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.

War in Israel would definitely escalate- and the presence of that state is an Anathema to Islamic rulers. Only way out is for a negotiated arms-reduction type settlement after they have grabbed all the land around it, and are negotiating from a position of strength. Open the borders of Israel up and flood it with immigration until it is culturally dominated. Just like Civ 4!

sebster wrote:Israel/Palestine can only be ended when the Israelis stop building new settlements in Palestinian territory. From there it'll still be long road, with a lot of gestures of good faith from both sides, but nothing can begin until Israel stops the settlements.

Jordan owned a lot of that territory before the Arabs attacked Israel in '67. They weren't above whacking the odd 1,000+ or so Palstinians now and then with nary an eye batted by the other Arab nations.

I really love how post '67, they all of the sudden became poster children victims for Israeli aggression in the Arab world.

Relapse wrote:
Jordan owned a lot of that territory before the Arabs attacked Israel in '67. They weren't above whacking the odd 1,000+ or so Palstinians now and then with nary an eye batted by the other Arab nations.

Which is relevant why?

Relapse wrote:
I really love how post '67, they all of the sudden became poster children victims for Israeli aggression in the Arab world.

I really love how Arab misconduct is always raised to counter the notion that Israel is guilty of similar faults. Its the geopolitical version of 'But Johnny did it too!"

Frazzled wrote:It will end when all regonize the coming of his Imperial Excellency Il Duce, er Frazzled.

Wouldn't you just be a front though? For your true master?

dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Jordan owned a lot of that territory before the Arabs attacked Israel in '67. They weren't above whacking the odd 1,000+ or so Palstinians now and then with nary an eye batted by the other Arab nations.

Which is relevant why?

Relapse wrote:
I really love how post '67, they all of the sudden became poster children victims for Israeli aggression in the Arab world.

I really love how Arab misconduct is always raised to counter the notion that Israel is guilty of similar faults. Its the geopolitical version of 'But Johnny did it too!"

It's relevant because in the statement I quoted which you ignored, it is made to seem like Israel alone is at fault for all the troubles over there. As far as your "Johnny did it too" statement goes, I'm just saying that people seem ready to make Israel the sole villain without viewing the full story of what's been going on over there.
There's been a lot of nastiness committed by both sides. Family arguments are usually some of the worst going, and in my view, that's what is happening over there from centuries past onward to these days.

Relapse wrote:
It's relevant because in the statement I quoted which you ignored, it is made to seem like Israel alone is at fault for all the troubles over there.

I didn't ignore it, I just didn't read any allegation of fault into it. Stating that its up to Israel to take the first steps towards resolution isn't a tacit accusation of responsibility.

Relapse wrote:Jordan owned a lot of that territory before the Arabs attacked Israel in '67. They weren't above whacking the odd 1,000+ or so Palstinians now and then with nary an eye batted by the other Arab nations.

Because right now Jordan is doing so much to reclaim the Palestinian territories.

I really love how post '67, they all of the sudden became poster children victims for Israeli aggression in the Arab world.

I really like how you assume the policy objectives of Arab nations have remained unchanged for 40 years.

sebster wrote:

Relapse wrote:Jordan owned a lot of that territory before the Arabs attacked Israel in '67. They weren't above whacking the odd 1,000+ or so Palstinians now and then with nary an eye batted by the other Arab nations.

Because right now Jordan is doing so much to reclaim the Palestinian territories.

I really love how post '67, they all of the sudden became poster children victims for Israeli aggression in the Arab world.

I really like how you assume the policy objectives of Arab nations have remained unchanged for 40 years.

Because Arab nations have changed tactics means the objective has changed? Read the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich and of how Hitler took over Chechoslavokia after he realized it had more fight than he cared to handle. It's like a blueprint for what's being asked of Israel now.

Relapse wrote:
Because Arab nations have changed tactics means the objective has changed?

What Arab nations are you referring to? Because Jordan signed a Peace treaty with Israel in 1994, and was put on the US list of major non-NATO allies in 1996. Egypt lead the way in terms of securing peace agreements, signing to that fact in 1979. Syria is not party to any peace agreement, but does hold several economic agreements with Israel vis a vis the Golan Heights.

The situation is far from cordial, with the exception of Egypt, but it isn't unified, hostile action either.

Relapse wrote:
Read the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich and of how Hitler took over Chechoslavokia after he realized it had more fight than he cared to handle. It's like a blueprint for what's being asked of Israel now.

The one where William L. Shirer claimed that the rise of Adolph Hitler was the inevitable expression of German character as defined by Luther's Reformation? I hope not, because that's an awful book.

Either way, I assume you're talking about the Munich Agreement, but I'm not sure where you're finding common ground between that and the Palestinian question. The Munich Agreement was brokered by Germany, France, Britain, and Italy in order to permit Germany to annex the Sudetenland and thus bypass the majority of Czechoslovak defenses. The matter at hand in Palestine deals with the creation of an independent state containing a populace which you yourself have acknowledged as having been brutalized by their Arab 'compatriots'.

Welcome to the land of the un-debatable.

Dunnn dunnn dunnnnnnn!!!

Relapse wrote:Because Arab nations have changed tactics means the objective has changed?

No, the objective has changed because the basic governments of many Middle Eastern countries has changed. Egypt is now practically a US client state, and is actively aiding the Israelis in enforcing quarantine on the Palestinians.

Read the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich and of how Hitler took over Chechoslavokia after he realized it had more fight than he cared to handle. It's like a blueprint for what's being asked of Israel now.

They're being asked to stop moving settlers into territory they have no legal claim over. It's territory the Israelis don't even pretend to have claim over. Yet they keep moving more settlers in there.

Defence of Israeli actions based some pressing attack is old and tired, and relies on a world that doesn't exist anymore.

I was under the impression that the settlers were currently acting of their own free will. That is to say that the government didn't take responsibility for the new settlements, as far as I know.

Well that would mean people WANT to go live in a place very likely to get invaded. Yes, they are moving there of there own accord, but who do you think kicked the previous inhabitants out? (without reparations mostly, mind you)

Emperors Faithful wrote:Well that would mean people WANT to go live in a place very likely to get invaded. Yes, they are moving there of there own accord, but who do you think kicked the previous inhabitants out? (without reparations mostly, mind you)

Tell me... because I simply don't feel like researching right now.

The military...geez, it was a rhetorical question.

Emperors Faithful wrote:The military...geez, it was a rhetorical question.

I apologize () Rhetoric is a new phrase to me, and pretty uncommon out here in the bush.

obviously sarcasm isn't though...

Please do note the flaming cheese:

I...don't get it.

Frazzled wrote:Er, the war between them was going before that. Yassar Arafat Nobel peace prize winner (vomit) was killing Israel women and children before there was a Palestinian territories.

The only time there was peace in the Middle East was when the Ottoman Empire controlled the region. Why did the British break them up again?

They chose the wrong side in WW1.

killrazy is spot on there.

Keyasa wrote:It won't end. We are a warlike and bloody race. Although as soon as there is no more oil in that region worth getting, will we still have troops there? Nope.

Depressing but true ...

Oh Ye of little faith Lunahound. Doom and gloom is so depressing and definitlely not universally true.

I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit.

It's the only way to be sure.

lol! good one.

Wrexasaur wrote:I was under the impression that the settlers were currently acting of their own free will. That is to say that the government didn't take responsibility for the new settlements, as far as I know.

They're settling in someone else's territory. The Israelis have the capabilities to stop them settling but allow them to do so (most of the time).

sebster wrote:

Wrexasaur wrote:I was under the impression that the settlers were currently acting of their own free will. That is to say that the government didn't take responsibility for the new settlements, as far as I know.

They're settling in someone else's territory. The Israelis have the capabilities to stop them settling but allow them to do so (most of the time).

I suppose in such a small area it would be pretty hard not to notice this kind of thing. I can only imagine what kind of surveillance precautions Israel has in place, double what you think it is and add a few assorted robots.

Wrexasaur wrote:I suppose in such a small area it would be pretty hard not to notice this kind of thing. I can only imagine what kind of surveillance precautions Israel has in place, double what you think it is and add a few assorted robots.

There's no significant issue with identifying the settlements. There are countles known settlements that continue to operation that Israel will not remove, because there is considerable political support in Israel to expand into the West Bank (not necessarily huge numbers of votes among the Israelis, but political power doesn't always work that way). It takes a lot of political will to close down settlements, and so there's been these sporadic efforts to stop settlements.

Removing the settlements won't solve everything, but the situation cannot be resolved until the settlements stop.

I think it won't end until the dead sea has a twin, only the twin will be a glass sea.

I'm an optimist, though.

chromedog wrote:I think it won't end until the dead sea has a twin, only the twin will be a glass sea.

I'm an optimist, though.

Is this mythology or something? Not a joke, but a pretty funny one when I think about it.