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

sebster wrote:

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.

well lets say someone evicts me from my house at gun point and then invites his cousin to move in and share the new place. does that make the cousin a thief? no. but when the sheriff comes he's still got to go. If the arabs were in control of palestine I dont think, based on the historical precedent, that they would try to prevent jews from living in the area. they've been pretty tolerant in the past. all this bad blood is new.

sebster wrote:

abaddonfidelis wrote: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.

well I mean the government of Isreal. Its democratically elected and its policies are racist, so you can at least say that racist policies are broadly supported by the Isreali electorate. So to be clear I'm not saying that a Jew or an Isreali is necessarily a racist. But I'm saying that the government he elects is, so there are clearly alot of Isrealis who are racists.

sebster wrote:

abaddonfidelis wrote: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.

yes thats fair.

sebster wrote:

abaddonfidelis wrote: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.

yeah :(

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

well in fairness to Mr. Sharone he wouldnt say any of that. he's dead

Fine, then David Ben-Gurion.

would you accept that?

Repeatedly missing the point. As in "more than once."

If somebody stole my car, absolutely I'd say "that's my car."

If I then went over to him and said "that's my car," and he said "well, it's mine now," I would not then say "no, but don't you understand, it's my car because I bought it, and you just took it, and, etc. etc. etc."

As if he was merely confused on my argument, and needed some help understanding, then he'd abashedly return it to me.

That would be idiotic.

In real life, he'd say "well, it's mine now," and I'd understand the situation I was dealing with, and not bother with the ridiculous deliberations on the meaning of ownership. I'd either find a way to take my car back, or realize that in the world in which I live, it really IS his car now.

I'm not saying that the Palestinians shouldn't feel that they've had their land stolen from them. I'm just saying that talking about it is getting them ZERO closer to having it back.

You know who I'm talking about.

Oh, I do. I'm just trying to give you the chance to sound a bit less anti-semitic, assuming that's something you aspire to.

And, yes, I know it's not.

please. enlighten me. how do *you* decide what a word means?

You can get cute, but your whole "Israel is a little kid and the US is the parent" line is so ridiculously ill informed and wrong I can't really even find the energy to explain it to you.

So you can pretend I didn't tell you why your definition is wrong, but I did.

Perhaps it would help to model your own behavior back at you.

This is you: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moron

But wait... You're not affected with mild mental retardation, and thus the definition is completely inapplicable to you?

Allow me to ignore you on that subject and post the link again:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moron

I have decided, you have mild mental retardation. I am now incredulous that you can't read a web page that describes you EXACTLY as my made up fantasy world definition does. I'm sure you're saying something, probably lies about not being mentally slowed. Let me post my link again:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moron

In case this is not clear to you, here's supporting information:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lodgepole%20pine

DUH!

Phryxis wrote:
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.

They would have to overcome a 30 year technological deficit first, which would imply that Israel would cease to be a major developer of arms technology. Even if they softened their stance regarding the Arab world, the arms industry would still be an economic cornerstone of the state, you don't just cut out 6-7% of your GDP on a whim.

Phryxis wrote:
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.

Saddam only launched 39 of his SCUDs at Israel, and they were all in direct retaliation to the coalition invasion of the Gulf. Its hardly as if he simply lashed out at them and no one did anything about it. I mean, Israel didn't even respond militarily, they tried to have it labeled a war crime in order to prod the coalition into deposing him.

Phryxis wrote:
A country that's incredibly chaotic, stupid, and compromised by Taliban supporters? Like Pakistan?

Why would the Taliban care about Israel? They aren't globally minded in the same way that Al Qaeda was/is. Similarly, Pakistan has never shown any significant interest in Middle Eastern affairs, outside of making money anyway.

Phryxis wrote:
It doesn't have to be state sponsored. It can just as easily be "lost" and then used against Israel.

Shouldn't they then be engaging in preemptive strikes on Russian nuclear sites? They straight up admit that they don't know where all their warheads are, and they deal openly with Iran with regard to nuclear tech.

Phryxis wrote:
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.

They're not apocalyptic minded, that's a common misinterpretation of the religious positions of the two primary Iranian leadership figures. Dinnerjacket and the Supreme Leader basically believe that the Madhi is coming, but nothing can be done to speed his arrival. It also ignores the plainly rational mode in which Iran has acted in the past 30 years; from holding back the Green Wave, to pushing for nuclear technology when the US was tied down by two wars.

Phryxis wrote:
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.

Israel is under no threat of being nuked, perhaps attacked but not nuked.. You might say that Fundamental ideologues are irrational and would do such a crazy thing but that's completely against their stated aim of freeing their holy land from the oppressor.

Muslim terrorists or nations nuking the land they consider sacred is like a catholic blowing up the Vatican because he doesn't like Pope Benedict, it's a completely absurd notion.

Why would the Taliban care about Israel? They aren't globally minded in the same way that Al Qaeda was/is. Similarly, Pakistan has never shown any significant interest in Middle Eastern affairs, outside of making money anyway

Well.....Pakistan has let soldiers volunteer in the Arab Israeli Wars.

LordofHats wrote:

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.

which history book.....?
which page of that history book...?
I can provide a legitimate, 3rd party reference for my use of that word. Can you?

lordofhats wrote:

abaddonfidelis wrote: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.

you said they were an indepednent state.

lordofhats wrote: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.

Prior to 1773 the British did not directly control India, but it was still a colony.
Massechussettes and Virginia colonies maintained their own government and their own military force, and pursued their own interests, none of which excluded them from being colonies.
Isreal does not bow to outside pressure. Isreal bows to United States pressure. They could care less what China or Mexico thinks.

abaddonfidelis wrote:
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.

who said anything about a zionist conspiracy?

I pulled my definition out of merriam webster.
you pulled yours out of your ass.

the isrealis do have friends.... the jewish lobby in the united states, which ruthlessly attacks anyone who does not profess their undying love for isreal. their need for a state has hijacked our democracy. I'm not ok with that. why are you?
AF

They would have to overcome a 30 year technological deficit first, which would imply that Israel would cease to be a major developer of arms technology.

Two things:

1) Offensive technology is vastly more capable than defensive technology. As advanced as Israel may be, they still don't have a ton of ways to stop missiles being lobbed at them. The common solution is retribution. Iran seems content to absorb some in order to further their agenda.

2) It doesn't take 30 years to make up 30 years when the technology is out there. All it takes is Russia or China to feel impertinent. They could have modern hardware overnight.

Saddam only launched 39 of his SCUDs at Israel, and they were all in direct retaliation to the coalition invasion of the Gulf.

Right, but I'm not sure how that changes anything. He had his reasons. He wanted to get Israel involved and rally regional support via anti-Israel sentiment.

My point is to show that we've already had situations where Israel was directly and deliberately attacked which did not spell instant removal of the leadership making the decision.

Also, none of this happens in a vaccuum. Let's say Iran decides that they're going to weaponize their fissionable materials, announces it. The world community will whine and do nothing. Then Israel strikes against their nuclear facilities. Iran responds with large scale ballistic strikes of their own.

You SERIOUSLY can't see the world community wringing their hands and doing nothing with that?

Why would the Taliban care about Israel?

I'm not suggesting they'd care so much as the fact that Pakistan is full of destabilizing lunatic factions. If things get too far out of line there, nuclear weapons can hit the market. I'm talking about stolen nuclear weapons, not Pakistan the official state making the attack.

It also ignores the plainly rational mode in which Iran has acted in the past 30 years; from holding back the Green Wave, to pushing for nuclear technology when the US was tied down by two wars.

Don't get me wrong, I see that. The popular reporting on Iran is that they're "just crazy," when in reality they're very pragmatic and just happen to have a GWB-like stupidmouth doing their public face.

Their goal is to establish themselves as a regional power. I don't view them coming to violence with Israel is being at all "irrational." It makes a lot of sense for their goals, and if they manage to drum up enough perceived justification it'd win them HUGE cred in the region as a major opponent of the West, which doesn't have to pander.

Muslim terrorists or nations nuking the land they consider sacred is like a catholic blowing up the Vatican because he doesn't like Pope Benedict, it's a completely absurd notion.

Israel isn't ALL al-Aqsa, dude. Tel-Aviv? Haifa? That's not the Vatican. Nukes are big, but they're not THAT big. They're not going to blow up the whole country.

Observe this incredibly morbid website:

http://meyerweb.com/eric/tools/gmap/hydesim.html?dll=32.79036,34.99059&mll=32.60459,35.09393&yd=20&zm=9&op=156

That's a 20KT yield weapon (similar in size to the ones used on Japan), being set off on Haifa.

Thank you, Phryxis, for my new favorite website!

Phryxis

to be clear I'm not saying that the Isreali state can be dismantled, thats not a realistic goal. and I dont think they can be shamed into giving the land back. obviously they cant. what I'm saying is that we ought to boycott their trade in order to force them to come to a reasonable compromise with the Palestinians. We did it in South Africa, it worked there.

well I dont think I'm a moron but the thing is.... I'm not going to pretend that the authors of a dictionary dont know what a moron is. I would argue that I dont fit the definition as provided. Now you and lord of hats are both making up your own definitions and calling me names when I point to the dictionary. Is that fair? Lets be adults here. If you dont think Isreal is a colony, then tell me why it doesnt fit that definition.

Obviously it irritates me when I can back up my use of that word but you two cant, and then you turn around and say I dont know what Im talking about. If you dont like being ridiculed then stop being ridiculous.
AF

Just because I know it'll give AbbadonFidelis to think of all "those people" that would die, here's another:

http://meyerweb.com/eric/tools/gmap/hydesim.html?dll=30.86766,34.88073&yd=50000&zm=7&op=156

That's a 50 Megaton Yield fitting completely in Israel. That would be the largest nuclear explosion in history, on par with the "Tsar Bomba" device the Russians tested because they ALWAYS have to make the biggest weapon in any given category.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:which history book.....?
which page of that history book...?
I can provide a legitimate, 3rd party reference for my use of that word. Can you?

I'm not going to play the citation game. You are asserting that Israel is a colony. Prove it. So far you haven't, and anyone who knows anything about Israel or Colonialism knows you can't.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:A nation being dependent on another, is not the sole criteria to define a colony.
you said they were an indepednent state.

A nation can be an independent state and yet still be dependent on another nation. Satellite states depend on their sponsors, the US directly after the Revolution was heavily dependent on support from France, most of the third world is economically dependent on foreign aid.

Prior to 1773 the British did not directly control India, but it was still a colony.
Massechussettes and Virginia colonies maintained their own government and their own military force, and pursued their own interests, none of which excluded them from being colonies.

Really, read a history book. The British shared India with other European powers for decades, establishing colonies in India for nearly a century before actually taking all of India as a colony itself. Massechussettes and Virginia were administered by the Massechussettes Bay Company and the Virginia Company respectively, and both derived their power from charter from the English government. They were acting as agents of the English government. The English could revoke the charter whenever they wanted and put someone else in charge; eventually the charters were revoked and the monarchy took direct control of the colonies which ended in the American Revolution. All power those companies exerted were derived from the English government, not their own authority. EDIT: And don't confuse a militia with a modern military force. They're very different things.

who said anything about a zionist conspiracy?

No one, but your statements are riddled with its implications.

I pulled my definition out of merriam webster.
you pulled yours out of your ass.

If you want to reduce yourself to childish arguments you only show your backed into a corner. Colonialism cannot be defined by a sentence, not can Colony. Not if you want a true understanding of the terms.

the isrealis do have friends.... the jewish lobby in the united states, which ruthlessly attacks anyone who does not profess their undying love for isreal. their need for a state has hijacked our democracy. I'm not ok with that. why are you?

And you say you don't talk about a Zionist conspiracy?

Phryxis wrote:Just because I know it'll give AbbadonFidelis to think of all "those people" that would die, here's another:

http://meyerweb.com/eric/tools/gmap/hydesim.html?dll=30.86766,34.88073&yd=50000&zm=7&op=156

That's a 50 Megaton Yield fitting completely in Israel. That would be the largest nuclear explosion in history, on par with the "Tsar Bomba" device the Russians tested because they ALWAYS have to make the biggest weapon in any given category.

I'm not talking about killing anyone.
I honestly dont understand where this is coming from.
What I'm talking about is....
Ideally: the jews all go back to where they or their fathers and grand fathers came from. Poland. Russia. The United States.
Practically: the jews admit palestinians to full citizenship and legal equality in the Isreali state or they endorse and facilitate a 2 state solution.
AF

If you dont think Isreal is a colony, then tell me why it doesnt fit that definition.

You're actually making me wonder if you're not mentally slowed.

I've told you. I even told you when I told you the last time.

I'll quote myself, "You can get cute, but your whole "Israel is a little kid and the US is the parent" line is so ridiculously ill informed and wrong I can't really even find the energy to explain it to you. So you can pretend I didn't tell you why your definition is wrong, but I did. "

Israel is not "child state" of the United States. That's the critical point in order for your application of the word "colony" and it's not even remotely accurate. They don't just do what we say. If they did just do what we say, then WHY exactly are you calling for us to "boycott their trade?" Somehow they're simultaneous taking orders from us and yet have to be forced to take orders from us?

Look, dude, I can go into how much they're not a client state, but I'm really hoping you'll get a clue before that becomes necessary, and even if you don't I'm not sure I have the energy to do it.

I think I went astray with the "moron" link. It was too focused on being snarky, and not enough on making the actual point. Let me try again.

The moon is made out of cheese.

Here: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cheese

I have linked to the definition of cheese. Now I petulantly demand that you show me where I have gone wrong in my proof that the moon is made of cheese?

Normal Human: "Ahh, well, it's not. That's certainly a link to the defnition of cheese, but the moon is not made of cheese."

Stop obfuscating. Please just tell me how my argument is wrong. I have provided 3rd party documents.

Normal Human: "Moron."

I mean, seriously, the moon isn't cheese, dude. Let's not have to talk about it. Just stop being wrong, and drop it.

Phryxis wrote: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.

In terms of the power balance between Israel and it's neighbours it's trivial. Who in the area has the capability, militarily and politically, to begin to threaten Israel? Who could possibly build that capability in the next ten years?

And what does any of that have to do with looking for a practical solution to Palestine?

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.

Yes, buying US weapons. Like Egypt is dependant on US weapons. The US exerts tremendous control over the region, to the point where trying to mount up a coalition to take on Israel is complete madness, and that's before you get into the idea that such a coalition is militarily outmatched.

Are you assuming that the US might switch it's position from directly supporting Israel to not doing anything for Israel in the event of attack, or passively watching other countries closely tied to the US, such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, begin to plan an attack. That's clearly fantastical.

The US gives Australia no US support, but if Indonesia was to suddenly invade there would be a US response. Such a thing would still occur with Israel - there isn't just the binary states of 'give them loads of military gear' and 'do nothing if they're attacked'.

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.

They also have a lot to lose by forcing a military engagement, and they're not loons. I can easily see them angling to force a US/Israeli backdown on one issue or another, and gaining a lot from that - but actually undertaking military strikes to boost their national standing? It sounds like the backpage of a Clancy book.

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.

You only have to look at our very recent history to see, in the wake of a terrorist attack by non-state actors, you had the world's agreement and support to invade Afghanistan. If it was the case of a state doing something even worse, there'd be no issue of rationalising anything.

What's more, the idea that the world is too 'gutless' to fight wars now doesn't make any sense. The wars in which we're apparently too weak to fight now are wars that wouldn't have even been considered a hundred years ago.

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."

No, that simply isn't true. Very few people are sociopaths, and even less think of themselves as such, hardly any conflict has simply been one group simply taking someone else's land without having a belief, at least to themselves, that they can legitimately claim that land. There's almost always a claim of some sort to the land.

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.

Except that that really isn't the point. It simply doesn't matter who's ancestors lived somewhere centuries ago. There is no ethnic claim to any piece of land. Even if could be proved somehow that it really was Palestinian land all along, it wouldn't be right to force the Israelis to move. Even if it could be proved that it was all really Jewish land, it wouldn't be right to force them to move.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:well lets say someone evicts me from my house at gun point and then invites his cousin to move in and share the new place. does that make the cousin a thief? no. but when the sheriff comes he's still got to go. If the arabs were in control of palestine I dont think, based on the historical precedent, that they would try to prevent jews from living in the area. they've been pretty tolerant in the past. all this bad blood is new.

Again, it really doesn't help to term things as personal morality. It doesn't work that way. The formation of Israel didn't involve one guy stealing a place and then inviting his cousin to live there. It was created by international consensus, and people moved there believing they had a legal right to do so. The majority of the population there has never had another home but Israel, just like the Palestinians.

It would be wrong to force them to move to fit someone else's grand political schemes.

well I mean the government of Isreal. Its democratically elected and its policies are racist, so you can at least say that racist policies are broadly supported by the Isreali electorate. So to be clear I'm not saying that a Jew or an Isreali is necessarily a racist. But I'm saying that the government he elects is, so there are clearly alot of Isrealis who are racists.

That's a fairer position, and I'd agree the Israeli government has it's fair share of racist policies. And there is certainly a lot of racism in the population in general - did you see the case recently of a guy who lied to sleep with a girl - he said he was Israeli when he was Palestinian. He got charged with rape. I mean, it's a dick move to lie to sleep with a girl but it isn't rape if a guy pretends he earns more money than he does...

But all that said, you have to be careful when assuming the racist policies of government have purely racist intentions. There is a lot of frustration in Israel, there is no clear path to solving the Palestine problem, if one existed I think you'd get significant support. I certainly believe most Israelis would be more than willing to stop the settlement programs in exchange for peace - they see the settlers as religious extremists themselves.

I honestly dont understand where this is coming from.

Really? You don't? Honestly, I'm just making fun of how completely tactless you are. I don't really think you want to exterminate the Jews, but you're so comically bad at talking about it, it's kinda funny. Example:

Ideally: the jews all go back to where they or their fathers and grand fathers came from. Poland. Russia. The United States.

I mean, seriously? Do better.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Ideally: the jews all go back to where they or their fathers and grand fathers came from. Poland. Russia. The United States.

Why is it ideal that someone is to be forced out of the home they lived in all their lives, because they're not the right ethnicity? feth that.

Practically: the jews admit palestinians to full citizenship and legal equality in the Isreali state or they endorse and facilitate a 2 state solution.
AF

The one state solution is impractical because there is no way Jews will accept at this point in time becoming a minority in their own country. And I think at this point in time they've got a fair point.

This leaves the two state solutiion as the only workable option.

LordofHats wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:which history book.....?
which page of that history book...?
I can provide a legitimate, 3rd party reference for my use of that word. Can you?

I'm not going to play the citation game. You are asserting that Israel is a colony. Prove it. So far you haven't, and anyone who knows anything about Israel or Colonialism knows you can't.

predictable.

lordofhats wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:A nation being dependent on another, is not the sole criteria to define a colony.
you said they were an indepednent state.

A nation can be an independent state and yet still be dependent on another nation.

lol. dependent is the opposite of independent. that's called an antonym. it really couldnt be any more obvious....

Satellite states depend on their sponsors, the US directly after the Revolution was heavily dependent on support from France, most of the third world is economically dependent on foreign aid.

ummmm.... no.... the US directly after the revolution was not heavily dependent on support from france. where do you get this stuff from? honestly? I mean you talk about reading history alot but as near as I can tell you dont know anything about it.

lordofhats wrote:

abaddonfidelis wrote:Prior to 1773 the British did not directly control India, but it was still a colony.
Massechussettes and Virginia colonies maintained their own government and their own military force, and pursued their own interests, none of which excluded them from being colonies.

Really, read a history book. The British shared India with other European powers for decades, establishing colonies in India for nearly a century before actually taking all of India as a colony itself. Massechussettes and Virginia were administered by the Massechussettes Bay Company and the Virginia Company respectively, and both derived their power from charter from the English government.

I guess its no surprise that a person who cant handle a dictionary can't find their way around a history book either. Really though, any moron can use wikipedia, so why dont you try that?

What you've said about India is true but doesnt have anything to do with anything. Did you know that?
Virginia was governed directly by the British govt for the majority of its history.
Massachusetts was never run by a company.
Try googling this stuff.
You'll fail less.

lordofhats wrote:
They were acting as agents of the English government. The English could revoke the charter whenever they wanted and put someone else in charge; eventually the charters were revoked and the monarchy took direct control of the colonies which ended in the American Revolution. All power those companies exerted were derived from the English government, not their own authority. EDIT: And don't confuse a militia with a modern military force. They're very different things.

the american revolution was not the result of the revocation of the charter of the Virginia, Massachusetts, or any other colony.
You plainly do not know what you are talking about.
A militia is a military organization and it was administered by the state. It fit the criteria you provided.

who said anything about a zionist conspiracy?
No one, but your statements are riddled with its implications.

ok well lets just stick to what I actually said ok? it's no secret that there is a powerful jewish lobby in this country. I'm not making that up. But I guess it follows that someone who cant handle a dictionary and cant be bothered to google his history before he types it in, can't be bothered to fact check whether or not such lobbies exist either. Just trust me, as an educated person speaking to an uneducated person, that its real and it exerts an influence.

lordofhats wrote:

abaddonfidelis wrote:I pulled my definition out of merriam webster.
you pulled yours out of your ass.

If you want to reduce yourself to childish arguments you only show your backed into a corner. Colonialism cannot be defined by a sentence, not can Colony. Not if you want a true understanding of the terms.

then what is it defined by? please, reference something. anything. you're just making gak up. that's what's childish.

lordofhats wrote:

abaddonfidelis wrote:the isrealis do have friends.... the jewish lobby in the united states, which ruthlessly attacks anyone who does not profess their undying love for isreal. their need for a state has hijacked our democracy. I'm not ok with that. why are you?

And you say you don't talk about a Zionist conspiracy?

forming a PAC isnt a conspiracy. Its lobbying.

If you cant start making sense I cant be bothered to reply to your posts. Fair?
AF

And what does any of that have to do with looking for a practical solution to Palestine?

I don't think Palestinian wellbeing is actually salient to anybody except the Palestinians themselves.

The other states in the region which pretend to care about them have no real concern for the Palestinians. They're a convenient proxy to bash against Israel.

Who in the area has the capability, militarily and politically, to begin to threaten Israel? Who could possibly build that capability in the next ten years?

Define "threaten?" To threaten them with total extermination, occupation, etc?

Nobody.

To threaten them with a projection of military force? Within ten years? Numerous states. And let's bear context in mind. The context here is that we've already assumed the US has "cut Israel loose."

I'm not suggesting that any of this is at all likely. But Israel's attitude has always been to be CERTAIN of things. They don't want to rely on anybody.

I can easily see them angling to force a US/Israeli backdown on one issue or another, and gaining a lot from that - but actually undertaking military strikes to boost their national standing?

Their weapons development programs and rhetoric speak to a desire to strike Israel in retribution for some preceding military operation on Israel's part. While I realize that rhetoric is just rhetoric, it's also generally a pretty accurate reflection of the orator's actual worldview. Iran has proven to be remarkably direct and literal in their message, as well (with Dimmyjad being an occasional exception).

It's strange to me how smart you think these guys are...

George W Bush talked at length about bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq. Then he went ahead and "did it." And everyone just CAN'T BELIEVE what a dolt he was to think he could successfully do that. WHAT A DUMMY. Clearly we've got endless precedent for leaders doing things that seem stupid to armchair potentates.

Let's be honest, you probably have more in common ideologically with GWB than with Ayatollah Khamenei... If you can't fathom why Bush thought he could pull off democratizing Iraq, what makes you think you can understand Khamenei any better?

You only have to look at our very recent history to see, in the wake of a terrorist attack by non-state actors, you had the world's agreement and support to invade Afghanistan.

First off, it's not the same. The Taliban, while it wasn't AQ, was willing to get AQ's back, to refuse to give them up, to shelter them, etc. They essentially signed on to what AQ did. We're not talking about them losing one of their airliners, having it turn up in the World Trade Center, and them saying "wow, we're sorry, we absolutely don't condone that, and we're sorry we lost track of that 707."

Second, the fact that they paid for backing AQ doesn't change the fact that they DID do it. If some nutjob gets ahold of a nuke in Pakistan, gives it to another nutjob who uses it on Israel, it won't change much for Israel if we go kill all those nutjobs. Honestly, all you're proving is that people will attack major military powers DESPITE the consequences.

The wars in which we're apparently too weak to fight now are wars that wouldn't have even been considered a hundred years ago.

I'm not sure what you mean. People have generally been much more willing to go to war than they are now, and for much worse reasons.

Except that that really isn't the point. It simply doesn't matter who's ancestors lived somewhere centuries ago. There is no ethnic claim to any piece of land.

So are you agreeing with me?

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

LordofHats wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:which history book.....?
which page of that history book...?
I can provide a legitimate, 3rd party reference for my use of that word. Can you?

I'm not going to play the citation game. You are asserting that Israel is a colony. Prove it. So far you haven't, and anyone who knows anything about Israel or Colonialism knows you can't.

predictable.
AF

Actually, what was predictable was LordofHats not dignifying your Negative Proof Fallacy by actually citing sources.

Phryxis wrote:If some nutjob gets ahold of a nuke in Pakistan, gives it to another nutjob who uses it on Israel, it won't change much for Israel if we go kill all those nutjobs. Honestly, all you're proving is that people will attack major military powers DESPITE the consequences.

Precisely. Particularly people that think they are doing the work of Allah by attacking Israel. Someone who thinks they will be rewarded in the afterlife for their horrific actions isn't thinking rationally to begin with, so it's kind of silly to apply logic to what we think they might do.

Phryxis
ok then lets leave all snarkiness aside. There appears to be alot of confusion about what that definition says, so here it is:

1. a body of people living in a new territory but retaining ties to the parent state
2. the territory inhabited by such a body.

that is the relationship that I am arguing exists between the west and Isreal. Most isrealis are either 1st or 2nd generation immigrants from a western country; they began to arrive in large numbers in the 40s. They retain ties to their states of origin - through family members that they left behind, through business contacts, through dual citizenship, etc.

Do you disagree with any of that? Without introducing some new concept, without calling names, without ridicule, do you disagree with any of those points of fact? If so what? If not, then how is it not a colony? Or do you have an alternative definition that you would like to bring up?
AF


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster
what was predictable is that someone who doesnt know gak about history cant reference a single reputable scholar in defense of his arguments. that doesnt mean he's wrong. (if I said that, that would be a negative proof fallacy.) It just means that he's a gas bag who I dont have to take seriously.
AF


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Ideally: the jews all go back to where they or their fathers and grand fathers came from. Poland. Russia. The United States.

Why is it ideal that someone is to be forced out of the home they lived in all their lives, because they're not the right ethnicity? feth that.

because its ideal that people not take other peoples land by force.

Practically: the jews admit palestinians to full citizenship and legal equality in the Isreali state or they endorse and facilitate a 2 state solution.
AF

The one state solution is impractical because there is no way Jews will accept at this point in time becoming a minority in their own country. And I think at this point in time they've got a fair point.

This leaves the two state solutiion as the only workable option.

really? do you think it would be fair in the US if all white people suddenly refused to share the franchise with blacks and hispanics? Because white people are used to being the majority in this country and will soon be the minority. If its not ok for us to do it here, why is it ok for the jews to do it in Isreal? Dont you see how racist that whole line of thinking is? But yes if the jews would stop building apartment blocks on land that doesnt belong to them, a 2 state solution might work. not that they want it. they have the solution that they want - an oppressed underclass whose sporadic, desperate acts of violence only serve to underline their nobility and martial prowess. All at the cost of a rocket landing in a playground every once in a while. good deal if you're an isreali MP.
AF

Phryxis wrote:I don't think Palestinian wellbeing is actually salient to anybody except the Palestinians themselves.

I think anyone with empathy for other human beings should show empathy to the Palesitinians, most of whom are suffering through nothing but an unfornate time and place of birth.

And that's a lot more relevant to the issue at hand than Israel's worries over national security. Remember this thread was started over a report into the Israeli blockade of Palestine. Nothing to do with any other nation.

The other states in the region which pretend to care about them have no real concern for the Palestinians. They're a convenient proxy to bash against Israel.

True, but I don't see why that means the Palestinians don't deserve the chance to start their lives again.

To threaten them with a projection of military force? Within ten years? Numerous states. And let's bear context in mind. The context here is that we've already assumed the US has "cut Israel loose."

Have they cut Israel loose or just stopped sending military aid?

Their weapons development programs and rhetoric speak to a desire to strike Israel in retribution for some preceding military operation on Israel's part.

They want to be capable of striking Israel. Everything else is you assuming. Did the US build it's stockpile because it wanted to launch them, or just because it wanted to be able to, just in case?

Let's be honest, you probably have more in common ideologically with GWB than with Ayatollah Khamenei... If you can't fathom why Bush thought he could pull off democratizing Iraq, what makes you think you can understand Khamenei any better?

I probably do have more in common with W. But your whole argument there was 'Bush was a dolt therefore these other people are too, so they're a chance of doing something really stupid and counterproductive' is very speculative. Bush was an outlier in world affairs, few people fail their way to the top like he did. The reason diplomatic affairs got so screwy for a while there is because the world wasn't used to having a guy like that around.

There's also the point that people are a whole lot smarter with things that affect them directly, and a whole lot dumber and more simplistic about things on the other side of the globe. There's a basic self interest in getting smart about your own affairs, that just isn't there when talking about sending troops to the other side of the world.

First off, it's not the same. The Taliban, while it wasn't AQ, was willing to get AQ's back, to refuse to give them up, to shelter them, etc. They essentially signed on to what AQ did. We're not talking about them losing one of their airliners, having it turn up in the World Trade Center, and them saying "wow, we're sorry, we absolutely don't condone that, and we're sorry we lost track of that 707."

Second, the fact that they paid for backing AQ doesn't change the fact that they DID do it. If some nutjob gets ahold of a nuke in Pakistan, gives it to another nutjob who uses it on Israel, it won't change much for Israel if we go kill all those nutjobs. Honestly, all you're proving is that people will attack major military powers DESPITE the consequences.

Okay, I thought we were talking about a nuke strike supported by a state. If that isn't the case, and it's by non-state actors with no ties... then how in the sweet moogly googly is the continued occupation of Palestine going to be helped by that?

I'm not sure what you mean. People have generally been much more willing to go to war than they are now, and for much worse reasons.

I'm talking about peacekeeping operations around the world. They are the operations that are typically used as evidence for how much more timid we are, but people miss the point that a hundred years ago we never would have even bothered to stop someone else fighting.

Wars of other types don't happen as often, because the economic incentives for such wars just don't exist any more, because these days the money is in stability, not land.

So are you agreeing with me?

Our conclusion is the same but our reasoning seems quite different. As I understand it, you're saying the claim to the land is so confused that no claim can be established, whereas I'm saying that there's no good to be found in ancestral claims to land, because no ethnic group can ever own land. What matters is who is living there now.

sebster
well.... if personal morality doesnt apply I'm not sure what morality does. it's just an analogy of course but I think the point is fair. yes its tough beans for a guy who moved to isreal thinking he could live there happily. but its also tough beans for the guy who cant go back to the home he had all his life, because that isreali guy is living there. its a hard situation no doubt. I think that the best thing practically is for the Isrealis to recognize that there are alot of non-jews in that area who have a right either to that land or to fair compensation for its...... appropriation.

personally I believe that the Isrealis will never come to just terms with the palestinians until some outside group that is stronger than they are forces them to do it. After all who wants to stick their neck out? Rabin tried to come to a just settlement and he got shot. Then, tragedy again, Sharone, potentialy the 1 man in Isreal with the reputation to pull it off, suffers a stroke and goes into a coma. What the last 20 years shows is that giving Palestinians even a modicum of justice is just too painful politically for Isreal to pull off. They need to be helped from the outside. That could be us if Americans can stop seeing the Isrealis as white like them and the palestinians as brown like osama. we need to recognize that supporting Isreal is not in our interests as a nation - it is only in the interests of our politicians who are desperately afraid of a loud, aggressive, and very well funded jewish lobby. The whole country could fall off the map and it wouldnt hurt our fundamental interests at all. It might in fact improve them bc we wouldnt be putting down insurrections in Iraq and Afghanistan if we had not allowed Isreal to drag us into their bloody mess.
AF

a body of people living in a new territory but retaining ties to the parent state

There several problems.

First off "the west" is not a state. It's a moniker often used to describe a vaguely defined group of first world nations.

Second, the state is described as a "parent," which is verbiage you repeated in order to describe Israel as a "child" or "client" state. This is how colonies are generally understood to operate, and is completely inapplicable to Israel, which is an exceedingly independant minded state.

Third, the definition itself is uselessly vague in this discussion. It could just as well describe, for example, Somali immigrants living in the United States, who send money back home. Is there a Somali "colony" in the United States? By the provided definition, yes. But that's not really how the word is used.

I think it's probably no coincidence that you chose dictionary entries that were as vague as possible, rather than something like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colony

"In politics and history, a colony is a territory under the immediate political control of a state."

Immediate political control is not present with Israel. The fact that you keep trying to allege that there is that sort of control suggests that you KNOW the actual definition, even as you look for softer, vaguer ones that don't undermine your argument as immediately.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:because its ideal that people not take other peoples land by force.

Then it would be ideal that the Jewish people living in Israel don't have their land taken by force, no?

really? do you think it would be fair in the US if all white people suddenly refused to share the franchise with blacks and hispanics? Because white people are used to being the majority in this country and will soon be the minority. If its not ok for us to do it here, why is it ok for the jews to do it in Isreal? Dont you see how racist that whole line of thinking is?

Because Israel and the US are totally different countries with totally different racial and political environments. Because we still have rocket attacks and bombings in Israel. Democracy requires goodwill and a history of political compromise, especially when it comes to ethnic minorities. That simply doesn't exist, so it's crazy to suggest Jews could agree to becoming a minority in their own country.

However, the two populations are already largely segregated into Israel and the almost-a-state of Palestine. A two state solution is almost in place right now, they just have to give Palestine sovereignty.

But yes if the jews would stop building apartment blocks on land that doesnt belong to them, a 2 state solution might work. not that they want it. they have the solution that they want - an oppressed underclass whose sporadic, desperate acts of violence only serve to underline their nobility and martial prowess. All at the cost of a rocket landing in a playground every once in a while. good deal if you're an isreali MP.

It's a nice piece of rhetoric to claim Israel as a whole supports the on-going settlements - they don't. While general Israeli sentiment towards Palestine is negative, there's little general support. The settlers represent the last of the old guard, and their political connections allow them to continue the program going.

Your claim that they want an oppressed Palestinian class doesn't grok with anything I've read. For the most part, Israelis want the problem to go away. They don't really know to do that, and they view previous peace offerings such as withdrawing from Lebanon as ineffective at best - so now they're back to the use of disproportionate force. It won't work any better, obviously, but it has to be seen as the product of frustration with the peace efforts, not some Machiavellian scheme to control the Palestinians.

True, but I don't see why that means the Palestinians don't deserve the chance to start their lives again.

I'm not saying they don't. I'm saying that there are forces in the region which don't want them to have a better life, because then they won't serve the only use those forces have for them: making Israel look bad.

They're a club. If Israel finds a way to leave amicably with them, they cease to function as a club.

Have they cut Israel loose or just stopped sending military aid?

It's all hypothetical jabbering, and honestly now I've lost the plot.

Bush was an outlier in world affairs, few people fail their way to the top like he did.

But he also had a cabinet of very wise, accomplished men. I know it's very fashionable to comic-book the sitauation up, and pretend they're all Darth Vader and Grand Moff Tarkin, but the fact is Bush's policy was pretty mainstream (if right leaning).

One can also look at Saddam, at the things he thought were going on, at how totally out of touch with reality he was as war came to him. These guys don't always see things the way you think they do. I realize it's very speculative, but I think the speculation is mutual.

When they're working on weapons to engage Israel, I think it's actually more odd for you to suggest they DON'T plan to engage Israel than it is for me to suggest that they might.

Okay, I thought we were talking about a nuke strike supported by a state.

Well, I agree that it's very unlikely, but we can talk about it if you want... And honestly, your mention of the Taliban reminded me of just how bizzarely willing they were to ride the ship down with AQ. It makes me wonder if other governments, including Pakistan, might be willing to be similarly suicidal.

If that isn't the case, and it's by non-state actors with no ties... then how in the sweet moogly googly is the continued occupation of Palestine going to be helped by that?

Oh, it's not. It's just that some people were suggesting that Israel is in no danger. I was merely trying to point out that they're in vastly more danger than the average state, even if it's also vastly less than they like to suggest.

It's a side argument.

But, then again, it's also not, because I don't view the Israel/Palestine strife to be a direct policy choice. It's more a side effect of the general regional strife and resentment to the very presence of Israel. It would solve itself if the bigger picture of conflict went away.

They are the operations that are typically used as evidence for how much more timid we are, but people miss the point that a hundred years ago we never would have even bothered to stop someone else fighting.

I don't think it's changed as much as you're suggesting. We don't really "stop someone else fighting" even now. We go in and represent our ideals/priorities when people fight. We pick the side we want to win and help them, or if there's nobody we like, we create one. We just couch it in more compassionate language. We still pretty much ignore conflicts that don't impact us and don't have any bearing on our commerce. That's why Africa is not much bothered with.

The issue I see, is that in couching it in all that false compassion, we've gotten to where we believe our own Ballistic Skill, that we really SHOULD be ridiculous overcompassionate, to the point that we just can't judge or act anymore.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:sebster
well.... if personal morality doesnt apply I'm not sure what morality does.

It's not that it doesn't apply, it's just that it tends to us seeing things in terms of false analogies. If I go to your house and shoot you, it's murder. If our nations go to war and I shoot you it isn't murder, because national relations don't work like personal relations.

it's just an analogy of course but I think the point is fair. yes its tough beans for a guy who moved to isreal thinking he could live there happily. but its also tough beans for the guy who cant go back to the home he had all his life, because that isreali guy is living there. its a hard situation no doubt. I think that the best thing practically is for the Isrealis to recognize that there are alot of non-jews in that area who have a right either to that land or to fair compensation for its...... appropriation.

Why is it more important who was living there 1,000 years ago than who is living there now?

What the last 20 years shows is that giving Palestinians even a modicum of justice is just too painful politically for Isreal to pull off.

The Israelis left Lebanon. They've ceded a lot of control to the Palestinians, and underwrite much of the state. They also put up settlements, bulldoze houses and have set up a spiteful blockade program. It's complicated, but in amongst the things that clearly aren't helping there's also a genuine desire for a peaceful solution, likely not out of any genuine concern for Palestinians among the majority of Israelis, but certainly a desire for the problem to go away.

Phryxis wrote:

Muslim terrorists or nations nuking the land they consider sacred is like a catholic blowing up the Vatican because he doesn't like Pope Benedict, it's a completely absurd notion.

Israel isn't ALL al-Aqsa, dude. Tel-Aviv? Haifa? That's not the Vatican. Nukes are big, but they're not THAT big. They're not going to blow up the whole country.

Observe this incredibly morbid website:

http://meyerweb.com/eric/tools/gmap/hydesim.html?dll=32.79036,34.99059&mll=32.60459,35.09393&yd=20&zm=9&op=156

That's a 20KT yield weapon (similar in size to the ones used on Japan), being set off on Haifa.

"I'm going to free Al Aqsa by turning the rest of the Holy Land into a nuclear wasteland and choking the worshippers with nuclear fallout! Let's GO "

"I'm going to free Al Aqsa by turning the rest of the Holy Land into a nuclear wasteland and choking the worshippers with nuclear fallout! Let's GO

Are we forgetting that Muslim states have already tried, more than once, to attack Israel with heavy military force?

Or that people have been fighting in that region, in general, pretty much forever?

At the end of the day, I think you're forgetting that people are much better at hating things than they are at loving things.

Phryxis wrote:I'm not saying they don't. I'm saying that there are forces in the region which don't want them to have a better life, because then they won't serve the only use those forces have for them: making Israel look bad.

They're a club. If Israel finds a way to leave amicably with them, they cease to function as a club.

True, Palestine is a convenient stick to hit Israel with, and Israel is a convenient way to encourage unity among certain groups. Their existance will make a solution harder.

It's all hypothetical jabbering, and honestly now I've lost the plot.

Fair enough Let's just pretend that conversation never happened

But he also had a cabinet of very wise, accomplished men. I know it's very fashionable to comic-book the sitauation up, and pretend they're all Darth Vader and Grand Moff Tarkin, but the fact is Bush's policy was pretty mainstream (if right leaning).

True, but their approach to affairs on the other side of the world was crazy. The kind of crazy you can only produce when you're talking about things on the other side of the world.

When it comes to things that could actually see missiles launched at your own cities then that kind of crazy is a whole lot less common. It's the kind of crazy that doesn't just suddenly spring out of mature state.

When they're working on weapons to engage Israel, I think it's actually more odd for you to suggest they DON'T plan to engage Israel than it is for me to suggest that they might.

I never said conflict couldn't happen. I said I that Iran choosing to engage Israel to assert regional dominance didn't make any sense. There will be Iranian plans to attack Israel, just as there are no doubt Israeli and US plans to attack Iran. But these are capabilities you have in case things go wrong.

Well, I agree that it's very unlikely, but we can talk about it if you want... And honestly, your mention of the Taliban reminded me of just how bizzarely willing they were to ride the ship down with AQ. It makes me wonder if other governments, including Pakistan, might be willing to be similarly suicidal.

The 'something like a government but not quite' of the Taliban was definitely an outlier in world affairs. Pakistan has nothing like that - in fact it's engaged in fighting with those people. If the government of Pakistan was to change then that might change, but it's very unlikely we'll see a takeover by Taliban - that required a much poorer, much less urbanised country in the wake of foreign occupation.

Oh, it's not. It's just that some people were suggesting that Israel is in no danger. I was merely trying to point out that they're in vastly more danger than the average state, even if it's also vastly less than they like to suggest.

Okay then, sure. There is a minute but non-zero chance of Israel suffering an attack that would stop it existing as a state, which is greater than the minute but non-existant chance of the same facing other nations. But it would still be much smaller than the same issue faced by many other nations, such as Iraq. Hell, even Pakistan.

I don't think it's changed as much as you're suggesting. We don't really "stop someone else fighting" even now. We go in and represent our ideals/priorities when people fight. We pick the side we want to win and help them, or if there's nobody we like, we create one. We just couch it in more compassionate language. We still pretty much ignore conflicts that don't impact us and don't have any bearing on our commerce. That's why Africa is not much bothered with.

There's a crapload of peacekeepers in Africa. They're just not Western troops for the most part, so the media doesn't report on it, but they're there.

The issue I see, is that in couching it in all that false compassion, we've gotten to where we believe our own Ballistic Skill, that we really SHOULD be ridiculous overcompassionate, to the point that we just can't judge or act anymore.

I would say that it's more that we've noticed the last couple of centuries of just acting has done as much harm as good, and now we couch things in terms of making sure we act in the best way given the problem.

Phryxis wrote:
1) Offensive technology is vastly more capable than defensive technology. As advanced as Israel may be, they still don't have a ton of ways to stop missiles being lobbed at them. The common solution is retribution. Iran seems content to absorb some in order to further their agenda.

I don't see a way that a direct Iranian strike on Israel favors the Iranian position. I think they're content to play the waiting game, and continue funding their asymmetric forces throughout the Middle East.

Phryxis wrote:
2) It doesn't take 30 years to make up 30 years when the technology is out there. All it takes is Russia or China to feel impertinent. They could have modern hardware overnight.

I was already accounting for that, and perhaps using a little hyperbole. Russia and China don't possess weapons technology that is generationally equivalent to either NATO or Israeli technology.

Phryxis wrote:
My point is to show that we've already had situations where Israel was directly and deliberately attacked which did not spell instant removal of the leadership making the decision.

I realize that, and my contention is that Israel never really through its weight around in order to move the coalition towards intervention. They didn't even commit troops as a conciliatory gesture. That may have been due to the limited aims of the coalition forces, or it may have been the result a backroom deal regarding the post-war santion on Iraq. Either way, Saddam lost control of 2/3s of his country, and ended up on the receiving end of the most comprehensive sanctions in history.

If Israel had wanted him removed, then they had other means of pushing for it beyond having him labeled as a war criminal. But they didn't pursue them. Admittedly, that may be the source of their current aggression, but given the relatively unique nature of the Iranian situation, it still seems like a misguided course of action.

Phryxis wrote:
Also, none of this happens in a vaccuum. Let's say Iran decides that they're going to weaponize their fissionable materials, announces it. The world community will whine and do nothing. Then Israel strikes against their nuclear facilities. Iran responds with large scale ballistic strikes of their own.

You SERIOUSLY can't see the world community wringing their hands and doing nothing with that?

An open war with each combatant on either side of the world's most significant oil producing region, one of them almost definitely possessing nukes and a history of using excessive force? Absolutely not.

Hell, even China would probably be willing to commit troops, and they get about 7% of their oil from Iran.

Phryxis wrote:
Their goal is to establish themselves as a regional power. I don't view them coming to violence with Israel is being at all "irrational." It makes a lot of sense for their goals, and if they manage to drum up enough perceived justification it'd win them HUGE cred in the region as a major opponent of the West, which doesn't have to pander.

It really depends on how they approach it. The whole thing necessarily hinges on goading Israel into attacking first, responding, and then playing the victim when, and if, Israel decides to play the decisive card by rolling out its warheads. At that point you've basically got an NPT state (Iran) on the receiving end of a non-NPT state (Israel), which pretty well reverses the game. Or at the very least complicates it massively.

If Iran attacks first, and Israel responds there may be an intervention if the conflict escalates. If not, there will be a massive upswell of sympathy for Israel. AS much as many people hate them, I'm willing to be that they hate unprovoked attacks by third-party combatants even more.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

sebster wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Ideally: the jews all go back to where they or their fathers and grand fathers came from. Poland. Russia. The United States.

Why is it ideal that someone is to be forced out of the home they lived in all their lives, because they're not the right ethnicity? feth that.

because its ideal that people not take other peoples land by force.

So wait, let me get this straight. You want ME to bugger off back to the UK becuase I am not an Aboriginal? ...And then where does everyone in America go? Arguing that one ethnicity has more right to a land then another is, in all honesty, slowed.