Israel, becoming increasingly isolated because of the revolutions in the region, its own actions garnering little sympathy, and the weakening of the US global hegemony, has become vulnerable to the prospects of war and international condemnation. The situation is not absolutely hopeless, but the Palestinians are seeking a nation and the Arab Spring has greatly upset the status quo of the past several decades. Israelis should be concerned the actions of the government forced both Egypt and Turkey to reconsider their treaties with the state of Israel.

What do you think?

I believe it's all coming down like it was stated in the bible for Israel.

Israel cornered and alone means one thing. Nukes galore.

Israel's been through three separate wars for their existence...with the aid of the US (which wont be retracted any time soon...) I'm sure they can hold their own against other countries around them that have bigger things to worry about.

The whole thing makes me sick.

Just share the god-damn holy land.

You think bombing the gak out of it makes any God happy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option

I don't think the Israelis care. To a hardcore Jew any religion other that Judaism or Christianity is evil blasphemy. Religious zealots have little tolerance for other religions.

I wouldn't mess with Israel. They do not feth around. I don't know if their current leadership is willing to go "lol nuclear apocalypse" or not, but there is a chance that they are. Don't take that chance.

Personally, I hope the trend continues and the Israelis come to realize how childish and foolish they are. I also hope that this weakens the pro Israeli stance in the US, its ridiculous that such a marginal nation can wield such great influence over American policy and policymakers. Sometimes I wonder if our elected officials are elected to serve the American people or the Israeli people...

Since the early days of recorded history, people in that region have been clobbering each other for various and diverse reasons.
I think there is a large vein of lead near the area's water table which has leeched it's way into the water supply, causing judgemental issues amongst the population.
Even if Isreal were to pack up and move, somebody would be shelling somebody else there.

No other country in the region has the political stability, economy, and military power to seriously threaten Israel. That isn't going to change any time soon. The absolute worst you're going to get is Turkey taking Israel to court over their blockade of Gaza, which will be interesting to watch.


Meanwhile, Israel is directly oppressing the people living in Palestine, keeping them in absolute poverty and denying them basic goods they need to build their homes. Yet people worrying if Israel might one day be picked on by someone else. It's very odd.

snurl wrote:Since the early days of recorded history, people in that region have been clobbering each other for various and diverse reasons.
I think there is a large vein of lead near the area's water table which has leeched it's way into the water supply, causing judgemental issues amongst the population.
Even if Isreal were to pack up and move, somebody would be shelling somebody else there.

That's what makes me sad.

I wish religion didn't have to inspire murder.

The irony is that a lot of aggression shown to Israel by their neighbor has a little less hate a lot more political posturing. After all, what would Syria do is Saudi Arabia found out they actually didn't care Israel existed? And how what Jordan say to its underclass that feel threatened by all the Palestinian refugees.

Geo-politics suck.

sebster wrote:Meanwhile, Israel is directly oppressing the people living in Palestine, keeping them in absolute poverty and denying them basic goods they need to build their homes. Yet people worrying if Israel might one day be picked on by someone else. It's very odd.

In the context of a society that values life in different degrees thanks in large part to media portrayal and media visibility, it is in reality not very odd. Israel has the sympathy of the Western world (for the most part) whereas the Palestinians are often lumped with other regional nations that hate Israel and thus often seen as the agitators rather than the victims.

Intellectual discourse does help shed light on a discriminated and neglected people, but tell that to the Western news media.

As terrorism increases Israel becomes more like apartheid South Africa to the point now where they have outdone the old apartheid South African government in oppression. The problem the Palestinians have is they have Hamas and other organizations like Hamas instead of a Nelson Mandela, which just aggravates the cycle. Israel becomes more oppressive because of the non stop terrorism increases, and the non stop terrorism increases because Israel is becoming more oppressive. It's a death cycle that both sides can't escape from, and if a Mandela were to emerge from the Israeli or Palestinian leadership his own people would liquidate him.

I only see 2 ways for this to end, and both involve the Iranian nuclear weapons program: Israel and Iran nuke each other into oblivion, or Israel kills 60 million or so Iranians in a nuclear holocaust to stop them from getting the bomb. The only question is will 6 million dead Jews in WW2 give Israel 1 get out of jail free card when it comes to genocidal war crimes? There are other ways it could potentially end, but if you combine a healthy dose of cynacism and logic all other possibilities are possible but not that probable.

WarOne wrote:In the context of a society that values life in different degrees thanks in large part to media portrayal and media visibility, it is in reality not very odd. Israel has the sympathy of the Western world (for the most part) whereas the Palestinians are often lumped with other regional nations that hate Israel and thus often seen as the agitators rather than the victims.

This is pretty much what I find very odd. We're so indifferent to the suffering of one group in the region, but so hyper-concerned with the welfare of the other group, to the extent that we worry about what future hypotheticals might possibly threaten them.

I mean, I get the people are much more concerned for friends and family than for random strangers. I also get that we're more concerned for people who are like us than people who aren't (the media here was all over 9/11, but strangely silent on the human tragedies affecting people who aren't white and about as rich as us). But if that's what is driving this, is Israel really that much more like us than most Arab states?

Or is it that we all know the story of Israel, holocaust to a nation of their own, beset on all sides, and that narrative overrides any concern about what's actually happening?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

schadenfreude wrote:As terrorism increases Israel becomes more like apartheid South Africa to the point now where they have outdone the old apartheid South African government in oppression. The problem the Palestinians have is they have Hamas and other organizations like Hamas instead of a Nelson Mandela, which just aggravates the cycle. Israel becomes more oppressive because of the non stop terrorism increases, and the non stop terrorism increases because Israel is becoming more oppressive. It's a death cycle that both sides can't escape from, and if a Mandela were to emerge from the Israeli or Palestinian leadership his own people would liquidate him.

Mandela led the armed faction of the ANC, and it was long debated whether his violent resistance to apartheid could be justified by the horrible nature of apartheid. When he was caught and imprisoned, his imprisonment came from information provided by the CIA, and the CIA did this because the guy was a known terrorist. He was offered release by SA authorities if he renounced violent opposition to apartheid but he declined. On release from prison, he still justified violent resistance.

We all just chose to ignore that stuff, and overwhelmingly support him and his cause. We kind of invent our own Mandelas, when we want to.

I do find it really strange that people can't all get along. I don't expect everyone to be best of buds, but come on - you are all fighting over some old buildings and bits of dirt that were the setting for some supposed "holy" events hundreds of years ago that are important to several major religions. Didn't their mothers ever teach them to share?

Especially confusing when a large part of each religion is supposedly teaching people to be nice to each other.

But I have to say that I agree with much of what sebster is saying; we are so fixated on the bad things one side is doing yet are ignoring what is happening on the other side.

I mean what would have happened if the UK had acted more like Israel in Northern Ireland?

I've always been fascinated by Israel as a nation in the grand scheme of international politics, and I wrote many papers totaling many pages throughout my undergrad on the subject of Israel. I'm not really going to contribute much here, cause once I get started, I won't be able to stop myself.

I will, however, be watching this thread intently to see how everyone views the conflict. I'm a curious person.

The whole Israel thing is funny, because it's kind of like a little microcosm of 40k. There is never-ending war, no one is the good guys, and the end is always nigh, forever, and it's always on the cusp of either getting better or getting worse without ever actually doing so. Grimdarkest.

On the whole, I think it's a nonstop cycle of suck that my nation would do best to avoid. I feel that AIPAC exerts an undue influence over our foreign policy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:Mandela led the armed faction of the ANC, and it was long debated whether his violent resistance to apartheid could be justified by the horrible nature of apartheid. When he was caught and imprisoned, his imprisonment came from information provided by the CIA, and the CIA did this because the guy was a known terrorist. He was offered release by SA authorities if he renounced violent opposition to apartheid but he declined. On release from prison, he still justified violent resistance.

Not to OT, but was he wrong? At what point, in your opinion, does violent resistance become an acceptable response?

I have little to no sympathy for Israel. They do whatever they hell they want and get away with it due to US backing.

Murdering someone in cold blood using UK and Irish passports (pro tip Ireland is a NEUTRAL country).. bad form.

Personally sometimes I do wish that it would just be nuked from orbit in a sort of 'if you can't play nicely then no one is getting the holy-land *smash*'

Ouze wrote:Not to OT, but was he wrong? At what point, in your opinion, does violent resistance become an acceptable response?

I have no idea if it's morally justifiable, but I don't think it works very often, and generally works against you, allowing people to dismiss your cause and write you off as violent extremists. It's just that in South Africa and Mandela are a weird one, because it seems to me that in the end the rest of the world seemed happy to look past the terrorism.

To be fair, the ANC didn't go about deliberately killing civilians like various Palestinian groups have, and that is a big difference.

Isreal and Palastine are just as bad as each other. Israel gets the most criticism becasuse it's citizens live in relative luxury and they have the 'Big Boys' on their side to start with. That said, most Israelis i've met are anti-palestine to the point of racist obsession.... This does not do them any favours.

There is a world of difference between an armed resistance/insurgency and terrorism. Sometimes the lines seem a bit blurry as civilians can easily become collateral damage when an armed resistance/insurgency destroys key infrastructures such as oil pipelines, railroads, refineries, power plants, or munitions depots. Sometimes the lines become crystal clear when a bomb is set off in a crowded market with the single purpose of killing civilians.

Israel needs stop thinking it can roll back time and claim back lands that they lost, hundreds if not thousands of years ago. Too much time has gone past and too many people have set up home in that area. If we can't sort out Northern Ireland, and that's only a few hundred years old, what hope do you have in that region?

Well being human I descended from africans so I want to own africa...

it defies sense!

chaos0xomega wrote:Personally, I hope the trend continues and the Israelis come to realize how childish and foolish they are. I also hope that this weakens the pro Israeli stance in the US, its ridiculous that such a marginal nation can wield such great influence over American policy and policymakers. Sometimes I wonder if our elected officials are elected to serve the American people or the Israeli people...

Then what?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SilverMK2 wrote:I do find it really strange that people can't all get along.

When have people ever gotten along, anywhere?

Some interesting comments here, I would just like to add my own experiences to them.

Last year I went to Israel (Tel Aviv) on holiday to meet a good mate of mine (an Israeli). Picture this - basically a Mediterranean or South European town, with lots of cute little coffee shops, shopping malls, great beaches with nice looking women walking about. But, the country is tiny, is sat in a valley, and is surrounded by countries who have gone on record to say they want Israel destroyed. So its kind of like if you picked up Barcelona and whacked it in between Jordan, Iran and Lebanon. It could almost pass for such if you didn't have groups of 18 year old girls walking around with machine guns (doing their military service but accessorising at the same time) and searches for bombs before walking into the air-conditioned shopping malls. It's fething bizarre. Everyone I spoke to, younger people or those my age, are absolutely convinced about the countries right to defend itself, which is fair enough if you look at it from their situation.

But, and this is the clincher I think, there is a MASSIVE divide in Israeli culture. You have 'sin city' (Tel Aviv) on the one hand, which is full of generally westernised people, fairly liberal (considering their circumstances) and generally not wanting the kind of stuff that we have just read about. I would liken the culture to Spain or maybe Italy. But then, you have the orthadox Jews, and this is where once again religion rears its ugly head. Basically all this 'claim the hilltops for our land to spread' is coming from the orthadox groups of the population (I should say men, because you NEVER see the women) and the heavy weight they carry in parliament. All the people setting up houses in the occupied territories, living in Gaza (I think you have to be slightly nuts to choose to live somewhere where a mortar could land on your house, when you have the option of living in a beautiful seaside apartment in Tel Aviv) and expanding into the 'Palestinian lands' are almost without exception orthodox Jews. The rest of the population (the majority, you see more orthadox Jews if you go to London than you do in Tel Aviv or most parts of Israel) frown on it, but the pendulum of power seems to swing backwards and forwards between the two groups - so you get years of relative peace, followed by the government being hard-headed like it is now.

So, don't get me wrong, I think the militants attacking Israel are in the wrong. But, it becomes impossible to forget that they have Israel next to them when there constant expansions into what they think is their own territory. It's ridiculous looking at the different areas in Israel, you have modern and western looking towns for the israelis, then look next to it and theres a gakky looking group of hovels owned by arabs, with dirty kids with rag clothing hanging around it. So no doubt some of the aggression focused on Israel comes from resentment at the wealth of the country. I completely sympathise with with the people living in Israel, but they really need to get some kind of balanced government rather than having gun heads in charge like they have now - any aggression which happens now is making extra barriers to the other countries that ultimately they have to be neighbours with, and I worry it will ultimately end in tears for Israel as they are really such a small country despite their military power.

sebster wrote:

WarOne wrote:In the context of a society that values life in different degrees thanks in large part to media portrayal and media visibility, it is in reality not very odd. Israel has the sympathy of the Western world (for the most part) whereas the Palestinians are often lumped with other regional nations that hate Israel and thus often seen as the agitators rather than the victims.

This is pretty much what I find very odd. We're so indifferent to the suffering of one group in the region, but so hyper-concerned with the welfare of the other group, to the extent that we worry about what future hypotheticals might possibly threaten them.

America has very real emotional and strategic investments with nations in NATO, with China, Japan, and Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, and pretty much anyone worth America's time and investment (you can get many stories about the suffering of the North Korean people under a dictatorship, the same story in China as we love to impose our ideals on different cultures, the quake and nuclear victims of Japan to which America has a parallel investment in like we do in Israel, the violence in Mexico that pretains to vulnerability at the US border, Iraq, and Afghanistan though from the latter two examples it is mostly soldiers and the failed investment of riches and manpower used).

Palestinians are such a marginalized people that we simply don't have enough attention allocated to their plight, almost like the zero attention America gives to first world poor (Colbert Report was using in context a segment of their show to lampoon a Heritage Foundation report that said the American poor had access to microwaves, TVs, and refrigerators -suggesting contempt for the people or governemnt that claims them poor), suffering people in Africa, in SE Asia, in India, in the Caribbean, and in South America jus to name a few areas.

sebster wrote:Or is it that we all know the story of Israel, holocaust to a nation of their own, beset on all sides, and that narrative overrides any concern about what's actually happening?

This is most acutely the problem.

In media, we have a list of stories and media a mile wide about the Holocaust that begins with Anne Frank and ends with Zog Nit Keynmol. The accusal of Jewish controlled media while biased and unfair, does highlight that in America, people of the Jewish faith have been instrumental to the development and control of what Americans watch. People of Palestinian origin have made far less noteworthy contributions to their own plight as well as in media circles. It is an unfair advantage, but the Holocaust has had many more decades to ingrain itself in our society. It is probably also unfair that American politicians have chosen to ally with Israel than the Palestinians, so the political rammifications mean that any act against the Palestinians (by Israel or other nations) is often muted at best.

A great deal of the American people have grown up reading American textbooks and listening to teachers that the Holocaust was the single greatest tragedy of the modern world. It is no small wonder that Americans are not only attentive to the plight of Israel, but also fascinated as well as supportive of the people they most often see in news media and print.

A link for further reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_coverage_of_the_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_conflict

WarOne wrote:(Colbert Report was using in context a segment of their show to lampoon a Heritage Foundation report that said the American poor had access to microwaves, TVs, and refrigerators -suggesting contempt for the people or governemnt that claims them poor)

Obviously not in context if this was the suggestion that he presented with the segment.

I think that the Israel-Palestine conflict has a lot of problems, and to lay them all at the feet of the Israelis is inappropriate and harmful to the issue. The terrorists running Palestine aren't doing the people living there any favors.

biccat wrote:
Obviously not in context if this was the suggestion that he presented with the segment.

To clarify, it was the report that denigrated the poor who had modern conveniences, not Stephen Colbert.

WarOne wrote:

biccat wrote:
Obviously not in context if this was the suggestion that he presented with the segment.

To clarify, it was the report that denigrated the poor who had modern conveniences, not Stephen Colbert.

I've read the report, it's making the point that what we consider "poor" really means a pretty darn high standard of living, from a global perspective. It also makes the point that the government has a vested interest in upwardly-defining poverty.

In fact, the report is not what you perceived it to be from watching Colbert's program.

Although this is getting dangerously off topic.

The palestinians aren't really all that popular in the region either, it must be said. From what I've read.

Ouze wrote:The whole Israel thing is funny, because it's kind of like a little microcosm of 40k. There is never-ending war, no one is the good guys, and the end is always nigh, forever, and it's always on the cusp of either getting better or getting worse without ever actually doing so. Grimdarkest.

On the whole, I think it's a nonstop cycle of suck that my nation would do best to avoid. I feel that AIPAC exerts an undue influence over our foreign policy.

Not just on foreign policy... we can't even elect a god damned President unless the candidate has first affirmed a pro Israeli stance. The American public at large is so misinformed when it comes to the subject that the general population thinks that Israel is a perpetual victim due to some intrinsic never-ending hatred on the part of its neighbors, and not because of its own actions, and that it is our inherited responsibility as Americans to protect them from because we liberated Jews from the concentration camps... (some might argue that it was because we didn't do enough to protect Jews before the war even started). i in part blame the educational system for that one....

Isreal and Palastine are just as bad as each other. Israel gets the most criticism becasuse it's citizens live in relative luxury and they have the 'Big Boys' on their side to start with. That said, most Israelis i've met are anti-palestine to the point of racist obsession.... This does not do them any favours.

Which begs the question, is it more justifiable for one group than the other? Personally, I think that the Palestinians are in the right (morally speaking, but not ethically) to behave as they do, they are pretty much at the mercy of the Israeli's, and the Israeli's are a rather cruel master.

Last year I went to Israel (Tel Aviv) on holiday to meet a good mate of mine (an Israeli). Picture this - basically a Mediterranean or South European town, with lots of cute little coffee shops, shopping malls, great beaches with nice looking women walking about. But, the country is tiny, is sat in a valley, and is surrounded by countries who have gone on record to say they want Israel destroyed. So its kind of like if you picked up Barcelona and whacked it in between Jordan, Iran and Lebanon. It could almost pass for such if you didn't have groups of 18 year old girls walking around with machine guns (doing their military service but accessorising at the same time) and searches for bombs before walking into the air-conditioned shopping malls. It's fething bizarre. Everyone I spoke to, younger people or those my age, are absolutely convinced about the countries right to defend itself, which is fair enough if you look at it from their situation.

In modern times (say last 10-20 years), most of that hate (in the case of Israel's immediate neighbors) is perception rather than reality, and for the most part it is perpetuated by Israel's own actions towards its neighbors and the displaced nationals living within it, rather than due to religious differences, etc.

So, don't get me wrong, I think the militants attacking Israel are in the wrong. But, it becomes impossible to forget that they have Israel next to them when there constant expansions into what they think is their own territory. It's ridiculous looking at the different areas in Israel, you have modern and western looking towns for the israelis, then look next to it and theres a gakky looking group of hovels owned by arabs, with dirty kids with rag clothing hanging around it. So no doubt some of the aggression focused on Israel comes from resentment at the wealth of the country. I completely sympathise with with the people living in Israel, but they really need to get some kind of balanced government rather than having gun heads in charge like they have now - any aggression which happens now is making extra barriers to the other countries that ultimately they have to be neighbours with, and I worry it will ultimately end in tears for Israel as they are really such a small country despite their military power.

What you seemed to have missed is that those impoverished Palestinians (are they Arabs? Thought they were Levantines) are impoverished in large part because of the circumstances thrust upon them by the Israeli gov't.

biccat wrote:

I think that the Israel-Palestine conflict has a lot of problems, and to lay them all at the feet of the Israelis is inappropriate and harmful to the issue. The terrorists running Palestine aren't doing the people living there any favors.

While I don't agree with what they do, they are actually doing more good than harm for the Palestinian cause. If Hamas didn't exist, the Palestinians would probably be in the same position they are in now (probably worse, they wouldn't even have West Bank/Gaza), the only difference being that nobody in the outside world would be paying any attention to the plight of the Palestinian people at all, simply because they would be receiving no media coverage whatsoever. 'Any news is good news'.

Frazzled wrote:When have people ever gotten along, anywhere?

I get along with myself and am a person, therefore people get along!

SilverMK2 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:When have people ever gotten along, anywhere?

I get along with myself and am a person, therefore people get along!

Sorry all the voices in your head do not constitute "people." At least thats what the doctors told me.

Which begs the question, is it more justifiable for one group than the other? Personally, I think that the Palestinians are in the right (morally speaking, but not ethically) to behave as they do, they are pretty much at the mercy of the Israeli's, and the Israeli's are a rather cruel master.

Mmm yes, rocketing attacks and cutting children's throats, I bet you do.

chaos0xomega wrote:

biccat wrote:

I think that the Israel-Palestine conflict has a lot of problems, and to lay them all at the feet of the Israelis is inappropriate and harmful to the issue. The terrorists running Palestine aren't doing the people living there any favors.

While I don't agree with what they do, they are actually doing more good than harm for the Palestinian cause. If Hamas didn't exist, the Palestinians would probably be in the same position they are in now (probably worse, they wouldn't even have West Bank/Gaza), the only difference being that nobody in the outside world would be paying any attention to the plight of the Palestinian people at all, simply because they would be receiving no media coverage whatsoever. 'Any news is good news'.

I think the line you're looking for is "There's no such thing as bad publicity."

However, I disagree that Hamas/Fatah/PLO have done any good for Palestine. Lets face it, people aren't going to take you seriously when one of your goals is:
"Complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence."

biccat wrote:"Complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence."

I don't know... If we're really nice, we might be able to get them to eradicate all the Zionist conspiracy theorists too!

One thing that keeps the Israelis in America's forethought is our primary religion and one that most of the old legalities are founded on, which is Christianity. Now, before I get to far into this, this is a real concern to some people, some who may very well be on the forms so do not mock, or make-fun of the idea presented here. It's a belief, an dramatic one yes, but one that is held by some and is therefor important.
Israel has, obviously, extremely close ties to the Christian faith as Christianity is sort of seen to arise out of it and almost expand upon it (It here being Judaism, the 'forefather' of Christianity). In the New Testament, which is the latter half of the Bible to those who do not know, it begins to describe the end of the world in the final book called Revelation. It describes Israel as a nation situated in the middle of its enemies and beset on all sides by its foes. What's important about this though is the following.

1: That it came to exist in the first place, something many would have doubted for a very long time.
2: That the first generation is stated to 'not pass away' (or something to that effect depending on translation) which many scholars have taken to mean that the first generation of Israelis will not die out entirely and finally,
3: That Israel will stand alone.

It is that final point which, in my belief, keeps the US so rooted in Israel. Should we allow them to stand alone then the previous conditions are all met and, this is going to sound weird, it could bring about the end of the world. The USA need only back Israel for a decade or two more before, logically, the first generation of Israelis have finally reached the age where they should have died of old age but until then, again this is my opinion, the US stands by its side to stop the world from ending. Once the first gen. goes then the conditions are no longer met and things are theoretically safe, have fun thinking about this one '>..>

Frazzled wrote:

Which begs the question, is it more justifiable for one group than the other? Personally, I think that the Palestinians are in the right (morally speaking, but not ethically) to behave as they do, they are pretty much at the mercy of the Israeli's, and the Israeli's are a rather cruel master.

Mmm yes, rocketing attacks and cutting children's throats, I bet you do.

Again, I see it as morally justifiable (do unto others as they do unto you), but not ethically (killing and fighting should be a last resort only). Perhaps I have the two concepts reversed in my head... anyway, thats no worse than the Israeli army driving a Merkava through a families living room window and crushing their children under tread, or having an Israeli helicopter gunship launch ordnance into a series of dwellings...

Biccat, you are right, that is a better phrase to use, though the one I used isn't technically incorrect I suppose.

As for whether or not those organizations have done good for Palestine, while they aren't representing the Palestinian people particularly well, they have at least put the issue on the radar. Think about it, if those crazies weren't doing what they were doing and calling attention to themselves, would we be discussing the issue of Palestine at all right now? in my opinion, no we wouldn't. The entire issue would be a fringe affair that the media would largely overlook and would only really be a topic of discussion amongst grassroots organizations and small circles of political insiders. Lets face it, as a race, humanity really isn't all that concerned about whats going on around them if it doesn't affect them directly, unless someone is fighting and dying in the process.

So its morally justified to kill children. What a sterling character you are.

And people wonder why the Israelis have nukes.

Yes, everyone knows that children are immune from nuclear weapons, Frazzled. In fact, no Israeli ordnance is effective on children.


These are facts.

Albatross wrote:Yes, everyone knows that children are immune from nuclear weapons, Frazzled. In fact, no Israeli ordnance is effective on children.


These are facts.

The Israelis haven't nuked anyone. The same can't be said for Palestinian supporters cutting kids' throats.

The Israelis have killed more children than the Palestinians. Far more.

Generally it seems when Israelis kill civilians, it is through carelessness or because legitimate targets (IE, Palestinian militants) are hiding among civilian targets. I see to recall reading about Palestinian militants using a hospital as a location to launch rockets and mortars.

When Palestinians kill civilians, it's almost always in an attack that deliberately targets civilians.

Both are bad. I know which one I think is worse.

Frazzled wrote:So its morally justified to kill children.

Its morally (ethically? I don't even know which is which anymore) justifiable to kill given the current situation, I'm not commenting on this act in particular because I don't know the specifics. Would you hold it against US special operators if they slit a child's throat to prevent the mission being compromised? Things like that have happened before and both decisions have serious consequences, on the one hand you're ending the life of an innocent child, on the other hand if you don't do it (provided you have exhausted all other options first), you can risk your own life, the lives of the other men in your unit, your mission, and the lives of a lot of other people that may be dependent on the outcome of your mission. It was a decision like this that caused Operation Red Wings to fail, and the lives of 19 Americans to be lost. Marcus Luttrell (the only survivor) has indicated that he wishes that they had taken the opposite course of action. I don't pretend that the incident you refer to was as dramatic or 'romantic' (for lack of a better term) as Red Wings, but I don't know what happened (in regards to the children being killed).

Troy wrote:

Albatross wrote:Yes, everyone knows that children are immune from nuclear weapons, Frazzled. In fact, no Israeli ordnance is effective on children.


These are facts.

The Israelis haven't nuked anyone. The same can't be said for Palestinian supporters cutting kids' throats.

Great, so its only bad if the Israeli's nuke someone (but think of the fish off the coast of South Africa (assuming the rumors are true)), but its totally cool for Israeli soldiers (an instrument of the state, and not some random Palestinian) to fire tank rounds, missiles, bombs, mortars, artillery, and 5.56 at Palestinian civilians? Gotcha...

Ethics = Morals. There is no distinction. Ethics is the study of moral philosophy. Something cannot be morally justifiable yet ethically unjustifiable.

The way I see it, Israel started out a refugee state that spent the mid 20th-century fighting for its existance against Islamic states, after many of its citizens already suffered in Europe under the Nazis in the 40's. 63 years later, however, it has become the very monster from which many of its people originally fled. They've gone from reactive strikes against visible and obvious outside threats to bombing anything that so much as looks at them the wrong way.

I say let them stand alone. Who knows? Maybe it'll actually make them stop thinking they can do whatever the hell they want without consequence. There's never any excuse good enough to justify killing civilians, and Israel needs to learn that.

Nothing is ever as simple as one side being right and the other wrong. Both Israel and the various political entities seeking to establish a Palestinian state/eradicate the Jewish one currently occupying it have committed grievous acts against eachother. Is either side justified? Depends on who's side your on. The prosecution of the Palestinians in Israel is sad, yes. The terror tactics employed by a number of anti-Israeli groups are equally deplorable.

From a bigger picture point of view, I find it interesting that both Hamas and Hezbollah (arguably the two largest anti-Israeli/pro-Palestinian militant and political organizations) are funded in large or significant part by Iran. Given Iran's often irrational rhetoric towards the existence of Israel (the classic line 'Israel should be wiped off the map' [paraphrased] springs to mind), it presents a unique situation in which Iran is conducting a near proxy war with Israel using these militant and political organizations to weaken/destroy Israel from within.

This is no secret to Israel and the world at large, which puts significant stress on the region as a whole, seeing as Israel has for the most part not signed any international treaty of significance (key here being the NPT). The rest of the region being nuclear free, or peacefully using it for power generating purposes in the Gulf states (heavily supervised by the IAEA), every nation is watching intently as Iran's nuclear ambitions remain unclear and as of yet, unsuccessful. It is not completely absurd to believe that should Iran successfully complete a small number of small warheads that a limited nuclear engagement occur between the two states should tensions with Hamas and Hezbollah rise.

Israel has stated repeatedly that it will take every step to keep the Middle-East nuclear free (bar itself, but even that's supposed to be super secret...). Be that through the use of a pre-emptive air strike, an Israeli favorite, or a limited nuclear strike, one can only speculate. Either way, the Middle-East is one hell of a turbulent political landscape, and we can only watch as the events unfold.

/Rant.

I have a thing for nuclear strategy.

RatBot wrote:Generally it seems when Israelis kill civilians, it is through carelessness or because legitimate targets (IE, Palestinian militants) are hiding among civilian targets. I see to recall reading about Palestinian militants using a hospital as a location to launch rockets and mortars.

When Palestinians kill civilians, it's almost always in an attack that deliberately targets civilians.

Both are bad. I know which one I think is worse.

Right so it's OK to kill a gakload of children, as long as you don't mean to? Surely the best option is to not kill children at all? I put it to you that if you kill ten times as many children as your opponent, then really doesn't make much difference whether you meant to do it or not. They're still dead, and in their hundreds.

I would also put it to you that the Israelis launch missiles into densely populated areas fully expecting, but not caring, that they will cause massive civilian casualties. Let's not sit here pretending that the IDF is known for it's surgical precision. They don't give a gak. If I was Palestinian I would use any and all methods available to strike back at Israel, because the odds would be massively stacked against me in a conventional conflict. It's not a 'fair' fight, and I would argue that it was never supposed to be, indicated by the huge amount of aid the Israelis receive.

If your home and family where under threat would you fight fair? The British during WWII weren't preparing for a fair fight when our country was under threat of invasion. American revolutionaries tortured and killed loyalists, used snipers/irregulars, disfigured captives etc.

Where did I say it was OK?

Blacksails wrote:...the classic line 'Israel should be wiped off the map' [paraphrased] springs to mind...

Classically misquoted, you mean. Ahmedinejad never said that. It was an English mistranslation of something he quoted, which was something along the lines of 'the regime in Jerusalem must vanish from the page of history', and was a quotation from Khomeini, if memory serves.

Albatross wrote:

Blacksails wrote:...the classic line 'Israel should be wiped off the map' [paraphrased] springs to mind...

Classically misquoted, you mean. Ahmedinejad never said that. It was an English mistranslation of something he quoted, which was something along the lines of 'the regime in Jerusalem must vanish from the page of history', and was a quotation from Khomeini, if memory serves.

Ah, touche. The intention, nevertheless, remains. Thanks for that.

RatBot wrote:Where did I say it was OK?

You implied that there was a preferable option, to which my answer would be: 'would you prefer it if I killed two of your children by accident, or one of your children on purpose?'

The first option is the Israeli one. Still sound preferable?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Blacksails wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Blacksails wrote:...the classic line 'Israel should be wiped off the map' [paraphrased] springs to mind...

Classically misquoted, you mean. Ahmedinejad never said that. It was an English mistranslation of something he quoted, which was something along the lines of 'the regime in Jerusalem must vanish from the page of history', and was a quotation from Khomeini, if memory serves.

Ah, touche. The intention, nevertheless, remains. Thanks for that.

You're very welcome. However, unless you are able to read Mahmoud Ahmedinejad's mind, I doubt you know his intent. There's an important and profound difference between wiping a country off the map, and wanting a regime to vanish from the page of history (i.e. cease henceforth). It's possible to hate the regime in Washington and want it to disappear without wanting the USA to be wiped off the map. Hell, many American Dakkanauts want exactly that!

From a moral stand point, deliberately killing one person is, IMO worse than accidentally killing two. Neither is good. Nobody is the good guy here.

It's preferable, IMO, in the same way that cancer is preferable to ebola.

If I was near-starving, being kicked off my land by settlers, and my kids had been killed by Israeli airstrikes, I wouldn't give a gak about morals. I'd pick up an AK47.


Could you blame me?

Nope.

And when you gun down a bus full of Israeli civilians, can you blame their families for getting pissed and wanting you dead?

Me? Sure, no problem. My whole street? No.

Blacksails wrote:Either way, the Middle-East is one hell of a turbulent political landscape, and we can only watch as the events unfold.

Pretty much my stance. I'm not saying Israel should be wiped out, but they need to stop being allowed to hide behind America and NATO.

Nor am I saying that Palestinian militia aren't responsible for a fair share of the hellish state of affairs in that corner of the world. Yes, both sides have done horrible things, but the difference is that one of them is being supported by the major players of the Western world, who are also the loudest voices in human rights protection. Surely the irony there is painfully obvious.

Not to mention their "both your eyes for one of ours" policy isn't doing them any favours. A lot of the hate against them comes from their ridiculously heavy-handed policy that's eerily reminiscent of the Nazi party's own brutal executions of prisoners and civilians for even the slightest public disturbance. You have to admit that a good deal of the anti-Israel sentiment in the Middle East is likely due to their preferance towards shotgun diplomacy and their unjustified occupation of the strip.

metallifan wrote:

Blacksails wrote:Either way, the Middle-East is one hell of a turbulent political landscape, and we can only watch as the events unfold.

Pretty much my stance. I'm not saying Israel should be wiped out, but they need to stop being allowed to hide behind America and NATO.

Nor am I saying that Palestinian militia aren't responsible for a fair share of the hellish state of affairs in that corner of the world. Yes, both sides have done horrible things, but the difference is that one of them is being supported by the major players of the Western world, who are also the loudest voices in human rights protection. Surely the irony there is painfully obvious.

Not to mention their "both your eyes for one of ours" policy isn't doing them any favours. A lot of the hate against them comes from their ridiculously heavy-handed policy that's eerily reminiscent of the Nazi party's own brutal executions of prisoners and civilians for even the slightest public disturbance. You have to admit that a good deal of the anti-Israel sentiment in the Middle East is likely due to their preferance towards shotgun diplomacy and their unjustified occupation of the strip.

I genuinely have no emotions or judgements on either party in the matter. Its weird. I've been desensitized from writing about the conflict in an academic manner. Much of the resentment is also due in part to the presence of Israel's nuclear arsenal. But yes, its 'shotgun' diplomacy as you put it, certainly doesn't help. I won't touch the part about unjustly occupying any territory, as that's where the problem lies.

If they had an actual reason for being there, aside from trying to play the victim card, I'd be with you. But they occupied it in 67 and have tried to maintain that they have a right to that territory ever since, even after pulling out previously. Meanwhile they've practically been using the Palestinians and Egyptians in the city and area for live fire drills. Putting two and two together, It's my opinion that Palestine's agression and anti-Israel policies are entirely warranted. Their methods are often objectionable (Killing Israeli civilians because the IDF treats Palestinian innocents like its open season doesn't make it right), but their anger is entirely fair, I think.

metallifan wrote:If they had an actual reason for being there, aside from trying to play the victim card, I'd be with you. But they occupied it in 67 and have tried to maintain that they have a right to that territory ever since, even after pulling out previously. Meanwhile they've practically been using the Palestinians and Egyptians in the city and area for live fire drills. Putting two and two together, It's my opinion that Palestine's agression and anti-Israel policies are entirely warranted. Their methods are often objectionable (Killing Israeli civilians because the IDF treats Palestinian innocents like its open season doesn't make it right), but their anger is entirely fair, I think.

Your opinions are certainly justified, but I will politely step out of any discussion involving who is wrong and who is right.

But if you really want to know what I think...I think both sides are right...and at the same time they're both wrong. The anger on both sides is fair and understandable. That's what I think, nothing more, nothing less.

*Edit* I would, however, gladly discuss Israeli/Palestinian politics with anyone over a pint any time.

Blacksails wrote:But if you really want to know what I think...I think both sides are right...and at the same time they're both wrong. The anger on both sides is fair and understandable. That's what I think, nothing more, nothing less.

That's more or less what I'm feeling. If Israel no longer has US backing then they'll stop kicking the piss out of Palestine and thinking themselves entitled to the strip. And if that happens, then I'd bet you that Hamas would stop ambushing IDF units and be willing to open up dialogues. And then we might actually see some damn peace there for the first time since Bill Clinton's days.

And if you're ever in Kamloops then I'll take you up on that Pint

Blacksails wrote:Ethics = Morals. There is no distinction. Ethics is the study of moral philosophy. Something cannot be morally justifiable yet ethically unjustifiable.

You sure? Thats not what was discussed during my Ethics class last wednesday, just wish I had paid enough attention to remember what the stated difference was. Wikipedia is telling me that there is a minor difference dependent upon who you ask, but I can't be bothered to look it up.

WarOne wrote:This is most acutely the problem.

In media, we have a list of stories and media a mile wide about the Holocaust that begins with Anne Frank and ends with Zog Nit Keynmol. The accusal of Jewish controlled media while biased and unfair, does highlight that in America, people of the Jewish faith have been instrumental to the development and control of what Americans watch. People of Palestinian origin have made far less noteworthy contributions to their own plight as well as in media circles. It is an unfair advantage, but the Holocaust has had many more decades to ingrain itself in our society. It is probably also unfair that American politicians have chosen to ally with Israel than the Palestinians, so the political rammifications mean that any act against the Palestinians (by Israel or other nations) is often muted at best.

Israel has certainly played the media game much better than Palestine. A lot of this is to do with Israel being a more modern country, and understanding how things work in the media.

But a lot of it is also to do with Palestinian political power, many of the bombings are more about internal Palestinian politics, certain groups gaining more power in Palestine by 'doing something', even if that something is ultimately harmful to the cause of independance/assimilation/whatever.

A great deal of the American people have grown up reading American textbooks and listening to teachers that the Holocaust was the single greatest tragedy of the modern world. It is no small wonder that Americans are not only attentive to the plight of Israel, but also fascinated as well as supportive of the people they most often see in news media and print.

And to be fair, the holocaust was pretty much as bad as it got.

It's just that most people seemed to end up with the message 'the Jews are absolute victims, and therefore we're going to give them loads of leeway' and this seems to mean they largely turn a blind eye about what Israel is doing. People probably should have taken away a message more along the lines of 'it's really bad to mistreat a population because of its ethnicity, and once you think a little poor treatment is okay it is likely to get worse at a rate you can barely imagine'. Had people taken the second message, they would not be okay with what Israel is doing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:I think that the Israel-Palestine conflict has a lot of problems, and to lay them all at the feet of the Israelis is inappropriate and harmful to the issue. The terrorists running Palestine aren't doing the people living there any favors.

I don't think anyone is laying the whole of the problem at the hands of the Israelies. Obviously Palestine has committed plenty of atrocities of their own.

But ultimately, the power to change the situation lies with the side with power. Palestine is a barely functional government, that exists under the grudging tolerance of the Israelis. They lack meaningful control over their own territories, so that any peace moves they make are likely to be challenged and thwarted from militants within Palestine.

The same is not true for Israel.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Da Boss wrote:The palestinians aren't really all that popular in the region either, it must be said. From what I've read.

Definitely. Before the Israelis turned up there was a long history of Arab nations abusing the Palestinians (not to the same extent, but certainly pretty nasty).

I don't think we should be naively believing any Arab country when they complain about the treatment of the Palestinians, in most every case they're really just exploiting them for political leverage against Israel.

But that doesn't mean the Palestinians aren't being treated in a really, really gakky way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Azure wrote:One thing that keeps the Israelis in America's forethought is our primary religion and one that most of the old legalities are founded on, which is Christianity. Now, before I get to far into this, this is a real concern to some people, some who may very well be on the forms so do not mock, or make-fun of the idea presented here. It's a belief, an dramatic one yes, but one that is held by some and is therefor important.

Ironically enough, about 10% of Palestine are Christian. Were it anywhere else in the world, Christian groups would be falling all over themselves to protect these people from their oppressors.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

RatBot wrote:Generally it seems when Israelis kill civilians, it is through carelessness or because legitimate targets (IE, Palestinian militants) are hiding among civilian targets. I see to recall reading about Palestinian militants using a hospital as a location to launch rockets and mortars.

When Palestinians kill civilians, it's almost always in an attack that deliberately targets civilians.

Both are bad. I know which one I think is worse.

Both are simply a product of the capabilities of their respective sides. The Israelis have far more effective weapons, and so they're free to use more discretion, but their greater capability also means they kill a lot more people.

Palestine is reduced to launching home made rockets of minimal accuracy. Their willingness to use indiscriminate, innaccurate weapons like that is very ugly.

Ultimately, we shouldn't pretend that the actions of either represent anything other than what they are capable of. If the Palestinians had the power, they'd be targeting specific buildings with gunships, and the Israelis would be launching homemade rockets.

chaos0xomega wrote:

Blacksails wrote:Ethics = Morals. There is no distinction. Ethics is the study of moral philosophy. Something cannot be morally justifiable yet ethically unjustifiable.

You sure? Thats not what was discussed during my Ethics class last wednesday, just wish I had paid enough attention to remember what the stated difference was. Wikipedia is telling me that there is a minor difference dependent upon who you ask, but I can't be bothered to look it up.

Very positive. Whatever slight difference there may be from whoever you ask, it makes no practical difference in application. Generally speaking, the two terms can be used interchangeably. If something is immoral, it is also unethical.

they do have an extremely powerful army, and the countries around them, don't
they know that (I mean, the 6 day war anyone)
whats sort of ironic about that, is Syria used Panzer IV's against them

sebster wrote:Ultimately, we shouldn't pretend that the actions of either represent anything other than what they are capable of. If the Palestinians had the power, they'd be targeting specific buildings with gunships, and the Israelis would be launching homemade rockets.

Well put.

Normally I'd say such divisions would end over time - as the older more conservative population died out, the younger, more tolerant population can push policy - but I gotta wonder about this one. There seems to be an infinite loop of eye-for-an-eye violence there, although looking at a historical map indicates that it's getting resolved in an alternate fashion, over time.

Although generally I think you are correct with that assumption, with Israel it's not a case of old and young, it's a case of Orthodox and non-Orthadox (I wrote about it in a previous rather long post earlier in the thread).

All of the problems now in Israel now are down to the Orthodox spreading outwards, 'populating the hilltops', pushing the arabs back who perceive an invasion of their lands, and the fact that they have a far larger representation in parliament than they should have considering the numbers of them. Israeli politics swings backwards and forwards between 'hawks' and 'doves', with the former almost always pushing for further expansion which in turn leads to more mortar/rockets and then Israeli gunship tit-for-tat.

Simple solution. Stop being Israel's big brother / big stick and see if their God thinks they are worthy of having the land back. From what I remember from my old RE classes, they punched well above their weight when they were in favour. Or is relying in a God ok up until a certain point, but there comes a point where you actually need a bit of physically reality to back you up?

Reading this thread is depressing.

That people are so ignorant of the affairs that may well effect us all, and yet happily be vocal about things they clearly know little about.

Both sides are guilty of crazy gak, and the ridiculously ignorant views of the trendy "free Palestine dudes!" side are laugh out loud funny.

I care little for both sides in this conflict, and humanity as a whole. So when the deaths inevitably spiral thanks to good old Jerusalem, the gift that keeps on giving, I shall laugh long and loud, because then I get to say "I told you so"

And remember kids, Its all thanks to the desert God.

mattyrm wrote:Reading this thread is depressing.

That people are so ignorant of the affairs that may well effect us all, and yet happily be vocal about things they clearly know little about.

Both sides are guilty of crazy gak, and the ridiculously ignorant views of the trendy "free Palestine dudes!" side are laugh out loud funny.

I care little for both sides in this conflict, and humanity as a whole. So when the deaths inevitably spiral thanks to good old Jerusalem, the gift that keeps on giving, I shall laugh long and loud, because then I get to say "I told you so"

And remember kids, Its all thanks to the desert God.

Most Israelis aren't particularly religious. In fact, the religious Israelis don't get along very well with the secular Israelis.

It's far past "we're reclaiming our land!". Israel has been a nation for over 60 years now. There's really no option to "give it back" any more than the United States could "give it back" to the Native Americans.

As for the "Cut them off!" viewpoint, a lot of Israelis feel the same way. Not that they don't appreciate American aid, but rather than it constrains them from being able to handle their security issues independently. US aid is really only 3% of their budget, and most of the money that the US gives Israel is really spent subsidizing American arms manufacturers, and selling off old equipment. When I drafted into the IDF, I was issued an "M16 short", basically a sawed-off and recrowned M16A1 from Vietnam. Our transports were primarily M113's, which the US has pretty much retired from service. The M4 I was later issued was a hand-me-down from the US before the switch from the A1 variety. The kneepads I was issued were ACUPAT, and the helmet I was issued was a PASGT, which is also outdated US vintage.

In short, a lot of the infantry equipment given to Israel by the US is equipment that they had to get rid of to justify buying nicer stuff. It worked just fine, but let's be honest here: they aren't sending over brand new stuff out of the goodness of their hearts. The aid that they do send puts Israel on a leash, really, and the biggest dog in the region is only *your* big dog if you've got it on that leash. That's what US aid to Israel buys for the Americans. Not to mention, Israel is a nice testing ground for American equipment.

Didn't Israel come up with the Tar assault rifle? Nice bit of kit

Wolfstan wrote:Didn't Israel come up with the Tar assault rifle? Nice bit of kit

Yep! It was generally well received. When I was in, only a couple of the infantry brigades were using it. Now they're trying to standardize it.

Apparently they also want to standardize to the MTar (micro) when the CTAR (compact) is already small enough. Meh...their problem at this point, not mine. I loved my M4.

Cornered and alone? Good. After the atrocities they've committed it's the most practical alternative to a nation-spanning prison cell I can think of.

NuggzTheNinja wrote:

As for the "Cut them off!" viewpoint, a lot of Israelis feel the same way. Not that they don't appreciate American aid, but rather than it constrains them from being able to handle their security issues independently. US aid is really only 3% of their budget, and most of the money that the US gives Israel is really spent subsidizing American arms manufacturers, and selling off old equipment. When I drafted into the IDF, I was issued an "M16 short", basically a sawed-off and recrowned M16A1 from Vietnam. Our transports were primarily M113's, which the US has pretty much retired from service. The M4 I was later issued was a hand-me-down from the US before the switch from the A1 variety. The kneepads I was issued were ACUPAT, and the helmet I was issued was a PASGT, which is also outdated US vintage.

In short, a lot of the infantry equipment given to Israel by the US is equipment that they had to get rid of to justify buying nicer stuff. It worked just fine, but let's be honest here: they aren't sending over brand new stuff out of the goodness of their hearts. The aid that they do send puts Israel on a leash, really, and the biggest dog in the region is only *your* big dog if you've got it on that leash. That's what US aid to Israel buys for the Americans. Not to mention, Israel is a nice testing ground for American equipment.

What about the agreement to send Israel some 60 brand new F-35's, with the entire cost for the unit paid for by US taxpayers, so that Boeing would be allowed to sell F-15s, etc. to Saudi Arabia? I fail to see how you could even being to argue that the US has Israel on a leash when Israel is pretty much calling the shots. What possible benefit does the US gain from this, as a whole we are losing in this situation, we can barely afford to buy the number of planes we need for ourselves and we are giving them away to preserve a 'strategic balance' against an 'enemy' that is being armed with an older generation of our technology... I fail to see how this makes any sense at all.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/26/AR2010072602020.html?sid=ST2010072602083
and for some spin that highlights some good points:
http://defensetech.org/2010/07/27/israel-wants-missile-shield-money-jsf-tech-to-not-block-saudi-f-15-sale/#more-8405

Wolfstan wrote:Didn't Israel come up with the Tar assault rifle? Nice bit of kit

I read that as Tau Assault rifle the first time, which, let's face it, would have been awesome.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:Cornered and alone? Good. After the atrocities they've committed it's the most practical alternative to a nation-spanning prison cell I can think of.

And yet the Palestinians are also locked in the same cell as the Israelis...

How much do you think trade embargo and political isolation will break the nation of Israel?

WarOne wrote:

Arctik_Firangi wrote:Cornered and alone? Good. After the atrocities they've committed it's the most practical alternative to a nation-spanning prison cell I can think of.

And yet the Palestinians are also locked in the same cell as the Israelis...

How much do you think trade embargo and political isolation will break the nation of Israel?

Then what? If wishes were fishes what would you have Israel do and what do you envision that doing?

chaos0xomega wrote:

NuggzTheNinja wrote:

As for the "Cut them off!" viewpoint, a lot of Israelis feel the same way. Not that they don't appreciate American aid, but rather than it constrains them from being able to handle their security issues independently. US aid is really only 3% of their budget, and most of the money that the US gives Israel is really spent subsidizing American arms manufacturers, and selling off old equipment. When I drafted into the IDF, I was issued an "M16 short", basically a sawed-off and recrowned M16A1 from Vietnam. Our transports were primarily M113's, which the US has pretty much retired from service. The M4 I was later issued was a hand-me-down from the US before the switch from the A1 variety. The kneepads I was issued were ACUPAT, and the helmet I was issued was a PASGT, which is also outdated US vintage.

In short, a lot of the infantry equipment given to Israel by the US is equipment that they had to get rid of to justify buying nicer stuff. It worked just fine, but let's be honest here: they aren't sending over brand new stuff out of the goodness of their hearts. The aid that they do send puts Israel on a leash, really, and the biggest dog in the region is only *your* big dog if you've got it on that leash. That's what US aid to Israel buys for the Americans. Not to mention, Israel is a nice testing ground for American equipment.

What about the agreement to send Israel some 60 brand new F-35's, with the entire cost for the unit paid for by US taxpayers, so that Boeing would be allowed to sell F-15s, etc. to Saudi Arabia? I fail to see how you could even being to argue that the US has Israel on a leash when Israel is pretty much calling the shots. What possible benefit does the US gain from this, as a whole we are losing in this situation, we can barely afford to buy the number of planes we need for ourselves and we are giving them away to preserve a 'strategic balance' against an 'enemy' that is being armed with an older generation of our technology... I fail to see how this makes any sense at all.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/26/AR2010072602020.html?sid=ST2010072602083
and for some spin that highlights some good points:
http://defensetech.org/2010/07/27/israel-wants-missile-shield-money-jsf-tech-to-not-block-saudi-f-15-sale/#more-8405

I don't see how that invalidates anything I said. The F35s are not outdated, but they're also not infantry equipment. The reason they're sending F35s is to see how they perform against Russian-made air defenses used by Syria mostly. And again, it's more or less a subsidy for US arms manufacturers.

It sounds great now but you're missing the other half of the equation: The US forbade Israel from manufacturing their own fighter, the Lavi, in the 80's because it would compete with US exports of F16 and F18 jets.

Where does the US military get its TTPs for urban combat? Israel. How do we know anything about F15 / F16 aerial combat against Russian jets? Israel. How do we know anything about F15 and F16 performance against Russian AA? Israel. Prior to 1991, Israel was the only Western nation that had put American airframes to serious use against a capable and determined foreign enemy using Russian equipment. The Iraq war changed that. And speaking of the Iraq war, the US forbade Israel from responding to Iraqi scud attacks to keep its Arab allies. Without good relations that never would have been possible.


Obviously some people "in the know" think that the alliance is a good thing, and it's ridiculous to chalk it up to the "evil Jew lobby!", so trying to convince anyone either way here is pretty pointless. This is the last that I'll add to this discussion.

There is a difference between "evil Jew lobby" and "evil Israeli lobby". Trying to equate disliking Israel foreign with being prejudiced against Jews is probably not a productive line go down.

Ahtman wrote:There is a difference between "evil Jew lobby" and "evil Israeli lobby". Trying to equate disliking Israel foreign with being prejudiced against Jews is probably not a productive line go down.

But its often an accurate one.

Troy wrote:

Ahtman wrote:There is a difference between "evil Jew lobby" and "evil Israeli lobby". Trying to equate disliking Israel foreign with being prejudiced against Jews is probably not a productive line go down.

But its often an accurate one.

No, it isn't. If you want to say that everyone that is critical of Israels Foreign policy is essentially a bigot you better have some serious sources to back that up. It is going to get complicated when you get to Jewish people that are not fans of it. The idea that you have to hate Jews to find fault with the actions that the government takes sometimes is probably just as ignorant and bigoted as the people you are trying to imagine others as.

Ahtman wrote:

Troy wrote:

Ahtman wrote:There is a difference between "evil Jew lobby" and "evil Israeli lobby". Trying to equate disliking Israel foreign with being prejudiced against Jews is probably not a productive line go down.

But its often an accurate one.

No, it isn't. If you want to say that everyone that is critical of Israels Foreign policy is essentially a bigot you better have some serious sources to back that up. It is going to get complicated when you get to Jewish people that are not fans of it. The idea that you have to hate Jews to find fault with the actions that the government takes sometimes is probably just as ignorant and bigoted as the people you are trying to imagine others as.

Must have struck a nerve there.

I don't see how that invalidates anything I said. The F35s are not outdated, but they're also not infantry equipment. The reason they're sending F35s is to see how they perform against Russian-made air defenses used by Syria mostly. And again, it's more or less a subsidy for US arms manufacturers.

It sounds great now but you're missing the other half of the equation: The US forbade Israel from manufacturing their own fighter, the Lavi, in the 80's because it would compete with US exports of F16 and F18 jets.

Where does the US military get its TTPs for urban combat? Israel. How do we know anything about F15 / F16 aerial combat against Russian jets? Israel. How do we know anything about F15 and F16 performance against Russian AA? Israel. Prior to 1991, Israel was the only Western nation that had put American airframes to serious use against a capable and determined foreign enemy using Russian equipment. The Iraq war changed that. And speaking of the Iraq war, the US forbade Israel from responding to Iraqi scud attacks to keep its Arab allies. Without good relations that never would have been possible.


Obviously some people "in the know" think that the alliance is a good thing, and it's ridiculous to chalk it up to the "evil Jew lobby!", so trying to convince anyone either way here is pretty pointless. This is the last that I'll add to this discussion.

Interesting point that and makes sense. It's probably a useful byproduct of the relationship, not the driving factor. I have to say that I'm certainly not someone who thinks of the jews as evil. It just does look like they do use their influence to guide US policy. My own personal belief is that if you moved to another country and you are a citizen of that country, then you give up your previous life to a big degree. What happens in the country you left will obviously be of interest, but it should be behind you, otherwise there is a feeling of "sleeper agents" about the whole thing.

This won't end well at all. Is all I can say.
F-35s are not Outdated. The things are probably going to out tech the rest of the world once they are done with the prototype.

Troy wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Troy wrote:

Ahtman wrote:There is a difference between "evil Jew lobby" and "evil Israeli lobby". Trying to equate disliking Israel foreign with being prejudiced against Jews is probably not a productive line go down.

But its often an accurate one.

No, it isn't. If you want to say that everyone that is critical of Israels Foreign policy is essentially a bigot you better have some serious sources to back that up. It is going to get complicated when you get to Jewish people that are not fans of it. The idea that you have to hate Jews to find fault with the actions that the government takes sometimes is probably just as ignorant and bigoted as the people you are trying to imagine others as.

Must have struck a nerve there.

He's probably just fed up of the strawman that is calling people who disagree with Israels foreign policy as being Jew haters.

]

mattyrm wrote:

It's far past "we're reclaiming our land!". Israel has been a nation for over 60 years now. There's really no option to "give it back" any more than the United States could "give it back" to the Native Americans.

give it back to who? the british? the ottomon empire? lol (they owned it before)

Lord Poison wrote:give it back to who? the british? the ottomon empire? lol (they owned it before)

Don't be absurd. Obviously the only real solution is to reconstitute the Roman Empire and give it to them. That way they can just genocide everyone and scatter them to the corners of Europe. Problem solved

LordofHats wrote:

Lord Poison wrote:give it back to who? the british? the ottomon empire? lol (they owned it before)

Don't be absurd. Obviously the only real solution is to reconstitute the Roman Empire and give it to them. That way they can just genocide everyone and scatter them to the corners of Europe. Problem solved

then...it collapses, several states created, kingdoms...WW1...WW2...Israel as a country again...endless loop...

my god

Lord Poison wrote:

LordofHats wrote:

Lord Poison wrote:give it back to who? the british? the ottomon empire? lol (they owned it before)

Don't be absurd. Obviously the only real solution is to reconstitute the Roman Empire and give it to them. That way they can just genocide everyone and scatter them to the corners of Europe. Problem solved

then...it collapses, several states created, kingdoms...WW1...WW2...Israel as a country again...endless loop...

my god

Its. Never. Going. To. End.

*laughs maniacally*

WarOne wrote:And yet the Palestinians are also locked in the same cell as the Israelis...

How much do you think trade embargo and political isolation will break the nation of Israel?

It probably wouldn't have to get that far. South Africa buckled under international pressure, and they were all kinds of crazy that Israel is not. Honestly, I think if the mainstream of the western world, and especially the US, came to see Israeli actions against Palestine as unacceptable, Israel would move to reconcile very quickly.

The only issue then would be if Palestine were willing to settle for terms as generous as they currently are, or if an improving political situation might cause them to increase their ambition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Troy wrote:But its often an accurate one.

No, it's 87 kinds of bs, cheap rhetoric that pro-Israeli people use to avoid having to discuss Israel's actions in Palestine and their motivations for them, or to discuss exactly what the US gets out of the relationship and how much they might use their influence to direct Israeli policy if they chose to do so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MrDwhitey wrote:He's probably just fed up of the strawman that is calling people who disagree with Israels foreign policy as being Jew haters.

I wonder how people might react if every time someone tried to criticise the Palestinian leadership we called them "arab haters"...

LordofHats wrote:

Lord Poison wrote:

LordofHats wrote:

Lord Poison wrote:give it back to who? the british? the ottomon empire? lol (they owned it before)

Don't be absurd. Obviously the only real solution is to reconstitute the Roman Empire and give it to them. That way they can just genocide everyone and scatter them to the corners of Europe. Problem solved

then...it collapses, several states created, kingdoms...WW1...WW2...Israel as a country again...endless loop...

my god

Its. Never. Going. To. End.

*laughs maniacally*

the outer limits...please stand by

Israel can beat every one of their neighbors in an open conflict simultaneously. They're playing the wounded child but they're the sole military superpower in the mideast (i guess other then us). They're in no danger except what they cause themselves to be in by killing off palestinians and bulldozing palestine. They don't deserve pity and they don't need it.

I was hoping a conversation that is critical of Israel in some ways didn't devolve into the critics being accused of anti-semitism.

It would seem I remain naive as always.

Da Boss wrote:The palestinians aren't really all that popular in the region either, it must be said. From what I've read.

We should ask King Abdullah of Jordan's opinion, since it was the "Palestinians" who tried to pull a coup on his Father in 1970.

Ouze wrote:I was hoping a conversation that is critical of Israel in some ways didn't devolve into the critics being accused of anti-semitism.

It would seem I remain naive as always.

On the positive, under a separate Palestinian state, Jews ist verbotten.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/plo-official-palestinians-israelis-must-be-totally-separated-1.384493

PLO official: Palestinians, Israelis must be totally separated
Commenting on the subject of minority rights in the potential Palestinian state, PLO envoy to the U.S. says past experience shows the two people should be 'totally separated.'
By Haaretz
Tags: Middle East peace Palestinian state




The future independent Palestinian state will not include a Jewish minority, a top Palestinian official told USA Today on Wednesday, adding that it was in the best interest of both peoples to "be separated."

Maen Areikat, PLO Ambassador to the United States, made the comment just as the Palestinian Authority, led by President Mahmoud Abbas, was preparing to offer up Palestinian statehood to a vote in the United Nations General Assembly later this month.

The West Bank settlement of Ariel

Photo by: AP
Answering a question about the legal status of a Jewish minority in the future state, Areikat apprently rejected the issue, saying: "I believe, I still believe that as a first step we need to be totally separated," adding "I think we can contemplate these issues in the future."

"After the experience of the last 44 years, of military occupation and all the conflict and friction, I think it will be in the best interest that the two peoples should be separated," Areikat added.

Former U.S. National Security Council official Elliot Abrams responded to the Palestinian official's comment, saying to USA Today that the Palestinian demand was "a despicable form of anti-Semitism," adding: "No civilized country would act this way."

The administration of U.S. President Barack Obama had been openly opposing the planned Palestinian statehood bid at the United Nations, arguing that a unilateral recognition of Palestinian independence would severely injure attempts at a comprehensive peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians.

Speaking in an interview on Tuesday, Obama indicated that Washington did not feel "think that it would actually lead to the outcome that we want, which is a two-state solution."

Last week, the State Department said the U.S. would veto a resolution for Palestinian statehood in the council, but Obama had yet to comment directly on the matter.

"What we've said is that going to the UN is a distraction, does not solve the problem," he said. "This issue is only going to be resolved by Israelis and Palestinians agreeing to something."

Troy wrote:

Ouze wrote:I was hoping a conversation that is critical of Israel in some ways didn't devolve into the critics being accused of anti-semitism.

It would seem I remain naive as always.

On the positive, under a separate Palestinian state, Jews ist verbotten.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/plo-official-palestinians-israelis-must-be-totally-separated-1.384493

How is that positive? I seems like you are trying to use sarcasm but, not surprisingly, you are doing a poor job of it. If anything this backs up the arguments made that political groups use these issues as a wedge to maintain power. One can always find someone saying something pretty awful on either side of the argument. It seems that more often than , those who only want to see it as a religious issue have a vested interest in prolonging the conflict, not in finding a peaceful solution.

Well we know two regimes that tried to insure separation of Jews: USSR and Nazi Germany.

Frazzled wrote:Well we know two regimes that tried to insure separation of Jews: USSR and Nazi Germany.

They tried to insure the separation of a lot of groups.

Frazzled wrote:Well we know two regimes that tried to insure separation of Jews: USSR and Nazi Germany.

Obviously my opinion would be biased, as I'm a Jewish IDF combat vet. But, I also support the exclusion of Jews from a Palestinian state. It's an incredibly unfortunate policy, but I do believe that it is the only course of action that legitimates Israel's equally unfortunate necessary precautionary measure: Israel has a population problem, and it isn't going away on its own. The creation of a Palestinian state, and the exclusion of Jews from that state, legitimates the exclusion of Arab Muslims from a Jewish state which is the only solution the Israel's population problem.

These views are considered very taboo in Israel, it is worth noting. The last politician to suggest this, Meir Kahane, was branded a terrorist and his party was abolished. Now you have an Arab saying the same thing. The Middle East is very funny at times...

The Spanish, most of Europe, Egypt prior to Christianity, Greek city states and nations, Rome, parts of the Middle Age Islamic world at one time or another exhibited vary forms of anti-semitism, and in certain cases such as in Spain the entire population of Jewish people were expelled from the nation.

Also, for the sake of sanity, the Israels need to leave the Palestinians alone as much as the latter group needs to.

Surely if Israel had stuck to or moves back to the borders agreed then it would have a better argument for defending itself? I mean the situation was bad enough in the first place, but if you start grabbing land then it's no wonder your neighbours will get hacked off with you.

Wolfstan wrote:Surely if Israel had stuck to or moves back to the borders agreed then it would have a better argument for defending itself? I mean the situation was bad enough in the first place, but if you start grabbing land then it's no wonder your neighbours will get hacked off with you.

That's what I'm thinking. It's certainly a big part of the "Why everyone is pissed at them" pie.

Wolfstan wrote:Surely if Israel had stuck to or moves back to the borders agreed then it would have a better argument for defending itself? I mean the situation was bad enough in the first place, but if you start grabbing land then it's no wonder your neighbours will get hacked off with you.

What borders, what agreement?

There never was an agreement between all interested parties in dividing up the British Mandate.

metallifan wrote:

Wolfstan wrote:Surely if Israel had stuck to or moves back to the borders agreed then it would have a better argument for defending itself? I mean the situation was bad enough in the first place, but if you start grabbing land then it's no wonder your neighbours will get hacked off with you.

That's what I'm thinking. It's certainly a big part of the "Why everyone is pissed at them" pie.

You mean the borders where they had already been attacked twice? Also the PLO was in existence before Israel took the Occupied Territories. It was started in 1946.

Hey, I didn't say it was ideal, but constantly grabbing land won't help. No other country can get away with it. As already mentioned, there was no way Israel could of been created using the borders from the bible, too much time had gone by. Borders were agreed on an international level at the time.

Wolfstan wrote:Hey, I didn't say it was ideal, but constantly grabbing land won't help. No other country can get away with it. As already mentioned, there was no way Israel could of been created using the borders from the bible, too much time had gone by. Borders were agreed on an international level at the time.

Most countries get away with it over history or they get beaten by their neighbors. Thats history pre Pax Americana. Israel is just being singled out.

With China starting to make claims on waters and natueral resources out to the Phillipines expect the old days to return in that regard.