Why defend Israel? [Archive]

sammi jo

05-23-2006, 11:19 PM

In the article, Bush said he would come to Israel's aid should they get attacked by Iran, all based on translations which may be completely inaccurate since they are provided by an Israeli-based agency MEMRI (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Middle_East_Media_Research_Institu te). Considering the extraordinary degree of pro-Israeli bias as regards the translations of the majority of Middle East news and affairs into English for the "benefit" of American readers by that organization, there is a very good chance that the bizarrely self-destructive statements as regards the "destruction of Israel + Jews" attributed to Mahmood Ahmadi Najad in a number of recent broadcasts might easily be exaggerated or bogus. Not only are these statements self-destructive for Iran's reputation worldwide, but they also don't gel with positive statements that the Iranian president has issued on behalf of the Iranian Jewish community, whom he regards as 'brothers", as well as praising the Jewish faith as being a "noble religion". So much for Jew hating.... the contradictions make no sense..

Furthermore Iran hasn't preemptively attacking anyone in recent history.
Iran's Wars (http://www.zum.de/whkmla/military/centrasia/milxiran.html). Suddenly we're getting bombarded in our weasel-media with this mythical, crazy, disconnected, illogical, out of character garbage regarding Iran, a nation that has no record of attacking a nation outside of its immediate borders. In fact, Iran has historically been the recipient of US aggression... for example the CIA backed coup in 1953 where their democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh (voted Time Magazine's Man of the Year in 1951) was deposed, to be replaced by an unsavory dictator, the Shah. The Islamic revolution in 1979 was a direct blowback from this grossly stupid interference in anothjer nation's internal affairs.

Now, the American people are being indoctrinated, on Israel's behalf, that Iranians are terrorists, because they are Iranians (!) (just like all Muslim groups are now tarred by the US being terrorists), in the NeoConservative's "Long War". With the US campaign in Iraq gone pearshaped due to civil war, the best way of diverting attention-span challenged Americans away from the Iraq mess would be a brand new war, (a part of the 2000 neocon plan), start over all again in neighboring Iran, using the bogus and manufactured pretext that (Iran) plans to attack Israel with nuclear (and other) weapons of mass destruction. Incidentally, for those who have already forgotten, the most well-hidden reason for the Iraq war was to protect Israel's security (http://www.amenusa.org/neocon39.htm).

Israel has between 200 and 400 nuclear weapons. They have the region's most efficient and welltrained military and intelligence service. They enjoy largely peaceful relations with their immediate neighbors Jordan to the east, Egypt to the south, and Lebanon to the North, which act as buffer zones in the most extremely unlikely and absurd notion that they are going to get attacked by either Iran or Syria. The U.S and the NeoCons are trying to bring on a major multinational war in the region, and if Iran is preemptively attacked, it could trigger conflict far worse than the current Iraqi civil war and insurgency.

Since 2003, the US taxpayers have spent at least $250,000,000,000 on Israel's security, against a non-existent threat. It looks as if the Likudist US neoCons are just getting started, and nobody's going to stop them.

Incidentally, if Israel attacks Iran without cause, can we expect the US to come to Iran's aid? No chance: since in NeoCon terms, they are an inferior people, with an inferior genotype, with an inferior religion. The PNAC even suggested such in their "Rebuilding America's Defenses" essay.

:no:

vinea

05-23-2006, 11:40 PM

Originally posted by sammi jo
[B]In the article, Bush said he would come to Israel's aid should they get attacked by Iran, all based on translations which may be completely inaccurate since they are provided by an Israeli-based agency MEMRI (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Middle_East_Media_Research_Institu te). Considering the extraordinary degree of pro-Israeli bias as regards the translations of the majority of Middle East news and affairs into English for the "benefit" of American readers by that organization, there is a very good chance that the bizarrely self-destructive statements as regards the "destruction of Israel + Jews" attributed to Mahmood Ahmadi Najad in a number of recent broadcasts might easily be exaggerated or bogus.

Yes, this is because there are no Farsi speakers in the State Department, the CIA, CNN, AP, any news organization in Europe or US (that might not like the conservative Bush agenda or Isreal), liberal professors, Iranian immigrants, European foreign offices, friendly muslim countries etc that all Iranian translations are done by MEMRI...leading to Bush and the rest of the western world being duped by Isreal/MEMRI.

Or the alternative is that Najad did say those things to play to a domestic and arab/muslim audience given there's very little the West can do to him given he's selling oil to a some random country known as China.

Gee, I'm torn...

Vinea

tonton

05-23-2006, 11:47 PM

Wow... someone else to take seriously -- evidently a conservative even -- on the PO boards. :p

DanMacMan

05-24-2006, 10:42 AM

America has no greater friend in this world than Israel. Given its geographic location, historical importance and political situation we best defend Israel to the end.

Chris Cuilla

05-24-2006, 10:45 AM

Truth be told, without the risk of a U.S. (or other major nation's) reprisal, Israel would be pushed into the Mediterranean Sea.

ThinkingDifferent

05-24-2006, 11:04 AM

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Truth be told, without the risk of a U.S. (or other major nation's) reprisal, Israel would be pushed into the Mediterranean Sea.

Why is this a concern for us?

SDW2001

05-24-2006, 11:08 AM

Originally posted by sammi jo
In the article, Bush said he would come to Israel's aid should they get attacked by Iran, all based on translations which may be completely inaccurate since they are provided by an Israeli-based agency MEMRI (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Middle_East_Media_Research_Institu te). Considering the extraordinary degree of pro-Israeli bias as regards the translations of the majority of Middle East news and affairs into English for the "benefit" of American readers by that organization, there is a very good chance that the bizarrely self-destructive statements as regards the "destruction of Israel + Jews" attributed to Mahmood Ahmadi Najad in a number of recent broadcasts might easily be exaggerated or bogus. Not only are these statements self-destructive for Iran's reputation worldwide, but they also don't gel with positive statements that the Iranian president has issued on behalf of the Iranian Jewish community, whom he regards as 'brothers", as well as praising the Jewish faith as being a "noble religion". So much for Jew hating.... the contradictions make no sense..

Furthermore Iran hasn't preemptively attacking anyone in recent history.
Iran's Wars (http://www.zum.de/whkmla/military/centrasia/milxiran.html). Suddenly we're getting bombarded in our weasel-media with this mythical, crazy, disconnected, illogical, out of character garbage regarding Iran, a nation that has no record of attacking a nation outside of its immediate borders. In fact, Iran has historically been the recipient of US aggression... for example the CIA backed coup in 1953 where their democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh (voted Time Magazine's Man of the Year in 1951) was deposed, to be replaced by an unsavory dictator, the Shah. The Islamic revolution in 1979 was a direct blowback from this grossly stupid interference in anothjer nation's internal affairs.

Now, the American people are being indoctrinated, on Israel's behalf, that Iranians are terrorists, because they are Iranians (!) (just like all Muslim groups are now tarred by the US being terrorists), in the NeoConservative's "Long War". With the US campaign in Iraq gone pearshaped due to civil war, the best way of diverting attention-span challenged Americans away from the Iraq mess would be a brand new war, (a part of the 2000 neocon plan), start over all again in neighboring Iran, using the bogus and manufactured pretext that (Iran) plans to attack Israel with nuclear (and other) weapons of mass destruction. Incidentally, for those who have already forgotten, the most well-hidden reason for the Iraq war was to protect Israel's security (http://www.amenusa.org/neocon39.htm).

Israel has between 200 and 400 nuclear weapons. They have the region's most efficient and welltrained military and intelligence service. They enjoy largely peaceful relations with their immediate neighbors Jordan to the east, Egypt to the south, and Lebanon to the North, which act as buffer zones in the most extremely unlikely and absurd notion that they are going to get attacked by either Iran or Syria. The U.S and the NeoCons are trying to bring on a major multinational war in the region, and if Iran is preemptively attacked, it could trigger conflict far worse than the current Iraqi civil war and insurgency.

Since 2003, the US taxpayers have spent at least $250,000,000,000 on Israel's security, against a non-existent threat. It looks as if the Likudist US neoCons are just getting started, and nobody's going to stop them.

Incidentally, if Israel attacks Iran without cause, can we expect the US to come to Iran's aid? No chance: since in NeoCon terms, they are an inferior people, with an inferior genotype, with an inferior religion. The PNAC even suggested such in their "Rebuilding America's Defenses" essay.

:no:

I think it's pretty clear that you have no credibility on any defense or ME issue at this point. Your anti-israel bias is well known. It doesn't matter how many innocent civilians get blown up pizza parlors, how many times Iran's President calls for Israel to be wiped off the map or that a known terrorist organization now runs things in Palestine. You'll still post crap like this.

sammi jo

05-24-2006, 12:01 PM

Originally posted by SDW2001
I think it's pretty clear that you have no credibility on any defense or ME issue at this point. Your anti-israel bias is well known. It doesn't matter how many innocent civilians get blown up pizza parlors, how many times Iran's President calls for Israel to be wiped off the map or that a known terrorist organization now runs things in Palestine. You'll still post crap like this.

And it is so patently obvious that you choose to ignore the two central issues that are the cause of all the problems: firstly rank duplicity on the part of US foreign policy, andsecondly the need to perpetually scupper peaceful relations between Jews and Arabs by pursuing unrealistic goals. I do not acknowledge that you are ignorant as regards what is happening, but insofar as your conservative philosophy allows, you believe in the maintanance of the status quo, and keeping things exactly as they are, even if it comes down to pursuing policies that are known to encourage and aggravate terrorism.

sammi jo

05-24-2006, 12:27 PM

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
[B]Truth be told, without the risk of a U.S. (or other major nation's) reprisal, Israel would be pushed into the Mediterranean Sea.

By whom?

Chris Cuilla

05-24-2006, 12:32 PM

Originally posted by sammi jo
By whom?

By every Arab nation that doesn't want them there.

Israel's very existence is an affront to the middle-eastern nations that were there before Israel was created.

OfficerDigby

05-24-2006, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Truth be told, without the risk of a U.S. (or other major nation's) reprisal, Israel would be pushed into the Mediterranean Sea.

Nope, Truth be told, without the US (and the rest of us) Israel would have, by now, been forced to come to a reasonable and fair settlement with it's neighbours and the Palestinians - with US, it will continue to eck out every last bit of land, natural resource it can get away with by any means possible. Unfortunately, it became some kind of pawn in the cold war and expansionism was encouraged.

MarcUK

05-24-2006, 01:21 PM

truth be told part 2.

The Catholic church, Hitler and the Jews all conspired together to persecute Jews during WWII, precisely so that they could get the nation of Israel reinstated. Everyone's a winner. :\

The greatest tradegy against Jews was done by their very own blood.

southside grabowski

05-24-2006, 01:37 PM

1. Israel is the only country in that region that we can even halfway trust.

2. They are the closest thing that we have to a friend in the ME.

3. We have common enemies that we both know need to be inactivated.

sammi jo

05-24-2006, 02:00 PM

Originally posted by SDW2001 ]I think it's pretty clear that you have no credibility on any defense or ME issue at this point.

whatever. You are as entitled to state your opinion as I am to post some facts about the middle east that do not conform with your black and white world view.

Your anti-israel bias is well known.

My only "anti Israel bias", as you put it, is your interpretation of my belief that Israel should be expected to adhere to international law in the same way that the other nations of the world are expected and obliged to do. I don't see what is so wrong with that. Unfortunately, influential people on the far right in US politics feel that Israel has the right to remain above the law, in perpetuity, under all circumstances.

It doesn't matter how many innocent civilians get blown up pizza parlors,

The collateral damage inflicted by terrorism is the reason given to justify not only the maintenance of the status quo, but also more drastic measures, such as the wall. The last thing that radical Zionists want is the cessation of terrorism.

how many times Iran's President calls for Israel to be wiped off the map

As I mentioned in my earlier post, Ahmadi Najad's apparent call makes no sense in the light of his recorded utterances as regards the Jewish community in Iran itself, and the Jewish religion in general. Everything points to (a) Ahmadi Najad being a lousy politician with zero sense of diplomacy (b) he is a anti-Iranian stooge (c) we are not hearing his signals correctly or (d) his apparent anti-Israeli rhetoric is based in fear and suspicion that Iran is on the list of middle Eastern nations to be attacked by the United States at the behest of the Israeli lobby in DC.. and Iran is pushing as fast as possible to acquire nuclear weapons on order to avoid such a confrontation.

or that a known terrorist organization now runs things in Palestine.

Perhaps you should read into the origin of Hamas (http://www.counterpunch.org/hanania01182003.html) as a counter to the PLO under Arafat, with the aim of dividing the Palestinian peoples' allegiances... another classic example of how not to conduct international relations. Anyway, Hamas went pearshaped, blowback happened.. but now the Palestinian people democratically elected a group going under the same name "Hamas" to power. Yes they have a terrorist past, but so do lots of other groups who get along just fine with the US. So, what does the rest of the world do? Take the initiative and work with the Palestinians, and insodoing, remove the causes in which terrorism thrives? No, thats a probplem. We cut them off and allow internal strife and poverty to cause more terrorism and violence to fester.

How obvious. Silly question, of course. The way that allows the continuation of unrest and conflict is the one that is universally selected by default. It's the way the world is, that is, for perpetually ostracized parties.

Gene Clean

05-24-2006, 03:09 PM

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Oh, I don't know. I think Israel does (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Israeli_War) alright (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War) in (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Attrition) regard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War) to (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wrath_of_God) that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Lebanon_War).

Yeah, so long as they're equipped with American military equipment and get about 5BN USD in the bank, each year, hard cash - they will.

Show me one war they won without US military help and without us bailing them out of their heavily subsidized state ecomony.

Consider this:

Since 1973, Israel has cost the United States about $1.6 trillion. If divided by today's population, that is more than $5,700 per person.

This is an estimate by Thomas Stauffer, a consulting economist in Washington. For decades, his analyses of the Middle East scene have made him a frequent thorn in the side of the Israel lobby.

For the first time in many years, Mr. Stauffer has tallied the total cost to the US of its backing of Israel in its drawn-out, violent dispute with the Palestinians. So far, he figures, the bill adds up to more than twice the cost of the Vietnam War.

And now Israel wants more. In a meeting at the White House late last month, Israeli officials made a pitch for $4 billion in additional military aid to defray the rising costs of dealing with the intifada and suicide bombings. They also asked for more than $8 billion in loan guarantees to help the country's recession-bound economy.

Considering Israel's deep economic troubles, Stauffer doubts the Israel bonds covered by the loan guarantees will ever be repaid. The bonds are likely to be structured so they don't pay interest until they reach maturity. If Stauffer is right, the US would end up paying both principal and interest, perhaps 10 years out.

Israel's request could be part of a supplemental spending bill that's likely to be passed early next year, perhaps wrapped in with the cost of a war with Iraq.

Israel is the largest recipient of US foreign aid. It is already due to get $2.04 billion in military assistance and $720 million in economic aid in fiscal 2003. It has been getting $3 billion a year for years.

Adjusting the official aid to 2001 dollars in purchasing power, Israel has been given $240 billion since 1973, Stauffer reckons. In addition, the US has given Egypt $117 billion and Jordan $22 billion in foreign aid in return for signing peace treaties with Israel.

And this:

Other US help includes:

• US Jewish charities and organizations have remitted grants or bought Israel bonds worth $50 billion to $60 billion. Though private in origin, the money is "a net drain" on the United States economy, says Stauffer.

• The US has already guaranteed $10 billion in commercial loans to Israel, and $600 million in "housing loans." (See editor's note below.) Stauffer expects the US Treasury to cover these.

• The US has given $2.5 billion to support Israel's Lavi fighter and Arrow missile projects.

• Israel buys discounted, serviceable "excess" US military equipment. Stauffer says these discounts amount to "several billion dollars" over recent years.

• Israel uses roughly 40 percent of its $1.8 billion per year in military aid, ostensibly earmarked for purchase of US weapons, to buy Israeli-made hardware. It also has won the right to require the Defense Department or US defense contractors to buy Israeli-made equipment or subsystems, paying 50 to 60 cents on every defense dollar the US gives to Israel.

US help, financial and technical, has enabled Israel to become a major weapons supplier. Weapons make up almost half of Israel's manufactured exports. US defense contractors often resent the buy-Israel requirements and the extra competition subsidized by US taxpayers.

• US policy and trade sanctions reduce US exports to the Middle East about $5 billion a year, costing 70,000 or so American jobs, Stauffer estimates. Not requiring Israel to use its US aid to buy American goods, as is usual in foreign aid, costs another 125,000 jobs.

• Israel has blocked some major US arms sales, such as F-15 fighter aircraft to Saudi Arabia in the mid-1980s. That cost $40 billion over 10 years, says Stauffer.

Source (http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1209/p16s01-wmgn.html)

That's a lot of moolah that they don't have and a lot of weapons that they don't have - yet they keep funding their military with money coming from the US and supplying their military with weapons coming from the US.

Not to mention the intelligence they receive from the US and other "help", not usually known to the naked eye. Oh, they're really doing alright they are.

Chris Cuilla

05-24-2006, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by Gene Clean
Yeah, so long as they're equipped with American military equipment and get about 5BN USD in the bank, each year, hard cash - they will.

Show me one war they won without US military help and without us bailing them out of their heavily subsidized state ecomony.

Consider this:

And this:

Source (http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1209/p16s01-wmgn.html)

That's a lot of moolah that they don't have and a lot of weapons that they don't have - yet they keep funding their military with money coming from the US and supplying their military with weapons coming from the US.

Not to mention the intelligence they receive from the US and other "help", not usually known to the naked eye. Oh, they're really doing alright they are.

Then I guess they do need our help.

MarcUK

05-24-2006, 04:35 PM

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Then I guess they do need our help.

riiiight, lets help the people who don't believe in Jesus, and kill the ones who do.

giant

05-24-2006, 09:41 PM

Originally posted by SDW2001
I think it's pretty clear that you have no credibility on any defense or ME issue at this point.
Irony at its absolute best!!!

tonton

05-25-2006, 04:26 AM

Originally posted by giant
Irony at its absolute best!!!

LOL. And I bet it just goes right over their heads.

meelash

05-25-2006, 05:47 AM

SDW2001

05-25-2006, 09:54 AM

Originally posted by sammi jo
And it is so patently obvious that you choose to ignore the two central issues that are the cause of all the problems: firstly rank duplicity on the part of US foreign policy, andsecondly the need to perpetually scupper peaceful relations between Jews and Arabs by pursuing unrealistic goals. I do not acknowledge that you are ignorant as regards what is happening, but insofar as your conservative philosophy allows, you believe in the maintanance of the status quo, and keeping things exactly as they are, even if it comes down to pursuing policies that are known to encourage and aggravate terrorism.

Rank duplicity? Such as? The Jews certainly can be said to "go to far" in some respects in their retaliation for terrorist acts. That said, Israel has publicly declared it's wish for peacefully co-exist with Palestine. Has Palestine done the same?

We defend Israel because they are surrounded by nations that want to push it into the sea. Israel is a deomcracy. Israel does not send suicide bombers into Palestine. Yes, they retaliate for those acts, and I have not always been supportive of the manner in which they have done so. True, there is perhaps the biggest "land dispute" in the history of the world going on. That doesn't give a people a right to send children into shopping malls to blow themselves up.

But beyond this, my point was that you clearly have an anti-Israeli, pro-palestinian viewpoint. When called on this, you really can't justify your position by means other than attacking (vaguely) US policy in the region. The US supoort Israel's right to exist. That's why we defend them.

SDW2001

05-25-2006, 09:56 AM

Originally posted by meelash
Exactly!! In fact, if it were not for the interference of the west (Britain, etc.) Jews would be living peacefully in the Middle East as they have been since the Muslims took over from the Roman empire. Remember, it's europeans that tortured, discriminated-against, exploited the jews for centuries--never Muslims.

That's stupid.

SDW2001

05-25-2006, 09:57 AM

SDW2001

05-25-2006, 10:10 AM

Originally posted by sammi jo
whatever. You are as entitled to state your opinion as I am to post some facts about the middle east that do not conform with your black and white world view.

My only "anti Israel bias", as you put it, is your interpretation of my belief that Israel should be expected to adhere to international law in the same way that the other nations of the world are expected and obliged to do. I don't see what is so wrong with that. Unfortunately, influential people on the far right in US politics feel that Israel has the right to remain above the law, in perpetuity, under all circumstances.

The collateral damage inflicted by terrorism is the reason given to justify not only the maintenance of the status quo, but also more drastic measures, such as the wall. The last thing that radical Zionists want is the cessation of terrorism.

As I mentioned in my earlier post, Ahmadi Najad's apparent call makes no sense in the light of his recorded utterances as regards the Jewish community in Iran itself, and the Jewish religion in general. Everything points to (a) Ahmadi Najad being a lousy politician with zero sense of diplomacy (b) he is a anti-Iranian stooge (c) we are not hearing his signals correctly or (d) his apparent anti-Israeli rhetoric is based in fear and suspicion that Iran is on the list of middle Eastern nations to be attacked by the United States at the behest of the Israeli lobby in DC.. and Iran is pushing as fast as possible to acquire nuclear weapons on order to avoid such a confrontation.

Perhaps you should read into the origin of Hamas (http://www.counterpunch.org/hanania01182003.html) as a counter to the PLO under Arafat, with the aim of dividing the Palestinian peoples' allegiances... another classic example of how not to conduct international relations. Anyway, Hamas went pearshaped, blowback happened.. but now the Palestinian people democratically elected a group going under the same name "Hamas" to power. Yes they have a terrorist past, but so do lots of other groups who get along just fine with the US. So, what does the rest of the world do? Take the initiative and work with the Palestinians, and insodoing, remove the causes in which terrorism thrives? No, thats a probplem. We cut them off and allow internal strife and poverty to cause more terrorism and violence to fester.

How obvious. Silly question, of course. The way that allows the continuation of unrest and conflict is the one that is universally selected by default. It's the way the world is, that is, for perpetually ostracized parties.

1. And I'm entitled to think that your nothing but an anti-semite.

2. Oh...let me see. Nations like Iran..and what is now called Palestine...you mean how they "obey international law?" OK, I'm with you now.

3. That's a conspiracy theory. Secondly, you don't make terrorism any prettier or sexier when you refer to it's outcomes as "collateral damage."

4. I don't know whether he has the support of the Iranian people or not. He might well be a lousy politician. But according to you, we shouldn't worry about his rhetoric. It's all just another ploy from the Neocons and Zionists. Meanwhile, I suppose we should just take the chance that this man is not another Hitler in waiting. That's a pretty big risk you're willing to take there.

dmz

05-25-2006, 10:36 AM

Historically speaking, Jews have not been treated this way by the Muslim community -- this is a relatively new development -- and is probably nothing more than an outlet for Muslim inadequacy: five countries against half a million Jews turned out to be quite a humiliation. Couple that with something that continues to 'them' -- having to the sole liberal ME democracy.

Why wouldn't the Muslim® community make excuses?

meelash

05-25-2006, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by SDW2001
That's stupid.

Thanks for the thoughtful response:rolleyes: .

What I stated is historical fact. When the Eastern Roman Empire first turned over Jerusalem to the 2nd Muslim caliph, the Jews had been forbidden from entering the Holy land. As part of the agreement, the muslims insisted that Jews should be allowed to enter, and live in the holy land and visit Jerusalem. Except for the brief stints of Crusader control, this remained the status quo until 1914. After World War II, the European's were sooo sorry about their terrible treatment of the Jews for centuries that they made the "sacrifice" of *GASP* giving away someone else's land for a Jewish state.

In fact, in contrast to Europe, the Jews lived peacefully in all parts of the Muslim world throughout history. Jewish historians agree that the golden age of the diaspora was their time in Muslim Spain.

Originally posted by dmz
Historically speaking, Jews have not been treated this way by the Muslim community -- this is a relatively new development -- and is probably nothing more than an outlet for Muslim inadequacy

agreed... this definitely describes the position of the pan-arab nationalist arab countries. Who do they exploit to do their dirty work? Poor palestinian children and young men who, as a result of Israel's apartheid-ist policies are bitter, have no future and therefore nothing to lose anyway.
:(

SDW2001

05-25-2006, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by meelash
Thanks for the thoughtful response:rolleyes: .

What I stated is historical fact. When the Eastern Roman Empire first turned over Jerusalem to the 2nd Muslim caliph, the Jews had been forbidden from entering the Holy land. As part of the agreement, the muslims insisted that Jews should be allowed to enter, and live in the holy land and visit Jerusalem. Except for the brief stints of Crusader control, this remained the status quo until 1914. After World War II, the European's were sooo sorry about their terrible treatment of the Jews for centuries that they made the "sacrifice" of *GASP* giving away someone else's land for a Jewish state.

In fact, in contrast to Europe, the Jews lived peacefully in all parts of the Muslim world throughout history. Jewish historians agree that the golden age of the diaspora was their time in Muslim Spain.

agreed... this definitely describes the position of the pan-arab nationalist arab countries. Who do they exploit to do their dirty work? Poor palestinian children and young men who, as a result of Israel's apartheid-ist policies are bitter, have no future and therefore nothing to lose anyway.
:(

That's academic. However, in fairness, I had assumed you meant interference in more modern times. My mistake.

sammi jo

05-25-2006, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by SDW2001
1. And I'm entitled to think that your nothing but an anti-semite.

Standard rightwing tactic of name calling already and the thread is just 2 days old.. sheesh

2. Oh...let me see. Nations like Iran..and what is now called Palestine...you mean how they "obey international law?" OK, I'm with you now.

Where did I say that Iran and "Palestine" obeyed international law? Try to argue the point without assigning false statements please.

I am sure that Iran and "Palestine" have run afoul of the international law. The difference is, they get called for it, whereas Israel, the UK and the US (and other more "privileged" member of the international community never do. I have a problem with that, but you obviously don't.

3. That's a conspiracy theory.

Oh dear, that old yawn. C'mon SDW, you weren't born yesterday. To set up a counter to an enemy is SOP for millennia. All governments and nations do this stuff. Have you not read Macchiavelli's "The Prince" yet?
Similar dynamics are happening right now within Palestinian politics: groups loyal to Abbas are sponsoring and arming militias (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060503/wl_nm/mideast_militants_dc_1) to counter Hamas.

Secondly, you don't make terrorism any prettier or sexier when you refer to it's outcomes as "collateral damage."

I'm not trying to. Both sides are committing terrorist acts against the other. The underlying problem is that it is uncomfortable to admit that people who are US allies are committing terrorist acts. Hell, the Israelis can even murder US citizens in cold blood, get away with it, and the US government is too weasely and cowardly to even register the slightest complaint. http://www.rachelcorriefoundation.org/ If that girl had been murdered by Hamas as opposed to the IDF, lets say the outcome would have been "a different universe", to put it mildly.

4. I don't know whether he has the support of the Iranian people or not. He might well be a lousy politician. But according to you, we shouldn't worry about his rhetoric. It's all just another ploy from the Neocons and Zionists. Meanwhile, I suppose we should just take the chance that this man is not another Hitler in waiting. That's a pretty big risk you're willing to take there.

Well the corporate media are already painting him to be such by printing
stories like this (http://www.torontosun.com/News/Canada/2006/05/20/1589489-sun.html) People believe what they read FIRST, and usually don't see the 4 line retraction sandwiched between the want ads and the local highschool softball results at the bottom of Page 47.

The label story is BOGUS (http://mparent7777.livejournal.com/8710734.html) of course, but its enough to tell Americans that Iran need to be invaded before Ahmadi Hajad becomes the next "HItler", with the Canadian weasel media doing Bush's dirty work by proxy.

Sheesh folks.

vinea

05-25-2006, 03:01 PM

"But Iranian legislators called a report that they would require religious markings false and said the bill seeks to make women dress more traditionally. "

Yes, that's a grand improvement.

Vinea

Gene Clean

05-25-2006, 10:22 PM

Originally posted by dmz
having to the sole liberal ME democracy.

http://www.swoogan.com/images/musawall-03-483.jpg

Tulkas

05-25-2006, 11:16 PM

Tulkas

05-25-2006, 11:21 PM

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Truth be told, without the risk of a U.S. (or other major nation's) reprisal, Israel would be pushed into the Mediterranean Sea.

Originally posted by ThinkingDifferent
Why is this a concern for us?

:???:

midwinter

05-25-2006, 11:59 PM

I'm really more curious about how, exactly, Iran would push Israel into the Mediterranean. That's a bit of a long haul.

And frankly, don't we issue some kind of statement like this about Israel or South Korea every 6 years or so?

Immanuel Goldstein

05-26-2006, 01:20 AM

Originally posted by midwinter
And frankly, don't we issue some kind of statement like this about Israel or South Korea every 6 years or so?

When a country is attacked, its powerful ally is usually commited to come to its defence, that is something that both South Korea and Israel have in common.

The difference is that the US fought a war to defend South Korea and has troops stationed there for the purpose of defending South Korea (and a good thing it is). The US has not done the same for Israel.

But the thread's initiator asks:
Originally posted by ThinkingDifferent
When are they [Israel] going to learn to take care of themselves?

Assuming (and giving the benefit of the doubt, I'll guess it was due to ignorance rather than idiocy) that Israel haven't taken care of its own defence, and that it depended and still depends on US military for its defence.
Which has no basis in reality. While the US has committed troops and sometimes fought to defend various countries from Western Europe (UK, Belgium…) to East Asia (Japan, South Korea…) to the Middle-East (Kuwait, Saudi…), it has never done so for Israel.

Nevertheless, the US is now verbally committed to come to Israel's side should Israel be under attack, and I appreciate it, hoping it never to be needed.

Gene Clean

05-26-2006, 01:56 AM

Since 1974, Israel has received nearly $80 billion in assistance, including three special aid packages. The first followed the signing of the Israel-Egypt peace treaty and Israel's withdrawal from the Sinai. The redeployment of Israeli forces and rebuilding of air bases in the Negev cost $5 billion. To partially compensate for this sacrifice, Israel received $3 billion ($2.2 billion of which was in the form of high-interest loans) in U.S. aid in 1979.

The second special package was approved in 1985, following a severe economic crisis in Israel, which sent inflation rates soaring as high as 445 percent. The $1.5 billion in emergency assistance-disbursed in two installments, in 1985 and 1986-was provided as part of Israel's economic stabilization program, which was implemented under the guidance of the U.S.-Israel Joint Economic Development Group (JEDG).

The most recent extraordinary package was approved in 1996 to help Israel fight terrorism. Israel is to receive a total of $100 million, divided equally between fiscal years 1996 and 1997.

and

Israel's economic aid changed from the Commodity Import Program (CIP), which provides funds to foreign nations for the purchase of U.S. commodities, to a direct cash transfer in 1979. In return, Israel provided the Agency for International Development with assurances that the dollar level of Israel's non-defense imports from the U.S. would exceed the level of economic assistance granted Israel in any given year. Thus, Israel guaranteed that U.S. suppliers would not be disadvantaged by the termination of Israel's CIP Program.

Starting with fiscal year 1987, Israel annually received $1.2 billion in all grant economic aid and $1.8 billion in all grant military assistance. In 1998, Israel offered to voluntarily reduce its dependence on U.S. economic aid. According to an agreement reached with the Clinton Administration and Congress, the $1.2 billion economic aid package will be reduced by $120 million each year so that it will be phased out in ten years. Half of the annual savings in economic assistance each year ($60 million) will be added to Israel's military aid package in recognition of its increased security needs. In 2005, Israel received $360 million in economic aid and $2.22 billion in military aid. In 2006, economic aid is scheduled to be reduced to $240 million and military aid will increase to $2.28 billion.

For several years, most of Israel's economic aid went to pay off old debts. In 1984, foreign aid legislation included the Cranston Amendment (named after its Senate sponsor), which said the U.S. would provide Israel with economic assistance "not less than" the amount Israel owes the United States in annual debt service payments. The Cranston Amendment was left out of the FY1999 and subsequent appropriations bills. At that time Israel received $1.2 billion in ESF and owed only $328 million in debt service so the amendment was no longer needed.

Roughly 26 percent of what Israel receives in Foreign Military Financing (FMF) can be spent in Israel for military procurement. From FY1988 to FY 1990, Israel was allowed to use $400 million in Israel. From FY1991 to FY1998, the amount was increased to $475 million. As U.S. military aid to Israel increased, according to the agreement to cut economic aid, the amout set aside for defense purchases in Israel has increased (but the percentage has remained roughly the same). In FY2004, the figure is $568 million. The remaining 74 percent of FMF is spent in the United States to generate profits and jobs. More than 1,000 companies in 47 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have signed contracts worth billions of dollars through this program.

At the end of 1998, Israel requested an additional $1.2 billion in aid to fund moving troops and military installations out of the occupied territories as called for in the October 23, 1998, Wye agreement. Israel received $600 million of this in military aid in FY1999 and $300 million in each fiscal year 2000 and 2001 (see Wye funding table).

In February 2003, for the first time, Congress voted to cut aid to Israel against the wishes of the pro-Israel lobby and the government of Israel. The 0.65 percent deduction was not aimed at Israel; however, it was an across the board cut of all foreign aid programs for fiscal year 2003. The lobby and government also suffered a defeat when Congress deleted an administration request for an extra $200 million to help Israel fight terrorism. Even while cutting aid to Israel (which still was budgeted at $2.1 billion for military aid and $600 million for economic assistance), Congress included a number of provisions in the aid bill viewed as favorable to Israel, including a provision that bars federal assistance to a future Palestinian state until the current Palestinian leadership is replaced, and that state demonstrates a commitment to peaceful coexistence with Israel, and takes measures to combat terrorism.

The setbacks were also temporary as the Administration approved a supplementary aid request in 2003 that included $1 billion in FMF and $9 billion in loan guarantees to aid Israel's economic recovery and compensate for the cost of military preparations associated with the war in Iraq. One quarter of the FMF is a cash grant and three quarters will be spent in the United States. The loan guarantees are spread over three years and must be spent within Israel's pre-June 1967 borders. Each year, an amount equal to the funds Israel spends on settlements in the territories will be deducted from the loan amount, along with all fees and subsidies.

Altogether, since 1949, Israel has received nearly than $100 billion in assistance. This includes the three special allocations, the $10 billion in loan guarantees (spread over five years) approved in 1992, and a variety of other smaller assistance-related accounts, such as refugee resettlement (nearly $1.5 billion overall) and cooperative development programs (a total of $186 million since 1981).

The total does not include funds for joint military projects like the Arrow missile (for which Israel has received more than $1 billion in grants since 1986), which are provided through the Defense budget. President Bush requested $60 million for the Arrow for FY2003 and $136 million in FY2004. The United States also has provided $53 million for the Boost Phase Intercept program and $139 million for the Tactical High Energy Laser program under development in Israel to complement the Arrow.

Though the totals are impressive, the value of assistance to Israel has been eroded by inflation. While aid levels remained constant in total dollars from 1987 until 1999, the real value steadily declined. On the other side of the coin, Israel does receive aid on more favorable terms than other nations. For example, all economic aid is given directly to the Israeli government rather than allocated under a specific program. Also, starting in 1982, Israel began to receive all its economic aid in a lump sum early in the fiscal year instead of in quarterly installments as is done for other countries. Israel is not required to provide an accounting of how the funds are used. Israel also receives offsets on FMS purchases (U.S. contractors agree to offset some of the cost of military equipment by buying components or materials from Israel).

As of December 31, 2001, Israel owed the United States government $1.977 billion in direct economic and military loans.

tell a different story (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/foreign_aid.html).

-

And this (http://telaviv.usembassy.gov/publish/mission/amb/assistance.html)

1949-2004 Total

*
Military Assistance
$64.4 Billion
*
Economic Assistance
$35.6 Billion
*
Total Assistance
$100 Billion

is nothing to sneeze at.

Tulkas

05-26-2006, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by midwinter
I'm really more curious about how, exactly, Iran would push Israel into the Mediterranean. That's a bit of a long haul.

How would this be a long haul?:???:

Tulkas

05-26-2006, 04:03 PM

Originally posted by Gene Clean
and

tell a different story (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/foreign_aid.html).

-

And this (http://telaviv.usembassy.gov/publish/mission/amb/assistance.html)

is nothing to sneeze at.

Lots of money and equipment.

I wonder if IG meant money and equipment when he said fought a war and stationed troops?

vinea

05-26-2006, 04:03 PM

Originally posted by Gene Clean
and

tell a different story (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/foreign_aid.html).

And this (http://telaviv.usembassy.gov/publish/mission/amb/assistance.html)

is nothing to sneeze at.

Money is cheaper than blood.

What is your point? That Isreal didn't defend herself during the Cold War when both the US and USSR were pouring aid into the region? That money was well spent and still is.

Vinea

vinea

05-26-2006, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by Tulkas
How would this be a long haul?:???:

I think the Turks and Iraqis might object...not to mention the US forces in Iraq at this time. That is also assuming the Syrians and Jordanians let them pass. Which they might. Syria anyway.

Geez...can't anyone read a map?

Vinea

Tulkas

05-26-2006, 04:21 PM

Originally posted by vinea

Geez...can't anyone read a map?

Vinea

Yep, which is why I asked the question. Geographically, it isn't far. Politically, there are those in the region that would give them a free pass through. Some might even want to help.

vinea

05-26-2006, 04:23 PM

Originally posted by OfficerDigby
Nope, Truth be told, without the US (and the rest of us) Israel would have, by now, been forced to come to a reasonable and fair settlement with it's neighbours and the Palestinians - with US, it will continue to eck out every last bit of land, natural resource it can get away with by any means possible. Unfortunately, it became some kind of pawn in the cold war and expansionism was encouraged.

I could swear I responded to this...guess not.

This is assuming that Isreal had been offered a reasonable and fair settlement. Reading about the negotiations under the Clinton administration has been enlightening. Evidently dealing with Arafat was a pointless activity given his end goal was pretty much getting what he could from negotiations and asking for more until all of Palistine was restored. That's hardly reasonable.

The window between Afafat and Hamas has been too short but even so we've seen the Isrealis pull back out of Gaza during that period. Its also a shame what happened to Sharon. Had he and Abbas remained in power there would have been a good chance at stable peace.

It depends on whether Abbas' statements about Jerusalem as capital was rhetoric or real. Jerusalem as the capital of Palistine I don't consider "reasonable". A neutral Jerusalem not part of either nation like say the Vatican I could see as reasonable but I'm neither Muslim or Jewish.

Vinea

vinea

05-26-2006, 04:36 PM

Originally posted by Tulkas
Yep, which is why I asked the question. Geographically, it isn't far. Politically, there are those in the region that would give them a free pass through. Some might even want to help.

The Taiwan straits aren't very wide either but its a long haul for the Chinese to recover Taiwan. Political distance matters more this day and age.

There's no open route to Isreal. Well okay, they could transit the Gulf, pass through Saudi and Egypt but why bother? Presuming Egypt, Jordan and Syria were willing all Iran has to do is attack Iraq.

The bizzare thing about Sammi jo's conspiracy theory is the presumption that we could successfuly invade Iran. Unlike the Iraqi forces the Iranians don't know Uncle. These are the same folks that are reputed to clear mine fields with human waves, some say children.

Wouldn't that look grand on CNN?

So occam's razor says Najad really is a nutjob and Sammi Jo's vast right wing conspiracy theory is dumb as bricks. Which is about my opinion of the hard right (and left) wing as well.

Vinea

midwinter

05-26-2006, 04:37 PM

Originally posted by vinea
I think the Turks and Iraqis might object...not to mention the US forces in Iraq at this time. That is also assuming the Syrians and Jordanians let them pass. Which they might. Syria anyway.

Geez...can't anyone read a map?

Vinea

No kidding! :rolleyes:

midwinter

05-26-2006, 04:40 PM

Originally posted by Tulkas
Yep, which is why I asked the question. Geographically, it isn't far. Politically, there are those in the region that would give them a free pass through. Some might even want to help.

You mean to tell me that with a massive American military presence in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the UAE, Iran would just waltz all the way across Iraq, Syria and Jordan on its way to Israel?

Edit: Forgot Turkey.

Chris Cuilla

05-26-2006, 06:03 PM

OK. Let's do this. Pull all U.S. military, intelligence, economic and political support from Israel. Then we'll see what happens next.

All of this theorizing can get put to the test.

If I'm wrong (and hope that I am). No harm, no foul.

If I'm right...well...it's only 6-7 million people.

MarcUK

05-26-2006, 07:07 PM

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
OK. Let's do this. Pull all U.S. military, intelligence, economic and political support from Israel. Then we'll see what happens next.

All of this theorizing can get put to the test.

If I'm wrong (and hope that I am). No harm, no foul.

If I'm right...well...it's only 6-7 million people.

well why dont you relocate those 7 million people in your own country and then pull out?

What a pile of BS you speak, fake compassion, fake morals, fake love. Fake you. The only reason you support them is because you mistakingly believe that the State of Isreal needs to exist so that Jesus can return. Yet upon Jesus' return all these people are going to hell anyway. Thats eternal punishment apparently. They don't accept Jesus any more than i do.

And you will willingly support the infidels because of your own deep seated selfishness over the 'believers' who want them out.

You might as well pretend to be my best friend, and start persecuting Frank, dmz, and Fellows.

SDW2001

05-26-2006, 09:23 PM

Originally posted by sammi jo
Standard rightwing tactic of name calling already and the thread is just 2 days old.. sheesh

Where did I say that Iran and "Palestine" obeyed international law? Try to argue the point without assigning false statements please.

I am sure that Iran and "Palestine" have run afoul of the international law. The difference is, they get called for it, whereas Israel, the UK and the US (and other more "privileged" member of the international community never do. I have a problem with that, but you obviously don't.

Oh dear, that old yawn. C'mon SDW, you weren't born yesterday. To set up a counter to an enemy is SOP for millennia. All governments and nations do this stuff. Have you not read Macchiavelli's "The Prince" yet?
Similar dynamics are happening right now within Palestinian politics: groups loyal to Abbas are sponsoring and arming militias (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060503/wl_nm/mideast_militants_dc_1) to counter Hamas.

I'm not trying to. Both sides are committing terrorist acts against the other. The underlying problem is that it is uncomfortable to admit that people who are US allies are committing terrorist acts. Hell, the Israelis can even murder US citizens in cold blood, get away with it, and the US government is too weasely and cowardly to even register the slightest complaint. http://www.rachelcorriefoundation.org/ If that girl had been murdered by Hamas as opposed to the IDF, lets say the outcome would have been "a different universe", to put it mildly.

Well the corporate media are already painting him to be such by printing
stories like this (http://www.torontosun.com/News/Canada/2006/05/20/1589489-sun.html) People believe what they read FIRST, and usually don't see the 4 line retraction sandwiched between the want ads and the local highschool softball results at the bottom of Page 47.

The label story is BOGUS (http://mparent7777.livejournal.com/8710734.html) of course, but its enough to tell Americans that Iran need to be invaded before Ahmadi Hajad becomes the next "HItler", with the Canadian weasel media doing Bush's dirty work by proxy.

Sheesh folks.

1. Nope, it's a "standard rightwing tactic" of calling you an anti-semite when that is in fact what you seem to be. Israel can do no right.

2. You did not say Iran and Palestine obeyed international law. However, you did say and jave pointed out others that supposedly violate it. You see no problem with this, apparently.

3. The US and Israel are "called on it" EVERY DAY. Meanwhile, there seems to be plenty of sympathy for those blowing up shopping malls.

4. I can't argue with a true believer. Once you believe that that Jews really don't want terrorism to stop, you're off the reservation.

5. "Both sides" are no committing terrorism. Israel is retaliating as a result of terrorism.

6. Oh! A false news story! Of course, you don't seem to point those out when they blatantly smear the Speaker of the House (http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2009995&page=1) or use faked memos to influence an election. My opinion of Iran's President has nothing to do with this story. Maybe you'd like to justify your position on why he's really just a paper tiger?

Gene Clean

05-26-2006, 10:13 PM

Originally posted by vinea
What is your point?

That money buys military equipment, food, medicine, that it pays salaries of soldiers fighting the battles, that it pays for their clothing, their transportation and such 'trivial' things.

No money = no weapons and no weapons = no victory.

Put 2 and 2 together.

midwinter

05-26-2006, 10:17 PM

Originally posted by Gene Clean
That money buys military equipment, food, medicine, that it pays salaries of soldiers fighting the battles, that it pays for their clothing, their transportation and such 'trivial' things.

No money = no weapons and no weapons = no victory.

Put 2 and 2 together.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Israel proven that it can take care of itself pretty well without much/any foreign support?

Gene Clean

05-26-2006, 10:19 PM

Originally posted by midwinter
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Israel proven that it can take care of itself pretty well without much/any foreign support?

How so? Many of my links prove quite the opposite; that they were asking for more 'help' (money) because the heavily subsidized state welfare system is crumbling.

midwinter

05-26-2006, 10:21 PM

Originally posted by Gene Clean
How so? Many of my links prove quite the opposite; that they were asking for more 'help' (money) because the heavily subsidized state welfare system is crumbling.

I seem to have some faint memory of Israel defending itself just fine. Am I thinking about the Arab-Israeli war?

Maybe the French Banana war?

Gene Clean

05-26-2006, 10:28 PM

Originally posted by midwinter
I seem to have some faint memory of Israel defending itself just fine.

You seem to ignore the fact that much of the weaponry and money for that defence came from the US. Again, in a war, patriotism is irrelevant - money talks.

Where was Israel getting all the weapons, all the money in the 1948, 1956, 1960, 1967, 1970, 1973? It wasn't as economically advanced as today, it relied heavily on agriculture, and its industry shifted towards more modern markets only in 1980s. So, being a young country, with no major industry and reliant on agriculture - where did Israel get all the money and weapons to defend itself?

Obviously, someone helped them. It was mostly the US, and sometimes France.

Maybe the French Banana war?

Quite possibly.

midwinter

05-26-2006, 10:34 PM

Originally posted by Gene Clean
You seem to ignore the fact that much of the weaponry and money for that defence came from the US. Again, in a war, patriotism is irrelevant - money talks.

I'm not ignoring anything. I'm saying that I seem to have some faint memory of Israel having defended itself just fine without much/any foreign support. I do not remember where I got this, and frankly, on Friday night after a day of working on the history of privacy, I'm not inclined to try to find out who funded what. I'm not being snarky. I'm not laying a trap. I honest to god have it in my head that this has been the case and I'm not sure whether it's true.

meelash

05-26-2006, 10:55 PM

Originally posted by midwinter
I honest to god have it in my head that this has been the case and I'm not sure whether it's true.

It's not:lol:

meelash

05-26-2006, 11:02 PM

Originally posted by vinea
Evidently dealing with Arafat was a pointless activity given his end goal was pretty much getting what he could from negotiations and asking for more until all of Palistine was restored. That's hardly reasonable.

Historically speaking, that is a ridiculous statement. You're saying that if I was to waltz into your house and start sleeping in your bedroom without your permission, it is then unreasonable for you to go to court and insist that I leave your house completely? Since I don't have any place else to live I should be allowed to keep your living room to myself. Please... look at the background and the beginning of the conflict and you'll better understand the reason for the opinions held by the various parties.

Of course, if you want to play the statute of limitations card and say too much time has passed to go back to the previous situation (a la native americans for example) then that is a reasonable opinion. However, you should not expect that those people who have been living for two or three generations in refugee camps will agree with you, and the least you could do is acknowledge some "rightness" in their position.

meelash

05-26-2006, 11:08 PM

Originally posted by SDW2001
5. "Both sides" are no committing terrorism. Israel is retaliating as a result of terrorism.

Tell me, honestly, can you hold a straight face when you say something like that? IMO, whether it is retaliation or not, if it involves terrorist methods, it is terrorism. And judging if something is retaliation requires recognition of the aggressor. So who is the original aggressor in this situation? Who "started it"?

midwinter

05-26-2006, 11:14 PM

Originally posted by meelash
It's not:lol:

Don't get me wrong. Part of my brain is going "Of COURSE it's not true!"

Tulkas

05-26-2006, 11:21 PM

Originally posted by midwinter
I'm not ignoring anything. I'm saying that I seem to have some faint memory of Israel having defended itself just fine without much/any foreign support. I do not remember where I got this, and frankly, on Friday night after a day of working on the history of privacy, I'm not inclined to try to find out who funded what. I'm not being snarky. I'm not laying a trap. I honest to god have it in my head that this has been the case and I'm not sure whether it's true.

Well, if you mean Israel was defended by no one else's troops but her own, then obviously you are right. Others would equate money to troops.

If you mean that Israel defended herself without US financial aide and equipment, then I believe that is wrong. I am sure CG has some links for you to peruse showing the exact amounts. (Wonder if he would provide as detailed a report of the money and equipment that flowed into the region from the USSR?)

It is of course convienient to forget that Israel fought against countries that had their own patron. Didn't the US even delay aide to Israel during the Suez crisis for fear of upsetting arab states? Sort of intentionally let them get a bloody nose...

Tulkas

05-26-2006, 11:27 PM

Originally posted by midwinter
You mean to tell me that with a massive American military presence in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the UAE, Iran would just waltz all the way across Iraq, Syria and Jordan on its way to Israel?

Edit: Forgot Turkey.

Premise was without US protection. But then I guess you are right. Without US assistance Iran wouldn't have to worry about pushing them into the sea. They would already be gone. But like the OP said, Why is this a concern for us?

midwinter

05-26-2006, 11:31 PM

Originally posted by Tulkas
Premise was without US protection. But then I guess you are right. Without US assistance Iran wouldn't have to worry about pushing them into the sea. They would already be gone. But like the OP said, Why is this a concern for us?

Gotcha. I read this as "Iran has threatened Israel. Assuming nothing changes..."

But certainly, if the US and every other foreign power withdraws and sticks its head in the sand, things change.

vinea

05-26-2006, 11:50 PM

Originally posted by meelash
Historically speaking, that is a ridiculous statement. You're saying that if I was to waltz into your house and start sleeping in your bedroom without your permission, it is then unreasonable for you to go to court and insist that I leave your house completely? Since I don't have any place else to live I should be allowed to keep your living room to myself. Please... look at the background and the beginning of the conflict and you'll better understand the reason for the opinions held by the various parties.

Of course, if you want to play the statute of limitations card and say too much time has passed to go back to the previous situation (a la native americans for example) then that is a reasonable opinion. However, you should not expect that those people who have been living for two or three generations in refugee camps will agree with you, and the least you could do is acknowledge some "rightness" in their position.

Historically speaking their claim is older than the Palistinians if you want to play that card...and the problem is that people DO play that card. Jerusalem has too much historical importance to three major religions and in particular Judiasm.

The fact remains that a Jewish state does exist and does control Palistine and Jerusalem. Its their holiest city and once recovered they're not giving it up any more than any Muslim state would give up Mecca had it been lost and recovered regardless of whom the last owner was, who they took it from, and how long ago it was lost, etc.

Given the region was pretty much conquored and controlled by everyone from the Babylonian, Romains, Egyptians, Holy Roman Empire, Turks and finally the Brits who really left a mess when they left my rather callous answer is that it sucks to be conquored. Arguably neither side had permission of the previous owner to have the bedroom (an international bedroom) and the previous owner gave jews the dining room and the palistinians the living room but a war resulted the Jews having half and Jordan having half the bedroom. Then when the owner of the Arab half gambled their half in a war Isreal took it as the victor. Blame the Jordanians, Egyptians and the rest of the Arab League for losing a series or wars until the entire house was lost.

If they had left well enough alone or won the 1948 Arab Isreali War as they SHOULD have then the Palistinians would have a country although likely a relatively poor one.

So yes, its unreasonable that folks that start wars and then lose them whine that its unfair that they can't live in the blooming bedroom.

Vinea

vinea

05-27-2006, 12:25 AM

Originally posted by Tulkas
Well, if you mean Israel was defended by no one else's troops but her own, then obviously you are right. Others would equate money to troops.

If you mean that Israel defended herself without US financial aide and equipment, then I believe that is wrong. I am sure CG has some links for you to peruse showing the exact amounts. (Wonder if he would provide as detailed a report of the money and equipment that flowed into the region from the USSR?)

It is of course convienient to forget that Israel fought against countries that had their own patron. Didn't the US even delay aide to Israel during the Suez crisis for fear of upsetting arab states? Sort of intentionally let them get a bloody nose...

1948 Arab Israeli War. Should have been over in 2 weeks.

Equipment Israel Arab League
Tanks 1 w/o gun 40
Armored cars (w/ cannon) 2 200
Armored cars (w/o cannon) 120 300
Artillery 5 140
AA and AT guns 24 220
Warplanes 0 74
Scout planes 28 57
Navy (armed ships) 3 12

Where did Israel get more war material? From Czechslovakia...BF-109s (okay Avia S-199s) to combat Egyptian Spitfires. Not say Mustangs from the US. We gave them $138M loan after the war. How much before the war? Not sure but with 1 gunless tank and no fighter aircraft it couldn't have been much. From 1949 to 1973 they averaged about $188M a year for a total of around $3B (primarily loans)...a third of it made in the 70s. US aid to arab stated totaled maybe $4B or so during the same period. After the '73 Yom Kippur War aid skyrocketed.

So Israel survived '48, 56 and 67 conflicts without a huge amount of US aid. Only after 25 years of conflict did they need real life support. Which given the amount of money and material given the Arabs by the Soviet Union and the disparity in populations and economies is pretty good.

Would they get "pushed into the sea" without any US aid? Probably but given the performance in 1948 when it was even more lopsided it's not a no brainer.

Vinea

midwinter

05-27-2006, 12:27 AM

Thanks, Vinea. That's the kind of thing I was looking for.

meelash

05-27-2006, 12:44 AM

Originally posted by vinea
Historically speaking their claim is older than the Palistinians if you want to play that card...and the problem is that people DO play that card. Jerusalem has too much historical importance to three major religions and in particular Judiasm.

The fact remains that a Jewish state does exist and does control Palistine and Jerusalem. Its their holiest city and once recovered they're not giving it up any more than any Muslim state would give up Mecca had it been lost and recovered regardless of whom the last owner was, who they took it from, and how long ago it was lost, etc.

Given the region was pretty much conquored and controlled by everyone from the Babylonian, Romains, Egyptians, Holy Roman Empire, Turks and finally the Brits who really left a mess when they left my rather callous answer is that it sucks to be conquored. Arguably neither side had permission of the previous owner to have the bedroom (an international bedroom) and the previous owner gave jews the dining room and the palistinians the living room but a war resulted the Jews having half and Jordan having half the bedroom. Then when the owner of the Arab half gambled their half in a war Isreal took it as the victor. Blame the Jordanians, Egyptians and the rest of the Arab League for losing a series or wars until the entire house was lost.

If they had left well enough alone or won the 1948 Arab Isreali War as they SHOULD have then the Palistinians would have a country although likely a relatively poor one.

So yes, its unreasonable that folks that start wars and then lose them whine that its unfair that they can't live in the blooming bedroom.

Vinea

Whatever my personal beliefs may be concerning the "right or wrong" of the situation, practically speaking (and it is necessary to be practical in order to reach compromise) I have to agree with your "It sucks to be conquered." The problem is that they aren't down yet--that's why there's still conflict going on. The question is who should everyone else (i.e. the US) side-with or should we side with anyone in this ongoing fight? Which brings us back to the question that began this forum: Why defend Israel? In light of the above discussion, can anyone who thinks of Israel in a positive light (I know I'm generalizing but bear with me) give the answer to that question. Why does the US side with Israel as opposed to Palestine?

(MarcUK gave his opinion but I don't think he's a positive for Israel person. Hard to tell though--do the rest of you agree with him?)

midwinter

05-27-2006, 12:58 AM

vinea

05-27-2006, 01:00 AM

I couldn't figure out how much the Arab nations got in that same period up to 1973 but in 1987 Egypt owed the Soviets about $3B for loans up to 1972 when Sadat send the Soviets home (and aid ended not too surprisingly).

Given that, and the much higher importance of Syria to the Soviets I'd say they got much more than the Isaelis in the period leading up to Yom Kippur. It is said that the Soviets instigated the 67 war with false intel to Nasser. They had some 20,000 troops in Egypt in the early 70s.

Their investments were not minor. After all they pretty much had to replace the equipment of the Arab league armies a couple times.

Vinea

Immanuel Goldstein

05-27-2006, 01:06 AM

Contrary to the popular myth, the US and and Israel weren't always so close.

Israel had no US help in 1948, actually, the US had an arms embargo on Israel at the time. And the common stand of the Department of State as well as in the Pentagon was rather hostile toward Israel, for the simple reason that it was in the way the policy's priority in the region namely Saudi Arabia (the pretext often given was that Israel with its ruling Labour party and prominent trade-union owned corporations was excessively ‘socialistic’, which is an idiotic pretxt given that the US was at the time propping up a genuinely communist country: Tito's Yugoslavia).

This state of affairs went on during nineteen-fifties.

Get this:
Israel was then poorer and weaker than it is today, yet it could take care of itself just fine.

Change started during the Kennedy administration, but only after the Six-Day War did the US start providing Israel with military and financial aid.

This was due to a very simple convergence of interests. Until then, France was Israel's only ally, and Charles de Gaulle was steering towards a decidely pro-Arab direction. Israel needed a western source of support, and the US needed to have Israel restrained (a lone Israel would have done its best to utterly crush all enemies, and so more prone to risk taking adventures, thus destabilising the area).
The “special relationship” between the US and Israel began with the US demanding Israel to stop its advance in 1967 so Egypt and and Syria don't collapse, these two countries were saved again by US the same US demand in 1973.

Originally posted by OfficerDigby
…without the US (and the rest of us) Israel would have, by now, been forced to come to a reasonable and fair settlement with it's neighbours and the Palestinians…
Forced? By whom? You and what army, officer?
Actually, without the US, Israel would have crushed Egypt and and Syria to a pulp by the late ninteen-sixties to early seventies, and would've probably brought a few other countries in the vicinity (Iraq, Saudi,… etc.) to the brink of collapse.

In 1970, the PLO tried to overthrow king Hussain of Jordan, and was utterly defeated while its pathetic leader fled (as was usually the case with the PLO), so Syria invaded Jordan but quickly withdrew after Israel sent an ultimatum via a third party, and saving the pro-US Jordan monarchy. This is where the “special relationship” really took off.

Of course, at the same time, both Syria and Egypt had very generous Soviet support, in funds, matériel, and even personnel (some Soviet pilots flying Migs under Egyptian colours, for example).

vinea

05-27-2006, 01:11 AM

Originally posted by meelash
Why does the US side with Israel as opposed to Palestine?

Collective guilt, politics and after the French-British Suez debacle the Arab nations turned to the Soviet Union.

I haven't read much about this aspect but the instant recognition of Israel strikes me as a slap in the face to the UK that had spent all that effort in trying to negotiate a peaceful withdrawal from its former colonies. Granted it was futile anyway but the US could have supported the UK in at least waiting a few days.

Followed by the Suez and embarrasing the Brits and the French by making it obvious to everyone they were no longer superpowers capable of unilateral action reinforces that impression.

Now the Muslim world hates us. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out whom to back at this point. In 1948 I think its debatable. In 2006 its a no brainer.

Vinea

midwinter

05-27-2006, 01:14 AM

Hmpffh.

And all this time I was thinking it was just habit.

vinea

05-27-2006, 01:16 AM

Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
Contrary to the popular myth, the US and and Israel weren't always so close.

Israel had no US help in 1948, actually, the US had an arms embargo on Israel at the time.

So in 1948 who or what provided the funds to buy more arms on the black market and the Czechs?

Vinea

Tulkas

05-27-2006, 01:21 AM

Originally posted by meelash
Whatever my personal beliefs may be concerning the "right or wrong" of the situation, practically speaking (and it is necessary to be practical in order to reach compromise) I have to agree with your "It sucks to be conquered." The problem is that they aren't down yet--that's why there's still conflict going on. The question is who should everyone else (i.e. the US) side-with or should we side with anyone in this ongoing fight? Which brings us back to the question that began this forum: Why defend Israel? In light of the above discussion, can anyone who thinks of Israel in a positive light (I know I'm generalizing but bear with me) give the answer to that question. Why does the US side with Israel as opposed to Palestine?

(MarcUK gave his opinion but I don't think he's a positive for Israel person. Hard to tell though--do the rest of you agree with him?)
1) Because Israel was a counter to Soviet influence in the region during the cold war. After the cold war they remained their closest ally and source of influence.
2)The US cannot side with Palestine as there is no Palestine. The concept of an autonomous Palestinian state is much more recent than the creation of the Jewish state.

But you speak of the need for compromise. Yet when vinea stated that Arafat was not willing to negotiate a compromise in any form that he would honor (with goal of a creation of a Palestinian state considered only a step towards the elimination of Israel as a state) you say it is ridiculous to expect any less. So practical or not, you would really only expect compromise from Israel.

To take your house analogy further:
Two squatters fighting over a dilapitated, neglected abandoned house. The recognised authority over the matter divides the house between them and they both 'lose' portion you considered essential to their claims. One moves forward with their claim, registers the property and starts moving in and renovating their portion. The other decides they cannot live in the same house, so instead of formalizing their claim, they spend all their efforts trying to force their neighrbour out or kill them, while their portion of the house falls further into ruin.

Immanuel Goldstein

05-27-2006, 01:23 AM

Originally posted by midwinter
I think, actually, that the problem is that they are down but not "out." After HItler and Stalin, the western world simply won't allow for "out" to happen. (although we're cool with it if you're Cambodia or basically any country in Africa).
I don't see why you think “the western world simply won't allow” it. No country came to Israel's defence in 1948, and most observers at the time expected the Arab countries to win that war.
And that was only three years after 1945, while Stalin was busy purging Soviet Jews (including famous ones such as the poet Mikhoels).
So, my expectations from the western world are even lower than yours.

Of course, Israel does have US help now, but notice that such help rarely goes to those truly helpless.

vinea

05-27-2006, 01:26 AM

Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
Forced? By whom? You and what army, officer?
Actually, without the US, Israel would have crushed Egypt and and Syria to a pulp by the late ninteen-sixties to early seventies, and would've probably brought a few other countries in the vicinity (Iraq, Saudi,… etc.) to the brink of collapse.

Without the US the Soviets would have intervened had the Egyptian and Syrian armies been destroyed. Israel might have held out a bit like Finland but if they got serious the disparity in arms is too great.

So that army. But it wouldn't have been a negotiated peace but massacre.

Nothing happens in a vaccum and eliminating the US really changes the landscape to make any meaningful predictions as to the outcome. That may sound like typical American arrogance but there WAS a cold war and the US was a major participant.

Vinea

Immanuel Goldstein

05-27-2006, 01:29 AM

Originally posted by vinea
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
Contrary to the popular myth, the US and and Israel weren't always so close.

Israel had no US help in 1948, actually, the US had an arms embargo on Israel at the time.
So in 1948 who or what provided the funds to buy more arms on the black market and the Czechs?
Those funds were provided by private individuals. I assume you know the difference between private individuals and the government.

midwinter

05-27-2006, 01:35 AM

Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
I don't see why you think ï¿½the western world simply won't allowï¿½ it. No country came to Israel's defence in 1948, and most observers at the time expected the Arab countries to win that war.
And that was only three years after 1945, while Stalin was busy purging Soviet Jews (including famous ones such as the poet Mikhoels).
So, my expectations from the western world are even lower than yours.

Of course, Israel does have US help now, but notice that such help rarely goes to those truly helpless.

I don't think we're disagreeing. Note that I said "after Hitler and Stalin."

Immanuel Goldstein

05-27-2006, 01:35 AM

Originally posted by vinea
Without the US the Soviets would have intervened had the Egyptian and Syrian armies been destroyed.
The Soviet threatened they'd intervene, [edit: and the US stated it wouldn't tolerate direct Soviet intervention in the Middle-East], and some Americans probably believed the Soviet threat.
To believe the Soviets would have risked starting World War III for the sake of Egypt and Syria, that's as preposterous as to imagine the US starting WWIII to save South Vietnam.

The USSR may have been many horrible things, mindless insane idiots they were not. [Edit: although they were aggressive and intimidating and some were obviously intimidated.]

Gene Clean

05-27-2006, 03:28 AM

Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
Those funds were provided by private individuals. I assume you know the difference between private individuals and the government.

Yeah, and I'm Madonna.

Consider this (http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=9047):

May 26, 2006
Steering Into a Third Intifada
by Patrick J. Buchanan

When there is no solution, there is no problem, observed James Burnham, the former Trotskyite turned Cold War geostrategist.

Burnham's insight came again to mind as President Bush ended his meeting with Ehud Olmert by announcing that the Israeli prime minister had brought with him some "bold ideas" for peace.

And what bold ideas might that be?

Olmert wants Bush to remain steadfast in refusing to talk to the Hamas-dominated Palestinian Authority. He wants U.S. support for Israel's wall that is fencing in large slices of the West Bank and all of Jerusalem, forever denying the Palestinians a viable state. He wants U.S. recognition of Israeli-drawn lines as the final borders of Israel. And he wants America to remove the "existential threat" of Iran.

In the six months before he proceeds unilaterally with this Sharon-Olmert plan, he will be happy to talk with Mahmoud Abbas, the isolated Palestinian president he has called "powerless."

What is the Bush plan to advance our interests in the Middle East? There is none. For five years, the Bush policy has been to sign off on whatever Sharon put in front of him. And now that Bush is weak, he is not going to pick a fight he cannot win and, in candor, he does not want.

For Bush has signed on to the Sharon agenda. And if he had a policy that clashed with the Sharon-Olmert Plan, political realities would prevent his pursuing it.

Consider: Suppose Bush declared that Ehud Olmert's proposed withdrawals from the West Bank were insufficient, that an official Palestinian presence in East Jerusalem was imperative, and that the United States needed to aid the Palestinians whom Israel is starving out and to talk in back channels to Hamas, even as we talked to Libya's Col. Gadhafi to convince him to give up terrorism and his weapons of mass destruction.

Bush's and America's stock might rise worldwide. But here in the United States, it would be another story altogether.

We would hear the cry of "Munich!" from neoconservatives, echoed by evangelical Christians and the religious Right. "Bibi" Netanyahu would be a fixture on Fox News, which would be asking hourly if Bush had taken leave of his senses.

Then, as his father did on the loan guarantees for Israel that he briefly held up in 1991, Bush would capitulate.

Thus Israel will pursue the Sharon-Olmert Plan to completion. There will be withdrawals from isolated settlements and outposts, but no negotiations with a Palestinian Authority to agree on permanent borders and two states.

The West Bank wall will soon encompass all of the suburbs of Jerusalem for miles around. Palestine will be divided into three parts: Gaza and two enclaves on the West Bank. There will be no Palestinian official presence in Jerusalem. No viable nation.

Meanwhile, America will be called upon for new sums of money to subsidize the Sharon-Olmert Plan, even as we are prodded to do our duty and emasculate Iran.

As Olmert is the pilot setting the course, and Bush has signed on as crew to his "bold ideas," our destination is easy to foresee.

The United States alone will recognize Israel's new borders, and her annexations of the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem as Israel's exclusive capital. Israel will ask for and the United States will accede to Israel's request that we commit ourselves militarily to defend Israel's new frontiers. No Arab government will recognize the new borders. America's Arab friends will be further estranged.

Every demagogue bidding for power in the Islamic world will, like Iran's Ahmadinejad, play the Palestinian card.

The suffering of the Palestinian people under the U.S.-Israeli sanctions regime will further radicalize them into hating us as they do Israel. The struggle between Hamas and Fatah over diminishing aid and resources will intensify, degenerating into civil war. Iran will move into the vacuum. Eventually, with aid cut off and no hope of negotiations, Hamas will revert to terror and the third intifada will begin.

Western Europe, its Muslim populations growing in numbers and militancy, will neither recognize Israel's borders nor endorse U.S. policy. Europe is not going to side with 5 million Israelis, whom they believe to be in the wrong, against 300 million Arabs, who will be 500 million at mid-century.

Rightly, Americans say we will not let Israel be destroyed. But why must we acquiesce in Israel's annexations of Arab land? Why must we remain silent to her deprivations of the Palestinians?

These questions will puzzle the historians who investigate the astonishing and swift end to U.S. hegemony in the 21st century.

Immanuel Goldstein

05-27-2006, 04:41 AM

Originally posted by Gene Clean
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
Those funds [helping Israel in 1948] were provided by private individuals. I assume you know the difference between private individuals and the government.

Yeah, and I'm Madonna.
Isn't it “Esther” these days?
Or do you have any reliable information about the US government funding a country at war (under US arms embargo) in 1948?

Consider this…
No, I don't consider it.

vinea

05-27-2006, 08:48 AM

Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
So in 1948 who or what provided the funds to buy more arms on the black market and the Czechs?
Those funds were provided by private individuals. I assume you know the difference between private individuals and the government. [/QUOTE]

I was asking because I didn't know.

vinea

05-27-2006, 09:00 AM

Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
The Soviet threatened they'd intervene, [edit: and the US stated it wouldn't tolerate direct Soviet intervention in the Middle-East], and some Americans probably believed the Soviet threat.
To believe the Soviets would have risked starting World War III for the sake of Egypt and Syria, that's as preposterous as to imagine the US starting WWIII to save South Vietnam.

The USSR may have been many horrible things, mindless insane idiots they were not. [Edit: although they were aggressive and intimidating and some were obviously intimidated.]

The point is that you said if it were not for the US Israel would have crushed its opposition in the 60s and 70s implying that without any US help ever Israel would have prevailed on her own. This is clearly untrue from the perspective that without the US the risk of WWIII for the Soviets would have been ZERO.

Second it is questionable that without the $1B in aid prior to 1973 if Israel would have survived the Yom Kippur war (ie not had the reserves used to throw into battle).

Without Nixon's promise that the US would replace all Israeli losses the armor and aircraft being held in reserve would not have been commited and you wouldn't have seen the dramatic reversal in the war. The soviets were replacing Egypt's losses through sealift after the front had stablized so without the US commitment they'd have pressed forward and continued a war of attrition.

Vinea

Immanuel Goldstein

05-27-2006, 10:09 AM

Originally posted by vinea
The point is that you said if it were not for the US Israel would have crushed its opposition in the 60s and 70s implying that without any US help ever Israel would have prevailed on her own.
Israel was about to tear Egypt and Syria apart in 1967 and would have probably done so hadn't the US demand and obtain it stopped. So yes, we would have prevailed on our own.

This is clearly untrue from the perspective that without the US the risk of WWIII for the Soviets would have been ZERO.
What do you mean by “without the US”? Do you mean an isolationist US?

Had the Soviets dared intevene, the US would have sent its own troops against them (and igniting WWIII) not for the sake of Israel, but because it would simply not have tolerated any direct Soviet intervention in the region. Which is why the Soviets wouldn't have risked it at all.

Had Israel continued its advance toward Cairo and Damascus in 67, both regimes would have fallen, and the Soviets wouldn't have intervened to save them.

My point being: US aid (from 67 onward) did not free Israel from being “reasonable” (as was suggested by one contributor upthread) but came with many restraining strings attached.
It is US assistance which actually forced Israel to be somewhat “reasonable” and without such help, a lone desperate Israel without allies or support and with its back to the sea would have been more aggressive toward its neighbours, seizing all the opprtunities of victory; it would have completely trounced its enemies in 67, therefore they couldn't have rearmed and surprised it in 73.

meelash

05-27-2006, 02:18 PM

Originally posted by Tulkas
1) Because Israel was a counter to Soviet influence in the region during the cold war. After the cold war they remained their closest ally and source of influence.
2)The US cannot side with Palestine as there is no Palestine. The concept of an autonomous Palestinian state is much more recent than the creation of the Jewish state.

But you speak of the need for compromise. Yet when vinea stated that Arafat was not willing to negotiate a compromise in any form that he would honor (with goal of a creation of a Palestinian state considered only a step towards the elimination of Israel as a state) you say it is ridiculous to expect any less. So practical or not, you would really only expect compromise from Israel.

To take your house analogy further:
Two squatters fighting over a dilapitated, neglected abandoned house. The recognised authority over the matter divides the house between them and they both 'lose' portion you considered essential to their claims. One moves forward with their claim, registers the property and starts moving in and renovating their portion. The other decides they cannot live in the same house, so instead of formalizing their claim, they spend all their efforts trying to force their neighrbour out or kill them, while their portion of the house falls further into ruin.

There are subtle inaccuracies in this extension of the analogy. The house was not abandoned-It was occupied by living human beings that were physically, forcibly displaced and have been living for years now in refugee camps. The arabs and Jews were not fighting over the house and then the recognized authority decided the matter-the "recognized authority" was feeling sorry (this is a gross over-simplification giving the nuances of the politics then and now) over its treatment of the Jews so it took land from the Arabs and unilaterally gave it to the Jews without consulting the people living on the land at the time. Then the fight began...

So that's why I say it is silly to expect those people to just give in and share what was solely theirs. What I am saying is if you were in their position you would consider yourself (correctly) oppressed and, yes, you would only expect compromise from the other side. My point is, this is probably not a practical solution to the problem in the rest of our eyes, but you can't fault those people from having that view and attempting to attain it.

OfficerDigby

05-27-2006, 03:01 PM

Unfortunantely, It took the starting of various Palestinian terrorist groups in the 70's and their rather vicious acts - for Isreal (and the world) to recognize the existence af a Palestinian nation/people as such - and not just @another bumch of arabs' who could just go and live with their friends some place else.

Unfortunately, Isreal with it's great power and funding and essential regional dominance (along with encouragement of various bodies in US) after 1973 conceived an idea to build settlements to expand it's territories - when at that moment it could have pursued a path of peace settlement. This for my money was when the alturistic and initially well intended Zionist project went off rails and was perverted.

As for Clinton and the great offer for peace - it's was total lie and a completely unfair and unreasonable offer - that would not have been accepted by the people. The Climton's only use it now to further Hilary's own career aims, (bitch!).

As for UK leaving behing a mess. Well it was a mess, however - after having been on the receiving end of a concerted terrorist campaign coming from the Jewish nationalists, there was no choice. The UK police forces are not the equivalent of yankee doodle dandies (in Iraq) with AK47's (especially in 1940's).

Peace Now!

BRussell

05-27-2006, 03:42 PM

Originally posted by OfficerDigby
bitch!

Tulkas

05-27-2006, 05:18 PM

Originally posted by meelash
There are subtle inaccuracies in this extension of the analogy. The house was not abandoned-It was occupied by living human beings that were physically, forcibly displaced and have been living for years now in refugee camps. The arabs and Jews were not fighting over the house and then the recognized authority decided the matter-the "recognized authority" was feeling sorry (this is a gross over-simplification giving the nuances of the politics then and now) over its treatment of the Jews so it took land from the Arabs and unilaterally gave it to the Jews without consulting the people living on the land at the time. Then the fight began...

So that's why I say it is silly to expect those people to just give in and share what was solely theirs. What I am saying is if you were in their position you would consider yourself (correctly) oppressed and, yes, you would only expect compromise from the other side. My point is, this is probably not a practical solution to the problem in the rest of our eyes, but you can't fault those people from having that view and attempting to attain it.

the inaccuracies here are not even subtle. They were forcibly removed and made refugees? I will assume you are implying that the jews or British forced them out. Just because they left, doesn't mean they were forced out by the jews.

Peter Dodd and Halim Barakat, River Without Bridges.- A Study of the Exodus of the 1967Arab Palestinian Refugees (Beirut: Institute for Palestine Studies, 1969), p. 43; on April 27, 1950, the Arab National Committee of Haifa stated in a memorandum to the Arab States: "The removal of the Arab inhabitants ... was voluntary and was carried out at our request ... The Arab delegation proudly asked for the evacuation of the Arabs and their removal to the neighboring Arab countries.... We are very glad to state that the Arabs guarded their honour and traditions with pride and greatness." Cited by J.B. Schechtman, The Arab Refugee Problem (New York: Philosophical Library, 1952), pp. 8-9; also see Al-Zaman, Baghdad journal, April 27, 1950.

"Since 1948 it is we who demanded the return of the refugees... while it is we who made them leave.... We brought disaster upon ... Arab refugees, by inviting them and bringing pressure to bear upon them to leave.... We have rendered them dispossessed.... We have accustomed them to begging.... We have participated in lowering their moral and social level.... Then we exploited them in executing crimes of murder, arson, and throwing bombs upon ... men, women and children-all this in the service of political purposes ...."
-- Khaled Al-Azm, Syria's Prime Minister, 1948

And as far as it being occupied, it sparcely inhabited and the was always some jewish presence there. So it was not 'solely' anyones.

The British didn't take the land from the Arabs and give to the jews, the took what was Ottoman Palestine and broke it into chunks. One chunk was to be explicitly Arab, this became Jordan. The rest eventually was decided to be divided again between a Jewish state and an Arab state.

Tulkas

05-27-2006, 05:29 PM

Originally posted by OfficerDigby
Unfortunantely, It took the starting of various Palestinian terrorist groups in the 70's and their rather vicious acts - for Isreal (and the world) to recognize the existence af a Palestinian nation/people as such - and not just @another bumch of arabs' who could just go and live with their friends some place else.

Peace Now!

Well since there was no movement for a separate and distinct Palestinian people until the terrorist movements adopted (conceived?) the concept.

"the existence of a separate Palestinian identity serves only tactical purposes. The founding of a Palestinian state is a new tool in the continuing battle against Israel ... "
Zuheir Muhsin, Military Department Head of the PLO and member of its Executive Council
-March 1977

jamac

05-27-2006, 07:36 PM

Why defend Israel?

Otherwise all the jews would move to the US.

meelash

05-27-2006, 07:37 PM

Originally posted by Tulkas
the inaccuracies here are not even subtle. They were forcibly removed and made refugees? I will assume you are implying that the jews or British forced them out. Just because they left, doesn't mean they were forced out by the jews.

Nope.. I didn't intend to vilify the British and Jews and pardon the arab nations. The selfishness of the Pan-Arab nationalists is inexcusable as they use the Palestinian people for their own ends-it continues today. They are quite willing to give speeches on the plight of Palestinians and make much publicized prayers for them, but when push comes to shove, you don't find any oil money making its way to feed the starving palestinians.

And as far as it being occupied, it sparcely inhabited and the was always some jewish presence there. So it was not 'solely' anyones.

Aren't you contradicting yourself here? In the previous section you explained how the refugee situation was created and now you are implying the land was "sparcely inhabited." Obviously that's a qualitative statement that's open to interpretation, but didn't the refugees have to come from somewhere? So whereever they left, and someone else moved in, is what I am referring to.

The British didn't take the land from the Arabs and give to the jews, the took what was Ottoman Palestine and broke it into chunks. One chunk was to be explicitly Arab, this became Jordan. The rest eventually was decided to be divided again between a Jewish state and an Arab state.

I would agree with you if the demographic of people living there had not changed and the Jews had simply been placed in charge. (As the Kashmir issue in India shows, even this would not have been without problems, for sure) But the mass importing of Jews from around the world, encouraged and facilitated by the government, the displacement and economic embargoes on the palestinian natives, and especially the settlements establishment and expansion bely this interpretation.

meelash

05-27-2006, 07:40 PM

Originally posted by jamac
Why defend Israel?

Otherwise all the jews would move to the US.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

While somewhat comical, I do think there is an element of truth in this statement in the minds of some... Anti-semitism does actually exist today, often in elements that are publicly pro-Israel.

SDW2001

05-27-2006, 08:24 PM

Originally posted by meelash
Tell me, honestly, can you hold a straight face when you say something like that? IMO, whether it is retaliation or not, if it involves terrorist methods, it is terrorism. And judging if something is retaliation requires recognition of the aggressor. So who is the original aggressor in this situation? Who "started it"?

Bullshit. Israel may be using methods that are too harsh, ineffective, what have you. But, they are doing so with a uniformed army in retaliation for blowing up civilians who have done nothing wrong. They are targeting the families of suicide bombers who have already committed terroristic acts. There is no excuse for the tactic the Palestinians have used. Moreover, the Palestinians have been offered peace on a silver platter in the past, and turned it down. What is Israel supposed to do?

Tulkas

05-27-2006, 08:53 PM

Originally posted by meelash
Nope.. I didn't intend to vilify the British and Jews and pardon the arab nations. The selfishness of the Pan-Arab nationalists is inexcusable as they use the Palestinian people for their own ends-it continues today. They are quite willing to give speeches on the plight of Palestinians and make much publicized prayers for them, but when push comes to shove, you don't find any oil money making its way to feed the starving palestinians.

Good, then perhaps you realize that 'forced displacement' is perhaps not the correct term for the refugees. The refugee problem was created by the arab states, used for propagandaby the arab states and perpetuated by the arab states. But that makes it Israel's responsibility? Certainly it makes it Israels fault to some.

Originally posted by meelash

Aren't you contradicting yourself here? In the previous section you explained how the refugee situation was created and now you are implying the land was "sparcely inhabited." Obviously that's a qualitative statement that's open to interpretation, but didn't the refugees have to come from somewhere? So whereever they left, and someone else moved in, is what I am referring to.

Not at all. Sparce doesn't mean unpopulated. It was sparcly populated by both Arabs and Jews. Other peoples as well, I suppose.

Originally posted by meelash

I would agree with you if the demographic of people living there had not changed and the Jews had simply been placed in charge. (As the Kashmir issue in India shows, even this would not have been without problems, for sure) But the mass importing of Jews from around the world, encouraged and facilitated by the government, the displacement and economic embargoes on the palestinian natives, and especially the settlements establishment and expansion bely this interpretation.
The demographic changed, yes because Jews moved there. You call it 'mass importing', I would call it mass immigration. I guess they should have known their place. Additionally, the demographic changed as Arabs moved out in hopes that their brothers would come in a clean the place up a bit and get rid of the infestation of 'vermin'.

midwinter

05-27-2006, 09:24 PM

/me walks by, singing to himself...

Brezhnev took Afghanistan.
Begin took Beirut.
Galtieri took the Union Jack.
And Maggie, over lunch one day,
Took a cruiser with all hands.
Apparently, to make him give it back

Gene Clean

05-27-2006, 09:42 PM

Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
Or do you have any reliable information about the US government funding a country at war (under US arms embargo) in 1948?

About as reliable as your 'private individuals' meme.

No, I don't consider it.

Shock.

Gene Clean

05-27-2006, 09:45 PM

Originally posted by Tulkas
The rest eventually was decided to be divided again between a Jewish state and an Arab state.

By a UN Resolution no less. Why isn't Israel adhering to this resolution?

Immanuel Goldstein

05-28-2006, 03:25 AM

Originally posted by Gene Clean
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
Or do you have any reliable information about the US government funding a country at war (under US arms embargo) in 1948?
About as reliable as your 'private individuals' meme.
They must be very reliable then. So what's stopping you?

meelash

05-28-2006, 07:52 AM

Originally posted by SDW2001
But, they are doing so with a uniformed army
--What difference does that make???

in retaliation for blowing up civilians who have done nothing wrong. They are targeting the families of suicide bombers who have already committed terroristic acts.
If you use this line of reasoning, then we could also say that the Palestinians are targeting the families of Israeli soldiers that have committed terrorist attacks.

This is a nice little double standard you've got going-
Israeli fighters families-->civilians who have done nothing wrong
Palestinian fighters families-->terrorists!! Kill them!

meelash

05-28-2006, 08:00 AM

Originally posted by Tulkas
Good, then perhaps you realize that 'forced displacement' is perhaps not the correct term for the refugees. The refugee problem was created by the arab states, used for propagandaby the arab states and perpetuated by the arab states. But that makes it Israel's responsibility? Certainly it makes it Israels fault to some.

Well, Israel was only too happy to move right into the places that they left, take over their homes, etc.

Not at all. Sparce doesn't mean unpopulated. It was sparcly populated by both Arabs and Jews. Other peoples as well, I suppose.[QUOTE]

Any idea what percentage of people were Jews?? Very low (As it still is today if you count all the palestinians in refugee camps)

[QUOTE]The demographic changed, yes because Jews moved there. You call it 'mass importing', I would call it mass immigration. I guess they should have known their place. Additionally, the demographic changed as Arabs moved out in hopes that their brothers would come in a clean the place up a bit and get rid of the infestation of 'vermin'.

Immigration implies people moving on their own for personal reasons. When the government purposely encourages people to move in large numbers by calling on their religion or race allegiance for the sole purpose of creating a powerful demographic then I call that "importing," although it is still, literally, immigration.

SDW2001

05-28-2006, 08:44 AM

Originally posted by meelash
--What difference does that make???

If you use this line of reasoning, then we could also say that the Palestinians are targeting the families of Israeli soldiers that have committed terrorist attacks.

This is a nice little double standard you've got going-
Israeli fighters families-->civilians who have done nothing wrong
Palestinian fighters families-->terrorists!! Kill them!

You're saying there is no diffence between a uniformed army and those who dress up as pregnant women, go to a bus stop, and blow themselves up? Your scenario with troop retaliation is not even happening. They're blowing up CIVILIANS...women and children included. Maybe you'd be happier if Israel started sending in its own suicide bombers? It might illustrate the difference for you, at least.

meelash

05-28-2006, 02:18 PM

Originally posted by SDW2001
You're saying there is no diffence between a uniformed army and those who dress up as pregnant women, go to a bus stop, and blow themselves up? Your scenario with troop retaliation is not even happening. They're blowing up CIVILIANS...women and children included.

No, what I am saying is that when the Israeli army "targets the families of suicide bombers" (<--these are your words I'm quoting) those are CIVILIANS too... women and children included. It makes no difference to me if those terrorists are wearing army uniforms or not. That's why I say it is no different. In my mind, a terrorist action is a terrorist action--whatever the provacation.

Maybe you'd be happier if Israel started sending in its own suicide bombers? It might illustrate the difference for you, at least.

When the Israeli army goes into a civilian areas bulldozes residences and kills women, children, and old men, it is worse than the suicide bombers. The fact that the suicide bombers purposefully die in the act is illustrative of the despair, lack of future prospects/hope, etc. that leads them to commit such insane acts in such large numbers. I very strongly believe that what they are doing is wrong, but at the same time it is obvious that on many levels their plight must be piteous to lead them to such ends.

regards,

meelash

BRussell

05-28-2006, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by meelash
I very strongly believe that what they are doing is wrong, but at the same time it is obvious that on many levels their plight must be piteous to lead them to such ends. That, or they live in a very sick culture. The 9/11 suicide hijackers were well-educated and middle class, but immersed themselves in an extremist religious ideology.

midwinter

05-28-2006, 03:06 PM

Originally posted by BRussell
That, or they live in a very sick culture. The 9/11 suicide hijackers were well-educated and middle class, but immersed themselves in an extremist religious ideology.

Same for the 7/7 bombers in London. One of them was a teacher, for God's sake.

Gene Clean

05-28-2006, 07:48 PM

Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
They must be very reliable then.

But of course.

So what's stopping you?

I've documented more than enough US "contributions" to the war machine. You, on the other hand, have offered no proof on the matter of private individuals.

Got any names?

Gene Clean

05-28-2006, 07:50 PM

Originally posted by BRussell
That, or they live in a very sick culture. The 9/11 suicide hijackers were well-educated and middle class, but immersed themselves in an extremist religious ideology.

Kinda like the sick Japanese culture immersed in extremist religious ideology that gave birth to kamikazes.

Tulkas

05-28-2006, 09:55 PM

Originally posted by meelash

Immigration implies people moving on their own for personal reasons. When the government purposely encourages people to move in large numbers by calling on their religion or race allegiance for the sole purpose of creating a powerful demographic then I call that "importing," although it is still, literally, immigration.
Hmm..last time I checked, religion was considered a personal reason. So is fear of persecution,

vinea

05-28-2006, 10:55 PM

Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
Israel was about to tear Egypt and Syria apart in 1967 and would have probably done so hadn't the US demand and obtain it stopped. So yes, we would have prevailed on our own.

If the US hadn't demanded it then it would have been an indicator it did not view Israel as of any strategic importance. That does not require an isolationist US, just one that didn't care about the survival of Israel. The two are not equivalent.

Had the Soviets dared intevene, the US would have sent its own troops against them (and igniting WWIII) not for the sake of Israel, but because it would simply not have tolerated any direct Soviet intervention in the region. Which is why the Soviets wouldn't have risked it at all.

You mean like the 20,000 Soviet advisors in Egypt that the US didn't tolerate? You are still depending on the US to counerbalance the Soviets. That does not mean that Israel would have survived on its own.

Had Israel continued its advance toward Cairo and Damascus in 67, both regimes would have fallen, and the Soviets wouldn't have intervened to save them.

My point being: US aid (from 67 onward) did not free Israel from being “reasonable” (as was suggested by one contributor upthread) but came with many restraining strings attached.

'67 went well because of air dominance. Had the Soviets intervened only with aircraft they could have halted and then reversed Israel's gains. If the US was non-commital then there is no risk of intervention. They could also have traded reduction in the support of North Vietnam in exchange for a free hand in defending its middle east allies at the expense of its asian allies.

A lot of what ifs but far more reasonable than the assertion that the US was not key to the survival of Israel or that the Soviet Union was unwilling to act.

It is US assistance which actually forced Israel to be somewhat “reasonable” and without such help, a lone desperate Israel without allies or support and with its back to the sea would have been more aggressive toward its neighbours, seizing all the opprtunities of victory; it would have completely trounced its enemies in 67, therefore they couldn't have rearmed and surprised it in 73.

Gee...which is why the Soviet Union was able to rebuild Egypt enough for the Attrition war and deploy batteries of SAMs and Migs very quickly when it wanted to.

There is no argument that Israel fought well and without direct US aid but certainly projecting that into the ability to take down Soviet allies without US protection is extreme.

Vinea

Immanuel Goldstein

05-29-2006, 01:25 AM

Originally posted by Gene Clean
I've documented more than enough US "contributions" to the war machine.
Let's see your own linked source (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/foreign_aid.html):
“Truman's commitment was quickly tested after Israel's victory in its War of Independence when she applied to the U.S. for economic aid to help absorb immigrants. President Truman responded by approving a $135 million Export-Import Bank loan and the sale of surplus commodities to Israel.”
I emphasised the “after Israel's victory in its War of Independence” part.
So, according to a source you could read, Israel fought its war of independence and won, with no contribution from the US government. Which is widely known and undisputed fact.

You, on the other hand, have offered no proof on the matter of private individuals.

Got any names?
You could try a public library, they might have something about widely known facts of the 1948 war, such as Israel raising funds from rich Jews in the US and Canada to buy arms, on the black market or from Czechoslovakia.

Immanuel Goldstein

05-29-2006, 01:56 AM

Originally posted by vinea
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
Israel was about to tear Egypt and Syria apart in 1967 and would have probably done so hadn't the US demand and obtain it stopped. So yes, we would have prevailed on our own.
If the US hadn't demanded it then it would have been an indicator it did not view Israel as of any strategic importance. That does not require an isolationist US, just one that didn't care about the survival of Israel.
So let's see: the US summons Israel to stop short of complete victory, because the US cared about Israel's survival?
Not quite. Because the US actually believed Soviet threats.

Had the Soviets dared intevene, the US would have sent its own troops against them (and igniting WWIII) not for the sake of Israel, but because it would simply not have tolerated any direct Soviet intervention in the region. Which is why the Soviets wouldn't have risked it at all.
You mean like the 20,000 Soviet advisors in Egypt that the US didn't tolerate?
Precisely, they were technical advisors, not Soviet troops directly inrtervening in the war, and while some Soviet military did participate (I mentioned earlier Egyptian jets flown by Soviet pilots) this was denied by Moscow at the time.

You are still depending on the US to counerbalance the Soviets.
Still? Do you mean presently?

That does not mean that Israel would have survived on its own.
In this case, US help to Israel became abundant after it became clear that Israel was not helpless.

'67 went well because of air dominance. Had the Soviets intervened only with aircraft they could have halted and then reversed Israel's gains. If the US was non-commital then there is no risk of intervention. They could also have traded reduction in the support of North Vietnam in exchange for a free hand in defending its middle east allies at the expense of its asian allies.

A lot of what ifs but far more reasonable than the assertion that the US was not key to the survival of Israel or that the Soviet Union was unwilling to act.
You seem to overlook the fact that the US would not have tolerated having Soviet military fighting a war so close to Saudi and the Persian Gulf. It would have been a Casus Belli as far as Washington was concerned.

Gee...which is why the Soviet Union was able to rebuild Egypt enough for the Attrition war and deploy batteries of SAMs and Migs very quickly when it wanted to.
Precisely: becuase Israel had stopped its advance in 1967 and Cairo had not fallen.
Had the regime fallen, it could not have been rebuild by the Soviets.

There is no argument that Israel fought well and without direct US aid but certainly projecting that into the ability to take down Soviet allies without US protection is extreme.
I did not say that Israel could have taken on the Soviets, I said there was no actual risk of Soviet direct intervention because that would have incurred US direct intervention and not for Israel's sake (thus WWIII) which Moscow would not have risked.

SDW2001

05-29-2006, 07:06 AM

Originally posted by meelash
No, what I am saying is that when the Israeli army "targets the families of suicide bombers" (<--these are your words I'm quoting) those are CIVILIANS too... women and children included. It makes no difference to me if those terrorists are wearing army uniforms or not. That's why I say it is no different. In my mind, a terrorist action is a terrorist action--whatever the provacation.

When the Israeli army goes into a civilian areas bulldozes residences and kills women, children, and old men, it is worse than the suicide bombers. The fact that the suicide bombers purposefully die in the act is illustrative of the despair, lack of future prospects/hope, etc. that leads them to commit such insane acts in such large numbers. I very strongly believe that what they are doing is wrong, but at the same time it is obvious that on many levels their plight must be piteous to lead them to such ends.

regards,

meelash

Oh come on. The Israeli Army does not bulldoze homes with the goal of killing those family members inside, and you know it. You also know that more times than not, those family members are fully supportive of the actions of their loved one. Mothers are raising their children to become bombers. You then compare this to someone attacking a civilian, ignoring that THIS IS the original act of terror being retaliated against in the first place.

There is no justification for homicide bombing, no matter what their plight is.

Hassan i Sabbah

05-29-2006, 07:58 AM

Originally posted by SDW2001
Oh come on. The Israeli Army does not bulldoze homes with the goal of killing those family members inside, and you know it.
This doesn't make it OK.

Originally posted by SDW2001
You also know that more times than not, those family members are fully supportive of the actions of their loved one.
It's their right.

Originally posted by SDW2001
Mothers are raising their children to become bombers.
Inhumanity begets inhumanity. I don't care who was inhuman first, these actions don't come from a vacuum.

Originally posted by SDW2001
You then compare this to someone attacking a civilian, ignoring that THIS IS the original act of terror being retaliated against in the first place.
No. It's not; this isn't true. It's not right. You're wrong writing this.

Originally posted by SDW2001
There is no justification for homicide bombing, no matter what their plight is.
It's called 'suicide bombing' by everyone in the world apart from FoxNews. It's no more and no less justified than bulldozing someone's house.

SDW2001

05-29-2006, 08:09 AM

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
This doesn't make it OK.

It's their right.

Inhumanity begets inhumanity. I don't care who was inhuman first, these actions don't come from a vacuum.

No. It's not; this isn't true. It's not right. You're wrong writing this.

It's called 'suicide bombing' by everyone in the world apart from FoxNews. It's no more and no less justified than bulldozing someone's house.

1. It might not be "OK," but it's not terrorism

2. Fine...but choices come with potential consequences.

3. I don't think Israel is being inhuman. I think their actions are not always effective, and that sometimes they go to far in retaliating. I also don't think the "in again, out again approach" has worked. But inhuman? There is only one side that is acting in that fashion.

4. You're actually taking issue with the term "homicide" bombing? Perhaps you'd like to tell me how that's inaccurate? Let me guess...they're just blowing themselves up to make a political statement. The rest is purely collteral damage that's completely unintentional? No. They're goal is to KILL PEOPLE in addition to themselves. Whatever. Call it what you want. It's totally unjustifiable, and not comparable with bulldozing a house.

Placebo

05-29-2006, 10:09 AM

I think the most significant thing we're doing for Israel is not giving them money per se, but allowing them to purchase our military hardware. They've got F-15s and F-16s with god knows what custom avionics hardware installed that no other country has access to.

Hassan i Sabbah

05-29-2006, 10:50 AM

OK. Let's call it 'bombing' then. Because every bomb exploded to kill people, whether it's left in a bag or strapped to someone's chest, is a 'homicide bomb'.

With suicide bombs, the bomber kills himself or herself, hence the special category 'suicide bomb' for these kind of bombs.

:)

Boom!

OfficerDigby

05-29-2006, 11:16 AM

Originally posted by SDW2001
Oh come on. The Israeli Army does not bulldoze homes with the goal of killing those family members inside, and you know it. You also know that more times than not, those family members are fully supportive of the actions of their loved one. Mothers are raising their children to become bombers. You then compare this to someone attacking a civilian, ignoring that THIS IS the original act of terror being retaliated against in the first place.

There is no justification for homicide bombing, no matter what their plight is.

You forget it took 20-30 years of occupation/closures and settlements not to mention the violence from the army, casual violence and homicide from settlers and a gradual erosion of land rights within occupied territories and within Isreal; and almost casual expulsion of Palestinians - before suicide bombing became a more than just a rarity.

quote:Originally posted by Tulkas
Good, then perhaps you realize that 'forced displacement' is perhaps not the correct term for the refugees. The refugee problem was created by the arab states, used for propagandaby the arab states and perpetuated by the arab states. But that makes it Israel's responsibility? Certainly it makes it Israels fault to some.

It's true the arab states advised cilivians to leave their homes which had become a war-zone. However, they were also prompted to do so by the actions of various gangs and militias which carried out massacres in a variety of palestinian villages. Deir Yassin for example.
I don't say these acts were part of official policy or a grand plan - However they were benificial in clearing the area. and the new Israeli goverment did not waste any time time taking advantage of the 'facts on the ground' with the new Law of the Absentees; and even swiftly incoporating the gangs within the ranks of the new Israeli defense forces..

As for the old nationlist chestnut about there being no Palestinian people "hey they're just another bunch of Arabs - coze they didn't have control of their country officially" It's just pure and simple racism...

X X

05-29-2006, 11:29 AM

Originally posted by Placebo
I think the most significant thing we're doing for Israel is not giving them money per se, but allowing them to purchase our military hardware. They've got F-15s and F-16s with god knows what custom avionics hardware installed that no other country has access to.

the only custom thing they have off the F16 is the removal of the 9G governors. Everything else is going to be to some degree, a paired down version of what the US has.

Placebo

05-29-2006, 11:40 AM

From what I had read, the avionics hardware in the Israeli aircraft are developed by private israeli defense firms. Also, I believe they have helmet-mounted HUDs in limited use.

X X

05-29-2006, 01:01 PM

Originally posted by Placebo
From what I had read, the avionics hardware in the Israeli aircraft are developed by private israeli defense firms. Also, I believe they have helmet-mounted HUDs in limited use.

Now that you mention that, I think you are correct. I think that is the main "special" arrangement that the US has with the Isrealis. I don't think any other country is allowed to integrate their own technologies.

Tulkas

05-29-2006, 01:52 PM

Originally posted by OfficerDigby-aka moron

As for the old nationlist chestnut about there being no Palestinian people "hey they're just another bunch of Arabs - coze they didn't have control of their country officially" It's just pure and simple racism...
How is it racism? Throw that egg somewhere else, jackass. There was no concept of a distinct Palestinian people. There was no country known as Palestine. The was no concept of palestinian nationalism.

segovius

05-29-2006, 01:57 PM

vinea

05-29-2006, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
So let's see: the US summons Israel to stop short of complete victory, because the US cared about Israel's survival?
Not quite. Because the US actually believed Soviet threats.

Sorry, what I wrote was somewhat hard to understand. I meant was that you do not need an isolationist US. Only one indiffernt to the survival of Israel at that time.

There are many potential reasons for this to occur. Certainly, relations with the oil producing nations would have improved for the US had it not supported Israel at all. As I mentioned the Soviets could have traded support in Asia for a freer hand in the Middle East. It would have been a good trade for Russia.

You speak of Saudi Arabia and certainly supporting Israel in the time before the Six-Day War strained relationships with them. Far more risky than defensive Soviet intervention in Syria and Egypt. This is clearly documented in the memos regarding the relationship between the House of Saud and the US in 1967 following the 6 day war. I believe that the US would have done quite a bit to avoid an outright break, including tolerating Soviet troops defending Arab nations directly.

Certainly, Soviet pilots operated Yemenese aircraft to save the republican regime without much protest.

The Soviets were not toothless as you seem to imply. Certainly they had no compunction in invading when it felt strategic interests were at risk. Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968, etc. Had the advance not been halted politically they would have done so militarily. If for no other reason than the destruction of Soviet allies could not be permitted regardless of what they thought of them.

Precisely, they were technical advisors, not Soviet troops directly inrtervening in the war, and while some Soviet military did participate (I mentioned earlier Egyptian jets flown by Soviet pilots) this was denied by Moscow at the time.

Pilots, SAM batteries, etc. Active engagement by the Soviet military. Rapidly deployed into the region no less. Were Egypt and Syria that close to destruction they would have stepped in.

Still? Do you mean presently?

I mean no matter how you dodge the issue, Isreal could not have won without the US to counterbalance the Soviet support of the Arab nations. Regardless of reason, had the US not cared, Israel would have been destroyed by the Soviet Union had it dared to push forward.

You seem to overlook the fact that the US would not have tolerated having Soviet military fighting a war so close to Saudi and the Persian Gulf. It would have been a Casus Belli as far as Washington was concerned.

You seem to overlook the fact that Isreal fired the first shot, would be invading Soviet allied countries with the intent to destroy them and the Soviets could clearly say that they were merely defending them against the aggression of Israel.

Precisely: becuase Israel had stopped its advance in 1967 and Cairo had not fallen.
Had the regime fallen, it could not have been rebuild by the Soviets.

And which part of the Soviets wouldn't have allowed that do you miss? Certainly the IDF halted not just for political but pragmatic reasons. So it is not certain that either regime would have fallen...do not assume that 6 days of destruction equals long term victory.

I did not say that Israel could have taken on the Soviets, I said there was no actual risk of Soviet direct intervention because that would have incurred US direct intervention and not for Israel's sake (thus WWIII) which Moscow would not have risked.

I somehow doubt the Soviets defending Cairo, Damascus and Amman would invite direct US intervention. Especially if Israel continued the fight against the US's wishes. That is the most likely statement Rusk made to Israel: The Soviets are embarrassed and pissed. You have what you need, stop now because we won't protect you if you keep pushing forward.

In any case, you as STILL depending on the US to offset the Soviet support of its Arab allies in 1967. Dance around the issue if you want but in the end Isreal would have been another Finland.

Vinea

Immanuel Goldstein

05-29-2006, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by vinea
Sorry, what I wrote was somewhat hard to understand. I meant was that you do not need an isolationist US. Only one indiffernt to the survival of Israel at that time.
I see what you mean. And whatever disagreements we may have do understand I don't wish to offend.

There are many potential reasons for this to occur. Certainly, relations with the oil producing nations would have improved for the US had it not supported Israel at all.
But then, Israel having lost French support, without allies, would see time as working against it, and would have crushed all enemies it can, rather than wait for them to regain power. A lone Israel would have been a loose cannon, endangering the oil producing countries, particularly those pro-Western conservative monarchies.

As I mentioned the Soviets could have traded support in Asia for a freer hand in the Middle East. It would have been a good trade for Russia.
That is very unliekly, since F D Roosevelt up to the current president, protecting Saudi and the emirates was a US priority, so a freer Soviet hand in the neighbourhood was out of the question. As for East-Asia, since the US had come to terms with a communist China, it could live with a communist Vietnam, and it did.

You speak of Saudi Arabia and certainly supporting Israel in the time before the Six-Day War strained relationships with them.
There was scant US support for Israel in the time before the Six-Day War, and indeed Saudi objections to that support began after that war.

Far more risky than defensive Soviet intervention in Syria and Egypt. This is clearly documented in the memos regarding the relationship between the House of Saud and the US in 1967 following the 6 day war. I believe that the US would have done quite a bit to avoid an outright break, including tolerating Soviet troops defending Arab nations directly.
I disagree. An engagment of Soviet troops in a Middle-East war was Casus Belli as far the US was concerned.

Certainly, Soviet pilots operated Yemenese aircraft to save the republican regime without much protest.
And Egyptian planes too (downed by Israel) but it's hardly comparable to Red Army troops overtly engaged in an all-out ME war.

The Soviets were not toothless as you seem to imply.
I didn't say they were toothless, I said they wouldn't have risked WWIII to save Nasser.

Certainly they had no compunction in invading when it felt strategic interests were at risk. Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968, etc.
Czechoslaovakia and Hungary were within the Soviet sphere of influence and recongnised as such at the Yalta and other conferences. The Middle-East was not.

Had the advance not been halted politically they would have done so militarily.
It's unlikely they'd have done so, precisely because they wouldn't have risked WWIII.

If for no other reason than the destruction of Soviet allies could not be permitted regardless of what they thought of them.
The US could afford to lose South Vietnam (and it did in 75) and so the USSR could afford to lose Egypt (and it did around the same time, when presdient Sadat expelled all Soviet advisors).
But a collapse of two major Arab regimes (even pro-Soviet ones) was an eventuality that even the US was not happy to envisage at the time; ever since the US inherited the British doctrine legacy for the Middlie-East they favoured stability over change, that doctrine was only abandoned by the current president who obviously likes to stir things up.

Were Egypt and Syria that close to destruction they would have stepped in.
Or so the USSR threatened but I don't believe they would have, for reasons I mentioned earlier.

I mean no matter how you dodge the issue, Isreal could not have won without the US to counterbalance the Soviet support of the Arab nations. Regardless of reason, had the US not cared, Israel would have been destroyed by the Soviet Union had it dared to push forward.
You seem to take for granted that the Soviets would have intervened, which is not a given, far from it.
Israel didn't need to win against the Soviets becuase they wouldn't have entered the fray anyway.

You seem to overlook the fact that Isreal fired the first shot, would be invading Soviet allied countries with the intent to destroy them and the Soviets could clearly say that they were merely defending them against the aggression of Israel.
Egypt and Syria (and Iraq, and Jordan, and Saudi, etc.) were in a state of war with Israel since 1948. In May 1967, Egypt and Syria had mobilised and massed troops on two fronts. Israel was not about to let them fight the war on their own terms, and so we took the initiative; war is not a gentlemanly sport, but one fought to win.

And which part of the Soviets wouldn't have allowed that do you miss?
Again, you take the eventuality of Soviet intervention as a given, I do not.

Certainly the IDF halted not just for political but pragmatic reasons.
The pragmatic reason was that president Lyndon B Johnson was adamant that Israel ceases advancing, and he was furious about premier Levi Eshcol trying to stall his compliance (and complie he did, eventually).

So it is not certain that either regime would have fallen...do not assume that 6 days of destruction equals long term victory.
Egyptian and Syrian troops were routed, Cairo and Damascus were laid undefended like ripe fruits ready to be picked.

I somehow doubt the Soviets defending Cairo, Damascus and Amman would invite direct US intervention.
The US would have defintely gone to war had Soviet troops been engaged in Cairo and Damascus (not to mention Amman, capital of a pro-US regime). The US had already used nuclear weapons in war, and the Soviets knew it.

Especially if Israel continued the fight against the US's wishes. That is the most likely statement Risk made to Israel: The Soviets are embarrassed and pissed. You have what you need, stop now because we won't protect you if you keep pushing forward.
Israel needed US support to replace France, the US needed to rein Israel in. That was how the “special relationship” began; reining Israel in is still part of that relationship.

In any case, you as STILL depending on the US to offset the Soviet support of its Arab allies in 1967.
Had Egypt and Syrian collapsed, the Soviets could not support these regimes after they had fallen, and no, they would not have sent troops to prevent them from falling. They'd have swallowed the fall of Cairo and Damascus the way the US actually swallowed the fall of Saigon in 1975.

Dance around the issue if you want but in the end Isreal would have been another Finland.
Had the Arabs won Israel would have been another moon-like landscape. But they lost, and the Soviets wouldn't have risked a World War to save them.

Tulkas

05-29-2006, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by segovius
"Yeah, how is it racism - they ain't even human....."

Chilling.

yes, exactly the point... :rolleyes:

come on seg, why stoop to strawmen. You are an intelligent lad and they are quite beneath you.

segovius

05-29-2006, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by Tulkas
yes, exactly the point... :rolleyes:

come on seg, why stoop to strawmen. You are an intelligent lad and they are quite beneath you.

Apologies.

It really was rather pathetic wasn't it? Unfortunately I didn't have anything of value to contribute and seems I still don't so I'll let you carry on and stop lowering the tone of what seems like a reasonable discussion.

:embarrass

Tulkas

05-29-2006, 03:57 PM

Originally posted by segovius
Apologies.

It really was rather pathetic wasn't it? Unfortunately I didn't have anything of value to contribute and seems I still don't so I'll let you carry on and stop lowering the tone of what seems like a reasonable discussion.

:embarrass
segovius with nothing to contribute in a thread on mid-east politics?:wow:

segovius

05-29-2006, 04:01 PM

Originally posted by Tulkas
segovius with nothing to contribute in a thread on mid-east politics?:wow:

I didn't say I had nothing - just nothing of value.

;)

Placebo

05-29-2006, 04:16 PM

Originally posted by Tulkas
yes, exactly the point... :rolleyes:

come on seg, why stoop to strawmen. You are an intelligent lad and they are quite beneath you.
How was that strawman in any way?

OfficerDigby

05-29-2006, 06:47 PM

Originally posted by Tulkas
How is it racism? Throw that egg somewhere else, jackass. There was no concept of a distinct Palestinian people. There was no country known as Palestine. The was no concept of palestinian nationalism.

Keep repeating the mantra... Take a few deap breath and perhpas read some non revisionistic history books...

No clearly defined nation - of course, it was for ever under governance/occupation. However, there was/is a clear culture distinct and highly sectarian when compared to it's surroundings. You forgot about all about the Palestianian Greeks Italians and the Palestinian Jews who lived there (in peace) for a long time. What about the Palestianian Christian church? Not related to Eygptian/Jordan/Syrian.

The concept that Palestinians don't exist - is a racism because it is used to policitically deny injustice to a people. It is the modern day equivalent of saying all Red Indians were savages - we had to kill them to protect ourselves! Even Sharon was forced to admit they exist on the world stage.

Gene Clean

05-29-2006, 08:30 PM

Originally posted by Placebo
I think the most significant thing we're doing for Israel is not giving them money per se,

This is simply not true. Lump sums of money, around $2 billion a year (at the beginning of each fiscal year) have been given (and still are) to Israel since at least 1992. That goes again any and every rule the US has regarding aid and grants which are given quarterly. When the US gives a lump sum of $2 billion in the beginning of each fiscal year that means that it needs to borrow money for its budget which means its actually hurting itself in the long run.

Adittionally, the total of U.S. grants and loan guarantees to Israel for fiscal 1997 was $5,525,800,000. This is real paper money we're talking about here, not weapons or actual aid in the form of food, clothing, medicine, etc.

Also:

Most Americans are not aware how much of their tax revenue our government sends to Israel. For the fiscal year ending in September 30, 1997, the U.S. has given Israel $6.72 billion: $6.194 billion falls under Israel's foreign aid allotment and $526 million comes from agencies such as the Department of Commerce, the U.S. Information Agency and the Pentagon. The $6.72 billion figure does not include loan guarantees and annual compound interest totalling $3.122 billion the U.S. pays on money borrowed to give to Israel. It does not include the cost to U.S. taxpayers of IRS tax exemptions that donors can claim when they donate money to Israeli charities. (Donors claim approximately $1 billion in Federal tax deductions annually. This ultimately costs other U.S. tax payers $280 million to $390 million.)

When grant, loans, interest and tax deductions are added together for the fiscal year ending in September 30, 1997, our special relationship with Israel cost U.S. taxpayers over $10 billion.

Since 1949 the U.S. has given Israel a total of $83.205 billion. The interest costs borne by U.S. tax payers on behalf of Israel are $49.937 billion, thus making the total amount of aid given to Israel since 1949 $133.132 billion. This may mean that U.S. government has given more federal aid to the average Israeli citizen in a given year than it has given to the average American citizen.

There is more (http://www.washington-report.org/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm).

Tulkas

05-29-2006, 11:57 PM

Originally posted by OfficerDigby
Keep repeating the mantra... Take a few deap breath and perhpas read some non revisionistic history books...

No clearly defined nation - of course, it was for ever under governance/occupation. However, there was/is a clear culture distinct and highly sectarian when compared to it's surroundings. You forgot about all about the Palestianian Greeks Italians and the Palestinian Jews who lived there (in peace) for a long time. What about the Palestianian Christian church? Not related to Eygptian/Jordan/Syrian.

No clearly defined nation of course, for it was never a nation.

And yes, there were Jews, and Christians and Beduins and others. None self-identified as a 'Palestinian' as they are today.

Originally posted by OfficerDigby

The concept that Palestinians don't exist - is a racism because it is used to policitically deny injustice to a people. It is the modern day equivalent of saying all Red Indians were savages - we had to kill them to protect ourselves! Even Sharon was forced to admit they exist on the world stage.

It has no intelligent corralation or useful analogy to calling native americans savages. Speaking of racism, please tell me you used the term Red Indian rhetorically.

Consider prerevolutionary colonialist Americans. Until there was a movement to create a nation, they were simply British subjects. If the French had prevailed over the British for control of the continent, then there might never have been 'Americans' as a distinct people or nation. Perhaps just greater Quebec.

Are you so dense that you cannot recognise that one cannot be a member of a self defined group if that group is never defined? This is not racism.

midwinter

05-30-2006, 12:41 AM

Originally posted by Tulkas
No clearly defined nation of course, for it was never a nation.

Do you mean state? or perhaps nation-state?

And yes, there were Jews, and Christians and Beduins and others. None self-identified as a 'Palestinian' as they are today.

What does this mean?

It has no intelligent corralation or useful analogy to calling native americans savages. Speaking of racism, please tell me you used the term Red Indian rhetorically.

What is the difference between denying a people any whatever because you don't accept or consider them civilized and doing the same because you don't think think they form a coherent nation? Isn't that just another way of saying that they're not civilized, in the end? Or is this some Eddie Izzard bit that's playing out here? "No flag, no country!"

Consider prerevolutionary colonialist Americans. Until there was a movement to create a nation, they were simply British subjects.

I'm not sure this makes sense. They were British subjects when they were colonists and they were British subjects when they decided to create a nation. You seem to imply that their legal status as subjects of the crown stopped at some point prior to teh revolution when they decided to become a nation, but ... oof. Makes my head hurt.

If the French had prevailed over the British for control of the continent, then there might never have been 'Americans' as a distinct people or nation. Perhaps just greater Quebec.

I'm pretty sure there was a distinct identity of "American" as a loosely defined "nation" (but not a state) well before the Revolution.

Are you so dense that you cannot recognise that one cannot be a member of a self defined group if that group is never defined?

First off, how has the definition of "Palestinian" not been established? And secondly, why not? Why can you not have a nation unless there are clear definition? (Let's not call it a "self-defined group." Let's call it a "nation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation)," since it's a more meaningful term.) What kinds of definition do you mean? Ethinic origin? Language? Religion? Ancestral history?

Gene Clean

05-30-2006, 12:44 AM

Originally posted by midwinter
Or is this some Eddie Izzard bit that's playing out here? "No flag, no country!"

Which reminds me of that bit when he talks about British soldiers occupying India and Indians saying it's their land and the British responding:

'Ah but we have a flag and you don't!'

:lol:

Nightcrawler

05-30-2006, 04:53 AM

Originally posted by Tulkas
No clearly defined nation of course, for it was never a nation.

And yes, there were Jews, and Christians and Beduins and others. None self-identified as a 'Palestinian' as they are today.

It has no intelligent corralation or useful analogy to calling native americans savages. Speaking of racism, please tell me you used the term Red Indian rhetorically.

Consider prerevolutionary colonialist Americans. Until there was a movement to create a nation, they were simply British subjects. If the French had prevailed over the British for control of the continent, then there might never have been 'Americans' as a distinct people or nation. Perhaps just greater Quebec.

Are you so dense that you cannot recognise that one cannot be a member of a self defined group if that group is never defined? This is not racism.

Let's just entertain the idea that you are right, ie. that the palestinians needed to have had a distinct political and legal entity of selfrule as a nation before they can call themselves palestinians, ok?

Given that, Israel would have to annex the occupied territories, and give full israeli citizenship to all inhabitants, right?

Nightcrawler

Tulkas

05-30-2006, 07:12 AM

Originally posted by midwinter
Do you mean state? or perhaps nation-state?

No, I do not. I am not talking about a self ruled group. But a group that was externally recognised or self identified as palestinian.

Originally posted by midwinter

What does this mean?

Pretty self-explanitory. There were various groups living in what is now Israel and will be Palestine.

Originally posted by midwinter

What is the difference between denying a people any whatever because you don't accept or consider them civilized and doing the same because you don't think think they form a coherent nation? Isn't that just another way of saying that they're not civilized, in the end? Or is this some Eddie Izzard bit that's playing out here? "No flag, no country!"

Most Native Americans self-identified as members of specific and distinct groups. This has nothing to do with calling them racist names like Red Indians or savages.

Originally posted by midwinter

I'm not sure this makes sense. They were British subjects when they were colonists and they were British subjects when they decided to create a nation. You seem to imply that their legal status as subjects of the crown stopped at some point prior to teh revolution when they decided to become a nation, but ... oof. Makes my head hurt.

Who mentioned legal status? No one was considered an American, Birtish or otherwise. Only when a group of people decided they were Americans under British rule was there Americans. (Besides the Native Americans)

Originally posted by midwinter

I'm pretty sure there was a distinct identity of "American" as a loosely defined "nation" (but not a state) well before the Revolution.

Of course there was, else fighting for the creation of a country would have been pointless. Now, how long before? Were Columbus and his men American when they landed?

Originally posted by midwinter

First off, how has the definition of "Palestinian" not been established? And secondly, why not? Why can you not have a nation unless there are clear definition? (Let's not call it a "self-defined group." Let's call it a "nation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation)," since it's a more meaningful term.) What kinds of definition do you mean? Ethinic origin? Language? Religion? Ancestral history?

It has now been established. This does not change the fact that it was a recent concept? How difficult is this to understand?

Tulkas

05-30-2006, 07:13 AM

Originally posted by Gene Clean
Which reminds me of that bit when he talks about British soldiers occupying India and Indians saying it's their land and the British responding:

'Ah but we have a flag and you don't!'

:lol:
unintelligent and pointless response from Tulkas.

midwinter

05-30-2006, 10:07 AM

Originally posted by Tulkas
It has now been established. This does not change the fact that it was a recent concept? How difficult is this to understand?

Apparently pretty difficult. Are you complaining, then, that there haven't been "Palestinians" in the modern sense for long enough? I'm just trying to figure out what you're arguing here.

midwinter

05-30-2006, 10:09 AM

Originally posted by Tulkas
GC, I know you take to flights of fancy in your posts, but are you off your meds? That post doesn't exist. clown.

GC was making a second Eddie Izzard reference based off of my first Eddie Izzard reference. His post had nothing to do with you and was just a brief little aside for anyone who knows Izzard's work.

Tulkas

05-30-2006, 11:00 AM

Originally posted by midwinter
Apparently pretty difficult. Are you complaining, then, that there haven't been "Palestinians" in the modern sense for long enough? I'm just trying to figure out what you're arguing here.

It was originally a response to some remark from OfficerDigby that to believe that the concept is recent is racist.

OfficerDigby was lamenting that it took the formation of terror groups for Israel and the world to recognise the palestinian people/nation. I never claimed this was wrong, I just thought this was such a strange comment, in that they were co-developments. If the PLO can admit that the concept was new and was partly conceived as a tool to use against Israel, why is OfficerDigby incapable of doing so?

Tulkas

05-30-2006, 11:03 AM

Originally posted by midwinter
GC was making a second Eddie Izzard reference based off of my first Eddie Izzard reference. His post had nothing to do with you and was just a brief little aside for anyone who knows Izzard's work.
Thanks for the clarification.

Gene Clean, my apologies.

OfficerDigby

05-30-2006, 05:43 PM

Originally posted by OfficerDigby
As for the old nationlist chestnut about there being no Palestinian people "hey they're just another bunch of Arabs - coze they didn't have control of their country officially" It's just pure and simple racism...

OfficerDigby was lamenting that it took the formation of terror groups for Israel and the world to recognise the palestinian people/nation. I never claimed this was wrong, I just thought this was such a strange comment, in that they were co-developments. If the PLO can admit that the concept was new and was partly conceived as a tool to use against Israel, why is OfficerDigby incapable of doing so? [/QUOTE]

OK I see what your getting at now. However, implied in the concept of there being no Palestinians is that the people living in Palestine (for the last dozen or so centuries), had no real claim to be there as they forgot to claim nationhood. Sounds like the starting point to a racialist argument to me - however, whether it is or aint don't interest me that much, because I know the policies that lie behind and flow from it are.
It seems to me it's always always about downgrading the rights of the Palestinians (or the people who used to live in the pace formerly known as Palestine) to live there. Once you (not you personally) got everybody agreeing with on that one - then you take another step forward and can legitimize expansion of settlements/house repossesions and the rest (explusions etc) of the on going bullshit which the Israeli goevernment seems almost incapable to stop (how many settlers' homes have been made on occupied land since the great peace talks of 2001? - whoops they've doubled).
Of course if there is no palestinians then the land aint occupied so that's OK then - not for the folkes that live there it aint!
Which I guess brings us back to the start of the thread - without US support and often encouragement perhaps expansion would have been stopped and there would be chance of peace.