Hamas and Israel and Endless War for Profit

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I made a mess and tried to migrate some posts in the Tucker thread over to here.

Instead of doing that, I merged the two threads. I can't undo that, but I can go to the Tucker thread, copy each post that belongs here one by one and paste it here.

Including the posts I wanted to migrate to here.

So that is what I am going to do.

Note: This thread originally started on October 10, 2023.

Dayaamm!

Michael

===================================================

(Original post by me - October 10, 2023.)

Hamas and Israel and Endless War for Profit

Today is the 4th day of the attack on Israel by Hamas and Israel's response.

I did not want a special thread on this conflict because I think the bad guys are the ones pulling the strings, not the ones fighting. Well... there are plenty of bad guys to go around, but without the money and training from the outside and maybe corruption from the inside of Israel, Hamas would not have been able to pull off the attack. They are just not that smart on their own.

So this thing looks like it is going to last for a long haul.

1. You have real hatred of Jews by Hamas (and, later, watch Hezbollah join in). So they are not only easy to inflame, they are willing to commit atrocities against women, children, the sick and the elderly. And they are willing to film themselves doing these atrocities and celebrating.

2. The reaction by Israel is--and is going to be--brutal. Palestine might end up being obliterated as a country and absorbed by Israel. I predict at least the Gaza strip will be annexed by Israel. (I personally think this would be the best solution, not the best in an ideal world, but the best in the options available.)

3. Not only is there hatred, but people are hardcore pissed on both sides right now. That's the way they get when a group or country kills their people regardless of who is right or wrong. They want to fight, not negotiate anything short of a total surrender by the other side.

4. The war profiteers look at this and see a better chance for endless war than Ukraine. The only thing in their heads right now is "katching."

5. If the war profiteers  can get the US and Iran into war with each other over this, since it looks like Iran is funding a good portion of Hamas and the USA is the cash cow for their lifestyles, they know they will get even more money than Big Pharma and government cronies got with the COVID bioweapon and jabs.

 

Meanwhile the killing goes on so these assholes can live lives of luxury. 

So now we have a separate thread for this.

Have at it. There is plenty to condemn and analyze.

Michael

===================================================

(Original post by me - October 10, 2023.)

To get the ball rolling, here are posts from the Ukraine thread.

Michael

 

  

  On 10/7/2023 at 8:48 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

T,

The way I see it, Biden recently gave Iran 6 billion dollars and Hamas just now opened war on Israel in a surprise attack.

 

 Hamas attacked Israel and Netanyahu says his country is 'at war.' Follow live updates - Breitbart

WWW.BREITBART.COM

---

Israel’s national rescue service says at least 40 people have been killed in a wide-ranging Hamas assault into Israel Hamas attacked Israel and Netanyahu

For those who like cause and effect...

 

(I grieve for the losses, but I can only smile at the stupidity of people who do not see the cause and effect. I smile to keep from screaming and breaking things.) 

Michael

Expand  

 

  On 10/7/2023 at 10:30 AM, tmj said:

Hopefully soon the Dept of State will get a handle on international relations and the specific consequences of such relations and existential actions.

What would it mean to assume they do have a handle on it ? Shit that would be almost monstrous!

 

 

  On 10/8/2023 at 12:59 AM, Peter said:

On the news it said, Israel and Saudi Arabia had "Met" an "Accord" and that is when Hamas, backed by Iran, began their terrorist actions.  And "I heard" on the news yada yada yada. We are backing Israel.   

edit. some more bad stuff is about to happen.

 

  On 10/8/2023 at 9:57 AM, tmj said:

Israel is not a turn the other cheek kind of nation , so probably in Gaza, yeah.

 

  On 10/8/2023 at 12:13 PM, Peter said:

“600 plus Israelis killed in Hamas terror attacks.”

Israel is an ally and I am sure we are providing any intelligence on Hamas we have to them. And perhaps America can do more. Here is some news: “The US military plans to move navy ships and military aircraft closer to Israel as a show of support, according to officials. Some 800 Hamas targets have been struck in Gaza - with hundreds of fighters killed and dozens captured, Israeli officials say . . . .”

===================================================

  On 10/10/2023 at 11:03 AM, Marc said:

President Trump, we love you.

===================================================

(Original post by me - October 10, 2023.)

This is Gaza from 22 hours ago.

This is what it looks like on the ground.

Conceptual referent for those who prefer headlines only.

I could show Israel, too, and much worse. 

War sucks.

Except for war profiteers. War doesn't suck for them.

Michael

[Peter]

Israel did not start this. The initiation of force was from>because of Hamas. Therefore . . . retaliation is essential as we Objectivists suggest. Kill all of them. Period . . . Of course. humanitarian, Israel is still 'bull horning" those in buildings about to be destroyed: "Get out now unless you are Hamas before we destroy you." But next, unfortunately, Americans may be put in harm's way. But WE signed up for that. I say kick their asses into oblivion. And obituaries. What monsters are the Hamas.   

[tmj]

I am familiar with Bret and I like his style and practice of thinking which means for me that  I consider a lot of his conclusions to be defensible , I have not heard of his guest prior, but her presentations of her ideas seems to be generated from a similar style and practice of Bret's that I resonate with.

This is the kind of conversation that is most important right now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_IAH7PnS_E

ps

I mean that this conversation and frame setting is an important consideration for people in the US and the west more generally , the situation(s) and their aftermath(s) in Israel and Gaza and 'what they mean' and how they 'will be experienced' for the people there , need not nor should not be part of 'our' response, we literally don't have a response , we are observing.

[Marc]

Great video,watched half so far, merci beaucoup!

[Marc]

"When peace comes we will perhaps in time be able to forgive the Arabs for killing our sons, but it will be harder for us to forgive them for having forced us to kill their sons. Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us".

Golda Meir

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

One of Scott Adams's best tweets ever.

Here is the full text for those who do not want to go to another site:

There could be peace in the Middle East tomorrow if Israel negotiated in good faith with Hamas and agreed to accept a reasonable level of murder per year, the way America does with the cartels. 

America tells the cartels "You can't kill more than 100,000 of us per year with fentanyl." And it works. You don't see us going to war. 

I don't understand why more countries don't follow our lead on this.

 

Man, that one cuts deep into the souls of the appeasers.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This is so relevant to today, especially the end zinger...

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

No words...

Biden Regime Is Forcing Americans Trapped in Israel to Sign Promissory Notes to Repay All Travel Costs If They Decide to Be Rescued by US Government | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft

WWW.THEGATEWAYPUNDIT.COM

---

In a time when Americans in Israel are relying on their government for support and protection, the U.S.

How about if the government signs a promissory note to the taxpayers for projects? If they fail, the government gives the money back. How about that for a change?

Michael

[Marc]

17 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

No words...

Biden Regime Is Forcing Americans Trapped in Israel to Sign Promissory Notes to Repay All Travel Costs If They Decide to Be Rescued by US Government | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft

WWW.THEGATEWAYPUNDIT.COM

---

In a time when Americans in Israel are relying on their government for support and protection, the U.S.

How about if the government signs a promissory note to the taxpayers for projects? If they fail, the government gives the money back. How about that for a change?

Michael

How many Americans are we talking about and I would love to do the math.

Bet you that the interest alone that Biden received on his money stolen would be wayyyyyyyy more than the cost of bringing everyone home.

Or all of the soldiers that are crossing the border into the US are getting what, $2400/ monthly.

When 1984 meets Atals Shrugged

[Peter]

British warships, aircraft, and a force of Royal Marines are joining a US Navy carrier strike group in waters near Israel. Story by Jake Epstein

I was watching Hannity for a bit, but it was just too gruesome. Hamas likes to have their pictures taken on film while they murder people.  

[Peter]

Another 9/11? From Newsweek: Americans are "armed" and will not be intimidated, commenters including Rep. Matt Gaetz have said, after a former Hamas chief called for a "Day of Jihad" by Muslim communities around the world on Friday, October 13. Khaled Mashal, who now heads the militant group's diaspora office in Qatar, told Reuters on Wednesday that Muslims should "head to the squares and streets of the Arab and Islamic world on Friday" and hold mass protests in support of Palestinians as the conflict with Israel intensifies.

[Peter]

Excerpt from Ayn Rand's address to the graduating class of the United States Military Academy at West Point on March 6, 1974. . . . The army of a free country has a great responsibility: the right to use force, but not as an instrument of compulsion and brute conquest - as the army of other countries has done their histories - only as an instrument of a free nation's self-defense, which means: the defense of a man's individual rights. The principle of using force only in retaliation against those who initiate its use, is the principle of subordinating might to right. The highest integrity and sense of honor are required for such a task . . . . end quote

In Israel it is a complex situation when innocents are in the line of fire . . . but if attacked, America should defend itself as should Israel. I would defend myself if attacked. Peter

[Peter]

Hamas did not abide by the Geneva Convention. They targeted women and children. Hurray for George H. Smith. This “golden oldie letter” that follows, may not exactly pertain to the free state of Israel today as it did to America on 9/11 but it may clarify some things. And be sure to read the last small paragraph at the end that pertains to any possible sanctions or retaliatory force used against Iran. Peter

From: "George H. Smith" To: "*Atlantis" Subject: ATL: Re: George Smith and Just War... Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2001 11:45:57 -0600 Ross Levatter addressed a lot of questions to me, and it is virtually impossible to give each the attention it deserves. Instead, I will outline my general views of a "just war" and then elaborate on a few other points.

Ross wrote: "If the military in your homeland is killing civilians, are you allowed to get their government's attention by killing their civilians in return, or are only military targets morally acceptable? Some Objectivist scholars, including Ms. Rand's intellectual heir, believe there are no innocents in war. So on that logic the whole of the American public could be attacked by those who have been victims of America's initiation of force...or is this wrong? I believe George is not a defender of  any morality that demands the turning of one's cheek, which claims that one's actions are limited to those that harm no innocents."

(1) It is possible to frame a libertarian theory of war in such a way that it is *never* legitimate to engage in (or support) *any* war, even if it is obviously motivated by legitimate self-defense. For any war will invariably result in civilian casualties, and if we do not morally distinguish between inadvertent casualties versus the *deliberate* targeting of civilians, then we will end up with one of two positions: Either (1) war is always and everywhere unjust and may *never* be fought, even if abstention results in one's own death; or (2) anything goes in war, including the mass killing of innocent civilians.

Position (1) is logically implied by the arguments of some libertarians (especially anarchists), though rarely will they admit this consequence. Position (2) is the sort of thing we find advocated by Peikoff & Co. I reject both extremes.

This problem of killing innocent civilians (i.e., non-combatants) would remain even in an ideal anarchist society. For self-defense agencies, even those voluntarily commissioned, would face the same moral problems responding to 9-11 as we face today.

A state of war, including one declared for just reasons, is a public acknowledgment of a serious conflict of interests. (This relates to my earlier insistence that the U.S. should formally declare war against the individuals responsible for 9-11.) If -- or more precisely, *when* -- those who pursue a just war (i.e., one waged the legitimate purpose of self-defense) are responsible for the unintentional killing of innocents, then they have indeed violated the rights of those victims. As I argued at some length previously an exchange with Bill Dwyer, the rights of innocent people do not vanish because it may be in our rational self-interest to violate them -- so we are under a moral imperative to *minimize* civilian casualties as much as is humanly possible. (A moral theory that demands the impossible is useless.)

Nevertheless, despite the inevitable violation of rights, a just war renders such violations morally justifiable in the name of legitimate self-defense.. This is what a *just* of war is all about. A state of war differs fundamentally from a state of peace, primarily because in a legitimate state of war the immediate issue of *survival* is paramount over all other concerns. This clearly distinguishes U.S. intervention in Vietnam from current actions against the Taliban and al-Qaida.

2) I think the traditional libertarian policy of non-intervention (as found in some of the founding fathers) is sometimes misunderstood. After all, American revolutionaries gladly accepted foreign aid and even direct military assistance (especially from France) in their fight against the British. More important than French naval assistance (e.g., at Yorktown) was the fact that that Americans, by persuading France and Spain to declare war against England, caused the British to fear losing their West India colonies, which were economically more important than the mainland colonies. As a result the British decided it was more important to protect their earlier acquisitions from the Seven Years' War, so they withdrew many of their troops from America and eventually abandoned the fight,  unwilling to spend more blood and treasure for a relatively small prize. If Americans had insisted on pure non-interventionism in regard to their own struggle for independence, it is quite possible that they would have lost that war.

Ironically, the massive debt incurred by France was a principal cause of the later French Revolution. This was why the libertarian Turgot, though very sympathetic to the American cause, opposed the intervention of his own country on the American side. He feared French intervention would lead to massive problems at home -- and so it did.

As I argued many years ago in "Justice Entrepreneurship in a Free Market," a well-intentioned Third Party is quite justified in forcibly intervening to stop an aggressor from violating the rights of a victim. I therefore oppose foreign interventionism, not because I think this would somehow violate the rights of a foreign tyrannical government, but because such intervention (normally) is *not* directly related to the survival of those in the United States. Yet such "intervention" (as in the case of the American Revolution, which saw many volunteers from other countries) might be perfectly legitimate if undertaken by *private* citizens in behalf of a just cause. A government, in contrast, does not have this freedom; rather, it should be concerned only with immediate threats to the survival of its citizens. And the current campaign clearly has this as its *purpose* -- which is not to say that I agree with every aspect of it..

Ross wrote: “Question: If suicide bombers destroyed several buildings in Italy, killing thousands, and the Italian government claimed it was done by the American Mafia, demanding the American government hand over the head of the Gambezzi family, with the American government responding they want to help but a) first they need some juridical proof of his guilt, and b) they don't keep tabs on everyone in the country and may need some time to find him...in such a situation is it appropriate for the Italian government to bomb Washington, as long as the bombs are aimed only at strategic targets and every reasonable effort is made to minimize civilian casualties?"

Yes, if such bombings were *necessary* for the apprehension of the guilty parties (e.g., if the U.S. government were to forcibly oppose any attempt by the Italians to come into America and apprehend the criminals themselves) -- and especially if those criminals constituted a clear and present danger of committing similar atrocities in the *future.* In this case, the U.S. government, like the Taliban government, would be aiding and abetting mass murderers, and a formal declaration of war would be morally justifiable (if rather stupid, given the military power of the U.S).

Ross wrote: "Question: George has made much of bin Laden's statements, goals, etc., and those of the Taliban, arguing that these people are motivated by religious fervor such that they would still hate America (and have eager followers willing to commit suicide?) even if US foreign policy were changed to non-intervention in the middle east. George is a commanding scholar, so perhaps he has in this case, as in so much of his other scholarship, gone to primary sources, but if this is not the case--if he does not read Farci or whatever language bin Laden's writings appear in--is he not concerned that what he hears about bin Laden's desires, demands, goals, etc., has been filtered by the US government and the American press?"

This is a disingenuous objection, in my judgment, since we must all rely on more or less the same sources of information -- and I don't see a similar concern among those who presume to *know* that U.S. foreign policy is the only reason why so many Muslims hate Americans. I have watched quite a view interviews with bin Laden and read many other statements by him, such as his declaration of a Holy War against ALL Americans, made just weeks before 9-11, not to mention his claiming credit for previous acts of terrorism. (In his public "cave" statement released shortly after U.S. military actions, bin Laden did everything all but expressly admit his involvement in 9-11.)

Moreover, a lot of information is available about the links of the 9-11 thugs to the al-Qaida network, as a quick internet search will reveal. I have simply reached the best judgment I can. Does Ross believe that Timothy McVeigh was involved in the Oklahoma City bombing? If so, why? Because he was found legally guilty? Well, even so, I doubt if Ross personally knows enough details to justify this verdict for himself. Because McVeigh openly and publicly confessed his crime? Well, how does Ross know this wasn't elicited under torture or the threat thereof? This kind of epistemological skepticism, if employed consistently, would destroy most every claim to knowledge that we make, since we can justify very little of our knowledge personally and directly, without relying on the "testimony" of others. This is even true in the hard sciences.

Ross wrote: "He is aware, I'm sure, of the role that government propaganda has played in past wars...from the butchering of Belgian babies in W.W.I to the Tonkin Gulf in Vietnam. And we already know the Bush administration has told the TV networks not to replay bin Laden speeches unedited. While I certainly agree religion can be a source of war (just look at the Crusades), I'm not sure what aspect of Islam and/or international trade has changed so dramatically in the last 30 years so as to instill such hatred of America in a part of the world we have traveled and traded in for centuries."

Yes, I am aware of the role of government propaganda, especially during wartime. That's why we shouldn't accept anything at face value, but should read as widely as we can and think for ourselves. (See, for example, the article at http://www.drudgereport.com/flash33.htm, which points out that the Delta Force was badly mangled during its supposedly surgical raid (Nov. 12) on Mullah Omar's complex. The official government version of this raid -- or at least the one reported in the media -- made no mention of the 12 -- and 3 badly -- wounded American soldiers and about the widespread discontent within the Special Forces about the incompetence of U.S. military planners.)

Ross wrote: "Question: George comments that President Bush's latest war, on terror, comes as close as reasonably possible to meeting the demands of just war theory. I don't have the half-dozen or so requirements for a just war in front of me, but I seem to recall a principle of proportionality somewhere. Is this correct? One day, 4 airplanes, 3 buildings...an act of horror committed by a dozen or so private citizens from several countries. In return, billions of dollars of weaponry aimed at devastating the infrastructure of a poor country (think about what that means for future deaths...roads gone, transportation of food and medicine impossible, electricity and power out, telephone system destroyed, airports destroyed, hospitals destroyed...if all that happened in your city, what would life be like, even if no civilians were killed in the initial destruction"

You neglect to mention a relevant fact, namely, that this is *not* just a war of retaliation. Various Mullahs, as well as leaders of the al-Qaida network, have publicly announced that there should be *no* limit whatever to the weapons that may be used against Americans, including nuclear weapons and germ warfare. Do you not take these threats seriously? Do you not believe that we are in imminent danger of additional terrorist strikes that could make 9-11 look like a picnic?

I personally didn't take these threats very seriously before 9-11, but I do *now.* And it would be irrational to suppose that this was a one-time "lesson" inflicted by disgruntled Muslims. (Remember, the WTC typically had around 50,000 people in it, and the terrorists would have been more than pleased with this higher body count.) I am as certain as one can be about future events that more mass killings lie in our immediate future. Thus, given the inevitable conflict of interests between myself (and millions of other *innocent* Americans) versus some innocent Afghan causalities, I am not about to call for massive and idiotic self-sacrifice by the former. Although I would like to see the current war conducted along somewhat different lines, I am not about to lose track of the fact that the basic issue here is *self-defense,* pure and simple.

Since so much has been said about the virtues of "non-intervention," I would like to ask Ross a question. Bin Laden is a Saudi, is he not? Then, even supposing he is motivated by a love of justice, what is a Saudi doing "intervening" in Palestinian and Afghan affairs? Indeed, many of the Taliban are Arabs and not Afghans at all, and this is why they are viewed by many native Afghans as foreign conquerors. Or does being a Muslim render the members of al-Qaida exempt from our libertarian policy of non-interventionism?

Indeed, if U.S. interventionism had some role to play in the current mess, it may be also said that similar interventionism on the other side (e.g., the Iranian financing of Palestinian resistance) of is also responsible. No double standards, please. Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The spread of Hamas.

Think about it and ask why this one is this way.

You also might want to think about Trump reciting the lyrics about The Snake.

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This is image about the war and not the war per se, but this kind of message is powerful.

Israel destroys Palestinian pizzeria that used photo of elderly hostage in advert

From the article.

Quote

 

The woman was taken hostage by Hamas terrorists during their attack on Israel last Saturday

Israel has destroyed a Palestinian pizzeria that used a picture of an elderly woman held hostage by Hamas in its advertising.

 

A bulldozer was seen flattening the pizzeria, called Eiffel Bakery and Supermarket, in footage recorded in the West Bank town of Huwara.

 

The Israel Defence Forces (IDF) central command gave the order to destroy the building.

 

The pizzeria’s advertisement appeared to mock an elderly woman snatched by terrorists during Hamas’s invasion of Israel, featuring her image alongside a photograph of pizza.

 

 

The owner of the pizzeria said he did not realize the picture was of a hostage and that the dog ate the homework of his son.

 

I like the Israeli response.

It's morale-boosting and a warning.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The big thing floating in the fake news toilet right now is this: The USA should accept the Palestinians being thrown out of the Gaza strip by Israel. Legal immigrants or illegal aliens, it doesn't matter. But at least one million of them.

I stand and stare in stupefaction...

 

Michael

[Jules Troy]

I’d say give the Palestinians 2 options, pretty much the same options often given the Jewish people throughout history in almost every country they have been persecuted in.  Leave or die.

[Peter]

38 minutes ago, Jules Troy said:

I’d say give the Palestinians 2 options, pretty much the same options often given the Jewish people throughout history in almost every country they have been persecuted in.  Leave or die.

I would say Jules, Israel opinions are to leave or be in harm's way. Israel does not target civilians ever. Nor does the United States. But when you retaliate, you know there may be civilians killed. 

[Marc]

 

[anthony]

Ralph is one of the survivors of Kfar Aza the closest kibbutz to Gaza. A schoolmate and long friend of my wife's since before he moved to Israel from SA. He tells a little of his story to an AUS TV

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

18 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

The big thing floating in the fake news toilet right now is this: The USA should accept the Palestinians being thrown out of the Gaza strip by Israel. Legal immigrants or illegal aliens, it doesn't matter. But at least one million of them.

I stand and stare in stupefaction...

I spoke too soon.

I was watching a Scott Adams video and a viewer suggested we don't have to worry too much about young Palestinians.

Any school-aged Palestinians who come to the USA, even those mentally poisoned by Hamas, will go into the American school system and within a year will come out trans.

School-aged young men will come to the United States full of hatred and within a year will be wearing dresses.

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If you want to have a little fun at Blinken's account, check this one out.

Body Language – Netanyahu & Antony Blinken

WWW.BITCHUTE.COM

---

Checkout the website where you can view exclusive content, as well as a tutorial series that explains my methods in more detail. https://bombardsbodylanguage.com/ Get new video alerts on Telegram! https://t.me/bombardsbodylanguage Note: All comments…

You don't have to like Blinken or Netanyahu to see what Bombard sees. It is right in your face.

Michael

[Marc]

 

[Peter]

7 hours ago, Marc said:

 

Thanks Marcia. I heard the Israeli proof was substantial that Hamas was the killers, but what were they trying to land their murderous rockets? And where is the outrage that should come from using fellow Arabs as human shields?   

BERLIN, Oct 17 (Reuters) - Jordan's King Abdullah on Tuesday warned against trying to push Palestinian refugees into Egypt or Jordan, adding that the humanitarian situation must to be dealt with inside Gaza and the West Bank. "That is a red line, because I think that is the plan by certain of the usual suspects to try and create de facto issues on the ground. No refugees in Jordan, no refugees in Egypt," King Abdullah said at a news conference following a meeting with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz in Berlin. end quote

I don’t think he specifically thinks any Gaza refugees would be too big a burden. But I do think King Abdullah is hinting “the usual suspects” who would “try and create de facto issues on the ground” ARE: Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and any sympathizers and agitators in the region and around the whole world. I expect the UN to step up and perhaps the U.S. too, with aid.

And I saw a smiling Putin, who may or may not be on his last legs medically, saying there could be a solution hammered out (or shot out) between Russia and Ukraine.

[Marc]

7 hours ago, Peter said:

Thanks Marcia. I heard the Israeli proof was substantial that Hamas was the killers, but what were they trying to land their murderous rockets? And where is the outrage that should come from using fellow Arabs as human shields?   

BERLIN, Oct 17 (Reuters) - Jordan's King Abdullah on Tuesday warned against trying to push Palestinian refugees into Egypt or Jordan, adding that the humanitarian situation must to be dealt with inside Gaza and the West Bank. "That is a red line, because I think that is the plan by certain of the usual suspects to try and create de facto issues on the ground. No refugees in Jordan, no refugees in Egypt," King Abdullah said at a news conference following a meeting with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz in Berlin. end quote

I don’t think he specifically thinks any Gaza refugees would be too big a burden. But I do think King Abdullah is hinting “the usual suspects” who would “try and create de facto issues on the ground” ARE: Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and any sympathizers and agitators in the region and around the whole world. I expect the UN to step up and perhaps the U.S. too, with aid.

And I saw a smiling Putin, who may or may not be on his last legs medically, saying there could be a solution hammered out (or shot out) between Russia and Ukraine.

Thanks Jan! 

Please also understand that the "Palestinians" are for the most part from Jordan, and also Egypt.

They are not refugees, they are Jordanians and Egyptians.