and called for the annihilation of Israel, while using Syria and Hezbollah for proxy attacks to implement their dogma, perhaps they would not feel so threatened by Israel? All in all it comes down to the same logic that makes rural Georgians wear fire arms when they go to the mall; there might just be someone there that they feel threatened enough to use it on.

I am no great admirer of Netanyahu and his right wing government, but with all the insane dictators that pops up in the Middle East and Arab Africa, like mushrooms on a fresh pile of bull#, is he really the one we need to denounce the most? ISIS apart, why is Israel the most villfied nation in the Middle East forum? Is it simply that we demand higher standards of a democracy than dictatorships? And in what sense does the US and Europe have moral lessons to give to Israel? Is the US less militaristic than Israel, or for better reasons?

When debating the Middle East, I often say that the Arab world got the Israel they deserved. Somehow, Israel is just a reflection of the Arab world itself. A peaceful Middle East would have created a peaceful Israel. But it's not, go figure...

And what is the "real world"? Is it the one that you live in, or perhaps the one that appears on your computer screen when you log on? Just wondering...

originally posted by: jjkenobi
What makes you say both sides want peace?? Nearly every country there wants the complete destruction and annihilation of Israel and has publicly said so.

I didn't say both sides want peace, I said some do and some don't. There are people in Israel that wants peace and there are some that don't, same thing in the neighboring countries. The governments in those countries is another story. I don't think dictatorships are good representations of their people. I know Iranians are fed up with the Mollah dictatorship, they're just waiting for a chance to rid themselves of it.

Since 1986, the world knows about Israel nuclear program. Ever heard of Mordechai Vanunu ?
The guy never got the amount of press he deserved imo.

About Israel democratic nature ... it's surely to enforce that democratic façade that they want so hard the jewish state to be proclaimed.

The ME is #ed.

And anything we try to fix it just dooms its further.

There will be no peace in our immediate future. Until the day of our redemption. Which I personally believe is closer than we could possibly imagine.

a reply to: Heliocentric

When debating the Middle East, I often say that the Arab world got the Israel they deserved. Somehow, Israel is just a reflection of the Arab world itself. A peaceful Middle East would have created a peaceful Israel. But it's not, go figure...

There's a lot of truth in that statement.

Of course, the flip side of the coin is Israel has a bad habit of over-reacting.

That, IMHO, is a reflection of Jewish history. They've been hunted/persecuted for centuries.

"Never again" is not just a pert slogan. It's ingrained in their souls. No more Masada's. No more Death Camps. They mean it. ...and whatever means to ensure that end are fair game.

I don't agree with that outlook. But it's certainly understandable.

To make matters worse...

The Arab world shares that outlook in many, many ways.

Conflict was/is inevitable.

Seagull, thanks for treating this subject with a fair dose of intelligence.

I believe that the generation of Jews that arrived from a Nazi/Fascist Europe felt like that, like they got a second chance in life, and that it was too precious to loose. Never again, as you said.

Today, Israel is a highly industrialized, high technological country. The mentality has changed a lot. I remember when I first visited Israel in the mid 80's. The Lebanon war was on, but there was a slight hope for peace. People said that if only the PLO was pushed out of their bases in Lebanon, then perhaps it was possible to reason with the others. There was talk of ceding land for peace. What country does that? Would the US cede Alaska to the Russians for peace? Would the Russians cede Crimea for normal relationships with the Western world? No country cedes land voluntarily... except for Israel who left occupied Gaza. I bet they wish they never left. There would have been three wars less, 3500 palestinians deaths less, I don't know how many thousands of Qassam rockets less, Gaza would not be powerty struck, politically as well as economically, and countries like Turkey would not use Gaza as a pawn in their geopolitical chess game.

Then came the Soviet collapse in 89, and suddenly millions of Russian Jews were allowed to leave. And they did. Israel took as many as they could, to the point that the Russian Jews became the largest minority group in the country. These Russian Jews had no experience of democracy, they were steeped in Soviet thinking and while they came from a Communist country, the identified mostly with the extreme right in Israel. They put Ariel Sharon and now Netanyahu in power. They had no will to reason with or make peace with their neighbors. A strong Israel imposes it's will on its weaker neighbors, a good hard line Muslim is a dead hard line Muslim, etc. And they're constantly being proven right by groups like Hezbollah, Hamas and ISIS. What if these people just took a brake, laid down their arms and smoked some water pipe. Then what would Netanyahu do? His political agenda would collapse...

a reply to: crazyewok

And anything we try to fix it just dooms its further.

Too true. It's not up to us, as outsiders--however well meaning, to fix it. It's theirs to do.

All we can do, or should do, is offer up our best wishes/prayers for their success.

a reply to: seagull

Time is almost up for the Middle East as it appears on your atlas at present. The rise of Iran ;Isis and the Arab Spring has seen the region seemingly come apart at the seams (at least from Western eyes). The coming World War is going to force the UK , USA , Australia and New Zealand to confront and defeat religious extremism and fascism(Read Russia and China).

After the religious extremists cease to exist as a meaningful force and fascism has been defeated again , it will be time to reconstruct the Middle East. The wrongs of 1919 will be righted. The people of North Africa and the Middle East will choose their own borders. The new countries will benefited from a Marshal Aid style program.

a reply to: xpert11

So, in you view anyway, there's a bright light at the end of a very dark tunnel, and it's not an oncoming train...

...and maybe it's a bit more realistic in hoping that a someone, or someones, will appear out of no where to save the day.

I shudder at will undoubtedly be horrific loss of life... We're not talking thousands here, we're talking millions; and possibly a global, not regional, war.

I've been thinking through your scenario, and I can't see Europe, outside of the UK, involving themselves because of those religious extremists you speak of...maybe not even the UK, since they've the same issues as, say, France with extremists. Not just Muslim, either...

It's a terrifying scenario, frankly...

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: xpert11

So, in you view anyway, there's a bright light at the end of a very dark tunnel, and it's not an oncoming train...

You said very well. History is going to be very unforgiving of my generation (I'm 30 years old) and those political leaders who are baby boomers or younger.

...and maybe it's a bit more realistic in hoping that a someone, or someones, will appear out of no where to save the day.

There is nothing wrong with hope. Since the end of the Cold War Western political leaders have either turned to idealism or committed fundamental errors of judgement which have taken us to present situation.

I shudder at will undoubtedly be horrific loss of life... We're not talking thousands here, we're talking millions; and possibly a global, not regional, war.

The death toll and destruction in 2 world wars increased because of technological improvements primary in aviation and submarines. So it does follow that technological improvements of the last 70 odd years will be very telling , indeed. Just remember that history teaches us that a failure to win the peace always leads to another war.

The ME region will take a generation or 2 to repopulate. In that time the region will return to its historical roots of agriculture. Any future conflicts will surround access to fresh water and arable land. In general I think this be the case for the 21st century and the Middle East Region in particular.

If we win the peace the scale of future conflicts in the middle east will be small and resolved by local political leaders who are more interested in commerce than total warfare.

I've been thinking through your scenario, and I can't see Europe, outside of the UK, involving themselves because of those religious extremists you speak of...maybe not even the UK, since they've the same issues as, say, France with extremists. Not just Muslim, either...

Western Europe will have its hands full dealing with the Russians. The UK will want to keep the Suez Canal open and secure which means they will have to deploy ground troops in the region at some stage. The Middle East Theater will collect the General Slim Award. The Middle East Theater will be at the bottom in terms of priority of the amount of war material it receives from Allied factories.

The Middle East problem comes in a very distant third behind China and Russia. The industrial capacity of Iran , Isis e.t.c isn't on the same playing field as Russia and China.

originally posted by: Heliocentric

originally posted by: Gianfar


Iran would have no need for nuclear weapons if "Israel" hadn't been in the process of obtaining a nuclear capability since late 70s. Now that Israel has such a capability they are threatening a first strike on Iran. The Israeli government is a paranoid, arrogant hypocrite that wants to maintain a uniquely dominant military threat in the Middle East. That doesn't fly in the real world.

True that Iran probably provoked a need for "nuclear weapons" (although we both know they're not developing weapons, only nuclear energy much needed to keep their ice skating rinks cool... ) because Israel have them. Then again, had they not promoted religious Nazism and called for the annihilation of Israel, while using Syria and Hezbollah for proxy attacks to implement their dogma, perhaps they would not feel so threatened by Israel? All in all it comes down to the same logic that makes rural Georgians wear fire arms when they go to the mall; there might just be someone there that they feel threatened enough to use it on.

I am no great admirer of Netanyahu and his right wing government, but with all the insane dictators that pops up in the Middle East and Arab Africa, like mushrooms on a fresh pile of bull#, is he really the one we need to denounce the most? ISIS apart, why is Israel the most villfied nation in the Middle East forum? Is it simply that we demand higher standards of a democracy than dictatorships? And in what sense does the US and Europe have moral lessons to give to Israel? Is the US less militaristic than Israel, or for better reasons?

When debating the Middle East, I often say that the Arab world got the Israel they deserved. Somehow, Israel is just a reflection of the Arab world itself. A peaceful Middle East would have created a peaceful Israel. But it's not, go figure...

And what is the "real world"? Is it the one that you live in, or perhaps the one that appears on your computer screen when you log on? Just wondering...


I didn't say both sides want peace, I said some do and some don't. There are people in Israel that wants peace and there are some that don't, same thing in the neighboring countries. The governments in those countries is another story. I don't think dictatorships are good representations of their people. I know Iranians are fed up with the Mullah dictatorship, they're just waiting for a chance to rid themselves of it.

I appreciate your candid response. Its rare to see some thinking behind all the sorted emotions that this discussion invokes. You know, its struggle to look beyond the biases of our cultural origins and fallaciously patriot - imbued identities. I am not claiming to being totally immune to such platitudes, but my objectiveness is somewhat adjusted by ethnic research and obscure bits of history, people better than I. My views have become more dialectric, more independent of functional information feeds.
Your response is difficult to answer because it deals with a variety of topics which may or may not have context historical evidence and my assertions regarding Israeli and western policy. There is also the contrivance of the chicken and the egg. Most people who discuss this topic haven't traced the Jewish-Arab conflict far enough to see where it began. Thus any argument becomes a set of revolving semantics, where placing blame on all parties nullifies the historical context.

What I would say is this - the Israel that existed prior to the Zionist movements in the early 20th century, which led to the ever present Jewish State, was an area (Palestine) of mixed Arab and Jewish tribes living in a functional "community" form. Isreal was an ethnically inclusive society, where mixed marriages occurred on occasion.
The Zionist movement came through Euro-centric Jews suffering under extreme repression and as such an ideology based on a singularly Jewish sovereignty. Since the post WWII European migration to Palestine, millions of Arabs have been systemically evicted from their millennial heritage, farm lands and homes or "walled-in" as expansion of the only-Jewish community has annexed traditionally Arab territory. The first major conflict between Arabs and Jews took place in 1947, when a Jewish paramilitary group designated as a terrorist group, attacked the Arab village of Deir Yassin and proceeded to kill, rape and burn, until there was a mass exodus of Arabs. Guess who moved into those Arab farms, pastures and homes, while Arab women and children were sweating in UN tents? Lacking any response from the world community the displaced Arab masses eventually began forming defense militias (IE. PLO) to reclaim their homes.
Israel portrays itself as a socially liberal, politically democratic state, when in fact history decries it as governed by a pervasively radical form of Jewish Zionism. To counter the historical facts, Israel pays millions of dollars to attorneys who act as agents of political correctness in utilizing the cultural theme of antisemitism. The attorneys are basically on the payroll to intimidate free speech, suppress information in order to sustain public support for Israel as a legitimate democratic state.
Even educated protagonists of Israeli politics are apprehensive when it comes to public debate. There are many Jewish soldiers, scholars and Israeli citizens who are likewise silenced by the radical threat. There have been many incidents in which Jews have received death threats by radical Zionists in the presentation of opposing or even moderate views regarding Israeli human rights practices.
I would also respond to your statement regarding Iran. The Iranian government that existed prior to operation AJAX (C.I.A. 1954) was a democratic eastern state based on a transparent electoral process, a presidency elected by and for the people. The US created a false flag communist revolution that removed Pres. Muhammad Mussadiq, replacing him with a British installed dictator king (Muhammad Reza Pahlavi) who violently repressed all dissension and helped the west take possession of petroleum and other vital resources for its own security. The revolution against western style repression culminated in 1976 with the religious revolution wining over the broader democratic contenders within the revolution, and as in the case of Israel, the fanatics always speak louder and carry bigger sticks. As for your assertion that Iranian people don't want their government, the Iranians neither place any faith in western politics as it was Britain and America that destroyed their unique democratic system, enslaving them as a client state. So, when you hear that old propaganda that Iranians want freedom from religious autocrats - whose brand of freedom and under what constitution?
This outlines some of the reasoning that compels many of us to think unkindly toward the demagogue nations, primarily within the American - European, Israeli axis. We are Jews, Israelis, Americans, Europeans and so on. We assert that the west has become corrupted by prosperity and fatally arrogant and uncompromising in its reasoning for the garnishment of power. This presents a real global threat to shared and sustainable peace and prosperity. Its a threat that prompts China and Russian, Iran and Sunni Arabs to rise up against the machine.
People, open the eyes of your mind and live.

originally posted by: Gianfar
What I would say is this - the Israel that existed prior to the Zionist movements in the early 20th century, which led to the ever present Jewish State, was an area (Palestine) of mixed Arab and Jewish tribes living in a functional "community" form. Isreal was an ethnically inclusive society, where mixed marriages occurred on occasion.

As you said.

Up until the 20th century, the ethnic conflicts in this region were radically different from today.

In 19th century Ottoman Palestine, there were practically no conflicts between Muslims, Jews and Christians. On the contrary, they formed interactive communities that worked well together.
But there was a long and bitter conflict between the Fellahim (Muslim farmers) and Bedouins. This boiled down to the age old conflict between nomads and farmers competing for the same land and water resources. The Bedouins, one of the oldest ethnic communities present in the Middle East, were often involved in tribal war activities. When farmers took control of the water resources, they responded with raids, killings and theft of domestic animals. Burning of houses and crops was so common place in certain parts of Palestine, that the Ottoman authority pondered if it simply wouldn't be better to create a secession plan and force the Bedouins into camps. Although, their demographic strength at the time made that solution impossible. Under the Tanzimat reforms in 1858, a new Ottoman Land Law was issued which offered legal grounds for the displacement of the Bedouin. At the end of the 19th century Sultan Abdülhamid II settled loyal Muslim populations (Circassians) from the Balkan and Caucasus among areas predominantly populated by the nomads in the regions of modern Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Israel, so the idea of taking land from one ethnic group and give it to another did not start with Zionism.

That conflict lasted longer than the so called Israeli/Palestinian conflict - which really started in the 1920's - has so far, although the present conflict may go on for a while longer...

originally posted by: Heliocentric

originally posted by: Gianfar
What I would say is this - the Israel that existed prior to the Zionist movements in the early 20th century, which led to the ever present Jewish State, was an area (Palestine) of mixed Arab and Jewish tribes living in a functional "community" form. Isreal was an ethnically inclusive society, where mixed marriages occurred on occasion.

As you said.

Up until the 20th century, the ethnic conflicts in this region were radically different from today.

In 19th century Ottoman Palestine, there were practically no conflicts between Muslims, Jews and Christians. On the contrary, they formed interactive communities that worked well together.
But there was a long and bitter conflict between the Fellahim (Muslim farmers) and Bedouins. This boiled down to the age old conflict between nomads and farmers competing for the same land and water resources. The Bedouins, one of the oldest ethnic communities present in the Middle East, were often involved in tribal war activities. When farmers took control of the water resources, they responded with raids, killings and theft of domestic animals. Burning of houses and crops was so common place in certain parts of Palestine, that the Ottoman authority pondered if it simply wouldn't be better to create a secession plan and force the Bedouins into camps. Although, their demographic strength at the time made that solution impossible. Under the Tanzimat reforms in 1858, a new Ottoman Land Law was issued which offered legal grounds for the displacement of the Bedouin. At the end of the 19th century Sultan Abdülhamid II settled loyal Muslim populations (Circassians) from the Balkan and Caucasus among areas predominantly populated by the nomads in the regions of modern Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Israel, so the idea of taking land from one ethnic group and give it to another did not start with Zionism.

That conflict lasted longer than the so called Israeli/Palestinian conflict - which really started in the 1920's - has so far, although the present conflict may go on for a while longer...

There has always been brush fires of some form or another between tribesmen, but specifically between Jews and Arabs in Palestine, up until the formation of the Jewish-only state, there is no comparison to the current state of affairs. We often see 'apologetics' and 'political correctness' applied to dilute the radical nature and social influences of modern Zionism throughout Israel, the Middle East and the west. But people the world over are opening their eyes to the facts on the ground, even in the midst of great efforts to suppress much if not most of the media information regarding Israel's systemic ethnic policy. We know for example that Israel would never accept a one-state solution, because Arabs within the border of Israel would out number Jews by population (and votes) thereby nullifying the concept of a Jewish-only statehood. The goal of the state is to wall off the non-Jews, deny them commerce (over 40% unemployment), starve them from their inheritance and of course send in the troops to reduce the population when they retaliate. Does this sound familiar? There was the American Native, the African Slave, Ferguson, Missouri and Freddy Gray - and much more.

Anyone who does his homework will find the information and the trail of deceit and violence disguised as grass-roots heritage movements by radical Zionist organizations, aimed at recruiting Jewish youth. I wrote a well researched op-ed about one such organization, Im Tirtzu (newsblaze.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">newsblaze.com...) which receives much of its funding from private sources such as Marcus Brothers Textiles, Inc in New York. It attracts Jewish youth under centrist premise of restoring art and cultural values, but funnels its donations to radical Zionist Rabbis who preach hate and organizations that support and "arm" illegal settlements which cut across Arab farmlands. The Israeli government doesn't stop illegal settlements outside of its borders, but will send in the troops when Jewish settlements are attacked, leaving Arab families homeless or dead.

I could sit at this computer and write a book for you. Its not my job to convert you to my views, but I would exhort you to go farther than you ever have to see it more from the historic, intellectual-reasoning perspective, rather then forming an opinion on what you or your associates believe without the bigger picture. Most people form their opinions based on personal biases and adopted identities, rather than information and facts. That's why the world is finally descending into social fragmentation and military chaos.

We've also discussed in this thread and elsewhere the public relations campaign that Jews engage in here in the west. They were among the first to speak at universities in defense of Israeli politics. When the professors and scholars spoke out about how Israeli politicians and the prime minister's office were besieged by extremist undercurrents, they received death threats by Zionists and were thus silenced. This in fact opened the Pandora's box by which we now have antisemitic organizations holding anti-Israel rallies on compasses across the US and Europe.

You know, this is not rocket science people. This is your community, your planet, your future. Governments can hire people to enter these discussions for the purpose of causing doubt in the minds of those who haven't yet figured things out. The only cure for ignorance is to find the scholars and intellectuals and read their books. Everything that happens is revealed through a trail of records, statements and paperwork. There is nothing done by people that can be hidden or suppressed indefinitely.

originally posted by: Gianfar
a reply to: seagull


I have compared the "teachings" of Mohammad and Jesus and have found them to be at least 90% correlated in context. I think it most poignant that the meaning in the story of the Jew who lived next door to Prophet Mohammad displays a very broad context relating to the most compelling teachings of Christ.

This simply proves that all prophets carry the same message as it relates to the duality of Allah's Law. That duality incorporates both the cold demands of the Law, and the wisdom of its most just administration in the proper spirit of mercy. Jurisprudence devoid of love is unjust and an instrument of repression. This fact is universally recognized by Muslims and is the catalyst for the mission of the Mahdi.

This is not accurate at all. Its really not......at all. The Hebrew prophets were called by Yahweh from the perspective of His covenant with them as a nation. His law and his mercy toward them is notably unique. The Hebrews relationship with other nations and people are all seen by Yahweh in the context of His covenant with the Hebrews.

a reply to: xpert11


All this talk......some need to admit that what bothers them is that they woke up one day and the Jews were back in their ancestral homeland and wanted to govern themselves......not serve as a vassal state or with permission of the Arab league or anything else. Hate has burned in the Arab heart from that time. This peace being spoken of is not peace but a convenient position from which to hide hate.

a reply to: xpert11

I can't really disagree with a thing you said there.

...and things are going to come to a head, very soon, certainly within our lifetimes.

A radical state, such as ISIS wants to form, will be a sure and certain danger to, not only Israel, but to any ME state that even hints at a more moderate stance in regards to it's relationship with non-Islamic, or minority Islamic states. Not to mention those states such as the US, or European nations.

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: Gianfar
a reply to: seagull


I have compared the "teachings" of Mohammad and Jesus and have found them to be at least 90% correlated in context. I think it most poignant that the meaning in the story of the Jew who lived next door to Prophet Mohammad displays a very broad context relating to the most compelling teachings of Christ.

This simply proves that all prophets carry the same message as it relates to the duality of Allah's Law. That duality incorporates both the cold demands of the Law, and the wisdom of its most just administration in the proper spirit of mercy. Jurisprudence devoid of love is unjust and an instrument of repression. This fact is universally recognized by Muslims and is the catalyst for the mission of the Mahdi.

This is not accurate at all. Its really not......at all. The Hebrew prophets were called by Yahweh from the perspective of His covenant with them as a nation. His law and his mercy toward them is notably unique. The Hebrews relationship with other nations and people are all seen by Yahweh in the context of His covenant with the Hebrews.

Your premise appears to be the common philosophic approach and type of apologetics we witness from a modern inversion of the covenant. Yes, prophets were called by The Creator from the Jews, and there were covenants, but they stoned the prophets and didn't live up to their part of the agreement falling from His grace, as is widely acknowledged by Orthodox Rabbis who still follow the "Torah". Zionism is slated as a purely political and material ideology that has mislead the Jews and goes against the spiritual principle of Zion. Accordingly, whoever denies the Torah and the Faith is no longer part of the People of Israel.