OK.. so since LegoBurner said we can start a new topic and the others were locked before I had a chance to say anything. I thought I would start a new thread with a different angle.

One of the posters in the other thread made some statements about positive propaganda regarding Israel and this has lead to a "favored" status towards Israel. One of the things I didn't see mentioned was the relgious connection that many people in America feel towards Israel. We all are aware of the political connection, which dates back to the cold war, and now to the modern war on terror. That's the obvious stuff IMO. But many people that don't go to Church or understand the history behind the Jewish people and the tragedy that befell that group of people across the last 2500 years may not understand why Israel has a "special" place in the heart of Church going Americans.

I personally believe that Israel is favored by the majority of Americans because of their religious beliefs. It's not hard to understand how a group of people can pickup a Bible and see how God favored the Jews as His chosen people, and feel a kinship to them, even though Christians believe that these same Jews rejected their own God by rejecting the Messiah.(speaking in regards to non Messianic Jews).

Please keep in mind I'm speaking in terms of beliefs here, and not in terms of a moral judgment by me.

So not wanting to ramble on too long, I think it's important to remember that in the eyes of a lot of church going Americans Israel can almsot do no wrong, since they see the "Hand of God" whether right or wrong in what Israel does.

And many believe that Israel must rebuild the Temple before the 2nd coming of the Messiah, so it is in their interest that Israel succeeds.

GG

Israel was histoprically the only democracy in the region. Iraq is now the second.

generalgrog wrote: But many people that don't go to Church or understand the history behind the Jewish people and the tragedy that befell that group of people across the last 2500 years may not understand why Israel has a "special" place in the heart of Church going Americans.

Sadly, this is a common belief in America. Our schools always teach us about the horrors of the Holocaust, and how terrible it was for the Jews. That wouldn't be a bad thing in and of itself, but we don't hear anything about Stalin's purges, the genocide of the Hutus and the Tutsis, or any other oppressed people. We've educated ourselves to lack any kind of perspective even in regards to recent events. I'm no history major but I am well aware that the Jewish people wiped out many tribes and nations themselves. The Romans all but obliterated the Celts, and the Catholics destroyed almost all traces of native religions of Europe. Every culture in history has its black moments, and has suffered them in return. Even the young USA all but wiped out the Native Americans, then fought a bloody civil war.

I am at a loss to explain why the Jewish people are still afforded favored status for being the targets of genocide. They are not the only people, culture, or religious group to suffer from this over the ages, nor are they the most recent.

Until potential changes are made, this thread is ok if everyone abides by Dakka Rule #1 and doesn't fall into attacks on a particular country.

As a reminder, ranting diatribes against a country and its people, with the obvious exception of the dark realm that is Leichtenstein, generally violate this rules.

Not sure what your school taught, but we had entire sections about African civil wars, Stalin's purges, etc in high school World History here in NC.

It might be interesting to ask a Palestinian what they think of Israeli 'democracy'.

I mean, they elected Hamas - everyone else saying 'Wrong! choose again' doesn't strike me as terribly democratic.

Also, Iran has had democratically elected leaders.

Was it of the same quantity as Holocaust instruction? Every year we had at least a month dedicated to it in FL. I'm glad to hear that other states kept it in better perspective.

Gitzbitah wrote:

generalgrog wrote: But many people that don't go to Church or understand the history behind the Jewish people and the tragedy that befell that group of people across the last 2500 years may not understand why Israel has a "special" place in the heart of Church going Americans.

Sadly, this is a common belief in America. Our schools always teach us about the horrors of the Holocaust, and how terrible it was for the Jews. That wouldn't be a bad thing in and of itself, but we don't hear anything about Stalin's purges, the genocide of the Hutus and the Tutsis, or any other oppressed people. We've educated ourselves to lack any kind of perspective even in regards to recent events. I'm no history major but I am well aware that the Jewish people wiped out many tribes and nations themselves. The Romans all but obliterated the Celts, and the Catholics destroyed almost all traces of native religions of Europe. Every culture in history has its black moments, and has suffered them in return. Even the young USA all but wiped out the Native Americans, then fought a bloody civil war.

I am at a loss to explain why the Jewish people are still afforded favored status for being the targets of genocide. They are not the only people, culture, or religious group to suffer from this over the ages, nor are they the most recent.

They are the only ethnic group specifically targeted for gas chambers.
Some of those other topics are taught however, it depends upon region. I was fully versed in the Purges (not at college of course).

If we had elected Palin, the world would have decried it as the wrong choice too.

Disagreeing with the choice of elected officials does not a fascism make.

I can see that. They were certainly the target of the most efficient genocide.

Gitzbitah wrote:Was it of the same quantity as Holocaust instruction? Every year we had at least a month dedicated to it in FL. I'm glad to hear that other states kept it in better perspective.

We had a month dedicated to Mexico. In light of queso, mariachis, and fair Spanish ladies I was extremely onside with this month.

Farewell and adieu to you Fair Spanish ladies,

Gitzbitah wrote:Was it of the same quantity as Holocaust instruction? Every year we had at least a month dedicated to it in FL. I'm glad to hear that other states kept it in better perspective.

Of course it wasn't, namely due to the fact that a lot of records don't exist of the other purges.

And as for The Holocaust, it wasn't taught as just being a Jewish tragedy.

Kanluwen wrote:If we had elected Palin, the world would have decried it as the wrong choice too.

Disagreeing with the choice of elected officials does not a fascism make.

We're not really talking about a simple 'disagreement' here though, are we? We're talking assasinations and military action.

Not that I'm defending Hamas, they are terrorists and murderers.
I just don't think that it can be argued with any semblance of seriousness that Israel is a fully-functioning democracy with self-determination for all citizens.

Where were the assassinations with Hamas being elected?

Oh right, there weren't any.

Military action was stepped up, sure. But when the people who've been launching rockets at you suddenly become a "legitimate" government, you'd start stepping up military actions too.

Gitzbitah wrote:I am at a loss to explain why the Jewish people are still afforded favored status for being the targets of genocide. They are not the only people, culture, or religious group to suffer from this over the ages, nor are they the most recent.

Apart from the religious kinship, I think there is a sort of a "Big Brother Hero" syndrome as well. (Not Orwellian) A lot of people are proud of the fact that America had a part in rescuing the Jews from European anihilation, so they can identify them selves as heros or relatives of those heros.

GG

Frazzled wrote:Israel was histoprically the only democracy in the region. Iraq is now the second.

Why did that make me think of this?

sA

I'd be interested to know what the average American knows about the situation in the area though.

I get the religious kinship thing, there was something similar when the IRA was bombing Britain and Folks in the States backed them. I remember seeing a program with Louis Theroux in around 2000, where a gathering in NY to raise funds for the IRA was occuring and people he chatted to where ignoring the bombing side they where funding. Then of course 9/11 happened and they saw it up close and personal, the money dripped away.

Okay with NI that was also tied in with strides towards an actual peaceful resolution that took hold because the people had finally had enough.

Going back to my question however, I struggle to see where the sympathy comes from when you see stuff about the forced evictions upon arrival, the lands being taken and many other things that have occured there since Israel returned to prominence. Is it the same as the IRA situation, folks just ignore the bad stuff?

I personally struggle with the whole situation, as regardless of anything else I see it in a odd light. In sense of how does that happen in the first place.

Yes the Jewish people had a Historical tie to tha land, but the English have one to Britanny. Hell Spain, France and England could claim rights to the US, they wouldn't, but going on the reason Israel was created they could.

Thats where my confusion on the area comes from. Obviously you can't rewrite time and change how things occured, but I look at what has happened from both sides, and I really can't see where a peaceful resolution could come from.

Too much bad blood sadly.

Kanluwen wrote:Where were the assassinations with Hamas being elected?

Oh right, there weren't any.

Military action was stepped up, sure. But when the people who've been launching rockets at you suddenly become a "legitimate" government, you'd start stepping up military actions too.

So sending assasins to a third country, using passports from england etc, is just normal military action.

loki old fart wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Where were the assassinations with Hamas being elected?

Oh right, there weren't any.

Military action was stepped up, sure. But when the people who've been launching rockets at you suddenly become a "legitimate" government, you'd start stepping up military actions too.

So sending assasins to a third country, using passports from england etc, is just normal military action.

I would suggest it is no different to anything that Western democracies have done in the past. I'm by no means a conspiracy theorist, but you are fooling yourself if you think that state sponsored assassination doesn't occur; take the example of Alexsander Lebedev. The only difference being that Israel got caught with it's pants down in this case.

That wasn't done in response to Hamas being elected.

Frazzled wrote:Israel was histoprically the only democracy in the region. Iraq is now the second.

More accurately, except for the Suez Canal Crisis Israel has been a key US ally in the region for decades because other regional powers were British-aligned (Jordan) or were lost to Soviet alignment (Syria, Egypt).

The Shah’s Iran, once a US ally was lost to the Ayatollah. Note that Iran, Jordan and Egypt are all democracies, with deep flaws of course.

Saudi Arabia is another key regional US ally despite being completely undemocratic with a lamentable human rights record.

In short it’s nothing to do with supporting democracy. The US simply knows which side its geopolitical bread is buttered.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
And I don't pick on the US for that, it's the same game the British Empire played for 100s of years.

Frazzled wrote:
They are the only ethnic group specifically targeted for gas chambers.
Some of those other topics are taught however, it depends upon region. I was fully versed in the Purges (not at college of course).

I should note that's not actually true... the Roma people were also specifically targeted for the final solution, but because they are perceived negatively to this day no one talks about them. The high estimates are 1.5 million Roma dead the low at 250,000 is still a huge number

edit to correct quote string

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/06/how-free-explains-israels-flotilla-fiasco/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+WiredDangerRoom+%28Blog+-+Danger+Room%29

This was a very interesting read about the whole situation.

I fully support Israel.

They are too heavy handed and its no way to win a war, but its not my place to tell them otherwise.

I dont think they would get very far giving out candy canes though either.

The issue will never be sorted out, both sides argue with the fevour of the religiously indoctrinated and brainwash their children to hate from birth. This means there will always be war out there, i just dont see how "peace" is achieveable.

Now i just hope they dont wipe the rest of the world out when the big guns start shooting!

Frazzled wrote:

Gitzbitah wrote:

generalgrog wrote: But many people that don't go to Church or understand the history behind the Jewish people and the tragedy that befell that group of people across the last 2500 years may not understand why Israel has a "special" place in the heart of Church going Americans.

Sadly, this is a common belief in America. Our schools always teach us about the horrors of the Holocaust, and how terrible it was for the Jews. That wouldn't be a bad thing in and of itself, but we don't hear anything about Stalin's purges, the genocide of the Hutus and the Tutsis, or any other oppressed people. We've educated ourselves to lack any kind of perspective even in regards to recent events. I'm no history major but I am well aware that the Jewish people wiped out many tribes and nations themselves. The Romans all but obliterated the Celts, and the Catholics destroyed almost all traces of native religions of Europe. Every culture in history has its black moments, and has suffered them in return. Even the young USA all but wiped out the Native Americans, then fought a bloody civil war.

I am at a loss to explain why the Jewish people are still afforded favored status for being the targets of genocide. They are not the only people, culture, or religious group to suffer from this over the ages, nor are they the most recent.

They are the only ethnic group specifically targeted for gas chambers.
Some of those other topics are taught however, it depends upon region. I was fully versed in the Purges (not at college of course).

I think the Gypsies were specifically targeted as well because of their ethnicity ( as opposed to religion or politics), but not in the same numbers.

While we learned about all manner of nasty genocidal incidents, I believe that the holocaust is one of the few genocides carried out with the full economic and political might of a nation, and was highly automated. I do think that in some ways Stalin's purges were similar, and while more "egalitarian" than the holocaust, targeted jews because of their ethnicity, and less attention is paid to that because, I feel, they won the war and were our allies.

None of this has anything to do with the State of Israel. While I certainly appreciate the idea of having Israel as a strong ally in the Middle East, I do not believe we should turn a blind eye to some nasty things the state of Israel has done simply because we're allies with a cultural connection.

And many believe that Israel must rebuild the Temple before the 2nd coming of the Messiah, so it is in their interest that Israel succeeds.

I would think that would be a good reason for them NOT to succeed.

Ironhide wrote:

And many believe that Israel must rebuild the Temple before the 2nd coming of the Messiah, so it is in their interest that Israel succeeds.

I would think that would be a good reason for them NOT to succeed.

I don't think decisions on the national level are being made based on that.

Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:I get the religious kinship thing, there was something similar when the IRA was bombing Britain and Folks in the States backed them. I remember seeing a program with Louis Theroux in around 2000, where a gathering in NY to raise funds for the IRA was occuring and people he chatted to where ignoring the bombing side they where funding. Then of course 9/11 happened and they saw it up close and personal, the money dripped away.

"editted out sentence that doesn't apply to my response"

Going back to my question however, I struggle to see where the sympathy comes from when you see stuff about the forced evictions upon arrival, the lands being taken and many other things that have occured there since Israel returned to prominence. Is it the same as the IRA situation, folks just ignore the bad stuff?

The American kinship with the Irish goes much deeper than any psuedo religious Tie-in. It goes to a feeling of shared struggle and rooting for the oppressed underdog. The U.S. has a fairly large Irish population that that are descended from immigrants that came to these shores:

1) as indentured servants after being thrown into debtors prison due to one-side lending practices
2) after having had their land stolen by English gentry with support of the Crown
3) some came during the flight of Wild Geese
4) Some fled in order to avoid prosecution
5) During the Potato Famine(often consider a direct result of british discrimination by way of the penal laws)
6) For any number of other valid reasons from a long list

Then compound these past issues with the problem of unchecked protestant instigation and aggression throughout the majority of the 20th century and you end up with americans feeling that the Irish are the oppressed underdogs.

Many Americans connect any perceived underdog's struggle for independence as to having a corollary relation to the U.S.'s revolutionary war. As such, there is the tendency to view the "bad stuff" as just the costs of war.

I think this is likely to also be as much of a reason for U.S.'s support of Israel as the Psuedo-religious aspect.


Of course, this all ignores a Jewish dominated media working in concert with Jewish lobbyist and the ADL to suppress any american dissent concerning Israel's actions.

I'm going to be really pissed if there is any Jew-bashing here. That just proves your an inbred dumbass.

----------------

Israel is one of the only countries that is democratic, and it has nuclear weapons. If israel was attacked, they very well could nuke the country attacking them. That is the main reason.

@Karon-No Jew bashing. If the Jewish population in this country were organised enough to actually control Israels public image it would be more of a compliment.

mattyrm wrote:I fully support Israel.

They are too heavy handed and its no way to win a war, but its not my place to tell them otherwise.

The issue will never be sorted out, both sides argue with the fevour of the religiously indoctrinated and brainwash their children to hate from birth. This means there will always be war out there, i just dont see how "peace" is achieveable.

I don't fully support Isreal because they don't seem to want peace. I support their right to statehood, but I think that unless they want to remain at war (forever) I think they need to adjust their approach considerably.

loki old fart wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Where were the assassinations with Hamas being elected?

Oh right, there weren't any.

Military action was stepped up, sure. But when the people who've been launching rockets at you suddenly become a "legitimate" government, you'd start stepping up military actions too.

So sending assasins to a third country, using passports from england etc, is just normal military action.

Wait you live in the land of MI5 and MI6 and you ask that question?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:

The Shah’s Iran, once a US ally was lost to the Ayatollah. Note that Iran, Jordan and Egypt are all democracies, with deep flaws of course.

Iran was a democracy with the candidates chosen by the mullahs. Its purely a dictatorship at this point with opponents imprisoned or killed.
Egypt is a dictatorship supported by the military.
Jordan is a constitutional monarchy with the King having actual power.

The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is a constitutional monarchy with representative government. The reigning monarch is the head of state, the chief executive and the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. The king exercises his executive authority through the prime minister and the Council of Ministers, or cabinet. The cabinet, meanwhile, is responsible before the elected House of Deputies which, along with the House of Notables (Senate), constitutes the legislative branch of the government. The judicial branch is an independent branch of the government
And I don't pick on the US for that, it's the same game the British Empire played for 100s of years.

Frazzled wrote:
Iran was a democracy with the candidates chosen by the mullahs. Its purely a dictatorship at this point with opponents imprisoned or killed.
Egypt is a dictatorship supported by the military.
Jordan is a constitutional monarchy with the King having actual power.

The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is a constitutional monarchy with representative government. The reigning monarch is the head of state, the chief executive and the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. The king exercises his executive authority through the prime minister and the Council of Ministers, or cabinet. The cabinet, meanwhile, is responsible before the elected House of Deputies which, along with the House of Notables (Senate), constitutes the legislative branch of the government. The judicial branch is an independent branch of the government

A constitutional monarchy is a form of democratic government the same was a republic is a form of democratic government.

Stormrider wrote:
This was no Peaceful ship either, the people on board were not mere demonstrators.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBmjtJ0r93s

Yes they were, that is what demonstrators do. Fear and anger bring about such responces, honest soldiery are taught to take this without reacting badly in turn. Look how Basra was handled relatively small number of soldiers can stem an angry crowd without resorting to shooting. It takes special training to not react with firepowerwhen put under this sort of pressure. Trained soldiers can and should restrain from opening fire.

The Israelis have the training, but not the mentality opened fire and killed and wounded so many because they had a total contempt for those they were facing. They are by their own admission willing to shoot to kill if stones were thrown at them in the occupied territories.

Stormrider wrote:
Israel isn't a a signer of the UNCLOS Treaty so they can kind of do what they want with regards to blockades.

This law applies whether a nation is a signatory of the UNCLOS or not. It also irrelevant because Turkey is a signatory and the ships were Turkish registered, as soon as you board them by international law Turkish law takes precedence.
These are lame excuses to try asnsd patch an unforgivable act of agression, Israel could at least have waited until the flotilla had violated their own borders, that would at least have been legal. But again this is a matter of contempt for any person otyher than their own characteristic of Israeli policy and attitudes.

Stormrider wrote:
It also depends on how far they decided what their territorial waters are and what they are recognized as by other countries.

No nation can claim more than 12 miles.

It should be noted: If the demonstrator guys on the boat were prepared for a fight (As some people say), they were definitely not prepared to win or make any real mark. Otherwise, they would have brought guns.

Orlanth wrote:

Stormrider wrote:
This was no Peaceful ship either, the people on board were not mere demonstrators.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBmjtJ0r93s

Yes they were, that is what demonstrators do. Fear and anger bring about such responces, honest soldiery are taught to take this without reacting badly in turn. Look how Basra was handled relatively small number of soldiers can stem an angry crowd without resorting to shooting. It takes special training to not react with firepowerwhen put under this sort of pressure. Trained soldiers can and should restrain from opening fire.

The Israelis have the training, but not the mentality opened fire and killed and wounded so many because they had a total contempt for those they were facing. They are by their own admission willing to shoot to kill if stones were thrown at them in the occupied territories.

Stormrider wrote:
Israel isn't a a signer of the UNCLOS Treaty so they can kind of do what they want with regards to blockades.

This law applies whether a nation is a signatory of the UNCLOS or not. It also irrelevant because Turkey is a signatory and the ships were Turkish registered, as soon as you board them by international law Turkish law takes precedence.
These are lame excuses to try asnsd patch an unforgivable act of agression, Israel could at least have waited until the flotilla had violated their own borders, that would at least have been legal. But again this is a matter of contempt for any person otyher than their own characteristic of Israeli policy and attitudes.

Stormrider wrote:
It also depends on how far they decided what their territorial waters are and what they are recognized as by other countries.

No nation can claim more than 12 miles.

Really? Beating soldiers with conduit and shooting them with marbles isn't peaceful. Considering they went with paintball guns with pepper projectiles meant they really were trying to go peacefully, then you see in the thermal camera that the Soldiers were swarmed as they came aboard, and savagely beaten, I call BS on the peace affair. I am really starting to get the idea that this was a set up.

I wouldn't take getting beaten very long before I drew my sidearm to defend my life.

Stormrider wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

Stormrider wrote:
This was no Peaceful ship either, the people on board were not mere demonstrators.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBmjtJ0r93s

Yes they were, that is what demonstrators do. Fear and anger bring about such responces, honest soldiery are taught to take this without reacting badly in turn. Look how Basra was handled relatively small number of soldiers can stem an angry crowd without resorting to shooting. It takes special training to not react with firepowerwhen put under this sort of pressure. Trained soldiers can and should restrain from opening fire.

The Israelis have the training, but not the mentality opened fire and killed and wounded so many because they had a total contempt for those they were facing. They are by their own admission willing to shoot to kill if stones were thrown at them in the occupied territories.

Stormrider wrote:
Israel isn't a a signer of the UNCLOS Treaty so they can kind of do what they want with regards to blockades.

This law applies whether a nation is a signatory of the UNCLOS or not. It also irrelevant because Turkey is a signatory and the ships were Turkish registered, as soon as you board them by international law Turkish law takes precedence.
These are lame excuses to try asnsd patch an unforgivable act of agression, Israel could at least have waited until the flotilla had violated their own borders, that would at least have been legal. But again this is a matter of contempt for any person otyher than their own characteristic of Israeli policy and attitudes.

Stormrider wrote:
It also depends on how far they decided what their territorial waters are and what they are recognized as by other countries.

No nation can claim more than 12 miles.

Really? Beating soldiers with conduit and shooting them with marbles isn't peaceful. Considering they went with paintball guns with pepper projectiles meant they really were trying to go peacefully, then you see in the thermal camera that the Soldiers were swarmed as they came aboard, and savagely beaten, I call BS on the peace affair. I am really starting to get the idea that this was a set up.

I wouldn't take getting beaten very long before I drew my sidearm to defend my life.

When would you have questioned your commander about being dropped during the night onto a ship full of angry turkish civilians who can see you and are in international waters?

ShumaGorath wrote:

Stormrider wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

Stormrider wrote:
This was no Peaceful ship either, the people on board were not mere demonstrators.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBmjtJ0r93s

Yes they were, that is what demonstrators do. Fear and anger bring about such responces, honest soldiery are taught to take this without reacting badly in turn. Look how Basra was handled relatively small number of soldiers can stem an angry crowd without resorting to shooting. It takes special training to not react with firepowerwhen put under this sort of pressure. Trained soldiers can and should restrain from opening fire.

The Israelis have the training, but not the mentality opened fire and killed and wounded so many because they had a total contempt for those they were facing. They are by their own admission willing to shoot to kill if stones were thrown at them in the occupied territories.

Stormrider wrote:
Israel isn't a a signer of the UNCLOS Treaty so they can kind of do what they want with regards to blockades.

This law applies whether a nation is a signatory of the UNCLOS or not. It also irrelevant because Turkey is a signatory and the ships were Turkish registered, as soon as you board them by international law Turkish law takes precedence.
These are lame excuses to try asnsd patch an unforgivable act of agression, Israel could at least have waited until the flotilla had violated their own borders, that would at least have been legal. But again this is a matter of contempt for any person otyher than their own characteristic of Israeli policy and attitudes.

Stormrider wrote:
It also depends on how far they decided what their territorial waters are and what they are recognized as by other countries.

No nation can claim more than 12 miles.

Really? Beating soldiers with conduit and shooting them with marbles isn't peaceful. Considering they went with paintball guns with pepper projectiles meant they really were trying to go peacefully, then you see in the thermal camera that the Soldiers were swarmed as they came aboard, and savagely beaten, I call BS on the peace affair. I am really starting to get the idea that this was a set up.

I wouldn't take getting beaten very long before I drew my sidearm to defend my life.

When would you have questioned your commander about being dropped during the night onto a ship full of angry turkish civilians who can see you and are in international waters?

Questioning a commander's orders is not part of a soldier's protocol. Right or wrong, it's a court-martial worthy offense to disobey an order.

Stormrider wrote:Really? Beating soldiers with conduit and shooting them with marbles isn't peaceful. Considering they went with paintball guns with pepper projectiles meant they really were trying to go peacefully, then you see in the thermal camera that the Soldiers were swarmed as they came aboard, and savagely beaten, I call BS on the peace affair. I am really starting to get the idea that this was a set up.

I wouldn't take getting beaten very long before I drew my sidearm to defend my life.

Your being silly.

Orlanth's point was that they WERE demonstrators, as well as being an aid-flotilla. Considering marbles were used... and not bullets, I honestly don't follow your what your trying to say. I think you are calling the demonstrators non-peaceful, then referring to slingshots as weapons of mass destruction... or something along those lines. I don't recall Isreal being required to fastrope commandos onto the vessel. They took action, and the demonstrators reacted... IMO, appropriately.

Honestly though, why is so obviously okay for Israel to commit such acts? Would it be okay if the flotilla was boarded right after leaving European waters? The second they enter international waters, BOARDED. BAM. What is the difference here? Seriously.

Wrexasaur wrote:

Stormrider wrote:Really? Beating soldiers with conduit and shooting them with marbles isn't peaceful. Considering they went with paintball guns with pepper projectiles meant they really were trying to go peacefully, then you see in the thermal camera that the Soldiers were swarmed as they came aboard, and savagely beaten, I call BS on the peace affair. I am really starting to get the idea that this was a set up.

I wouldn't take getting beaten very long before I drew my sidearm to defend my life.

Your being silly.

Orlanth's point was that they WERE demonstrators, as well as being an aid-flotilla. Considering marbles were used... and not bullets, I honestly don't follow your what your trying to say. I think you are calling the demonstrators non-peaceful, then referring to slingshots as weapons of mass destruction... or something along those lines.

I never said anything about WMD, and a slingshot is a dangerous weapon at short range. You hit someone in the head, you can kill them. They did find some PNV's on board, were those for relief aid of Gaza?

Stormrider wrote:I never said anything about WMD, and a slingshot is a dangerous weapon at short range. You hit someone in the head, you can kill them. They did find some PNV's on board, were those for relief aid of Gaza?

Wait... Pre-natal vitamins? What does PNV stand for? ABCD...EFG

I dunno man, I can't really take you that seriously. It is also dangerous to drop commandos directly into an angry mob of demonstrators.

What should have been the response after they refused alternate ports and Isreal transporting the humanitarian supplies to Gaza. Run the blockade at your own peril.

Wrexasaur wrote:

Stormrider wrote:I never said anything about WMD, and a slingshot is a dangerous weapon at short range. You hit someone in the head, you can kill them. They did find some PNV's on board, were those for relief aid of Gaza?

Wait... Pre-natal vitamins? What does PNV stand for? ABCD...EFG

I dunno man, I can't really take you that seriously. It is also dangerous to drop commandos directly into an angry mob of demonstrators.

Personal Night Vision systems (i.e. Night Vision for soldiers).

Fine don't take me seriously, I really don't care either way.

Merchant ships often carry night vision systems, for obvious reasons.

generalgrog wrote:One of the posters in the other thread made some statements about positive propaganda regarding Israel and this has lead to a "favored" status towards Israel. One of the things I didn't see mentioned was the relgious connection that many people in America feel towards Israel.

Funnily enough there’s actually a decently sized Christian population in Palestine, about 10%.

We all are aware of the political connection, which dates back to the cold war, and now to the modern war on terror. That's the obvious stuff IMO. But many people that don't go to Church or understand the history behind the Jewish people and the tragedy that befell that group of people across the last 2500 years may not understand why Israel has a "special" place in the heart of Church going Americans.

The narrative is very powerful, and I think it explains most of the popular support for Israel. Once Israel has that popular support, it becomes much easier for lobby groups to influence US government decisions.

Of course, while the narrative is true and very powerful, it doesn’t leads to a serious misunderstanding of the situation going on in Palestine right now. Right now the people there trapped in ghettoes, prevented from building industry or sustaining themselves, suffering frequent abuse from soldiers.

I personally believe that Israel is favored by the majority of Americans because of their religious beliefs. It's not hard to understand how a group of people can pickup a Bible and see how God favored the Jews as His chosen people, and feel a kinship to them, even though Christians believe that these same Jews rejected their own God by rejecting the Messiah.(speaking in regards to non Messianic Jews).

This probably plays a part. It’s a shame, really, I’d have thought a reading of the bible would encourage people to be kind to the poor and the downtrodden, which the Palestinians obviously are.

And many believe that Israel must rebuild the Temple before the 2nd coming of the Messiah, so it is in their interest that Israel succeeds.

Do you think this really plays a big part in US belief towards Israel? The more I think about it the more it seems like an easy way to discredit US support for Israel. Not that I think much of US support for Israel, but that’s always seemed a bit much to me.

Frazzled wrote:Israel was histoprically the only democracy in the region. Iraq is now the second.

You forgot Turkey and Lebanon. An argument could also be made for Jordan (the king holds genuine power so it isn’t a complete democracy, but even if he was elected everyone would totally vote for the king and queen anyway. Have you seen the queen? Goddamn.)

It’s also a very strange value to suddenly find when you look Iran, and what the US did when their democracy voted for a government they didn’t like.

Albatross wrote:It might be interesting to ask a Palestinian what they think of Israeli 'democracy'.

I mean, they elected Hamas - everyone else saying 'Wrong! choose again' doesn't strike me as terribly democratic.

Good point. Ignoring democracy when it’s used to pick leader the US doesn’t like is fairly traditional, though.

Also, Iran has had democratically elected leaders.

Most power rests with the clerics, so it couldn’t really be considered a democracy. This is probably a good thing though, considering the President.

Of course, Iran was a democracy. Then they voted for a leftie government, so the US organised a coup to put the Shah into power. Yay for democracies the US approves of!

Frazzled wrote:They are the only ethnic group specifically targeted for gas chambers.

What about the Romani and the Poles?

Gitzbitah wrote:I can see that. They were certainly the target of the most efficient genocide.

It’s an interesting thing, this idea that the holocaust was targeted exclusively at the Jews. It’s quite wrong.

Karon wrote:Israel is one of the only countries that is democratic, and it has nuclear weapons. If israel was attacked, they very well could nuke the country attacking them. That is the main reason.

Except the idea of Israel facing any kind of existential threat has been completely ridiculous since the late 70s. We really need to stop pretending otherwise.

isthatmycow wrote:Why did the Gazans Elect Hamas? Well, Years of blockade, people are hungry, there is little electricity, childmalnutrtion, simply put: the Gazans are sick, they are tired. they want their suffering to end. My guess is, Hamas promised them that. And they elected the party that tey hoped would save them. They're desperate.

Well, there’s also the issue of the former government being incredibly corrupt. Much of the support for Hamas came from revelations about PLO corruption in the lead up to the election.

mattyrm wrote:To me the Israelis seem to me to make the most concessions of the two sides, so im on their team.

Then you should try reading. At this point the negotiations basically consist of getting Israel to recognise the agreements they made in the 1970s.

The Israelis actually attempt to somehow follow the rules of law, loosely ill admit, but they do. They have a proper democracy, they have gay rights. I just dont see how they look like they are "super evil" in the face of such overwhelming aggression.

Because they’re settling someone else’s land. Because the blockade is dedicated to preventing Palestine developing a working economy. Because they’re killing a thousand odd Palestinians a year, and tens of thousands more are dying due to poor health services.

Huffy wrote:The way I see the whole situation is that both sides are absolutely crazy.....but I do understand why Israel does what it does, very few countries are ever faced with the complete annihilation of their entire cultural Identity recently....well even from their founding as a nation(I know Hitler and Stalin tried to and succeed in doing it)

Yeah, this idea really needs to die. It is not possible to make a sensible comment on modern political issues when your reading on the subject stopped in the 1970s.

Israel is not under thread of annihilation. No country in the region is capable of it, economically, politically, or militarily.

Also another way to look at it is if the Canadians were firing missiles into Detroit....I think the USA would respond

What if the US kept a constant quarantine on Detroit, and strictly controlled the development of any industry in Detroit. The list of banned goods included canned food, seeds and tractors.

What would you expect Detroit to do in response?

Stormrider wrote:Personal Night Vision systems (i.e. Night Vision for soldiers).

Fine don't take me seriously, I really don't care either way.

I think if I was to arm myself for combat, I’d probably take a gun before night vision goggles and slingshots.

You can argue that given the dangerous situation the soldiers found themselves in they were right to shoot. I’d agree. But arguing that the people on the boat were armed for conflict is very silly. If they were armed for conflict they would have been capable of defeating soldiers they outnumbered ten to one rappelling onto the deck.

And that wouldn't serve for good publicity for them at all, now would it?

The Palestinians and the organizations associated with the Palestinian Liberation movements tend towards being very media savvy. Even the slightest hint of them assaulting soldiers with deadly force would have been a big sympathy point in the Israelis' favor.

Not bringing cases of weapons on an aid-flotilla, with goals of demonstrating against the blockade on Gaza, isn't 'media saavy'; it's freaking obvious.

I won't say that you are attempting to follow a warped narrative, but it could be perceived that way.

Kanluwen wrote:And that wouldn't serve for good publicity for them at all, now would it?

The Palestinians and the organizations associated with the Palestinian Liberation movements tend towards being very media savvy. Even the slightest hint of them assaulting soldiers with deadly force would have been a big sympathy point in the Israelis' favor.

You honestly think the Palestinian organisations are as media savvy as their Israeli equivalents? Seriously?


And you think there was a plan consisting of floating towards the blockade, so the Israelis would rappel onto the boats while still in international waters, hoping the Israelis would deploy too few troops so that they could only keep order through lethal force?

I agree this was largely a media stunt. Look at the Israeli blockade stopping us from getting supplies into Palestine. Look at the types of things that are banned, like live animals. Look at how Israel is forcing the Palestinian people to live.

Then an Israeli officer made a poor call, initiated a silly operation, and people are dead. That doesn't reflect on Israel - you can officers making bad mistakes without condemning a whole country. But the initial point should not be lost - the blockade at present is horrible, and has little to do with stopping terrorism.

Italy and Cyprus both flat-out from the get-go stated that they wanted no part of this due to "it being an intentionally antagonistic media stunt".

The Israelis, for their part, also announced their intentions of doing nothing but using non-lethal measures and sending the protesters packing if they cooperated with the authorities, or prison time if they didn't.

Stormrider wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

Stormrider wrote:
This was no Peaceful ship either, the people on board were not mere demonstrators.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBmjtJ0r93s

Yes they were, that is what demonstrators do. Fear and anger bring about such responces, honest soldiery are taught to take this without reacting badly in turn. Look how Basra was handled relatively small number of soldiers can stem an angry crowd without resorting to shooting. It takes special training to not react with firepowerwhen put under this sort of pressure. Trained soldiers can and should restrain from opening fire.

The Israelis have the training, but not the mentality opened fire and killed and wounded so many because they had a total contempt for those they were facing. They are by their own admission willing to shoot to kill if stones were thrown at them in the occupied territories.

Stormrider wrote:
Israel isn't a a signer of the UNCLOS Treaty so they can kind of do what they want with regards to blockades.

This law applies whether a nation is a signatory of the UNCLOS or not. It also irrelevant because Turkey is a signatory and the ships were Turkish registered, as soon as you board them by international law Turkish law takes precedence.
These are lame excuses to try asnsd patch an unforgivable act of agression, Israel could at least have waited until the flotilla had violated their own borders, that would at least have been legal. But again this is a matter of contempt for any person otyher than their own characteristic of Israeli policy and attitudes.

Stormrider wrote:
It also depends on how far they decided what their territorial waters are and what they are recognized as by other countries.

No nation can claim more than 12 miles.

Really? Beating soldiers with conduit and shooting them with marbles isn't peaceful. Considering they went with paintball guns with pepper projectiles meant they really were trying to go peacefully, then you see in the thermal camera that the Soldiers were swarmed as they came aboard, and savagely beaten, I call BS on the peace affair. I am really starting to get the idea that this was a set up.

I wouldn't take getting beaten very long before I drew my sidearm to defend my life.

You are such a fan of gun carrying yet when a ship out at sea is illegally boarded by armed soldiers -- pirates in effect -- the crew and passengers defending themselves without guns are violent criminals?

By the same reasoning, if someone comes into your house at night and you hit them, them can with justice shoot you.

Kanluwen wrote:Italy and Cyprus both flat-out from the get-go stated that they wanted no part of this due to "it being an intentionally antagonistic media stunt".

The Israelis, for their part, also announced their intentions of doing nothing but using non-lethal measures and sending the protesters packing if they cooperated with the authorities, or prison time if they didn't.

Which is fine. As time has shown again and again, peaceful intentions don’t mean much when the plan is stupid. The result is some dead people.

Whatever, hundreds more will die in the next few months as a result of the blockade, and it won’t make the media. Do you agree with the current Israeli blockade restriction on fishing rods and nets? What about canned goods? Live animals? Fruit juice? Newspapers?

sebster wrote:Do you agree with the current Israeli blockade restriction on fishing rods and nets?

The ability to breed mutant fish, that are capable of acting as torpedoes.

What about canned goods?

Too much salt is bad for you.

Live animals?

Fertilizer, I won't say any more, because it would make me a terrorist.

Fruit juice?

Muslims can't drink alcohol, you silly bugger! But yeah... it is to stop them from drinking moonshine.

Newspapers?

Dude... paper air-plane attacks... dropping mustard gas, and raping our villages for good measure.

I considered you a gentleman and a scholar... until now, sebster!

Canned goods, live animals, and fruit juice are all things that have to be inspected by Customs Agencies anyways.

That point is kinda moot, since any aid agency worth the name wouldn't be providing ridiculous things like live animals to begin with.

Fishing rods and nets make a kind of sense since a common tactic of the Viet Cong was to send boats packed with explosives below decks disguised as fishing trawlers out into the midst of crowded waterways and detonate them when they needed to sow as much confusion as possible at any given moment to allow arms shipments or troop movements to get through unchallenged.

Kanluwen wrote:Canned goods, live animals, and fruit juice are all things that have to be inspected by Customs Agencies anyways.

My can of dole pineapple slices... IS A BOMB?! OMG! They don't ban the transport of those goods though... so, moving along.

That point is kinda moot, since any aid agency worth the name wouldn't be providing ridiculous things like live animals to begin with.

Or anything else that could make Gaza self sustaining, for that matter!

Seriously, what?

Fishing rods and nets make a kind of sense since a common tactic of the Viet Cong was to send boats packed with explosives below decks disguised as fishing trawlers out into the midst of crowded waterways and detonate them when they needed to sow as much confusion as possible at any given moment to allow arms shipments or troop movements to get through unchallenged.

Sure... unless Israel blocks tiny fishing boats from doing anything. The movement of a ship is measured in knots, which are usually well within uninspiring speeds, when considering a fishing boat. I fail to see a convincing link between the situation in nixon-era Vietnam, and the situation in Gaza. Contextually appropriate, maybe.

Kanluwen wrote:Canned goods, live animals, and fruit juice are all things that have to be inspected by Customs Agencies anyways.

That point is kinda moot, since any aid agency worth the name wouldn't be providing ridiculous things like live animals to begin with.

Fishing rods and nets make a kind of sense since a common tactic of the Viet Cong was to send boats packed with explosives below decks disguised as fishing trawlers out into the midst of crowded waterways and detonate them when they needed to sow as much confusion as possible at any given moment to allow arms shipments or troop movements to get through unchallenged.

That's nonsense. It isn't a list of goods to be inspected, it is a list of goods that are not allowed at all. You cannot get canned goods in Palestine. Frozen meat is allowed, but given the constant power outages it's never going to last. The effect of this policy is that it is impossible to keep more than few days food stockpiled.

Aid agencies provide live animals all the time to aid in economic recovery. Live animals are really very important to farming.

Banning fishing nets to stop suicide boats is very silly. This could be managed by informing vessels they are not allowed with 50 or 100m of an IDF vessel. Banning the goods needed for any and all fishing, including fishing from the shore, is a very silly way of going about this. Of course, Israel produces a surplus of fresh and frozen fish, much of which is sold to Palestine... the companies selling that food often include former generals who controlled the border with Palestine...

Banning fishing nets to stop suicide boats is very silly. This could be managed by informing vessels they are not allowed with 50 or 100m of an IDF vessel. Banning the goods needed for any and all fishing, including fishing from the shore, is a very silly way of going about this. Of course, Israel produces a surplus of fresh and frozen fish, much of which is sold to Palestine... the companies selling that food often include former generals who controlled the border with Palestine...

I wonder if the Earth is round... Wait...

Are you telling me that Israel favors it's business interests, over those of Palestine?

Shocking.

Wrexasaur wrote:I wonder if the Earth is round... Wait...

Are you telling me that Israel favors it's business interests, over those of Palestine?

Shocking.

Are you criticising Israel? That's anti-semitic!

WALT DISNEY IS A NAZI!




/Tourette

sebster wrote:
Most power rests with the clerics, so it couldn’t really be considered a democracy. This is probably a good thing though, considering the President.

Most power rests with the Guardian Council, which is not necessarily made up of clerics





Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
A country that requires a coup every decade is not a democracy. ANNNH do not pass Go do not collect $200.

Just because this irritates me: there have been 4 military 'coups' in Turkish history. I parenthesize those because the Turkish Constitution defines the military as that force which willl defend the secular values of the Constitution. Calling out the Turkish process as one which is based on 'coups' is to call out the American process as one which is based on insurrections.

But hey, the classic democracy is America, and it has always had universal suffrage, right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Israel was histoprically the only democracy in the region. Iraq is now the second.

You forgot Turkey and Lebanon. An argument could also be made for Jordan (the king holds genuine power so it isn’t a complete democracy, but even if he was elected everyone would totally vote for the king and queen anyway. Have you seen the queen? Goddamn.)

It’s also a very strange value to suddenly find when you look Iran, and what the US did when their democracy voted for a government they didn’t like.

Even more ridiculous: Iraq is a democracy while Turkey is not? What?

What? Who says that?

I have an answer for that question, but I would be banned for sharing it.

You may as well say that Gaza isn't a humanitarian crisis. Utter nonsense.

Tyras wrote:


What should have been the response after they refused alternate ports and Isreal transporting the humanitarian supplies to Gaza. Run the blockade at your own peril.

Ok. Well here we see an example of the thread, an american blindly following Israel. Sink them with torpedos.....

Now imagine, the Aussies found another boat load of refugees or illegal fishermen entering their waters, and just sank the ship out of hand.
Would that be condemned?

Its a rhetorical question by the way, in case you actually think torpedoing aid convoys is a neat idea.

Wrexasaur wrote:

Stormrider wrote:Really? Beating soldiers with conduit and shooting them with marbles isn't peaceful. Considering they went with paintball guns with pepper projectiles meant they really were trying to go peacefully, then you see in the thermal camera that the Soldiers were swarmed as they came aboard, and savagely beaten, I call BS on the peace affair. I am really starting to get the idea that this was a set up.

I wouldn't take getting beaten very long before I drew my sidearm to defend my life.

Your being silly.

Orlanth's point was that they WERE demonstrators, as well as being an aid-flotilla. Considering marbles were used... and not bullets, I honestly don't follow your what your trying to say. I think you are calling the demonstrators non-peaceful, then referring to slingshots as weapons of mass destruction... or something along those lines. I don't recall Isreal being required to fastrope commandos onto the vessel. They took action, and the demonstrators reacted... IMO, appropriately.

Honestly though, why is so obviously okay for Israel to commit such acts? Would it be okay if the flotilla was boarded right after leaving European waters? The second they enter international waters, BOARDED. BAM. What is the difference here? Seriously.

The soldiers weren't attacked with marbles, they were being attacked with iron pipes. 40 were "former terrorists."
I'd have followed good old fashioned British tradition. If they didn't stop sink them. Good enough for Britain it should be good enough for Israel.
They weren't aid convoys. Aid travels through the port of Haifa.


Edit: crap I posted in this crap thread on this crap topic. I feel dirty now. Oh well its 8.00AM somewhere, time for more rum.

Stormrider wrote:

Really? Beating soldiers with conduit and shooting them with marbles isn't peaceful. Considering they went with paintball guns with pepper projectiles meant they really were trying to go peacefully, then you see in the thermal camera that the Soldiers were swarmed as they came aboard, and savagely beaten, I call BS on the peace affair. I am really starting to get the idea that this was a set up.

I wouldn't take getting beaten very long before I drew my sidearm to defend my life.

Those paintball guns aren't like the type used for the game. They actually had someone die in the US after having been shot ( by accident) with one by the police. You're a 2nd amendment advocate Storm, put yourself in the target's shoes instead of just the soldiers. If someone stormed your vessel, would you consider drawing on them to defend yourself or your friends?

In fairness, the soldiers, as you said, didn't come in with guns firing though. I think it is just a situation we should know more about before we as a nation make decisions.

Grignard wrote:In fairness, the soldiers, as you said, didn't come in with guns firing though. I think it is just a situation we should know more about before we as a nation make decisions.

I have heard opinions that they did indeed fire before boarding the vessel. At the very least, I would expect a few cans of tear gas to be dropped onto the deck.

In summary though, 9 of the people on the main vessel, were killed. Supposedly, no soldiers died.

Israel was the aggressor by any reasonable account, I didn't see boomerangs in those demonstrators hands, nor did I see any projectiles thrown at the helicopter. All of us are watching a PR battle take place, and it is simply unfair to say anything beyond: Angry mob of demonstrators, illogical use of commandos. Far as I can tell there is many weeks, if not months, before anything becomes undeniably clear; as to the events that took place on the main vessel.

I assume that little occurred on the other ships, simply because there is next to no mention of them.

Frazzled wrote:40 were "former terrorists."

*citation needed*

Frazzled wrote:I'd have followed good old fashioned British tradition. If they didn't stop sink them. Good enough for Britain it should be good enough for Israel.

It's not the 19th century.

Albatross wrote:

Frazzled wrote:40 were "former terrorists."

*citation needed*

Frazzled wrote:I'd have followed good old fashioned British tradition. If they didn't stop sink them. Good enough for Britain it should be good enough for Israel.

It's not the 19th century.

Quiet, Albatross, you're disagreeing with Frazzamatazz, the obviously biased moderator.

I applaud Israel's return to the grand old tradition of privateering. Seizing an enemy merchant vessel is a perfectly acceptable act of aggression just shy of an act of war. Israel wasn't around for the treaty banning their use, so this would be fine.

I can't help but think that flying the Jolly Roger might have made Israel's intentions a little clearer, and prevented some of this resistance. Think of this as a direct and immediate sanction.

Mortified Penguin wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Frazzled wrote:40 were "former terrorists."

*citation needed*

Frazzled wrote:I'd have followed good old fashioned British tradition. If they didn't stop sink them. Good enough for Britain it should be good enough for Israel.

It's not the 19th century.

Quiet, Albatross, you're disagreeing with Frazzamatazz, the obviously biased moderator.

Since when did being a Mod require impartiality? He is allowed to have an opinion you know....

And I have opinions. Calling me a Mod only makes me angry. Don't make me unleash the dogs of war!

Uh-oh... the BBC has just reported that an Irish-owned ship is preparing to set off with intentions of running the blockade...

Orlanth wrote:

Tyras wrote:


What should have been the response after they refused alternate ports and Isreal transporting the humanitarian supplies to Gaza. Run the blockade at your own peril.

Ok. Well here we see an example of the thread, an american blindly following Israel. Sink them with torpedos.....

Now imagine, the Aussies found another boat load of refugees or illegal fishermen entering their waters, and just sank the ship out of hand.
Would that be condemned?

Its a rhetorical question by the way, in case you actually think torpedoing aid convoys is a neat idea.

The Isreali government offered to take the aid from the ships to Gaza without having the ships violate the blockade. Isreal offered alternate ports to diffuse the situation. Anything and everything Isreal put out there to prevent this situation was denied in order to create a problem and fuel the Palstinian propaganda machine.

If the IHH true mission was to get humanitarian aid to Gaza they would have happily taken the, reasonable IMO, steps offered by the Isreali government in order to assure the people of Gaza received the material. Instead they preach about seeking martyrdom before boarding the ships and viciously attack boarders there to inspect and escort the ships to an acceptable port of entry.

No I am not blindly following Isreal, I have read about and watched enough video on the incident to form my own opinion. Would I torpedo the convoy? Given the rocket attacks by Hamas and groups not neccesarily affiliated with Hamas, but not prosecuted by them either... If I can't inspect your ship to ensure no illegal arms are being transported to those groups, and you attempt to run the naval blockade that's in place to prevent the possibility of weapons reaching Gaza?, Yes I would sink every last ship. I would document the survivors then deport them. If they were found entering the country again they would be prison bound.

Isreali civilians live under constant threat of violence for no better reason than their existance. Isreal could give the Palstinian government all of their current demands and it wouldn't solve a damned thing, because no measure taken short of the dissolution of the State of Isreal will be acceptable to the Palastinians and their supporters in the region. Isreal has every right to defend themselves.

Tyras wrote:
Ok. Well here we see an example of the thread, an american blindly following Israel. Sink them with torpedos.....

Now imagine, the Aussies found another boat load of refugees or illegal fishermen entering their waters, and just sank the ship out of hand.
Would that be condemned?

Its a rhetorical question by the way, in case you actually think torpedoing aid convoys is a neat idea.

The Isreali government offered to take the aid from the ships to Gaza without having the ships violate the blockade. Isreal offered alternate ports to diffuse the situation. Anything and everything Isreal put out there to prevent this situation was denied in order to create a problem and fuel the Palstinian propaganda machine.

If the IHH true mission was to get humanitarian aid to Gaza they would have happily taken the, reasonable IMO, steps offered by the Isreali government in order to assure the people of Gaza received the material. Instead they preach about seeking martyrdom before boarding the ships and viciously attack boarders there to inspect and escort the ships to an acceptable port of entry.

No I am not blindly following Isreal, I have read about and watched enough video on the incident to form my own opinion. Would I torpedo the convoy? Given the rocket attacks by Hamas and groups not neccesarily affiliated with Hamas, but not prosecuted by them either... If I can't inspect your ship to ensure no illegal arms are being transported to those groups, and you attempt to run the naval blockade that's in place to prevent the possibility of weapons reaching Gaza?, Yes I would sink every last ship. I would document the survivors then deport them. If they were found entering the country again they would be prison bound.

Isreali civilians live under constant threat of violence for no better reason than their existance. Isreal could give the Palstinian government all of their current demands and it wouldn't solve a damned thing, because no measure taken short of the dissolution of the State of Isreal will be acceptable to the Palastinians and their supporters in the region. Isreal has every right to defend themselves.

Grignard wrote:
Do you need to defend yourself by boarding vessels crewed by people with....slingshots?....using commandos? Yes, I think they tried to use less than lethal force, and I guess I might pull a sidearm when I started getting beaten, but should they have been used to start with?

What else are they supposed to use? Feather dusters, colourful language? Bad breath?

They sent some soldiers to rappel down and board the ship - they are hardly going to send them in unequipped.

filbert wrote:

Grignard wrote:
Do you need to defend yourself by boarding vessels crewed by people with....slingshots?....using commandos? Yes, I think they tried to use less than lethal force, and I guess I might pull a sidearm when I started getting beaten, but should they have been used to start with?

What else are they supposed to use? Feather dusters, colourful language? Bad breath?

They sent some soldiers to rappel down and board the ship - they are hardly going to send them in unequipped.

Why did they need to use heavily armed commandos though? Were they expecting armed resistance requiring that type of force? Does it seem like it could have been a police matter?

Perhaps they thought it was a cover for gun-running, and that it would be defended by guerillas?

EDIT: Frazz, I accused you of bias because what you locked the other Israel thread for could have been resolved with a few post deletions, while other thread in the OT board have gotten worse but escaped locking when you appeared to be taking sides. I'm just saying that as one of the representatives of order on dakka you should probably keep your distance to stay (relatively - no one's perfect) impartial.

Do you need to defend yourself by boarding vessels crewed by people with....slingshots?....using commandos? Yes, I think they tried to use less than lethal force, and I guess I might pull a sidearm when I started getting beaten, but should they have been used to start with?

They could have sent circus performers in to inspect or escort and the reaction from the crew would have been the same. It doesn't matter who they sent in. The mission was not to slaughter the crew, it was to inspect the vessel and take it to a port designated by the government. Had the crew not responded the way they did there wouldn't have been casualties. It was because there is no way to know how the crew would respond that the commandos (specifically trained for boarding missions) were used. Pray for peace, but be prepared for war and all.

The previous policiy of consulting the magic eight ball to determine how blockade runners will react to being boarded was done away with a while ago due to allegations of taking bribes from a Syrian made ouiji board.

Grignard wrote:

filbert wrote:

Grignard wrote:
Do you need to defend yourself by boarding vessels crewed by people with....slingshots?....using commandos? Yes, I think they tried to use less than lethal force, and I guess I might pull a sidearm when I started getting beaten, but should they have been used to start with?

What else are they supposed to use? Feather dusters, colourful language? Bad breath?

They sent some soldiers to rappel down and board the ship - they are hardly going to send them in unequipped.

Why did they need to use heavily armed commandos though? Were they expecting armed resistance requiring that type of force? Does it seem like it could have been a police matter?

I think the point to be taken is they genuinely didn't know - hence the response. From an Israeli perspective, this ship had refused repeated attempts to be diverted to a port for inspection and were warned that they would be boarded. Whether that is legal or not is not really the issue; the point is the freighter and it's crew were well aware of their actions and the response it would provoke (in fact, it has been argued that they set out with the express intention of provoking a response and garnering the media attention). The Israeli forces had no way of knowing what was on that freighter and what would happen to their boarding party and I feel they sent in forces to task - I don't think it can be construed as inappropriate force; although what happened next is another matter for debate.

I still cant believe everybody is arguing about this.

Any person here would have started blatting the "hippies" (the most aggressive and violent hippies i have ever seen so i use the term loosely) as soon as they started getting beat up with pipes and chairs and realised they were outnumbered twenty to one.

Instead of just incessantly whining about Israel again, just watch that video and be honest with yourself, even if you feel you have nothing in common with a soldier or a fighting man, you would be papping yourself if you were roping down to that deck. And if your scared, you will use whatever weapon you have to stop that angry mob from getting to grips with you.

Frankly i think the Israelis showed remarkable restraint. If i was the second guy down that rope i would have iced way more than 10 of them. Id have brassed everyone on the deck up and then slept like a baby that same night. feth em. Try and kill my teammates and ill happily fill you with lead and then go for a pint afterwards.

The more i watch it, the more i think it was a set up. The protestors wanted a fight from the moment they set off, they were no ordinary flower power hippies thats for damn sure, and im glad the Israelis didnt disapoint.

And if an Irish boat is trying it again, no doubt it will be full of British idiots as well as Irish, Turkish etc

Just so you know i am unbiased in this matter, i dont care if everyone of the crew are from the UK, gak, i dont care if they are from my street. I think they should stop playing with fire and i think the IDF should just torpedo the fething thing and not risk any of their guys necks with another ridiculously ill conceived boarding action.

I think the point to be taken is they genuinely didn't know - hence the response. From an Israeli perspective, this ship had refused repeated attempts to be diverted to a port for inspection and were warned that they would be boarded. Whether that is legal or not is not really the issue; the point is the freighter and it's crew were well aware of their actions and the response it would provoke (in fact, it has been argued that they set out with the express intention of provoking a response and garnering the media attention). The Israeli forces had no way of knowing what was on that freighter and what would happen to their boarding party and I feel they sent in forces to task - I don't think it can be construed as inappropriate force; although what happened next is another matter for debate.

Right On.....I agree with this statement

sebster wrote:
Funnily enough there’s actually a decently sized Christian population in Palestine, about 10%.

And there were 2.1% Christians in Israel in 2005, whats your point? The thread title isn't about why doesn't America back Palestine, becuase there is a 10% Christian population. It's a genuine question as to why they back/favor Israel.

sebster wrote:
Of course, while the narrative is true and very powerful, it doesn’t leads to a serious misunderstanding of the situation going on in Palestine right now. Right now the people there trapped in ghettoes, prevented from building industry or sustaining themselves, suffering frequent abuse from soldiers.

And of course the Palestinians are just innocent little lambs, never doing any wrong.[sarcasm]

sebster wrote:
This probably plays a part. It’s a shame, really, I’d have thought a reading of the bible would encourage people to be kind to the poor and the downtrodden, which the Palestinians obviously are..

Of course and I'm sure there are Christian organizations that are trying to help the Palestinians, maybe those 10%?...... but most Americans believe they have brought those problems upon themselves.

Also as the OP, I would appreciate it if we could get off the topic of the relief boat, and stay on topic of why America backs/favors Israel.

If you want to rehash the relief boat incident please start your own thread.

GG




Automatically Appended Next Post:

olympia wrote:
You can find a link to the full 83 page .pdf here:
http://web.hks.harvard.edu/publications/workingpapers/citation.aspx?PubId=3670

This is an awesome read..thanks for that.

GG

Grignard wrote:

Stormrider wrote:

Really? Beating soldiers with conduit and shooting them with marbles isn't peaceful. Considering they went with paintball guns with pepper projectiles meant they really were trying to go peacefully, then you see in the thermal camera that the Soldiers were swarmed as they came aboard, and savagely beaten, I call BS on the peace affair. I am really starting to get the idea that this was a set up.

I wouldn't take getting beaten very long before I drew my sidearm to defend my life.

Those paintball guns aren't like the type used for the game. They actually had someone die in the US after having been shot ( by accident) with one by the police. You're a 2nd amendment advocate Storm, put yourself in the target's shoes instead of just the soldiers. If someone stormed your vessel, would you consider drawing on them to defend yourself or your friends?

In fairness, the soldiers, as you said, didn't come in with guns firing though. I think it is just a situation we should know more about before we as a nation make decisions.

Well, if they were true protestors they wouldn't have immediately attacked. If they're going to be violent, they shouldn't get a free pass. Protestors shouldn't be violent, as soon as it sinks to that they become rioters.

Since I don't plan on running a blockade, I probably won't have someone boarding my 26' boat. It depends of what their purpose is. If it's a legal reason, I have nothing to do but wait for their search to end.

In all reality, both sides screwed up.

@Stormrider- Did you not even read this?

"Also as the OP, I would appreciate it if we could get off the topic of the relief boat, and stay on topic of why America backs/favors Israel.

If you want to rehash the relief boat incident please start your own thread. "



Please pay attention!!

GG

mattyrm wrote:I still cant believe everybody is arguing about this.

Any person here would have started blatting the "hippies" (the most aggressive and violent hippies i have ever seen so i use the term loosely) as soon as they started getting beat up with pipes and chairs and realised they were outnumbered twenty to one.

You know sometimes I have wish we had the IDF or the US Army policing Northern Ireland for a week or so, then they might appreciate the restraint of the UK Armed Forces. This was unrelated to todays events but just a dream based on the accusations of heavy handedness laid out against our own forces.

Yes Bloody Sunday was a feth up, but it was just about the only one in twenty years, the IDF respond with autofire if they get a stone thrown at them by kids. Can you imagine what would have happened if a 'day in Gaza' turned up in West Belfast during the Troubles and a few kids throwing stones got shot. The IRA used to pay kids to throw stones then run out a gunman close behind them and take a shot using the kids as cover. Soldiers couldn't effectively shoot back. Now sometimes I think we should have been a little more firm with the scum out there, but I also think the IDF go way too far, as do the Yanks.
Look at Iraq, Basra was held with minimal unrest and few civilian casualties, the situation further north got worse and worse because of poorer fire discipline by US forces. Eventually the hatred spread back down south as Iraqis ceased making a distinction and looked at all the invaders as the same. But that was not our fault.

mattyrm wrote:
Instead of just incessantly whining about Israel again, just watch that video and be honest with yourself, even if you feel you have nothing in common with a soldier or a fighting man, you would be papping yourself if you were roping down to that deck. And if your scared, you will use whatever weapon you have to stop that angry mob from getting to grips with you.

Yes I would be scared, but no I would not shoot if trained and led by the people I know. Honestly Matty you wouldn't either, because you have been trained not to. What you are saying really is you wish you could. Ask veterans of Yugoslavia, the ones sent in under the UN 'cannot fire back' mandate, ask them how they dealt with Serbs who knew they could be fired upon. Nobody thought they could keep any peace, which was why the resolution was passed, and the politicians were dumb enough to agree because it made it look like they were making progress; but the soldiers on the ground managed it anyway. British and French soldiers both. If you were around for the tail end of the Troubles perhaps you were around for this. You would have seen it done or known people who have.

mattyrm wrote:
Frankly i think the Israelis showed remarkable restraint. If i was the second guy down that rope i would have iced way more than 10 of them. Id have brassed everyone on the deck up and then slept like a baby that same night. feth em. Try and kill my teammates and ill happily fill you with lead and then go for a pint afterwards.

I am very sorry to say this, but I am wondering who I am talking to, don't you mean you wish you could been there and iced ten of them. That is soldier talk. The guys I know would have been on that deck and done their job with no fatalities, but then again they were Pongos/Brown Jobs. Yes abseiling onto a ship will be different than being on the streets of Basra outnumbered lots to one and managing to hold the line after being told to use rifle stocks only, but the training remains similar.

mattyrm wrote:
The more i watch it, the more i think it was a set up. The protestors wanted a fight from the moment they set off, they were no ordinary flower power hippies thats for damn sure, and im glad the Israelis didnt disapoint.

Very likely some hot heads were on that ship, that wasn't the Israel fan club coming to visit you know. Soldiers are trained and have a higher bar to keep, at least our ones do, you should know this by now. You have to have higher restraint than the angry paniced frightened civilians, especially civilians who know the poor track record (with regards to restraint) of the forces they are facing.

mattyrm wrote:
And if an Irish boat is trying it again, no doubt it will be full of British idiots as well as Irish, Turkish etc

just like the last one waas. Just because I don't like what the IDF and Israeli government are doing doesn't mean I am in any way supportive of the home grown Islamics we have allowed to breed.
On the other hands there will be other peace activists too, also those who are genuinely dangerous Islamics have largely hopped over to Pakistan and joined the cause there. Its understandable for ordinary Uk citizens to be concerned about the plight of the Palestinians, it makes sense our own Moslem community is too both moderate and otherwise.

mattyrm wrote:
Just so you know i am unbiased in this matter, i dont care if everyone of the crew are from the UK, gak, I dont care if they are from my street. I think they should stop playing with fire and i think the IDF should just torpedo the fething thing and not risk any of their guys necks with another ridiculously ill conceived boarding action.

I am not unbiased either, but if they were to do such a crime when the Irish ship arrives I hope Israel faces punitive sanctions. This doesn't not mean to say I am pro Islamic, most of my other posts elsewhere will prove I am not, or against the right of the State of Israel to exist. This is where we differ, if I may be bold to suggest I think your memory from service in the Middle East is soiling your judgement here. I am wondering if you have crossed the line into thinking the only good Arab is a dead one.

generalgrog wrote:And there were 2.1% Christians in Israel in 2005, whats your point? The thread title isn't about why doesn't America back Palestine, becuase there is a 10% Christian population. It's a genuine question as to why they back/favor Israel.

It's a point of interest, most people people tend to think of Palestine as consisting of a uniformly Muslim population. It's as interesting as you want it to be.

And of course the Palestinians are just innocent little lambs, never doing any wrong.[sarcasm]

No, of course not. Is that really the quality of reasoning, honestly?

'The blockade is keeping these people without the basic supplies needed to live the simplest of lives.'
'Yes, but they're not all good people.'

How much should we force a population into abject poverty because some portion of their number are terrorists? At what point should we start to consider that worsening the conditions in Palestine increases support for Hamas?

Of course and I'm sure there are Christian organizations that are trying to help the Palestinians, maybe those 10%?...... but most Americans believe they have brought those problems upon themselves.

A lack of understanding of the history and conditions in Palestine is a problem, true.

Also as the OP, I would appreciate it if we could get off the topic of the relief boat, and stay on topic of why America backs/favors Israel.

If you want to rehash the relief boat incident please start your own thread.

I think this is fairly smart. People are supporting or criticising the boat action almost exactly in line with their support or criticism of Israel, discussing the boat incident is unlikely to produce any real information. We'd be better off talking about why people support Israel.

mattyrm wrote:I still cant believe everybody is arguing about this.

Any person here would have started blatting the "hippies" (the most aggressive and violent hippies i have ever seen so i use the term loosely) as soon as they started getting beat up with pipes and chairs and realised they were outnumbered twenty to one.

Instead of just incessantly whining about Israel again, just watch that video and be honest with yourself, even if you feel you have nothing in common with a soldier or a fighting man, you would be papping yourself if you were roping down to that deck. And if your scared, you will use whatever weapon you have to stop that angry mob from getting to grips with you.

Frankly i think the Israelis showed remarkable restraint. If i was the second guy down that rope i would have iced way more than 10 of them. Id have brassed everyone on the deck up and then slept like a baby that same night. feth em. Try and kill my teammates and ill happily fill you with lead and then go for a pint afterwards.

The more i watch it, the more i think it was a set up. The protestors wanted a fight from the moment they set off, they were no ordinary flower power hippies thats for damn sure, and im glad the Israelis didnt disapoint.

And if an Irish boat is trying it again, no doubt it will be full of British idiots as well as Irish, Turkish etc

Just so you know i am unbiased in this matter, i dont care if everyone of the crew are from the UK, gak, i dont care if they are from my street. I think they should stop playing with fire and i think the IDF should just torpedo the fething thing and not risk any of their guys necks with another ridiculously ill conceived boarding action.

TL;DR:

Or divert the ship to Antarctica so they ca help protest against the Japanese whalers.

I personally think that if the Israelis are going to kill the Palestinians and take their land they should learn from the Americans and do it right; with diseased blankets! Can't beat a classic.

Mortified Penguin wrote:I personally think that if the Israelis are going to kill the Palestinians and take their land they should learn from the Americans and do it right; with diseased blankets! Can't beat a classic.

That was the british, we already discussed that.

Orlanth wrote: You know sometimes I have wish we had the IDF or the US Army policing Northern Ireland for a week or so, then they might appreciate the restraint of the UK Armed Forces. This was unrelated to todays events but just a dream based on the accusations of heavy handedness laid out against our own forces.

Yes Bloody Sunday was a feth up, but it was just about the only one in twenty years, the IDF respond with autofire if they get a stone thrown at them by kids. Can you imagine what would have happened if a 'day in Gaza' turned up in West Belfast during the Troubles and a few kids throwing stones got shot. The IRA used to pay kids to throw stones then run out a gunman close behind them and take a shot using the kids as cover. Soldiers couldn't effectively shoot back. Now sometimes I think we should have been a little more firm with the scum out there, but I also think the IDF go way too far, as do the Yanks.
Look at Iraq, Basra was held with minimal unrest and few civilian casualties, the situation further north got worse and worse because of poorer fire discipline by US forces. Eventually the hatred spread back down south as Iraqis ceased making a distinction and looked at all the invaders as the same. But that was not our fault.

Indeed, ive got a related story (see below) and when i was in Northern Ireland i wanted to bust some heads, but i never did, its called being professional. I think being heavy handed is no way to win a war as the only way to do it is to win "hearts and minds" no matter how much this grates on the soldiers on the ground. Im well aware of this and it makes perfect tactical sense, violence begets violence and killing someone generally leads to their relatives and children taking up the fight. Doesnt mean i have to like it though does it?

Regards this issue though mate, i wouldnt have been scared, ive been in worse situations. And your right, its down to training, but id have made a professional decision to open up on those fethers. Sure as eggs is eggs.

If i went to the deck with that many people behaving that aggresively i would expect to be beaten to death. I watched it, ive seen it before, and id have went live as soon as a teammate went down under a flurry of blows. No question.

Now, as i said before, the op was a monumental feth up, and they should have had beanbag guns, gas, batons, the works. They also shouldnt have fastroped down onto the deck, they should have used RIBs or MIBs and took 4 times as many guys. But they didnt, and in that situation i would have calmly started slotting people.

Orlanth wrote: I am very sorry to say this, but I am wondering who I am talking to, don't you mean you wish you could been there and iced ten of them. That is soldier talk. The guys I know would have been on that deck and done their job with no fatalities, but then again they were Pongos/Brown Jobs. Yes abseiling onto a ship will be different than being on the streets of Basra outnumbered lots to one and managing to hold the line after being told to use rifle stocks only, but the training remains similar.

Mate, explain to me how they would achieve it?

Ive done that exact same thing, Its called fastroping not absailing and can be done operationally from between 30 to 90 feet. Basically, you put on a pair of thick gloves, sling your kit round your back and throw yourself out of the helo. It allows you to instantly have your weapon in hand and on target within 3 seconds of landing as you are not required to clip on to anything. Its more dangerous as a result and as soon as they started grabbing the line then the commandos arses would have started nipping!

Anyway. Ive done 6 operational tours. 2 of Iraq, 2 Afghanistan, 1 Sierra Leone, 1 Northern Ireland. Ive done public order training numerous times, and actual public order on the ground more than once. If you have the men (minimum of a full troop) the equipment, (6 foot shields, batons, helmets and visors and a baton gunner per 8 men) you could form up, make a shield wall deal with that crowd easily with no fatalities. Easy.

But fast roping into a mob one at a time?!

Not going to happen.

In my opinion your just flat out wrong on this Orlanth. They had maybe 6 guys on the deck and they were getting swarmed as soon as their boots hit the boat.

By the second man the crowd had control of the rope. It was an absolute tactical disaster. But there is no way any of your friends could have done anything in that situation other than get the gak beat out of them or start shooting. I would go for option 2 even after enjoy watching it with the luxury of youtube sat at home. If i was actually on that boat and i roped down into that mess. No question.

If we took RIBs and MIBs up to the boat, sure, i could get the job done. But in that absurd situation there was only gonna be two outcomes, and i dont fancy the first.

Orlanth wrote: This is where we differ, if I may be bold to suggest I think your memory from service in the Middle East is soiling your judgement here. I am wondering if you have crossed the line into thinking the only good Arab is a dead one.

Mate, how many times have i said this? Ive had everyone trying to paint me as the bad guy when i openly admit it and have done several times!

My middle east tours HAVE soiled my judgement and ive admitted it several times. I never once crossed a line when i was serving, as my commitment to professionalism outweighed my own desire to open a can of whup ass on some of the dirtbags we tagged and sent off to their pleasant cells to get a cold bottle of water and a hot meal. But i didnt like it.

The reason i left my job after ten years examplary service was because during my final tour we were banned from killing fighters we saw digging mines in around our AO, they are easy to spot using imaging equipment from the high ground on a night and there are a limited number of good firing positions in our AO.

Anyway, at the start of the tour we were shooting them, dropping mortars onto them, the occasional milan etc... because there was no civilian towns for several kilometers, and it was obvious they werent digging for carrots. But this was deemed to be too aggressive. So we started doing "warning shots" and at first they would run off, but they would come back shortly after. A few weeks of this, and they were fearless, and funny thing mines started appearing everywhere. I spoke to my Boss about it, i said "does someone have to die before they let us do what we need to?" and he said "yeah yeah Matty i know the score but our hands are tied"

2 weeks later my troop boss Lt John Thornton and Marine Dave Marsh rolled their fire support vehicle onto a mine and were killed, i put my notice in a week later.

I was involved in at least 100 close range firefights, it got worse every year i went, i was well trained, i dont have nightmares, PTSD, cold sweats or depression, but sure, i hate Muslims. Ive never denied it, and i fully accept i would be a better person if i didnt. But i do, and i probably always will.

But this is dakkadakka, and ive retired, so i can say what i feel and not worry about it making a jot of difference to our military efforts. I dont think its a good idea to torpedo boats or be ridiculously aggressive. But id be lying if i said i wouldnt like to see it done.

If you want to chastise me further, do it via PM so i dont have to hijack this thread with my life story, im currently getting plenty of judgemental PMs, so i should be able to just cut and paste you a reply in no time at all!

Orlanth wrote: Now sometimes I think we should have been a little more firm with the scum out there.

Irish =Scum?

Please to define scum. Are you talking about the Protestant instigators that carry on the family traditions handed down from their Black and Tan ancestors? The IRA who are in much the same way carrying on a family tradition of retaliation and revolution? The British Soldiers that turn a blind eye to the assaults and other criminal activities of Loyalists?

I know it sucks being in that kind of situation but you have to watch that your bitterness doesn't turn into a blind prejudice.

focusedfire wrote:

Orlanth wrote: Now sometimes I think we should have been a little more firm with the scum out there.

The British Soldiers that turn a blind eye to the assaults and other criminal activities of Loyalists?

Never would have let it happen on my watch, and i dont know any soldiers who would have turned a blind eye to crimes, young British men didnt seem to have much of an interest or bias either way when i was there, you tend to think the whole lot of them are being ridiculous, but now your just derailing the thread even further and your post was pointless.

Clearly he meant "terrorist" types and not random Irish people, and you and anybody else can see it. Your just being facetious.

For example you seem a bit pro IRA to me the way you worded your sentence.

See, we can all do it.

I honestly think that a solution can be formulised based on finger pointing at the US. Its not nice or entirely fair but workable, and with someothing for everyone. This is how the thinking goes.

Logic chain A.

1. Israel is seen as increasingly unstable and other countries especially China are rising to challenge the dominance of the US.

2. Europe is distencing themselves from the US with regards to Israel.

3. The general concensus, which is not unfair is: Israel gets away with what it does because a) the US uses its Un veto and b) the US provides arms and armament technology to Israel.

4. While left largely unspoken it is known that the US broke nuclear proliferation rules to assist in the devlopment of the Israeli nuclear deterent.

Consequence:
5. Therefore the blame for the current problems in the Middle East can be sourced to backing from Washington.


Logic Chain B.

1. Soundbite: 'If Americans can pay to cause the problem, America can pay to fix it.'

2. The US gives several billion dollars in aid money each year to support the Israeli economy and military.

3. Israel wouldn't not need a large proportion of that money if there was peace in the Middle East.

4. Peace can exist and progressively is existing between Arab states and Israel.

5. This peace is supported by political and economic support by Europe and the US.

Consequence:
6. Charge the US with the fiscal responsibility for the Arab Israeli crisis.


Logic Chain C.

1. Many Americans are increasingly tired of the blanket support seen to be given to Israel.

2. Other Americans want nothing less than a hardcore Zionist 'victory'.

3. 'Victory' entails handing over the occupied territories to Israel for the purposes of a single majority Jewish state.

4. Israeli arabs and Christian minorities can exist peacefully within Israel.

5. Independent Palestinains cannot without a national border.

6. Such a border would cause fear and therefore friction on both sides. Palestinians remembering their long oppression would seek revenge given the opportunity, Israelis are themselves tied into a policy of heavy handed aggression that cannot be broken internally.

Consequence:
7. An Israeli/Palestinain border cannot exist without bloodshed and oppression.


Logic Chain D.

1. As the border cannot exist Israel/Palestine can exist as only one nation.

2. As removing Israel is all but impossible and is the only option for a Jewish state unlike several options for Arab states Palestine must instead be removed.

3. Palestinians are currently being removed in sequence anyway. Often by inhumane or underhand means.

4. Palestinians however can be relcoated by the US government by force if necessary as part of the established US fiscal responsibility.

Consequence:
5. The US and Israel pays to relocate the Palestinian community.


Logic Chain E.

1. Some Palestinians may well be welcome as Israeli citizens, this includes coverts to Judaism, those considered harmless by the Israelis and a small pro-Israeli minority mostly evengelical Christian. If accepted as Israeli citizens the former Palestinains are given one measure of compensation.

2. Israel reserves a right to veto over each any every aplicant, but once accepted are to be considered full and equal Israeli citizens under law, including foreign travel rights and the right to perform Hajj with guarantee of return entry. A bill in the Israeli parliament will need to be passed guaranteeing this right to Israeli Arabs.

3. As 'purchasing' partner the US had the right to offer ctizenship to any of the Palestinians it so wishes (aka a brain drain). any Palestinian who accepts the offer is given one measure of compensation a US passport and full US citizens rights.

4. Anyone denied either of the two options is given a passport to an Arab nation of their choice and two measures of compensation.

5. Any Palestinian refused entry by all Arab states is given token compensation and a host nation is found and given two measures of compensation to house them.

Consequence:
6. Upon conclusion of processing of all Palestinians the occupied territories cease to exist and become defacto and legal component territories of the State of Israel.
This will be ratified in advance by the UN with specific signatory participation of Israel, the Palestinian authority, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Egypt.

Note 1. A 'measure of compensation' is set to be generous. Probably on the region of $100k if paid over a period of up to ten years the compensation will not exceed and therefore can replace the munitions support given by the US to Israel.


Logic Chain E/Additional Measures:

1. This will not satisfy everyone, so measure must be taken to ensure a maximum level of compensation.

2. Palestinian prisoners held within Palestinian/Israeli custody can be extradited with a single measure of compensation to a host government who will re-incarcerate them. This accounts for known criminals within the Palestinian legal system and those held by Israel.

3. Israeli Arabs cannot be deported in this way, though Israeli Arabs can forfeit Israeli citizenship and be considered as Palestinians for purposes of repatriation and compensation if they so choose. An Israeli Arab who claims to be a Palestinian and asks to become a citizen of Israel and is accepted does not receive any compensation.

4. Palestinians held within the Israeli penal system for crimes relating to Palestinian/Israeli conflict thet Paslestians consider 'freedom fighters' are to be pardoned and released. They receive appropriate measures of compensation along with any other Palestinian, no less, no more.

5. Any hostage being held by Arab militant groups in Palestine is to be released without delay at the beginging of these procedings.

6. In additon to any measure of compensation any relocated Palestinian/ self exiling Israeli Arab is entitled to the value of any property they are currently residing in at the time of the brokerage of the peace settlement. Previous ownership of land cannot be attributed for purposes of clarity. Land value is to be taken by an average of Israeli land value for land of that purpose and quality (aka location is not taken into consideration) so the fact that the land is bombed should not detract from its potential value is if it were not.

7. No Israeli is to be compensated in this manner, no matter their losses, their corporate compensation is a future of uncontested ownership of the State of Israel. Should it become necessary for any Israeli citizen to be compensated during this process and compensation or benefit due is an internal matter for the Israeli government to be paid for out of internal taxation.

8. Exiled Palestinians are entitled to full measures of compensation in situ, so long as they are first generation exiles born or residing in Palestine. Exiles born abroad are citizens of the countries they now live in and are therefore no longer direct Palestinians. Some more limited compensation may be available to second or third generation Palestinian exiles based on the value of property lost from a fund set up for that purpose, though it will not amount to the same value.

9. Part of the compensation can be offered in land or business services. it is to be encouraged so that recipients build futures rather than squander the money. As a condition of payment this compensation is privileged income and cannot be accounted for means testing or taxation. therefore a relocated person who fails to make a new life for themselves does have their compensation taken away in lieu of welfare payments.

Note 2. This process can be justified Biblically. Abraham accepted that his children would inherit the promised land but never took any land from anybody. Everything was given or paid for. This will be important to reference to Jews and Arabs both.
The critical reference is Genesis 23, the whole chapter relating to Abraham offering to pay for land from the Hittites even as it was given to him. In fact as all other land Abraham used was only given to him in transience the burial plot for his wife Sarah is perhaps unique. It could be implied that Abraham never actually owned any of the promised land without fully paying for it.
This positive Biblical example can be used to flagpole the entire purchase process thus 'completing' what Abraham began.

America has to stop treating Israel like a favoured child, and that's about it.

Israel has commited serious attrocities in the past, like bulldozing villages, rounding up young men and tatooing barcodes on them (sound familiar?) and that's just the softer stuff.

Sure, Israel exists and as such has a right to continue to do so, but it has to stop being such a bully. The blockade of Gaza is dodgy in the extreme, and this latest act to my mind at least is nothing short of piracy, and until an international consensus of 'knock it off arsehead' is reached, peace in the Middle East will never exist.

As for rule number one of Dakka, don't get me wrong. I have no problem at all with the Israeli people at all, but quite a big one with the way their Government is allowed to do whatever it wants, no matter how illegal it might be.

The Israeli government has wide (though not total) popular support from the populace.

That should not be taken as anti-Israeli, just that it needs to be taken into account in any dealings with the government that slackening off against the Palestinians is likely to lose votes.

(Of course, Hamas has pretty wide support from the Palestinian populace.)

sebster wrote:It's a point of interest, most people people tend to think of Palestine as consisting of a uniformly Muslim population. It's as interesting as you want it to be.

Sebster as I'm sure you know, there are certain percentages of Christians in every nation that has an overwhelming nonChristian dominant religion. I really think bringing it up was kind of nonsense.

sebster wrote:

generalgrog wrote:And of course the Palestinians are just innocent little lambs, never doing any wrong.[sarcasm]

No, of course not. Is that really the quality of reasoning, honestly?

'The blockade is keeping these people without the basic supplies needed to live the simplest of lives.'
'Yes, but they're not all good people.'?

Well in your argument you conveniently left out the bad part of Palestinians and focused on the bad part of Israel, which was bad form in my opinion. This goes to the heart of the matter right? Many Americans will back Israel as long as the bad palestinians keep "biting there nose, too spite their face" I will never forget the day 9/11 happened and the media showed all those palestinians celebrating in the streets, yipping and yapping like it was the 4th of July.

I'll also never forget the images of litttle children dressed up in bomb suits before they go blow up a bus or walk into a fruit market and blow it up.

Has Israel been heavy handed at times? Of course they have. And they should be criticized when they do. However there is this loss of context where people forget what the Israelis have had to put up with for so many years.

They are like the little brother that does wrong, but becuase he is your little brother he gets a pass. Oh you may try and discipine him to try and teach him right, but the bottom line he is, your little brother and you will defend him.

Stormrider wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Stormrider wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

Stormrider wrote:
This was no Peaceful ship either, the people on board were not mere demonstrators.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBmjtJ0r93s

Yes they were, that is what demonstrators do. Fear and anger bring about such responces, honest soldiery are taught to take this without reacting badly in turn. Look how Basra was handled relatively small number of soldiers can stem an angry crowd without resorting to shooting. It takes special training to not react with firepowerwhen put under this sort of pressure. Trained soldiers can and should restrain from opening fire.

The Israelis have the training, but not the mentality opened fire and killed and wounded so many because they had a total contempt for those they were facing. They are by their own admission willing to shoot to kill if stones were thrown at them in the occupied territories.

Stormrider wrote:
Israel isn't a a signer of the UNCLOS Treaty so they can kind of do what they want with regards to blockades.

This law applies whether a nation is a signatory of the UNCLOS or not. It also irrelevant because Turkey is a signatory and the ships were Turkish registered, as soon as you board them by international law Turkish law takes precedence.
These are lame excuses to try asnsd patch an unforgivable act of agression, Israel could at least have waited until the flotilla had violated their own borders, that would at least have been legal. But again this is a matter of contempt for any person otyher than their own characteristic of Israeli policy and attitudes.

Stormrider wrote:
It also depends on how far they decided what their territorial waters are and what they are recognized as by other countries.

No nation can claim more than 12 miles.

Really? Beating soldiers with conduit and shooting them with marbles isn't peaceful. Considering they went with paintball guns with pepper projectiles meant they really were trying to go peacefully, then you see in the thermal camera that the Soldiers were swarmed as they came aboard, and savagely beaten, I call BS on the peace affair. I am really starting to get the idea that this was a set up.

I wouldn't take getting beaten very long before I drew my sidearm to defend my life.

When would you have questioned your commander about being dropped during the night onto a ship full of angry turkish civilians who can see you and are in international waters?

Questioning a commander's orders is not part of a soldier's protocol. Right or wrong, it's a court-martial worthy offense to disobey an order.

Then you likely shouldn't expect a tremendous amount of sympathy for the soldiery that is willing to kill civilians in neutral territory. Absolution of blame didn't work for camp guards after world war two and it's unlikely to be very palatable to many here. Following orders is not an established defense against international criminal actions and a soldier is legally bound to refuse an illegal order by treaties that israel is signatory to. They were ordered to commit an act of piracy, that is an order that they can refuse.

ShumaGorath wrote:Then you likely shouldn't expect a tremendous amount of sympathy for the soldiery that is willing to kill civilians in neutral territory. Absolution of blame didn't work for camp guards after world war two and it's unlikely to be very palatable to many here. Following orders is not an established defense against international criminal actions and a soldier is legally bound to refuse an illegal order by treaties that israel is signatory to. They were ordered to commit an act of piracy, that is an order that they can refuse.

Would you refuse it if put into the soldier's shoes?

A basic argument but it holds up. All fine to imagine our higher sense of morality but when put into such a situation I'm sure you don't know how you would act.

sA

smiling Assassin wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Then you likely shouldn't expect a tremendous amount of sympathy for the soldiery that is willing to kill civilians in neutral territory. Absolution of blame didn't work for camp guards after world war two and it's unlikely to be very palatable to many here. Following orders is not an established defense against international criminal actions and a soldier is legally bound to refuse an illegal order by treaties that israel is signatory to. They were ordered to commit an act of piracy, that is an order that they can refuse.

Would you refuse it if put into the soldier's shoes?

A basic argument but it holds up. All fine to imagine our higher sense of morality but when put into such a situation I'm sure you don't know how you would act.

sA

I wasn't talking about my own actions. I was talking about whether or not the soldiers should be absolved of blame. I can't know what I would have done without being there, but I know that as the person I currently am if I believed that my actions directly led to the deaths of nine civilians I would feel pretty crummy and likely not particularly innocent.

generalgrog wrote:

sebster wrote:It's a point of interest, most people people tend to think of Palestine as consisting of a uniformly Muslim population. It's as interesting as you want it to be.

Sebster as I'm sure you know, there are certain percentages of Christians in every nation that has an overwhelming nonChristian dominant religion. I really think bringing it up was kind of nonsense.

sebster wrote:

generalgrog wrote:And of course the Palestinians are just innocent little lambs, never doing any wrong.[sarcasm]

No, of course not. Is that really the quality of reasoning, honestly?

'The blockade is keeping these people without the basic supplies needed to live the simplest of lives.'
'Yes, but they're not all good people.'?

Well in your argument you conveniently left out the bad part of Palestinians and focused on the bad part of Israel, which was bad form in my opinion. This goes to the heart of the matter right? Many Americans will back Israel as long as the bad palestinians keep "biting there nose, too spite their face" I will never forget the day 9/11 happened and the media showed all those palestinians celebrating in the streets, yipping and yapping like it was the 4th of July.

I'll also never forget the images of litttle children dressed up in bomb suits before they go blow up a bus or walk into a fruit market and blow it up.

Has Israel been heavy handed at times? Of course they have. And they should be criticized when they do. However there is this loss of context where people forget what the Israelis have had to put up with for so many years.

They are like the little brother that does wrong, but becuase he is your little brother he gets a pass. Oh you may try and discipine him to try and teach him right, but the bottom line he is, your little brother and you will defend him.

KK-
I agree it's a legitamate question. Is the support of Israel by America an albatross or gold medal?

Israel would have to do something way beyond the pale of reason to lose the average americans support.

Personally I don't liek to see them resettling lands that were supposed to go to the Palestinians.

I also support a Palestinian state.

GG

Also, America is going to stick with Israel because while virtually all right wingers support Israel, so do a lot of left wingers, most notably Jewish Democrats. All stereotypes aside, there is a lot of power and money in the left wing pro-Israel lobby.

Polonius wrote:Also, America is going to stick with Israel because while virtually all right wingers support Israel, so do a lot of left wingers, most notably Jewish Democrats. All stereotypes aside, there is a lot of power and money in the left wing pro-Israel lobby.

It's a bit of a loaded statement, sure, but American Jews are overwhelmingly democrat, and overwhelmingly pro-Israel. they're also more politically active and wealthier than many other groups. It's there in the demographics.

It's just like you'll never see a Catholic GOP candidate for president. It's not the way the numbers point.

I support Israel. Not all the time, and not actively, but I think they're in a tough spot, and frankly nobody is going to stop them, help them, stop the Palestinians, or help the Palestinians. It's up to Israel and the Palestinians to sort this out, and Israel has all the power and the Palestinians have a pretty deserved reputation for not negotiating in good faith.

So do the Israelis, to be sure, but a key rule of any negotiation is to always know when you're the weaker party.

Frazzled wrote:

Polonius wrote:Also, America is going to stick with Israel because while virtually all right wingers support Israel, so do a lot of left wingers, most notably Jewish Democrats. All stereotypes aside, there is a lot of power and money in the left wing pro-Israel lobby.

Okay, that picture made my day.

mattyrm wrote:

Orlanth wrote: I am very sorry to say this, but I am wondering who I am talking to, don't you mean you wish you could been there and iced ten of them. That is soldier talk. The guys I know would have been on that deck and done their job with no fatalities, but then again they were Pongos/Brown Jobs. Yes abseiling onto a ship will be different than being on the streets of Basra outnumbered lots to one and managing to hold the line after being told to use rifle stocks only, but the training remains similar.

Mate, explain to me how they would achieve it?

I don't know, but then I never needed to know. You do though, you see the dangers and posted them in your reply. This is something the CO should know about who of course also should know.

Bottom line if the situation was that poor from the safety of my army chair how about this: Clear a local area of decking with smoke or tear gas. Land some soldiers in the middle of it. Secure a perimeter for landing other soldiers onto the deck. Sounds workable to me and only uses crowd control technology, a non lethal landing. It also means a fair amount of gas due to the helo above and the open deck but what are you looking at , three to five second cover to allow the first soldiers onto the deck. therefore the gas is not fired but is activated but held in the webbing of the first wave of descending soldiers, each soldier has his canister activated from the helo by the soldier following, two or more for the lead guy. No-one then approaches the first soldiers down as they are immersed in a miasma of tear gas. As the gas canisters are held not fired it also absolves the soldiers of being considered to have fired first. Its now only a matter of finding a gas canister or gas canister holder that is safe to be held in webbing and activated while attached to the soldier. All that is then required is a breather unit with independent air supply as from what I have heard close heavy concentrations of gas can force its way through a conventional rebreather.
I doubt any of this is beyond the technical capability of a modern elite army.

Can I assume once you have four or five soldiers in and the LZ cleared they can handle the rest of the drop without further use of gas?

mattyrm wrote:
But fast roping into a mob one at a time?!
Not going to happen.

So what you are saying is that the MO was land anyway, and resort to firepower.
Can it reasonably be assumed that having Israeli commandos on the deck would not provoke anger. I really doubt that, they knew it would kick someone off, its human nature.

mattyrm wrote:

Orlanth wrote: This is where we differ, if I may be bold to suggest I think your memory from service in the Middle East is soiling your judgement here. I am wondering if you have crossed the line into thinking the only good Arab is a dead one.

Mate, how many times have i said this? Ive had everyone trying to paint me as the bad guy when i openly admit it and have done several times!

I wanted to be careful how I replied to you, after all I am a Ponti and not had to face what you have. I think you realise that I am not judging you because I know that you will have seen a side to this problem most others have not. Its all too easy for me to have symapthy for people who are in some way connected to other similar people who haver done their best to end your life and those of your friends.
If anyone has been PMing you messages shame on them. Do a tour first, then point the finger. I haven't, so I wont.

mattyrm wrote:
My middle east tours HAVE soiled my judgement and ive admitted it several times. I never once crossed a line when i was serving, as my commitment to professionalism outweighed my own desire to open a can of whup ass on some of the dirtbags we tagged and sent off to their pleasant cells to get a cold bottle of water and a hot meal.

That is a soldier talking. A very good friend of mine who I will not name explained it all and explained why the British soldier is held in especially high regard. Not only do you have the training other western armed forces have you have an elan few others can match. If put under pressure your first allegiance is to your section yes and the man beside you, same as soldiers the world over, but you also have a regiment with a history to be proud of above and beyond what just about anyone else can claim, if you cross the line you can bring shame on your regiment and so you do not. Beyond that is the privilege of being a soldier in Her Majesty's armed forces, and while that sounds jingoistic to most Pontis, some do understand. The Queen is not like any politician or tribal leader, no mere president, warlord or party chief, she is something more, a titular leader who is worthy of personal allegiance, and someone who you really don't want to let down. This can and does make all the difference.

mattyrm wrote:
Anyway, at the start of the tour we were shooting them, dropping mortars onto them, the occasional milan etc... because there was no civilian towns for several kilometers, and it was obvious they werent digging for carrots. But this was deemed to be too aggressive. So we started doing "warning shots" and at first they would run off, but they would come back shortly after. A few weeks of this, and they were fearless, and funny thing mines started appearing everywhere. I spoke to my Boss about it, i said "does someone have to die before they let us do what we need to?" and he said "yeah yeah Matty i know the score but our hands are tied"

Thats our politicians for you and Blair and Brown are the worst of the lot. They want this that and the other but they want it done the PC dogma way. What has PC dogma got to do with operations in a military theatre?
I will say this for the Israelis, they don't hang up their own soldiers to dry like our lot do.

mattyrm wrote:
I was involved in at least 100 close range firefights, it got worse every year i went, i was well trained, i dont have nightmares, PTSD, cold sweats or depression, but sure, i hate Muslims. Ive never denied it, and i fully accept i would be a better person if i didnt. But i do, and i probably always will.

Do talk to SSAFA if you need to. Please be careful you don't give anyone the opportunity to call you 'racist' because that gak will stick and they wont look at your mitigating circumstances. You know the type.

mattyrm wrote:
If you want to chastise me further, do it via PM so i dont have to hijack this thread with my life story, im currently getting plenty of judgemental PMs, so i should be able to just cut and paste you a reply in no time at all!

Come on now. You really think I would piss on a veteran?

mattyrm wrote:

focusedfire wrote:
The British Soldiers that turn a blind eye to the assaults and other criminal activities of Loyalists?

Clearly he meant "terrorist" types and not random Irish people, and you and anybody else can see it. Your just being facetious.

For example you seem a bit pro IRA to me the way you worded your sentence.

Thanks for that, my thoughts exactly.

mattyrm wrote:Never would have let it happen on my watch, and i dont know any soldiers who would have turned a blind eye to crimes, young British men didnt seem to have much of an interest or bias either way when i was there, you tend to think the whole lot of them are being ridiculous, but now your just derailing the thread even further and your post was pointless.

Clearly he meant "terrorist" types and not random Irish people, and you and anybody else can see it. Your just being facetious.

For example you seem a bit pro IRA to me the way you worded your sentence.

See, we can all do it.

1)No one ever claims to have let it happen, yet it still does.

2)Their of course is a bias. One side is supportive of your presence.

3)The point of my post was to show Orlanth that he had made a statement that came across as overly broad and some what prejudiced. Saying every member of the IRA is scum would be the same as saying every member of the British military are Irish hating fascists. It simply is not true.

Now the point goes along with the current derail in that demonizing your opponent is not a path to peace.

4)Pro IRA no, Pro NRA, Yes......Seriously I'm for equal treatment under the law. Unfortunately, many Brits have doggedly maintained the false claim that there has never been a bias in how the Irish have been treated. They even go so far as to deny that protestants have ever contributed to the problem through instigation.

On-topic- Until we can get both sides to stop demonizing the other, nothing dealing with Israeli/Palestinian relations will change.

Orlanth wrote:

Bottom line if the situation was that poor from the safety of my army chair how about this: Clear a local area of decking with smoke or tear gas. Land some soldiers in the middle of it. Secure a perimeter for landing other soldiers onto the deck. Sounds workable to me and only uses crowd control technology, a non lethal landing. It also means a fair amount of gas due to the helo above and the open deck but what are you looking at , three to five second cover to allow the first soldiers onto the deck. therefore the gas is not fired but is activated but held in the webbing of the first wave of descending soldiers, each soldier has his canister activated from the helo by the soldier following, two or more for the lead guy. No-one then approaches the first soldiers down as they are immersed in a miasma of tear gas. As the gas canisters are held not fired it also absolves the soldiers of being considered to have fired first. Its now only a matter of finding a gas canister or gas canister holder that is safe to be held in webbing and activated while attached to the soldier. All that is then required is a breather unit with independent air supply as from what I have heard close heavy concentrations of gas can force its way through a conventional rebreather.

I doubt any of this is beyond the technical capability of a modern elite army.

Can I assume once you have four or five soldiers in and the LZ cleared they can handle the rest of the drop without further use of gas?

Not unreasonable, but were hijacking the thread here, as i said, you shouldnt fastrope onto a deck with hostiles on without the element of suprise, they would have been able to see before they jumped that they werent going to be able to get down there with no issues. Going up to the boat mob handed on a few MIBs and RIBs and plenty of crowd control gear would have been infinately preferable to attempting to fastrping onto the deck.

All i can presume is that the OC thought that the threat of force would be enough to cow the protestors, i wouldnt have made that mistake as i know how strongly they feel if they are willing to leave the safety of their respective nations to break the blockade, and that they WANT there to be an incident. Maybe not get killed, but they want it to happen, they want publicity, they want to make the IDF out to be the bad guys.

But its easy with hindsight to say what we would do. All we can say is that it was a clusterfeth and a staggeringly bad operational decision. The rest is history..

Orlanth--Matty--FocusedFire----Please take your IRA-NRA-Relief boat discussion to PM or to another thread.

Thank you,

GG

3)The point of my post was to show Orlanth that he had made a statement that indicated came across as overly broad and some what prejudiced. Saying every member of the IRA is scum would be the same as saying every member of the British military are Irish hating fascists. It simply is not true.

Whilst I'm sure that you feel the sentiment to be noble, it would be cold comfort to the families of people who lost their lives on an Omagh street, A Brighton hotel or a Birmingham pub. Would YOU be comfortable with someone mounting a similar defence of Al Qaida members? I wouldn't.

The IRA were/are murderers. The UVF were/are murderers.

'Scum' is an acceptable term.


EDIT:Feel free to discuss this with me via PM to avoid further thread derailment.

Albatross wrote:

3)The point of my post was to show Orlanth that he had made a statement that indicated came across as overly broad and some what prejudiced. Saying every member of the IRA is scum would be the same as saying every member of the British military are Irish hating fascists. It simply is not true.

Whilst I'm sure that you feel the sentiment to be noble, it would be cold comfort to the families of people who lost their lives on an Omagh street, A Brighton hotel or a Birmingham pub. Would YOU be comfortable with someone mounting a similar defence of Al Qaida members? I wouldn't.

The IRA were/are murderers. The UVF were/are murderers.

'Scum' is an acceptable term.


EDIT:Feel free to discuss this with me via PM to avoid further thread derailment.

What about the members of the IRA that didn't kill anyone?

:edit: crap, didn't catch the edit.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Albatross wrote:

3)The point of my post was to show Orlanth that he had made a statement that indicated came across as overly broad and some what prejudiced. Saying every member of the IRA is scum would be the same as saying every member of the British military are Irish hating fascists. It simply is not true.

Whilst I'm sure that you feel the sentiment to be noble, it would be cold comfort to the families of people who lost their lives on an Omagh street, A Brighton hotel or a Birmingham pub. Would YOU be comfortable with someone mounting a similar defence of Al Qaida members? I wouldn't.

The IRA were/are murderers. The UVF were/are murderers.

'Scum' is an acceptable term.


EDIT:Feel free to discuss this with me via PM to avoid further thread derailment.

What about the members of the IRA that didn't kill anyone?

:edit: crap, didn't catch the edit.

PM sent.

generalgrog wrote:Orlanth--Matty--FocusedFire----Please take your IRA-NRA-Relief boat discussion to PM or to another thread.

Thank you,

GG

The Troubles, and Afghanistan, was relevant as a comparitive example in how military policing is can be achieved.
Focused fire misread my comments to think I assumed all Irish were 'scum', they aren't, but I still consider all IRA terrorists as 'scum'. But that is another topic for another time.

Relief boat? If you are refering to how to get onto a crowded unfriendly ship you want to seize without killing people or minimise risk of killing people, that is very relevant to the discussion.
Establishing whether certain recent actions resulted in 'inevitable' casualties accounts for the level of culpability regarding those actions and at what level of ethics they can be defended.

Everything to do with attacking the boat is off the original topic.

We are supposed to be discussing why the USA backs Israel.

So far two basic theories have been presented.

1. Realpolitik. Israel is the only western-aligned state in a volatile, strategically important area of the world.

2. Religious: Israel needs support in order to bring about the end of the world as promised in Revelations.

Kilkrazy wrote:Everything to do with attacking the boat is off the original topic.

We are supposed to be discussing why the USA backs Israel.

So far two basic theories have been presented.

1. Realpolitik. Israel is the only western-aligned state in a volatile, strategically important area of the world.

2. Religious: Israel needs support in order to bring about the end of the world as promised in Revelations.

These theories aren't mutually exclusive and given the multitudinous nature of it's supporters and their disparate and often dissimilar reasoning its fairly safe to assume that both of those statements are true.

Orlanth, with repect, the intimate details of military procedures on what constitutes a good or bad helo drop using repelling lines has nothing what so ever to do with a discussion of Americas backing/favoritsm towards Israel.

You and Matty can have British SAS/ army discusssions and how they react with IRA and dropping onto relief boats in another thread or PM.

thanx,

GG

generalgrog wrote:Orlanth, with repect, the intimate details of military procedures on what constitutes a good or bad helo drop using repelling lines has nothing what so ever to do with a discussion of Americas backing/favoritsm towards Israel.

You and Matty can have British SAS/ army discusssions and how they react with IRA and dropping onto relief boats in another thread or PM.

thanx,

GG

The procedures and people that led to this situation are very much involved in the thread as they are paramount to the discussions of Israel and why it is supported. The countries actions are as important as peoples views of it's religion or geographic placement in this line of discussion. Minor minutiae is seemingly unimportant, but a chain of events led to those people being dropped on that ship, and a chain of events led from that to strained relations with Turkey and this exact conversation. To consider it irrelevant is to cut out a rather important piece of the puzzle. It leads to questions of Israels inability to follow international law and it's heavy handed use of force in situations that often times do not call for it. It may be one example, but it's an important one, and it's entirely relevant.

ShumaGorath wrote:

generalgrog wrote:Orlanth, with repect, the intimate details of military procedures on what constitutes a good or bad helo drop using repelling lines has nothing what so ever to do with a discussion of Americas backing/favoritsm towards Israel.

You and Matty can have British SAS/ army discusssions and how they react with IRA and dropping onto relief boats in another thread or PM.

thanx,

GG

The procedures and people that led to this situation are very much involved in the thread as they are paramount to the discussions of Israel and why it is supported. The countries actions are as important as peoples views of it's religion or geographic placement in this line of discussion. Minor minutiae is seemingly unimportant, but a chain of events led to those people being dropped on that ship, and a chain of events led from that to strained relations with Turkey and this exact conversation. To consider it irrelevant is to cut out a rather important piece of the puzzle. It leads to questions of Israels inability to follow international law and it's heavy handed use of force in situations that often times do not call for it. It may be one example, but it's an important one, and it's entirely relevant.

So you're going to start at 1,000 BC and move forward? This is going to be a heck of a long thread.

Albatross wrote:Whilst I'm sure that you feel the sentiment to be noble, it would be cold comfort to the families of people who lost their lives on an Omagh street, A Brighton hotel or a Birmingham pub. Would YOU be comfortable with someone mounting a similar defence of Al Qaida members? I wouldn't.

The IRA were/are murderers. The UVF were/are murderers.

'Scum' is an acceptable term.

German RAF planted a bomb in the building next to my baracks. It was christmas, The bomb was fortunately found and defused. I don't feel that they were scum.
The suicide bomber that drove into the American Embassy in Beruit and killed/injured guys from my unit, I don't feel that they were scum.
Both of these actions instilled in me a greater resolve to prevent further such occurances but did not make me dehumanize these groups. They were the enemy, nothing more.

As to the Al'qaeda, There is a history behind this organization that includes the west(CIA) as a fundemental part of their creation. You have to look into they "why" of these people becoming extremists. How are they recruited? How can we take away the tools for recruiting these disenfranchised individuals?

Desperate people that feel that their voices are not being heard or helpless will use what tools are available to wage war, including resorting to extreme measures. Yes, some of these people are psychopaths but not all. I don't condone the actions of these groups, but can understand the process of how bigotry, demonization, and inequality can lead people to these actions. Instead of adding fuel to the fire, we should be looking for ways to defuse the situation. ....Unless you feel a total purge would be better. Kill'em all and let god sort'em out.

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

generalgrog wrote:Orlanth, with repect, the intimate details of military procedures on what constitutes a good or bad helo drop using repelling lines has nothing what so ever to do with a discussion of Americas backing/favoritsm towards Israel.

You and Matty can have British SAS/ army discusssions and how they react with IRA and dropping onto relief boats in another thread or PM.

thanx,

GG

The procedures and people that led to this situation are very much involved in the thread as they are paramount to the discussions of Israel and why it is supported. The countries actions are as important as peoples views of it's religion or geographic placement in this line of discussion. Minor minutiae is seemingly unimportant, but a chain of events led to those people being dropped on that ship, and a chain of events led from that to strained relations with Turkey and this exact conversation. To consider it irrelevant is to cut out a rather important piece of the puzzle. It leads to questions of Israels inability to follow international law and it's heavy handed use of force in situations that often times do not call for it. It may be one example, but it's an important one, and it's entirely relevant.

So you're going to start at 1,000 BC and move forward? This is going to be a heck of a long thread.

Sometimes you have to consider a lot of information when discussing something like financial support for a country of millions of people. It'll take some effort, but I'm sure the boat will get there eventually. Just watch out for helicopter drops.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Everything to do with attacking the boat is off the original topic.

We are supposed to be discussing why the USA backs Israel.

So far two basic theories have been presented.

1. Realpolitik. Israel is the only western-aligned state in a volatile, strategically important area of the world.

2. Religious: Israel needs support in order to bring about the end of the world as promised in Revelations.

These theories aren't mutually exclusive and given the multitudinous nature of it's supporters and their disparate and often dissimilar reasoning its fairly safe to assume that both of those statements are true.

The point is what other theories do people have?

focusedfire wrote:
Desperate people that feel that their voices are not being heard or helpless will use what tools are available to wage war, including resorting to extreme measures. Yes, some of these people are psychopaths but not all. I don't condone the actions of these groups, but can understand the process of how bigotry, demonization, and inequality can lead people to these actions. Instead of adding fuel to the fire, we should be looking for ways to defuse the situation. ....Unless you feel a total purge would be better. Kill'em all and let god sort'em out.

The one thing that is lost here, is what about compliance? Or at the most... nonviolent protest.

The palestinians could take a few lessons from Ghandi or Martin Luther King.

If they started down the road of nonviolent civil disobedience, you could see a see change in the American attitude towards them.

GG

Kilkrazy wrote:Everything to do with attacking the boat is off the original topic.

We are supposed to be discussing why the USA backs Israel.

So far two basic theories have been presented.

1. Realpolitik. Israel is the only western-aligned state in a volatile, strategically important area of the world.

2. Religious: Israel needs support in order to bring about the end of the world as promised in Revelations.

Hmm. I will disagree as there are threshold point by which attitudes change. Some people, and yes this includes Americans changed their views after the invasion of Gaza in January 2009. the Turkish aid convoy is having a similar effect.

Also your theories miss issues that make some very uncomfortable.

1. Realpolitik. You shouldn't buy this for a second. Turkey is 'western-aligned', as is Egypt and Jordan. If you think Israel is Americas only friend in the region its about time you started to think who would tell you that ansd why, because it doesnt fit any of the facts. You could possibly out Jordan is you like as that is traditionally a UK ally not a direct US ally, but unless you have complete amneia over the Camp David agereement in 1979 you couldnt possibly count out Egypt as a US ally.

2. Religious. This I can and do believe is a big issue in the US. As a fundie and a theologian myself I can see the theology but dont agree with the way it is interpreted. Most European Christianity doesn't share this agenda either. However some Christians I know are very pro-Zionist, equal or more so that anything we have seen on Dakka the last few days. Some I knew well for years had a 'cylon switch' in them that turned on when they found I did not believe in supporting Israel irregardless of her governments actions. I left a church because of it, a very well run and friendly church up to that point.

There is are other options:

3. Propoganda. You will have to look up one of the older threads for my views on philosophical distortion through the mass media. I wont go into details here because at least one mod didnt like what I had to say about that, decreed it BS and locked the thread. Interesting as you normally laugh or counter-argue off a lie and the post, indeed the whole thread was polite and not in any way trolling, so I think I hit on something that some just didnt like aired.

4. Military cooperation. Israel is a law unto itself, but there is very good possibility that the alliance goes both ways. Israel has a pair and is willing to go an extra distance if the goal is right to them. I can see this being of use to the US, and perhaps sometimes Mossad or the IDF does things that an American president wants done but cannot ask to have done by his own people. I would suspect there is a price to that, but it will also be done quietly, hence what I am saying is pure conjecture. Israel really knows how to keep a secret, so if they do do favours, we wont know about them.

Yes I am no friend of Israel, but I am very impressed by what they can achieve. More so than anyone else frankly. I certainly wouldn't want to cross them.

If Turkey is such a great western aligned power, why does the EU keep them out?

Kilkrazy wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Everything to do with attacking the boat is off the original topic.

We are supposed to be discussing why the USA backs Israel.

So far two basic theories have been presented.

1. Realpolitik. Israel is the only western-aligned state in a volatile, strategically important area of the world.

2. Religious: Israel needs support in order to bring about the end of the world as promised in Revelations.

These theories aren't mutually exclusive and given the multitudinous nature of it's supporters and their disparate and often dissimilar reasoning its fairly safe to assume that both of those statements are true.

The point is what other theories do people have?

Other than materialistic and religious connections you'd be strained to find a powerful line of reasoning beyond anti islamism and certain forms of western imperialism or jingoism.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:If Turkey is such a great western aligned power, why does the EU keep them out?

Economic performance and good old fashioned european racism. Europe doesn't like muslims. Given Turkeys increasingly anti western tone and the subtle but continued islamization of its government (something that could be offset with EU status, but its already begun) some of their concerns are justified. If you consider the EU to be a trade block only then the reasoning is fairly thin, if you consider cultural values then warning lights shine fairly bright.

generalgrog wrote:The one thing that is lost here, is what about compliance? Or at the most... nonviolent protest.

The palestinians could take a few lessons from Ghandi or Martin Luther King.

If they started down the road of nonviolent civil disobedience, you could see a see change in the American attitude towards them.

GG

Once blood has been shed and violence has occurred bringing people back to the point of non-violent protest is nearly impossible. The situation would have to be stabilized for a while, the tools for genocide would have to be removed, and the people in the area would have to view the mounting casualties as an intolerable before there could even be a chance to start to teach non-violence as a tool.

It would be nice if a non-violent leader emerged but the area has a history of killing such individuals without blinking an eye. The Middle-East would require a major shift in culture for non-violent protests to work.

generalgrog wrote:

focusedfire wrote:
Desperate people that feel that their voices are not being heard or helpless will use what tools are available to wage war, including resorting to extreme measures. Yes, some of these people are psychopaths but not all. I don't condone the actions of these groups, but can understand the process of how bigotry, demonization, and inequality can lead people to these actions. Instead of adding fuel to the fire, we should be looking for ways to defuse the situation. ....Unless you feel a total purge would be better. Kill'em all and let god sort'em out.

The one thing that is lost here, is what about compliance? Or at the most... nonviolent protest.

The palestinians could take a few lessons from Ghandi or Martin Luther King.

If they started down the road of nonviolent civil disobedience, you could see a see change in the American attitude towards them.

GG

That doesn't explain the fondness for Israel. The Israelis don't believe in non-violent civil disobedience.

Kilkrazy wrote:

generalgrog wrote:

focusedfire wrote:
Desperate people that feel that their voices are not being heard or helpless will use what tools are available to wage war, including resorting to extreme measures. Yes, some of these people are psychopaths but not all. I don't condone the actions of these groups, but can understand the process of how bigotry, demonization, and inequality can lead people to these actions. Instead of adding fuel to the fire, we should be looking for ways to defuse the situation. ....Unless you feel a total purge would be better. Kill'em all and let god sort'em out.

The one thing that is lost here, is what about compliance? Or at the most... nonviolent protest.

The palestinians could take a few lessons from Ghandi or Martin Luther King.

If they started down the road of nonviolent civil disobedience, you could see a see change in the American attitude towards them.

GG

That doesn't explain the fondness for Israel. The Israelis don't believe in non-violent civil disobedience.

Not of a lot of Americans know or care about the reality behind Israel. Like with most economic and social topics popular sentiment is self generating. People like Israel because people like Israel.

Did the British or the U.S. Govt. believe in nonviolence? The Israelis are in a similar position.

And not to mention South Africa
GG

As a Pro-Israel American, I see our relationship as a special bond between us and them. While they are probably violent repressionists who kill anything that so much as glances at them funny, the government of Israel has provided the United States with headaches and heartaches ever since the Cold War and regional Arab-Israeli conflicts ended. Their militant stance against anything Islamic or nearby is pretty much everything that America could not want in today's day and age with allies of theirs.

That being said, despite all the negative connotations being a staunch ally of Israel brings, without Israel America would have alot less enemies in the world and fewer problems to deal with.

So in short we should continue to support Israel even if it costs the United States brownie points with people who concern themselves with human rights, relationships with arabs, and steady oil supplies.

generalgrog wrote:

The palestinians could take a few lessons from Ghandi or Martin Luther King.

If they started down the road of nonviolent civil disobedience, you could see a see change in the American attitude towards them.

GG

If Palestine grew a Ghandi he would be asssassinated by Mossad very quickly. A Ghandi in Gaza woulsd be Israels worst nightmare. I honestly think sometimes they are heavy handed deliberately because then Hamas only uses violence back, which is easily labelled as Palestinian terrorism and thereby ignored.

What people dont see is that Ghandi was a product of the British Empire and Martin Luther King was a product of United States. Both power groups had huge rights issues at the time, but there was a limit in how far they would or could go. How far would the Million Man March go in say the Soviet Union or Hitlers Germany, or apartheid South Africa. Not very far.

Abbas is as near to a 'Ghandi' as you can expect us to see, a very pragmatic man. But non-coperation as per Ghandi is not possible, we know because they tried. Please remember that unlike 1930's India every utility is controlled by the occupying power. gaza is locked down, most forms of good are contraband. Water and electricity is controlled and supplies are limited, Hence the blockade running efforts by Turkey and why they didnt jkust land at Haifa. For some reason some good are too good for Palestinians:



The prohibited list is very caerefully drawn up as to prvent an independent infrastructure. Take meat as an example You cannot have fresh meat, that is a security issue because of border delays. Canned meat can be stored long term which gives Palestinians the opportunity to save up, frozen meat requires power and if the power is cut off then meat thaws and rots. Thus Palestinains cannot engage in civic disobedience because they reach a resource crisis if Israel flicks the switch off. This is coped down the whole list.

Also in the 1930s India et al the infrastructure was not being regularly bombed. Palestine cannot sit down and non-cooperarte as:
a) It wont last because most of the violence is started by individuals not centralised groups. Israeli settlers like taking pot shots as do small chaotic groups of Palestinians who are 'Hamas' in name but not under any real control or supervision.
b) I think a Ghandi would get shot by Mossad before he rose to any true prominence. For exactly the reason you gave, he would garner western support for the Palestinians. As Mossad knows pretty much everything going on in Gaza though a bewildering number of methods of evesdropping one couldnt rise undetected. Its not hard to imagine this, the Israelis deliberately kill people who are not terrorists but hamper Israel by other means, including press jounalists and foreign activists. This has in the past included young photogenic female US citizens. Journalists are banned from Gaza now anyway.
c) Rose Parks was asked to get off her seat, this wasnt reinforced by repeatedly shelling black neighbourhoods. Israel acts so harshly that it is impossible to get enough Palestinians to not be angry long enough. No wonder they cant get any Martin Luther King figures to gather around.

Nice try general grog, but this will not happen until you get foreign peacekeepers in Gaza and the West Bank and a deal that keeps the IDF including its artillery and aircraft strictly out. If you manage to pull that off you might be in business. It will still take time for tempers to cool sufficiently to bring in your Palestinian Ghandi/King.

Frazzled wrote:
They weren't aid convoys. Aid travels through the port of Haifa.

Aid travels through multiple ports; including Ashod where the boats are now being towed, and the Port of Gaza inside the Israeli cordon which was the likely destination of the ships prior to interception.

WarOne wrote:As a Pro-Israel American, I see our relationship as a special bond between us and them. While they are probably violent repressionists who kill anything that so much as glances at them funny, the government of Israel has provided the United States with headaches and heartaches ever since the Cold War and regional Arab-Israeli conflicts ended. Their militant stance against anything Islamic or nearby is pretty much everything that America could not want in today's day and age with allies of theirs.

That being said, despite all the negative connotations being a staunch ally of Israel brings, without Israel America would have alot less enemies in the world and fewer problems to deal with.

So in short we should continue to support Israel even if it costs the United States brownie points with people who concern themselves with human rights, relationships with arabs, and steady oil supplies.

Spousal abuse post is reminiscent of spousal abuse case.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

generalgrog wrote:

focusedfire wrote:
Desperate people that feel that their voices are not being heard or helpless will use what tools are available to wage war, including resorting to extreme measures. Yes, some of these people are psychopaths but not all. I don't condone the actions of these groups, but can understand the process of how bigotry, demonization, and inequality can lead people to these actions. Instead of adding fuel to the fire, we should be looking for ways to defuse the situation. ....Unless you feel a total purge would be better. Kill'em all and let god sort'em out.

The one thing that is lost here, is what about compliance? Or at the most... nonviolent protest.

The palestinians could take a few lessons from Ghandi or Martin Luther King.

If they started down the road of nonviolent civil disobedience, you could see a see change in the American attitude towards them.

GG

That doesn't explain the fondness for Israel. The Israelis don't believe in non-violent civil disobedience.

Not of a lot of Americans know or care about the reality behind Israel. Like with most economic and social topics popular sentiment is self generating. People like Israel because people like Israel.

Yet increasingly, people in Europe don't like Israel.

Support for Israel has noticeably decreased since the days of the 67 and 73 wars, largely thanks to their treatment of the Palestineans.

What is different about the USA?

Frazzled wrote:If Turkey is such a great western aligned power, why does the EU keep them out?

Because they would instantly become the largest nation in the EU, and shift the demography to favor Muslims. Additionally, there are nominal questions pertaining to the European nature of Turkey (the same questions that would arise if the US applied for Union), and similar issues with certain groups about the over-extension of the EU.

Yet increasingly, people in Europe don't like Israel.

Support for Israel has noticeably decreased since the days of the 67 and 73 wars, largely thanks to their treatment of the Palestineans.

What is different about the USA?

Lack of proximity. Nationalism. Jingoism. Zionism. The jewish lobby. The involvement in two wars largely justified as counterterrorist in nature. Lets be real here, we're the ones supporting them. Europe condemns or praises, but it largely just watches.

Orlanth wrote:
If Palestine grew a Ghandi he would be asssassinated by Mossad very quickly.

Why would it have to be an Israeli agent? Why not Hamas or Hezbolah? You think Hezbollah doesn't "want" the violence to continue?

Very Jaded view you have there Orlanth.

GG

generalgrog wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
If Palestine grew a Ghandi he would be asssassinated by Mossad very quickly.

Why would it have to be an Israeli agent? Why not Hamas or Hezbolah? You think Hezbollah doesn't "want" the violence to continue?

Very Jaded view you have there Orlanth.

GG

Neither entity has any interest in peace. Their master doesn't want that.

WarOne wrote:
So in short we should continue to support Israel even if it costs the United States brownie points with people who concern themselves with human rights, relationships with arabs, and steady oil supplies.

Why? You listed a number of negative consequences arising from America's support of Israel, but no benefits. What does the United States gain by supporting Israel?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

generalgrog wrote:
Why would it have to be an Israeli agent? Why not Hamas or Hezbolah? You think Hezbollah doesn't "want" the violence to continue?

Very Jaded view you have there Orlanth.

GG

I think that the continued settler activity shows, very clearly, that Israel is not interested in peace. Neither is Hamas, of course, though I think Hezbollah, as a whole, is a different story.

generalgrog wrote:Did the British or the U.S. Govt. believe in nonviolence? The Israelis are in a similar position.

And not to mention South Africa
GG

They did believe in non-violence to a point. The European culture has made a point of avoiding all-out total war. Look at the European reaction at Vlad Tepes actions in the 1400's. Some parts of the modern world have killed 800,000 men women and children without blinking an eye. If we could find a way of establishing a culture of non-violence in these areas,Don't you think we already would have done so?".

Israel is in a different position due to being surrounded by neighbors that do not have the same culture or similar religion. The culture in the area is one of aggression and militaristic might. The path to the non-violent mindset in the middle-east will be a long and time consuming one, but I view the fact that there are even protesters in the middle east as a sign of progress.

Frazzled wrote:If Turkey is such a great western aligned power, why does the EU keep them out?

ShumaGorath wrote:
Economic performance and good old fashioned european racism. Europe doesn't like muslims. Given Turkeys increasingly anti western tone and the subtle but continued islamization of its government (something that could be offset with EU status, but its already begun) some of their concerns are justified. If you consider the EU to be a trade block only then the reasoning is fairly thin, if you consider cultural values then warning lights shine fairly bright.

dogma wrote:
Because they would instantly become the largest nation in the EU, and shift the demography to favor Muslims. Additionally, there are nominal questions pertaining to the European nature of Turkey (the same questions that would arise if the US applied for Union), and similar issues with certain groups about the over-extension of the EU.

Both answers to Frazzies question are unfair and incorrect.


If Turkey is such a great western aligned power, why does the EU keep them out?

a) Traditonally Europe ends at the Bosphorus, only a fraction of Turkey is in Europe.
b) Greece says No. Greeks and turks do hate each other to get in the EU a candidate nation has to be accepted by all member states. Greece will not say yes, in the same way De Gaulle would not allow the UK entry into the EEC. In this ShumaGoarath is correct that it is racism, but its specifically Greek rather than European racism as a whole.
c) Turkey is not economically developed enough for membership.
d) Turkey has lots of dodgy borders including Iraq. So people cross the Caucassus from Iraq, Iran and Syria and arrive immediately in... the EU. I can see this not going down well.


Turkey does not have the largest population in the proposed EU, Germany does. It will be the largest by territory but that in itself isnt indicitive. Besides Populations is not of itself that strong an indicator of a nations voice in the European parliament. Smaller countires are demographically overrepresented, also a nations economic strength is taken into account. Turkey could not 'dominate' or even threaten to dominate the EU, now would it turn Europe Moslem if itself.

a) Traditonally Europe ends at the Bosphorus, only a fraction of Turkey is in Europe.

I find that little portion of your reasoning a bit pointless. The concept of a traditionally 'recognized' invisible boundary governing membership into the EU when that 'boundary' would rest in the middle of the country is a bit of a stretch.

b) Greece says No. Greeks and turks do hate each other to get in the EU a candidate nation has to be accepted by all member states. Greece will not say yes, in the same way De Gaulle would not allow the UK entry into the EEC. In this ShumaGoarath is correct that it is racism, but its specifically Greek rather than European racism as a whole.

At this point I really don't think anyone cares what the greeks think. They are a fiftieth of the european population and they haven't really handled member status all that gracefully have they? As for the entry being permitted by greece, I'm sure that can be changed. Greece is receiving a bailout that was illegal by the EU charter a year ago as is.

c) Turkey is not economically developed enough for membership.

And yet they would be the fastest growing economy in all of europe, a zone where economic stagnation is currently the reality.

d) Turkey has lots of dodgy borders including Iraq. So people cross the Caucassus from Iraq, Iran and Syria and arrive immediately in... the EU. I can see this not going down well.

How does that matter..?

Turkey does not have the largest population in the proposed EU, Germany does. It will be the largest by territory but that in itself isnt indicitive. Besides Populations is not of itself that strong an indicator of a nations voice in the European parliament. Smaller countires are demographically overrepresented, also a nations economic strength is taken into account. Turkey could not 'dominate' or even threaten to dominate the EU, now would it turn Europe Moslem if itself.

Given germanies falling population and turkeys rapidly rising one I think they could cover the five million head disparity in a few years (If they haven't already). I think the change would work to the counter of what Dogma believes though. Greater ties with europe could well begin to reverse the islamization of the Turkish government that has been occurring for some time. However thats not really a point in their favor.

Orlanth wrote:
Both answers to Frazzies question are unfair and incorrect.


If Turkey is such a great western aligned power, why does the EU keep them out?

a) Traditonally Europe ends at the Bosphorus, only a fraction of Turkey is in Europe.
b) Greece says No. Greeks and turks do hate each other to get in the EU a candidate nation has to be accepted by all member states. Greece will not say yes, in the same way De Gaulle would not allow the UK entry into the EEC. In this ShumaGoarath is correct that it is racism, but its specifically Greek rather than European racism as a whole.
c) Turkey is not economically developed enough for membership.
d) Turkey has lots of dodgy borders including Iraq. So people cross the Caucassus from Iraq, Iran and Syria and arrive immediately in... the EU. I can see this not going down well.

Huh? Together, Shuma and I touched on all those issues. You basically said that we were incorrect, and then proceeded to imitate our arguments.

Orlanth wrote:
Turkey does not have the largest population in the proposed EU, Germany does. It will be the largest by territory but that in itself isnt indicitive. Besides Populations is not of itself that strong an indicator of a nations voice in the European parliament. Smaller countires are demographically overrepresented, also a nations economic strength is taken into account. Turkey could not 'dominate' or even threaten to dominate the EU, now would it turn Europe Moslem if itself.

I agree, but I'm not the one arguing against Turkey's inclusion in the EU.

Frazzled wrote:

generalgrog wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
If Palestine grew a Ghandi he would be asssassinated by Mossad very quickly.

Why would it have to be an Israeli agent? Why not Hamas or Hezbolah? You think Hezbollah doesn't "want" the violence to continue?

Very Jaded view you have there Orlanth.

GG

Neither entity has any interest in peace. Their master doesn't want that.

Hezbollah and Hamas do not want peace. But I think they would stomach a peaceful form of victory, then deal with him afterwards and pehaps even ignite a new war.
Mossad would need to bump off your peaceful demogogue far quicker than that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
Both answers to Frazzies question are unfair and incorrect.


If Turkey is such a great western aligned power, why does the EU keep them out?

a) Traditonally Europe ends at the Bosphorus, only a fraction of Turkey is in Europe.
b) Greece says No. Greeks and turks do hate each other to get in the EU a candidate nation has to be accepted by all member states. Greece will not say yes, in the same way De Gaulle would not allow the UK entry into the EEC. In this ShumaGoarath is correct that it is racism, but its specifically Greek rather than European racism as a whole.
c) Turkey is not economically developed enough for membership.
d) Turkey has lots of dodgy borders including Iraq. So people cross the Caucassus from Iraq, Iran and Syria and arrive immediately in... the EU. I can see this not going down well.

Huh? Together, Shuma and I touched on all those issues. You basically said that we were incorrect, and then proceeded to imitate our arguments.

Up to a point. however I found Shumas comments about failed entry to be a result of european racism rather than speccifically Greek. Also you were wrong in fact and principle about Turkey tipping European demographics towarss Islam. Wheras it wouldnt make much difference.

We are heading too far off-thread here.

Taking it back to the orginal commentary Turkey is a valued ally of the US, debunking the idea that Israel is the US's only friend in the region.
I think Frazzie was trying to delimit Turkeys value as an ally by point out Turkeys failure to join the EU. This is not relevant as Turkey, is listed by the CIA as a 'developed country', even if others like the World Bank disagree, Turkey is moderate Islamic so its good to be seen as their friends sometimes, Turkey also has a strong military. Finally Turkey is a strong member of NATO and has been for a long time.

Orlanth wrote:

Taking it back to the orginal commentary Turkey is a valued ally of the US, debunking the idea that Israel is the US's only friend in the region.
I think Frazzie was trying to delimit Turkeys value as an ally by point out Turkeys failure to join the EU. This is not relevant as Turkey, is listed by the CIA as a 'developed country', even if others like the World Bank disagree, Turkey is moderate Islamic so its good to be seen as their friends sometimes, Turkey also has a strong military. Finally Turkey is a strong member of NATO and has been for a long time.

Turkey also has a unique problem with minority populations living within/near their border. The Kurds and Armenians constitute some of the most sensitive topics in Turkish relations with people who share the same space as the Turks. In many ways I find it morbidly amusing that Turkey criticizes the Israelis for their actions when Turkey has gotten away with much more genocidal actions that have been largely ignored or swept under the rug. Perhaps their status as a third/second world nation for the last 80 years has made it more forgiveable for them than a more advanced first world nation like Israel.


Turkey's alliance with Israel does have limited benefits. Turkey's secularism puts them at odds with their more fundamentalist neighbors and limits their impact on the Middle Eastern political world.

Up to a point. however I found Shumas comments about failed entry to be a result of european racism rather than speccifically Greek. Also you were wrong in fact and principle about Turkey tipping European demographics towarss Islam. Wheras it wouldnt make much difference.

Greece isn't the one banning minarets or burkas. To treat the anti islamic racism of europe as endemic to greece alone is unrealistic.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Up to a point. however I found Shumas comments about failed entry to be a result of european racism rather than speccifically Greek. Also you were wrong in fact and principle about Turkey tipping European demographics towarss Islam. Wheras it wouldnt make much difference.

Greece isn't the one banning minarets or burkas. To treat the anti islamic racism of europe as endemic to greece alone is unrealistic.

Not relevant what we are discussing on topic or even on the threadjack. The minaret ban was in Switzerland, the veil ban was in France, neither are relevant to Greeces problem with Turkish entry to the EU.
Can we get back to the topic now?

I really am not sure I understand Israels logic chain in Gaza. Obviously they consider their security to be of of the highest priority, but do they intend to keep such restrictions on Gaza forever?

Have they ever mentioned a plan b or is keeping a million person ghetto just the plan? Or do they hope to gradually disperse the people in that region through depriving them of any possibility of careers?

The logic of the blockade seems to be counter in my mind towards ever generating a peaceful solution.

efarrer wrote:I really am not sure I understand Israels logic chain in Gaza. Obviously they consider their security to be of of the highest priority, but do they intend to keep such restrictions on Gaza forever?

Have they ever mentioned a plan b or is keeping a million person ghetto just the plan? Or do they hope to gradually disperse the people in that region through depriving them of any possibility of careers?

The logic of the blockade seems to be counter in my mind towards ever generating a peaceful solution.

Israel wants gaza. Thats about the extent of the issue. They are interested in increasing the size of their state. The blockade seems logically designed to cause hardship within gaza, likely with the eventual aim of a total flight from it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orlanth wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Up to a point. however I found Shumas comments about failed entry to be a result of european racism rather than speccifically Greek. Also you were wrong in fact and principle about Turkey tipping European demographics towarss Islam. Wheras it wouldnt make much difference.

Greece isn't the one banning minarets or burkas. To treat the anti islamic racism of europe as endemic to greece alone is unrealistic.

Not relevant what we are discussing on topic or even on the threadjack. The minaret ban was in Switzerland, the veil ban was in France, neither are relevant to Greeces problem with Turkish entry to the EU.
Can we get back to the topic now?

Anti islamism is quite relevant to the topic.

Frazzled wrote:They are the only ethnic group specifically targeted for gas chambers.

Aside from the Rom, of course...

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Frazzled wrote:They are the only ethnic group specifically targeted for gas chambers.

Aside from the Rom, of course...

Can't forget the Poles.

Really the Jewish population was furthest along in terms of their nasty work but they had at least three major target groups. Poland was to be totally almost depopulated of Polish people by 1952.

According to Himmler, "All Poles will disappear from the world. [...] It is essential that the great German people should consider it as its major task to destroy all Poles.

Orlanth wrote:
Up to a point. however I found Shumas comments about failed entry to be a result of european racism rather than speccifically Greek.

Greece is in Europe, is it not? Additionally, there are anti-Islamic movements in many European nations.

Orlanth wrote:
Also you were wrong in fact and principle about Turkey tipping European demographics towarss Islam. Wheras it wouldnt make much difference.

I was wrong about the instantaneous affect of Turkish integration, though I was also parroting an argument rather than making one myself.

I really don't see how you can believe that Turkish membership wouldn't significantly affect European demography. That's plainly false when examining the sheer size of Turkey, and its birth rate when compared to the current EU membership. We're talking about tripling the size of the European Muslim population on the first day of membership, and massively reducing the immigration barrier for those people.

Orlanth wrote:
Taking it back to the orginal commentary Turkey is a valued ally of the US, debunking the idea that Israel is the US's only friend in the region.
I think Frazzie was trying to delimit Turkeys value as an ally by point out Turkeys failure to join the EU. This is not relevant as Turkey, is listed by the CIA as a 'developed country', even if others like the World Bank disagree, Turkey is moderate Islamic so its good to be seen as their friends sometimes, Turkey also has a strong military. Finally Turkey is a strong member of NATO and has been for a long time.

Yes, it does seem that was his intent. One wonders why a given nation's relationship with Europe would be directly relevant to its relationship with the US.

Orlanth wrote:4. While left largely unspoken it is known that the US broke nuclear proliferation rules to assist in the devlopment of the Israeli nuclear deterent.

They were developed with the help of the French, with some materials provided by the UK. Israel's nukes were developed before the US formed their current relationship of absolute support regardless of what Israel does.

5. Therefore the blame for the current problems in the Middle East can be sourced to backing from Washington.

Unwavering US support plays a part, but I honestly apart from dropping that I doubt the US has a bigger a role to play in an eventual solution. Previous US efforts to broker a deal were much publicised but ultimately any progress made was due to Israeli and Palestinian peacemakers.

The US would do well to stop its unwavering support, after that it's up to Israel and Palestine.

5. The US and Israel pays to relocate the Palestinian community.

As a species we've basically moved past forcefully relocating ethnic groups, it was a pretty bad idea. The horse has likely bolted on the idea too, there is now a strong Palestinian identity (shared suffering will do that), the exodus that might have been possible in the 50s is likely impossible today.

There are Palestinians in refugee camps in Jordan who have been waiting to return home to Palestine for decades, they could join Jordanian society but what they want is to return to their Palestinian homes.

The two state solution is the only real solution.

Kilkrazy wrote:The Israeli government has wide (though not total) popular support from the populace.

It depends which element of policy you're talking about. There's little support for new settlements, but Gaza offensive was almost universally supported in Israel.

generalgrog wrote:Well in your argument you conveniently left out the bad part of Palestinians and focused on the bad part of Israel, which was bad form in my opinion. This goes to the heart of the matter right? Many Americans will back Israel as long as the bad palestinians keep "biting there nose, too spite their face" I will never forget the day 9/11 happened and the media showed all those palestinians celebrating in the streets, yipping and yapping like it was the 4th of July.

I'll also never forget the images of litttle children dressed up in bomb suits before they go blow up a bus or walk into a fruit market and blow it up.

Do you realise how disproportionate the violence is? Over the last decade there's been around 100 Palestinian casualties for every Israeli. I just do not understand what is going on when people talk about how they Israelis sympathise with the Israelis because of their dead, while ignoring that so many more Palestinians are killed indiscriminately.

Has Israel been heavy handed at times? Of course they have. And they should be criticized when they do.

At this point, Israel is more or less out of ideas on how to solve the problem, so 'heavy handed' has just about become not just the method, but the objective. The Gasa offensive was criticised was wildly disproportionate, what critics failed to realise is that the purpose of the operation was to be wildly disproportionate.

However there is this loss of context where people forget what the Israelis have had to put up with for so many years.

Compared to people being almost completely oblivious to what life in Palestine is really like.

They are like the little brother that does wrong, but becuase he is your little brother he gets a pass. Oh you may try and discipine him to try and teach him right, but the bottom line he is, your little brother and you will defend him.

It isn't your little brother, it's a country full of grown adults. They're keeping another group of adults in a state of absolute poverty, and killing lots of them.

Kilkrazy wrote:Everything to do with attacking the boat is off the original topic.

We are supposed to be discussing why the USA backs Israel.

So far two basic theories have been presented.

1. Realpolitik. Israel is the only western-aligned state in a volatile, strategically important area of the world.

2. Religious: Israel needs support in order to bring about the end of the world as promised in Revelations.

3. History. Countries will tend to stick by nations who've been allies for a while, even if they're better off pulling back from the relationship.

4. Narrative. The founding of Israel has a powerful narrative, refugees from persecution forge a new country beset on all sides by enemies. The best stories continue to resonate even when they lose all relevance to the real world.

5. Kickass Israeli PR. About the only thing Israel does better than PR is wetworks. Palestine is catching up, as the recent aid flotilla exercise shows, but they have a long way to go.

6. Lobbying. There are more influential citizens of Jewish ancestry in the US than there are Palestinians.

generalgrog wrote:Why would it have to be an Israeli agent? Why not Hamas or Hezbolah? You think Hezbollah doesn't "want" the violence to continue?

Very Jaded view you have there Orlanth.

GG

That's a fair point. Palestine's government has moved from grossly corrupt and secular to honest but fanatical anti-Israelites. Neither of which have any interest in seeing a charismatic man of peace reach negotiation with Israel.

The issue of what to do about Hamas, and how to encourage a better government in Palestine is a very difficult question, and I really don't know what the answer is. I mean, I know the answer isn't "maintain arbitrary and cruel quarantine restrictions was spontaneously launching incredibly violent raids based on little provocation like they're doing right now" but other than that I'm not sure.

efarrer wrote:The logic of the blockade seems to be counter in my mind towards ever generating a peaceful solution.

True, now consider the possibility that Israel has security as only one of several goals. Expansion is also important, which is why they are settling new territory outside their national boundaries. Keeping Palestine impoverished aids them in taking their land.

efarrer wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Frazzled wrote:They are the only ethnic group specifically targeted for gas chambers.

Aside from the Rom, of course...

Can't forget the Poles.

Really the Jewish population was furthest along in terms of their nasty work but they had at least three major target groups. Poland was to be totally almost depopulated of Polish people by 1952.

According to Himmler, "All Poles will disappear from the world. [...] It is essential that the great German people should consider it as its major task to destroy all Poles.

Yeah, a few people have already corrected Fraz on that. And his claim about Israel and Iraq being the only democracies in the region. He ignored these corrections, said this was a crap thread that he wasn't going to post in. He's still posting.

sebster wrote:

efarrer wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Frazzled wrote:They are the only ethnic group specifically targeted for gas chambers.

Aside from the Rom, of course...

Can't forget the Poles.

Really the Jewish population was furthest along in terms of their nasty work but they had at least three major target groups. Poland was to be totally almost depopulated of Polish people by 1952.

According to Himmler, "All Poles will disappear from the world. [...] It is essential that the great German people should consider it as its major task to destroy all Poles.

Yeah, a few people have already corrected Fraz on that. And his claim about Israel and Iraq being the only democracies in the region. He ignored these corrections, said this was a crap thread that he wasn't going to post in. He's still posting.

A good point, and very close example of the problems leading to almost total inability for much of the american electorite to critique Israel.

This is sadly a common mistaken historical misconception especially in the US but also elsewhere that has been quite deliberately generated. Much of the external sympathy for Israel and the drive for survivalism within Israel is fueled by Holocaust memory. This is justifiable in itself but the memory is nevertheless heavily diluted if it is known that Jews shared the gas chambers with other people groups and victims. The idea that Jews are 'unique in suffering' logically encourages an greatly extended levity in self defence.
The propoganda has been laid on so thick that questioning 'exclusivity' of Holocaust memorial is considered a form of Holocaust denial by some. This is grossly unfair as Holocaust exclusivity is in all likelihood worse than Holocaust denial. Holocaust Deniers are easy to discredit and effectively harmless because theri bile is offset by the fact that all Holocaust denial achieves is the self-isolation of bigots from open debate. Few debaters would stomach a real Holocaust denier as it taints everything they say from that point onwards. Holocaust exclusivity is a selctive denial of the suffering of non Jews, swallowing out their memory of suffering for partisan political gain. These other victims include but not limited to the Romany, Homosexuals, ethnic Africans, Communists, Evangelical Christians and Jehovahs Witnesses. Each of those groups had its own different coloured stars or triangles to wear in the camp system, the yellow trainagle worn by Jews was only one of many symbols used. We just dont see the others shown on TV, in fact outsides some select history books I have never seen them depicted in the media at all.
The Romany are the only 'race' specifically mentioned other than Jews, that I know of, and while I can beleive that the Nazis had long term ideas for the Poles too, but they were never initiated.

In a any event the fact that Frazzie locked the thread where I first posted this comment, and then opened his commentaries to the new thread with a Holocaust exclusivist comment proving my point tells you all you need to know. Jews were by far the biggest single constituent of the concentration camp system, this is true, but were far from the only ones to suffer. The Romany gypsys were all but annihilated, who cries for them? Noone because so few survived to give tstimony, and those few had no real media access. Still it grates that the Holocaust exclusivity myth is rolled out as an excuse to justify US support for horrific acts of oppression against unrelated peoples nearly seventy years later. This is illogical anyway, after all there is no German population demographic in the West Bank and Gaza.

Personally, I think we should cut off all foreign aid, pay off the US debt, and take care of Americans. And further, if we want to help a historically oppressed group, we should focus on a group that the US government has actively mistreated, not one a foreign government mistreated.

sebster wrote:

efarrer wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Frazzled wrote:They are the only ethnic group specifically targeted for gas chambers.

Aside from the Rom, of course...

Can't forget the Poles.

Really the Jewish population was furthest along in terms of their nasty work but they had at least three major target groups. Poland was to be totally almost depopulated of Polish people by 1952.

According to Himmler, "All Poles will disappear from the world. [...] It is essential that the great German people should consider it as its major task to destroy all Poles.

Yeah, a few people have already corrected Fraz on that. And his claim about Israel and Iraq being the only democracies in the region. He ignored these corrections, said this was a crap thread that he wasn't going to post in. He's still posting.

I was one of the first by mentioning the Roma, but further review of the subject, aside from leaving me vaguely ill, revealed to me that I like so many had forgotten the Poles. It seemed unseemly not to mention them.

dietrich wrote:Personally, I think we should cut off all foreign aid, pay off the US debt, and take care of Americans. And further, if we want to help a historically oppressed group, we should focus on a group that the US government has actively mistreated, not one a foreign government mistreated.

Unless this data is incorrect, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, dietrich.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/tables/10s1263.pdf

Compared to the trillion we have spent on the middle east conflict, 42 billion is chump change. 42 billion, as compared to 1000 billion.

Orlanth wrote:
The Romany are the only 'race' specifically mentioned other than Jews, that I know of, and while I can beleive that the Nazis had long term ideas for the Poles too, but they were never initiated.

They were initiated, just not as calculated. One figure I found estimates 1/5 of Poland's population was dead at the end of the war, primarily as the result of deliberate targeting by the Nazis.

Here's an example of what Orlanth is talking about.




Charles Krauthammer is a smart guy. I don't agree with a lot of what he says, but he is capable of making reasonable argument when he is doing actual scholarship, and not writing polemic. Yet he's willing to say that there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza, despite the fact that its listed as an area of humanitarian concern by every major aid organization in the world, including USAID.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wrexasaur wrote:
Unless this data is incorrect, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, dietrich.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/tables/10s1263.pdf

Compared to the trillion we have spent on the middle east conflict, 42 billion is chump change. 42 billion, as compared to 1000 billion.

I think the question here is "Why are we providing military aid to a country which regularly posts ~4% growth rates?"

Wrexasaur wrote:

dietrich wrote:Personally, I think we should cut off all foreign aid, pay off the US debt, and take care of Americans. And further, if we want to help a historically oppressed group, we should focus on a group that the US government has actively mistreated, not one a foreign government mistreated.

Unless this data is incorrect, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, dietrich.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/tables/10s1263.pdf

Compared to the trillion we have spent on the middle east conflict, 42 billion is chump change. 42 billion, as compared to 1000 billion.

42 billion is a lot smaller than 1000 billion. It's also 42 billion dollars, and last time I checked, that was a lot of money. I don't know what you make, but it's a lot more money than I make or my house is worth. I've hated foreign aid for 15 years, and the US government needs to start balancing a budget and paying off the national debt. Foreign aid is just one of many programs we could cut. Heck, if the money is burning a hole in the pocket of Congress, spend it on infrastructure, which consistently get poor grades from ASCE for roads, bridges, water, sewer, dams, levees, etc. At least that way, you're investing it back into the country and it'd pay off in lower maintenance and rehab costs.

Wrexasaur wrote:

dietrich wrote:Personally, I think we should cut off all foreign aid, pay off the US debt, and take care of Americans. And further, if we want to help a historically oppressed group, we should focus on a group that the US government has actively mistreated, not one a foreign government mistreated.

Unless this data is incorrect, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, dietrich.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/tables/10s1263.pdf

Compared to the trillion we have spent on the middle east conflict, 42 billion is chump change. 42 billion, as compared to 1000 billion.

Notice the payouts to Egypt, nearly half that to Israel, the only two major recipients not considered active warzones with large US deployments. This plus the Israeli withdrawl from Sinai has brought a lasting peace that survived even the assassination of Sadat and secured US utility of the Suez canal. However the $2.3Bn listed in israeli aid money is not everything, some of it must be listed in other types of statistics because the figure of $10Bn per annum is what i keep hearing.

This sort of payout is more than sufficient for a complete generous buyout of the Palestinians over the course of less than a decade. Frankly I can see it as the only logical solution to the problem. While on this subject:

sebster wrote:

5. The US and Israel pays to relocate the Palestinian community.

As a species we've basically moved past forcefully relocating ethnic groups, it was a pretty bad idea. The horse has likely bolted on the idea two, there is no a strong Palestinian identity (shared suffering will do that), the exodus that might have been possible in the 50s is likely impossible today.

There are Palestinians in refugee camps in Jordan who have been waiting to return home to Palestine for decades, they could join Jordanian society but what they want is to return to their Palestinian homes.

The two state solution is the only real solution.

Sebster, in all these threads noone other than myself has actually made any attempt to look at a solution to the problems, and yours is the only reply to the one solution posted. I find that odd frankly.

Yes relocating whole ethnic groups is problematic, but it can and does happen, its already happend to the Palestinains once, and is happening to them on a slow-mo basis today. What hasnt been tried is a forced relocation with massive compensation, allowing for the immense flow of cash from the US to Israel this cannot be ruled out as a viable option.

It doesnt matter than the horse has bolted, naysaying isnt enough. No-one has given any concrete reason why you cant give Arabs a LOT of money to go live elsewhere, especially if the money is enough to give them means in many Arab states, Israeli citizenship for a select few and US citizenship for professional moderate persons. Mweanwhile Israel gets what it wants and the US is saved a long term fortune. I have never seen any other option on the cards that is even remotely as realistic.

In fact the next most realistic long term solution is something similar but relies on the Palestinians just leaving anyway, and the methodologies are very harsh. Noone can honestly beleive a two state solution will work with all the baggage entailed, and too many people want it not to work on both sides.

dogma wrote:Here's an example of what Orlanth is talking about.




Charles Krauthammer is a smart guy. I don't agree with a lot of what he says, but he is capable of making reasonable argument when he is doing actual scholarship, and not writing polemic. Yet he's willing to say that there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza, despite the fact that its listed as an area of humanitarian concern by every major aid organization in the world, including USAID.

Oddly enough I was looking for US media interpretations from quality broadsheets to keep myself up to date on what the US thinks about this whole incident and the first article I found was Charles Krauthammer's Israel, Denied article in the Washington post. It was dangerously biased crud loaded with holocaust metaphore.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/03/AR2010060304287.html
Is this indicative of the US media coverage of the Middle East?

dietrich wrote:42 billion is a lot smaller than 1000 billion. It's also 42 billion dollars, and last time I checked, that was a lot of money. I don't know what you make, but it's a lot more money than I make or my house is worth. I've hated foreign aid for 15 years, and the US government needs to start balancing a budget and paying off the national debt. Foreign aid is just one of many programs we could cut. Heck, if the money is burning a hole in the pocket of Congress, spend it on infrastructure, which consistently get poor grades from ASCE for roads, bridges, water, sewer, dams, levees, etc. At least that way, you're investing it back into the country and it'd pay off in lower maintenance and rehab costs.

Burning a hole in the pocket of congress, eh?

Okay then.

There is an awful lot of information regarding this subject, and as far as I'm concerned, this link isn't a bad place to start.

Orlanth wrote:Oddly enough I was looking for US media interpretations from quality broadsheets to keep myself up to date on what the US thinks about this whole incident and the first article I found was Charles Krauthammer's Israel, Denied article in the Washington post. It was dangerously biased crud loaded with holocaust metaphore.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/03/AR2010060304287.html
Is this indicative of the US media coverage of the Middle East?

Cable news? Is that what you are referring to?

If you really want to review clips from (mainly) US cable media, go to: http://www.youtube.com/user/MoxNewsDotCom

There is everything that you could really ask for, and more. Talking heads give me a headache after a while though, but you can definitely get a solid compilation of different news outlets from there.

But... NYT, Al Jazeera, Huff puff, whatever. All of these sources slap cable networks silly, in terms of the solid information you can find.

Its indicative of the conservative political position with respect to Israel. Its also indicative of the standard position with respect to Israel within the foreign policy community, largely because its very difficult to advance in that environment without towing the party line.

There's a significant movement against that position amongst the people of my generation within both the International Affairs and Jewish communities, but for the moment Krauthammer represents the entrenched norm.

Wrexasaur wrote:There is an awful lot of information regarding this subject, and as far as I'm concerned, this link isn't a bad place to start.

It's one thing if foreign aid is going to build water wells in sub-Sahara Africa for villages to give them clean drinking water. I don't think Israel is spending our foreign aid on clean water, nor do they need to. The US has traditionally shelled out money to foreign powers in order to buy a friend. It didn't work when you were in elementary school, and it doesn't work when you're a country either. If it's genuine aid to improve the living standards of people, it's charity, and we should all be charitable in our lives. US foreign aid isn't charity, it's buying pringles for all the kids in your homeroom.

Cutting all foreign aid, is not the same sentiment as cutting off SOME foreign aid. I have a hard time figuring out exactly what your position is, but feel free to clarify that point.

Do you consider foreign aid completely unnecessary? Or just foreign aid to a few countries, that likely do not actually need the aid?
Or something else altogether?

It has worked fairly well so far, at least insofar as Egypt is concerned.

Wrexasaur wrote:Cutting all foreign aid, is not the same sentiment as cutting off SOME foreign aid. I have a hard time figuring out exactly what your position is, but feel free to clarify that point.

I'd support cutting all foreign aid. I'd tolerate if the spending was kept the same but funneled into actually helping people. Ultimately, the US needs to eliminate it's national debt, and while eliminating foreign aid won't fix it, it'd be someplace to start. Get the debt paid off, and then look to increase funding when you have additional capital available.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think it's a huge crock we're sending money to Israel. Send it to the Congo if you have it burning a hole in your pocket, but it's better to pay off your credit.

dogma wrote:Its indicative of the conservative political position with respect to Israel. Its also indicative of the standard position with respect to Israel within the foreign policy community, largely because its very difficult to advance in that environment without towing the party line.

There's a significant movement against that position amongst the people of my generation within both the International Affairs and Jewish communities, but for the moment Krauthammer represents the entrenched norm.

Italicised point. I do not find this in any way ironic. Liberal Jews are normally the hardest and most vocal critics of Israel both inside and outside. Generally this is because it is they are the most easily embarassed by what the Israeli government achieves and also because it is difficult to label a Jewish critic a Holocaust denier, anti Semite or other label which can be thrown at Gentile critics.

There is a third reason revealed indiorectly in a book written in the 80's called By Way of Deception by Victor Ostrovsky, a whistle-blower from the Israeli security services. In the book it is outlined how Mossad sends good quality agents against key Arab states but sends its best agents to America. Keeping America loyal is a big priority in Mossad the book claims and numerous means are allegedly used to achieve this. However again I must give Israel some backhand credit, while having a track record of low moral thresholds regarding foreign persons they do have a very high moral threshold towards Jews. No-one looks after their own like the Israelis do, they will go out of their way to keep faith with their own kind, Israeli citizens or not; I think this reason is why Jewish critics of Israel are largely left alone, even if what they say damages Israels reputation in the very place where they are most eager for it to be maintained.

in any event the fact that many of Israels most vocal critics are Jews is in my opinion very heartening, and helps puncture any attempt to swallow up opposition to Israeli policy as a trademark of the extreme right or Islamic militancy.

Orlanth wrote:Notice the payouts to Egypt, nearly half that to Israel, the only two major recipients not considered active warzones with large US deployments. This plus the Israeli withdrawl from Sinai has brought a lasting peace that survived even the assassination of Sadat and secured US utility of the Suez canal.

It's a funny thing, because in Israel threads you'll always get a steady supply of people coming in to point out that Israel is beset on all sides, but there's Egypt taking the second largest amount of US funding, behind Israel.

Sebster, in all these threads noone other than myself has actually made any attempt to look at a solution to the problems, and yours is the only reply to the one solution posted. I find that odd frankly.

It is a bit sad really. Mind you, it's pretty hard to know what to do. I basically support the two state solution because I've never read about any other practical solution.

I do take your point that there's been little comment on possible solutions as a good one, though.

Yes relocating whole ethnic groups is problematic, but it can and does happen, its already happend to the Palestinains once, and is happening to them on a slow-mo basis today. What hasnt been tried is a forced relocation with massive compensation, allowing for the immense flow of cash from the US to Israel this cannot be ruled out as a viable option.

There's quite a history of relocations. Europe was crazy for it in the first half of the 20th century. But I think times have changed.

It doesnt matter than the horse has bolted, naysaying isnt enough. No-one has given any concrete reason why you cant give Arabs a LOT of money to go live elsewhere, especially if the money is enough to give them means in many Arab states, Israeli citizenship for a select few and US citizenship for professional moderate persons. Mweanwhile Israel gets what it wants and the US is saved a long term fortune. I have never seen any other option on the cards that is even remotely as realistic.

There are a lot of Palestinians living in Jordan, who forgo taking up decent lives there to stay in poor conditions in refugee camps waiting for the chance to return to Palestine. I think you're underestimating the importance an historical home plays to many people.

I'm also wondering how much money you think this will cost. How much is generous compensation, and how many of the 4 million Palestinians do you expect to pay out? And why should the US or any other country pay to move Palestinians because Israel wants more country?

Yesterday I heard on the news that the Israeli Commandos who raided that boat shot a few Aussies. That made me absolutely furious.

Before I say this, I want to let you know, I intend no racism or anything (in fact my great-grandad was Jewish from Poland).

Is it just me, or does it seem like, just because it happened to them, the Israelites think they have the right to go and shoot people? Like someone else mentioned, it's not like the Jews have such a clean slate themselves. The Bible says that they went down out of Egypt into the Promised Land and butchered the Cananites, killing anything that wasn't of Jewish stock.

I'm afraid I'm siding with the Palestinians on this one, Gaza is going to have to be liberated, one way or another.

sebster wrote:
It's a funny thing, because in Israel threads you'll always get a steady supply of people coming in to point out that Israel is beset on all sides, but there's Egypt taking the second largest amount of US funding, behind Israel.

And Jordan, which is the fifth most significant recipient.

dogma wrote:And Jordan, which is the fifth most significant recipient.

True. And then there's the record of Jordan and Israel reasonably close relationship, which was formed without any US encouragement.

sebster wrote:Expansion is also important, which is why they are settling new territory outside their national boundaries. Keeping Palestine impoverished aids them in taking their land.

This has never been a secret. Look at their flag: Everything between the Tigris and Euprhates...
____

Orlanth wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Frazzled wrote:They are the only ethnic group specifically targeted for gas chambers.

Aside from the Rom, of course...

The Romany are the only 'race' specifically mentioned other than Jews, that I know of, and while I can beleive that the Nazis had long term ideas for the Poles too, but they were never initiated.

Proportionally, I think the Rom suffered worse than the Jews, but in terms of sheer numbers of atrocities, I think one has to look at the Japs. And even within Europe, Stalin killed more Russians than Hitler did Jews. For this reason, I'm not particularly sympathetic to the Jews when the raise WW2 dead as a basis for moral imperviousness.

sebster:

Do you honestly believe that distributing the great mass of the Palestinians around the Middle East is practical? The Arabs hate Palestinians almost as much as they hate Kurds and Jews.

Foreign aid is just one of many programs we could cut.

Cutting spending on things is not really as straightforward, nor as valuable, as is often assumed.

It's not about not spending money on foreign aid. It's about getting positive ROI on foreign aid. For example, if we spend a couple billion on AIDS prevention in Africa, and that prevents it from spreading, and causing more Americans to get AIDS, we might actually end up saving ourselves money in the net.

Really, this goes for ALL spending. As long as the money is producing tangile, cost effective benefits, spending it is really not a bad thing.

This sort of payout is more than sufficient for a complete generous buyout of the Palestinians over the course of less than a decade.

I don't think money is an issue. I don't think any amount of money would allow Israel to "buy" what they want. There's ideological conflicts at work in that region that are beyond a price.

Is it just me, or does it seem like, just because it happened to them, the Israelites think they have the right to go and shoot people?

This is actually what Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says all the time. People call him a Holocaust denier, and perhaps he goes that far, but the vast majority of the time, what he's really asking is why the Holocaust entitles Jews/Israel to (what he feels) is special treatment.

FWIW, nobody set out to shoot Australians (or Turks, or anyone). Israel wanted to stop the ship. The ship wanted to break the cordon, and draw attention to the situation. For some reason, there was a clusterfork, and people got shot. It's important to understand that there was no intention to shoot anybody, and this situation is really about whether or not Israel has a right to blockade Gaza.

sebster wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Notice the payouts to Egypt, nearly half that to Israel, the only two major recipients not considered active warzones with large US deployments. This plus the Israeli withdrawl from Sinai has brought a lasting peace that survived even the assassination of Sadat and secured US utility of the Suez canal.

It's a funny thing, because in Israel threads you'll always get a steady supply of people coming in to point out that Israel is beset on all sides, but there's Egypt taking the second largest amount of US funding, behind Israel.

Its also working, yes.

sebster wrote:

Yes relocating whole ethnic groups is problematic, but it can and does happen, its already happend to the Palestinains once, and is happening to them on a slow-mo basis today. What hasnt been tried is a forced relocation with massive compensation, allowing for the immense flow of cash from the US to Israel this cannot be ruled out as a viable option.

There's quite a history of relocations. Europe was crazy for it in the first half of the 20th century. But I think times have changed.

Again this is different, we are talking relocation with massive compensation. never really been done on a large scale before.

sebster wrote:
There are a lot of Palestinians living in Jordan, who forgo taking up decent lives there to stay in poor conditions in refugee camps waiting for the chance to return to Palestine. I think you're underestimating the importance an historical home plays to many people.

If thats the best you can do even without notice to show how people wouldnt want this solution i think my solution is holding up well. Of course Palestinians in Jordan want to go home, so do many elsewhere. but compared to other pressures in the problem its a minor niggle, they are not in Palestine, they are managing to survive. I think it can work.

sebster wrote:
I'm also wondering how much money you think this will cost. How much is generous compensation, and how many of the 4 million Palestinians do you expect to pay out? And why should the US or any other country pay to move Palestinians because Israel wants more country?

My Logic chain A pointed out how the USA can be made to carry this burden. Though if the burden is accepted I think it will not be difficult to spread about 20% out to Europe and China. I will cover China later.

As for how much? The only answer I can give is a LOT, the definition of a lot is actually more or less equal to the arms handouts the US currently gives Israel over a few years. I mean the real figures at approx $10Bn a year rather than the offiical figures of $2Bn to $4Bn. Diverting this funding for ten years yields $100Bn. This is a crude figure, not all Israeli arms funding need be cut or redirected and the $10Bn a year need not be sustained. I think the process can be achieved for about $40-50Bn. a small figure for a long term solution, and subsequent saving.
Of course this will cause problems in the Israeli military being suddenly starved of that funding. I see no problems with that, for the duration of the switch the US will be riding shotgun on this one, also the buy out would involve a treaty signed by Israel the Palestinains and all immediate neighbours with subsequent bribes to keep them happy. This treaty would restrict arms levels in the Middle East guaranteeing Israel a sizable army relative to its neighbours though less that what it had before.
As for how many Palestinians woulsd receive the benefits, I would say all of them, though paid in Arab fashion i.e. to the head male of large family groups. This helps as the larger the payment catchment the larger and more eye watering the compensation looks. I could see a large family getting one million dollars (little finger to corner of mouth please).

Now this of course doesnt mean a cheque in the post. Just as any foreign aid doesnt. Let us look at foreign aid for a moment to explain the point. Say the US agreed to one billion dollars of military aid to say Chad. Does Obama metaphorically write a cheque and give it to the Chad government? No. Does Obama write a cheque and give it to the Chad government with attached officials in tow to ensure its spent on guns? No. Instead Obama writes his cheque to the US armaments industry who then calculates x guns +p&p = $1bn and ships x guns to Chad. The biggest receipient of US foreign aid is the US, and this is by no means unfair, its only unfair if aid is given in tied loans. The recipient country gets the value in US manufactured goods. The US finds the aid money is clawed back by paying into US industries which means US shareholders and US workers pay, this then trickles mostly into the US retail system etc. Eventually any money not spent on imports, foreign holidays, tax fiddled or saved comes back to the US government via the IRS.

Compensation to Palestinians will be little different. Let us take four Palestinain families, the first are convert to Judaism, the second are degree educated and include doctors, the third are regular working class Palestinian family group, the fourth are underclass scum.

Family A are converts to judaism. Israel accepts them as Jews and Israeli citizens after a careful vetting procedure. They live happily ever after in the new Greater Israel.

Family B are professionals. Tjhe US needs good doctors just as everywhere else does. The twom docs in the family are offered places in a new Obamacare clinic, the entire family is given green cards and fast tracked US citizenship. In addition they receive a half payment of $300k which is set up in a trust fund over ten years with an initial downpayment to start off a mortgage. this family does well moves to the US with means and thus causes no problems. Yes they were vetted before they were offered entry to the US.

Family C have little to offer, but get a large payment of $1,000,000 in goods and services over a large extended family grouping. Because they have means Algeria accepts them, and many other families in similar conditions. They and other families are bought land for farms from the Algerian government, roads are built to connect the farms. The road laying contract and equipment contract goes to US firms. The farm is large and good for a well to do farmer, not a poor peasant. Each year until the aid runs out the family received seed grain and fertiliser, from a US company for free, the tractor is from the US and their new home is furnished with a grant in furniture and unholstery clothing etc in arab or western fashion as they see fit. This is all imported from the US. They might receive a small amount of cash to go with it, but they receive a billing breakdown, including shipping, from US shipping companies and the million dollars slowly ticks away in the development years of their new life. Say the family want to diversify and two brothers want to open up a taxi service. They get an office paid for and a fleet of four cars suitable for taxis, made by Ford or GM.
So far apart from a small amount of gift money the cost of the farm land and the office rent all the million has been spent on US companies and services.
Note that Family C is relocated to a moderately poor Arab country like Algeria rather than a rich country like Dubai where $1,000,000 doesnt go as far.

Family D have nothing to offer and all the Arab states refuse them. But Algeria takes in palestinains under the program so the Algerian government is offered the $1,000,000 instead to accept them and give them as hut somewhere. Part of the money is in 'trust' so that if they want to have something more than a hut, like a small farm or a single taxi to start a small business they can draw on some of the money.

Notice how no-one is paid all at once, so the costing is dragged out over time and it keeps the recipients honest. Most surrounding countries have not wanted refugee camps filled with Palestinians. I remember the refugee camp I saw in Cyprus. These people are poor and clinging onto a hope because they have no other. Give thee people opportunity rather than despair and most will embrace it. No they will not all be happy, some will never be content, but its in everyones best interests all told. Also the idea of Palestinai9ns being unwelcome is entirely due to the problem that Palestinians largely emigrate with little or no money or material to make a home or business and join the underclass. Copmpemnsating them generously places the Palestinians in a whole new light.
The reason why only 20% needs to be offset is because about 20% is 'wasted' on such things as buying land from Algeria etc. If the % proves higher increase external contributions acordingly. All the rest is home sourced aid and therfore ploughs back into the Us economy like any other foreign aid package. This 20% is an accumulative loss shared between the rest of the developed world. If they are asked to contribute more they should get a pro rata share of the contracts.

What about China. This is a longshot. China is especially worried as they are in the fallout drift if Israel goes nuts and spamms Iran with nukes if Iran drops a dirty bomb somewhere. Many analysts anyway think Israel tops the list with regards to possible launch risks, even though this is agreed to likely be a second strike after a dirty bomb. I think China would be happier if Israels very large nuclear arsenal, about the same size as the Uk or France is reduced to something more token. After all Israel needs enough nukes to raze Tehran, not Iran. Given a crisis and a need to compensate for a collapse in US funding redirected to a relocation effort, plus the need to develop the formally aquired territories for Israeli citizenry it is possible that the US and China can be persuaded to persuade Israel to 'sell' them Dimona, for dismantling. Israel is reduced to a smaller nuclear deterent (probably about 30-50 warheads) that they need to ask the US for processing and maintenance of the warheads for thus keeping the Israeli deterent in check and under some supervision.

Meanwhile a forced reduction in the size of the IDF, framed to a treaty imposed reduction in surrounding Arab militaries, payment for Arab states to behave and possibly even a return of the Golan heights, which has already been fronted as a reasonable price for a lasting Camp David style peace with Syria things could be looking up.

Five years after relocation the Arab world may well be much richer, less volatile, more developed less militarised and bordered with a quiet Israel which is happy with what its got and has far less guns fear and paranoia. The US taxpayer then has the pleasure of seeing the huge bankrolling of the Middle East reduced to a more manageable level distributed in a more even manner. Meanwhile the 6th fleet is still about in case anything kicks off.


I think it can be done. There are huge problems, but there is something in it for everyone and that could inded should make all the difference.

Phryxis wrote:The ship wanted to break the cordon, and draw attention to the situation.

For some reason, there was a clusterfork, and people got shot.

It's important to understand that there was no intention to shoot anybody, and this situation is really about whether or not Israel has a right to blockade Gaza.

Mission accomplished.

According to the Israeli-edited videos that they have released, they didn't shoot first...

Interesting that it took European dead for people to finally take this seriously.

FWIW, nobody set out to shoot Australians (or Turks, or anyone). Israel wanted to stop the ship. The ship wanted to break the cordon, and draw attention to the situation. For some reason, there was a clusterfork, and people got shot. It's important to understand that there was no intention to shoot anybody, and this situation is really about whether or not Israel has a right to blockade Gaza.

This is the theory I've held from the beginning. It was an aid mission clearly designed to catch international headlines and cause an international incident bringing to light the harsh conditions in gaza and the draconian measures Israel takes to keep it that way. In all likelihood they had planned to have one ship attempt to run the blockade once stopped by the israeli navy which would then stop after warning shots were fired. This would serve to highlight the extremes to which Israel will go to prevent aid from reaching gaza.

I doubt they really expected to be intercepted and boarded at night in international waters. For that matter I doubt the Israeli government expected that either. No one really got what they wanted out of this whole thing.

According to the Israeli-edited videos that they have released, they didn't shoot first...

Sure, but this is really not relevant. A lot of people will dwell on who was at fault for this specific incident, but it really doesn't matter who between the people on the ship, and the marines boarding it, lost their nerve first, or however you want to state it.

None of the split second decisions that happened that day are relevant geopolitically. In fact, not even the decision to stop the ships is really relevant. It was a forgone conclusion.

The real question is if Israel has the right to blockade Gaza.

Phryxis wrote:

According to the Israeli-edited videos that they have released, they didn't shoot first...

Sure, but this is really not relevant. A lot of people will dwell on who was at fault for this specific incident, but it really doesn't matter who between the people on the ship, and the marines boarding it, lost their nerve first, or however you want to state it.

None of the split second decisions that happened that day are relevant geopolitically. In fact, not even the decision to stop the ships is really relevant. It was a forgone conclusion.

The real question is if Israel has the right to blockade Gaza.

Thats more of an ethical issue than a geopolitical one. The UN has believed they lacked that right for quite some time, as has much of the world. What this has served to highlight is the lengths to which Israel will go to enforce something that many disagree with and don't understand the purpose of. The decision to stop the ships was never particularly relevant to the situation at large, but the methodology is paramount. The issue is a bit too complex for a simple ethical debate. Actions are just as important as intents on the world stage.

Phryxis wrote:
This is actually what Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says all the time. People call him a Holocaust denier, and perhaps he goes that far, but the vast majority of the time, what he's really asking is why the Holocaust entitles Jews/Israel to (what he feels) is special treatment.

Thank god I'm not the only person who realizes this.