Palestine: Nothing but a con job?

If one looks at Obama's support and label of ISIL, the "L" stands for Levant. A concept for a unified, single nation. Nowhere in that definition or description allows for an Israel or a Palestine. Levant is the ME version of that unified state.

The Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916-"officially " cancelled in 1920- is the European version of that unified state, also has no mention of an Israel or a Palestine.

OK, somewhat interesting, but "so what", you say.

Fast forward and we see land originally intended for an Israeli state in 1948 is now in the hands of both Syria and Jordan. IF there was a real attempt to form a Palestine by it's immediate neighbors- not an Iran with it's own agendas from afar- those lands under Syria and Jordan's control would have been already declared, and endorsed by the U.N. as 'Palestine' with a temporary capital pending the future return of the remaining lands. It never happened.

So one could surmise that the real barrier to a Levant, is Israel and the so-called Palestinians are nothing but a tool to destabilize and eventually destroy Israel. The neighboring nations don't need another player in the formation of the 'new' state, whatsoever, and the evidence above supports that theory.

In fact, Israel may, in the long run, be the biggest supporter of an actual Palestine- sans Jerusalem- as that would mean two nations block a 'Levant' instead of merely one nation. After all, Israel would see a surrounded homeland by a single, unified nation which would be far more of a threat than anything they've seen in the past.

Has this theory any merit? Or not?

a reply to: nwtrucker

After all, Israel would see a surrounded homeland by a single, unified nation which would be far more of a threat than anything they've seen in the past.

I don't know, with Israeli actions in Gaza, one Palestinian kid with a rock against their tanks seem to scare them enough.

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
a reply to: nwtrucker

After all, Israel would see a surrounded homeland by a single, unified nation which would be far more of a threat than anything they've seen in the past.

I don't know, with Israeli actions in Gaza, one Palestinian kid with a rock against their tanks seem to scare them enough.

Thank you for not delving into the concept further.

This whole situation comes from Arabs not wanting jews living next to them.
They tried to remove Israel with soldiers twice and failed so they turned to a political attempt.

The below video explains the greater Israel project as you will see on the map in the video there is NO PALESTINE in Israeli plans,so what happens to the Palestinians-Genocide

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
a reply to: nwtrucker

After all, Israel would see a surrounded homeland by a single, unified nation which would be far more of a threat than anything they've seen in the past.

I don't know, with Israeli actions in Gaza, one Palestinian kid with a rock against their tanks seem to scare them enough.

Thank you for not delving into the concept further.

I agree that Palestine is nothing but a tool to be used, like the Liberals needed Russia and Trump needs Iran or China etc, and enemy is always needed for various reasons

originally posted by: khnum
The below video explains the greater Israel project as you will see on the map in the video there is NO PALESTINE in Israeli plans,so what happens to the Palestinians-Genocide

The seems correct from the views of a segment of Israel's leadership. By no means all of it, from what I can see. Partial motivation for this could lie in the fact that the PLO was largely ceded every demand made of Israel and Arafat walked out.

Perhaps just another connecting 'dot' that proves out the theory that there is no real intention by the Muslim neighbors to ever allow Israeli survival, now described by 'Levant', and that is the pragmatic response to 'knowing' peace is next to impossible?

a reply to: nwtrucker

In 2009 the CIA gave Israel 20 years and in 2016 Kissenger gave Israel 10 years before it ceased to exist there are forces far more nasty than arabs at work although certainly they will be used and this time round they fight with modern western weaponry not 50-60's vintage soviet gear.

a reply to: nwtrucker

isil adhere to wahhabi, palestine is 93% sunni, palestinians would be as happy with isil setting up base there as americans would if the church of scientology declared new york its base.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
This whole situation comes from Arabs not wanting jews living next to them.
They tried to remove Israel with soldiers twice and failed so they turned to a political attempt.

Actually, this comes from people not wanting a third party giving away land to which they had no right possessing.
Jews and Arabs lived together in the middle east peacefully for several hundred years. After WW1, the British thought they could do whatever they wanted since the Ottoman Empire had fallen. Most of the unrest in the region has its roots in their actions.

Palestine is a construct of the Arab Nations and the old USSR. It used the Holocaust to lay a guilt trip on the Western Nations in the hope of splitting their forces in the event of a war in Western Europe.

originally posted by: khnum
a reply to: nwtrucker

In 2009 the CIA gave Israel 20 years and in 2016 Kissenger gave Israel 10 years before it ceased to exist there are forces far more nasty than arabs at work although certainly they will be used and this time round they fight with modern western weaponry not 50-60's vintage soviet gear.

In truth, I fluked on the data of Sykes-Picot from a Brad Thor novel. Looked into it a bit as I'm a curious dilettante...

He further implied the U.S. was an unofficial supporter of that 'officially' cancelled agreement. It looks like a large segment of the right is not, however, hence the change to ISIS....Syria, instead of Levant.

originally posted by: growler
a reply to: nwtrucker

isil adhere to wahhabi, palestine is 93% sunni, palestinians would be as happy with isil setting up base there as americans would if the church of scientology declared new york its base.

Seems the Palestinians living in Israel are doing just fine....

a reply to: nwtrucker

The Israeli lobby is powerful in fact all US federal politicians pledge allegiance to it but the simple fact is Washington tolerates them and their macinations for the moment, be under no illusion however Washington is the top dog and if its 'deep state' no longer wishes for Israel to exist then that would be more or less its death warrant,whatever the end plan in the middle east is Washington will be involved......and the Vatican,but thats another story.

originally posted by: khnum
a reply to: nwtrucker

The Israeli lobby is powerful in fact all US federal politicians pledge allegiance to it but the simple fact is Washington tolerates them and their macinations for the moment, be under no illusion however Washington is the top dog and if its 'deep state' no longer wishes for Israel to exist then that would be more or less its death warrant,whatever the end plan in the middle east is Washington will be involved......and the Vatican,but thats another story.

I agree re the top dog. As far as Israel goes, they're well past the point anyone can stop them if they have the mind to move.

The reality, in my mind, is if Israel goes down, the whole region, at least, goes down. Israel isn't going anywhere. Deep state, or not.

Erm, the Sykes-Picot letters are a very long and convoluted subject, but basically denoted the carving up of the Ottoman Empire south of its Anatolian heartland between the French and the British. Basically they were working out what happened to Syria, Lebanon and what eventually became Iraq. The topic of Palestine was put to one side because of the competing claims and promises. There was even an initial idea to give Palestine to an Arab state. You can find some of the letter started the ball rolling here.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Yep that is the spanner in the works 7 million Israeli's not going anywhere and between their weaponry and technology they'll make a hell of a mess.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
Erm, the Sykes-Picot letters are a very long and convoluted subject, but basically denoted the carving up of the Ottoman Empire south of its Anatolian heartland between the French and the British. Basically they were working out what happened to Syria, Lebanon and what eventually became Iraq. The topic of Palestine was put to one side because of the competing claims and promises. There was even an initial idea to give Palestine to an Arab state. You can find some of the letter started the ball rolling here.

Thank you for that! An interesting read.

I had speculated in an earlier post that the British might have had second thoughts on this agreement, re: waterways. The Suez Canal, being a life line of the Empire's commerce might be better 'managed' if one single united country didn't have the opportunity to control/influence the Suez Canal and that a Jewish State on one side and Egypt on the other side would assure no one nation controlled it. That would avoid any possibility of potential future 'problems' with that vital waterway.

Having broken(?) that agreement in the formation of Israel, Britain made amends to the Saudis, et al, with blockades, etc. Interestingly enough, not quite enough to 'do in' Israel and the more ideal 'open canal' remains so to this day....

originally posted by: JIMC5499
Palestine is a construct of the Arab Nations and the old USSR. It used the Holocaust to lay a guilt trip on the Western Nations in the hope of splitting their forces in the event of a war in Western Europe.

I don't know about any "construct" between the Arab nations and the old USSR ; but if you would care to look at the link below, you will find the oldest mapped reference which I can provide for the name of a land called Palestine. (750 BC - 625 BC) Notice it seems to show the area along the coast as such and a land locked area to the east called Judah. For many years I had heard people say that all the Jews wanted was a return to their original home land. My question is, "Why are they settled along the coast if they originated in the hills and mountains ? This coastal area should be rightfully Palestinian.

www.lib.utexas.edu...

a reply to: tinymind


Perhaps that's all they were 'given' or rather all they could hold onto as the initial land grant included land to the north now held by Syria and Jordan.


My post just before this involves the Suez Canal and it's potential issues. More speculation on my part, though.