Conflict Israel and other nearby countries

The war appears to have disrupted the normalisation process between Israel and Arab nations. I'm pleased to see the UAE using what leverage it has on Israel.

www.axios.com/world/israel

I'd expect that to go ahead post-conflict, especially as climate change really kicks in further down the line.

Since 1979, the direction of travel is clear with several Arab States one by one - normalisation of relations with Israel AND reluctance to engage in military conflict with them.

You can see part of the motivation from Hamas to attack Israel on 7th October 2023 there. The more Arab States that normalise relations with Israel, the more isolated Hamas becomes in the region.

And that's been the track record for a long time now. Further environmental issues will absolutely focus the minds of States like Jordan to cooperate with Israel as there won't be much option.

Amusing to observe you really dig in to your highly selective views here. In so doing, you're avoiding @stomachamaleon's point yet the links you're using is revealing. My last two was from United Nations University and Reuters.

Still
Nothing....

.

I think Jordan is changing its mind on that. They’re not happy to have Israel controlling their water supply and even less so now.

I can't say I'm surprised you've zero comment on the clearly stated aim of the Arab League's diversion of water plan being "the ultimate practical means for the final liquidation of Israel" via the armies of multiple Arab States against the singular Jewish State not only in the Middle East but the world. 🤷‍♂️

But no, the actual end result is that Jordan supplies Israel with solar energy and Israel supplies Jordan with water.

https://www.reuters.com/business/cop/israel-jordan-move-forward-with-water-for-energy-deal-2022-11-08/

"The signing on Tuesday, the ministry said, "expresses the countries' shared desire to deal with the climate crisis through cross-border cooperation."

The Middle East is highly vulnerable to climate change and this will be the first such cooperation between Israel and Jordan."

The very definition of quid pro quo which is Latin for something for something.* *

Nothing then....

The end result is that Israel controls the water to Jordan and Palestine. Which, given that the river runs through the whole region, should not be the case.

On the contrary, it depends on your own particular bias. In this case, that Israel alone is to blame for diversion of water.

But the Arab League itself had planned to do so with Israel in order to destroy the State. Indeed, "a detailed military plan for Israel's destruction which was approved at the Third (September 1965) Arab Summit."

And:

"The Arab Diversion had its roots in a 1953 agreement between Syria and Jordan for the allocation of water diverted from the Hasbani and/or the Banias into a proposed dam on the Yarmuk. Syria would get three-quarters of the hydropower produced at a dam at Adassiye, and Jordan would get the water, "instead of it going to the Mediterranean, the Dead Sea, or the Jews"."

https://archive.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/80859e/80859E07.htm

So, the Arab States' plan was based on anti-semitism from the beginning.

If you're determined to completely ignore all of that....Well, that's not my problem. 🤷‍♂️

So where do you get your information?

.
I guess it depends on where you look for your information.

@Thereissomelight I don't know why you feel the need to do that... without at least checking the facts first.

Far from the full story as the Arab League were the ones who planned to divert water which would have had an effect on the Sea Of Galilee.

Indeed, the Arab League very clearly stated that "the Arab states have to prepare the plans necessary for dealing with the political, economic and social aspects, so that if necessary results are not achieved, collective Arab military preparations, when they are not completed, will constitute the ultimate practical means for the final liquidation of Israel" in relation to their diversion plan.

And that was part of their goal. Quite correctly, Israel responded militarily to this.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headwater_Diversion_Plan_(Jordan_River)

As for Jordan, they provide Israel with solar energy and Israel provides Jordan with water.

https://www.reuters.com/business/cop/israel-jordan-move-forward-with-water-for-energy-deal-2022-11-08/

Expect more deals like this in future which I've no doubt will be the foundation upon which Israeli-Arab normalisation of relations will be built upon.

Israel sells water to Jordan because Israel dammed and diverted the Jordan River which runs along the Israel-Jordan boundary, reducing the once adequate Jordanian water supply to a trickle.

If Israel was the evil country in a James Bond movie viewers would complain that it was unnuanced annd unrealistic.

As one of the bad things happening

This is true
It's terrible, remember one day I was telling you how there are many bad players who exploit the war. This is what I meant

apple.news/Aqg01r3lhRKymGRUL1s5nVw

Interesting article on Egyptian officials suspected of manipulating the crisis for financial gain.

I think also a timely reminder of Arab States who have normalised relations with Israel or were very close to is needed:

Egypt
Jordan
Bahrain

Similar deals followed with Morocco and Sudan.

Saudi Arabia was very close to a deal with Israel and the US has indicated Saudi is still in favour.

Of course, Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah rejected these as did Hamas. Surprise, surprise(!)

This indicates the direction of travel in the region from 1979 to 2023. In other words, Western, Israeli and Arab States WILL decide what any future settlement will look like in the region.

@Trulywonderful you're correct that it's very difficult to see anything other than continuing normalisation of relations between Israel and various Arab States. Especially when Water For Peace becomes even more important in the region as climate change really kicks in. Israel already supplies Jordan with water, for example, and has since their 1994 deal, I think.

What sort of world do we live in where a woman is whipped 74 times for merely not covering her head. Mediaeval rules set by men. Sick.

Stomach churning 😥, what an exceptionally courageous woman

Iran. Poor woman.

apple.news/ANCs5EjwhSkCM0wv2cyTHiQ

Huge barrage up North yesterday (drones and rockets) from Hezbollah. Sirens across a large number of communities (I have seen reports of up to 90 communities, but can't confirm). Hezbollah claims they targeted a military installation on Mt Meron and that they fired 62 rockets.

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/hezbollah-says-it-hit-israeli-observation-post-with-62-rockets-2024-01-06/

But when people only ever question how they can make Israel responsible for something, that's a bit of a problem.

Only questioning when something doesn't suit your own narrative is not a good thing.

I think it's important to question... even if it's uncomfortable.

I really don't care what you think. A bit 'fishy' made me laugh, so what, thanks for the laugh. I don't think anyone at the NYT gives a monkeys that some conspiracy theorist thinks its fishy or whether you think it's 'false flag' etc.

Have a lovely day. Try not to take yourself so seriously.