Getting back to the main point of the posts, as for catalysts for war…what about retribution?  Didn't Alexander head toward Persia in retribution, and do you think there was a bit of retribution when Hitler moved east?  Plus many of the wars between England and France was to take back something taken from them, plus a little extra from time to time.

The Germans were humilated when they signed the Treaty of Versailles.  Hitler made the French sign their surrender in the same box car the Germans did in World War I.  There was some retribution, but I would call it revenge.

The Germans were humilated when they signed the Treaty of Versailles.  Hitler made the French sign their surrender in the same box car the Germans did in World War I.  There was some retribution, but I would call it revenge.

The only argument I could make for Hitler wanting retribution in the East was because he had to eliminate the influences of Marx in Germany.  He hated socialism and communism vehemently.  The Russians might have bowed out of World War I, but they still killed many Germans before they turned to inward with their own civil war.  Russia was never Germany's "friend" so the animosity had always been there, even when Hitler signed a pact with Stalin.  Both anticipated the other betraying them, but Stalin didn't think Hitler would do it so unabashedly and so quickly.Yes but that was against the west, and if looked at objectively, perhaps even somewhat justified.  Hitler had no call for retribution in the east.  The Nazi conquest of the east was motivated strictly along racial and economic motives.

All, in my simple opinion.  War serves those that promote it, and the soldier is never in that rich class of war mongers.  Money, profit; that's what fuels war.

Suffice it to say, "Palestinian" is a modern contrivance that dates to the 1970's when the PLO successfully hoodwinked the world into believing they were somehow different than the Jordanians they actually are.

I do not agree because back in 1920 it was called The British Mandate of Palestine.   I also don't agree they were Jordanians...remember Jordan wasn't even a country until after.  The Mandate gave the West Bank to the British created zone called Transjordan, so the Palestinians were given an area.  It wasn't until after Israel took and settled the West Bank that trouble really began.   As far as being actual Jordanians, Palestinians in Jordan outnumber the native population by more than two to one. ¹¹Geography: Realms, Regions, and Concepts, 13th edition, H.J. de Bilj and Peter O. Muller

Let's look at the British Mandate again.  Palestine was what Britain called the new geographical area, and it was divided into two regions demarcated by the Jordan River, Palestine on the West Bank, and Transjordan on the East Bank.  By your logic, the Jews that lived there are "Palestinians" since Jews have always inhabited the region even during the Diaspora.  When the British Mandate ended in 1948, the Arabs lost a war to the Jews who then formed Israel from Palestine.  So the Palestinians (who were not called as such during the Mandate years), were not given anything.....Palestine was just a name given to the West Bank half of the British Mandate since the Romans called the Land of Israel Palestine which only referred to the Philistines (who were not Arabs nor even remotely connected to the "Palestinians" of today).  The Philistines were a cross of the Phoenicians, Egyptians, Caananites, and Hittites.  Israel/Judah warred with the Philistines and subjugated them during the Davidic and Solomonic kingdoms.  Arabs didn't even enter Palestine until after the advent of Islam and the conquests of the Umayyad and Abbasid caliphates and then they were in turn subjugated by the Seljuk Turks and later the Ottomans after them.  So tell me now, who owns "Palestine?"  The answer is.....whoever controls the land at the time, and that's the Jews for the moment. 🙂

Yes it is Ken, Yasser Arafat started that in the 1970's to distinguish his followers from the Hashemite kingdom of Jordan (which they tried to overthrow btw).Check your history on who tried to destabilize who.  The Jews never started any war, they only finished them.  The 1967 Six Day War doesn't count either since the Arabs were already mobilizing against them  Israel just didn't wait to be attacked.  The Arabs brought their miseries upon themselves bottom line.

Yes it is complex, very complex, but also one of the most politicized conflicts in recorded history.  Both sides claim victim status and have manipulated the major world powers to their respective causes.

Who's abandoning? I'm just trying to show all sides and perspectives. Are you (and others) going to say Israel is completely blameless in everything they've done?  Are you also implying that no other country in the region is capable of being a US ally?Britain and France screwed up a lot in their partitioning of the area.  Does saying that mean I "abandon" GB and France as allies and side with the Arabs only?  Maybe we're in disagreement about who our friends are over there.  Israel isn't the only one. I just think our alliance with Israel is a serious disadvantage to our...and our ALONE...current goals over there.Why can we critisize every country in Europe, China, Japan, Russia, South America, and Africa but if Israel is critisized it's taboo?