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.

 KTG17 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Yes and unconditional support for Israel has been harming the international position of the US in the region for years.

Uggh, No. Egypt, Qatar, UAE, Jordan, Saudi Arabia. All close to the US. Syria, Lebanon, Iran, whoever else may not like it but I don't see us caring.

Yes they support the US for political gain. But honestly the US is paying for its support of Israel in international influence. You might not see it, but a lot of countries resent what Israel does and how the US lets them get away with it. The US is also undermining its own international system by ignoring it when Israel breaks it.

Meanwhile half the allied countries you list finance terror groups that also want to harm the US over its support of Israel. Hell, Bin Laden blamed US support for Israel as the primary reason behind 9/11.

 KTG17 wrote:

Uggh. No. The US, Russia, Europe, and China are not going to go all out nuclear war for because of a regional war in the middle east. Even if nukes were used. Lots of heightened concern and condemning, sure.

That really depends on where those nukes are going to go. Lets say in 10 years from now Iran and SA develop them too. You're introducing a lot of unknown factors. Are the regional players going to contain their mutual suicide to just the region? Its risky for all of us, but then again nobody rational will put Israel on the spot.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
You might not see it, but a lot of countries resent what Israel does and how the US lets them get away with it. The US is also undermining its own international system by ignoring it when Israel breaks it.

No, everyone works in their own self interest. The average person might resent the US when he isn't resenting his own government, but I can assure you its not bothering any of us here.

Hell, Bin Laden blamed US support for Israel as the primary reason behind 9/11.

No. No. No he did not. He might have said some anti-jewish things to galvanize support, but Israel had nothing to do with Bin Laden's motivation for 9/11 other than the fact that israel, along with the US, existed.

That really depends on where those nukes are going to go. Lets say in 10 years from now Iran and SA develop them too. You're introducing a lot of unknown factors. Are the regional players going to contain their mutual suicide to just the region? Its risky for all of us, but then again nobody rational will put Israel on the spot.

Well let's say in 10 years the Evil Lectroids from Planet 10 show up with anti-matter ray guns and give them out to everyone, saying 'enjoy' before waving goodbye. Then what?

In all seriousness Israel has no real fear on invasion for some time. Whey will wipe the floor of everyone in the region as they have in the past. If somehow the arabs were able to strangle Israel into a small last stand, then yes, Israel would unleash what nukes it had. But everyone knows that. No one is invading Israel.

 KTG17 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
You might not see it, but a lot of countries resent what Israel does and how the US lets them get away with it. The US is also undermining its own international system by ignoring it when Israel breaks it.

No, everyone works in their own self interest. The average person might resent the US when he isn't resenting his own government, but I can assure you its not bothering any of us here.

If that is what you want to believe then believe it. I can assure you it does harm the US indirectly.

 KTG17 wrote:

Hell, Bin Laden blamed US support for Israel as the primary reason behind 9/11.

No. No. No he did not. He might have said some anti-jewish things to galvanize support, but Israel had nothing to do with Bin Laden's motivation for 9/11 other than the fact that israel, along with the US, existed.

So you think just the fact that a country exists is all the motivation you need? Why didn't the hit any other country then. He talked about motivation after it happened and US suport for Israel is an important point.

 KTG17 wrote:

That really depends on where those nukes are going to go. Lets say in 10 years from now Iran and SA develop them too. You're introducing a lot of unknown factors. Are the regional players going to contain their mutual suicide to just the region? Its risky for all of us, but then again nobody rational will put Israel on the spot.

Well let's say in 10 years the Evil Lectroids from Planet 10 show up with anti-matter ray guns and give them out to everyone, saying 'enjoy' before waving goodbye. Then what?

In all seriousness Israel has no real fear on invasion for some time. Whey will wipe the floor of everyone in the region as they have in the past. If somehow the arabs were able to strangle Israel into a small last stand, then yes, Israel would unleash what nukes it had. But everyone knows that. No one is invading Israel.

Exactly, so that's my point. Israel has no reason to fear a fight for its existence. Yet they haven't stopped treating the Palestinians like that's the case. Israeli politics have become toxic and its bleeding into how they treat the Palestinians.

It not just the Israeli's fault. It takes two to tango. As we've been saying during their whole thread there is plenty of blame to go around, going back 1000s of years. You keep blowing that off, but it all plays a part. When you are raised by your parents and grandparents to mistrust and dislike the other side, its going to have an impact how you view them.

Find a way to undo that and you've solved half the problem.

Israel has only existed 70 years. It doesn't go back thousands of years. As for it takes two to tango, sure, but one is doing so with a bb gun and the other with a machine gun.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Israel has only existed 70 years. It doesn't go back thousands of years. As for it takes two to tango, sure, but one is doing so with a bb gun and the other with a machine gun.

Jewish people have existed in this land for thousands of years. For some of this time they were a minority - for some of this time they were even driven out and enslaved. Why do you deny this? Because it doesn't support your narrative that Israel is an evil land grabbing empire?

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Israel has only existed 70 years. It doesn't go back thousands of years. As for it takes two to tango, sure, but one is doing so with a bb gun and the other with a machine gun.

Jewish people have existed in this land for thousands of years. For some of this time they were a minority - for some of this time they were even driven out and enslaved. Why do you deny this? Because it doesn't support your narrative that Israel is an evil land grabbing empire?

Because its incredibly offensive to just say Jewish=Israeli. For the longest time the Jewish population lived in relative harmony with the other and for a long time those living in Palestine were treated a lot better than those in Europe.

Most Israelis are in fact part of the land grabbing empire as in their grandparents came over with the exact idea to take land and found a Jewish state. Hell, most of the founding members emigrated to Palestine in their lifetime with that goal. And again, I have no problem with Israel being a state or with the partition plan to found it. I have issues with them doing plainly illegal things like allowing the building of settlements or comitting war crimes. Palestinians are responsible for what Palestinians do and Israelis for what Israelis do, its as simple as that.

But that doesn't support your narrative as trying to paint me as someone who hates Israel.

It is not offense. Man what the hell. It is Israel. And its mostly populated with Jews. Israel is a Jewish state. We're generalizing. So what.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 KTG17 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
You might not see it, but a lot of countries resent what Israel does and how the US lets them get away with it. The US is also undermining its own international system by ignoring it when Israel breaks it.

No, everyone works in their own self interest. The average person might resent the US when he isn't resenting his own government, but I can assure you its not bothering any of us here.

If that is what you want to believe then believe it. I can assure you it does harm the US indirectly.

 KTG17 wrote:

Hell, Bin Laden blamed US support for Israel as the primary reason behind 9/11.

No. No. No he did not. He might have said some anti-jewish things to galvanize support, but Israel had nothing to do with Bin Laden's motivation for 9/11 other than the fact that israel, along with the US, existed.

So you think just the fact that a country exists is all the motivation you need? Why didn't the hit any other country then. He talked about motivation after it happened and US suport for Israel is an important point.

 KTG17 wrote:

That really depends on where those nukes are going to go. Lets say in 10 years from now Iran and SA develop them too. You're introducing a lot of unknown factors. Are the regional players going to contain their mutual suicide to just the region? Its risky for all of us, but then again nobody rational will put Israel on the spot.

Well let's say in 10 years the Evil Lectroids from Planet 10 show up with anti-matter ray guns and give them out to everyone, saying 'enjoy' before waving goodbye. Then what?

In all seriousness Israel has no real fear on invasion for some time. Whey will wipe the floor of everyone in the region as they have in the past. If somehow the arabs were able to strangle Israel into a small last stand, then yes, Israel would unleash what nukes it had. But everyone knows that. No one is invading Israel.

Exactly, so that's my point. Israel has no reason to fear a fight for its existence. Yet they haven't stopped treating the Palestinians like that's the case. Israeli politics have become toxic and its bleeding into how they treat the Palestinians.

We if there programmes keep up... There not exactly backing off and more doubling down with ability to launch second strike capability.

Even if your strangled them and so... Therr submarines could bring armageddon even if they where destroyed by a future nuclear nation.

There not exactly going anywhere... And if they are alot are going with them. Its not worth triggering armageddon over the palastinian issue.

 KTG17 wrote:
It is not offense. Man what the hell. It is Israel. And its mostly populated with Jews. Israel is a Jewish state. We're generalizing. So what.

Because its an important distinction to make between Jews and Israel when talking about the history of the Israeli state.

Oh man, I am not a fan of moderators locking threads but this one really needs to be tied up. Pointless.

Just because you don't bother to distinguish between Jews and Israelis doesn't mean its pointless. When people keep talking about how Jews have lived there for thousands of years they ignore the fact that 99% of Israelis are not related to those few Jews. I mean were talking about around 10.000 in the middle of the 19th century before migration picks up.

And even if they were, it is still irrelevant. Living somewhere for thousands of years doesn't give you even the slightest right to the land, not anymore than all the other groups that have lived on the same land for thousands of years. In fact, a lot of modern Palestinians are descended of the exact same ancient Jewish people that modern Israeli Jews claim to descend from.
The Holy Land has never been an exclusively Jewish land, and the fact that Jews lived there thousand of years ago doesn't give all Jews worldwide a right to the land. Christians and Muslims could claim the Holy Land for exactly the same reasons, and Christians could in fact claim pretty much the entire world for that reason.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Just because you don't bother to distinguish between Jews and Israelis doesn't mean its pointless. When people keep talking about how Jews have lived there for thousands of years they ignore the fact that 99% of Israelis are not related to those few Jews. I mean were talking about around 10.000 in the middle of the 19th century before migration picks up.

ALL THE JEWS ARE DESCENDANTS FROM THE JEWS WHO FLED EGYPT AND SETTLED WHERE ISRAEL IS NOW.

The Romans kicked many of them out of Palestine and sent them all over Europe! That is why they created Israel. It is about as close to a homeland as they can have, unless you want to go back to Egypt.

Man, what the hell.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
And even if they were, it is still irrelevant. Living somewhere for thousands of years doesn't give you even the slightest right to the land, not anymore than all the other groups that have lived on the same land for thousands of years. In fact, a lot of modern Palestinians are descended of the exact same ancient Jewish people that modern Israeli Jews claim to descend from.
The Holy Land has never been an exclusively Jewish land, and the fact that Jews lived there thousand of years ago doesn't give all Jews worldwide a right to the land. Christians and Muslims could claim the Holy Land for exactly the same reasons, and Christians could in fact claim pretty much the entire world for that reason.

That's not my point! My earlier point was that if you can exert control over the land, its going to be yours. End of story. For the last few pages we're somehow trying to sort out if the Israelis are really Jews or if the Jews created Israel? Seriously this is getting so ridiculous its hard to follow. It doesn't matter is only 1% of the population of worldwide Jews was in Israeli at the time, that area WAS their homeland, and they took it back. End of story. Some Jews moved there, others didn't want anything to do with it. Either way, they, like everyone else, has years of pent up anger about all sorts of things that have happened over 1000s of years, especially in that area.

Not even sure what the hell I am arguing about anymore. God knows if I started this thread, some mod would have shut it down by now.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Most Israelis are in fact part of the land grabbing empire as in their grandparents came over with the exact idea to take land and found a Jewish state. Hell, most of the founding members emigrated to Palestine in their lifetime with that goal.

I'm not sure that this is entirely accurate. You have the initial population set up from Jews fleeing Russian pogroms in the nineteenth century. You have the 60,000 odd Jews who emigrated to Palestine from Germany in the 1930's (for reasons primarily unrelated to setting up a state). You had the hundred odd thousand who began emigrating immediately post-WW2 (check out the Cyprus camps), many of whom again, were not exactly doing it out of a desire to set up a state as much as it was to ditch the ongoing European troubles (to put it mildly). Then after Israel was officially established, you had 140,000 Holocaust survivors alone migrating there who hadn't been able to until the British blockade lifted.

For a region that only had about 600,000 people in 1910, and barely double that by the time of Israel (including Arabs), these aren't small numbers. So you are correct in that there was a large chunk of Jewish migration in the 1910's/20's which had zionist goals. But I think saying 'Most Israelis are in fact part of the land grabbing empire as in their grandparents came over with the exact idea to take land and found a Jewish state' is a little disingenuous. Just as many were victims fleeing persecution as they were religious imperialists, if not considerably more.

 KTG17 wrote:
ALL THE JEWS ARE DESCENDANTS FROM THE JEWS WHO FLED EGYPT AND SETTLED WHERE ISRAEL IS NOW.

Pendentic a bit I know, but Jews were never detained in Egypt. It's a myth based on an actual true exile, but to Babylon which was central for the development of Jewish monotheism and of much of hteir mythology.

The emerged from Canaanite tribes in what would be Southern Palestine/Israel and slowly conquered and assimilated other tribes in the region. Built Jerusalem and a short lived kingdom; became an Egyptian protectorat of sort; it was destroyed later by the Assyrian; the population enslaved in Babylon; allowed to return a few centuries later; re-established their control over a variety of provinces and small kingdoms; conquered by the Romans and subjected to two waves of ethnic cleansing by them. The majority of the population was exiled in Europe (a minority in Northern Africa), found refuge in Spain; chassed off Spain after the Reconquista; established itself in Eastern Europe; chassed off Eastern Europe; went full circle and returned back to Palestine.

 Ketara wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Most Israelis are in fact part of the land grabbing empire as in their grandparents came over with the exact idea to take land and found a Jewish state. Hell, most of the founding members emigrated to Palestine in their lifetime with that goal.

I'm not sure that this is entirely accurate. You have the initial population set up from Jews fleeing Russian pogroms in the nineteenth century. You have the 60,000 odd Jews who emigrated to Palestine from Germany in the 1930's (for reasons primarily unrelated to setting up a state). You had the hundred odd thousand who began emigrating immediately post-WW2 (check out the Cyprus camps), many of whom again, were not exactly doing it out of a desire to set up a state as much as it was to ditch the ongoing European troubles (to put it mildly). Then after Israel was officially established, you had 140,000 Holocaust survivors alone migrating there who hadn't been able to until the British blockade lifted.

For a region that only had about 600,000 people in 1910, and barely double that by the time of Israel (including Arabs), these aren't small numbers. So you are correct in that there was a large chunk of Jewish migration in the 1910's/20's which had zionist goals. But I think saying 'Most Israelis are in fact part of the land grabbing empire as in their grandparents came over with the exact idea to take land and found a Jewish state' is a little disingenuous. Just as many were victims fleeing persecution as they were religious imperialists.

Problem is they could have gone anywhere else. But the vast majority came to Palestine to found a Jewish state. Originally the amount of Jews was absolutely tiny. They all participated in the establishment of Israel. Very few can claim ancestry to the area without having to fall back on Roman times, which was more my point.

epronovost wrote:

Pendentic a bit I know, but Jews were never detained in Egypt. It's a myth based on an actual true exile, but to Babylon which was central for the development of Jewish monotheism and of much of hteir mythology.

The emerged from Canaanite tribes in what would be Southern Palestine/Israel and slowly conquered and assimilated other tribes in the region. Built Jerusalem and a short lived kingdom; became an Egyptian protectorat of sort; it was destroyed later by the Assyrian; the population enslaved in Babylon; allowed to return a few centuries later; re-established their control over a variety of provinces and small kingdoms; conquered by the Romans and subjected to two waves of ethnic cleansing by them. The majority of the population was exiled in Europe (a minority in Northern Africa), found refuge in Spain; chassed off Spain after the Reconquista; established itself in Eastern Europe; chassed off Eastern Europe; went full circle and returned back to Palestine.

That is pretty interesting. Honestly.

I am finding all this debating pointless tho. We're just going in circles here.

I am 5 seconds away from emailing the Anti-Defamation League.

 KTG17 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Just because you don't bother to distinguish between Jews and Israelis doesn't mean its pointless. When people keep talking about how Jews have lived there for thousands of years they ignore the fact that 99% of Israelis are not related to those few Jews. I mean were talking about around 10.000 in the middle of the 19th century before migration picks up.

ALL THE JEWS ARE DESCENDANTS FROM THE JEWS WHO FLED EGYPT AND SETTLED WHERE ISRAEL IS NOW.

The Romans kicked many of them out of Palestine and sent them all over Europe! That is why they created Israel. It is about as close to a homeland as they can have, unless you want to go back to Egypt.

Man, what the hell.

First of all the Exodus is a myth. Second of all we're all descendant from the first people from Africa. Their claim is as valid as mine to the area. Homeland carries zero meaning in this context. Its as valid as saying China is the Japanese homeland or Germany that of the British.

epronovost wrote:

 KTG17 wrote:
ALL THE JEWS ARE DESCENDANTS FROM THE JEWS WHO FLED EGYPT AND SETTLED WHERE ISRAEL IS NOW.

Pendentic a bit I know, but Jews were never detained in Egypt. It's a myth based on an actual true exile, but to Babylon which was central for the development of Jewish monotheism and of much of hteir mythology.

The emerged from Canaanite tribes in what would be Southern Palestine/Israel and slowly conquered and assimilated other tribes in the region. Built Jerusalem and a short lived kingdom; became an Egyptian protectorat of sort; it was destroyed later by the Assyrian; the population enslaved in Babylon; allowed to return a few centuries later; re-established their control over a variety of provinces and small kingdoms; conquered by the Romans and subjected to two waves of ethnic cleansing by them. The majority of the population was exiled in Europe (a minority in Northern Africa), found refuge in Spain; chassed off Spain after the Reconquista; established itself in Eastern Europe; chassed off Eastern Europe; went full circle and returned back to Palestine.

Except ancient Hebrew graffiti was going there and in caves between there and Egypt. And there's a pharoanic inscription about a small tribe of them.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
First of all the Exodus is a myth. Second of all we're all descendant from the first people from Africa. Their claim is as valid as mine to the area. Homeland carries zero meaning in this context. Its as valid as saying China is the Japanese homeland or Germany that of the British.

Okay now you are just being anti-semitic.

I think you're reading too much into it.

The point isn't whether the Israeli are Jewish, the point is that
not all jews are Israeli. In fact quite a few of them aren't, and live elsewhere. There are even quite a few Jews who disagree with it. Tldr: Israel =/ The Jewish People.
So, criticizing Israel for its actions and policies is *not* the same thing as being anti-semitic, a slur that often (not always incorrectly, but increasingly so) gets thrown at people critical of Israel.

Tangentially, most Israeli Jews are descendents of those Jews who decided to move there since the state of Israel was created following WW2, and thus are generally of the zionist persuasion.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Problem is they could have gone anywhere else. But the vast majority came to Palestine to found a Jewish state. Originally the amount of Jews was absolutely tiny.

They did go everywhere else. They set up colonies in America, Rhodesia, lots of places. The wandering Jew is a trope for a reason. Saying that the 'vast majority' who came to Palestine did it to found a Jewish state is numerically incorrect. I literally just gave some of the figures above. Taking into account descendants of people fleeing persecution and those who did, in fact, flee persecution, you're looking at maybe half who could potentially be described as zionist? Not exactly the 'vast majority'.

Furthermore, even for those who had the idea of a 'Jewish state' in mind, it wasn't necessarily in the concept of a separate government as it could also be a region under the British Empire. It should be remembered that anti-semitism wasn't exactly dead at that stage (understatement). The idea of being able to live in a place free of persecution and surrounded by your own kind was a strong and integral part of the zionist dream. If you'd told the black people of the 1920's that they could all move to Louisiana or somesuch, and live completely free of racism there, I daresay many would have jumped at the chance.

So even out of that portion who could be described as 'zionist', the idea of building a better future for their children free from persecution by surrounding themselves with their own kind was likely a considerably higher priority for many than setting up their own Home Office. Ask a dozen Jews what they understand Zionism to mean, and you'll get a dozen answers. 'Founding a state' in the sense of going somewhere explicitly to plant a flag and establish national independence? I doubt that a huge number of those Jews in the 1920's would have described their 'zionist' tendencies as such.

 Ketara wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Problem is they could have gone anywhere else. But the vast majority came to Palestine to found a Jewish state. Originally the amount of Jews was absolutely tiny.

They did go everywhere else. They set up colonies in America, Rhodesia, lots of places. The wandering Jew is a trope for a reason. Saying that the 'vast majority' who came to Palestine did it to found a Jewish state is numerically incorrect. I literally just gave some of the figures above. Taking into account descendants of people fleeing persecution and those who did, in fact, flee persecution, you're looking at maybe half who could potentially be described as zionist? Not exactly the 'vast majority'.

Furthermore, even for those who had the idea of a 'Jewish state' in mind, it wasn't necessarily in the concept of a separate government as it could also be a region under the British Empire. It should be remembered that anti-semitism wasn't exactly dead at that stage (understatement). The idea of being able to live in a place free of persecution and surrounded by your own kind was a strong and integral part of the zionist dream. If you'd told the black people of the 1920's that they could all move to Louisiana or somesuch, and live completely free of racism there, I daresay many would have jumped at the chance.

So even out of that portion who could be described as 'zionist', the idea of building a better future for their children free from persecution by surrounding themselves with their own kind was likely a considerably higher priority for many than setting up their own Home Office. Ask a dozen Jews what they understand Zionism to mean, and you'll get a dozen answers. 'Founding a state' in the sense of going somewhere explicitly to plant a flag and establish national independence? I doubt that a huge number of those Jews in the 1920's would have described their 'zionist' tendencies as such.

I was a bit short, I should have said the vast majority of Jews in Israel had grandparents that came over and participated in the foundation of the Jewish state. Very few can actually trace their ancestry to the region back before thw migration waves. Sure, I'm not disputing the reasons why they went. I'm disputing people saying Jews have been living there forever if Jews somehow equals Israeli. I'm not getting into the zionist part, because its a minefield and more often than not just a dogwhistle for anti semitism I find (not saying you're doing so mind). If I came across as such apologies.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KTG17 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
First of all the Exodus is a myth. Second of all we're all descendant from the first people from Africa. Their claim is as valid as mine to the area. Homeland carries zero meaning in this context. Its as valid as saying China is the Japanese homeland or Germany that of the British.

Okay now you are just being anti-semitic.

What? How? Jist because I said it was silly to exercise any sort of claim about where you used to live 2000 years ago?

" My earlier point was that if you can exert control over the land, its going to be yours. End of story."

Yep - this is how it's worked everywhere else up until now. Not sure why anyone expect it to change...especially here.

Also lets chill on calling people racist. It really distracts from actual racism and has a "boy who cries wolf" affect when you throw it around so willy nilly.

True, Israel will only give it up if incentivized. Like the Sinai in exchange for peace. They removed the settlers for that. Palestine has little to offer however.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
True, Israel will only give it up if incentivized. Like the Sinai in exchange for peace. They removed the settlers for that. Palestine has little to offer however.

As I mentionned before, the only thing they can offer is reducing their territorial claims and hope that Israeli warmongers (and their allies in other nations) take a backseat to the more concilient Israeli politicians (West Bank colonists are very unpopular within the Israeli population). Namely, if they give up Jerusalem, Israel might give up the West Bank. If they recognise the State of Israel (including Jerusalem) and denounced Hamas (or other islamic groups) they might have a shot at negotiation. If they are waiting for the rest of the world to unite and defeat israel so they can recover all their land, they will lose everything. It's not going to happen if only because the social project of the Palestenian authority isn't attractive to Western powers.

Problem being Jerusalem is a dealbreaker. Giving up settlements in exchange for Jerusalem is too much for Palestine.

What has Palestine agreed to give up in the past? This is not a criticism but it would be helpful to understand what both sides have agreed to give on in the past.

To be fair Palestine was never really asked. It was occupied first by the British, then Egypt/Jordan and finally Israel. Not much to give up when you hold no control in the first place.