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.

Honestly, Orkeosaurus, I kind of do think that some seriously Draconian measures would be great for our southern border in regard to the drug gangs. I guess I'm turning into Rhaj Al-Ghul in my old age.

I also think that Israel has to kick a disproportionate amount of Ass when the need arises to prevent aggression from nations that have attacked them in the past.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:The real thing about the Isrealis is that they are basically foreign occupiers backed by the west. They're like the french in vietnam or the British in India. They have no right to that land. They stole it from other people at the point of a gun. If that kind of thing happened here I'd be fighting too. I don't have any sympathy for the Isrealis. They're foreign, colonial occupiers of other peoples land.
AF

You mean they're badass?

I agree.

Oh, btw Irony Train Incoming.

they're foreign, colonial occupiers of other peoples land.

U.S Iraq

Monster Rain wrote:Honestly, Orkeosaurus, I kind of do think that some seriously Draconian measures would be great for our southern border in regard to the drug gangs. I guess I'm turning into Rhaj Al-Ghul in my old age.

I also think that Israel has to kick a disproportionate amount of Ass when the need arises to prevent aggression from nations that have attacked them in the past.

Nations that they beat in a week, all at the same time, took significant amount of territory from, and all of which have weakened significantly while it's military has grown by leaps and bounds in power?

No. You think wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karon wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:The real thing about the Isrealis is that they are basically foreign occupiers backed by the west. They're like the french in vietnam or the British in India. They have no right to that land. They stole it from other people at the point of a gun. If that kind of thing happened here I'd be fighting too. I don't have any sympathy for the Isrealis. They're foreign, colonial occupiers of other peoples land.
AF

You mean they're badass?

I agree.

Yeah, they're great at shooting civilians and bulldozing peoples homes. The epitomy of a badass.

LordofHats wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:The real thing about the Isrealis is that they are basically foreign occupiers backed by the west.

They're not really foreign occupiers. The UK gave them that land, which at the time was technically British owned.

yes. the turks were the original colonial power. then the british took it from the turks. then they gave it to the jews.
That land was, and is, by right, palestinian, not British. It wasnt really theirs to give.

lordofhats wrote:

abaddonfidelis wrote:They're like the french in vietnam or the British in India.

Last I checked, Israel isn't a colony of an imperial power that is exploited for that powers gain. If anything it's the opposite.

sure it is. It's an american colony that our politicians support in order to avoid pissing off the jewish lobby. It doesnt give us any financial or foreign policy benefits, which is kind of my point.... it gives our politicians domestic political benefits. I mean ask yourself - what would happen to them if we turned our back on them? They are completely dependent on us. If we stopped trading with them, stopped selling them our military surplus at bargain basement deals, and in general treated them like the world treated South Africa in the 80s, they would have to give the palestinians justice. But we dont bc of domestic politics.

lordofhats wrote:

abaddonfidelis wrote:They have no right to that land. They stole it from other people at the point of a gun.

The British gave it to them because they kept asking for it and Britain was tired of the Palestinians being rebellious /exageration

Yes. The british favored the jewish minority over the palestinian majority. They did something similar in Rwanda with the Hutus and the Tutsis and look how that worked out.... the Isrealis would have wiped out the palestinians completely a long time ago if they thought they could get away with it. After all there's some pretty good Old Testament precedent for that kind of thing....
AF

I also think that Israel has to kick a disproportionate amount of Ass when the need arises to prevent aggression from nations that have attacked them in the past.

I don't think they really need to. They have access to military capabilties that render most miltiaries in the region a non-factor, and even if they slip a bit, they have us. Their mentality is to consider nobody an ally, which I can understand, but still...

For me, the harshness of their operations are not really justified, but they're made somewhat understandable by the nature of their enemies. People like to ignore just how ruthlessly the Palestinians are herded against them by external forces, and even their own leadership. The Israelis are cruel because the people pushing the Palestinians against them are cruel. They're all very shady people in that region, and the only real victims are the Palestinian civillians.

Karon wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:The real thing about the Isrealis is that they are basically foreign occupiers backed by the west. They're like the french in vietnam or the British in India. They have no right to that land. They stole it from other people at the point of a gun. If that kind of thing happened here I'd be fighting too. I don't have any sympathy for the Isrealis. They're foreign, colonial occupiers of other peoples land.
AF

You mean they're badass?

I agree.

Oh, btw Irony Train Incoming.

they're foreign, colonial occupiers of other peoples land.

U.S Iraq

sure they're bad ass.... in the same way that a some hill billy with a high powered hunting rifle who goes out and shoots a deer is a bad ass.... I mean these guys have jet fighters, computers, heavy machineguns, on and on. the palestinians have rocks and some 60s era surplus rockets that they dont even know how to use. Its not even a contest. Any bunch of morons with all that gear could win against the palestinians.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
and yes its similar to our occupation of iraq, which is another boneheaded imperial adventure destined to come to nothing.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:yes. the turks were the original colonial power. then the british took it from the turks. then they gave it to the jews.
That land was, and is, by right, palestinian, not British. It wasnt really theirs to give.

The Turks didn't hold the land as a colonial power. The Turks never really participated in colonization to my knowledge. They owned the land outright. They seceded it to the Brits in WWI I believe. The Palestinians have never really held the land. Ironically the only times I can think of that Israel was held as a nation unto itself was under Jews.

And we do get something from Israel. They are situated in a very strong strategic position in the middle east. Whether or not we really need that area as a friend these days is debatable. Left over of the Cold War.

Colony. If you wish to use a word. Know what it means and what it pertains too

Yes. The british favored the jewish minority over the palestinian majority.

You sure you have a basic understanding of how Israel as a nation was formed? Favoring the Jewish minority is a grossly oversimplified way to put it and only a single factor in the event. People like to demonize Israel, without really understanding any of their underlying motivations or the mindset of the group that makes up the nation. It doesn't make Israel right but it stops everyone from dealing with the issue effectively.

They did something similar in Rwanda with the Hutus and the Tutsis and look how that worked out....

Rwanda was never a British Colony. Germany, then Belgium.

It is kind of funny that the UN article would claim the Israeli response was disproportionate - disproportionate response has been the primary Israeli approach since Hamas won office.

Monster Rain wrote:I believe the commandos on this one. I am also of the opinion that if you try to run another country's blockade you shouldn't be surprised whan something bad happens to you.

Taking the response to the blockade and it's enforcement in isolation is such a narrow point of view it's almost not worth having. You need to consider the blockade itself, what it actually restricts and why. The defence of the blockade is that it prevents terrorists access to weapons is clearly nonsense, as fertilizer and other items capable of being used in bombs are banned. On the other hand, grain and construction materials are banned.

There's this very odd assumption people keep making that what the Israelis do to the Palestinians must be necessary. The Israelis are people just like the rest of us, their government makes mistakes, and individuals within the country make decisions based on their own self interest (there are a lot of financial connections between the Israeli generals operating the blockade and the groups providing food and materials into Palestine).

Phryxis wrote:I'm assuming they just totally underestimated what was going to happen when they hit the decks, but it seems strange that they'd really have NO idea. I mean, they didn't have a SINGLE operative on the boat? The thing was FULL of people. They didn't have anybody who could notify them that there were dudes waiting with pipes to attack boarders? They didn't have any contingency plan, besides "fight for your life?"

There appears to be an increasing operating practice among the IDF of using the maximum practical force.

Whatever though. People want to make this into a big "Israel is evil" thing. Both sides are pretty crap. The only noteworthy part of this thing is how bad Israel botched the operation.

The Israeli military failure is notable because they're happening more and more often. It's an armed forces that appears to be a lot less capable than it once was, and there's an interesting question to ask why. Continued operations among a hostile population will do bad things to a military, and I think there might be an argument beginning to form that Israel needs to chase a two state solution for their own good.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:The real thing about the Isrealis is that they are basically foreign occupiers backed by the west. They're like the french in vietnam or the British in India. They have no right to that land. They stole it from other people at the point of a gun. If that kind of thing happened here I'd be fighting too. I don't have any sympathy for the Isrealis. They're foreign, colonial occupiers of other peoples land.
AF

There were Jews living in the region, conducting a guerilla war to win their own nation at the time. And regardless of who stole what from whom, you have a couple of generations who've never known anything but Israel as their home.

This idea that a group of people can have an ancestral right to a land really needs to die.

LordofHats wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:yes. the turks were the original colonial power. then the british took it from the turks. then they gave it to the jews.
That land was, and is, by right, palestinian, not British. It wasnt really theirs to give.

The Turks didn't hold the land as a colonial power. The Turks never really participated in colonization to my knowledge. They owned the land outright. They seceded it to the Brits in WWI I believe. The Palestinians have never really held the land. Ironically the only times I can think of that Israel was held as a nation unto itself was under Jews.

It was a colony in the sense that Turkey was foreign, imperial power, just like the British. Neither the British or the Turks were ethnically or culturally palestinian and both of them held that territory by right of conquest alone. It wasnt a colony only in the sense that Palestine was not overseas. Not for the turks anyway.

lordofhats wrote:
And we do get something from Israel. They are situated in a very strong strategic position in the middle east. Whether or not we really need that area as a friend these days is debatable. Left over of the Cold War.

Colony. If you wish to use a word. Know what it means and what it pertains too

it helps, if you're going to criticize someone's use of a word, to know what it means yourself.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/colony
Isreal fits definition #1. The parent state is the united states. Palestine is the territory.
see also
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/colony
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/colony

lordofhats wrote:

abaddonfidelis wrote:Yes. The british favored the jewish minority over the palestinian majority.

You sure you have a basic understanding of how Israel as a nation was formed? Favoring the Jewish minority is a grossly oversimplified way to put it and only a single factor in the event. People like to demonize Israel, without really understanding any of their underlying motivations or the mindset of the group that makes up the nation. It doesn't make Israel right but it stops everyone from dealing with the issue effectively.

yep. I'm sure. the area had been troubled by a low level (jewish) insurgency (I dare say a campaign of terrorism. see the bombing of the king david hotel, the assassination of lord moyne) which convinced the British, after ww2, that it just wasnt worth their time to govern the area anymore. they were in the process of dismantling the whole british empire. they tried (without much success) to make the withdrawel orderly but questions over the status of the territory once they left provoked violence between the jews who lived there, supported by foreign sympathizers particularly in great britain and the united states, and the palestinians themselves, supported by the surrounding arab powers. the UN voted to recognize Isreal in 1948 (I believe) *solely* because of american clout. The decision was controversial at home too. Geroge C Marshall (then secretary of state I believe) threatened to resign over the business. The only reason we sided with them is that we felt bad about the holocaust (which wasnt our fault, or that of the palestinians) and because the president used to do chores for some jewish neighbors on saturdays, so he had a soft spot for them too. We didnt care 1 way or another about the arabs bc they are..... brown. The whole thing was a gross mistake and we ought to do our best to distance ourselves from it.
AF

lordofhats wrote:They did something similar in Rwanda with the Hutus and the Tutsis and look how that worked out....

Rwanda was never a British Colony. Germany, then Belgium.

Phryxis wrote:This incident doesn't really change much of anything. There is some feeling that Israel is "slipping" and isn't the ruthlessly efficient machine it once was. This certainly helped that idea along. But as far as "who's the victim" this changes nothing. Some people back Israel, some back Palestine. The polls on that issue were not changed by this incident.

It raised awareness of the arbitrary, unfair and incredibly petty nature of the blockade.

US polls were fairly static, but the US tends to go it's own way. Elsewhere there was pretty significant movement. And it isn't as though polling is the only thing that matters, among people who actually know about things, the diplomatic core, it really sucks to keep having to defend increasingly indefensible actions.

No, they're in very real danger, just not from rocket attacks. There is some truth to their assertion that if they let their guard down, they will be attacked. It's not nearly as dire as they suggest, and some might suggest it's their own fault, but they do have a lot of people gunning for them.

Who? Who has the military capability and political stability needed to launch a war of occupation into Israel? That's an absurd suggestion.

The nuke is more likely, that's true, but still incredibly unlikely. What country would write off their own nation to blow up a part of Israel?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:I also think that Israel has to kick a disproportionate amount of Ass when the need arises to prevent aggression from nations that have attacked them in the past.

It isn't as if the fighting was initiated by the Arab countries only.

And I have no idea what an ineffective Egyptian tank offensive or two has to do with bulldozing some Palestinian guy's house.

Neither the British or the Turks were ethnically or culturally palestinian and both of them held that territory by right of conquest alone.

The whole "the land belongs to the Palestinians" thing is not as ironclad as you're making it.

You're drawing an arbitrary set of qualifications at an arbitrary point in time, and saying that's the rules.

I mean, the Jews controlled Jerusalem, at one point, so did Romans, so did Crusaders, so did Muslims. Is "rightful ownership" based on race? Or religion? And at what moment in time is "rightful ownership" determined?

Oh, wait, I just decided, it's based on race, and the year is 0.

Looks like Jerusalem belongs to the Italians.

Only that's stupid. Just like what you're saying.

sebster
the jews were in the minority. I agree ancestral right isnt very helpful. the practical solution now that the jews have gotten away with their theft is to legitimize it on condition that they grant the palestinians equal rights within that state. They wont do that however because theyre...... racists. they know that there are more ethnic arabs in the area then there are jews and theyre afraid to lose control of the state to the...... majority..... of the people who live there. so theyre basically a colonial elite whose political power is based on disenfrachisement of the majority population. the other way to go is a two state solution, but since the jews are doing their best to tank that solution too, by building their "settlements" all over the proposed palestinian state, that doesnt look very likely. If we turned our back on isreal the world would boycott their trade. that whole high tech economy theyre so proud of could never last a decade-long embargo. Like the south africans they would be forced to dismantle their racist, colonial state, and entertain some kind of compromise, power sharing agreement with the majority population of the region. however, because theyve successfully hijacked american politics, we arent likely to do that. not any time soon. the whole thing is just disgusting.
AF


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phryxis wrote:

Neither the British or the Turks were ethnically or culturally palestinian and both of them held that territory by right of conquest alone.

The whole "the land belongs to the Palestinians" thing is not as ironclad as you're making it.

You're drawing an arbitrary set of qualifications at an arbitrary point in time, and saying that's the rules.

I mean, the Jews controlled Jerusalem, at one point, so did Romans, so did Crusaders, so did Muslims. Is "rightful ownership" based on race? Or religion? And at what moment in time is "rightful ownership" determined?

Oh, wait, I just decided, it's based on race, and the year is 0.

Looks like Jerusalem belongs to the Italians.

Only that's stupid. Just like what you're saying.

The jews havent had a majority presence in palestine since Hadrian smashed them in the 2nd roman-jewish war. sure they have a prior claim. but it hasnt been exercised in effect in almost 2000 years. by all right the arabs have the juster claim to the area. and the thing is.... they have a history of toleration towards jews and christians alike. things could have gone very differently in that region. historically jews and arabs have gotten along. theyre both semites, theyre both "people of the book," theyve both lived in the area since the beginning of time. what a shame.
AF

ShumaGorath wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Honestly, Orkeosaurus, I kind of do think that some seriously Draconian measures would be great for our southern border in regard to the drug gangs. I guess I'm turning into Rhaj Al-Ghul in my old age.

I also think that Israel has to kick a disproportionate amount of Ass when the need arises to prevent aggression from nations that have attacked them in the past.

Nations that they beat in a week, all at the same time, took significant amount of territory from, and all of which have weakened significantly while it's military has grown by leaps and bounds in power?

No. You think wrong.

You're entitled to your completely wrong opinion, of course. Presented, as always, as fact.

So the fact that Israel handed all those countries their collective asses negates the fact that they attempted to invade in the first place? Your logic is breathtakingly flawed.

Who? Who has the military capability and political stability needed to launch a war of occupation into Israel? That's an absurd suggestion.

Is that even what I suggested?

Even though it's not, I'll still engage your point by saying that things do change, and Israel is right that in the end, it only can rely on itself. For example, right now we've got Barack Obama in the Oval Office, and I think if it was politically possible he'd gladly cut Israel loose. Who knows what the world is like in 25 years?

What I was really trying to suggest is that Israel has wolves at its gates. They're only wolves, and Israel has gates, but they're still out there. Nobody is gunning for Finland. Nobody is biding their time, looking to bring down Luxembourg, except for Frazz. There are very real threats to Israel, they're just not as dire as Israel suggests. They also don't necessarily entail a war of occupation.

For example, it could come to pass that Iran could strike at Israel with aircraft or missile attacks and not suffer beyond a level they'd accept.

Don't forget, Saddam shot all the SCUDS he had at Israel during the first Gulf War, and it took us 10 years ago and a 9-11 to decide to do something about him.

What country would write off their own nation to blow up a part of Israel?

A country that's incredibly chaotic, stupid, and compromised by Taliban supporters? Like Pakistan? It doesn't have to be state sponsored. It can just as easily be "lost" and then used against Israel. Iran might also try something, particularly if hardliners in charge feel power slipping away.

I wouldn't necessarily blame anybody for assuming that the world wouldn't have the stones to do anything about it. The UN is toothless and stupid. The US doesn't have the money to keep playing these kinds of games, and we're soured to foreign interventionism. Iran is quite large, Israel is quite small. I think Iran might be willing to absorb some punative air raids, to get a crushing shot off on Israel, especially with the apocalyptic minded cats that run it these days.

I don't think it's LIKELY, mind you, but it's as I was saying, Israel has people REALLY trying to think of ways to nuke it, bomb it, destroy it as a nation. That's really not the case for most places.

That's not a reason that Israel needs to be bulldozing people's houses, but it is a reason why people who claim they're in "no danger" are full of shiz.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:It was a colony in the sense that Turkey was foreign, imperial power, just like the British. Neither the British or the Turks were ethnically or culturally palestinian and both of them held that territory by right of conquest alone. It wasnt a colony only in the sense that Palestine was not overseas. Not for the turks anyway.

The Ottoman Empire held the land since the 1500's and fully incorporated it into their empire. It wasn't a colony. The Ottomans to my knowledge had no colonies at any point in their history. Colonialism was a Western European thing and the Japanese dabbled in it for a bit. The Ottomans did not.

it helps, if you're going to criticize someone's use of a word, to know what it means yourself.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/colony
Isreal fits definition #1. The parent state is the united states. Palestine is the territory.

No. First off, that isn't a historically correct definition of colony. If you want a historically correct version you need more than the basic idea a definition can give you. Israel has it's own independent government. Its own international representation. If Israel is a US colony, so is any Nation that gets US aid, which is pretty much the entire third world. Really. Study Colonialism. Israel isn't a colony.

yep. I'm sure. the area had been troubled by a low level (jewish) insurgency (I dare say a campaign of terrorism. see the bombing of the king david hotel, the assassination of lord moyne) which convinced the British, after ww2, that it just wasnt worth their time to govern the area anymore.

Palestinians were doing the same thing at the time, and had since the Ottomans gave up the territory.

they were in the process of dismantling the whole british empire. they tried (without much success) to make the withdrawel orderly but questions over the status of the territory once they left provoked violence between the jews who lived there, supported by foreign sympathizers particularly in great britain and the united states, and the palestinians themselves, supported by the surrounding arab powers. The decision was controversial at home too. Geroge C Marshall (then secretary of state I believe) threatened to resign over the business. The only reason we sided with them is that we felt bad about the holocaust (which wasnt our fault, or that of the palestinians) and because the president used to do chores for some jewish neighbors on saturdays, so he had a soft spot for them too. We didnt care 1 way or another about the arabs bc they are..... brown. The whole thing was a gross mistake and we ought to do our best to distance ourselves from it.

No. I'm no expert on the event but I know enough to know your analysis is too simple, one sided, and doesn't address other issues concerning the history of the region from WWI to the formation of Israel such as Zionism, European anti-semitism, the role of the UN, or the Palestinian Mandate. We can agree the formation of Israel is a giant cluster but it really has less to do with people favoring Jews over Palestinians and more with attempts to control the region radically failing and everyone getting tired of dealing with it. The UN offered to make two states. Israel took it. The Palestinians refused. And now here we are, still dealing with the cluster

historically jews and arabs have gotten along. theyre both semites, theyre both "people of the book," theyve both lived in the area since the beginning of time. what a shame.

Well, no doubt it's a shame. In the Blue Mosque (I think?) they even have a room with a koran, bible and torah all handing out being books together.

Or maybe it's in Hagia Sophia. Regardless. Turkey.

I'm just saying, there's no real appeal to "who land belongs to." It used to be that the rule was "whoever has it has it." Then we formed the UN and decided that forceful change of borders is "not allowed." And that's roughly how long Israel has been around. So, according to the most recent version of the rules Israel belongs to Israelis.

If they're going to give Israel back to anyone that's owned it before I'd say it should be the Greeks.

They're having a pretty rough year, they could use a nice surprise.

Monster Rain wrote:If they're going to give Israel back to anyone that's owned it before I'd say it should be the Greeks.

Technically, I'd think we'd have to give it back to the Macedonians

But still I say we give it back to Babylon. Just make a time machine and give them the deed. It's you're problem now sucka! Good luck in 3400 years

Phryxis
Its not just a pointless squable ove who was there first. Its effecting the region right now. the forcible eviction of the palestinians is having real effects right now for the region. there are hundreds of thousands of people living in squalor in "refugree camps" who have no future and no state, because the isrealis kicked them or their parents out. Its not just a tussle over names. If the arabs had been kicked out 2000 years ago (like, say, the jews were) then it wouldnt really matter who had the prior claim, the fact would be that isreal has it now. but this happened within living memory and it is having a direct effect on the political stability of the entire region. If the jews left what would happen to the region....? celebration. not much else.
AF

AbaddonFidelis wrote: If the jews left what would happen to the region....? celebration. not much else

So we solve the problem the Jews kicking out the Palestinians by kicking out the Jews? You realize that just creates a new problem, about what to do with all those Jews who have incorporated themselves into a nation with its own national identity? It's actually kind of ironic, cause Israel was where Europe put all the Jews it didn't want anymore

This doesn't solve the problem. And I again point out that the Palestinians not having a country of their own is their fault. You can't really peg Israel for that.

LordofHats wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:If they're going to give Israel back to anyone that's owned it before I'd say it should be the Greeks.

Technically, I'd think we'd have to give it back to the Macedonians

But still I say we give it back to Babylon.

Can we compromise and give it to Jamaica? I understand they're always having trouble with Babylon.

LordofHats wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:It was a colony in the sense that Turkey was foreign, imperial power, just like the British. Neither the British or the Turks were ethnically or culturally palestinian and both of them held that territory by right of conquest alone. It wasnt a colony only in the sense that Palestine was not overseas. Not for the turks anyway.

The Ottoman Empire held the land since the 1500's and fully incorporated it into their empire. It wasn't a colony. The Ottomans to my knowledge had no colonies at any point in their history. Colonialism was a Western European thing and the Japanese dabbled in it for a bit. The Ottomans did not.

colony has a larger meaning than I think you realize.
Look I provided you with dictionary links just look it up. You're obviously wrong.

lordofhats wrote:

abaddonfidelis wrote: it helps, if you're going to criticize someone's use of a word, to know what it means yourself.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/colony
Isreal fits definition #1. The parent state is the united states. Palestine is the territory.

No. First off, that isn't a historically correct definition of colony. If you want a historically correct version you need more than the basic idea a definition can give you. Israel has it's own independent government. Its own international representation. If Israel is a US colony, so is any Nation that gets US aid, which is pretty much the entire third world. Really. Study Colonialism. Israel isn't a colony.

Isreal does not have an independent government. They can only do what we, the US, let them get away with because we are their only friend in the whole world. An independent government doesnt have to take orders from a foreign power. The isrealis do. Not every nation that gets US aid is a colony. Every nation that depends for its life on US support and is ruled largely by US citizens or their descendants is. Isreal certainly fits the 1st definition and largely fits the 2nd as well, although the emigration of jews from all over the world undercuts that a bit. Thats why I said *western* not *American* colony earlier on.

lordofhats wrote:
No. I'm no expert on the event but I know enough to know your analysis is too simple, one sided, and doesn't address other issues concerning the history of the region from WWI to the formation of Israel such as Zionism, European anti-semitism, the role of the UN, or the Palestinian Mandate. We can agree the formation of Israel is a giant cluster but it really has less to do with people favoring Jews over Palestinians and more with attempts to control the region radically failing and everyone getting tired of dealing with it. The UN offered to make two states. Israel took it. The Palestinians refused. And now here we are, still dealing with the cluster

well of course its simple. its an internet forum not a university lecture. what do you expect? sure its one sided. I have an opinion and Im emphasizing what supports it. Do the jews have a case? Sure they do. Its not a very good one but yes they have a case and if you want to find out what it is I encourage you to read a book on it or something.
AF


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote: If the jews left what would happen to the region....? celebration. not much else

So we solve the problem the Jews kicking out the Palestinians by kicking out the Jews? You realize that just creates a new problem, about what to do with all those Jews who have incorporated themselves into a nation with its own national identity? It's actually kind of ironic, cause Israel was where Europe put all the Jews it didn't want anymore

This doesn't solve the problem. And I again point out that the Palestinians not having a country of their own is their fault. You can't really peg Israel for that.

not really. they'll all just come here. And we'd be glad to have them.
AF


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think you all should appreciate that the people who the Isrealis kicked out are still alive. Their childrens lives are basically wrecked bc of what the Isrealis did. Its not the same as giving it to the greeks or the italians. they've moved on. Eventually the palestinians will too. But right now its ruining alot of peoples lives, and we have an interest in seeing justice done. AF

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
colony has a larger meaning than I think you realize.
Look I provided you with dictionary links just look it up. You're obviously wrong.

I'm using the actual historically correct definition for colony. It was part of a development called Colonialism. Study it.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Isreal does not have an independent government. They can only do what we, the US, let them get away with because we are their only friend in the whole world. An independent government doesnt have to take orders from a foreign power. The isrealis do. Not every nation that gets US aid is a colony.

Are you sure you want to take that stance? Cause I'm pretty sure they have their own government that is not chosen by the US, though the US certainly has clout in Israeli politics. They have their own seat at the UN too. Legally recognized by the rest of the world as a nation? Not a colony. Sorry. It helps to actually have a leg to stand on.

Israel has been doing whatever they please for awhile. If the US were giving the orders, there wouldn't be any conflict in the mideast anymore, the Israel's wouldn't have raided this ship in the first place, and it would actually be a US colony like Purto Rico and Guam, which it isn't.

Every nation that depends for its life on US support and is ruled largely by US citizens or their descendants is. Isreal certainly fits the 1st definition and largely fits the 2nd as well, although the emigration of jews from all over the world undercuts that a bit. Thats why I said *western* not *American* colony earlier on.

No. Most of the Jews in Israel are of European origin, not US. The US Jews didn't really leave to the degree that European Jews did.

well of course its simple. its an internet forum not a university lecture. what do you expect? sure its one sided. I have an opinion and Im emphasizing what supports it. Do the jews have a case? Sure they do. Its not a very good one but yes they have a case and if you want to find out what it is I encourage you to read a book on it or something.

I have read books my friend and I advise you do the same. The National Enquirer doesn't count. They're only good for laughs.

not really. they'll all just come here. And we'd be glad to have them.

You assume they will come back or that they'll let us dissolve the country. Neither will happen willingly. It would just be a war of genocide which is what they keep expecting.

I think you all should appreciate that the people who the Isrealis kicked out are still alive. Their childrens lives are basically wrecked bc of what the Isrealis did. Its not the same as giving it to the greeks or the italians. they've moved on. Eventually the palestinians will too. But right now its ruining alot of peoples lives, and we have an interest in seeing justice done.

Israel didn't kick them out. THere are plenty of Palestinians still in Israel. They suffer discrimination. 'Kicked out' doesn't describe their predicament at all. I appreciate their suffering. But Israel isn't entirely to blame. This mess is on the Arab nations, the UN, Palestinians themselves, pretty much everyone.

They're having a pretty rough year, they could use a nice surprise.

Dear Mr. Palkoulapoulapoloualousasis,

Heard you were having a bad year. Got you this white elephant. Well, not exactly, you have to pick it up yourself, but it's ALL YOURS!

Love,
Monster Rain

P.S. Bring some guns.

P.P.S. Sorry about your crappy name.

Its not just a pointless squable ove who was there first. Its effecting the region right now. the forcible eviction of the palestinians is having real effects right now for the region.

One does not follow from the other. Yes there are real problems. It's still pointless to pretend that there's a "it belongs to x because y owned it in year z" that means anything or changes anything.

You're not going to go up to Ariel Sharon and say, "dude, did you know that ACTUALLY the Palestinians lived here back in 1930?" And he's also not gonna go "OH! Really? Is that what this is about? Wow, I've been a dick. Everyone! Pack up your crap! We're moving to... Oh, wait, nowhere. You're a dummy, Mr. Fidelis."

Well, ok, yes, he would say the last part.

If the jews left what would happen to the region....?

And where are they going to go, exactly? I guess Florida? And stop calling them "jews." They're Israelis. And, honestly, the people you have a problem with are actually called "Zionists."

Whatever, though. If only we could find some solution to these problematic jews... Some sort of FINAL solution. I'm sure you've got some ideas?

Isreal does not have an independent government. They can only do what we, the US, let them get away with because we are their only friend in the whole world. An independent government doesnt have to take orders from a foreign power.

You're painfully confused about what a colony is, and how the Israelis treat the US. They don't answer to us. It is, in fact, a major point of complaint for opponents of US support for Israel just how much they DON'T answer to the Us. We pretty much give them lots of money, and they do what they want, spy on us, and refuse to listen to our suggestions.

If they actually did what we told them, the conflict would be over. We'd just say "ok, give the Palestinians a state, done." We do it all the time. They don't listen.

They're not a colony. At ALL. What they are is an extremely independant nation that we keep funding because we feel guilty about WWII, and we also have a common hobby in hating Arabs.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:sebster
the jews were in the minority. I agree ancestral right isnt very helpful. the practical solution now that the jews have gotten away with their theft is to legitimize it on condition that they grant the palestinians equal rights within that state.

It isn't theft, it just doesn't help to take population and state issues and phrase them in terms of personal morality. Look, say I'm just some Jewish guy living in New Zealand in 1950, and I've always wanted to return to a homeland of my people. Israel has been formed, and I go there lawfully and raise a family of my own. I'm not a thief, I did what everyone told me I was allowed, even encouraged to do. My kids certainly aren't thieves. All they did was get born.

They wont do that however because theyre...... racists. they know that there are more ethnic arabs in the area then there are jews and theyre afraid to lose control of the state to the...... majority..... of the people who live there. so theyre basically a colonial elite whose political power is based on disenfrachisement of the majority population.

There is certainly a lot of racism going, but it's equally racist to declare Jews as a whole as racist. There are strong movements in Israel to progress this issue by allowing the Palestinians better lives, but these are frustrated and marginalised by acts of violence. The same exists on the Palestinian side.

the other way to go is a two state solution, but since the jews are doing their best to tank that solution too, by building their "settlements" all over the proposed palestinian state, that doesnt look very likely.

To be fair, elements of Palestine do their best to disrupt peace talks as well.

If we turned our back on isreal the world would boycott their trade. that whole high tech economy theyre so proud of could never last a decade-long embargo. Like the south africans they would be forced to dismantle their racist, colonial state, and entertain some kind of compromise, power sharing agreement with the majority population of the region. however, because theyve successfully hijacked american politics, we arent likely to do that. not any time soon. the whole thing is just disgusting.
AF

Funny story... do you know who the strongest ally of South Africa was during apartheid? It was Israel. Because Israel could easily see the same thing happening to them.

And I suspect the mere threat of embargo would be sufficient to force Israel to the table with real intent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phryxis wrote:Is that even what I suggested?

Sorry if I misunderstood.

Even though it's not, I'll still engage your point by saying that things do change, and Israel is right that in the end, it only can rely on itself. For example, right now we've got Barack Obama in the Oval Office, and I think if it was politically possible he'd gladly cut Israel loose. Who knows what the world is like in 25 years?

Meh, the US is an increasingly important diplomatic ally (that UN veto is all important) but an increasingly unimportant military ally. If the US dropped all military aid tomorrow Israel would remain the absolute military power in the region. They'd face constant censure and possibly trade embargo if the US stopped protecting them in the UN, though.

What I was really trying to suggest is that Israel has wolves at its gates.

But they're not wolves. They're chihuahuas. Except for big Iran thing, that's either a small wolf or a big dog, but is a long way away and has all kinds of problems of its own that'll stop it doing anything on any meaningful level for a long time to come.

And yeah, 25 years is a long time. Which is something Israel needs to keep in mind, acting now while it's position is dominant, to defuse the ever-growing Palestinian problem while Israel is in a position of strength.

Don't forget, Saddam shot all the SCUDS he had at Israel during the first Gulf War, and it took us 10 years ago and a 9-11 to decide to do something about him.

Well, except for the actual war you fought against him at the time and the decade of embargos you maintained until invading again. So saying you waited a decade before deciding to do something about him is a bit of an odd claim.

A country that's incredibly chaotic, stupid, and compromised by Taliban supporters? Like Pakistan? It doesn't have to be state sponsored. It can just as easily be "lost" and then used against Israel. Iran might also try something, particularly if hardliners in charge feel power slipping away.

And how is that danger offset in any way by keeping Palestine as an impoverished non-state?

I wouldn't necessarily blame anybody for assuming that the world wouldn't have the stones to do anything about it. The UN is toothless and stupid. The US doesn't have the money to keep playing these kinds of games, and we're soured to foreign interventionism. Iran is quite large, Israel is quite small. I think Iran might be willing to absorb some punative air raids, to get a crushing shot off on Israel, especially with the apocalyptic minded cats that run it these days.

No, that's crazy talk. Your theory there reads like something from Tom Clancy's crappier later works. An offensive nuclear strike by a state will guarantee the obliteration of that state.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phryxis wrote:I'm just saying, there's no real appeal to "who land belongs to." It used to be that the rule was "whoever has it has it." Then we formed the UN and decided that forceful change of borders is "not allowed." And that's roughly how long Israel has been around. So, according to the most recent version of the rules Israel belongs to Israelis.

Not really, there's been a long line of thought of ancestral land. People taking land just because they could was unusual, normally there was at least a claim of ownership (often dubious, sure, even disingenuous, but there was almost always a claim). The UN has played a part in making claims of occupation even less, but it's more due to the changing nature of the economy and the source of wealth and power - once land and the rent you could claim were all important - now you want trade. Trade demands stability, so the most wealthiest nations are not the largest, but the most stable.

By the way, there were actually population swaps in Europe in the first half of the 20th C. There was a genuine belief that we could remove a lot of the tension in the world by clarifying the borders and getting everyone backed where they belonged. So Greeks swapped with Turks and the like. Israel to an extent was the conclusion of that line of thought - it was felt they needed their own country because ultimately the only country who'd look after the Jews was a nation of Jews. It's a good thing we've moved on from what was really a very odd line of thinking.

ATTENTION EVERYONE WHO THINKS ISRAEL IS IN ANY WAY A VICTIM:
Watch this documentary. It should be eye-opening for you. And if you're too busy to watch this and broaden your understanding of a very serious issue going on in our world for many years, one you've been arguing about in this thread for hours, then wtf are you doing in the OT forum debating anyway? If you're not willing to research your stance then you don't belong in a debate.

For the ones who know what's really going on, I would imagine you've already seen this; but if not then you should watch it too.

LordofHats wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
colony has a larger meaning than I think you realize.
Look I provided you with dictionary links just look it up. You're obviously wrong.

I'm using the actual historically correct definition for colony. It was part of a development called Colonialism. Study it.

you are using a historically localized definition of a term that has broader meaning. The romans for instance had colonies, but they did not participate in colonialism. that term refers specifically to *european* colonial expansion starting in the 16th century.

please self educate. Im not being paid Im not going to do it for you.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/colony
http://www.independencia.net/ingles/pr_is_a_colony.html
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_a_colony

lordofhats wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Isreal does not have an independent government. They can only do what we, the US, let them get away with because we are their only friend in the whole world. An independent government doesnt have to take orders from a foreign power. The isrealis do. Not every nation that gets US aid is a colony.

Are you sure you want to take that stance? Cause I'm pretty sure they have their own government that is not chosen by the US, though the US certainly has clout in Israeli politics. They have their own seat at the UN too. Legally recognized by the rest of the world as a nation? Not a colony. Sorry. It helps to actually have a leg to stand on.

Their government is not sovereign because it can only act within the boundaries set for it by US foreign policy. Of course we have clout in Isreali politics. Without us they dont have a snow balls chance in hell. Thats why they arent sovereign, get it? they have only very limited independence.

lordofhats wrote:
Israel has been doing whatever they please for awhile. If the US were giving the orders, there wouldn't be any conflict in the mideast anymore, the Israel's wouldn't have raided this ship in the first place, and it would actually be a US colony like Purto Rico and Guam, which it isn't.

the isrealis are like little kids who know just how far they can push it without getting spanked. If it were up to them they would have blasted iran's nuclear sites last year or earlier. why havent they? we wont let them. If it were up to them they'd still be in lebanon right now. why did they leave? because papa bear US was getting pissed. Do they do everything we tell them? No. Can they act without tacit US approval? No they cant.

lordofhats wrote:

abaddonfidelis wrote:Every nation that depends for its life on US support and is ruled largely by US citizens or their descendants is. Isreal certainly fits the 1st definition and largely fits the 2nd as well, although the emigration of jews from all over the world undercuts that a bit. Thats why I said *western* not *American* colony earlier on.

No. Most of the Jews in Israel are of European origin, not US. The US Jews didn't really leave to the degree that European Jews did.

Thats why I said *western* not *american.* Read, why dont you?

lordofhats wrote:

abaddonfidelis wrote:well of course its simple. its an internet forum not a university lecture. what do you expect? sure its one sided. I have an opinion and Im emphasizing what supports it. Do the jews have a case? Sure they do. Its not a very good one but yes they have a case and if you want to find out what it is I encourage you to read a book on it or something.

I have read books my friend and I advise you do the same.

It doesnt seem to have helped you any.

lordofhats wrote:

abaddonfidelis wrote:not really. they'll all just come here. And we'd be glad to have them.

You assume they will come back or that they'll let us dissolve the country. Neither will happen willingly. It would just be a war of genocide which is what they keep expecting.

huh?

lordofhats wrote:

abaddonfidelis wrote:I think you all should appreciate that the people who the Isrealis kicked out are still alive. Their childrens lives are basically wrecked bc of what the Isrealis did. Its not the same as giving it to the greeks or the italians. they've moved on. Eventually the palestinians will too. But right now its ruining alot of peoples lives, and we have an interest in seeing justice done.

Israel didn't kick them out. THere are plenty of Palestinians still in Israel. They suffer discrimination. 'Kicked out' doesn't describe their predicament at all. I appreciate their suffering. But Israel isn't entirely to blame. This mess is on the Arab nations, the UN, Palestinians themselves, pretty much everyone.

yes. kicked out. you can self educate here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_right_of_return

If the US dropped all military aid tomorrow Israel would remain the absolute military power in the region.

Meh, they're a very small nation, money isn't THAT easy to come by. We're tossing billions of dollars a year their way. It's non-trivial. They'd remain a major power, certainly, but it's not to be overlooked.

Also, it's not just about us arming them, but about the other nations in the region not bothering to arm themselves because they know we're backing Israel. If Israel is on its own, suddenly there's more possibility in taking them on directly, suddenly arming up has a point. There's a lot of money out there that could turn into weapons if Israel was cut loose.

Saudi Arabia in particular is already buying HUGE amounts of US weaponry. They're not especially anti-Israeli as that region goes, but there's oil money all over that joint.

So saying you waited a decade before deciding to do something about him is a bit of an odd claim.

I don't think it's odd in the context of Iran... I mean, Saddam invaded Kuwait, that's why he got beat on. He basically changed nothing about his circumstances by shooting SCUDs at Israel. We're already sanctioning Iran, what more would we do to them? Probably not much. They don't have a ton to lose and they don't have a ton to fear.

Saddam COULD have backing things down, if he wasn't scared of seen as weak by the region. If he had chosen to comply with the UN mandates, play nice, he could have quite easily had the no-fly zones lifted, the embargos removed, etc. At that point, he'd be a dude who shot SCUD missiles at Israel and remained in power. Even as things stood, he was that guy for 10 years.

Iran actually has a lot to gain in terms of regional cache by defying the US and hitting Israel. It's very much in line with their current goals and desires (to be seen as a dominant regional power that doesn't need to play the US's game) if they can manage the fallout.

No, that's crazy talk. Your theory there reads like something from Tom Clancy's crappier later works. An offensive nuclear strike by a state will guarantee the obliteration of that state.

I don't mean to suggest it's not farfetched, but I do think it's possible. I also think your presumed response is a bit "optimistic." I think you're underestimating just how totally gutless the "world" is these days. The first, second and third instinct is to rationalize things and take no action.

Also, even if the world community would act decisively, that doesn't mean that a given leader would believe they'd do it. It strikes me as VERY reasonable to count on the total gutlessness of the world community.

People taking land just because they could was unusual

When are we talking about? Because I think pretty much the majority of human history is just "I can take that land, so I am." There might be some rhetoric around things, but it was pretty much just "take what you can."

Even so, I don't really mean to digress into rationalizations used for past actions. My point is to say that the discussion of who "has a right" to the land is totally irrelevant to a solution in the Israel/Palestinian conflict. Both sides have their arguments. No amount of rheotrical justification is changing it.

Phryxis
well in fairness to Mr. Sharone he wouldnt say any of that. he's dead (more or less.)

look if someone stole your car and you called the police and they said "well gee that sucks but its his now," would you accept that? No way. A thief is a thief. You get your property back the thief goes to jail. Thats justice. What your saying is "oh well the Isrealis have it now I guess its too late to give it back." No its not. The jews need to go back to moscow and new york where they came from so that the Palestinians can move back into their houses.

Yes. Florida would be fine. Lord knows a couple million jews moving to florida would be a drop in the bucket. we can absorb them easy Jews, Isrealis, whatever. I'm not going to play name games. Those people. Them. You know who I'm talking about.

I'm going to tell you the same thing about colonies that I told lord of hats. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/colony
definition 1. You're right I am confused - whats confusing me is that I dont understand what you all have against using a dictionary to define the meaning of words in the english language. Where I come from thats how we do it, but maybe things are different where you're from.....? please. enlighten me. how do *you* decide what a word means?
AF

AbaddonFidelis wrote:you are using a historically localized definition of a term that has broader meaning. The romans for instance had colonies, but they did not participate in colonialism. please self educate. Im not being paid Im not going to do it for you. if your going to talk down to people at least know what you're talking about. you plainly do not.

Roman colonies fulfilled the same function as those of the Colonial era. BTW. Colonialism, is not limited to the Colonial era. It's ironic you continue to use dictionaries with provide an extremely narrow overview of the term with no description of the economic, political, or social role and structure of colonies. You can delude yourself all you want. Israel isn't a colony just because you wish them to be. Stop using a dictionary and try a history book.

Their government is not sovereign because it can only act within the boundaries set for it by US foreign policy. Of course we have clout in Isreali politics. Without us they dont have a snow balls chance in hell. Thats why they arent sovereign, get it? they have only very limited independence.

A nation being dependent on another, is not the sole criteria to define a colony. The United States does not directly control Israel. Israel maintains its own government, its own international relations, its own military force, and pursues its own interests all of which exclude it from being a colony. That it received significant amounts of aid from the US and has close ties to its government doesn't make it a colony. That Israel bows to outside pressure from foreign powers does not make it a colony. All countries do this. It's typical to back off when you suddenly realize that the rest of the world might get a little pissy these days. The only country that seems to defy this rule is the US because we know we can get away with it.

Thats why I said *western* not *american.* Read, why dont you?

You too my friend. You're the one arguing they're an American colony by American descent, not I. If that isn't what you meant to say you should have read what you were writing yourself.

huh?

Ironic that you claim to understand this situation but yet, don't seem to know that one of the driving factors of Israel's foreign policy is the fear of another Holocaust. They're using the "carry a big stick" model of foreign policy, however ineffective it may be. They show as much force as they can because they think it keeps the wolves at bay and protects them. Add that to a mentality that doesn't think anyone is really on their side, and they stop carrying what the world thinks of what they do, so they keep doing it.

Really Fed. You have a seriously lacking understanding seeing as you're relying on Zionist conspiracy and a false definition of colony to make your case. Your standing is why Israel does what it does. It doesn't think anyone is on its side. It expects everyone to be against it. They've built their entire foreign policy on this pretext. Proving them right isn't going to help the Palestinians, those outside or inside Israel. Destroy Israel isn't going to solve the problems here.