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.

I'm sure people would be more sympathetic to the position of the people of Palestine if they didn't elect terrorists to political office.

WarOne wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
This is nonsense. For a start, there is no nation in the region with the political, economic, and military capability to threaten Israel.
*Except for Iran and Turkey. Of course when attacked its typically 2-3 countries at a time against Israel so add in Syria. Additionally, it means nothing when Hammas and Hezbullah continue to fire rockets into Israel, daily. But we shouldn't be concerned about that I guess.

Which part is nonsense?

Alright, let me actually put on my serious mode rather than be an idiot goading others into addressing my baseless comments.

Extremist reactionaries and relatively peaceful activists are both not going to harm Israel on a militaristic level. There can be outcries of overreaction for what Israel does, and extremists who do not wish to compromise on issues that favor Israel will turn to other means, such as rhetoric, rockets, or whatever gets thrown.

It shouldn't harm Israel so long as Israel does not provoke a neighbor or lose genuine support that is normally enjoys.

Sorry my bad, copying a quote over from another post. That was a response to "this is nonsense." Let me tweak.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:I'm sure people would be more sympathetic to the position of the people of Palestine if they didn't elect terrorists to political office.

True that.

Frazzled wrote:1. Israel: democracy. Rest of Middle East isn't.

Sigh. Lebanon is also a democracy. I've explained to you in three or four Israel threads that Israel isn't the only democracy in the region.

Forget that I've been telling you this for all this time, half an hour of research will tell you that Israel isn't the only democracy in the region. At what point in your life did you just stop caring if your political views had any relation to the real world? Was it Reagan?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:*Except for Iran and Turkey. Of course when attacked its typically 2-3 countries at a time against Israel so add in Syria. Additionally, it means nothing when Hammas and Hezbullah continue to fire rockets into Israel, daily. But we shouldn't be concerned about that I guess.

The idea that Turkey is going to abandon it's geo-political goals to begin an attack on Israel is ridiculous. The idea that Iran has the force projection to move over US allied nations and into Israel is, let alone the force to do anything of substance to the Israelis is, well, less ridiculous.

And you know this. Yet you believe it anyway. It's incredible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:I'm sure people would be more sympathetic to the position of the people of Palestine if they didn't elect terrorists to political office.

It doesn't seem to matter. They vote in conciliatory parties, and Israel takes their land, they vote in hardliners, and Israel takes their land. All the while the usual suspects post nonsense about Israel being invaded.

Alrighty. I think we need to take a step back before this conversation devolves.

So let us talk civilly about the probability and possibility of who and when Israel may get invaded rather than dismiss it off hand as being an impossible event.

Sigh. Lebanon is also a democracy. I've explained to you in three or four Israel threads that Israel isn't the only democracy in the region.
***The bottom third of Lebanon is ruled by Hezzbullah, which just blew out the government. Its no democracy.

Forget that I've been telling you this for all this time, half an hour of research will tell you that Israel isn't the only democracy in the region. At what point in your life did you just stop caring if your political views had any relation to the real world? Was it Reagan?
***Wow, that’s trolling. As a mod I’d have to react to that if you had posted this to another poster.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:*Except for Iran and Turkey. Of course when attacked its typically 2-3 countries at a time against Israel so add in Syria. Additionally, it means nothing when Hammas and Hezbullah continue to fire rockets into Israel, daily. But we shouldn't be concerned about that I guess.


The idea that Turkey is going to abandon it's geo-political goals to begin an attack on Israel is ridiculous.
***I didn’t say that, merely responded to you question. Turkey has the power to attack Israel.

The idea that Iran has the force projection to move over US allied nations and into Israel is, let alone the force to do anything of substance to the Israelis is, well, less ridiculous.
***Except for missiles armed with nukes of course. But no one has fired missiles at Israel over a neutral country before, what must I be smoking? Israel’s never shot patriot missiles to stop incoming missiles before, no sir not at all.

sebster wrote:It doesn't seem to matter. They vote in conciliatory parties, and Israel takes their land, they vote in hardliners, and Israel takes their land. All the while the usual suspects post nonsense about Israel being invaded.

You can't divorce the discussion from the PLO and Hamas's bad behavior in the past. They made Israel into the sympathetic figure in this conflict due to their savagery.

If one hasn't "stopped reading about this in the 70s" this should come as no surprise.

This conversation is so different in Ireland that it's bloody firghtening in a way. There, people support Palestine while condemning terrorist actions by Palestine. The all or nothing sentiment...it's just...

I dunno. This thread depresses me greatly. I don't know if I want to keep reading.

Frazzled wrote:1. Israel: democracy. Rest of Middle East isn't.

Democratic states in the Middle East:

Israel
Turkey
Iran
Iraq
Kuwait
Bahrain
Yemen
Lebanon

There are a lot of democracies in the Middle East. Democracy does not mean "Liberal Democracy".

Frazzled wrote:
2. Israel: Terrorism against US: 0
Other Guys: lots

That is an absolutely atrocious means of understanding the political division in the Middle East. You may as well say "Here Be Dragons."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:The bottom third of Lebanon is ruled by Hezzbullah, which just blew out the government. Its no democracy.

We don't actually know who killed Hariri, and instigated the crisis there; there are at least 6 different groups, of 6 different religious affiliations, that might be responsible.

In any case, yeah, its been democratic for a long time. Hezbollah was voted into power, just like everyone else. Again, democracy doesn't mean "Liberal Democracy".

Democratic states in the Middle East:

Israel
***Agreed
Turkey
***Agreed, except of course the semi annual coup the military has to keep radicals out.
Iran
***Wait, you’re talking about the country that had its political repression televised and youtubized for the world to see? Did you think East Germany was a democracy too?
Iraq
***Getting there. We’ll see what happens six months after we leave.
Kuwait
***Constitutional monarchy. Only 10% of populace is eligible to vote.
http://www.traveljournals.net/explore/kuwait/government.html

Bahrain
***I’ll give you that (consititutional monarchy) But with a population less than 1.5MM who gives a rat’s ass?

Yemen
***Seriously?

Lebanon
***1/3 controlled by Hezzbullah, the Iranian client state. Government can’t exist without said power now. Was democracy, not now.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

That is an absolutely atrocious means of understanding the political division in the Middle East. You may as well say "Here Be Dragons."

Your argument is nonsensical. Israel has not attacked the US. Supporters of Palestine have committed a wide variety of terrorist acts. If you think this has no impact upon US support for a particular side I'd proffer thats remarkably short in understanding human nature. Strangely if one side kills your people and the other doesn't you tend to go with the side not killing you.

Frazzled wrote:Agreed, except of course the semi annual coup the military has to keep radicals out.

There hasn't been a coup in 30 years, and the party that was previously removed is now in power. The military no longer has the power to initiate a coup.

Frazzled wrote:
Wait, you’re talking about the country that had its political repression televised and youtubized for the world to see? Did you think East Germany was a democracy too?

Did you think the US was a democracy when there were anti-sedition laws, and the American Legion was used to induct children into the military while ferreting out dissenters?

And lets be honest here, the Greens weren't a t peaceful protest, they were rioting.

Frazzled wrote:
Getting there. We’ll see what happens six months after we leave.

Two rounds of free and fair elections is equivalent to democracy.

Frazzled wrote:
Constitutional monarchy. Only 10% of populace is eligible to vote.
http://www.traveljournals.net/explore/kuwait/government.html

Misleading, all citizens are eligible to vote (all male until recently); 64.8% of Kuwait's population is composed of expatriates; usually employees with a residency of less than 5 years. Kuwait has the highest migration rate in the world.

Frazzled wrote:
Seriously?

Yeah, seriously. Suffrage is universal. The President is democratically elected. The lower house is democratically elected.

Frazzled wrote:
1/3 controlled by Hezzbullah, the Iranian client state. Government can’t exist without said power now. Was democracy, not now.

Hezbollah is a political party, not a state. Still a Democracy until its proven that it isn't, unless the Civil War ended US democracy.

Frazzled wrote:
Your argument is nonsensical. Israel has not attacked the US. Supporters of Palestine have committed a wide variety of terrorist acts. If you think this has no impact upon US support for a particular side I'd proffer thats remarkably short in understanding human nature. Strangely if one side kills your people and the other doesn't you tend to go with the side not killing you.

You didn't understand my argument, as usual. You're inferring that this is a case of Israel versus everyone else, and therefore glossing over the massive number of differences between category of "everyone else". It is precisely this sort of self-reinforcing ignorance that has created problems, primarily on the Conservative side of the aisle, with any sort of Middle East policy that does not explicitly support Israel.

Also, committing a terrorist act is not committing a terrorist act against the US. You're equivocating.

Wow you're right. I'm shocked how I missed Yemen and Iran were stable democracies with none of that hanging and torture of dissidents thing going on. If thats your standard for democracy then, well, never mind. I'll let you rant about Israel some more if it makes you feel nice and warm and superior inside.


But you're right committing a terrorist act is not the same as committing a terrorist act against the US, which is not what I was stating. I finally get to yell-STRAWMAN!!!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The timeliness of this is almost amusing. yep Yemen is a democracy all right. President for 32 years eh?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110124/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_yemen_3

Yemeni president tries to defuse calls for ouster
Buzz up!1 vote ShareretweetEmailPrint AP – Yemeni students chant slogans calling on their president Ali Abdullah Saleh to leave the government and … By AHMED AL HAJ, Associated Press Ahmed Al Haj, Associated Press – Mon Jan 24, 1:47 pm ET
SANAA, Yemen – Yemen's president tried to defuse calls for his ouster, forcefully denying claims by opponents that he plans to install his son as his successor and raising salaries for the army.

In several days of protest, student activists and opposition groups in the Arab world's most impoverished nation — buoyed by the example of the popular revolt in Tunisia — have boldly called for the removal of U.S.-allied President Ali Abdullah Saleh.

The protests are presenting Yemen's ruler — in power for nearly 32 years — with a new and unpredictable challenge, adding to the threat from an al-Qaida offshoot aiming to topple him, a southern secessionist movement and an on-and-off armed rebellion in the north.

Seeing to quell the new outbursts of dissent, Saleh delivered a televised speech Sunday night describing talk of him aiming to bequeath power to his son as the "utmost rudeness" and insisting the rumors were untrue.

He also announced he was increasing salaries for the armed forces in a step apparently meant to ensure the army's loyalty in the face of the rising challenges.

After the Tunisian turmoil, Saleh also ordered income taxes slashed in half and instructed his government to control prices. He also deployed anti-riot police and soldiers to several key areas in the capital, Sanaa, and its surroundings to prevent riots.

Still, critics of his rule have taken to the streets in three days of protests calling for him to step down. Such calls had been a red line that few dissenters dared to cross, though Saleh has been under pressure not to extend his rule either by running again or by placing his son in power.

Saleh has long been believed to be grooming his son Ahmed, who commands the republican guard and the army's special forces, to succeed him.

"We are against succession," Saleh stressed in Sunday's speech to several hundred officers. "We are in favor of change ... and these are rude statements, they are the utmost rudeness."

He accused opposition leaders of trying to take over by rallying people to the streets "while they are hiding in the basement."

In the latest demonstrations, the main opposition groups on Monday announced a campaign to oust Saleh.

"It's about time for the political parties to lead a mass movement against the corrupt and despotic regime," Mohammed Abdul Malik, head of an alliance of opposition groups, told the rally in Sanaa.

The groups later said one of their leaders was kidnapped by people believed to be linked to the authorities.

They said Naef al-Qanis was beaten by unidentified people who later moved him to an unknown location.

Nearly half of Yemen's population lives below the poverty line of $2 a day and doesn't have access to proper sanitation. Less than a tenth of the roads are paved. Tens of thousands have been displaced from their homes by conflict, flooding the cities.

The government is riddled with corruption, has little control outside the capital, and its main source of income — oil — could run dry in a decade.

Saleh's current term in office expires in 2013 but proposed amendments to the constitution could let him remain in power for two additional terms of ten years.

Ali Seif Hassan, a Yemeni political analyst, said Saleh's speech indicates he was not likely to step down. "Saleh will run again in 2013 and will run after the next time," he said. "No Arab leader leaves power democratically to sit and write his diaries."

Frazzled wrote:
Your argument is nonsensical. Israel has not attacked the US. Supporters of Palestine have committed a wide variety of terrorist acts. If you think this has no impact upon US support for a particular side I'd proffer thats remarkably short in understanding human nature. Strangely if one side kills your people and the other doesn't you tend to go with the side not killing you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident#Ongoing_controversy_and_unresolved_questions

efarrer wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Your argument is nonsensical. Israel has not attacked the US. Supporters of Palestine have committed a wide variety of terrorist acts. If you think this has no impact upon US support for a particular side I'd proffer thats remarkably short in understanding human nature. Strangely if one side kills your people and the other doesn't you tend to go with the side not killing you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident#Ongoing_controversy_and_unresolved_questions

Woah. Good find. That is very disturbing, but I'm not all that surprised that Israel is willing to bite the hand that feeds them.

People worry about Iran or NK getting nukes. Israel has nukes and they are a loose cannon. They might not nuke us, but I can certainly understand fear and distrust of Israel by Middle East nations.

efarrer wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Your argument is nonsensical. Israel has not attacked the US. Supporters of Palestine have committed a wide variety of terrorist acts. If you think this has no impact upon US support for a particular side I'd proffer thats remarkably short in understanding human nature. Strangely if one side kills your people and the other doesn't you tend to go with the side not killing you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident#Ongoing_controversy_and_unresolved_questions

Did you check the source of that conspiracy? It isn't exactly what I would call peer reviewed and reliable.

That's some good readin'.

Monster Rain wrote:

That's some good readin'.

I see your sign and raise you...ALUMINUM HAT KITTY!!!!

sebster wrote:http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/23/palestine-papers-expose-peace-concession

Not from Julian Assange & team, though they did release some cables of their own to support this.

Anyway, the big thrust of the leaks is that the Palestinian authorities basically offered Israel everything they'd been asking for, up to an including ceding the illegal settlements to Israel. Israel categorically rejected the offer though, because as is becoming very bloody obvious to everyone who's paying attention, Israel really has no desire for peace.

It's becoming just as obvious that this situation will not change until real and meaningful pressure is put on Israel to play its part in resolving the issue.

Nothing unexpected, Israel needs to continue as planned, its way too late to try a different tactic because they crossed the line long ago. Palestinains 'need' to be placed under the boot continually to keep therm angry and thus keep them weak. The ultimate disaster for Israel would be if the Palestinians had enough breathing space to stop being angry and stop reacting with violence of their own.

Israel can take anything ther Paslestinains can throw at them, except a Palestinian 'Ghandi'.

Even so some compromise is preferable to none for maintaining ther international image.

sebster wrote:
Israel really has no desire for peace.

I think we can clarfiy this position a little better. The Likud party has no desire for peace. Benjamin Netanyahu is still Prime Minister, and he is amongst the most virulent opponents of any form of peace settlement with the Palestinians, and is opposed to any remission of their suffering unless his hand is forced.

Frazzled wrote:Wow you're right. I'm shocked how I missed Yemen and Iran were stable democracies with none of that hanging and torture of dissidents thing going on.

Democracy does not imply stability. You can have a country that is both unstable, and a democracy. You can also have a democracy that hangs and tortures dissidents.

If a large group of people wanted to turn America into a totalitarian state, and had a realistic chance of doing so, I'm fairly certain you would have no problem hanging and torturing them. Hell, you frequently suggest more with respect to terrorists with similar aims.

Frazzled wrote:
If thats your standard for democracy then, well, never mind.

My standard for democracy is any state in which the people elect the government according to reasonably free and fair process.

Frazzled wrote:
I'll let you rant about Israel some more if it makes you feel nice and warm and superior inside.

I haven't even mentioned Israel outside of stating that they are a democracy.

Frazzled wrote:
But you're right committing a terrorist act is not the same as committing a terrorist act against the US, which is not what I was stating. I finally get to yell-STRAWMAN!!!

It is exactly what you stated, maybe it wasn't what you intended, but its what you stated,

Supporters of Palestine have committed a wide variety of terrorist acts. If you think this has no impact upon US support for a particular side I'd proffer thats remarkably short in understanding human nature. Strangely if one side kills your people and the other doesn't you tend to go with the side not killing you.

You're equating terrorist attacks, with terrorist attacks on the US. Its very obvious that you're doing it. So obvious that you almost certainly did it intentionally.

Frazzled wrote:
The timeliness of this is almost amusing. yep Yemen is a democracy all right. President for 32 years eh?

Yeah, primarily because he is well liked by the constituents of his Northern party, and only opposed by the much smaller constituency of the Southern party; its a common thing in regions torn by major ethnic or religious imbalances in demography.

Infrequent turnover does not indicate that a state is not a democracy.

Ahtman wrote:

efarrer wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Your argument is nonsensical. Israel has not attacked the US. Supporters of Palestine have committed a wide variety of terrorist acts. If you think this has no impact upon US support for a particular side I'd proffer thats remarkably short in understanding human nature. Strangely if one side kills your people and the other doesn't you tend to go with the side not killing you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident#Ongoing_controversy_and_unresolved_questions

Did you check the source of that conspiracy? It isn't exactly what I would call peer reviewed and reliable.

I remember a half hour piece on the Current (a CBC news magazine with a good reputation) about the Liberty attack.

The tribune piece seems to tell a pretty good version...
http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/newspaper/eedition/chi-liberty_tuesoct02,0,43090.story

What more do you want?

WarOne wrote:Alrighty. I think we need to take a step back before this conversation devolves.

People often make the mistake of thinking civil conversation is about polite conversation. If all I'm doing is politely skimming your posts, then politely posting nonsense that no person who's somewhat read on the issue could honestly believe... then I'm actually not being very polite at all.

So let us talk civilly about the probability and possibility of who and when Israel may get invaded rather than dismiss it off hand as being an impossible event.

It's an impossiblity, and a silly one. The actual issue at hand is what it would take for Israel to come to the table with the intent of actually brokering a deal. As the leaks have shown, there's nothing Palestine can offer to make that happen. They offered everything and Israel refused to even discuss the mater.

At this point it becomes obvious that peace won't be achieved if all we think about is getting both sides to agree on some sticking points. Because in the current climate no peace deal could be as good for Israel as the current situation. So we need to look at changing the current situation, changing our unquestioning support for Israel.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:***The bottom third of Lebanon is ruled by Hezzbullah, which just blew out the government. Its no democracy.

There's a vote across the general population that decides political power. That's democracy.

***Wow, that’s trolling. As a mod I’d have to react to that if you had posted this to another poster.

We've talked about this before, and I've pointed out the errors in your claim before. So has Dogma. Yet here we are, and it's groundhog day all over again. What response should be given when someone just decides they're never going to learn anything, but keeps jumping in to say the same old thing over and over again?

*Except for Iran and Turkey. Of course when attacked its typically 2-3 countries at a time against Israel so add in Syria. Additionally, it means nothing when Hammas and Hezbullah continue to fire rockets into Israel, daily. But we shouldn't be concerned about that I guess.

Of course we should be concerned, it's a horrible situation. That's exactly why we need to be as honest as possible about who is looking to resolve this situation and who isn't. For enough powerful and influential people in Israeli government, those attacks are the price worth paying for continued expansion.

***I didn’t say that, merely responded to you question. Turkey has the power to attack Israel.

And the US has the power to occupy Australia. Yet we don't build foreign policy around the possibility that it might happen, because we're not insane. Israel is also not insane, and so doesn't factor the possiblity of Turkey attacking it when considering it's foreign policy. You know this, and therefore you know it's pointless to mention Turkey when discussing Israeli foreign policy.

***Except for missiles armed with nukes of course. But no one has fired missiles at Israel over a neutral country before, what must I be smoking? Israel’s never shot patriot missiles to stop incoming missiles before, no sir not at all.

And grinding out the IDF in Palestine does so much to protect Israel from Iranian nukes. I mean, the cyberattacks on Iran's nuclear facilities - awesome. Think they were the right thing to do and cool as hell. But that's got nothing to do with Israel's occupation of Palestine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:You can't divorce the discussion from the PLO and Hamas's bad behavior in the past. They made Israel into the sympathetic figure in this conflict due to their savagery.

If one hasn't "stopped reading about this in the 70s" this should come as no surprise.

They were sympathetic when the left Europe in the wake of the holocaust. They were sympathetic when a coalition of Arab nations attacked them, and they were downright heroic in defeating them. But when they occupied Palestine, blockaded it and turned it into a ghetto they were not so sympathetic, and bizarrely unaware of their own history. And yes, when rockets are fired into Israel the victims are very sympathetic. But no less sympathetic than the Palestinian victims, and we need to remember there's around a hundred Palestinian casualties for every Israeli. But whether they're Israeli or Palestinian, everyone of those victims deserves our sympathy.

And to have as few more as possible we need to be honest about the peace process, and honest about what is currently stopping the talks. And the answer there is simple; Israel.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Da Boss wrote:This conversation is so different in Ireland that it's bloody firghtening in a way. There, people support Palestine while condemning terrorist actions by Palestine.

I took it for granted that no-one here supported Palestinian terrorism, and that no-one would assume anyone else did. One of the major reasons to reach peace is to reduce the amount of Palestinian terrorism.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:Did you check the source of that conspiracy? It isn't exactly what I would call peer reviewed and reliable.

Are you questioning that the USS Liberty was struck by Israel, or that they might have done it on purpose?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orlanth wrote:I think we can clarfiy this position a little better. The Likud party has no desire for peace. Benjamin Netanyahu is still Prime Minister, and he is amongst the most virulent opponents of any form of peace settlement with the Palestinians, and is opposed to any remission of their suffering unless his hand is forced.

Yes, good point. Thankyou for expanding on my point, I was pretty lazy there. I should have said Israel at present has no desire for peace, and this is a product of the people currently in power and the changing political dynamic in the country. Israel has in the past been earnest in it's desire for a peace deal.

sebster wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Did you check the source of that conspiracy? It isn't exactly what I would call peer reviewed and reliable.

Are you questioning that the USS Liberty was struck by Israel, or that they might have done it on purpose?

That it was done on purpose. Or with a porpoise.

It was a part of the great Porpoise Conspiracy to overthrow us, and the dolphins.

dogma wrote:It was a part of the great Porpoise Conspiracy to overthrow us, and the dolphins.

sebster wrote:

WarOne wrote:Alrighty. I think we need to take a step back before this conversation devolves.

People often make the mistake of thinking civil conversation is about polite conversation. If all I'm doing is politely skimming your posts, then politely posting nonsense that no person who's somewhat read on the issue could honestly believe... then I'm actually not being very polite at all.

Fair enough. I will probably not add more to this thread as most of what I know and understand are probably not of the intellectual depth to add to this conversation.

Ahtman wrote:That it was done on purpose. Or with a porpoise.

Fair enough. Why'd you add the pun? Just for the halibut?

Sebster: Oh, I didn't think that, it's just, you wouldn't get this manic support of Israel that borders on the irrational. We accept that Israel does some pretty nasty things and that it is being needlessly cruel to an entire population. Of course the people vote for terrorists in that situation- they see them as freedom fighters, the only ones "doing something" about their awful situation. It just suprises me how little empathy is in this conversation.

I feel empathy for ordinary Israelis too. I dated an Israeli girl for a while and she certainly did her best to give me an insight into their point of view, but I still think it's a batgak crazy point of view!

Talking of absolutes in a situation like this...I mean, I know for a fact that the lads in this thread who are rabidly pro Israel (and have shown that stance time and again) are much more nuanced and capable of seeing the greys when it comes to domestic politics or whatever. What is it about Israel that provokes this loyalty?

sebster wrote:

Ahtman wrote:That it was done on purpose. Or with a porpoise.

Fair enough. Why'd you add the pun? Just for the halibut?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

We accept that Israel does some pretty nasty things and that it is being needlessly cruel to an entire population.

Who's we?

What is it about Israel that provokes this loyalty?

And what is it about Israel that provokes such antipathy. Oh wait I know. Never mind.

Frazzled wrote:And what is it about Israel that provokes such antipathy.

I'd guess it has something do with Israel's treatment of Palestine. In fact, I even heard that Israel refuses to play ball with Palestine. There's a thread about in the OT section. You should read it; you may learn a thing or two.

Maybe I missed something. Did all this nastiness from Israel start before or after the attempted invasions, rockets and suicide bombings?

I'm genuinely curious.

That depends on the extent to which you view the creation of Israel as a hostile act, and many, many people in the Middle East see it that way; and not without good reason. If nothing else, Israel is a very concrete reminder of the legacy of Imperialism; something that the Middle East is just developed enough to find deeply resentful.

That's something that often gets glossed over on this side of the world. Yeah, the British controlled Palestine before the creation of Israel, and in that sense gave it over as a Jewish homeland, but many people that lived there never saw the British as rightful rulers to begin with; again, with good reason.

There's also the bit about expansionist tendencies beyond the original mandate, but that's a much fuzzier issue.