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.

mattyrm wrote:I fully support Israel.

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

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

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

loki old fart wrote:

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

Oh right, there weren't any.

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

To be fair, Britain can hardly be holier than thou over the matter anyways. The way we acted during the 'troubles' was not to far from what Israel does today.

I just get frustrated when I see actions that seem blatently acted on to provoke the other side but from an apparent 'it's for the greater good' position. Like the wall, this blockade and so on.

Although I'll be honest my first thought when this kicked off a few nights back wasn't about the dead, but the PR disaster it was going to be.

Like with NI, I'd just love for then to sit down and be open about actual proper discussions. Israel says they won't deal with Hamas, we used to say the same about Sinn Féin.

For the real greater good, ie peace in the region at some point folks just need to talk.

It's a really odd comparrison, and strange thing to add, but I watch a silly comedy like 'You don't mess with the Zohan' and I really wish Israeli's and Palastinian's could get on like they do by the end of the movie.

efarrer wrote:

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

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

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

not if the king has actual power. East Germany and North Korea were/are republics too.

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

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

Also, Iran has had democratically elected leaders.

One palestinian, Coming up.

"Democracy". How can one have a democracy in an Exclusive Jewish State, a term that has been used by many many Israeli Officials, and Pm's, such as Ariel Sharon, David Ben-Groing (spelled it wrong?), and many others.

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

Frazzled wrote:

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

not if the king has actual power. East Germany and North Korea were/are republics too.

Hey Ill grant you it's a weak democracy at best, but that's a good thing in the region.

When the US pulls out of Iran I really doubt we'll like the democracy that takes root there (for the 15 minutes I think it'll last).

efarrer wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

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

not if the king has actual power. East Germany and North Korea were/are republics too.

Hey Ill grant you it's a weak democracy at best, but that's a good thing in the region.

When the US pulls out of Iran I really doubt we'll like the democracy that takes root there (for the 15 minutes I think it'll last).

Yes, when the US pulls out of iran we might have a mullah ruled regime that shoots people in the streets...

Frazzled wrote:

efarrer wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

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

not if the king has actual power. East Germany and North Korea were/are republics too.

Hey Ill grant you it's a weak democracy at best, but that's a good thing in the region.

When the US pulls out of Iran I really doubt we'll like the democracy that takes root there (for the 15 minutes I think it'll last).

Yes, when the US pulls out of iran we might have a mullah ruled regime that shoots people in the streets...

I meant Iraq, though the description sounds right. Stupid typing = poor internet communication.


And to be fair it's not exactly religion only that gets people shot in the street in a post revolution country.

Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:To be fair, Britain can hardly be holier than thou over the matter anyways. The way we acted during the 'troubles' was not to far from what Israel does today.

Come on, Bloody Sunday was about the worst of it. And it was badly trained soldiers losing their cool and opening up on a crowd because they were gaking themselves.

Sure there was some dodgy deals done behind some closed doors as well.. But the Israelis fired rockets at an old man in a wheelchair!

I think thats a tad harsh!

But dont get me started on Northern Ireland, I did a tour there and some of the people that are walking the streets thanks to "peace" makes me want to vomit.

There was a guy i used to see who sawed a soldier in half with machine gun fire while he was off duty and carrying his 3 year old daughter, killing both of them. The people that murdered Stephen Restorick and 8 others were all set free within 18 months of capture by the SAS.

No matter the crime they are all sat in the pub now. At what price peace?

To be honest, i went there fresh out the box at 19, and it changed me alot. I had outright hatred directed at me for 6 months, and i think it made me a bitter cynical man. It changed me for the rest of my life and ive never forgotten it. Hatred begets hatred and violence begets violence. The guys mentioned above were doing what they were doing as a result of indoctrination or revenge. One of the shooters was a guy named Fergal Caraher and his brother was killed by Royal Marines. I think humans are aggressive, stupid, tribal animals, and its something that makes me undserstand both sides in this conflict.

There will never be peace as long as Israel exists. Im certain of that.

To me the Israelis seem to me to make the most concessions of the two sides, so im on their team. Have you seen Kids TV in Palestine?

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

Think of it this way, would you rather be in the shoes of a captured Israeli soldier in the hands of Hamas, or a captured Hamas fighter in the hands of the IDF?

But anyway, this is too deep and meaningful for a guy like me so i shall merely bow out with, its complicated.

Oh and i secretly thought that shooting the missle at the old disabled guy was kinda awesome!

Frazzled wrote:

efarrer wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

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

not if the king has actual power. East Germany and North Korea were/are republics too.

Hey Ill grant you it's a weak democracy at best, but that's a good thing in the region.

When the US pulls out of Iran I really doubt we'll like the democracy that takes root there (for the 15 minutes I think it'll last).

Yes, when the US pulls out of iran we might have a mullah ruled regime that shoots people in the streets...

That's exactly what we got when the US was thrown out of Iran.

Before that we had a monarch ruled regime which shot people in the secret police prisons.

See thats what happens when the Brits break up the Ottoman Empire. Its all Britain's fault.

Frazzled wrote:See thats what happens when the Brits break up the Ottoman Empire. Its all Britain's fault.

Ironically enough, I thought a lot of the Israel / Palestinian problems were as a direct result of promises made to both sides by the British Government after WW2.

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

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

But surely by that logic you would support the Palestinians?

@mattym - aye to be honest I was referring more to the way we enforced our rule over there, patrolling the streets, closing off areas etc.

Obviously not to the same degree as Israel, but some of the things we did where questionable. Of course as with the Palastines, those actions by the IRA and its supporters made it seem fair enough to many. I was just noting, the larger group being punished by the actions of the few.

My cousin also served over there, and it was the last thing he did as a member of the British Army, wanted nothing to do with it again after what he experienced.

Ironhide wrote:

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

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

Well, if you believe that the 2nd coming of the Messiah will bring about a rapture where all Christians will be taken to heaven, why wouldn't you want this? I'm not saying I believe in an early rapture, called pretribulationism, but I do know a large portion of people that do believe this. And, in fact, there are organizations that are actively trying to help the Israelis accomplish this, much to the chagrin of many Israelis themselves, who want the well meaning people to leave them alone.

GG

@Albatross-The Media over here has, for decades, painted the Palestinians as being backed by every other Muslim country in the area. It is a case of, "Look at the Tiny dot of Israel surrounded by these much larger countries".

Then there are connections drawn between those surrounding countries and those who have supported terrorism. Not saying whether these connections are true or not, just that the connection is made and how such connections impact american views about Israel.

Perhaps they should swap and help the Palestinians instead.

Does it matter who builds the Temple, so long as it gets built?

For the serious reader I recommend the now famous paper by the Harvard scholar Stephen Walt, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy." In short, U.S. support for Israel is not based on a calculation of the strategic interests of the U.S. but rather the activities of pro-Israeli lobbyist.

Here's the abstract:

Abstract
In this paper, John J. Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago's Department of Political Science and Stephen M.Walt of Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government contend that the centerpiece of U.S. Middle East policy is its intimate relationship with Israel. The authors argue that although often justified as reflecting shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives, the U.S. commitment to Israel is due primarily to the activities of the “Israel Lobby." This paper goes on to describe the various activities that pro-Israel groups have undertaken in order to shift U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction.

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

Kilkrazy wrote:Perhaps they should swap and help the Palestinians instead.

Does it matter who builds the Temple, so long as it gets built?

How would helping the Palestinians who are mostly Muslim, and therefore would naturally be unwilling to allow a Jewish temple be built over the current position of The Dome of The Rock? Which also happens to be the 2nd most holy site in Islam, next to Mecca.

For those who don't know the story. The Dome of The Rock is where muslims believe Muhamed was taken up to heaven. A mosque was built on this spot, which was on the former temple mount and built over the ruins of the temple of Herod.

I'm not totally sure why the temple must be built on the temple mount, but I am pretty sure that is where the Israelis want to build it.

GG

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

Incorrect. The first democracy in the region was Turkey.

dogma wrote:

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

Incorrect. The first democracy in the region was Turkey.

Furthermore, slightly off topic, but is it worth our lives to impose a western style democracy on the world? What if they don't want it?

Frazzled wrote:
Yes, when the US pulls out of iran we might have a mullah ruled regime that shoots people in the streets...

There are no mullahs in Iraq. Mullah is not a term of respect in that country.

Grignard wrote:
Furthermore, slightly off topic, but is it worth our lives to impose a western style democracy on the world? What if they don't want it?

If you believe in the Democratic Peace Theory, then yes. If you don't believe in that, and you shouldn't, then no.

generalgrog wrote:
How would helping the Palestinians who are mostly Muslim, and therefore would naturally be unwilling to allow a Jewish temple be built over the current position of The Dome of The Rock? Which also happens to be the 2nd most holy site in Islam, next to Mecca.

I don't know about that. The Dome is up there on the inviolate list, but I'd place Medina above it in a general context, and note that 'holiness' varies by Islamic sect. For example, Shiites wouldn't even list the Dome as a holy site.

Kilkrazy wrote:

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

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

And certainly still would were it capable. When a country has reach it uses it, when it doesn't it it wonders why others do.

Grignard wrote:

dogma wrote:

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

Incorrect. The first democracy in the region was Turkey.

Furthermore, slightly off topic, but is it worth our lives to impose a western style democracy on the world? What if they don't want it?

At this point I am reminded of the story of Chairman Mao, the officials, the cat and the chili pepper.

Kilkrazy wrote:

At this point I am reminded of the story of Chairman Mao, the officials, the cat and the chili pepper.

Pray tell. Is it a joke, or a parable?

Grignard wrote:

dogma wrote:

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

Incorrect. The first democracy in the region was Turkey.

Furthermore, slightly off topic, but is it worth our lives to impose a western style democracy on the world? What if they don't want it?

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

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

I think that, as usual, you don't know what the word democracy means. There is no formal relationship between coups and democracy such that the presence of one negates the other. It seems as though you've equated 'democracy' with 'American democracy' which is a really, really basic error.

And hey, lets ignore the fact that those 'coups' in Turkish history were based on the maintenance of the secular values which are at the core of Americanization.

Orlanth wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

At this point I am reminded of the story of Chairman Mao, the officials, the cat and the chili pepper.

Pray tell. Is it a joke, or a parable?

Kind of parable about politics.

Chairman Mao calls in his two top officials and tells them he wants to get a cat to bite a hot chili pepper. How should it be done?

The first one says it is easy, you just grab the cat and force the chili down its throat.

That won't do, says the Chairman, the cat must bite the pepper willingly.

The second official say you starve the cat, and wrap the pepper in a delicious piece of fish.

That's not good, says the Chairman, the cat must know it is biting the pepper, without deceit.

Then what? ssk the officials, as they are out of ideas.

Mao says, it's easy. You stick the chili up the cat's arse. Then, not only will he bite it, he will be glad to do so.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

At this point I am reminded of the story of Chairman Mao, the officials, the cat and the chili pepper.

Pray tell. Is it a joke, or a parable?

Kind of parable about politics.

Chairman Mao calls in his two top officials and tells them he wants to get a cat to bite a hot chili pepper. How should it be done?

The first one says it is easy, you just grab the cat and force the chili down its throat.

That won't do, says the Chairman, the cat must bite the pepper willingly.

The second official say you starve the cat, and wrap the pepper in a delicious piece of fish.

That's not good, says the Chairman, the cat must know it is biting the pepper, without deceit.

Then what? ssk the officials, as they are out of ideas.

Mao says, it's easy. You stick the chili up the cat's arse. Then, not only will he bite it, he will be glad to do so.

HA! That's a good one.