....the guidance of the Donald and Kushner. Taken together with the movement of the US embassy to Jerusalem, and the containing of Iran, the ME is in better shape. So different to the Obama/Biden disaster with the Arab Spring, only rescued by the Egyptian military.
While Netanyahu hailed "a new era" between Israel and the Arab world following the deal with the UAE, Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas voiced his "strong rejection and condemnation" and called for an emergency meeting of the Arab League.
In a statement, Abbas called the deal an "aggression" against the Palestinian people and a "betrayal" of their cause, including their claim to Jerusalem as a capital of their future state.
Hamas, the group that controls the besieged Gaza Strip, rejected the Israel-UAE pact as "a reward for the Israeli occupation and crimes" and said it "does not serve the Palestinian people".
The Palestinian foreign ministry said it has recalled its ambassador to the UAE in response to the deal, The Associated Press reported late on Thursday.
SB
All the Arab states has been technically at war with Israel since 1948. There were some deals between Egypt after the 1973 war - but that also suffered under the Democrats and the Arab Spring story, but now remain fairly static.
The UAE have been major funders of the Palestinians for years and a deal with Israel can cost them dearly, However, I think the UAE is being threatened by Iran and the deal probably means that the USA promised them protection in the case of an attack on them by Iran.
However, the Democrat leadership has been bribed by Iran and Kelly this year visited Iran to aid them in their problems with the USA.
"Taken together with the movement of the US embassy to Jerusalem, and the containing of Iran, the ME is in better shape."
I wonder do we live on the same planet at times.
While a normalization of relations between Israel and the UAE is a good thing and Trump should be given credit for playing a role, to suggest the ME is in better shape is laughable.
His decision to move the US embassy to Jerusalem was condemned around the world and is yet another impediment to peace between Israel and Palestine. His peace plan for the Israel and Palestine was widely seen as a joke, basically it just gave Israel pretty much everything it wanted and in return he tried to buy off the Palestinians which was downright insulting to them.
As for Iran, he's made a complete mess out. He unilaterally broke a deal that the Iranians were honoring. Who knows we may have had already seen some sort of conflict by now between the US and Iran had it not been for the pandemic giving both countries a larger more immediate issue to deal with.
Poor young Stav is as nutty as a fruit cake.
Trump should win a Nobel Peace prize for this historic achievement.
Apparently other states could make their peace with Israel.
The Iran deal was a disaster as informed folk know.
150 billion dollars was handed over to the mad mullahs by their Muslim brother Hussein Obummer the most corrupt president in US history.
They used this money to fund ME terrorist organizations.
Worse still the agreement did not stop Iran from developing missiles.
The deal allowed for inspections but NOT of Iranian military bases were nuclear development is being conducted. !
The deal if continued would have run out in a few years and allowed Iran to develop nuclear weapons!!!
So obviously Trump saw the deal as a fraud by Hussein on the American people and the world and scrapped it. He imposed harsh sanction on Iran and their capacity to fund terror in the middle east was vastly reduced.
Trump formed an Arab alliance against the Middle East and that has culminated in the UAE peace with Israel.
The very ignorant and dumb Stav can't understand all this. The absurd creature keeps getting it all wrong basically because he like SHARKTWIT is incapable if independent thought and critical analysis.
It would surprise me if ou stavie also loves the Chinese and thinks Trump is so unfair to try and reverse the annual trade imbalance of 500 billion and the theft of a similar amount re IP.
Stave sounds like a Biden supporter who thinks Biden did a great job by seeing his son Hunter leaving China with 1.5 billion in funds to invest!
Poor stavie probably fainted in horror when Trump eliminated those to Muslim terrorist leaders.
Stacie most likely also ranted and raved about Trump shutting down travel from China and then Europe.
Poor stavie has a "mind" completely bent and misinformed by globalist marxist propaganda.
I can imagine the twit bowing and scrapping to BLM etc. He is that sort of loser. Open the borders he wails. My country is your country!
We Irish can govern ourselves we are too dumb. We must surrender to open borders Brussels.
Stav you need to grow up and fast.
Anger believes....he just really believes. Iran was ‘honoring’ the agreement.....hahahaha....man it’s comical!
Iran has never stopped their nuclear ambitions and their support of terrorism....intelligence agencies are the same people who thought Iraq had WMD. No doubt you believed that as well Anger.
As for Trump acting like a third world dictator.....nonsense. Trump is pushing as hard possible to reduce US involvement in the ME and Europe. The resistance comes from the military who are deeply invested in staying or even increasing the level of commitment.
Talk about being dead wrong!
"Why upgrade your military if you expect to be in fewer wars."
Same reason as having a nuclear arsenal and not using it...not rovket science now is it?
It’s not a question of America being attacked....its the ability of America to project power eg in the Pacific. The independence of Taiwan, Korea and maybe even Japan hinges on that perception.
As did the independence of Europe in the 1940s and the Cold War. Embarrassing facts Europeans prefer to forget.
I did notice that Trump is pulling troops out of Europe. Some say at the request of Putin to create instability in EU/Russia zone.
So if Trump is pulling soldiers out of overseas countries, and taking a position of less involvement - why bother doing the biggest military upgrade in history.
I can assure you Europe does not forget the major contribution the United States of America made to ensuring peace and freedom to Western Europe in the 1940's nor its aid in rebuilding it from a state of devastation, nor its support during the cold war. That remembrance includes former enemy states such as Germany.
However being a force for good back in the recent past does not automatically mean America is right in the present.. Do you recall American's pouring French wine into the gutter when they didn't (correctly) support America's war in Iraq?. Perhaps the American's should remember the vital assistance France gave to America during its struggle for independence or is that too embarrassing?
Some say ‘at the request of Putin’.....you should be embarrassed to repeat that rubbish.
As for the French help, it was a little different.....part of long-standing animosity between Britain and France. Supporting the US was a natural thing for France. America on the other hand had no animus towards Germany before WW1 and in fact little before WW2.
And perhaps France should have been more concerned about it’s own citizens who were so badly treated that less than 10 years later they launched the second most consequential revolution in modern history.
That's fair enough. As I said before if you Europe wants America protection it should stump up the cash. Trump and America has every right to complain if European countries are not meeting their obligations.
Whether its necessary is debatable. Russia has invaded and occupied the Crimea as well as sending troops and military aid to separatists in the Ukraine. So they already have attacked a European country. Saying something like the Crimea was always Russian and it had popular support in the Crimea is irrelevant. It was complete and utter violation of international law. In addition Russian agents carried out assassinations in European countries.
Putin's biggest regret is the fall of the Soviet Union. While he doesn't intend to launch a full scale traditional war in Europe to re-establish it he probably does see Eastern and Central Europe as in Russia's backyard and seeks to reassert a Russian sphere of influence. He wants Russia to establish itself if not a super power again at least a major power and will likely continue to use asymmetrical means to do so. Its probably in the long terms interest of both America and Europe to contain that.
Hypothetical threats from a future bankrupt Russian are probably not high on any Green parties agenda (incidentally the Green party has just made into power here Ireland as the junior member of a three party coalition). They are more concerned about the very real threat of climate change and the ever decreasing time window which we have to negate it worst effects.
As for America being the only super power not acting like an invader. Well there has only ever been two super powers one of whom is now gone. If your talking about America in general throughout history, then credit where its due they didn't go into colonialism the way other great powers in history have but they are not totally clean. America did after all invade and take half of Mexico and had some colonies in the Pacific like the Philippines and concessions in China. There is historical situations like when America forced Japan to end its policy of isolation to the world at gunpoint.
I'm sure the American soldier's who went into Iraq had the best of intentions had no imperial intentions and they genuinely believed they where there to topple a dictator and free the people of Iraq, but that war lead to the deaths of probably hundreds of thousands mostly innocent people and I doubt the best of intentions is of much comfort to the families of the dead.
What business was Europe doing with Saddam at the time?
I can see evidence American firms where sanction busting and dealing with Saddam, the likes of Halliburton.
Even if Europe was dealing with Saddam is that any worse than the US dealing with Saudi Arabia?
Also perhaps America should have been more careful not to arm Iraq in the first place?
European objections to the war in Iraq where mostly based on moral grounds not financial grounds. Europeans for the most part never believed (correctly) the evidence America presented proved Saddam had WMD and that he was a credible threat and therefore the war was not justifiable. Was a case of Bush just hating Saddam ever since Saddam plotted to kill his dad, he wanted him gone and he rounded up a lynch mob to do so.
I know Europe wants to keep trade open with Iran as so to honor its end of the Iranian nuclear deal and keep the deal alive as much as possible.
Yes the Iranian regime is not a pleasant regime. But again does that mean we can't trade with them, it likely punishes the averaging Iranian on the stree t than the actual regime.
Its also hypocritical for the US to criticize Europe on those grounds. Trump was on the verge of signing a major trade deal with China earlier in the year, but the souring of relations due to the pandemic saw that at least being put on hold. But what would the difference of been there. China is also a major human rights abuser and America would of been happy to deal with them?
Yes Europe mostly doesn't act. That's both a good and bad thing.
Europe wants to keep trade open with Iran to profit...the deal is the excuse. Just as they were elbow deep in trade with Saddam:
There were, as expected, howls of derision from some quarters in Europe, notably France and Germany, the 'Old Europe', as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld put it last week. This should come as no surprise from two nations whose policy on Iraq is morally bankrupt and devoid of real solutions. Both nations have shamelessly appeased the Iraqi regime for too long, with barely a whiff of criticism of the medieval barbarity of Saddam's rule. Numerous German companies helped to build up Iraq's chemical weapons capability, while French concerns have aggressively fought for oil and financial contracts worth billions of dollars.
........
The Halliburton controversy was post Saddam.
Or it may encourage other ME countries to move in the same direction. If Trump wins the election that’s more likely.
Contrast that to the European approach of saying nothing and taking the money. And the Obama approach which created Isis, almost lost Egypt and left ME tensions higher than ever.
Of course Halliburton was trading with Iraq....it also traded with almost every other country in the ME....the controversy was about contracts after the Iraq war, because Cheney had been chairman of Halliburton. Got it?
As for the US changing it’s word...did Iran stop supporting terrorism? No with the money the Obama regime stupidly released to them they accelerated. And Europe looked the other way and only got upset when the cash register went silent. And we are protecting these morally bankrupt countries!
Where in the deal did it mention anything about terrorism?
We both know the answer is no where.
At that rate you argue America broke the deal when it continued supplying weapons to Irans enemies.
Well that’s why the deal with Iran should never have been signed....you can’t reach an agreement with a country that flouts international norms. Nor did you need to, the sanctions were grinding them down.
Instead Obama cheered on by greedy Europe reversed course and enabled Iran’s ambitions...selling all western oriented Iranians down the Euphrates and betraying their neighbors. And that’s okay....thank heavens Trump still has a bit of old style values and trashed the whole thing.
The world is forced into a lot of compromises with China and Russia, because they are dangerous adversaries. But there was no need to compromise with the mullahs.
Grow upShark...the UN is never going to adjudicate these things. And the US wars were never for gain. They were il l advised in the case of Iraq and Vietnam but they were geo political. And let’s not forget, Kuwait is only independent today because the US intervened.
The European notion that ambitious, ideologically driven countries like China, Iran and N Korea can be contained by happy talk is a throw back to the appeasement of Neville Chamberlain. If we want our values to survive we are going to have to defend them. The world was always thus.
Trump has carefully avoided conflicts but engaged these threats in various ways which has reduced these protagonists and given a free hand in a second term this work should bear fruit....it’s all been marginalized by the fake Russia investigation.
Just a simple question to all you Iranian supporters.
How can the UN or any member of the Osama Obama agreement with Iran accept the word of a bunch of Terries as the truth?
There is no on the ground site inspections to verify compliance of the so-called AGREEMENT by any credible source other than the Iranian officials which are covering up what is actually taking place.
As for the UN we all know just how honest that bunch is, nothing but a majority of officials living the western high life in and around NY which they are unable to do in their own countries.
So Mozart you admit Iran did not break the deal? You know what else flouts international norms, tearing up international treaties. The hypocrisy on display here is on another level.
Trump pulled out of the deal simply out of sheer hatred for Obama. He's utterly obsessed with him (he's tweeted about Obama thousands of times) and he can't stand the fact that Obama is held in much higher regard than he is both at home and abroad.
We all know if this very same deal was Trumps deal, you would be on here singing its praises as a brilliant deal.
That’s me ‘cheery picking‘. Let’s pick a few ‘cheerie s’
1. Trump is not alone in saying the Iran treaty was awful.
2 Obama hates Trump far more than Trump dislikes him and proved it by condoning the scandalous Russia probe....and if he really believed it (which he didn’t) he is criminally stupid.
3 Chamberlain was an appeaser and absent the USA would have lost his country. He the royals and their pick for Chamberlain’s successor wanted to cut a deal.
4 There was justification for pulling out of the deal.....much more in fact than there was for Obama’s abandoning Qaddafi.
.......
Before the U.S. withdrawal, JCPOA critics made strong arguments about the accord’s weaknesses, especially Iran’s refusal to allow International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors access to military sites. The lone exception is the Parchin military base, self-inspected by Iranians. There the IAEA obtained evidence of covert nuclear-weapons work. There were other credible reports of Iranian cheating before the U.S. withdrawal, including several from German intelligence agencies. Senators Ted Cruz, Tom Cotton, Marco Rubio, and David Perdue raised Iranian noncompliance and cheating on the JCPOA in a July 2017 letter to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.
JCPOA supporters rejected those criticisms, noting that the IAEA repeatedly declared Iran to be in compliance with the nuclear agreement. However, they refused to admit that the IAEA reached its compliance findings by claiming that Iranian violations were not “material breaches” and by not asking to inspect Iranian military facilities (which Tehran has declared off limits) even though they are the likely locations of covert nuclear-weapons work.
1. Israel is not an impartial state in the matter. Other than them only the American political right wing disliked the deal.
2. Nonsense Trump goes on and on about Obama. Countless petty tweets attacking him for years on end. The Russian Inquiry showed the Russians where actively trying to help Trump out and had links to the Trump campaign. Trump wasn't directly linked nor was he exonerated. Will be interesting to see if Trump is prosecuted when ever he is out of office. To call the probe scandalous is simple political bias. Even if it had found evidence that Trump actively co-operated with Russia his supporters would never have believed it.
3. Peace is not always the wrong option. It was in the case of Munich, but does not mean every single peace effort is wrong. Again from the evidence we now know, Germany was not capable of invading the UK back in WW2 so again the claim the US saved Britain is wrong. More to the point polls at the time showed American's supported the Munich Agreement.
4. No evidence has been provided justifying America's withdrawal for the deal.
You 2 react to one another like I do to Rudeneck...another lengthy argument coming...Krypton blasted to smithereens!