The successes of President Donald Trump and their under-reporting by the media (please, no flaming)

[PointOfViewGun]

Obama legacy in the Middle East was a total failure.
From sending weapons to rebel groups in Syria that everybody knew was ISIS or other minor groups that promply sold their weapons to ISIS, therefore equipping terrorists with US tax dollars and worsening the situation in the civil war.
Obama intervention in Libya resulted in a failed state, makings things much worse for the people there then what it was before.
The only success story was really the Iranian nuclear deal which Trump pretty much destroyed soon after.

We're talking about in relation to Israel and Gulf states.

[alhoon]

Nooope, that's what you talk about. We're talking about how Trump's actions helped to create the conditions for UAE and Bahrain to move closer to Israel and also how his actions helped the situation in the Middle East to become more peaceful.

[Cyclops]

How did Bush Jr. and Obama intervened negatively?

Look you're an intelligent commentator on these boards, that's a needlessly silly question. However if you ask in good faith then here:

Obama sent Clinton as Secretary of State who was pretty incompetent during the Arab Spring. She made some hopeful sounding comments but the results on the ground were US resources being redirected to ISIS and regimes that weren't very nice being replaced with absolute horrorshows.

Bush II invaded Iraq hunting for oil. His administration spewed lies and savagely destabilised the region.

Trump has told lies (and made some staggeringly ill informed statements) and conducted some assassinations but the net result seems to be less instability, which is good. I don't buy the whole 4D chess meme, but if his foul mouthed style plus picking a good negotiator helped lessen aggression between states in the region its a success.

[PointOfViewGun]

Nooope, that's what you talk about. We're talking about how Trump's actions helped to create the conditions for UAE and Bahrain to move closer to Israel and also how his actions helped the situation in the Middle East to become more peaceful.

He was responding to me. So, yeah, we're talking about in relation to Israel and Gulf states. Whatever happening in Syria has no relation to that.

Look you're an intelligent commentator on these boards, that's a needlessly silly question. However if you ask in good faith then here:

Obama sent Clinton as Secretary of State who was pretty incompetent during the Arab Spring. She made some hopeful sounding comments but the results on the ground were US resources being redirected to ISIS and regimes that weren't very nice being replaced with absolute horrorshows.

Bush II invaded Iraq hunting for oil. His administration spewed lies and savagely destabilised the region.

Trump has told lies (and made some staggeringly ill informed statements) and conducted some assassinations but the net result seems to be less instability, which is good. I don't buy the whole 4D chess meme, but if his foul mouthed style plus picking a good negotiator helped lessen aggression between states in the region its a success.

I don't see how any of those are related to Israel and Gulf states. Politics, as well as economy, is where people make gross connections but most fail in providing substance for the cause and effect relation. I have yet to see an explanation how Trump make this happen to get some credit for it.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

I don't see how any of those are related to Israel and Gulf states. Politics, as well as economy, is where people make gross connections but most fail in providing substance for the cause and effect relation. I have yet to see an explanation how Trump make this happen to get some credit for it.

I guess that you've missed my post then, because I explained just that. Allow me to quote myself:

The only thing the Iran deal "succeeded" in was bringing the Gulf states and Israel closer because both had realised that the US and EU had abandoned them. It allowed Iran to increase its spending on its proxies all over the middle east creating further instability and ramping up the Sunni-Shiite conflict.
Then came Trump who tore up the terrible deal and gave Israel the freedom to act, even allowing talks and plans of annexation to go ahead without American condemnation, something Obama would never do, which directly led to the deal with the UAE and consequently Bahrain. While previous administrations created the impression that Israel would have to give up everything it gained after the six day war and that all the Arab states had to do for that to happen was wait while American (and international) pressure on Israel continued to rise (culminating with Obama not using his veto on a condemnation of Israel), the Trump administration turned that on its head: suddenly the American peace plan gave Israel all the settlements, bringing with it the realisation that the longer they wait the worse (for the Arabs) the deal will get if settlements continue to grow and plans of annexation go ahead. Just like that there was created a need to give Israel something in return for preventing the annexation.

[PointOfViewGun]

I guess that you've missed my post then, because I explained just that. Allow me to quote myself:

You somehow tied allowing Israel to act without accountability as a factor in Gulf states to cozy up to Israel. The rationale you use for that has no real basis. It assumes the conflict with Israel happened a few years ago. There are decades and multiple presidents where Israel kept on expanding without much oversight. Obama or Bush Jr. was no different. All they did was public jabs. Israel still received the support. Trump didn't bring anything exceptional to that. Basically, your explanation is moot as it is not grounded in reality. If all it takes is a few publicity stunts then things are much more pathetic.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

You somehow tied allowing Israel to act without accountability as a factor in Gulf states to cozy up to Israel. The rationale you use for that has no real basis. It assumes the conflict with Israel happened a few years ago. There are decades and multiple presidents where Israel kept on expanding without much oversight. Obama or Bush Jr. was no different. All they did was public jabs. Israel still received the support. Trump didn't bring anything exceptional to that. Basically, your explanation is moot as it is not grounded in reality. If all it takes is a few publicity stunts then things are much more pathetic.

It is a factor, and I've explained exactly how it is a factor: Allowing Israel to go ahead with annexation meant that now someone else had to offer something in return for stopping it. This was a key point and you've completely ignored it.
Previous administrations offered support, but none of them would have allowed annexation, and none of them drew up peace plans where Israel received 100% of the settlements, another point you've completely ignored.

[PointOfViewGun]

It is a factor, and I've explained exactly how it is a factor: Allowing Israel to go ahead with annexation meant that now someone else had to offer something in return for stopping it. This was a key point and you've completely ignored it.
Previous administrations offered support, but none of them would have allowed annexation, and none of them drew up peace plans where Israel received 100% of the settlements, another point you've completely ignored.

Nope, as I said, nothing really new. Israel have been expanding settlements for decades. I didn't ignore settlements. You're ignoring my objection to those points.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

Nope, as I said, nothing really new. Israel have been expanding settlements for decades. I didn't ignore settlements. You're ignoring my objection to those points.

You've again ignored my points while debating something I haven't claimed.
Yes, the settlements are nothing new, but then I never claimed otherwise. What's new is that while previous administrations insisted that Israel would have to give the majority of them up in the final peace agreement (Obama even refused to veto a condemnation of the settlements in the security council) and made Israel freeze construction in them on several occasions, the Trump administration did the opposite and insisted that Israel would keep all of them.

Since you haven't replied to my point about the "letting Israel act" thing I guess you concede that it did have an impact.

[PointOfViewGun]

You've again ignored my points while debating something I haven't claimed.
Yes, the settlements are nothing new, but then I never claimed otherwise. What's new is that while previous administrations insisted that Israel would have to give the majority of them up in the final peace agreement (Obama even refused to veto a condemnation of the settlements in the security council) and made Israel freeze construction in them on several occasions, the Trump administration did the opposite and insisted that Israel would keep all of them.

Since you haven't replied to my point about the "letting Israel act" thing I guess you concede that it did have an impact.

Sigh... Just because I'm not arguing what you'd like me to argue doesn't mean I'm ignoring anything. Do not confuse the two. It's asinine to assume that at any point in time USA thought Israel would have to give up those settlements. Clearly, Israel didn't think so, hence, they kept investing on them. A few brief pauses here and there doesn't change that. USA or no USA, Israel have been exacerbate the situation by constantly expanding settlements. What you're trying to argue there had no real value. You can assume anything you'd like. Reality is reality.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

Sigh... Just because I'm not arguing what you'd like me to argue doesn't mean I'm ignoring anything. Do not confuse the two.

Ah, so you're using a strawman. Gotcha. And here I thought you were trying to argue in good faith. How silly of me.

It's asinine to assume that at any point in time USA thought Israel would have to give up those settlements.

Sigh. Look at previous peace offers.

Clearly, Israel didn't think so, hence, they kept investing on them. A few brief pauses here and there doesn't change that. USA or no USA, Israel have been exacerbate the situation by constantly expanding settlements. What you're trying to argue there had no real value. You can assume anything you'd like. Reality is reality.

Israel also kept investing in settlements in the Sinai peninsula before then giving it up. Israel also kept investing in settlements in the Gaza strip before giving them up. The idea that because Israel invested in settlements it wouldn't give up on them is demonstrably false, and yet your entire argument hinges upon it.

[PointOfViewGun]

Ah, so you're using a strawman. Gotcha. And here I thought you were trying to argue in good faith. How silly of me.
Sigh. Look at previous peace offers.
Israel also kept investing in settlements in the Sinai peninsula before then giving it up. Israel also kept investing in settlements in the Gaza strip before giving them up. The idea that because Israel invested in settlements it wouldn't give up on them is demonstrably false, and yet your entire argument hinges upon it.

If you want good faith, show good faith... I can't think of any USA brokered peace deal that doesn't involve Israel annexing a portion of West Bank. Deals often involved Israel largely annexing West Bank while Palestinians getting some desert land in return... Only 12 settlements with a few thousand settlers were in existence in the Sinai. Compared to how many in West Bank? It's mind boggling that you even mention it... You have no ground to stand on. Trump didn't do much different in reality.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

If you want good faith, show good faith... I can't think of any USA brokered peace deal that doesn't involve Israel annexing a portion of West Bank. Deals often involved Israel largely annexing West Bank while Palestinians getting some desert land in return...

Yes, they offered some, but never all.
Largely annexing? Such as which deal?

Only 12 settlements with a few thousand settlers were in existence in the Sinai. Compared to how many in West Bank? It's mind boggling that you even mention it... You have no ground to stand on. Trump didn't do much different in reality.

Conveniently left out the 21 settlements evacuated from Gaza.
And yes, The settlements certainly weren't as large in the Sinai as today's settlements, but look at the data you yourself provided for population, at the time of evacuation the settlements in Judea and Samaria were also populated by only a few thousands. Had the settlements in Sinai been able to continue they would have been much larger, for example the planned city of Yamit was intended to hold a population of over 200,000 and contain a port, a university and even a canal to the dead sea.

[Cyclops]

...
I don't see how any of those are related to Israel and Gulf states. Politics, as well as economy, is where people make gross connections but most fail in providing substance for the cause and effect relation. I have yet to see an explanation how Trump make this happen to get some credit for it.

The US as the most powerful player in the region has the ability to prevent almost any agreement from going ahead. No one has been able to make this deal happen before. US presidents as individuals may be credited with the achievements of their subordinates but they also get the blame.

May I ask what your explanation for the rapprochement between Israel and some neighbours is? Serious question.

We can bicker about the timing, I imagine Trump is happy this has happened in the lead up to an election, and no doubt he has other Easter Eggs to hatch before November.

[PointOfViewGun]

The US as the most powerful player in the region has the ability to prevent almost any agreement from going ahead. No one has been able to make this deal happen before. US presidents as individuals may be credited with the achievements of their subordinates but they also get the blame.
May I ask what your explanation for the rapprochement between Israel and some neighbours is? Serious question.
We can bicker about the timing, I imagine Trump is happy this has happened in the lead up to an election, and no doubt he has other Easter Eggs to hatch before November.

There must have been a back deal. That's the explanation. What we've publicly seen so far doesn't really cut it. If people wanna attribute this deal to Trump they should be able to explain the dynamics of it. The arguments that have been put forward so far didn't produce much difference from other presidents.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

The arguments that have been put forward so far didn't produce much difference from other presidents.

They did, you just ignored it and stopped replying because you know that you're wrong and your strawman failed.

[PointOfViewGun]

They did, you just ignored it and stopped replying because you know that you're wrong and your strawman failed.

Sigh... You're projecting because you didn't like me easily dismissing your tangents while you ignored much of the points I made. What can I say when you rely on what could have been instead of what was. You have failed to show me what Trump did differently that actually mattered. The sun is shining on your face while you squint your eyes and yell that its pretty dark...

[nhytgbvfeco2]

Sigh... You're projecting because you didn't like me easily dismissing your tangents while you ignored much of the points I made. What can I say when you rely on what could have been instead of what was. You have failed to show me what Trump did differently that actually mattered. The sun is shining on your face while you squint your eyes and yell that its pretty dark...

Which of your point did I ignore? You still haven't shown me in which of the previous peace offers Israel would have "largely annexed the west bank".

I literally explained what Trump did differently, I don't feel like repeating myself.

[PointOfViewGun]

Which of your point did I ignore? You still haven't shown me in which of the previous peace offers Israel would have "largely annexed the west bank".

I literally explained what Trump did differently, I don't feel like repeating myself.

For starters, you're ignoring the fact that you have failed to show me what Trump did differently that actually mattered. Sure, you might have literally explained what Trump did differently but that doesn't mean what he did differently matters in a meaningful way. At least not in a way that is crucial. That said, from the get go you argued as if you're entitled to people accepting your arguments at face value as given. You're not. I don't have the obligation to think what you argue matters in the way you propose it. I have provided sufficient disregard for the importance of the points you make. On the other hand, I told you that I can't think of any USA brokered peace deal that doesn't involve Israel annexing a portion of West Bank and you're asking me to name you one. You know very well what "any" means so all I can think is that you're arguing for the sake of arguing. I really don't wanna deal with BS.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

For starters, you're ignoring the fact that you have failed to show me what Trump did differently that actually mattered. Sure, you might have literally explained what Trump did differently but that doesn't mean what he did differently matters in a meaningful way. At least not in a way that is crucial.

"What did Trump do different?"
"This."
"No, that's not important, why have you not told me what Trump did different?"

Giving Israel the freedom to act was probably the single most important factor, one you haven't even attempted to argue against.

That said, from the get go you argued as if you're entitled to people accepting your arguments at face value as given. You're not. I don't have the obligation to think what you argue matters in the way you propose it. I have provided sufficient disregard for the importance of the points you make.

I'm going to be honest here, and I'm sorry if this offends you or you find it shocking, but just saying "no that's not important" is not a good argument.

On the other hand, I told you that I can't think of any USA brokered peace deal that doesn't involve Israel annexing a portion of West Bank and you're asking me to name you one. You know very well what "any" means so all I can think is that you're arguing for the sake of arguing. I really don't wanna deal with BS.

Stop lying, that's not what I've said. "Largely annexing? Such as which deal?" Is what I asked after you claimed that "Deals often involved Israel largely annexing West Bank".
Yes, they've all involved minor annexation of territory, but never largely, and certainly never 100% of settlements + the entire Jordan valley as the Trump deal did. Not even close.