Turkish PM admonishes Israel president over Gaza Associated Press
DAVOS, Switzerland – Turkey's prime minister stalked off the stage at the World Economic Forum red-faced Thursday after reproaching Israel's president over the Gaza offensive by saying "You kill people."
The packed audience, which included President Barack Obama's close adviser Valerie Jarrett, appeared stunned as Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Israeli President Shimon Peres raised their voices and traded accusations.
Peres was passionate in his defense of Israel's three-week offensive against Hamas militants, launched in reaction to eight years of rocket fire aimed at Israeli territory. As he spoke, Peres often turned toward Erdogan, who in his remarks had criticized the Israeli blockade of Gaza, saying it was an "open air prison, isolated from the rest of the world" and referred to the Palestinian death toll of about 1,300, more than half of those civilians. Thirteen Israelis also died.
"Why did they fire rockets? There was no siege against Gaza," Peres said, his voice rising in emotion. "Why did they fight us, what did they want? There was never a day of starvation in Gaza."
The heated debate with Israel and Turkey at the center was significant because of the key role Turkey has played as a moderator between Israel and Syria. Erdogan appeared to express a sense of disappointment when he recounted how he had met with the Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert days before the offensive, and believed they were close to reaching terms for a face-to-face meeting with Syrian leaders.
Obama's new Mideast envoy, George Mitchell, will be in Turkey for talks Sunday.
Erdogan was angry when a panel moderator cut off his remarks in response to an impassioned monologue by Peres defending Israel's offensive against the Hamas rulers of Gaza.
"I find it very sad that people applaud what you said," Erdogan said. "You killed people. And I think that it is very wrong."
The angry exchange followed an hour-long debate at the forum attended by world leaders in Davos. Erdogan tried to rebut Peres as the discussion was ending, asking the moderator, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, to let him speak once more.
"Only a minute," Ignatius replied.
"Mr. Peres, you are older than me. Your voice is too loud," Erdogan told Peres, saying his emotion belied a guilty conscience.
"You kill people," Erdogan told the 85-year-old Israeli leader. "I remember the children who died on beaches. I remember two former prime ministers who said they felt very happy when they were able to enter Palestine on tanks."
When Erdogan was asked to stop, he angrily stalked off, leaving fellow panelists U.N. Secretary-General Ban-Ki moon and Arab League Secretary Amr Moussa.
"When it comes to killing, you know it too well," the Turkish leader said.
When the moderator tried to cut short Erdogan's remarks, saying it was past time to adjourn for dinner, he answered in frustration, "Don't interrupt me. You are not allowing me to speak."
He then said: "I will not come to Davos again."
Ultimately, Erdogan stressed he left not because of a dispute with Peres but because he was not given time to respond to the Israeli leader's remarks. Erdogan also complained that Peres had 25 minutes while he was only given 12 minutes.
"I did not target at all in any way the Israeli people, President Peres, or the Jewish people," Erdogan told a news conference afterward.
"I am a prime minister, a leader who has specifically expressly stated that anti-Semitism is a crime against humanity," he said.
Peres and Erdogan raised their voices — highly unusual at the elite gathering of corporate and world leaders, which is usually marked by polite dialogue.
Moussa, a former Egyptian foreign minister, said Erdogan's action was understandable.
"Mr. Erdogan said what he wanted to say and then he left. That's all. He was right." Of Israel, he said, "They don't listen."
Erdogan brushed past reporters outside the hall. His wife appeared upset. "All Peres said was a lie. It was unacceptable," she said, eyes glistening.
"I have know Shimon Peres for many years and I also know Erdogan. I have never seen Shimon Peres so passionate as he was today. I think he felt Israel was being attacked by so many in the international community. He felt isolated," said former Norwegian Prime Minister Kjell Magne Bondevik.
"I was very sad that Erdogan left. This was an expression of how difficult this situation is."
Earlier Thursday, Israeli election front-runner Benjamin Netanyahu told another session that keeping nuclear weapons out of Iran's hands was more important than the economy because the financial meltdown is reversible.
"What is not reversible is the acquisition of nuclear weapons by a fanatic radical regime ... We have never had, since the dawn of the nuclear age, nuclear weapons in the hands of such a fanatical regime," said Netanyahu, who is seeking to return to the Israeli prime minister's office.
Iran maintains that it is seeking nuclear power for peaceful purposes and not for a weapons program.
An Iranian official in Davos appeared to extend a hand to the Obama administration as discussion broadened to include Iran, oil and what might be expected from the new leaders in Washington.
Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said Tehran would take a "cooperative approach" with the U.S. as long as it saw changes that go beyond words.
"We do believe that if the new administration of the United States, as Mr. Obama says, is going to change its policies not in saying but practice, they will find in the region a cooperative approach and reaction," Mottaki said.
Obama has stressed the importance of engaging Iran, a country the Bush administration often singled out as the most dangerous in the Middle East.
I understand that the Israeli President will be giving a lecture on the Turkish Genocide against the Armenians tomorrow, to be followed by a brief discussion of the ongoing Turkish campaign against the Kurds...
Yeah, that’s a tough one. Because when Peres said there was no siege on Gaza, he was lying. But then again, Turkey still won’t admit to what it did in Armenia.
So Erdogan was right, but he had no right to say it. Or something like that.
8 years of rockets against the israeli? Without any reason at all? -_-'
Like, I remember since I was a toddler of hearing about the conflict. I know neither side is right, but I think that the suicide bombings were probably the only way those people had of getting a payback.
13 israeli died, some of which civilians. Now, how many palestinians died? I think that one dead israeli equates to 100 dead palestinians, be them Hamas, military or civils.
Given the deathtoll I think I can imagine who has the power to stop it, but as it has been said by wiser men, "they don't listen".
Oh I'd say the illegal occupation of your lands, the nasty Bully next door putting extreme limits on even the most basic of your necessities is some kind of reason.
Justification? No, of course not. But when you look at it from their point of view, it is easy to understand why some (note not all. They are human beings after all, a species which mostly would like to live in peace with their various neighbours) get pissed off the point of taking up arms.
Then we have the vicious circle entering.
And not only did Israel cause a 100-1 casualty ratio, but 40%...thats right....40% of the Palestinians killed during the action were children. I don't care who you are, that is not on.
The whole concept of proprtionality is not sane, nor is it historical. Its effectively the bad guys saying
"We only launched one rocket into your city to kill people because we didn't have the means to launch 100. Why did you launch 100 at us?"
Here's the problem with the pro-Gaza side. The day the Israelis pulled out of Gaza years ago, terrorists moved into rocket range and started firing rockets into southern Israel. On the same day.
Gaza was the test case to see if Israel could successfully pull out of the situation. The next steps were going to be complete separation. But the terrorists/freedom fighters whatever you want to call-started attacking Israel proper on the same day. In contrast, when Israel went into the West bank to stop the Intifada II it stopped that, cold. Putting tanks on top of Arafat's bunker was more effective then all the talky talky.
I'm all for Israel completely leaving Gaza and the West Bank territories. Complete separation as Hamas calls for. Leave them to join with Egypt/Jordan, or become their own little country. But at the same time, the moment a rocket comes out of either of those areas, I'd treat them as foreign powers Monghol style. And it will happen. Hamas has no interest in a peaceful outcome. Its masters if Iran have no interest in a peaceful outcome, or the hardliners lose power.
After all, Israel is not in Lebanon, yet continues to be attacked.
I think i'm with Fraz on this one.. I have been watching news coverage of this most recent incursion into Gaza intently, and I find it funny that for all this time, rockets have been fired out of Gaza for years, but that NEVER made the news. But as soon as Israel takes action, OMG!!! theyre attacking!!!! the whole news world goes insane, saying how evil Israel is for doing this, and on and on.
i liken the situation to sitting on your porch with bees flying around your head... there comes that point where you just have to get up, and take care of the bees nest.
I have yet to see a single Islamic-extremist group that wants to reach any agreement peaceably, they'd rather die disillusioned in thinking that they will be martyrs. (please note, i only say islamic-extremists, as theyre the ones on the news nowadays, i realize that there are extremists in most every walk of life)
Lol, i never once suggested you go after a bees nest with a tactical nuke... a shotgun, or the good ol' gasoline trick works just fine for the bees nest...
i do agree that, certain unfortunate things have happened during this offensive into Gaza. Though, i do think that there has been some anti-Israel media coverage on the whole thing. Which is not to say that i condone the killing of children, unless said children can be proven to have taken up arms.
Whatever the ins and outs of the whole situation, Israel is losing the PR battle in the west.
I remember the Yom Kippur war, when it was plucky Israel standing up for itself against the much larger co-ordinated military attack of the surrounding Arab states. The general public mood in Britain was that the Israelis were unfairly attacked and did a great job defending themselves.
Sure it is. It's exactly the kind of concept that keeps states from overreacting and annihilating each other. India and pakistan still exist exactly because the concept of proportionality is sane.
To be honest, the way both sides have acted, I wouldn't necessarily be against them mutually annihilating each other if the stupidity and violence could be contained within ex-British Palestine / the Middle East...
JohnHwangDD wrote:To be honest, the way both sides have acted, I wouldn't necessarily be against them mutually annihilating each other if the stupidity and violence could be contained within ex-British Palestine / the Middle East...
if we let the entire region just sorta do a "battle royale" the only people i would really want the U.S. to help, would be the Kurds, and the Yezidi.. the kurds because they have never had a homeland, and have been generally hated/persecuted throughout their entire history, and the Yezidi because they have helped US immensely in Northern Iraq, and they generally keep to themselves, so long as you dont defile Mt. Sinjar without their permission
but beyond that, we should sit back, watch the fireworks, drink a PBR, and see who comes out of the dust from the fightin
This is to all posters claiming that isreal is wrong for shooting women and children. When women and children shoot, help shoot, reload, feed, hide, clothe or otherwise aid those responsible for the rockets being fired, they are no longer "innocent non-combatants." I am sure most of the posters have never been shot at period, much less by a women or child, so until that happens your ability to pass judgement on those defending themselves from unorthodox attacks, is meaningless, to me at least. In your self righteous furry to defend Hamas you fail to empathize with a country that has had countless attacks on it by these so called "women and children."
Frazzled wrote:The whole concept of proprtionality is not sane, nor is it historical. Its effectively the bad guys saying
"We only launched one rocket into your city to kill people because we didn't have the means to launch 100. Why did you launch 100 at us?"
Its been said, but it should be said again. Proportionality exists, it is historical, and it is necessary. Remember, WWI and WWII are anomalies, not the norm in the history of conflict. The vast majority of warfare in human history has consisted of measured responses in the pursuit of discreet goals, not conflicts of total mobilization, and annihilation. If proportionality did not exist there would have been a draft in 2003, and most of us would probably be fighting in Iraq right now.
Frazzled wrote:
Here's the problem with the pro-Gaza side. The day the Israelis pulled out of Gaza years ago, terrorists moved into rocket range and started firing rockets into southern Israel. On the same day.
Probably because the Israelis also cut them off from 45% of their potable water supplies. Its amazing what you'll do in order to survive.
Frazzled wrote:
Gaza was the test case to see if Israel could successfully pull out of the situation. The next steps were going to be complete separation. But the terrorists/freedom fighters whatever you want to call-started attacking Israel proper on the same day.
Gaza was the test case to see if they could turn the OT into the world's largest concentration camp. The West Bank initiative has been far more successful. The wall has even creeped over the 50% completion mark, and there are plans to start building the district barriers inside the West Bank.
Frazzled wrote:
In contrast, when Israel went into the West bank to stop the Intifada II it stopped that, cold. Putting tanks on top of Arafat's bunker was more effective then all the talky talky.
The second intifada wasn't even organized by the PLO. It was just an indication of how pissed off Palestinians really were. And rightly so, the ascension to power of religious Levantine Jews was not a good thing for the Palestinians. Nobody likes being detained without cause, and tried by military tribunal.
Frazzled wrote:
I'm all for Israel completely leaving Gaza and the West Bank territories. Complete separation as Hamas calls for. Leave them to join with Egypt/Jordan, or become their own little country. But at the same time, the moment a rocket comes out of either of those areas, I'd treat them as foreign powers Monghol style.
The only viable solution is to incorporate the OT into Israel; giving its residents full citizenship. Of course, this is unlikely to happen until Israel again realizes that being a solely Jewish state was never part of its purpose. Not even under Ben Gurion.
Frazzled wrote:
And it will happen. Hamas has no interest in a peaceful outcome. Its masters if Iran have no interest in a peaceful outcome, or the hardliners lose power.
Hamas is not Iranian control. They receive funding from them, but that's all. You are right that they have no interest in peace, but they wouldn't be in power at all if Israel were not interested in segregated control.
Frazzled wrote:
After all, Israel is not in Lebanon, yet continues to be attacked.
1. Dogma, for centuries countries have obliterated each other whenever they didn’t want the territory. Indeed, until recent times it was standard practice to wipe out or enslave ALL the inhabitants of a city that didn’t immediately surrender. Time honored tradition for the Romans, Greeks, Persians, Mongols, Huns, Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, well most everybody.
2. If you believe the second Intifada was a spontaneous event, all I can say is, beware of people trying to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge.
3. Incorporating Gaza and the West Bank into Israel is not an option. Its not even Israel. Why on earth would they become Israel. Then the Middle East would really freak out saying Israel conquered them. indeed that is the argument used due to the settlements in the West Bank, that they have to abandon those. Its utter nonsense. Israel might as well pull a nationwide Masada, which is what will occur if that happens.
4. Hamas not under Iranian control? That’s willful ignorance of facts. Where are they getting their weapons? Who gave them that $100MM? Please.
5. If its all Israel’s fault, why do they get attacked from Lebanon by Hezbullah?
Bodichi wrote:This is to all posters claiming that isreal is wrong for shooting women and children. When women and children shoot, help shoot, reload, feed, hide, clothe or otherwise aid those responsible for the rockets being fired, they are no longer "innocent non-combatants." I am sure most of the posters have never been shot at period, much less by a women or child, so until that happens your ability to pass judgement on those defending themselves from unorthodox attacks, is meaningless, to me at least. In your self righteous furry to defend Hamas you fail to empathize with a country that has had countless attacks on it by these so called "women and children."
I have been through a Rocket Initiated Ambush, so yeah i have been shot at, and thats just one event in a 15 month tour!
while i completely understand what both of you are saying in regards to shooting children and women, i do not purposefully wish to target them unless i see the obvious thread they are posing, which means i had better visually see an AK, rifle, rocket launcher, something....
I was in Iraq from 03 to 04 and from personal experience lots of pot shots are taken at lots of convoys with very little effect. I agree with Secret Squirell that women and children should not be a target unless immediately possing a threat but screaming that isreal "kills women and children" as some kind of self righteous battle cry is upsurd and a blatant diregard of the facts.
dogma wrote:Hamas is not Iranian control. They receive funding from them, but that's all. You are right that they have no interest in peace, but they wouldn't be in power at all if Israel were not interested in segregated control.
I usually avoid these hornet's nest, but I do have to quiz dogma here.
You get what you pay for, not what you ask for. MONEY IS CONTROL, dogma. You don't get money without influence. Hamas might not be a puppet of Iran, but they are certainly strongly influenced by them, whether they know or admit it.
dienekes96 wrote:I usually avoid these hornet's nest, but I do have to quiz dogma here.
You get what you pay for, not what you ask for. MONEY IS CONTROL, dogma. You don't get money without influence. Hamas might not be a puppet of Iran, but they are certainly strongly influenced by them, whether they know or admit it.
I'd agree. I'm just not overly fond of the sentiment that Hamas is simple an Iranian appendage. There's too much of a historical barrier between the two groups. What with the Muslim brotherhood from which Hamas is descended trying to kill ayatollah Khamenei, and the strong secular streak endemic to the mixed faith Palestinian culture.
I agree, lay it at the feet of Isreal. It is a horrible consequence. Yet please do not act as if the actions were not justified (As i said before if they contribtute to the attack, liberation, ambush, etc... they are not non-combatants anymore). It is horrible when children are killed in war. But i think it is worse when one side specifically uses them. isreal is not inductuing children into it's army. hamas is.
John, if they were using "mass effect" weapons to target civilians the casualties would have been in the tens, maybe hundreds of thousands. They have the capcity to firebomb Gaza ala Dresden 1944 if they desired.
Frazzled wrote:1. Dogma, for centuries countries have obliterated each other whenever they didn’t want the territory. Indeed, until recent times it was standard practice to wipe out or enslave ALL the inhabitants of a city that didn’t immediately surrender. Time honored tradition for the Romans, Greeks, Persians, Mongols, Huns, Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, well most everybody.
Yes, the citizens that didn't immediately surrender. As in the soldiers actively fighting against the encroaching empire. Not the non-combatants around the battlefield. The Mongols, for example, were renowned for their merciful treatment of those that would allow themselves to be conquered.
Frazzled wrote:
2. If you believe the second Intifada was a spontaneous event, all I can say is, beware of people trying to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge.
I think you need to revisit your understanding of this conflict. The Palestinian cause is not spread over a massive area. Spontaneity is bread in the conditions which characterize the OT. A fact which is further reinforced by the fact that Palestinian leaders, like Arafat, actively warned Sharon not to visit the Temple Mount because they believed it might cause a renewal to hostilities. Seems like they were right.
Frazzled wrote:
3. Incorporating Gaza and the West Bank into Israel is not an option. Its not even Israel. Why on earth would they become Israel. Then the Middle East would really freak out saying Israel conquered them. indeed that is the argument used due to the settlements in the West Bank, that they have to abandon those. Its utter nonsense. Israel might as well pull a nationwide Masada, which is what will occur if that happens.
No, its not Israel, that's why I'm saying it should be a part of Israel. The Middle East might freak out, but I don't really think so. The OT was conquered long ago, and most of the states around Israel have made peace with the notion that the Palestinians are simply not their problem. The settlements in the West Bank are being disputed not because they exists, but because the people already living in that territory are not being treated on an even keel with the settlers. If you incorporate the Palestinians as Israeli citizens, and treat them fairly according to Israeli law the problem disappears.
Either way, Israel is already a nationwide Masada. Where have you been?
Frazzled wrote:
4. Hamas not under Iranian control? That’s willful ignorance of facts. Where are they getting their weapons? Who gave them that $100MM? Please.
The organizational lineage of Hamas predates the existence of modern Iran. Indeed, other arms of the former Muslim Brotherhood have made active attempts to kill high ranking Iranian clerics; including Ayatollah Kahmeinei. They also receive direct support from al-Qaeda, a group that is diametrically opposed to Iranian interests. And pursue an agenda which is not in perfect concurrence with Iranian policy. They are influenced by Iran, but they are not controlled by it.
Frazzled wrote:
5. If its all Israel’s fault, why do they get attacked from Lebanon by Hezbullah?
Did I say it was all Israel's fault? They get attacked by Hezbollah because that group actually IS an Iranian puppet.
Whilst the bombardment was in no way on the same scale as Dresden?similar, they were using large area affect weapons, you can see the pictures of them.
And I agree that child soldiers are a horrific thing and if they're armed/shooting you've got no choice but to fire back.
But all of the dead were armed/active ? No evidence of that and I haven't heard/read any reports of armed children or complaints about them. I have seen the stuff about four year olds shot at close range, but I don't think she was armed.
No, its not Israel, that's why I'm saying it should be a part of Israel. The Middle East might freak out, but I don't really think so. The OT was conquered long ago, and most of the states around Israel have made peace with the notion that the Palestinians are simply not their problem. The settlements in the West Bank are being disputed not because they exists, but because the people already living in that territory are not being treated on an even keel with the settlers. If you incorporate the Palestinians as Israeli citizens, and treat them fairly according to Israeli law the problem disappears.
Either way, Israel is already a nationwide Masada. Where have you been?
Israel has tried in the past to offer equal seats, proportional to their population to palestinians, to give them a fair and equal voice in the Israeli Parliament. Guess what, they turned it down. Seems pretty obvious that Hamas wants more than a "fair and equal" voice in government, they want the whole thing.
Yes, the citizens that didn't immediately surrender. As in the soldiers actively fighting against the encroaching empire. Not the non-combatants around the battlefield. The Mongols, for example, were renowned for their merciful treatment of those that would allow themselves to be conquered.
Dogma you're contradicting yourself. You just said "to those who allowed themselves to be conquered." Cities that resisted routinely had their populations destroyed as a warning to others. Again its time honored tradition.
Israel has tried in the past to offer equal seats, proportional to their population to palestinians, to give them a fair and equal voice in the Israeli Parliament. Guess what, they turned it down. Seems pretty obvious that Hamas wants more than a "fair and equal" voice in government, they want the whole thing.
Israel offered fair an equal representation to the Arab members of its population, but it has never made a concerted attempt to incorporate the Palestinians as Israeli citizens. The Palestinians are all Arabs, but not all Arabs are Palestinians. So, no, they didn't turn it down, because it was never offered. The only thing that was in fact offered to the Palestinians was equal representation in the governing bodies which oversee the Occupied Territory. They took that, but because the Israelis decided to use the borders to Gaza, and the West Bank, as prison walls the representatives which were elected in the course of representative governance tended to be those men who demonized the Israelis. Hence the decline in influence of Abbas' Fatah.
Either way, I said the Palestinians want a fair and equal voice in government, not Hamas. There is a huge difference.
Frazzled wrote:
Dogma you're contradicting yourself. You just said "to those who allowed themselves to be conquered." Cities that resisted routinely had their populations destroyed as a warning to others. Again its time honored tradition.
No, they didn't, and I'm not contradicting myself. All I said is that those who actively resisted, as in did battle, were the ones who would have been put to death.
There are very few recorded incidences in which the entire population of a city was destroyed. The Mongols certainly never did this. Neither did the Romans, Greeks, Ottomans, Umayads, Goths, Byzantines, Persians, or Yuan Chinese. In fact, the only people I can think of that made a habit of destroying entire populations were the Huns, and they were never an imperial force. Remember, when a history discusses the sack of a city all that is being implied is that the control of the population changed hands. You're reading the past through a lens of Napoleonic, state-centric warfare which is causing you to see destruction as physical, rather than cultural.
Just because the Mongols did something or didn't doesn't mean we are bound to follow their example. Modern people are supposed to have a better morality.
The fact is that since the middle ages western troops have less and less been allowed to rape and pillage. The siege of Jerusalem (1096) is still remembered as a point of shame on the Crusaders.
There are only three choices for the future in Palestine.
1. Elimination of the entire resisting population on one side or the other. I consider this to be entirely unrealistic for various reasons.
2. A political accommodation. Every time some kind of deal is brokered by outsiders, it gets upset by one side or the other.
3. To let things rumble on as they are, with low level misery and deaths on both sides. Sadly, this is the most likely course.
Frazzled wrote:
Dogma you're contradicting yourself. You just said "to those who allowed themselves to be conquered." Cities that resisted routinely had their populations destroyed as a warning to others. Again its time honored tradition.
No, they didn't, and I'm not contradicting myself. All I said is that those who actively resisted, as in did battle, were the ones who would have been put to death.
There are very few recorded incidences in which the entire population of a city was destroyed. The Mongols certainly never did this. Neither did the Romans, Greeks, Ottomans, Umayads, Goths, Byzantines, Persians, or Yuan Chinese. In fact, the only people I can think of that made a habit of destroying entire populations were the Huns, and they were never an imperial force. Remember, when a history discusses the sack of a city all that is being implied is that the control of the population changed hands. You're reading the past through a lens of Napoleonic, state-centric warfare which is causing you to see destruction as physical, rather than cultural.
You're right, oftnen a few survivors escaped, otherwise they were enslaved.
Note Gaza-people shooting at Israel. Thats resistance. Under old school law they could raze the cities, kill Hamas, and enslave everyone else.
An ex-Australian prime minister once said 'all politics is local.'
This is an excellent example. The Turkish prime minister will be seen by his voters to have given the Israelis a good tounge lashing, without any risk to Turkey.
I'm sure his approval rating will be going up ATM.
Frazzled wrote:
You're right, oftnen a few survivors escaped, otherwise they were enslaved.
Enslavement denotes different things at different times in history. A slave in ancient Greece was simply someone who served a master in some sense. Essentially everyone who wasn't a land owner was a slave regardless of the actual quality of their life. In classical European history a slave was someone who served a master other than his rightful one, so a person serving his lord was a peasant, but one serving the Mongols was a slave. The only difference was one of perspective. So all those people that didn't escape were enslaved, but their lives would have been very much the same as those of the people that did escape. Slavery didn't mean the same thing then, as it does now.
Frazzled wrote:
Note Gaza-people shooting at Israel. Thats resistance. Under old school law they could raze the cities, kill Hamas, and enslave everyone else.
They could kill Hamas, but they wouldn't raze the cities, as that would be a waste of resources. Very few cities were burned in the act of conquest. And they would enslave everyone else. The thing is that type of slavery isn't called slavery anymore, its called citizenship.
Frazzled wrote:
As for cities wipe out, two immediately come to mind without thinking or research
*Jerusalem (wiped out by Titus)
*Troy
*Carthage
*Nanking was pretty well wiped out.
We're not actually sure what happened to Troy, so I'm not willing to concede that as an act of destruction. Jerusalem was never totally destroyed, only Romanized. It is often referenced as destroyed because that is how Hebrew texts denote what happened to its cultural purity with the destruction of the Temple. For them the city was nothing without the Temple. Carthage was razed to the ground, but that was a rare occurrence. Do you mean the reconquest of Nanking in 1864, or the Nanking massacre during WWII? The 1864 reconquest is an interesting event because much of the death toll was self-inflicted via suicide. The WWII massacre was considered reprehensible even in that time, and clearly did not lead to the formation of a stable Japanese Empire.
Its interesting that the page you've cited seems to agree with Bernard Lewis while also stating that Mongol destruction of Middle Eastern cities was 'unprecedented'. I say this because Lewis is well know for his tendency to dismiss the affect of the Mongol invasion on the actual infrastructure of the Middle East. The Mongol invasion was certainly unprecedented in the history of the region, especially given the tendency to reset the collective memory after Islamic conquest, but it was not particularly destructive. Places like Samarqand, Khwarezm, and Tabriz suffered, but not as a result of conquest. Rather, the shift of political emphasis caused trading routes to alter themselves. The problem wasn't really one of physical destruction, but of wealth reallocation. Similar things happened in Baghdad, and Kiev. Rather than being trading stops, these cities became trading posts. Places where some wealth would accumulate as goods flowed to the capital cities in Asia, Western Europe, and Northern Africa.
Frazzled wrote:The whole concept of proprtionality is not sane, nor is it historical. Its effectively the bad guys saying
"We only launched one rocket into your city to kill people because we didn't have the means to launch 100. Why did you launch 100 at us?"
As long as you keep thinking in terms of good guys and bad guys you're pretty much guaranteed to miss the point.
I'm all for Israel completely leaving Gaza and the West Bank territories. Complete separation as Hamas calls for. Leave them to join with Egypt/Jordan, or become their own little country. But at the same time, the moment a rocket comes out of either of those areas, I'd treat them as foreign powers Monghol style. And it will happen. Hamas has no interest in a peaceful outcome. Its masters if Iran have no interest in a peaceful outcome, or the hardliners lose power.
More than 50% of Hamas funding comes from the Saudis. You're making things up to fit your pre-determined politics.
Ensis Ferrae wrote:I think i'm with Fraz on this one.. I have been watching news coverage of this most recent incursion into Gaza intently, and I find it funny that for all this time, rockets have been fired out of Gaza for years, but that NEVER made the news. But as soon as Israel takes action, OMG!!! theyre attacking!!!! the whole news world goes insane, saying how evil Israel is for doing this, and on and on.
Rocket attacks had slowed to a trickle before December, they were tiny and poorly made - mostly backyard workshop jobs. Then Israel moved into Hamas territory to assassinate a member of Jihad International and dramatically increased the extent of the quarantine. With a week around 90% of the goods sold in Palestine (talking petrol, food and water here) were smuggled in through tunnels. Then the rockets started in serious numbers. Then Israel began its response.
The idea that Israel is just minding its own business and these rocket attacks just keep happening is garbage. If Israel simply wanted peace it would stop the settlers moving into the West Bank.
JohnHwangDD wrote:To be honest, the way both sides have acted, I wouldn't necessarily be against them mutually annihilating each other if the stupidity and violence could be contained within ex-British Palestine / the Middle East...
You know they're people, yeah? Both sides that is... that have pretty average governments and a lot of them support doing bad things to each other but they're still just people trying to raise families and get on in life.
Bodichi wrote:I was in Iraq from 03 to 04 and from personal experience lots of pot shots are taken at lots of convoys with very little effect. I agree with Secret Squirell that women and children should not be a target unless immediately possing a threat but screaming that isreal "kills women and children" as some kind of self righteous battle cry is upsurd and a blatant diregard of the facts.
People are talking about children killed as a result of bombing campaigns. You're talking about potshots at convoys. Nothing to do with each other.
Frazzled wrote:5. If its all Israel’s fault, why do they get attacked from Lebanon by Hezbullah?
Possibly they're a different organisation with different objectives and motivations, both part of a complex political situation. For what it's worth, I supported the strikes against Hezbullah because they were significantly different in motivation and capability that the best course of action was to remove their ability to fire rockets at Israel.
But then you're talking about good guys and bad guys, so whatever.
JohnHwangDD wrote:Option 4 - the Arabs get enough modern firepower and political will to have another go at things, except, they actually win...
Woefully implausible. Egypt is currently a US client state, behind Israel Egypt is the largest recipient of US weapons. They have trade with Israel. Jordan also has trade with Israel. The idea of Israel alone in a sea of enemies is dead.
While Israel has real security threats still posed by the Syrians and Iranians, neither country is an immediate threat, neither country could ever be a threat as long as Israel keeps US support, and the situation isn't helped one bit by blowing up Palestinians.
JohnHwangDD wrote:To be honest, the way both sides have acted, I wouldn't necessarily be against them mutually annihilating each other if the stupidity and violence could be contained within ex-British Palestine / the Middle East...
You know they're people, yeah?
Yeah, people who are still locking themselves into a never-ending, ever-expanding cycle of vengeance.
So from a practical standpoint, Christianity actually *is* superior to Islam or Judaism - the very idea of "turning the other cheek" breaks the cycle of vengeance and allows for some semblance of modern, progressive civilization.
And no, I'm not advocating for Crusades-style forced conversion...
JohnHwangDD wrote:
They tried it before, who's to say they won't try such foolishness again?
Remember, a lot of what happens over there isn't very rational.
No, its all pretty rational, the assumptions which underpin that rationality are just very different from yours.
Either way, Israel is by far the dominant military power in the region. They could very likely defeat the combined forces of Syria, Jordan, and Egypt. Of course, they will never have to, at least in the foreseeable future, because those states all have amicable relations with the Israelis. Syria could pose a security threat, but that is increasingly unlikely as Bashar al-Assad continues to roll back the authority of his father's Ba'ath Party. All in all there is very little for the Jewish State to be afraid of, outside of becoming less Jewish. Which explains a lot of the recent focus on holding the Palestinians under foot.
JohnHwangDD wrote:Yeah, people who are still locking themselves into a never-ending, ever-expanding cycle of vengeance.
So from a practical standpoint, Christianity actually *is* superior to Islam or Judaism - the very idea of "turning the other cheek" breaks the cycle of vengeance and allows for some semblance of modern, progressive civilization.
And no, I'm not advocating for Crusades-style forced conversion...
If Christians went around turning the other cheek and breaking cycles of violence, that'd be great. Perhaps you should have told the Irish how superior their religion was 80 years ago. It would have saved a lot lives.
They tried it before, who's to say they won't try such foolishness again?
Nah, it's not 'Israel is so awesome they'd totally whoop 'em'. It's 'the political situation has changed dramatically, with key Arab players now closely aligned to the US, that countries deciding to invade Israel is ludicrous'. But then I said all that already, in the part of the post you trimmed, in order to just respond to a single sentence and misunderstand that sentence.
Remember, a lot of what happens over there isn't very rational.
No, stuff is quite rational. It's just very complicated and often results from subtle factors not all that well understood by a Western audience.
The Nazi party was "killed" at the end of WW2 and guess what, there are still right wing racist extremists all over the place.
You can't eliminate Hamas's or Hezbollah's rocket launching capacity by bombing. Those kind of rockets can pretty much be launched off a garden pergola.
The IRA managed to build a six tube mortar in the back of a white van, and put rounds into no.10 Downing Street.
In a modern, urban society if people can cook up all kinds of nasty stuff if they want to. Look at Aun Shinrikyo with their Sarin gas.
The trick is how to make sure people don't want to do that kind of thing.
For all those of you that insist that total war and devastation are exceptional rather than the rule let me suggest the 30 year war and the sack if Magdeburg as examples of business as usual.
War is always asymetrical with every side playing it`s strengths just because we play a game were everybody agrees to use the same point limit doesn`t mean that RL will do the same. If Hamas could (or dared) they would be using gas and other nastiness against Israel, don`t confuse the lack of means with the lack of will.
Miguelsan wrote:For all those of you that insist that total war and devastation are exceptional rather than the rule let me suggest the 30 year war and the sack if Magdeburg as examples of business as usual.
War is always asymetrical with every side playing it`s strengths just because we play a game were everybody agrees to use the same point limit doesn`t mean that RL will do the same. If Hamas could (or dared) they would be using gas and other nastiness against Israel, don`t confuse the lack of means with the lack of will.
M.
according to US military terms, "asymmetric warfare" is a new concept, designed to help ground forces fight in "insurgency wars". Under your concept, asymmetry in warfare involves playing to your strengths. However, that is merely conventional warfare as has always been done. "asymmetric warfare" involves using troops in nontraditional roles, roles that right now, most military arms, just arent well equipped for, with the Special Forces units round the world being a large exception, IMO.
of course, Guerrilla warfare, by its nature falls into this "asymmetric" branding, as the combatants on at least on side are avoiding open, pitched battles. One thing that makes fighting these types of wars difficult, is that in the case of Hamas, they do not wear a uniform...
Of course, if Hamas DID use chemical warfare as one method of fighting, then most of the rest of the world would most definitely step in and do something. I would think that even the french, who cant win a single war on its own would step in, as they have had chemical weapons used against them before.
Miguelsan wrote:For all those of you that insist that total war and devastation are exceptional rather than the rule let me suggest the 30 year war and the sack if Magdeburg as examples of business as usual.
War is always asymetrical with every side playing it`s strengths just because we play a game were everybody agrees to use the same point limit doesn`t mean that RL will do the same. If Hamas could (or dared) they would be using gas and other nastiness against Israel, don`t confuse the lack of means with the lack of will.
M.
according to US military terms, "asymmetric warfare" is a new concept, designed to help ground forces fight in "insurgency wars". Under your concept, asymmetry in warfare involves playing to your strengths. However, that is merely conventional warfare as has always been done. "asymmetric warfare" involves using troops in nontraditional roles, roles that right now, most military arms, just arent well equipped for, with the Special Forces units round the world being a large exception, IMO.
of course, Guerrilla warfare, by its nature falls into this "asymmetric" branding, as the combatants on at least on side are avoiding open, pitched battles. One thing that makes fighting these types of wars difficult, is that in the case of Hamas, they do not wear a uniform...
Of course, if Hamas DID use chemical warfare as one method of fighting, then most of the rest of the world would most definitely step in and do something. I would think that even the french, who cant win a single war on its own would step in, as they have had chemical weapons used against them before.
Yes, I agree. That was my understanding of assymetric warfare. It doesn't mean one side being stronger than the other -- that is true in every real war and the job of generals and strategy is to overturn or rebalance things in their favour.
Assymetric warfare means one side deliberately avoids traditional combat, because they would simply be overpowered very quickly.
The reason Hamas does not use Sarin is because in some sense both they and the Israelis (who have nukes, remember) are limiting their warfare to some level of proportionality. The motives why they do it may not be pure as snow, however, they are exercising control.
It's easy to see an organisation like Hamas as a Bond Villain setup with an evil genius exercising total control over gangs of loyal henchmen. But this isn't how it works. In reality, Hamas contains moderate and extremist groups, as does the Palestinian population in general, and indeed the Israeli population. The main reason the Israelis went in so hard this time was because the PM was afraid of looking weak. The trick for anyone trying to resolve the whole situation is to keep the lid on the extremists while negotiating with the other side. That's why a third party neutral facilitator can be so useful.
I agree with most of what Killkrazy said. I'm not sure the PM looking strong is the main reason for the incursion, but it's probably a major factor.
I know it's a cliche to point this out, but this conflict is incredibly complicated. There are no good guys, there are no bad guys, and both sides have suffered enough to encourage sympathy and committed enough atrocities to merit outrage. A few things to point out.
1) British Palestine was to be split into Jewish Israel and Arab Palestine in 1948. After the war (in which nearly ever arab country invaded), Israel ended up with all of Israel. They then gained more territory in later wars as well. Much like the Soviets got to keep Eastern Europe in order to keep the peace after WWII, nobody really minded Israel keeping the territory after the war.
2) The Arab nations surrounding the Palestinian territories seem to not be interesting in helping the Palestinians, either by accepting them as refugees, giving them places to resettle, or otherwise brokering peace deals with Israel. This is important, because while there was been relative peace there for 30 years, most of the countries in the region still resent Israel.
3) I have enormous sympathy for the Palestinians. They've been screwed by the British, by the UN, by Israel, and by every other middle eastern nation that wants to keep the conflict going. There is an extent to which their anger and violence is, if not justified, at least understandable.
4) I have zero sympathy or respect for the various governments of the territories. The PLO was notorious for embezzling aid money, and was almost always more concerned with material gains for it's elites than solving any problems. Hamas is far more populist, and has done an amazing job of building grass roots support through it's charitable work before winning the elections. I'm not going to say the people were duped, but it's not like the PLO was a great option, and Hamas at least pretended to care about the plight of the people.
5) Hamas at the lower levels is just like any other politcals/revolutionary group. At it's upper levels, while it's not the Bond villian, it's a pretty sinister group. They're goal is true jihad: the reclaiming of once Islamic lands from Israel. They are supported by Iran materially and many other middle eastern nations tacitly. They are not quite bad guys, but they play a brand of ball that westerners aren't comfortable with. I'm not saying we can't negotiate with Hamas, just that any resolutions need to measured against Hamas' track record.
6) Israel, while not nearly as sympathetic as it was after the Holocaust and the various wars, is like the guy that was always picked on but then grew 6 inches and gained 30 pounds of muscle. It's the most powerful nation in the region, but it's stills surrounded by enemies. It's a siege mentality, and that affects a people. I'm not entirely comfortable vilifying the actions of the Israeli government due to that fact. Its' a pressure cooker.
In my opinion, any true settlement will have to involve Syria, Jordon, Lebanon, and probably Egypt. It will most likely require land concession from Israel, and security concessions from the Palestinians (With Arab, not Israeli troops watching the border). It will also require a large amount of aid (from the US/EU/UN) sent to Palestine to end the worst of the poverty, and it will require Israel to re-open the borders so Palestinians can work, shop, and visit in Israel. The most important, and toughest part, is that the PA is going to have to assure Israel that they will stop terrorist acts after the concessions, something that they've failed to do after previous accords. Maybe if there were UN peacekeepers, or the above Arab security forces, they could keep a lid on the terrorism, but as long as Israel feels that it's going to get shot at, it's not going to let the territories go free.
In my opinion, any true settlement will have to involve Syria, Jordon, Lebanon, and probably Egypt. It will most likely require land concession from Israel, and security concessions from the Palestinians (With Arab, not Israeli troops watching the border). It will also require a large amount of aid (from the US/EU/UN) sent to Palestine to end the worst of the poverty, and it will require Israel to re-open the borders so Palestinians can work, shop, and visit in Israel. The most important, and toughest part, is that the PA is going to have to assure Israel that they will stop terrorist acts after the concessions, something that they've failed to do after previous accords. Maybe if there were UN peacekeepers, or the above Arab security forces, they could keep a lid on the terrorism, but as long as Israel feels that it's going to get shot at, it's not going to let the territories go free.
My main worry is whether the PA can actually keep a proper lock-down on their own extreme elements. Modern weapons are too destructive and too easily available to prevent them falling into the wrong hands. The real problem is how to persuade the wrong hands not to use them.
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
according to US military terms, "asymmetric warfare" is a new concept, designed to help ground forces fight in "insurgency wars". Under your concept, asymmetry in warfare involves playing to your strengths. However, that is merely conventional warfare as has always been done. "asymmetric warfare" involves using troops in nontraditional roles, roles that right now, most military arms, just arent well equipped for, with the Special Forces units round the world being a large exception, IMO.
Part of the problem is that asymmetric warfare is not something which has ever been conducive to prosecution by an edified fighting force. The apparent randomness of battle makes it very difficult to adhere to the chain of command; forcing individual soldiers to take initiative and make their own decisions. Unfortunately decision making ability has a positive correlation with experience, and training; two things which are not generally abundant in an all volunteer force.
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
of course, Guerrilla warfare, by its nature falls into this "asymmetric" branding, as the combatants on at least on side are avoiding open, pitched battles. One thing that makes fighting these types of wars difficult, is that in the case of Hamas, they do not wear a uniform...
More important than the lack of uniformed combatants is the lack of a centralized chain of command. Hamas is coordinated by their leadership, but most of their day-to-day operations are simply at the whim of individual cell members. It would be as if your commanding officer told you that your objective was to topple the Iranian theocracy.
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Of course, if Hamas DID use chemical warfare as one method of fighting, then most of the rest of the world would most definitely step in and do something. I would think that even the french, who cant win a single war on its own would step in, as they have had chemical weapons used against them before.
The French, with the possible exception of Israel, actually have the most effective counter-terrorist force in the world. They learned a lot from the battles they fought in the course of trying to maintain their Imperial holdings.
You are right though, the use of chemical weapons would bring the world down on Israel/Palestine like a hammer. The conflict would be over, and the result would be out of the hands of the direct participants.
It's not possible to prevent all future attacks by military means, so alternative solutions have to be found, for instance, by negotiation and concessions.
I don't think Israel can hope to eliminate all attacks, obviously that'd be very difficult. There is a huge gap between the PA stopping all attacks and the PA activily encouraging, funding, and conducting the attacks. Israel would need to deal with a power that had the will, the means, and the desire to clamp down on attacks on Israel. Even under the PLO, there was more lip service paid to stopping the attacks than actual effort. I think even a bona fide effort by a Palestinian authority would be enough to get Israel to the negotiating table.
The real problem is that right now the money is too good to stay in the intifada business. Iran channels money in, and the other arab states support the violence. As long as the government of the PA benefits more from fighting than from peace, we'll not see peace any time soon. Israel's track record of wanting peace isn't unblemished either, but they've made good faith efforts to remove colonists from the West Bank and have made other bona fide offers in the past.
I'm of the opinion that the actual Palestinians are stuck between two forces: Israelis who see their land as theirs, regardless of who lived there 61 years ago, and the Arab states and the international jihadist movement that seek the destruction (or at least humiliation) of a Jewish state.
Polonius wrote:I don't think Israel can hope to eliminate all attacks, obviously that'd be very difficult. There is a huge gap between the PA stopping all attacks and the PA activily encouraging, funding, and conducting the attacks. Israel would need to deal with a power that had the will, the means, and the desire to clamp down on attacks on Israel. Even under the PLO, there was more lip service paid to stopping the attacks than actual effort. I think even a bona fide effort by a Palestinian authority would be enough to get Israel to the negotiating table.
A lot of the problems with putting a stop to violence were a direct result of the arms restrictions placed on organizations like the PLO by Israel. Essentially, they were never permitted to have the weapons which would be necessary to stop the people that did have them, and were willing to use them. Its the same catch-22 that is often cited by 2nd amendment activists. Only, in this case, it actually applies.
Polonius wrote:
The real problem is that right now the money is too good to stay in the intifada business. Iran channels money in, and the other arab states support the violence. As long as the government of the PA benefits more from fighting than from peace, we'll not see peace any time soon. Israel's track record of wanting peace isn't unblemished either, but they've made good faith efforts to remove colonists from the West Bank and have made other bona fide offers in the past.
Its not just the money. The PA itself receives funding from a massive collection of nations; including the US, the EU, the UK, and Italy. The actual governing body has no fiscal incentive to fight. Hamas, on the other hand, receives most of its funding from the Arab nations, and wealthy, private donors that are sympathetic to their overtly Islamic nature. They do have a fiscal incentive to fight, but that really isn't enough to keep them in power.
They are able to generate support for two reasons. One, they have an incredibly effective system of grassroots organization that allows them to disseminate supplies to the people in need. Two, they show a total lack of respect for Israeli authority. The latter is made manifest in a willingness to smuggle supplies into Gaza. Supplies which are then handed out per their grassroots organizational structure. Throw in some violent action against an Israeli state that has shown little to no respect for the need of the people in the OT, and you've got a recipe for political takeover. A recipe so good, in fact, that it was able to overcome the strong secular bend of the Palestinian people.
Polonius wrote:
I'm of the opinion that the actual Palestinians are stuck between two forces: Israelis who see their land as theirs, regardless of who lived there 61 years ago, and the Arab states and the international jihadist movement that seek the destruction (or at least humiliation) of a Jewish state.
Honestly, the problem is not the Arab states. Its their people. Jordan is fairly equitable in most cases as the rather benign nature of their royal family has created a good deal of trust between the people, and the power. Syria, as a government, seems to be fairly unconcerned with the future of Israel; having largely accepted that it is going to continue to exist after their influence was forcibly evicted from Lebanon during the Cedar Revolution. Egypt was actually the first state to openly recognize Israel, and remains the one most willing to engage Israel on even ground. Conceivably they could be counted on to facilitate the transition of sovereignty in Gaza, but the reality of that nation's own internal struggles with terrorism essentially precludes such a solution.
There are really only two solutions to this problem; the Israeli annexation of the Occupied Territories, or the creation of two sovereign Palestinian nations.
I, personally, feel that the two-state solution is unworkable. There is simply too little in the way of available resources for either the West Bank, or Gaza, to be considered sovereign nations. Throw in the lack of abundant potable water, and the Israeli lean on the Jordan River for much of its own supply, and you have a recipe for state sanctioned Apartheid.
The annexation measure has its own issues, but most of them lie on the Israeli side of the border. They need to get over the notion that the lack of a Jewish majority puts all Israeli Jews in mortal danger. The Palestinians are not National Socialists, and there is a vast gulf between being against Israel, and being antisemitic. Moreover, the military would continue to be primarily Jewish for many years after any attempt at annexation; providing at least some form of security blanket.
Miguelsan wrote:For all those of you that insist that total war and devastation are exceptional rather than the rule let me suggest the 30 year war and the sack if Magdeburg as examples of business as usual.
War is always asymetrical with every side playing it`s strengths just because we play a game were everybody agrees to use the same point limit doesn`t mean that RL will do the same. If Hamas could (or dared) they would be using gas and other nastiness against Israel, don`t confuse the lack of means with the lack of will.
M.
It's ridiculous that anyone would ever argue that something as simple as proportionality doesn't get followed. Think of it this way, when asked how many civilians will die in taking a city, the proportionate answer would be 'no more than necessary'. The answer that ignores proportionality will say 'it doesn't matter'. One of these answers is obviously not insane.
Polonius wrote:I agree with most of what Killkrazy said. I'm not sure the PM looking strong is the main reason for the incursion, but it's probably a major factor.
Yeah, it's one factor of many.
I know it's a cliche to point this out, but this conflict is incredibly complicated. There are no good guys, there are no bad guys, and both sides have suffered enough to encourage sympathy and committed enough atrocities to merit outrage.
I think there are good guys, and bad guys. Pro-settlement Israelis, rabbis that give sermons telling the soldiers to wipe out the Palestinians, every Palestinian that fired a rocket into Israel... these are bad guys. Bad there are countless peace protesters on both sides as well. I know you were talking generally but it felt that needed to be pointed out, how diverse and dynamic the politics is on both sides.
1) British Palestine was to be split into Jewish Israel and Arab Palestine in 1948. After the war (in which nearly ever arab country invaded), Israel ended up with all of Israel. They then gained more territory in later wars as well. Much like the Soviets got to keep Eastern Europe in order to keep the peace after WWII, nobody really minded Israel keeping the territory after the war.
2) The Arab nations surrounding the Palestinian territories seem to not be interesting in helping the Palestinians, either by accepting them as refugees, giving them places to resettle, or otherwise brokering peace deals with Israel. This is important, because while there was been relative peace there for 30 years, most of the countries in the region still resent Israel.
Refugees accepted into Jordan after... I think it was the Six Day War... just about bankrupted the country. Even refugees that have successfully settled in neighbouring countries still want to return home, even second and third generations do. It's fairly understandable, home is more than economic stability and when home includes key religious locations...
3) I have enormous sympathy for the Palestinians. They've been screwed by the British, by the UN, by Israel, and by every other middle eastern nation that wants to keep the conflict going. There is an extent to which their anger and violence is, if not justified, at least understandable.
That's put it perfectly.
4) I have zero sympathy or respect for the various governments of the territories. The PLO was notorious for embezzling aid money, and was almost always more concerned with material gains for it's elites than solving any problems. Hamas is far more populist, and has done an amazing job of building grass roots support through it's charitable work before winning the elections. I'm not going to say the people were duped, but it's not like the PLO was a great option, and Hamas at least pretended to care about the plight of the people.
The Americans keep saying it's Iranian money but not even the Israelis pretend that's true. Hamas is majority Saudi funded.
5) Hamas at the lower levels is just like any other politcals/revolutionary group. At it's upper levels, while it's not the Bond villian, it's a pretty sinister group. They're goal is true jihad: the reclaiming of once Islamic lands from Israel. They are supported by Iran materially and many other middle eastern nations tacitly. They are not quite bad guys, but they play a brand of ball that westerners aren't comfortable with. I'm not saying we can't negotiate with Hamas, just that any resolutions need to measured against Hamas' track record.
The thing that's important to remember is that Hamas is democratically elected, their support doesn't come from their extremist objectives, but from their social work and the hatred of Israel for what they've done to Palestine. While Israel can't just cave to Hamas (less Hamas be given too much credit and future support from the population), it's important to realise that is the real underlying problems are solved, Hamas will be left to fight a crusade without much local support.
6) Israel, while not nearly as sympathetic as it was after the Holocaust and the various wars, is like the guy that was always picked on but then grew 6 inches and gained 30 pounds of muscle. It's the most powerful nation in the region, but it's stills surrounded by enemies. It's a siege mentality, and that affects a people. I'm not entirely comfortable vilifying the actions of the Israeli government due to that fact. Its' a pressure cooker.
Except the new tough guy Israel is also friends with the Hell Angels, who keep giving billions in military aid each year. And some of the other kids that Israel beat up a few times before are now on reasonable speaking terms with Israel, not the best of mates but they trade, and they mutually enforce quarantine on that little redheaded dweeb Palestine.
Israel under siege is no longer the reality.
In my opinion, any true settlement will have to involve Syria, Jordon, Lebanon, and probably Egypt. It will most likely require land concession from Israel, and security concessions from the Palestinians (With Arab, not Israeli troops watching the border). It will also require a large amount of aid (from the US/EU/UN) sent to Palestine to end the worst of the poverty, and it will require Israel to re-open the borders so Palestinians can work, shop, and visit in Israel. The most important, and toughest part, is that the PA is going to have to assure Israel that they will stop terrorist acts after the concessions, something that they've failed to do after previous accords. Maybe if there were UN peacekeepers, or the above Arab security forces, they could keep a lid on the terrorism, but as long as Israel feels that it's going to get shot at, it's not going to let the territories go free.
Step one is to stop the settlements in Gaza. Get serious about policing this. Step two is to withdraw the settlements currently in the West Bank, this will take at least three years. Step three, following a good faith agreement from the Palestinians, is to start economic rebuilding, and make it clear to the Palestinians how much better life is when you're winning.
Step four is where it gets tricky. Because long term prosperity in Palestine means Palestinians working in wealthy Israel, you have to make travel into Israel for work a practical thing, and right now border security makes it near impossible. The border checks are a basic reality, and the most likely solution is probably to hand over the Southern border to Egypt, and other border control to UN backed regional forces (hoping Syria and Iran have the good sense not to offer troops). Then you slowly pull back on the intensity of the border checks as common sense allows. Then it's probably a long, painful road, where it's clear to the Palestinians that any violence will hurt foreign aid, and its clear to the Israelis that military action in Gaza is not acceptable. The plan above was basically proposed by Carter, and variations have been played around with since.
The difference now is that Israel finally understands that the only possible solution is a two state solution, demonstrated by their move out of the West Bank. They haven't done the same in Gaza because they have so many more settlements. This is the key to solving the problem.
JohnHwangDD wrote:@Polonius: It's not possible to prevent all future attacks, ergo, there cannot ever be a solution.
Well yeah, it's also impossible to stop all bombing undertaken by the IRA against the British. Which is why sensible people talk about solutions built around removing the will to bomb, while ensuring authorities on both sides work to crack down on terrorist networks.
Polonius wrote:I, personally, feel that the two-state solution is unworkable. There is simply too little in the way of available resources for either the West Bank, or Gaza, to be considered sovereign nations. Throw in the lack of abundant potable water, and the Israeli lean on the Jordan River for much of its own supply, and you have a recipe for state sanctioned Apartheid.
The annexation measure has its own issues, but most of them lie on the Israeli side of the border. They need to get over the notion that the lack of a Jewish majority puts all Israeli Jews in mortal danger. The Palestinians are not National Socialists, and there is a vast gulf between being against Israel, and being antisemitic. Moreover, the military would continue to be primarily Jewish for many years after any attempt at annexation; providing at least some form of security blanket.
The single state is a demographic impossibility. The Jews won't accept being a minority in their own country (and fair enough, given history and their recent history with the Palestinians). The other option is to include Palestine but not giving them the vote, and well, apartheid has a pretty bad track record.
The two state solution is the best solution because it is the only solution. It'll require a tremendous increase in will from PA and an even greater level of restraint from the Israeli government.
sebster wrote:
The single state is a demographic impossibility. The Jews won't accept being a minority in their own country (and fair enough, given history and their recent history with the Palestinians). The other option is to include Palestine but not giving them the vote, and well, apartheid has a pretty bad track record.
The two state solution is the best solution because it is the only solution. It'll require a tremendous increase in will from PA and an even greater level of restraint from the Israeli government.
In the near future I think you're right. However, as water rights start to become a greater concern for everyone in the region I can't help but think that tensions will be inflamed yet again. Israel depends on the Jordan River for something like 65% of its potable water. That's the main reason the West Bank, as currently demarcated, does not abut the river. That's also the reason that the 'security fence' cuts through Palestinian territory. It isn't an arbitrary measure meant to protect settlers, or divide the Palestinians, but a deliberate effort to defend irrigation canals.
Unless the Israelis come up with the money to lean on desalinization they will not be able to cede water right to the Palestinians. And, if they don't give the Palestinians access to potable water, the prospects for peace in the region are not particularly good. There is a similar issue in Gaza where most of the groundwater wells are located near to, or inside, the Israeli border. Though, in that instance, the issue for the Israelis is not so much one of supply as it is security. Basically they don't want massive collections of Palestinians making the trek to near border wells on a daily basis.
Maybe this makes me a racist American/English @$$hole, but why can't the western powers just leave the Israelis/Palestinians to sort themselves out? Cut off funding from both sides and let what is essentially a regional conflict remain a regional conflict, iin the way of many African tribal wars. It might be unpopular in the states with the likes of Joe Leiberman and the other Israeli-firsters, but if they really think that Israels interests are more important than those of the people they wer elected to represent, wll emigrate. It ain't that hard.
I have been all over the Middle East. Israel is like a mini United States. I love that country!!! I am always 200% behind Israel whatever they decide to do, I won't even question it. The Arab countries are very jealous of both United States and Israel because we have it so much better. The US and Israel should always stick together.
chaplaingrabthar wrote:Maybe this makes me a racist American/English @$$hole, but why can't the western powers just leave the Israelis/Palestinians to sort themselves out?
Oil? Erm no. How About the worlds largest jewish population doesn't want to see the worlds only jewish state and only real middle eastern ally wiped off the planet.
Israel in fact has no substantial oil reserves of it's own.
whatwhat wrote:Oil? Erm no. How About the worlds largest jewish population doesn't want to see the worlds only jewish state and only real middle eastern ally wiped off the planet.
Only real Middle Eastern ally? Not counting Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt, or Jordan?
Also, while the 'Jewish Lobby' was a significant political force during the Cold War its influence has waned of late. Due both to the passing of Cold War era legislators from Congress, and the growing rift between US strategic policy and Israeli action.
whatwhat wrote:
Israel in fact has no substantial oil reserves of it's own.
You're kidding, really? Well golly gee.
Seriously though, the primary reason behind US support for Israel began as regional opposition to the Soviet Union. This later morphed into a power check on the oil producing nations after the gas crisis proved they had the clout to pull the rug out from under the burgeoning consumer economy.
whatwhat wrote:Oil? Erm no. How About the worlds largest jewish population doesn't want to see the worlds only jewish state and only real middle eastern ally wiped off the planet.
Only real Middle Eastern ally? Not counting Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt, or Jordan?
Notice the word "real" in my post. Do you really think the us give a crap about jordan or the uae, they're not world players nor important to solving the conflict in the middle east. And if you think saudi is a true ally your kidding yourself.
dogma wrote:
whatwhat wrote:
Israel in fact has no substantial oil reserves of it's own.
You're kidding, really? Well golly gee.
Are you taking the piss out of your own point here?
dogma wrote:Also, while the 'Jewish Lobby' was a significant political force during the Cold War its influence has waned of late. Due both to the passing of Cold War era legislators from Congress, and the growing rift between US strategic policy and Israeli action.
Seriously though, the primary reason behind US support for Israel began as regional opposition to the Soviet Union. This later morphed into a power check on the oil producing nations after the gas crisis proved they had the clout to pull the rug out from under the burgeoning consumer economy.
Two fairly ignorant statements I'm not really going to bother with.
Shouting the word oil worked for the gulf war and possibly the iraq war. The situation in israel is a lot more complicated and different.
JohnHwangDD wrote:There are 500 dead children directly due to Israeli military actions, so it's kind of hard not to lay that at Israel's feet...
500 dead children is disgusting, I agree. But it's not like the Israelis said, "Hey I feel like killing children today!"
The more disgusting thing is that Hamas will use civilians as human shields. Plus it doesn't help when they fire rockets from hospitals and schools and other civilian areas.
whatwhat wrote:
Notice the word "real" in my post. Do you really think the us give a crap about jordan or the uae, they're not world players nor important to solving the conflict in the middle east. And if you think saudi is a true ally your kidding yourself.
Israel is a world player? They're a regional military power, but their population is statistically insignificant. They also make no significant contribution to the global economy. Their only purpose is to check the power of what is otherwise a demographically contiguous region holding almost total influence over the world's primary source of commercial energy.
As for the Saudis; they have done more in the collective interests of the West than any other major political force in the Middle East; including artificially extending the Iran-Iraq War through neutral shipping in order to prevent the formation of a regional hegemon.
whatwhat wrote:
Are you taking the piss out of your own point here?
Not at all, merely making light of your ability to take a general statement in completely the wrong way. The fact that Israel does not maintain direct control over an oil reserve does not change the fact that it is an important piece in the strategic puzzle which allows the US to control those nations which do contain significant oil reserves.
whatwhat wrote:
Two fairly ignorant statements I'm not really going to bother with.
Of course you're not. You aren't actually interested in discussion, only feeling self-righteous.
whatwhat wrote:
Shouting the word oil worked for the gulf war and possibly the iraq war. The situation in israel is a lot more complicated and different.
Not really. There would be no compelling reason for the US to take a significant interest in the Middle East were it not for the presence of oil. There are other factors which make Israel an ideal axial point in the larger strategic game, but without the economic impetus of petroleum the nation would barely merit a comment.
If your trying to make the claim that by supporting israel the US somehow gains control of oil in the region your going a long way down the wrong hole. If anything the US' interst in Israel has worsened relations in the middle east. Forgive me if i misunderstood your point as thinking it was not so general a statement, I actually doubted you weren't so ignorant as to make the alternative claim which you seem to be doing.
You can go on trying to back up your idea that Israel is about oil if you like but I don't think I'll be alone in thinking your barking up completely the wrong tree. I cant remember anyone on any other occasion in fact where someone has cited oil as the reason for the trouble in Israel, must be lonely down there.
whatwhat wrote:If your trying to make the claim that by supporting israel the US somehow gains control of oil in the region your going a long way down the wrong hole. If anything the US' interst in Israel has worsened relations in the middle east.
Not really. In fact, aggressive involvement in the conflict has done a lot to alleviate the general perception of the West as a greedy, Imperialist power. Remember, Israel predates the discovery of most of the oil reserves in the ME. Hence the notion that what was originally a check against Soviet influence became a check on OPEC.
whatwhat wrote:
Forgive me if i misunderstood your point as thinking it was not so general a statement, I actually doubted you weren't so ignorant as to make the alternative claim which you seem to be doing.
It might be a good idea to take an English class, or ten. That sentence is an absolute atrocity.
whatwhat wrote:
You can go on trying to back up your idea that Israel is about oil if you like but I don't think I'll be alone in thinking your barking up completely the wrong tree. I cant remember anyone on any other occasion in fact where someone has cited oil as the reason for the trouble in Israel, must be lonely down there.
I never said oil was the reason for trouble in Israel. I said oil is the reason that the US takes significant notice of the trouble in Israel. If there was no oil the conflict would be a minor brush fire. The US would send military aid in the interests of its Jewish population, but the aid would be far less substantial as the opposition, deprived of most of it economic strength, would be far less significant.
I shall try my best to make a long story into a short one. First of all the US's initial interest in Israel surrounding it's creation was due to domestic politics in a election year for president harry truman, the real driving force behind the creation of israel and biggest power in the region at the time, was Britain. At this time the damage to western interests which would be created by israel's creation was unforeseen. This, the creation of isreal, expelling of the plaestians and defeat of several arab states at the hands of isreal was what started and has led to the arab threat we know today. And thus the US, Britain and the west in general, recognised israel as a strategic asset and that, is the reason it supported and still supports the state of israel to this day. Whatever oil has to do with it today is of little significance when asked "why can't the western powers just leave the Israelis/Palestinians to sort themselves out?"
dogma wrote:
whatwhat wrote:
Forgive me if i misunderstood your point as thinking it was not so general a statement, I actually doubted you weren't so ignorant as to make the alternative claim which you seem to be doing.
It might be a good idea to take an English class, or ten. That sentence is an absolute atrocity.
Well for 1 If you havent noticed already I'm dyslexic and don't really think much of people who try take the upper hand in an argument based on the other persons english. But that scentence does make sense, but to make it more clear for you...'Forgive me if I misunderstood your point as a particular statement, I doubted you were making the alternative claim as I didn;t think you were so ignorant.
chaplaingrabthar wrote:Maybe this makes me a racist American/English @$$hole, but why can't the western powers just leave the Israelis/Palestinians to sort themselves out?
whatwhat wrote:I shall try my best to make a long story into a short one. First of all the US's initial interest in Israel surrounding it's creation was due to domestic politics in a election year for president harry truman, the real driving force behind the creation of israel and biggest power in the region at the time, was Britain.
In the early years the primary Israeli patron was France. The British held mandatory control of the area, but it was the French government that first offered overt military aid to the Jewish state.
Truman recognized Israel, but significant US interest in the region began during the 1956 Suez Crisis. The Eisenhower administration, fearing an intervention by the Soviets on behalf of Nasser's nascent Communist state, forced a cease fire on the Allied belligerents (France, Britain, Israel). In the aftermath of this dispute the US began to sell advanced weaponry to Israel, Egypt, and Jordan in order to counter Soviet influence (remember, Israel began as a socialist state). This practice continued until just after the Six Day War, at which time it became clear to the Johnson Administration that the Arab nations had taken on a permanent lean towards the Communist cause.
whatwhat wrote:
At this time the damage to western interests which would be created by israel's creation was unforeseen. This, the creation of isreal, expelling of the plaestians and defeat of several arab states at the hands of isreal was what started and has led to the arab threat we know today.
No, what lead to the Arab threat we know today was a strong colonial heritage, and the direct influence of a superpower built on competing with the former, colonizing empires. This was first made blatantly manifest by the Six Day War, but that was not the beginning of the divide.
whatwhat wrote:
And thus the US, Britain and the west in general, recognised israel as a strategic asset and that, is the reason it supported and still supports the state of israel to this day. Whatever oil has to do with it today is of little significance when asked "why can't the western powers just leave the Israelis/Palestinians to sort themselves out?"
Not really. Once the Soviet Union fell the primary threat in the region was not one of an equivalent, competitive power, but of hegemonic potentates. Towards the end of the Cold War, and in its immediate aftermath, the primary US concern was the assurance that no single power could dominate the Middle East. The most obvious factor in this agenda was the parallel support of both Iran, and Iraq during the course of their 8 year war (remember Iran-Contra?). Less evident is the notion that a third regional contender existed in the form of Egypt. In order to ensure their power remained in check, and the Suez Canal remained open, the US continued it traditional policy of unequivocal support for the Jewish state. The predicate for this entire agenda? Oil.
whatwhat wrote:
Well for 1 If you havent noticed already I'm dyslexic and don't really think much of people who try take the upper hand in an argument based on the other persons english. But that scentence does make sense, but to make it more clear for you...'Forgive me if I misunderstood your point as a particular statement, I doubted you were making the alternative claim as I didn;t think you were so ignorant.
I actually hadn't noticed, I apologize if I offended. I'm just not overly fond of people being unnecessarily dismissive while simultaneously using poor sentence structure. Either way, the sentence didn't make sense, and I guessed correctly that you were trying to be a prick. So I'm not overly concerned with your feelings on the matter.
Green Blow Fly wrote:I have been all over the Middle East. Israel is like a mini United States. I love that country!!! I am always 200% behind Israel whatever they decide to do, I won't even question it. The Arab countries are very jealous of both United States and Israel because we have it so much better. The US and Israel should always stick together.
That is how I see it.
G
'They're like us so it's alright when they kill the other side.'
dogma wrote:I actually hadn't noticed, I apologize if I offended. I'm just not overly fond of people being unnecessarily dismissive while simultaneously using poor sentence structure. Either way, the sentence didn't make sense, and I guessed correctly that you were trying to be a prick. So I'm not overly concerned with your feelings on the matter.
Your blatantly made your argument far too personal than it needed to be. And no while I am not offended, more bemused, as to why you would bring me up on a sentence which could have been put only slightly better. I am by being called a "prick." I'm sorry you couldn't put your point back to me without making yourself look childish.
A point of correction Dogma, commercial grade oil had been discovered in the region by the turn of the century. The first oil monopoly was formed by the then Ottoman Empire. Its what helped create a little company called British Petroleum to trade with the enterprise (RDS was there also but had its own developments in Mother Russia, and later Asia). Indeed one war aim of mad dog Hitler was to sweep out of southern Russia into the Iran and related areas to obtain oil for the future economic strength of the Reich. Unfortunately for him he ran into the joy of Operation Uranus...
The Middle East wasn't important for oil to the US until later as the price to pump here was vastly cheaper.
Worst thing the British ever did was break up the Ottoman Empire. Look at the nghtmares it has caused. Thanks Brits
Frazzled wrote:Meanwhile Hamas is STILL launching attacks...
A point of correction Dogma, commercial grade oil had been discovered in the region by the turn of the century. The first oil monopoly was formed by the then Ottoman Empire. Its what helped create a little company called British Petroleum to trade with the enterprise (RDS was there also but had its own developments in Mother Russia, and later Asia). Indeed one war aim of mad dog Hitler was to sweep out of southern Russia into the Iran and related areas to obtain oil for the future economic strength of the Reich. Unfortunately for him he ran into the joy of Operation Uranus...
The Middle East wasn't important for oil to the US until later as the price to pump here was vastly cheaper.
Worst thing the British ever did was break up the Ottoman Empire. Look at the nghtmares it has caused. Thanks Brits
It was the Austrians who started it! Them and the Germans. Read all about it in Dreadnought by Robert K Massie.
Your blatantly made your argument far too personal than it needed to be. And no while I am not offended, more bemused, as to why you would bring me up on a sentence which could have been put only slightly better. I am by being called a "prick." I'm sorry you couldn't put your point back to me without making yourself look childish.
bye now.
Only slightly better? Really? You used two double negatives, and failed to include punctuation. It was unintelligible gibberish. I realize you're dyslexic, but it isn't like someone is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to respond under the pressure of a deadline.
Either way, the entire purpose of the sentence was to accuse me of being ignorant. You could have saved us both a great deal of time by simply stating that.
Frazzled wrote:
A point of correction Dogma, commercial grade oil had been discovered in the region by the turn of the century. The first oil monopoly was formed by the then Ottoman Empire. Its what helped create a little company called British Petroleum to trade with the enterprise (RDS was there also but had its own developments in Mother Russia, and later Asia). Indeed one war aim of mad dog Hitler was to sweep out of southern Russia into the Iran and related areas to obtain oil for the future economic strength of the Reich. Unfortunately for him he ran into the joy of Operation Uranus...
True, but the vast majority of what we consider to be our modern reserves weren't uncovered until the 60's. That sudden abundance of wealth is what spurred the creation of OPEC, and the use of oil as a means of holding leverage over US hegemony.
Frazzled wrote:
The Middle East wasn't important for oil to the US until later as the price to pump here was vastly cheaper.
Maybe not in terms of our supply, but we certainly had a vested interest in making the Soviets pay through the nose.
chaplaingrabthar wrote:Maybe this makes me a racist American/English @$$hole, but why can't the western powers just leave the Israelis/Palestinians to sort themselves out? Cut off funding from both sides and let what is essentially a regional conflict remain a regional conflict, iin the way of many African tribal wars. It might be unpopular in the states with the likes of Joe Leiberman and the other Israeli-firsters, but if they really think that Israels interests are more important than those of the people they wer elected to represent, wll emigrate. It ain't that hard.
The Israel lobby is very very powerful. The US is not a true democracy, sure it has free elections and a freely elected senate, congress and presidency but Washington is under the thumb of various lobbies. Gun lobby and Israel lobby being the two biggest. Any political who crosses either lobby is not long for office. Much of the media, banking industry and several key economies are run by Jews, and a sizable proportion of them, but by no means all, have connections to the Israel lobby and will squeeze when asked. Lobbies like these are known in Europe and elsewhere but they are largely capped, often by the various nations security agencies. France and Uk cannot be told what to do by Israel lobbies as the high level activist community is much asmaller and less well entrenched. However the US government is all but incapable of acting outside Israels interest on Middle East affairs.
Green Blow Fly wrote:I have been all over the Middle East. Israel is like a mini United States. I love that country!!! I am always 200% behind Israel whatever they decide to do, I won't even question it. The Arab countries are very jealous of both United States and Israel because we have it so much better. The US and Israel should always stick together.
That is how I see it.
Israel is not a mini United States, a large minority of its own citizens, let alone those living outside Israel proper live as second class citizens. Its an apartheid era mini South Africa, or if it is a USA its a 50's deep south state with Arabs being the black guys. Which is one of the reasons South Africa has been very angry regarding the treatment of the Israeli Arabs (i.e. Palestinians with Israeli residency). To be born an Israeli Arab is to be born a second class citizen, with restricted rights and opportunities. IIRC you dont even get a real passport, in many cases it allows you to leave and not return. This is a problem for no less reason than it prevents Moslems born in Israel from attending hajj or visiting relatives.
Frazzled wrote:Meanwhile Hamas is STILL launching attacks...
Murder several hundred kids and you can expect to be hated. Israel is not going to win this way. It was bad before but Hamas now has got a Captain Ahab thing going on.
Put it this way. The British were usually very well behaved in the policing of the Northen Ireland Troubles. However the killings on Bloody Sunday triggered attacks that lasted fifteen years, even though the killings were not 'state orchestrated' per se. Likewise Israel might not have targeted the children, but the children died and the result is the same. Many many Palestianians now will have no thought of peace on their mind, it is turning into a revenge-by-any-means-available mantra which will not easily be resolved. Expect more than rocket attacks, I suspect Hamas will try to attack softer targets, possibly Jewish communities outside of Israel.
Frazzled wrote:
Worst thing the British ever did was break up the Ottoman Empire. Look at the nghtmares it has caused. Thanks Brits
Sykes-Picot treaty. Its main error was not seperating up the Ottoman Empire on tribal grounds but with clean lines in the sand. A bit like the way Africa was carved up. T.E. Lawrence drew a roadmap for the Middle East and lobbied extensivily for it, gaining a lot of support but not from those who mattered at Versailles. To blame it squarely on the Brits is not exactly fair. Like all other outcomes of the Versailles treaty it was a joint effort.
Anyway enough bitching about Israeli poliocy. We can complain but can we offer a solution, for one side or another.
I think we can.
Compulsory purchase.
Literally buy out the Palestinians, offer them cash for land. Not at current rates as it is not worth much. No really buy them out. Sure you have to buy them all and that means you cant give them a choice. But if the billions spent on arming Israel was used to a mass relocation with fair monetary settlement, it mighty even end up cheaper. I dont see manty downsides to this Israel wins as they get the land. palestinians sort of win as they are paid to relocate. Not into refugee camps but with money to rebuild homes and businesses. Hamas doesnt win, but that is not a problem.
The only way I see this working is if the blame finger is passed through Israel to the US as backers of Israel. Along the lines of 'you bankrolled the problem, now you can pay for a fair solution'.
Actually what I would really like is for Israel to become a protectorate of the USA, if temporarily. Same as above but Mr Palestianian now has access to due process. However this would get very expensive quickly and I dont see Jerusalem agreeing to any surrender of sovereignty however short term this is for.
Frazzled wrote:Meanwhile Hamas is STILL launching attacks...
Murder several hundred kids and you can expect to be hated. Israel is not going to win this way. It was bad before but Hamas now has got a Captain Ahab thing going on.
Put it this way. The British were usually very well behaved in the policing of the Northen Ireland Troubles. However the killings on Bloody Sunday triggered attacks that lasted fifteen years, even though the killings were not 'state orchestrated' per se. Likewise Israel might not have targeted the children, but the children died and the result is the same. Many many Palestianians now will have no thought of peace on their mind, it is turning into a revenge-by-any-means-available mantra which will not easily be resolved. Expect more than rocket attacks, I suspect Hamas will try to attack softer targets, possibly Jewish communities outside of Israel.
Frazzled wrote:
Worst thing the British ever did was break up the Ottoman Empire. Look at the nghtmares it has caused. Thanks Brits
Sykes-Picot treaty. Its main error was not seperating up the Ottoman Empire on tribal grounds but with clean lines in the sand. A bit like the way Africa was carved up. T.E. Lawrence drew a roadmap for the Middle East and lobbied extensivily for it, gaining a lot of support but not from those who mattered at Versailles. To blame it squarely on the Brits is not exactly fair. Like all other outcomes of the Versailles treaty it was a joint effort.
Anyway enough bitching about Israeli poliocy. We can complain but can we offer a solution, for one side or another.
I think we can.
Compulsory purchase.
Literally buy out the Palestinians, offer them cash for land. Not at current rates as it is not worth much. No really buy them out. Sure you have to buy them all and that means you cant give them a choice. But if the billions spent on arming Israel was used to a mass relocation with fair monetary settlement, it mighty even end up cheaper. I dont see manty downsides to this Israel wins as they get the land. palestinians sort of win as they are paid to relocate. Not into refugee camps but with money to rebuild homes and businesses. Hamas doesnt win, but that is not a problem.
The only way I see this working is if the blame finger is passed through Israel to the US as backers of Israel. Along the lines of 'you bankrolled the problem, now you can pay for a fair solution'.
Actually what I would really like is for Israel to become a protectorate of the USA, if temporarily. Same as above but Mr Palestianian now has access to due process. However this would get very expensive quickly and I dont see Jerusalem agreeing to any surrender of sovereignty however short term this is for.
Green Blow Fly wrote:I have been all over the Middle East. Israel is like a mini United States. I love that country!!! I am always 200% behind Israel whatever they decide to do, I won't even question it. The Arab countries are very jealous of both United States and Israel because we have it so much better. The US and Israel should always stick together.
That is how I see it.
Israel is not a mini United States, a large minority of its own citizens, let alone those living outside Israel proper live as second class citizens. Its an apartheid era mini South Africa, or if it is a USA its a 50's deep south state with Arabs being the black guys. Which is one of the reasons South Africa has been very angry regarding the treatment of the Israeli Arabs (i.e. Palestinians with Israeli residency). To be born an Israeli Arab is to be born a second class citizen, with restricted rights and opportunities. IIRC you dont even get a real passport, in many cases it allows you to leave and not return. This is a problem for no less reason than it prevents Moslems born in Israel from attending hajj or visiting relatives.
Have you been there? It is a country with a high standard of living. They have freedom unlike other countries in that region. Their technology is world class to say the least. It is like the US in that many people move their to live for the opportunity of freedom and to advance. It is a democracy. I love that country for what it is.
Green Blow Fly wrote:I have been all over the Middle East. Israel is like a mini United States. I love that country!!! I am always 200% behind Israel whatever they decide to do, I won't even question it. The Arab countries are very jealous of both United States and Israel because we have it so much better. The US and Israel should always stick together.
That is how I see it.
Israel is not a mini United States, a large minority of its own citizens, let alone those living outside Israel proper live as second class citizens. Its an apartheid era mini South Africa, or if it is a USA its a 50's deep south state with Arabs being the black guys. Which is one of the reasons South Africa has been very angry regarding the treatment of the Israeli Arabs (i.e. Palestinians with Israeli residency). To be born an Israeli Arab is to be born a second class citizen, with restricted rights and opportunities. IIRC you dont even get a real passport, in many cases it allows you to leave and not return. This is a problem for no less reason than it prevents Moslems born in Israel from attending hajj or visiting relatives.
Have you been there? It is a country with a high standard of living. They have freedom unlike other countries in that region. Their technology is world class to say the least. It is like the US in that many people move their to live for the opportunity of freedom and to advance. It is a democracy. I love that country for what it is.
G
Have you been there? No, but then I am not too close to, the problem to see clearly.
It is a country with a high standard of living. - For some, dependent on race and religion.
They have freedom.... - For some, dependent on race and religion.
Their technology is world class to say the least. - For some, dependent on race and religion.
It is like the US in that many people move their to live for the opportunity of freedom and to advance. - For some, dependent on race and religion.
It is a democracy. - For some, dependent on race and religion.
I love that country for what it is. - Fair enough, it is wrong to *hate* a whole country, I go no further than criticise and de-myth.
....unlike other countries in that region. you should try that too.
You could quite easily have described aparthied era South Africa.
I know this is the internet, where nuance goes to die, but calling the Israeli system Apartheid is a bit too much. You need to seperate treatment of Arab-Israelis, who are citizens, from the treatment of palestinians in the occupied territories, first of all.
Yes, those that live in the Territories are not citizens have basically whatever rights Israel feels like giving them that day. Of course, both sides see the West Bank at least as the location of an independent Palestine, and Israel has never formally joined the occupied territories with it's own body politic. There's tons of precedent for this (Vichie french weren't german citizens, nor are modern Iraqis american citizens)
As for Arab Israelis, there are some signifigant gaps between the the defacto priviliegs of Jews vs. Arabs. Access to land, money spent on education, etc. are all higher for Jews. Jews have a legal right to immigrate to Israel, while Arabs, even those related to Israeli citizens, do not. In most areas though, Arab Israelis have the same rights: speech, dissent, voting, participation in government, etc. They generally not as well off, healthy, or educated.
Virtually every modern nation has minority groups that have, in practice or even law, major obstacles to full inclusion and equality. Look at the Muslim immigrants in France, where after multiple generations they still aren't citizens of any class. Look at the Aborigines or Native Americans, or even the Ainu of Japan.
I'm not trying to defend all the actions of Israel, and the actions in the occupied territories is very complicated, but certainly for Arab Israelis their situation is less dire than even Jim Crow United States, much less Apartheid Era South Africa.
good points well made. may I be the first to make an l shape with my right hand and chant "looooosers" to all those who are not indigenous to the country they are living in.
Polonius wrote:I know this is the internet, where nuance goes to die, but calling the Israeli system Apartheid is a bit too much. You need to seperate treatment of Arab-Israelis, who are citizens, from the treatment of palestinians in the occupied territories, first of all.
Actually apartheid is a good analogy. Blacks and coloured in south africa under Apartheid were citizens with passports. Just second class citizens with limited opportunity. Israeli Arabs are citizens too after a fashion but rigorously controlled and not in any real way free.
Polonius wrote:As for Arab Israelis, there are some signifigant gaps between the the defacto priviliegs of Jews vs. Arabs. Access to land, money spent on education, etc. are all higher for Jews. Jews have a legal right to immigrate to Israel, while Arabs, even those related to Israeli citizens, do not. In most areas though, Arab Israelis have the same rights: speech, dissent, voting, participation in government, etc. They generally not as well off, healthy, or educated.
Here is the crunch. If you give someone the vote, but limit their numbers their education access to employment, and limit their movements (so they are all massed in a few constituencies) you limit their freedom and quality of life in a way that is completely unacceptable for a so called modern democracy.
Even if the restriction to equal education opportunities was alone in prevailing it would mean a lot because of the cascading effects of that. Lesser education means lesser job opportunities, lesser purchassing opportunity and less access to society. I suppose in a real was Israeli Arabs "help" as they provide a core of under-educated persns to give the dead end jobs noone else wants well below the minimum wage that would be offered to a Jewish citizen. They have to take them, after all there is no social security for Israeli Arabs. I have often wondered if this is the only real reason they are allowed to remain.
Face facts, they are slaves with an illusory vote. Which in a real way is worse than if they were given chains they could see.
Frazzled wrote:You mean Hamas STILL shooting rockets into Israel despite a cease fire. Yea thats shocking...not.
What do you expect after so much blood shed so casually and blame laid at the foot of Hamas for what Israeli bombs and rockets did.
These people are beyond pissed off.
Terrorism is not successfully fought this way, it never was.
You're right, the Israelis are beyond ticked off, at 3 years of continuous rocket attacks. Hamas must want Netanyahu to win.
You need to learn the lessons of successful terrorist containments such as Northern Ireland Northern Spain, Malaysia etc.
To win you must have higher moral standards to the terrorists, not equal or in this case far lower.
Containing terrorism has a hefty pricetag.
The ideal of for 'one of us we kill a hundred of them' DOESNT WORK.
You have to look at the root cause, why are rockets being fired? You cannot expect a small n umber of fantacis to make a change, a government has to make the moral change, this in turn makes the populace the fanatics rely on lose interet in supporting them.
Israel has managed lasting peace with Jordan and Egypt by compromise, though in both cases there were reasonable men to deal with. There are rwasonable men amongst the Palestinians to deal with too, but the contstant atrocities places them in no position over Hamas and other extremists.
It is a bit too late now. There are several hundred likely thousands that lost friends loved ones and relatives to attacks that can squarely be blamed on Israel, because they know who ordered the aircraft to attack. Many of those will not rest until they have personally spilled some Jewish blood.
....So after the next round of airstrikes launched once the lessons are not learned there will be several hundred or thousand more. It is only a matter of time before they look for other ways of revenge as rockets clearly are not getting a good enough return. This is going to get even nastier.
Sorry mate you are supporting a no win policy. The only way Israel can win this way is to go the whole hog and order a Final Solution to the Palestinian problem, now that admittedly does work. But then we wont be justly making parallels between Israel and Apartheid anymore but something far darker.
Or you do it the Mongol/Russian/Turkish way and just wack everyone. Every time a rocket enters Israeli space one square mile of Gaza is firebombed.
Having said that, I'm of the view of the paraphrase from Lucifers Hammer (afetr the comet hits). "freed from restraint by the major powers, their conflict would not end until they were fighting with knives."
For me this is just one conflict of a hundred in the world. Big deal.
I'm not sure where you've gotten your facts. I certainly can be wrong, but it seems a little weird to me to call a minority that has representation in the Kenneset, a judge on the supreme court, and every basic right "slaves." I didn't see anything about the passports.
As for economic imbalance, guess what? That happens everywhere. It's still not apartheid. It's discrimination, but under apartheid blacks had no right to vote in national elections (only in their tribal elections) and were not considered citizens of south Africa. They also were denied due process, were tortured, and could not even speak out or dissent in any meaningful way.
Nobody likes to see a nation divided into two based on race/ethnicity/religion/etc., but not all such divisions are equally horrific. Painting Israel with the same brush as Apartheid South Africa is simply inflammatory, and prevents you from making your real point, which is that the treatment IS unequal, and that something should be done about that. Saying "Israel has apartheid" allows Israeli apologists to simply say "no, it doesn't" and move on.
It's like Godwin's law: not all rules are fascist, not all discrimination is Apartheid.
Frazzled wrote: from Lucifers Hammer (afetr the comet hits). "freed from restraint by the major powers, their conflict would not end until they were fighting with knives."
they stole that from Einstein. filthy scumbag plagiarists!
Frazzled wrote:Or you do it the Mongol/Russian/Turkish way and just wack everyone. Every time a rocket enters Israeli space one square mile of Gaza is firebombed.
Having said that, I'm of the view of the paraphrase from Lucifers Hammer (afetr the comet hits). "freed from restraint by the major powers, their conflict would not end until they were fighting with knives."
Certainly if this was 1809, or 1859, maybe 1909, or even at a stretch 1959 the policy for Gaza would be more in balance with the way our planet is ruled.
However man has made the pretence of moving forward. We have to expect a measure of hypocrascy, in realpolitic Cicero said 'man is a political animal' I think his emphasis was on animal. The same South Africa that led a round of condemnation of Israeli policy (and incidentally was rebuffed by the US) turns a blind eye to the evils of Zanu PF.
On the other hand when western democracies provide moral (sic) support to the policies of Israel, policies that can only really be described as evil, it shows that this is not just an ordinary conflict like the hundred or so simmering around the world.
Its done with our names voiced in approval, and pronounced by a ceaseless propoganda machine of the 'Free World' as just. And that is just not on.
Frazzled wrote:For me this is just one conflict of a hundred in the world. Big deal.
You have made clear your standpoint on Israeli policy, yet been largely silent on those other conflicts. I shall not buy that you are apathetic on this issue.
Polonius wrote:I'm not sure where you've gotten your facts. I certainly can be wrong, but it seems a little weird to me to call a minority that has representation in the Kenneset, a judge on the supreme court, and every basic right "slaves." I didn't see anything about the passports.
Indeed, but you are seeing 'token Arab'. Israel is not certainly stupid, have an Israeli Arab who is moderate, allow him some leeway. after all in every minoroty there are some you want to keep. No that is not fair. There are some who rise to the top and it would be senseless let alone wrong to punish them unnecessarily.
There were such people under Apartheid too, why do you think South africa built cantonments and encouraged tribal chiefs and kings to rule pocket enclave kingdoms
Polonius wrote:As for economic imbalance, guess what? That happens everywhere. It's still not apartheid.
True but, the differences are in scale are the key. Discrimination is what you get here in Europe and America and it can go several ways. Some companies still wont hire the black man (though they have tom mask that carefully) you also get reverse discrimination nd not get a job the the police for being white and be marked down in army entrance for same reason. Thuis however is another story.
The main difference is scale and extent. If blacks in Europe had the same restrictions as Israeli arabs we would be able to see it for ourselves, it goes beyond a basic imbalance in opportunity.
One daily life example I heard, yes it is anecdotal, but also indicative of many many differences between an apartheid style state and a merely discriminatory one. Its a good example because it doesnt involve any hatred or core of hatred:
A car accident in Jerusalem, no violance involved just a car accident involving Jewish and Arab registered cars (yes car registration is segregated). Jerwish and Arab ambulances arrive (yes ambulances are segregated). The Jewish ambulance is clearly far better equipped. The local police orders the Arab ambulance crew out the way so the Jewish ambulance can extract jewish casualties as priority. The Jewish paramedica find it easier to access Jewish casualties by removing the arab ones from the wreck. So they do so. Including one with neck injuries - who as any paramedic knows should not be moved for fear of spinal injury and the arab parameics were not willing to remove.
Polonius wrote:Painting Israel with the same brush as Apartheid South Africa is simply inflammatory, and prevents you from making your real point, which is that the treatment IS unequal, and that something should be done about that.
Saying "Israel has apartheid" allows Israeli apologists to simply say "no, it doesn't" and move on.
This isn't an answer, it is just denial.
However you brush close to the defence by still relying on the standpoint that criticism is inflamation rather than information and can therefore be ignored as bigotry. This is quite unfair, I am no bigot and my comments should be answered for themselves rather than circumvented by what could be taken as an assault on my credibility.
To your credit at least you have not gone to the ultimate step of accusing repeated critics of Israel as automatically being anti-semitic. That is where things get nasty. aka 'If you speak out against Israeli policy, you are likely to be some sort of neo-Nazi, therefore we have no reason to answer you, and we discourage others not to listen to you as you are the one who is truly evil'.
This line has been used before to cover a multitude of excesses and to silence critics by fear of labelling and the resultant smear on reputation, why do you think so few US politicians (in particuolar) ever dare to speak out against anything Israel does.
2. Show me some threads on Darfur, Tamil, the potential Mexico implosion, etc. and I'll comment. Quit talkin' start postin.'
Sure. In the Third World little has changed.
However the mantra has been 'Israel is a modern democracy' the only one in the Middle East. Fine if this is the case they should behave like one. Noone should expect perfection, mistakes were made by the Spanish against ETA, by the British against the IRA, by the Germans against RedAF. But none of those bear parallels to the horrors of the African and Asian bush wars going on.
Besides you are still dodging the points raised. If you want to do that fair enough, just don't reply at all rather than try and come back at a tangent.
@ Orlanth: I think you're missing my point. I don't have the info you seem to have about the extent of segregation within Israel. If you can share that, I'd appreciate it. For example, you seem to compare the Arab MKs in Israel to the tribal chiefs in South Africa. The difference is that Arabs serve in the actual Israeli government while the Chiefs only had authority over their enclaves.
I'm not trying to deny anything. I'm simply saying that you should call things what they are. I know that under apartheid blacks were utterly without rights. I know that under Israeli law Arabs have rights. that's enough of a difference, to me at least, to make any quite connection tenuous at best. I think the Jim Crow laws in the US might be closer (and those were never as bad as Apartheid, although they came dead close).
I also want to make clear I'm not talking about the territories or any non-citizens. I'm talking about Arab-Israeli citizens.
When a big guy beats the gak out of a small guy, my sympathy is with the small guy. Maybe both sides are stupid. But the Israeli state is the guilty party, they have the power to change the situation.
We do absolutely nothing for 3 reasons.
1. Israel is a well armed and nuclear country
2. We don't give a gak about other countries if no money is involved.
3. Arabs are on the receiving end of America's latest spin the bottle ass grape campaign. Could be worse though, they at least haven't been nuked yet.
In WWII Germany was the small guy. Japan was small in comparison as well. The Mongols were a miniscule pittance in contrast to the Chinese, European, Indian, and Muslim areas they conquered. Same for the Huns.
Al Queda is tiny in comparison to the US.
Actually Germany was arguably the most powerful country in the world before World War two. Perhaps behind south africa. Certainly the most powerfull in europe.
Frazzled wrote:In WWII Germany was the small guy. Japan was small in comparison as well. The Mongols were a miniscule pittance in contrast to the Chinese, European, Indian, and Muslim areas they conquered. Same for the Huns.
Al Queda is tiny in comparison to the US.
whatwhat wrote:Actually Germany was arguably the most powerful country in the world before World War two. Perhaps behind south africa. Certainly the most powerfull in europe.
He said little guy. They were quite a bit smaller than their victims. Indeed the big Kahuna was the USSR. So does anyone feel sorry for the Germans again?
Frazzled wrote:In WWII Germany was the small guy. Japan was small in comparison as well. The Mongols were a miniscule pittance in contrast to the Chinese, European, Indian, and Muslim areas they conquered. Same for the Huns.
Al Queda is tiny in comparison to the US.
Feel sorry for them too?
Nuts.
Palestine is as powerful as Japn in ww2?
You said the small guy, not me. Sorry if you can't live with your own statement.
The french army had more and better equipment at the beginning of WWII, and even the Japanese knew they couldn't win a long term war against the United States. It's not about size, it's about leverage.
My sympathy lies with the Palestinians as well, I just think their leaders have failed them, and their campaign of terror against Israel is not how to gain my support.
namegoeshere wrote:When a big guy beats the gak out of a small guy, my sympathy is with the small guy. Maybe both sides are stupid. But the Israeli state is the guilty party, they have the power to change the situation.
Frazzled wrote:He said little guy. They were quite a bit smaller than their victims. Indeed the big Kahuna was the USSR. So does anyone feel sorry for the Germans again?
Don't think he was referring to the size of the country. And if your suggesting the USSR was the more powerfull before 1945, to be blunt, your incorrect.
Israel is more to blame for the outcome and deaths of the Jamnuary conflict than western media and authorities have been saying. Hamas is not entirely to blame for the cause, and is not responasbile for the deaths of the Pslestianian civilians killed in the retaliations.
- Essentially tit for tat killing is NOT justice.
Israeli short term goals have failed, efforts to prevent rocket attacks is not working and largely counter productive.
- Though admittedly China called for Hamas to admit defeat. Still China works on a different set of principles to those of a 'western democracy' and can and will perpetuate these policies internally.
Israeli long term goals have also likely failed. Hamas membership is growing far faster than it is being removed by all manners of attrition, the same might not be said of materiel. We cannot accurately judge if Israel has been successful in removing the infratstructure for making rocket attacks. We know at least it has not been entirely eradicated. A more likely long term goal, offer retaliation so terrible Palestianians will be too afraid to resist also likely wont work as the resolve to resist has not been lessened and has been increased by anger resentment and humiliation.
- Destruction of Palestinian business infrastructure sees to that. Over the years and recently businesses have been targetted by the bulldozer and the high explosive bomb. Some for no more reason than being in the way of clearance zones etc.
Also the workforce being forced into apparently up to three hour checkpoint queues each morning for low end underpaid jobs as guest workers Israel is a humiliation to Palestinians. Humiliation breeds resentment, resentment breeds terrorism. Admit it, you would feel angry is this was your career future: Up at five to be at the checkpoint for six to queue to get into Israel to work by nine for a Jewish company with "rich" Jewish employees, and you doing the gak job with no trade union representation, no prospects and little pay. Not every Jewish employer would treat you like dirt, but I suspect a few do, its human nature.
If this was my career future I would be resentful. Would you?
Sure we all understand why checkpoints are needed, but this doesnt make it easy for the people.
I am going to end now. I have little more to add and this is getting cyclic. Reply as you wish to this comment but ask no more questions.
Needless to say I am disgusted by what I have seen and heard done this last few months, but do know and freely admit that if Israel ever drops its guard there are many around them who would gladly puish them into the see. I am equally disturbed that I feel myself having to raise a form of defence to Islamic factions for which I have no real sympathy.
I will let God say the last word for me in his uncannily similar critique over the morality of Israel (in fact Judah) long, long ago:
Ezekiel 16 v51,52 "You have done more detestable things than they, and have made your sisters (neighbouring states) seem righteous by all the things you have done. Bear your disgrace, for you have furnished some justification for your sisters. Because your sins were more vile than theirs , they appears more righteous than you."
Again, Germany and Japan were miliatrily weaker than their opponents. After all, they lost. The Mongols never outnumbered their opponent.
Its all perspective isn't it? I'd proffer from the Israeli perspective, its not them vs. Gaza, but them vs. 1.0Bn people in the region. Sounds like they scheduled way too many opponents in the game of mideast uber pwonage.
Again, I'm all for a full and complete pullout from gaza and the West Bank, with a declaration that they are independent territories that can do what they want-stay independent, or join contiguous related countries, with massive retaliation for any attacks after that point. But peaceful co-existence is not in Hamas and Hamas' benefectors' interest.
After all, what happens if they quit fighting? Then all the psychos turn inward and attack their own countries-ala Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood.
Polonius wrote:@ Orlanth: I think you're missing my point. I don't have the info you seem to have about the extent of segregation within Israel. If you can share that, I'd appreciate it. For example, you seem to compare the Arab MKs in Israel to the tribal chiefs in South Africa. The difference is that Arabs serve in the actual Israeli government while the Chiefs only had authority over their enclaves.
I'm not trying to deny anything. I'm simply saying that you should call things what they are. I know that under apartheid blacks were utterly without rights. I know that under Israeli law Arabs have rights. that's enough of a difference, to me at least, to make any quite connection tenuous at best. I think the Jim Crow laws in the US might be closer (and those were never as bad as Apartheid, although they came dead close).
I also want to make clear I'm not talking about the territories or any non-citizens. I'm talking about Arab-Israeli citizens.
I respectfully disagree with you. But my time within this thread has come and gone, it is becoming cyclic and cyclic threads end up with threads where one or both sides do not listen, and no matter how well argued they always end up with trolling in the end, if not by us, by others.
Let us say that while I appreciate there were some differences between Israel and apartheid South africa, there were also many similarities both in Israel itself and most ceertainly regarding the West Bank and Gaza which have been defacto ruled under direct occupation by Israel since 1967. Besides I still stand by my comment that an Israeli Arab, let alone a West Bank Palestinian has far more in common with an apartheid regime political minority than an unwelcome political minority in a western democratic country today. Though I do admit there are minor differences, discrimination doesnt go far enough as a classification of the status of the society in which they exist.
Sir, I will end by saying that I choose to find nothing in your commentaries that I read as anything other than polite, well mannered and logical responces, and have not for my part replied in anger to you.
Frazzled wrote:Again, Germany and Japan were miliatrily weaker than their opponents. After all, they lost. The Mongols never outnumbered their opponent.
Well I still disagree, Germany were by f ar the more military strong in Europe at the time.
However I was just disagreeing with a statement you made to back up your point, I actually agree with your point. The politics of war is far more complicated than a school yard. The argument "pick on someone your own size" isn't really applicable when a country is looking out for each and every one of it's citizens.
Before losing, Germany and Japan managed to overrun the whole of Europe except the UK, some of North Africa, most of European Russia, chunks of eastern China, and all the western nations' asian empires including the Philippines, and they only ran out of steam near the border to India.
They then managed to keep the war going for another 3-4 years. So I don't think they were military weak or even underdogs.
Japan did not stand a chance against a unified and ticked off US. Germany was the definite underdog in the Loeuenbrau Stolichnaya World Domination Bowl.
namegoeshere wrote:
We do absolutely nothing for 3 reasons.
1. Israel is a well armed and nuclear country
2. We don't give a gak about other countries if no money is involved.
Ish. I suspect the £18,847,795 of weapons we sold them in the first three months of 2008, compared to the total sales of £ 7, 500,000 in 2007 might have something to with it as well.
....The UK was bigger than Germany ? Man, that coastal erosion must be worse than I thought.
Orlanth wrote:Anyway enough bitching about Israeli poliocy. We can complain but can we offer a solution, for one side or another.
I think we can.
Compulsory purchase.
Literally buy out the Palestinians, offer them cash for land. Not at current rates as it is not worth much. No really buy them out. Sure you have to buy them all and that means you cant give them a choice. But if the billions spent on arming Israel was used to a mass relocation with fair monetary settlement, it mighty even end up cheaper. I dont see manty downsides to this Israel wins as they get the land. palestinians sort of win as they are paid to relocate. Not into refugee camps but with money to rebuild homes and businesses. Hamas doesnt win, but that is not a problem.
The only way I see this working is if the blame finger is passed through Israel to the US as backers of Israel. Along the lines of 'you bankrolled the problem, now you can pay for a fair solution'.
Actually what I would really like is for Israel to become a protectorate of the USA, if temporarily. Same as above but Mr Palestianian now has access to due process. However this would get very expensive quickly and I dont see Jerusalem agreeing to any surrender of sovereignty however short term this is for.
It's an interesting idea, but I think you underestimate the desire of Palestinians to live on ancestral land. It's unlikely all but a minority will be happy with forced relocation, even if its well funded forced relocation. Right now there are second and third generation Palestinians living in other countries in the region that still have the keys to their homes in what is now Israel, that still dream of returning home. In most cases the houses were bulldozed fifty years ago...
Polonius wrote:As for Arab Israelis, there are some signifigant gaps between the the defacto priviliegs of Jews vs. Arabs. Access to land, money spent on education, etc. are all higher for Jews. Jews have a legal right to immigrate to Israel, while Arabs, even those related to Israeli citizens, do not. In most areas though, Arab Israelis have the same rights: speech, dissent, voting, participation in government, etc. They generally not as well off, healthy, or educated.
The Knesset recently banned Arab parties from taking place in the upcoming elections, citing disloyalty. It was overruled by the Supreme Court, but there's now other efforts in place to remove Arab parties from the electoral process.
Frazzled wrote:For me this is just one conflict of a hundred in the world. Big deal.
Except this conflict has billions of dollars in US aid being given to Israel, and that means your country has a direct input into what is happening there.
Orlanth wrote:Israeli long term goals have also likely failed. Hamas membership is growing far faster than it is being removed by all manners of attrition, the same might not be said of materiel. We cannot accurately judge if Israel has been successful in removing the infratstructure for making rocket attacks. We know at least it has not been entirely eradicated. A more likely long term goal, offer retaliation so terrible Palestianians will be too afraid to resist also likely wont work as the resolve to resist has not been lessened and has been increased by anger resentment and humiliation.
The medium term goal of turning Palestine away from Hamas is probably a failure. Israel started this policy by ramping up the quarantine on Palestine, to make the Palestinians give up and return to the corrupt but less aggressive Fatah. This led to considerable increases in the number of rocket attacks, which led to Israel pounding hell out of Palestine, and the increase in Hamas recruitment numbers. Whether this results in stronger showings for Hamas at the polls is yet unknown, but it's unlikely Palestine will relent to Israeli violence, as no country ever has. People just don't work that way.
The issue with long term Israeli goals is that they don't exist. There's no coherent end position, and hasn't been for a while now. The two state solution is offered, but Jews continue to make illegal settlements in Gaza, and Israel only sporadically stops them. Periods of tolerance are abruptly replaced with economic repression and occasional military assault.
Frazzled wrote:Again, Germany and Japan were miliatrily weaker than their opponents. After all, they lost. The Mongols never outnumbered their opponent.
Strangely, I agree with you. German victory over France and BEF was a massive upset, they routed a bigger, better armed force in a matter of weeks. While the Japanese were a lot more powerful than the Eastern British forces (once the British were committed to war with Germany) they were never any match for the industrial power of the US.
I also agree with your overall pointI just don't think any of that matters. Being smaller doesn't mean you deserve sympathy. The IRA was smaller than the British government. Al-Quada is smaller than, well, everyone they're trying to fight.
Its all perspective isn't it? I'd proffer from the Israeli perspective, its not them vs. Gaza, but them vs. 1.0Bn people in the region. Sounds like they scheduled way too many opponents in the game of mideast uber pwonage.
I'm just going to say this bluntly, your understanding of the region and its politics is dreadful. And it isn't getting any better despite the number of threads we've had on this topic. You still see this in the terms of the 1960s, with Arab countries all lined up to take out Israel, despite the number of times people have pointed out the changing political environment. Out of the region, only Iran and Syria are still aggressive towards Israel. Please stop pretending otherwise.
Again, I'm all for a full and complete pullout from gaza and the West Bank, with a declaration that they are independent territories that can do what they want-stay independent, or join contiguous related countries, with massive retaliation for any attacks after that point. But peaceful co-existence is not in Hamas and Hamas' benefectors' interest.
It's also been pointedo out on multiple occasions that Hamas' primary patron is the Saudis. Yes, those Saudis, the ones allied with the US.
After all, what happens if they quit fighting? Then all the psychos turn inward and attack their own countries-ala Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood.
That's a pretty crude description of Egyptian politics. It nicely assumes that the 'psychos' are fighting simply because they're psychotic, and not because of the hellish living conditions in Palestine that are a direct result of Israeli quarantine. Actually, Israeli and Egyptian quarantine... but then thinking Egypt and Israel working together to enforce a border plan doesn't really fit with your idea of Israel alone in a sea of barbarians, so you'd better ignore it.
Waging a war against populations because of the actions of terrorists is a terrible idea. Unless your goal is to kill people for a long time with no effect.
Spending the money on schools housing etc would have a massive effect toward the positive.
reds8n wrote:
Ish. I suspect the £18,847,795 of weapons we sold them in the first three months of 2008, compared to the total sales of £ 7, 500,000 in 2007 might have something to with it as well.
You stated Israel is the same as SA back during the apartheid but you have failed to support your claim. I have been to Israel and traveled extensively there. I have been to SA during the apartheid and ten years after. I traveled extensively through SA as well. There is nothing similar between the two. Israel has an excellent standard of living and produces top technology such as software. SA is booming now with many foreign manufactures setting up shop. Apartheid was a crime against humanity but times have changed a lot there. I felt very comfortable wherever I went and was often helped by those indigenous to the land.
G
Orlanth wrote:
Polonius wrote:I'm not sure where you've gotten your facts. I certainly can be wrong, but it seems a little weird to me to call a minority that has representation in the Kenneset, a judge on the supreme court, and every basic right "slaves." I didn't see anything about the passports.
Indeed, but you are seeing 'token Arab'. Israel is not certainly stupid, have an Israeli Arab who is moderate, allow him some leeway. after all in every minoroty there are some you want to keep. No that is not fair. There are some who rise to the top and it would be senseless let alone wrong to punish them unnecessarily.
There were such people under Apartheid too, why do you think South africa built cantonments and encouraged tribal chiefs and kings to rule pocket enclave kingdoms
Polonius wrote:As for economic imbalance, guess what? That happens everywhere. It's still not apartheid.
True but, the differences are in scale are the key. Discrimination is what you get here in Europe and America and it can go several ways. Some companies still wont hire the black man (though they have tom mask that carefully) you also get reverse discrimination nd not get a job the the police for being white and be marked down in army entrance for same reason. Thuis however is another story.
The main difference is scale and extent. If blacks in Europe had the same restrictions as Israeli arabs we would be able to see it for ourselves, it goes beyond a basic imbalance in opportunity.
One daily life example I heard, yes it is anecdotal, but also indicative of many many differences between an apartheid style state and a merely discriminatory one. Its a good example because it doesnt involve any hatred or core of hatred:
A car accident in Jerusalem, no violance involved just a car accident involving Jewish and Arab registered cars (yes car registration is segregated). Jerwish and Arab ambulances arrive (yes ambulances are segregated). The Jewish ambulance is clearly far better equipped. The local police orders the Arab ambulance crew out the way so the Jewish ambulance can extract jewish casualties as priority. The Jewish paramedica find it easier to access Jewish casualties by removing the arab ones from the wreck. So they do so. Including one with neck injuries - who as any paramedic knows should not be moved for fear of spinal injury and the arab parameics were not willing to remove.
Polonius wrote:Painting Israel with the same brush as Apartheid South Africa is simply inflammatory, and prevents you from making your real point, which is that the treatment IS unequal, and that something should be done about that.
Saying "Israel has apartheid" allows Israeli apologists to simply say "no, it doesn't" and move on.
This isn't an answer, it is just denial.
However you brush close to the defence by still relying on the standpoint that criticism is inflamation rather than information and can therefore be ignored as bigotry. This is quite unfair, I am no bigot and my comments should be answered for themselves rather than circumvented by what could be taken as an assault on my credibility.
To your credit at least you have not gone to the ultimate step of accusing repeated critics of Israel as automatically being anti-semitic. That is where things get nasty. aka 'If you speak out against Israeli policy, you are likely to be some sort of neo-Nazi, therefore we have no reason to answer you, and we discourage others not to listen to you as you are the one who is truly evil'.
This line has been used before to cover a multitude of excesses and to silence critics by fear of labelling and the resultant smear on reputation, why do you think so few US politicians (in particuolar) ever dare to speak out against anything Israel does.
You do realise whether or not a country has an excellent standard of living has nothing to do with apartheid. South africa was the wealthiest nation on earth before oil became the number 1 commodity a century or so ago. During apartheid. Just because a place looks and seems nice doesn't mean racial and religious atitudes are going to be similar.
That said I have no interest in discussing the differences between israel and SA and whether or not it is in apartheid.
Green Blow Fly wrote:I felt very comfortable wherever I went and was often helped by those indigenous to the land.
lol. Who out of interest are you describing as the indigenous people of Israel?
