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.

Blacksails wrote:Ethics = Morals. There is no distinction. Ethics is the study of moral philosophy. Something cannot be morally justifiable yet ethically unjustifiable.

You sure? Thats not what was discussed during my Ethics class last wednesday, just wish I had paid enough attention to remember what the stated difference was. Wikipedia is telling me that there is a minor difference dependent upon who you ask, but I can't be bothered to look it up.

WarOne wrote:This is most acutely the problem.

In media, we have a list of stories and media a mile wide about the Holocaust that begins with Anne Frank and ends with Zog Nit Keynmol. The accusal of Jewish controlled media while biased and unfair, does highlight that in America, people of the Jewish faith have been instrumental to the development and control of what Americans watch. People of Palestinian origin have made far less noteworthy contributions to their own plight as well as in media circles. It is an unfair advantage, but the Holocaust has had many more decades to ingrain itself in our society. It is probably also unfair that American politicians have chosen to ally with Israel than the Palestinians, so the political rammifications mean that any act against the Palestinians (by Israel or other nations) is often muted at best.

Israel has certainly played the media game much better than Palestine. A lot of this is to do with Israel being a more modern country, and understanding how things work in the media.

But a lot of it is also to do with Palestinian political power, many of the bombings are more about internal Palestinian politics, certain groups gaining more power in Palestine by 'doing something', even if that something is ultimately harmful to the cause of independance/assimilation/whatever.

A great deal of the American people have grown up reading American textbooks and listening to teachers that the Holocaust was the single greatest tragedy of the modern world. It is no small wonder that Americans are not only attentive to the plight of Israel, but also fascinated as well as supportive of the people they most often see in news media and print.

And to be fair, the holocaust was pretty much as bad as it got.

It's just that most people seemed to end up with the message 'the Jews are absolute victims, and therefore we're going to give them loads of leeway' and this seems to mean they largely turn a blind eye about what Israel is doing. People probably should have taken away a message more along the lines of 'it's really bad to mistreat a population because of its ethnicity, and once you think a little poor treatment is okay it is likely to get worse at a rate you can barely imagine'. Had people taken the second message, they would not be okay with what Israel is doing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:I think that the Israel-Palestine conflict has a lot of problems, and to lay them all at the feet of the Israelis is inappropriate and harmful to the issue. The terrorists running Palestine aren't doing the people living there any favors.

I don't think anyone is laying the whole of the problem at the hands of the Israelies. Obviously Palestine has committed plenty of atrocities of their own.

But ultimately, the power to change the situation lies with the side with power. Palestine is a barely functional government, that exists under the grudging tolerance of the Israelis. They lack meaningful control over their own territories, so that any peace moves they make are likely to be challenged and thwarted from militants within Palestine.

The same is not true for Israel.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Da Boss wrote:The palestinians aren't really all that popular in the region either, it must be said. From what I've read.

Definitely. Before the Israelis turned up there was a long history of Arab nations abusing the Palestinians (not to the same extent, but certainly pretty nasty).

I don't think we should be naively believing any Arab country when they complain about the treatment of the Palestinians, in most every case they're really just exploiting them for political leverage against Israel.

But that doesn't mean the Palestinians aren't being treated in a really, really gakky way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Azure wrote:One thing that keeps the Israelis in America's forethought is our primary religion and one that most of the old legalities are founded on, which is Christianity. Now, before I get to far into this, this is a real concern to some people, some who may very well be on the forms so do not mock, or make-fun of the idea presented here. It's a belief, an dramatic one yes, but one that is held by some and is therefor important.

Ironically enough, about 10% of Palestine are Christian. Were it anywhere else in the world, Christian groups would be falling all over themselves to protect these people from their oppressors.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

RatBot wrote:Generally it seems when Israelis kill civilians, it is through carelessness or because legitimate targets (IE, Palestinian militants) are hiding among civilian targets. I see to recall reading about Palestinian militants using a hospital as a location to launch rockets and mortars.

When Palestinians kill civilians, it's almost always in an attack that deliberately targets civilians.

Both are bad. I know which one I think is worse.

Both are simply a product of the capabilities of their respective sides. The Israelis have far more effective weapons, and so they're free to use more discretion, but their greater capability also means they kill a lot more people.

Palestine is reduced to launching home made rockets of minimal accuracy. Their willingness to use indiscriminate, innaccurate weapons like that is very ugly.

Ultimately, we shouldn't pretend that the actions of either represent anything other than what they are capable of. If the Palestinians had the power, they'd be targeting specific buildings with gunships, and the Israelis would be launching homemade rockets.

chaos0xomega wrote:

Blacksails wrote:Ethics = Morals. There is no distinction. Ethics is the study of moral philosophy. Something cannot be morally justifiable yet ethically unjustifiable.

You sure? Thats not what was discussed during my Ethics class last wednesday, just wish I had paid enough attention to remember what the stated difference was. Wikipedia is telling me that there is a minor difference dependent upon who you ask, but I can't be bothered to look it up.

Very positive. Whatever slight difference there may be from whoever you ask, it makes no practical difference in application. Generally speaking, the two terms can be used interchangeably. If something is immoral, it is also unethical.

they do have an extremely powerful army, and the countries around them, don't
they know that (I mean, the 6 day war anyone)
whats sort of ironic about that, is Syria used Panzer IV's against them

sebster wrote:Ultimately, we shouldn't pretend that the actions of either represent anything other than what they are capable of. If the Palestinians had the power, they'd be targeting specific buildings with gunships, and the Israelis would be launching homemade rockets.

Well put.

Normally I'd say such divisions would end over time - as the older more conservative population died out, the younger, more tolerant population can push policy - but I gotta wonder about this one. There seems to be an infinite loop of eye-for-an-eye violence there, although looking at a historical map indicates that it's getting resolved in an alternate fashion, over time.

Although generally I think you are correct with that assumption, with Israel it's not a case of old and young, it's a case of Orthodox and non-Orthadox (I wrote about it in a previous rather long post earlier in the thread).

All of the problems now in Israel now are down to the Orthodox spreading outwards, 'populating the hilltops', pushing the arabs back who perceive an invasion of their lands, and the fact that they have a far larger representation in parliament than they should have considering the numbers of them. Israeli politics swings backwards and forwards between 'hawks' and 'doves', with the former almost always pushing for further expansion which in turn leads to more mortar/rockets and then Israeli gunship tit-for-tat.

Simple solution. Stop being Israel's big brother / big stick and see if their God thinks they are worthy of having the land back. From what I remember from my old RE classes, they punched well above their weight when they were in favour. Or is relying in a God ok up until a certain point, but there comes a point where you actually need a bit of physically reality to back you up?

Reading this thread is depressing.

That people are so ignorant of the affairs that may well effect us all, and yet happily be vocal about things they clearly know little about.

Both sides are guilty of crazy gak, and the ridiculously ignorant views of the trendy "free Palestine dudes!" side are laugh out loud funny.

I care little for both sides in this conflict, and humanity as a whole. So when the deaths inevitably spiral thanks to good old Jerusalem, the gift that keeps on giving, I shall laugh long and loud, because then I get to say "I told you so"

And remember kids, Its all thanks to the desert God.

mattyrm wrote:Reading this thread is depressing.

That people are so ignorant of the affairs that may well effect us all, and yet happily be vocal about things they clearly know little about.

Both sides are guilty of crazy gak, and the ridiculously ignorant views of the trendy "free Palestine dudes!" side are laugh out loud funny.

I care little for both sides in this conflict, and humanity as a whole. So when the deaths inevitably spiral thanks to good old Jerusalem, the gift that keeps on giving, I shall laugh long and loud, because then I get to say "I told you so"

And remember kids, Its all thanks to the desert God.

Most Israelis aren't particularly religious. In fact, the religious Israelis don't get along very well with the secular Israelis.

It's far past "we're reclaiming our land!". Israel has been a nation for over 60 years now. There's really no option to "give it back" any more than the United States could "give it back" to the Native Americans.

As for the "Cut them off!" viewpoint, a lot of Israelis feel the same way. Not that they don't appreciate American aid, but rather than it constrains them from being able to handle their security issues independently. US aid is really only 3% of their budget, and most of the money that the US gives Israel is really spent subsidizing American arms manufacturers, and selling off old equipment. When I drafted into the IDF, I was issued an "M16 short", basically a sawed-off and recrowned M16A1 from Vietnam. Our transports were primarily M113's, which the US has pretty much retired from service. The M4 I was later issued was a hand-me-down from the US before the switch from the A1 variety. The kneepads I was issued were ACUPAT, and the helmet I was issued was a PASGT, which is also outdated US vintage.

In short, a lot of the infantry equipment given to Israel by the US is equipment that they had to get rid of to justify buying nicer stuff. It worked just fine, but let's be honest here: they aren't sending over brand new stuff out of the goodness of their hearts. The aid that they do send puts Israel on a leash, really, and the biggest dog in the region is only *your* big dog if you've got it on that leash. That's what US aid to Israel buys for the Americans. Not to mention, Israel is a nice testing ground for American equipment.

Didn't Israel come up with the Tar assault rifle? Nice bit of kit

Wolfstan wrote:Didn't Israel come up with the Tar assault rifle? Nice bit of kit

Yep! It was generally well received. When I was in, only a couple of the infantry brigades were using it. Now they're trying to standardize it.

Apparently they also want to standardize to the MTar (micro) when the CTAR (compact) is already small enough. Meh...their problem at this point, not mine. I loved my M4.

Cornered and alone? Good. After the atrocities they've committed it's the most practical alternative to a nation-spanning prison cell I can think of.

NuggzTheNinja wrote:

As for the "Cut them off!" viewpoint, a lot of Israelis feel the same way. Not that they don't appreciate American aid, but rather than it constrains them from being able to handle their security issues independently. US aid is really only 3% of their budget, and most of the money that the US gives Israel is really spent subsidizing American arms manufacturers, and selling off old equipment. When I drafted into the IDF, I was issued an "M16 short", basically a sawed-off and recrowned M16A1 from Vietnam. Our transports were primarily M113's, which the US has pretty much retired from service. The M4 I was later issued was a hand-me-down from the US before the switch from the A1 variety. The kneepads I was issued were ACUPAT, and the helmet I was issued was a PASGT, which is also outdated US vintage.

In short, a lot of the infantry equipment given to Israel by the US is equipment that they had to get rid of to justify buying nicer stuff. It worked just fine, but let's be honest here: they aren't sending over brand new stuff out of the goodness of their hearts. The aid that they do send puts Israel on a leash, really, and the biggest dog in the region is only *your* big dog if you've got it on that leash. That's what US aid to Israel buys for the Americans. Not to mention, Israel is a nice testing ground for American equipment.

What about the agreement to send Israel some 60 brand new F-35's, with the entire cost for the unit paid for by US taxpayers, so that Boeing would be allowed to sell F-15s, etc. to Saudi Arabia? I fail to see how you could even being to argue that the US has Israel on a leash when Israel is pretty much calling the shots. What possible benefit does the US gain from this, as a whole we are losing in this situation, we can barely afford to buy the number of planes we need for ourselves and we are giving them away to preserve a 'strategic balance' against an 'enemy' that is being armed with an older generation of our technology... I fail to see how this makes any sense at all.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/26/AR2010072602020.html?sid=ST2010072602083
and for some spin that highlights some good points:
http://defensetech.org/2010/07/27/israel-wants-missile-shield-money-jsf-tech-to-not-block-saudi-f-15-sale/#more-8405

Wolfstan wrote:Didn't Israel come up with the Tar assault rifle? Nice bit of kit

I read that as Tau Assault rifle the first time, which, let's face it, would have been awesome.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:Cornered and alone? Good. After the atrocities they've committed it's the most practical alternative to a nation-spanning prison cell I can think of.

And yet the Palestinians are also locked in the same cell as the Israelis...

How much do you think trade embargo and political isolation will break the nation of Israel?

WarOne wrote:

Arctik_Firangi wrote:Cornered and alone? Good. After the atrocities they've committed it's the most practical alternative to a nation-spanning prison cell I can think of.

And yet the Palestinians are also locked in the same cell as the Israelis...

How much do you think trade embargo and political isolation will break the nation of Israel?

Then what? If wishes were fishes what would you have Israel do and what do you envision that doing?

chaos0xomega wrote:

NuggzTheNinja wrote:

As for the "Cut them off!" viewpoint, a lot of Israelis feel the same way. Not that they don't appreciate American aid, but rather than it constrains them from being able to handle their security issues independently. US aid is really only 3% of their budget, and most of the money that the US gives Israel is really spent subsidizing American arms manufacturers, and selling off old equipment. When I drafted into the IDF, I was issued an "M16 short", basically a sawed-off and recrowned M16A1 from Vietnam. Our transports were primarily M113's, which the US has pretty much retired from service. The M4 I was later issued was a hand-me-down from the US before the switch from the A1 variety. The kneepads I was issued were ACUPAT, and the helmet I was issued was a PASGT, which is also outdated US vintage.

In short, a lot of the infantry equipment given to Israel by the US is equipment that they had to get rid of to justify buying nicer stuff. It worked just fine, but let's be honest here: they aren't sending over brand new stuff out of the goodness of their hearts. The aid that they do send puts Israel on a leash, really, and the biggest dog in the region is only *your* big dog if you've got it on that leash. That's what US aid to Israel buys for the Americans. Not to mention, Israel is a nice testing ground for American equipment.

What about the agreement to send Israel some 60 brand new F-35's, with the entire cost for the unit paid for by US taxpayers, so that Boeing would be allowed to sell F-15s, etc. to Saudi Arabia? I fail to see how you could even being to argue that the US has Israel on a leash when Israel is pretty much calling the shots. What possible benefit does the US gain from this, as a whole we are losing in this situation, we can barely afford to buy the number of planes we need for ourselves and we are giving them away to preserve a 'strategic balance' against an 'enemy' that is being armed with an older generation of our technology... I fail to see how this makes any sense at all.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/26/AR2010072602020.html?sid=ST2010072602083
and for some spin that highlights some good points:
http://defensetech.org/2010/07/27/israel-wants-missile-shield-money-jsf-tech-to-not-block-saudi-f-15-sale/#more-8405

I don't see how that invalidates anything I said. The F35s are not outdated, but they're also not infantry equipment. The reason they're sending F35s is to see how they perform against Russian-made air defenses used by Syria mostly. And again, it's more or less a subsidy for US arms manufacturers.

It sounds great now but you're missing the other half of the equation: The US forbade Israel from manufacturing their own fighter, the Lavi, in the 80's because it would compete with US exports of F16 and F18 jets.

Where does the US military get its TTPs for urban combat? Israel. How do we know anything about F15 / F16 aerial combat against Russian jets? Israel. How do we know anything about F15 and F16 performance against Russian AA? Israel. Prior to 1991, Israel was the only Western nation that had put American airframes to serious use against a capable and determined foreign enemy using Russian equipment. The Iraq war changed that. And speaking of the Iraq war, the US forbade Israel from responding to Iraqi scud attacks to keep its Arab allies. Without good relations that never would have been possible.


Obviously some people "in the know" think that the alliance is a good thing, and it's ridiculous to chalk it up to the "evil Jew lobby!", so trying to convince anyone either way here is pretty pointless. This is the last that I'll add to this discussion.

There is a difference between "evil Jew lobby" and "evil Israeli lobby". Trying to equate disliking Israel foreign with being prejudiced against Jews is probably not a productive line go down.

Ahtman wrote:There is a difference between "evil Jew lobby" and "evil Israeli lobby". Trying to equate disliking Israel foreign with being prejudiced against Jews is probably not a productive line go down.

But its often an accurate one.

Troy wrote:

Ahtman wrote:There is a difference between "evil Jew lobby" and "evil Israeli lobby". Trying to equate disliking Israel foreign with being prejudiced against Jews is probably not a productive line go down.

But its often an accurate one.

No, it isn't. If you want to say that everyone that is critical of Israels Foreign policy is essentially a bigot you better have some serious sources to back that up. It is going to get complicated when you get to Jewish people that are not fans of it. The idea that you have to hate Jews to find fault with the actions that the government takes sometimes is probably just as ignorant and bigoted as the people you are trying to imagine others as.

Ahtman wrote:

Troy wrote:

Ahtman wrote:There is a difference between "evil Jew lobby" and "evil Israeli lobby". Trying to equate disliking Israel foreign with being prejudiced against Jews is probably not a productive line go down.

But its often an accurate one.

No, it isn't. If you want to say that everyone that is critical of Israels Foreign policy is essentially a bigot you better have some serious sources to back that up. It is going to get complicated when you get to Jewish people that are not fans of it. The idea that you have to hate Jews to find fault with the actions that the government takes sometimes is probably just as ignorant and bigoted as the people you are trying to imagine others as.

Must have struck a nerve there.

I don't see how that invalidates anything I said. The F35s are not outdated, but they're also not infantry equipment. The reason they're sending F35s is to see how they perform against Russian-made air defenses used by Syria mostly. And again, it's more or less a subsidy for US arms manufacturers.

It sounds great now but you're missing the other half of the equation: The US forbade Israel from manufacturing their own fighter, the Lavi, in the 80's because it would compete with US exports of F16 and F18 jets.

Where does the US military get its TTPs for urban combat? Israel. How do we know anything about F15 / F16 aerial combat against Russian jets? Israel. How do we know anything about F15 and F16 performance against Russian AA? Israel. Prior to 1991, Israel was the only Western nation that had put American airframes to serious use against a capable and determined foreign enemy using Russian equipment. The Iraq war changed that. And speaking of the Iraq war, the US forbade Israel from responding to Iraqi scud attacks to keep its Arab allies. Without good relations that never would have been possible.


Obviously some people "in the know" think that the alliance is a good thing, and it's ridiculous to chalk it up to the "evil Jew lobby!", so trying to convince anyone either way here is pretty pointless. This is the last that I'll add to this discussion.

Interesting point that and makes sense. It's probably a useful byproduct of the relationship, not the driving factor. I have to say that I'm certainly not someone who thinks of the jews as evil. It just does look like they do use their influence to guide US policy. My own personal belief is that if you moved to another country and you are a citizen of that country, then you give up your previous life to a big degree. What happens in the country you left will obviously be of interest, but it should be behind you, otherwise there is a feeling of "sleeper agents" about the whole thing.

This won't end well at all. Is all I can say.
F-35s are not Outdated. The things are probably going to out tech the rest of the world once they are done with the prototype.

Troy wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Troy wrote:

Ahtman wrote:There is a difference between "evil Jew lobby" and "evil Israeli lobby". Trying to equate disliking Israel foreign with being prejudiced against Jews is probably not a productive line go down.

But its often an accurate one.

No, it isn't. If you want to say that everyone that is critical of Israels Foreign policy is essentially a bigot you better have some serious sources to back that up. It is going to get complicated when you get to Jewish people that are not fans of it. The idea that you have to hate Jews to find fault with the actions that the government takes sometimes is probably just as ignorant and bigoted as the people you are trying to imagine others as.

Must have struck a nerve there.

He's probably just fed up of the strawman that is calling people who disagree with Israels foreign policy as being Jew haters.

]

mattyrm wrote:

It's far past "we're reclaiming our land!". Israel has been a nation for over 60 years now. There's really no option to "give it back" any more than the United States could "give it back" to the Native Americans.

give it back to who? the british? the ottomon empire? lol (they owned it before)

Lord Poison wrote:give it back to who? the british? the ottomon empire? lol (they owned it before)

Don't be absurd. Obviously the only real solution is to reconstitute the Roman Empire and give it to them. That way they can just genocide everyone and scatter them to the corners of Europe. Problem solved

LordofHats wrote:

Lord Poison wrote:give it back to who? the british? the ottomon empire? lol (they owned it before)

Don't be absurd. Obviously the only real solution is to reconstitute the Roman Empire and give it to them. That way they can just genocide everyone and scatter them to the corners of Europe. Problem solved

then...it collapses, several states created, kingdoms...WW1...WW2...Israel as a country again...endless loop...

my god

Lord Poison wrote:

LordofHats wrote:

Lord Poison wrote:give it back to who? the british? the ottomon empire? lol (they owned it before)

Don't be absurd. Obviously the only real solution is to reconstitute the Roman Empire and give it to them. That way they can just genocide everyone and scatter them to the corners of Europe. Problem solved

then...it collapses, several states created, kingdoms...WW1...WW2...Israel as a country again...endless loop...

my god

Its. Never. Going. To. End.

*laughs maniacally*

WarOne wrote:And yet the Palestinians are also locked in the same cell as the Israelis...

How much do you think trade embargo and political isolation will break the nation of Israel?

It probably wouldn't have to get that far. South Africa buckled under international pressure, and they were all kinds of crazy that Israel is not. Honestly, I think if the mainstream of the western world, and especially the US, came to see Israeli actions against Palestine as unacceptable, Israel would move to reconcile very quickly.

The only issue then would be if Palestine were willing to settle for terms as generous as they currently are, or if an improving political situation might cause them to increase their ambition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Troy wrote:But its often an accurate one.

No, it's 87 kinds of bs, cheap rhetoric that pro-Israeli people use to avoid having to discuss Israel's actions in Palestine and their motivations for them, or to discuss exactly what the US gets out of the relationship and how much they might use their influence to direct Israeli policy if they chose to do so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MrDwhitey wrote:He's probably just fed up of the strawman that is calling people who disagree with Israels foreign policy as being Jew haters.

I wonder how people might react if every time someone tried to criticise the Palestinian leadership we called them "arab haters"...

LordofHats wrote:

Lord Poison wrote:

LordofHats wrote:

Lord Poison wrote:give it back to who? the british? the ottomon empire? lol (they owned it before)

Don't be absurd. Obviously the only real solution is to reconstitute the Roman Empire and give it to them. That way they can just genocide everyone and scatter them to the corners of Europe. Problem solved

then...it collapses, several states created, kingdoms...WW1...WW2...Israel as a country again...endless loop...

my god

Its. Never. Going. To. End.

*laughs maniacally*

the outer limits...please stand by