Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

dogma wrote:

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.

Don't worry. Many, many people have challenged this as well. However, I think Israel had worn out their "special treatment" a long time ago when the United States went out of its way to defend Israel, especially during the '70s. Now, Israel would be lucky to have that same sort of backing in today's political climate, especially after everything Israel has been accused of and what they have done to Palestinians in general.

People do not like the label "Holocasut denier" because of the stigmata it brings in the real world. Teachers had done a very good job of indoctrinating the senselessness in people of why millions were killed systematically, especially when you think of American and German teaching. People may once have had sympathy for the Israelis because of this, but outside of political rammifications of being called a Holocaust denier, there shouldn't be much in the way og special treatment anymore.

We were arguing about this in the pub last night and the people who were criticising Israel got called anti-semetic. That was pretty hilarious.

Da Boss wrote:We were arguing about this in the pub last night and the people who were criticising Israel got called anti-semetic. That was pretty hilarious.

Hmm...can you give us a description/general fell of the social/economic/political background of the people who were being called anti-semitic and arguing against Israel?

Da Boss wrote:We were arguing about this in the pub last night and the people who were criticising Israel got called anti-semetic. That was pretty hilarious.

Hilarious? Is this tactic now being laughed off? It used to be a nasty beatstick, perhaps we are making progress. If the propoganda tool has expired itself over the attack on the aid convoy I think the terrible price will be worthwhile. Some US media figures are still trying to beat the old drum, but it is not having the effect it once did. More and more people are finding the actions of the last few days unforgivable and no longer accept the old excuses. With the threat of character labeling gone, or at least temporarily rescinded, perhaps future political dialogue will be on more even terms.

We can echo this new levity with a small step of our own. it looks like the Dakka mods have stopped automatically considering such criticism anti-semitism too, and are keeping the threads open for people willing to discuss these issues. We have got to page eight and managed to frankly cover a lot of the topics that were locked down only yesterday as assumed 'racism' and 'Jew-hating', so perhaps we are making good progress too.

Orlanth wrote:We have got to page eight and managed to cover a frankly lot of the topics that were locked down only yesterday as assumed 'racism' and 'Jew-hating', so perhaps we are making good progress too.

SHHHH!!

Orlanth wrote:

We can echo this new levity with a small step of our own. it looks like the Dakka mods have stopped automatically considering such criticism anti-semitism too, and are keeping the threads open for people willing to discuss these issues. We have got to page eight and managed to frankly cover a lot of the topics that were locked down only yesterday as assumed 'racism' and 'Jew-hating', so perhaps we are making good progress too.

Perhaps it's more to do with the way such criticsim is phrased and argued in this thread maybe ?

I will say that "veiled" digs at people/certain mods will get the thread locked.

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.

It has been proposed before in other threads, however it was shown that US foreign aid is such a minute proportion of the budget that cutting it entirely would have almost no practical effect on the deficit.

If we have an earthquake like Haiti we could get our national det canceled.

WarOne wrote:

Da Boss wrote:We were arguing about this in the pub last night and the people who were criticising Israel got called anti-semetic. That was pretty hilarious.

Hmm...can you give us a description/general fell of the social/economic/political background of the people who were being called anti-semitic and arguing against Israel?

Well, it was my gaming group. Arguing "for" Israel was a very industrious physics phd student, a medical student, and a Lecturer in History. Arguing "against" was myself (science teacher), an artist and another Lecturer in History. On the fence or not particularly engaged were an Computer Science PhD student and a office worker. I put for and against in inverted commas because really no-one was that extreme in their views. It mostly came down to supporting specific policies or not, and arguments over the validity of international law. Orlanth- We're a pretty thickskinned group that like arguing a lot, so the accusation rolled straight off with a few disparaging remarks on it's effectiveness as an arguing tool.
My first girlfriend was Israeli, so I was particularly amused by that statement.

WarOne wrote:
Don't worry. Many, many people have challenged this as well. However, I think Israel had worn out their "special treatment" a long time ago when the United States went out of its way to defend Israel, especially during the '70s. Now, Israel would be lucky to have that same sort of backing in today's political climate, especially after everything Israel has been accused of and what they have done to Palestinians in general.

I think they still get plenty of special treatment. After all, the US doesn't provide aid to any other first world military. Not to mention all the aid that Egypt and Jordan receive, much of which is contingent on their treatment of the Jewish state. Sure, the rhetoric isn't as universally supportive as it once was, but the financial underpinning of the relationship has not changed significantly.

WarOne wrote:
People do not like the label "Holocasut denier" because of the stigmata it brings in the real world. Teachers had done a very good job of indoctrinating the senselessness in people of why millions were killed systematically, especially when you think of American and German teaching. People may once have had sympathy for the Israelis because of this, but outside of political rammifications of being called a Holocaust denier, there shouldn't be much in the way og special treatment anymore.

I don't generally object to the use of the term 'holocaust denier' to refer to people who actually deny the holocaust. I object to its use to refer to people that deny that the holocaust should fuel special treatment of a given group of people that are not themselves citizens of the country in which a debate is occurring. Indeed, the frequent equivocational weaponization of the terms 'holocaust denier' and 'antisemitic' is, to my mind, a form of special treatment in and of itself.

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.

It beats firebombing all of Gaza the next time a rocket is fired from there sometime this morning, that others advocate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:
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.

Those corrections were utterly bogus.
I admit to occasionally getting sucked back into the thread. Its kind of like watching a Klan rally and watching the white sheet brigade justifying their hatrwed. You get hooked watching the hatred and forget you came there to throw the switch. On the positive this thread is the reason I've officially changed my vote to "KILL THE OT NOW" on the mod side.

To be clear.
I am calling most of your hypocrites, racists, and antisemites, if not directly then by the great sin of omission. I just want to be clear. I hope you report this.
I have no problem leaving Dakka over this thread and any like it. Its making me reconsider being on the thread, much mless being a Mod or a DCM.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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.

Agreed, end government foreign aid. Pull the troops back to protect US borders. There are acts of war being performed right here, right now.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100603/ts_ynews/ynews_ts2382

Frazzled wrote:I admit to occasionally getting sucked back into the thread. Its kind of like watching a Klan rally and watching the white sheet brigade justifying their hatrwed. You get hooked watching the hatred and forget you came there to throw the switch. On the positive this thread is the reason I've officially changed my vote to "KILL THE OT NOW" on the mod side.

To be clear.
I am calling most of your hypocrites, racists, and antisemites, if not directly then by the great sin of omission. I just want to be clear. I hope you report this.
I have no problem leaving Dakka over this thread and any like it. Its making me reconsider being on the thread, much mless being a Mod or a DCM.

Oh, come off it. This is hysterical, even for you. Why do you always have to get all 'Das ist verboten' over topics you feel uncomfortable with? Aren't you supposed to be American? You have no problem lecturing people about free speech when you can use it as a political stick to beat people from other countries with. You also have no problem posting gloating threads about how Obama's policies are failing, or how the Canadian health service is in danger. Hypocrite.

Criticism of Israel's actions is perfectly justified - in any case, how dare you call anyone a racist when you yourself have advocated such things as turning the middle-east into a 'sheet of glass'? To call for the extermination of a large group people is suddenly OK is it? Or is it only if it's a group you don't like?

You need to grow up.

And you need to realize you're being a racist. When you critizise one side exclusively and make everything out they do be bad, utterly ignoring everything else, you're a fellow traveller and an apolgist for racists and antisemites.

Thats no better than the Klan. Sorry but thats the truth.

We're not being racist. Stop accusing us of it, and maybe read some of our posts and arguments more carefully. I condemn those in palestine who use violence to achieve their aims too, believe me. The thing is, when you do that, it's bloody rare that someone leaps to their defense. Who, exactly, in the thread has made out everything israel does to be bad? Who has even made derrogatory comments towards jewish people?
You're overreacting and being very insulting into the bargain.

I call it like I see it. Threads have started to note "Jew" instead of ""Israel" now. Glorious.

here's some examples in the last two pages
**************
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.

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.

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.

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.
***************
Plus you’re discussing relocation of Israel now. Hitler did that.

I'm not seeing this tide of antisemetism and racism you're seeing at all Fraz.

We are way off topic and headed for massive MOD action. I move that we curtail this fracas and lock the thread.

Frazzled wrote:And you need to realize you're being a racist. When you critizise one side exclusively and make everything out they do be bad, utterly ignoring everything else, you're a fellow traveller and an apolgist for racists and antisemites.

OTOH, when one side really is doing something bad, and continues to do so, as multiple repeated violation of international law and human dignity, how is saying "they suck" racist?

Israeli occupation of Palestine land is illegal and wrong.
Israeli settlement of Palestine land is illegal and wrong.
Israeli blockade of Palestine trade is illegal and wrong.
Israeli denial of Palestinian human rights is illegal and wrong.
Israeli sucks for all of the above reasons and more.

If I'm now an anti-Semite racist bastard for stating the above, so be it.

It's OK. I understand I'm also a sexist bastard for not blindly following Boxer. Or Hillary. And of course, I'm a racist bastard for not blindly supporting in Obama. And he's not even a citizen, hence the Dem push for Illegal Alien amnesty. But that's another topic...

I think it would be best to lock this thread now, to let people cool off.