PDA

View Full Version : Israel



Lallante
August 23 2012, 09:14:16 AM
Israel should be forced, through crippling economic sanctions, to accept a two state solution with Palestine based on 1969 borders with mutually agreed land swaps. Disagreements on land swaps should be neutrally arbitrated.

Israeli politicians and generals should be held to account for its war crimes over the last 4 decades, as well as selling nuclear weapons to the evil white supremacist south african apartheid government.

Settlers should be forcibly removed (if neccessary) from palestine.

Israel should be forced to pay reparations / an establishment grant to the new state of palestine in the form of a lump sum and yearly payments (or through funding infrastructure projects) for at least 15 years.

UN peacekeepers should temporarily protect a border strip between Israel and Palestine.

The Israeli government should issue a proclamation that it respects palestinian statehood and land rights and apologise for past oppression.

Fara
August 23 2012, 09:35:09 AM
Delicate matter. The Israelis probably went a step or two too far in their quest for securityl. However I think a lot of people are a bit fast to blame them for all the stuff that is wrong in that region.

I will let some more educated people give their 2 cents first tho.

Zeekar
August 23 2012, 10:10:09 AM
Israel should be forced, through crippling economic sanctions, to accept a two state solution with Palestine based on 1969 borders with mutually agreed land swaps. Disagreements on land swaps should be neutrally arbitrated.

Israeli politicians and generals should be held to account for its war crimes over the last 4 decades, as well as selling nuclear weapons to the evil white supremacist south african apartheid government.

Settlers should be forcibly removed (if neccessary) from palestine.

Israel should be forced to pay reparations / an establishment grant to the new state of palestine in the form of a lump sum and yearly payments (or through funding infrastructure projects) for at least 15 years.

UN peacekeepers should temporarily protect a border strip between Israel and Palestine.

The Israeli government should issue a proclamation that it respects palestinian statehood and land rights and apologise for past oppression.

In a normal world sure. In a world where Israel has nukes and is believed to have a fuck you if i go down everybody goes down policy you wont see that.

Hatepeace Lovewar
August 23 2012, 10:33:21 AM
Won't ever happen on those terms, if you remove the war crimes and apology it might perhaps, but it would be a tough sell to Israeli hardliners and even then it will only do so if the Arab Spring has a positive effect in the region and doesn't just turn out to be a power grab for right wing Islamic political entities in the region, in which case shit is going to go south very quickly as Israel will likely become far more paranoid (is such a thing even possible?!).

marcus xero
August 23 2012, 01:11:57 PM
this is like the easiest issue to see the divide between realpolitik and the best option.

I doubt Israel would even concede if the US turned against them because lets be honest, no one can force a nuclear state like Israel to do anything unless extreme measures are taken.


and I think its important to distinguish between a minority of hard line Israelis and the majority of Israelis that dont want to completely occupy the West Bank....but as usual extremists hold sway...

Lallante
August 23 2012, 01:14:24 PM
this is like the easiest issue to see the divide between realpolitik and the best option.

I doubt Israel would even concede if the US turned against them because lets be honest, no one can force a nuclear state like Israel to do anything unless extreme measures are taken.


and I think its important to distinguish between a minority of hard line Israelis and the majority of Israelis that dont want to completely occupy the West Bank....but as usual extremists hold sway...

Israels economy and military is completely dependent on trade with the West. Serious sanctions would force its hand incredibly quickly especially given decent levels of support for a 2 state solution among Israels moderates.

Lallante
August 23 2012, 01:15:13 PM
Won't ever happen on those terms, if you remove the war crimes and apology it might perhaps, but it would be a tough sell to Israeli hardliners and even then it will only do so if the Arab Spring has a positive effect in the region and doesn't just turn out to be a power grab for right wing Islamic political entities in the region, in which case shit is going to go south very quickly as Israel will likely become far more paranoid (is such a thing even possible?!).

Don't sell it to them, impose it upon them through sanctions. The time for softly-softly approach came and went 30+ years ago.

marcus xero
August 23 2012, 01:20:34 PM
While this may be the preferable solution we all know it won't happen while dem Jews run America and to a lesser extent the UK....

a 2 state solution is good and workable, but I can see why some Israelis are terrified by this outcome.

Rami
August 23 2012, 01:24:48 PM
Right, a quick summary of history then, for those who are unclear.

Israel, in one form or another has existed as a nation since as far back as the 12th century BCE (or BC as Christians put it) and largely populated by Judeans who followed a version of the Torah. However, it wasn't geographically anything like modern day Israel until the 2nd century BCE. Between that it had fallen under Persian rule (Babylonian and Assyrian to be exact) and then Greek rule. The Romans conquered it and held it for almost 200 years (during which we have all the events, confirmed or not, with Jesus) after which the Persians came back and then the Byzantines.

During all this there wasn't really any real form of a 'Jewish nation', they were conquered and re-conquered by various other nations over time and various religions held sway there over the centuries. In the 7th century CE (i.e. AD) the Arabs conquered that entire region and kept it for well over a millennium, eventually ending up as part of the Turkish/Ottoman empire. During that time there was probably no/negligible Jewish presence and the entire area was Arab/Muslim.

Due tor various anti-Semitic events between the 15th and 20th century large Jewish groups moved into this general area, and in the 19th century Zionism was 'officially' founded. Even so, even in the 1920's post-WWI the Jewish only represented something of ~10% of the total populace in the area.

Now during WWI the Ottoman Empire, an ally of Germany and in control of modern-day Israel, invaded modern-day Egypt (at the time a protectorate of Britain). Britain fought back and eventually pushed into the Ottoman Palestine (this is much larger than modern day Israel itself). We all know who won WWI and Britain was given governorship of Palestine. Zionist fighters aided Britain during the fighting and the Arab/Muslim community then present had less-than-good feelings towards either. This was the first stage in which the Jewish established some power in the region and began creating militias.

During WWII and the events that occurred there a massive move of Jewish people to the Palestine area. Despite attempts by Britain to stem the flow, mostly under pressure from the Arab/Muslim populace, the total Jewish population in that area grew to over 1/3rd of the total populace by the end of WWII.

With so many Jewish there, and being more organised, the British found themselves in conflict. The Jewish wanted the British out, the Arabs/Muslims wanted both out, so it all became a bit of a mess. By that time all the Jewish militias had banded together.

Now here comes the critical moment. In 1947 the British announced they could not find a reasonable solution to the struggle so they decided to leave Palestine in May 1948. At the time the UN drew up a plan to establish a Jewish *AND* an Arab state, with Jerusalem shared between the two. The Jewish accepted this plan but the Arabs rejected it (feeling this land had been theirs for over a millennium) and a civil war ensued.

The Jewish initially were on the losing side but pushed back and eventually won the internal conflict that saw a lot of Arabs move out of the area. Literally one day before the British mandate was ended, the Arab countries of Egypt, Syria, Jordan (or Transjordan?) and Iraq invaded Palestine to intercede in matters. The war lasted about a year with a ceasefire. Jordan took the west back and Egypt the gaza strip. However, the Jewish had persisted and Israel was officially founded in 1949.

Since then there's been a bunch of other conflict but the above is the more important facts leading to the founding of modern Israel.


So the main facts are that the Arab/Muslim population in the area has/had lived there for near on 1500 years. There was a Judean presence there prior to this time though. This, combined with the teachings of the Torah, are what Zionism and Israel base their claim on. Britain could be held, at the very least partially, to blame as they simply pulled out.

It's also important to note the Arabs/Muslims rejected the initial offer, though I can see why.

marcus xero
August 23 2012, 01:31:50 PM
Both sides are becoming/are more extreme than they were historically. Combine this with the ability to kill/control on a larger scale and you have a recipe for one side dominating the other.

the 2 state solution is fast becoming impossible as both sides become intolerant and Israel has become quite adept at using this "plan" as a cover for constant expansion into the West Bank.

Besides....is this actually in the best interests of the "West"? If we give a bunch of people who are routinely oppressed by a western-backed state their own country its bound to be quite anti-west....thats my realpolitik perspective anyways.

Cool09
August 23 2012, 02:05:15 PM
Should they even be there? I don't know. After WWII they needed somewhere.

The entire region has repeatedly allied against them in an effort to wipe Israel off the map... I'd be a little intolerant too.

marcus xero
August 23 2012, 02:07:58 PM
Historically they have (at some points) had a presence in the region...there have always been small Jewish enclaves there but this current situation is totally artificially constructed to give them "a home".

Zeekar
August 23 2012, 02:49:48 PM
Should they even be there? I don't know. After WWII they needed somewhere.

The entire region has repeatedly allied against them in an effort to wipe Israel off the map... I'd be a little intolerant too.

A little? They are pretty much nazis.

Lallante
August 23 2012, 02:54:20 PM
Both sides are becoming/are more extreme than they were historically. Combine this with the ability to kill/control on a larger scale and you have a recipe for one side dominating the other.

the 2 state solution is fast becoming impossible as both sides become intolerant and Israel has become quite adept at using this "plan" as a cover for constant expansion into the West Bank.

Besides....is this actually in the best interests of the "West"? If we give a bunch of people who are routinely oppressed by a western-backed state their own country its bound to be quite anti-west....thats my realpolitik perspective anyways.

Wat? Palestinians are actually much less intolerent and extreme and more engaged in the process than at any previous point since the war. Only israel is getting worse.

Your view isnt real politik it is dumb. Real politik would realise Israel is one of the main drivers of islamic extremism and supporting it is essentially CAUSING terrorism.

Lallante
August 23 2012, 02:55:31 PM
Should they even be there? I don't know. After WWII they needed somewhere.

The entire region has repeatedly allied against them in an effort to wipe Israel off the map... I'd be a little intolerant too.

By the same logic France and Holland should be occupying germany and committing attrocities on its people citing ww2

Seriously how can stuff that happened half a century ago be used to justify unconscionable, evil behaviour today?

edit: especially since the surrounding nations were probably right to invade israel back then given the circumstances anyway

marcus xero
August 23 2012, 03:05:50 PM
Both sides are becoming/are more extreme than they were historically. Combine this with the ability to kill/control on a larger scale and you have a recipe for one side dominating the other.

the 2 state solution is fast becoming impossible as both sides become intolerant and Israel has become quite adept at using this "plan" as a cover for constant expansion into the West Bank.

Besides....is this actually in the best interests of the "West"? If we give a bunch of people who are routinely oppressed by a western-backed state their own country its bound to be quite anti-west....thats my realpolitik perspective anyways.

Wat? Palestinians are actually much less intolerent and extreme and more engaged in the process than at any previous point since the war. Only israel is getting worse.

Your view isnt real politik it is dumb. Real politik would realise Israel is one of the main drivers of islamic extremism and supporting it is essentially CAUSING terrorism.

yeah hamas are p tolerant.

okay, you called me dumb so lets examine a couple of points:

1. Israel is there to stay
2. Arab/Muslim countries are generally against Israel even if they tolerate it(some more moderate, others more extreme like Iran).
3. A weak democratic majority muslim state would be insanely open to outside corruption/influence and may end up as a failed state or part of a proxy conflict between Iran & SA

so, is it in our interests to introduce another unstable democracy into the middle east? the fundamental muslims wont stop hating/beating on Israel and you can put money on an Islamic government being elected (in some form or another). You can call me dumb and hurl insults around just because I can see why people may hold different points of view....but whatever, I can recognise why there are concerns about an "independent" Palestinian state....

Aramendel
August 23 2012, 03:20:29 PM
Unless the US makes an 180 towards their relation to Israel I do not see any pressure from the West on them forcing changes.

Israel being paranoid is certainly justified, but them being defensive does not excuse in any way their occupation of the Palestine territories and settlement programs there. Or are those a necessity for the survival of their nation?

Atom power or not, I wouldn't be surprised if the situation there eventually resolves itself violently and suddenly in the next couple of decades and personally I wouldn't feel much pity for the people there. Even if the majority does not support the more controversial actions of Israel, they still let them happen.

Amantus
August 23 2012, 03:23:22 PM
i would really like to go to tel-aviv

Cool09
August 23 2012, 03:23:41 PM
Should they even be there? I don't know. After WWII they needed somewhere.

The entire region has repeatedly allied against them in an effort to wipe Israel off the map... I'd be a little intolerant too.

By the same logic France and Holland should be occupying germany and committing attrocities on its people citing ww2

Seriously how can stuff that happened half a century ago be used to justify unconscionable, evil behaviour today?

Yes, because the conflict was just one war 50 years ago. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_involving_Israel)

Your example would make sense if the Nazis were left in control of Germany, and had repeatedly carried out terror attacks and wars ever since (sorry Godwin).

Varcaus
August 23 2012, 03:56:21 PM
Israel being paranoid is certainly justified, but them being defensive does not excuse in any way their occupation of the Palestine territories and settlement programs there. Or are those a necessity for the survival of their nation?


Nope They could get on just fine if they didn't expand. Also does anyone know why it was decided a good idea to let Israel have nukes? Small barely barely stable country that's a bit trigger happy with some very angry neighbors doesn't seem like a place were you want to let have nukes.

punkboy101
August 23 2012, 04:32:15 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if the situation there eventually resolves itself violently and suddenly in the next couple of decade

I agree, although I would personally say it will happen in the next 1-10 years. Israel cannot and will not allow the Iranians to develop nuclear weapons, and by extension the rest of the world cannot allow it to happen, not because the Iranians are inherently evil or something, but because having two small unstable nuclear armed nation who feel under threat from each other is just a bad idea. I just hope when they bomb Iran, the conflict doesn't escalate because it does have the potential to kick off something larger.

Hel OWeen
August 23 2012, 04:47:47 PM
Religious lunatics on both sides, even fighting their own moderate people (Hamas vs. Fatah, Orthodox jews killing Rabin) - nothing ever will change. And due to :holocaust:, no western state will seriously try to stop/punish Israel. Same goes for Arabian nations and Palastine due to :muslim:

Zeekar
August 23 2012, 04:52:37 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if the situation there eventually resolves itself violently and suddenly in the next couple of decade

I agree, although I would personally say it will happen in the next 1-10 years. Israel cannot and will not allow the Iranians to develop nuclear weapons, and by extension the rest of the world cannot allow it to happen, not because the Iranians are inherently evil or something, but because having two small unstable nuclear armed nation who feel under threat from each other is just a bad idea. I just hope when they bomb Iran, the conflict doesn't escalate because it does have the potential to kick off something larger.

Sorry but Israel is far more dangerous then Iran.

Sacul
August 23 2012, 05:57:27 PM
This is what the borders should look like

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/israel/images/greater-israel-map6.jpg

Op sounds like a terribru troll or maybe im just allergic to internet israel discussion by now.

indi
August 23 2012, 08:09:31 PM
Werst. Really.

It's a bad situation with no easy out. Keep in mind that Arafat blew the peace process with Barak because he thought "he could get more". Meanwhile Hamas is now in charge, not the (now a lot more moderate) PLO and moderate Jewish parties are also losing ground. Let's also forget how the 2 state solution was not exactly shot down by Israel, way back when. When the West just let them handle it themselves with the few guns they'd managed to wrangle together. No, this is a sad, sad situation. All parties have lost faith, there's too many people on both sides with the wrong type of interest in the situation continuing: it's a conflict without winners and with a lot of losers on all sides.

Thank you for your black and white vision, expertly written down to get some drama flowing. Not my type of popcorn, it's too sad (ib4 "but I proposed a solution")

Zeekar
August 23 2012, 08:13:59 PM
This is what the borders should look like

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/israel/images/greater-israel-map6.jpg

Op sounds like a terribru troll or maybe im just allergic to internet israel discussion by now.

Its touching how you all instantly defend your tribe.






















: > (yes this is a troll if you didnt get it)

Sacul
August 23 2012, 08:41:19 PM
This is what the borders should look like

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/israel/images/greater-israel-map6.jpg

Op sounds like a terribru troll or maybe im just allergic to internet israel discussion by now.

Its touching how you all instantly defend your tribe.






















: > (yes this is a troll if you didnt get it)

Bad one. Any jew can tell you that the biggest enemy of the jews are jews. Belligerent amongst ourselves etc. How things currently are its more likely a civil war will end Israel before anyone else will.

Rami
August 24 2012, 08:06:46 AM
I think Israel is the world's most likely source of any future nuclear weapon use, even if it's on smaller scale tactical level. All of Israel's defensive doctrines are based upon offensive tactics which keep the fighting outside of their own territory. This is mainly due to the fact that their army essentially consists of their population at war time meaning severe military losses are equal to severe population losses. Whilst there is no official word on this matter, it is assumed that Israel would utilise small tactical nukes to wipe out large troop forces (as would be expected from Arab militia) moving on Israel.

That being said, the threat is not directly from Israel itself. Nobody, even Israel, *want* to use these weapons, but they would be willing to utilise them. The danger is if someone goes 'fuck it' and attempts to organise a large scale revolt in the area aimed at Israel. So far it's only factions like Hamas that have tried anything, and they aren't nearly large enough by themselves.

Hel OWeen
August 24 2012, 08:59:13 AM
I think Israel is the world's most likely source of any future nuclear weapon use, even if it's on smaller scale tactical level.

My opinion is that this depends on how you define "nuclear weapon". If that includes what is commonly referred to as "dirty bomb", I really fear that some lunatics (aka "terrorists") might "score" earlier. Please note that I'm generally not buying into the "OH TEH TERRORISTS!" hysteria that's nowadays used to as an excuse for each and every bad legislation put in use. It's a simple observation over my lifetime that there's always at least one lunatic out there, who's ruthless enough to use whatever mean is available to him. See Breivik/Norway, for example.

If you're talking about "military grade" nuclear weapons, I tend to agree, although the India-Pakistan arms race looks pretty scary from time to time, too.

Alex Caine
August 24 2012, 04:27:46 PM
I have Jewish parents, so i'm going to try to be as unboased as I can here. Please forgive and point out any blatant unfairness!



Israel should be forced, through crippling economic sanctions, to accept a two state solution with Palestine based on 1969 borders with mutually agreed land swaps. Disagreements on land swaps should be neutrally arbitrated.

Absolutely, this seems frankly both fair and needed for peace.




Israeli politicians and generals should be held to account for its war crimes over the last 4 decades, as well as selling nuclear weapons to the evil white supremacist south african apartheid government.

Yes, but only if all planners/perpetrators of terror attacks on Israel are also likewise held to the same account.





Settlers should be forcibly removed (if neccessary) from palestine..

Yes. Actually, a LOT of Israelis would agree to this. The settlers are massively disliked by Israelis proper.



Israel should be forced to pay reparations / an establishment grant to the new state of palestine in the form of a lump sum and yearly payments (or through funding infrastructure projects) for at least 15 years...

On what grounds? This will do nothing to help calm the region. I will point you to the treaty of Versailles reperations clause. That went well.




UN peacekeepers should temporarily protect a border strip between Israel and Palestine.


Yep, totally.



The Israeli government should issue a proclamation that it respects palestinian statehood and land rights and apologise for past oppression.

Only if all relevant Arab nations apologise for terrorism and murder against israel. Fairs fair.

Thsi stance is hugely anti-Israel all in all. They are certainly not innocent, but the case is definitely one sided. Any attempt to force a stance like this would simply have no effect other than to ensure peace NEVER happens.

Zeekar
August 24 2012, 05:17:42 PM
I have Jewish parents, so i'm going to try to be as unboased as I can here. Please forgive and point out any blatant unfairness!



Israel should be forced, through crippling economic sanctions, to accept a two state solution with Palestine based on 1969 borders with mutually agreed land swaps. Disagreements on land swaps should be neutrally arbitrated.

Absolutely, this seems frankly both fair and needed for peace.




Israeli politicians and generals should be held to account for its war crimes over the last 4 decades, as well as selling nuclear weapons to the evil white supremacist south african apartheid government.

Yes, but only if all planners/perpetrators of terror attacks on Israel are also likewise held to the same account.





Settlers should be forcibly removed (if neccessary) from palestine..

Yes. Actually, a LOT of Israelis would agree to this. The settlers are massively disliked by Israelis proper.



Israel should be forced to pay reparations / an establishment grant to the new state of palestine in the form of a lump sum and yearly payments (or through funding infrastructure projects) for at least 15 years...

On what grounds? This will do nothing to help calm the region. I will point you to the treaty of Versailles reperations clause. That went well.




UN peacekeepers should temporarily protect a border strip between Israel and Palestine.


Yep, totally.



The Israeli government should issue a proclamation that it respects palestinian statehood and land rights and apologise for past oppression.

Only if all relevant Arab nations apologise for terrorism and murder against israel. Fairs fair.

Thsi stance is hugely anti-Israel all in all. They are certainly not innocent, but the case is definitely one sided. Any attempt to force a stance like this would simply have no effect other than to ensure peace NEVER happens.

This stance is why the war will never end or until one side is wiped out. Its simple as no do him first then treat me. And it will never end before one goes up the higher ground.

Alex Caine
August 24 2012, 05:29:09 PM
I have Jewish parents, so i'm going to try to be as unboased as I can here. Please forgive and point out any blatant unfairness!



Israel should be forced, through crippling economic sanctions, to accept a two state solution with Palestine based on 1969 borders with mutually agreed land swaps. Disagreements on land swaps should be neutrally arbitrated.

Absolutely, this seems frankly both fair and needed for peace.




Israeli politicians and generals should be held to account for its war crimes over the last 4 decades, as well as selling nuclear weapons to the evil white supremacist south african apartheid government.

Yes, but only if all planners/perpetrators of terror attacks on Israel are also likewise held to the same account.





Settlers should be forcibly removed (if neccessary) from palestine..

Yes. Actually, a LOT of Israelis would agree to this. The settlers are massively disliked by Israelis proper.



Israel should be forced to pay reparations / an establishment grant to the new state of palestine in the form of a lump sum and yearly payments (or through funding infrastructure projects) for at least 15 years...

On what grounds? This will do nothing to help calm the region. I will point you to the treaty of Versailles reperations clause. That went well.




UN peacekeepers should temporarily protect a border strip between Israel and Palestine.


Yep, totally.



The Israeli government should issue a proclamation that it respects palestinian statehood and land rights and apologise for past oppression.

Only if all relevant Arab nations apologise for terrorism and murder against israel. Fairs fair.

Thsi stance is hugely anti-Israel all in all. They are certainly not innocent, but the case is definitely one sided. Any attempt to force a stance like this would simply have no effect other than to ensure peace NEVER happens.

This stance is why the war will never end or until one side is wiped out. Its simple as no do him first then treat me. And it will never end before one goes up the higher ground.

But getting one side to take all the blame and take all the repercussions is both impossible and unjust.

smuggo
August 24 2012, 05:29:56 PM
Something I've occassionally considered, substantially retarded but:
The presence of the Red Sea Pedestrians as a real 'enemy' for all the surrounding types to focus their energy on has contributed to the stability of the wider Middle East post WWII.

Given that most nations in that region are bastardisations of various ethnic groups and tribes the whole bunch would probably be in a worse state now without a common (and competent) foe.

Sacul
August 24 2012, 05:30:34 PM
Alex caine you say your parents are jews, plural, that makes you a jew aswell. You should also know the orthodox consider themselfs 'proper' jews. Hence their fuck off stance to the rest of the country.

Alex Caine
August 24 2012, 05:34:43 PM
Alex caine you say your parents are jews, plural, that makes you a jew aswell. You should also know the orthodox consider themselfs 'proper' jews. Hence their fuck off stance to the rest of the country.

Racially, yes it does. Religiously i'm agnostic.

But I know exactly what you mean on the Orthodox (my parents are Reform). They are an absolute fucking blight frankly. They cause 99% of the trouble, and until recently (has it changed yet?) they were even exempt from national service, so didn't even contribute to clean up their mess.

Zeekar
August 24 2012, 05:41:26 PM
But getting one side to take all the blame and take all the repercussions is both impossible and unjust.

Nobody said they should do everything but they should show at least something beyond expanding their territory. Somebody has to start.
Also their nazi treatment of more then a few individuals doesn't help Israeli image.


Alex caine you say your parents are jews, plural, that makes you a jew aswell. You should also know the orthodox consider themselfs 'proper' jews. Hence their fuck off stance to the rest of the country.

Their fuck off to everybody not just to the rest of the country.

Nordstern
August 24 2012, 09:13:03 PM
Israel should be forced, through crippling economic sanctions, to accept a two state solution with Palestine based on 1969 borders with mutually agreed land swaps. Disagreements on land swaps should be neutrally arbitrated.

Israeli politicians and generals should be held to account for its war crimes over the last 4 decades, as well as selling nuclear weapons to the evil white supremacist south african apartheid government.

Settlers should be forcibly removed (if neccessary) from palestine.

Israel should be forced to pay reparations / an establishment grant to the new state of palestine in the form of a lump sum and yearly payments (or through funding infrastructure projects) for at least 15 years.

UN peacekeepers should temporarily protect a border strip between Israel and Palestine.

The Israeli government should issue a proclamation that it respects palestinian statehood and land rights and apologise for past oppression.

No, because you're being completely one-sided. And you're not acknowledging the huge usage of Katyusha rockets.

indi
August 24 2012, 09:22:57 PM
Also their nazi treatment of more then a few individuals doesn't help Israeli image.


Poor choice of words. :facepalm:

Can we just stop feeding the troll(s)?

Zeekar
August 24 2012, 09:26:58 PM
It was intentional. And is exactly what they are doing. And yes it is ironic.

indi
August 24 2012, 09:47:00 PM
It is not ironic; it's not applicable. You can certainly have very valid objections, but I doubt the Israeli method of acting has anything to do with fascism, let alone that particular branch.

The truth is that you have people from all sides in that country who have lived with war and terrorism for decades. There's little rational thought going on anymore.

Zeekar
August 24 2012, 09:49:58 PM
They are deporting cca 4500 african immigrants from Israel because they are threatening and im quoting here the Jewish character of their country. If that isnt almost directly nazi then i dont know what you want.

And dont get me started that Palestinians are living pretty much in a ghetto...

indi
August 24 2012, 09:54:20 PM
Still not fascist. Ideology matters with this terminology.

Mind you, I'm not going to get into an actual debate of your argument either way. (I don't think this is one we should be having, but that's just me.)

Zeekar
August 24 2012, 09:58:35 PM
They are only lacking totalitarian rule and they would be pretty much text book nazis ;)

But yes this isnt the topic here.

smuggo
August 24 2012, 09:59:30 PM
Something I've occassionally considered, substantially retarded but:
The presence of the Red Sea Pedestrians as a real 'enemy' for all the surrounding types to focus their energy on has contributed to the stability of the wider Middle East post WWII.

Given that most nations in that region are bastardisations of various ethnic groups and tribes the whole bunch would probably be in a worse state now without a common (and competent) foe.

It shouldn't be needed but:
Quoting this to straiten the fucking discussion

Zeekar
August 24 2012, 10:04:00 PM
Something I've occassionally considered, substantially retarded but:
The presence of the Red Sea Pedestrians as a real 'enemy' for all the surrounding types to focus their energy on has contributed to the stability of the wider Middle East post WWII.

Given that most nations in that region are bastardisations of various ethnic groups and tribes the whole bunch would probably be in a worse state now without a common (and competent) foe.

It shouldn't be needed but:
Quoting this to straiten the fucking discussion

The entire region would be in a lot better shape without western interference. Iran, Afghanistan come to mind for example.

smuggo
August 24 2012, 10:37:25 PM
Something I've occassionally considered, substantially retarded but:
The presence of the Red Sea Pedestrians as a real 'enemy' for all the surrounding types to focus their energy on has contributed to the stability of the wider Middle East post WWII.

Given that most nations in that region are bastardisations of various ethnic groups and tribes the whole bunch would probably be in a worse state now without a common (and competent) foe.

It shouldn't be needed but:
Quoting this to straiten the fucking discussion

The entire region would be in a lot better shape without western interference. Iran, Afghanistan come to mind for example.

How far back are you going though?

Let's assume that post WWII the Jews got Madagascar... Do you think that, given a lot of tribal and ethnic tensions the Middle East's borders would have remained as set out? Personally I think you'd have seen a lot of proxy wars and state backed revolutions in the region, a lot of energy instability. Suez canal possibly falling out of western control etc etc.

Zeekar
August 24 2012, 11:20:28 PM
I'm refraining to post WW II time era. The 1950-1990s.

There was a lot of proxy wars regardless just that they were between soviets and USA instead of the regional powers same goes with revolutions.
For example Egypts revolution in 52 had backing of USA and Soviet union back then. And to the 70s west didnt have control of the canal yet the reason why it was closed to international shipping was mostly because of French/England/Israeli aggression again proving my point of western influence being a negative influence in the region. Not big surprise people dont like it when you stick your nose in their business.
And im not even mentioning that since the invasion failed (politically not from the military point of view) it had other effects as well. One of them is the revolution of 58 in Iraq and the shift from the pro British government to a one party system that was in position until 2003.

For Iran the west is almost exclusively responsible for it becoming a muslim dictatorship that it is now and that was just because they were afraid of a energy crisis.
And dont forget the energy crisis in the 80s that followed it.

So no in my opinion we wouldn't see any more instability of any sort in the region or in the world if the west would have interfered less in the region.

Also my knowledge is less then perfect on the history of the middle east so feel free to correct any of my glaring mistakes.

Roam
August 25 2012, 12:07:11 AM
Letting my Israeli buddy who served in the military (and who isn't particularly positive about the way things going in his country) read this thread and see what his thoughts are.

The issue is, in my opinion, needlessly complicated by the sheer amount of propaganda that goes on. As I understand it, youth is taught from a very young age to hate, despise and want to enforce the "fragile tranquility and existence of their national pride" against palestinians. The new generation needs more input in state matters, and perhaps find ways to reach out to end the conflict.

As for the Arafat treatise: the man decided to throw a spanner in the works not because he "thought he could get more", but because the offer "wasn't much". There's a subtle but integral difference in attitude there: one implies greed, whereas the other elucidates that the offer was nowhere near fair. I read recently that on paper it seemed nice to us not familiar with the region, but that the actual points offered were often problematic and an inflated hypothetical worth.

(PS: While I understand that this is touchy subject, may I point out that discussing whether or not Jews really are Nazis has absolutely zero contributive value in this discussion)

indi
August 25 2012, 01:33:27 PM
As for the Arafat treatise: the man decided to throw a spanner in the works not because he "thought he could get more", but because the offer "wasn't much". There's a subtle but integral difference in attitude there: one implies greed, whereas the other elucidates that the offer was nowhere near fair. I read recently that on paper it seemed nice to us not familiar with the region, but that the actual points offered were often problematic and an inflated hypothetical worth.

I will not go as far as to say that I know for a fact it was a fair offer. I don't, really. I vividly recall the optimism on both sides before it went to hell, though. It was really very much a shame and both sides have veered away from the compromise/middle.



(PS: While I understand that this is touchy subject, may I point out that discussing whether or not Jews really are Nazis has absolutely zero contributive value in this discussion)

Let me say that I'm not jewish as far as I know, so that makes it about very likely that I'm not. I just don't like terminology applied wrongly. And yes, it did not contribute to the discussion, as I already concluded myself :-)

The truth is that - at least, to my opinion - this is a truly complicated debate. Add the delightful possibility of trolling, and I still think we should just get back to circumcision... (but perhaps I only say that because I'm comfortably uncircumsized)

PS Western influence has been a problem in that region since someone decided to take a ruler and just 'divide' it up. As long as oil is a strategic commodity, Western countries will not disengage. When we do, I'm sure we will do it in such a way that will make it actually worse. I sometimes despair at humanity :shitshit:

Sacul
August 25 2012, 05:22:25 PM
As for the Arafat treatise: the man decided to throw a spanner in the works not because he "thought he could get more", but because the offer "wasn't much". There's a subtle but integral difference in attitude there: one implies greed, whereas the other elucidates that the offer was nowhere near fair. I read recently that on paper it seemed nice to us not familiar with the region, but that the actual points offered were often problematic and an inflated hypothetical worth.

(PS: While I understand that this is touchy subject, may I point out that discussing whether or not Jews really are Nazis has absolutely zero contributive value in this discussion)

If you read the various books about the Oslo accords and the Camp David plus subsequent 6242325 rounds of talks it is indeed the palestinians who would be legally shafted so i dont blame Arafat at all but now the same is happening illegaly.

Here is a little trick for a land grab i know from first hand. Request a phone cell tower, now the tower needs to be guarded and fended, have orthodox do this, now you need 10 people for religious ceremony, now you need housing and sanitazion, now have the orthodox refuse to leave, give the place a biblical name and call it a settlement for the glory of god.

Good luck removing them IDF.

Im not gonna bite to the trolls but lets just say im of the firm believe all sides are bat shit insane (when it comes to religious types) but places like Tel-Aviv are fun and the native girls are some of the hottest, funniest and smartest women i have ever meet.

Zeekar
August 25 2012, 05:27:09 PM
PS Western influence has been a problem in that region since someone decided to take a ruler and just 'divide' it up. As long as oil is a strategic commodity, Western countries will not disengage. When we do, I'm sure we will do it in such a way that will make it actually worse. I sometimes despair at humanity :shitshit:

Eh that's a lot larger problem in middle parts of Africa then in the north. Middle east was mostly fucked by religion and even more so by the west.


Good post Lallente but it wont work imo. I'd like to turn the idea on its head. I propose crippling sanctions against America as Israels chief source of funds. Until the political might of America has a reason to say no to the Jewish lobby Israel can and will do what the fuck it wants. On a long enough timescale Israel will be the focal point of a world war that is most likely thermonuclear. What is most depressing is that they have become the same as the people they fled from.

Also Iran IS going to get a nuclear weapon. Its just a matter of when.

there are four options:

1) Do nothing - Iran gets a bomb

2) Take out the sites with air strikes - Iran gets the popular support to move the sites underground and accelerates the process. At best you set them back a year.

3) Sanctions - Showing so far to do little to stop the process

4 Occupation - i'm sure you can imagine the shitstorm and potential world war that would create

Right now some sort of supported insurrection is the only legitimate choice.

Or you stay out of their business. While the Iranian regime is insane I doubt they would nuke Israel since they do realize it would cause an end to their country. The problem of them getting nuclear weapon at least for the west is that it would cause is that they wouldn't be so easy to blackmail any more.

indi
August 25 2012, 06:21:43 PM
PS Western influence has been a problem in that region since someone decided to take a ruler and just 'divide' it up. As long as oil is a strategic commodity, Western countries will not disengage. When we do, I'm sure we will do it in such a way that will make it actually worse. I sometimes despair at humanity :shitshit:

Eh that's a lot larger problem in middle parts of Africa then in the north. Middle east was mostly fucked by religion and even more so by the west.


Not entirely true. Arabs are tribal people. Check that peninsula and you'll see what I mean. Religious differences between different sects of the Islam are a problem in the region still (Bahrain, etc) and the religious differences often run along tribal lines. What unites the Arabs to some extent is their common hatred of Israel/Jews. Don't be fooled though, many of them aren't too fond of Palestinians (translation: they are fine supporting the Palestinians in Palestine but don't want them in their own country). The problems are vastly different from those in Africa, that's for sure though. It's a shame they are sitting on so much oil. Otherwise they'd be a bunch of bedouins and the West might have stayed out of their business (when did we start? I guess with the Arab revolt? Maybe even earlier?)

Zeekar
August 25 2012, 06:26:58 PM
Well Palestines are gypsies of the arab world. They are only supporting them because they dislike the jews more.

indi
August 25 2012, 06:50:29 PM
Well Palestines are gypsies of the arab world. They are only supporting them because they dislike the jews more.

Truer words have not been spoken in this thread! (I think, but I cba to check up on that)

Jason Marshall
August 25 2012, 07:00:02 PM
Isn't the major reason this has failed to work in the past because of their inability to decide who gets control of the various religious sites

Alex Caine
August 25 2012, 09:15:49 PM
Isn't the major reason this has failed to work in the past because of their inability to decide who gets control of the various religious sites

Thats one major factor, yes. Israel will never, ever release control of Jerusalem. Period. Palestine/anybody else would have it pry it from their cold, dead hands before they gave it up.
There are other sites too, but Jerusalem is the absolute "not a fucking chance in this world or any other" one.

Jason Marshall
August 27 2012, 03:10:57 AM
Isn't the major reason this has failed to work in the past because of their inability to decide who gets control of the various religious sites

Thats one major factor, yes. Israel will never, ever release control of Jerusalem. Period. Palestine/anybody else would have it pry it from their cold, dead hands before they gave it up.
There are other sites too, but Jerusalem is the absolute "not a fucking chance in this world or any other" one.

It absolutely would not surprise me if they planted a nuke below it and basically said if we can't have it nobody can.

Why don't we lead with that.
A little holy cleansing.

ValorousBob
August 27 2012, 03:51:23 AM
Well Palestines are gypsies of the arab world. They are only supporting them because they dislike the jews more.

Truer words have not been spoken in this thread! (I think, but I cba to check up on that)

Confirming. When the Jordans got the West Bank they were total dicks to the Palestinians. Arab love for Palestine is opportunistic bullshit. I'm about to eat dinner, but I do have a source for this favorited somewhere in Chrome.



Sorry but Israel is far more dangerous then Iran.

I completely disagree. Israel has more *potential* for destruction because it has nukes, but this will probably change soon anyways. Regardless of nuclear capability, Israel is primarily an inward looking state. They have no regional ambitions or concerns other than maintaining the integrity of their own borders/security. Iran on the other hand, views themselves as the regional Great Power. Aside from their blustering about Israel, which hardly ever actually manifests into action or policy, they've been mainly trying to dethrone Turkey and Saudi Arabia as the regional centers of power.

Israel's policies are overwhelmingly defensive, whereas Iran's are overwhelming offensive. Once Israel learns to live with a nuclear Iran, (after all Pakistan has nukes and they hate Israel too) there will be virtually nothing that would catalyze an Israeli-Arab war other than the Arab states just deciding to attack one day.

Nicho Void
August 27 2012, 03:54:26 AM
I'm firmly in the, "fuck the whole region, pull out and let it go to hell" camp.

ValorousBob
August 27 2012, 04:02:50 AM
Honestly we'd probably be going down that road if 9/11 didn't happen.

Sacul
August 27 2012, 08:14:58 AM
Sorry but Israel is far more dangerous then Iran.

I completely disagree. Israel has more *potential* for destruction because it has nukes, but this will probably change soon anyways. Regardless of nuclear capability, Israel is primarily an inward looking state. They have no regional ambitions or concerns other than maintaining the integrity of their own borders/security. Iran on the other hand, views themselves as the regional Great Power. Aside from their blustering about Israel, which hardly ever actually manifests into action or policy, they've been mainly trying to dethrone Turkey and Saudi Arabia as the regional centers of power.

Israel's policies are overwhelmingly defensive, whereas Iran's are overwhelming offensive. Once Israel learns to live with a nuclear Iran, (after all Pakistan has nukes and they hate Israel too) there will be virtually nothing that would catalyze an Israeli-Arab war other than the Arab states just deciding to attack one day.

Lotsa derp in that post.
Israel isnt inward looking at all. They tried to get strategic dept in the past but were stopped by the USA. Since they cant play the geopolitical game they actively play the shadow games. That goes from pipeline politics to influencing movements to black ops in the entire region. If you think they are just inwards then all i can say is good job Israel in fooling another person. When i posted the greater israel border map on page 1 i was kidding offcourse but up untill the first Lebanon cluster fuck and especially after the Yom Kippur war there was real military ambition towards that goal but as much as the USA is part of the problem they also keep the Israeli's in check.

ValorousBob
August 28 2012, 12:57:10 AM
They're definitely dicks to their neighbors, but I've never seen/heard anything suggesting they've been using Bismarck style tricks to gain territory in the last 30 or so years. If you have a source for that, I'd readily admit I'm wrong.

Btw my comment about them being focused inwards wasn't meant to suggest they leave everyone alone, my point was they usually stick to the goal of keeping what they have (or maybe not depending on what information frankie has). They don't usually try to shape other events/nations in the region unless its directly relevant to them. This is in contrast to countries like Iran/Turkey/Saudi Arabia who take an interest in things that don't involve them because of their aspirations to be seen as the "leader" of the Middle East/Arab world.

Sacul
August 28 2012, 12:21:19 PM
They don't usually try to shape other events/nations in the region unless its directly relevant to them.

:facepalm:

mate really go read a book

In the art of shaping the world around you the israeli's have more hands in foreign organizations than the komintern had.

You know what the biggest security threat in the 90's was to Israel? The loss of foreign agents and informants due to old age etc etc. Its still a problem now. They have been bled of their finest and its hampering intel.

Its actually something that has been publicly discussed in israel to a great extend. Go shift through the Ha'aretz archives and read for yourself.

ValorousBob
August 28 2012, 11:51:48 PM
Suggest a book then mate. vOv

Sponk
August 29 2012, 12:25:26 AM
A bit annoyed (http://www.smh.com.au/world/israeli-army-cleared-of-activists-death-20120828-24ya2.html) at the Israeli army atm.

Still, this was a good read, and goes some way to explaining why that happened.

http://www.bostonreview.net/BR37.4/oded_naaman_israeli_defense_forces_palestinians_oc cupation.php

Frug
August 30 2012, 08:03:46 PM
Still, this was a good read, and goes some way to explaining why that happened.

http://www.bostonreview.net/BR37.4/oded_naaman_israeli_defense_forces_palestinians_oc cupation.php

Fascinating read. Up to you, and the author.

ValorousBob
August 30 2012, 11:19:53 PM
Suggest a book then mate. vOv

www.amazon.com/gp/aw/cr/0448222019/ref=aw_d_cr_books

Hmm, this link is broken for some reason, but I found the book. Only $22 + free shipping = goin in mah cart.

EDIT: What'd you think about the book? Good, bad, biased?

helgur
September 1 2012, 02:52:08 PM
Israel being paranoid is certainly justified, but them being defensive does not excuse in any way their occupation of the Palestine territories and settlement programs there. Or are those a necessity for the survival of their nation?


Nope They could get on just fine if they didn't expand. Also does anyone know why it was decided a good idea to let Israel have nukes? Small barely barely stable country that's a bit trigger happy with some very angry neighbors doesn't seem like a place were you want to let have nukes.

Not only that, but if you read about some of the crazy doctrines Israel haves on the use of nuclear weapons (see Samson retaliation doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option)) it was not only a bad idea to give Israel nuclear weapons, but outright insane.

That being said yes I certainly agree that Israels policies on the west bank and gaza strip is wrong and in some cases horrible, I also believe that a two state solution is not something that would resolve tensions. It would improve the conditions of the Palestinians which is good, but the Hamas hardliners would still want nothing else but the elimination of Israel as a state. In other words, there is a lot more that needs to be resolved than just boycotting/embargoing trade with Israel.

Alex Caine
September 3 2012, 08:26:36 PM
Israel being paranoid is certainly justified, but them being defensive does not excuse in any way their occupation of the Palestine territories and settlement programs there. Or are those a necessity for the survival of their nation?


Nope They could get on just fine if they didn't expand. Also does anyone know why it was decided a good idea to let Israel have nukes? Small barely barely stable country that's a bit trigger happy with some very angry neighbors doesn't seem like a place were you want to let have nukes.

Not only that, but if you read about some of the crazy doctrines Israel haves on the use of nuclear weapons (see Samson retaliation doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option)) it was not only a bad idea to give Israel nuclear weapons, but outright insane.



I could be wrong, but i'm fairly sure ALL nuclear powers would follow a similar principle if they were literally being overrun by conventional forces to the point where their nation is going to cease to exist. The Israelis just made it nice and clear to everyone near them, that's all.

Really, it's just a standard nuclear deterrent, but with the "will they or won't they" aspect removed. They will.

Zeekar
September 3 2012, 08:42:56 PM
Israel being paranoid is certainly justified, but them being defensive does not excuse in any way their occupation of the Palestine territories and settlement programs there. Or are those a necessity for the survival of their nation?


Nope They could get on just fine if they didn't expand. Also does anyone know why it was decided a good idea to let Israel have nukes? Small barely barely stable country that's a bit trigger happy with some very angry neighbors doesn't seem like a place were you want to let have nukes.

Not only that, but if you read about some of the crazy doctrines Israel haves on the use of nuclear weapons (see Samson retaliation doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option)) it was not only a bad idea to give Israel nuclear weapons, but outright insane.



I could be wrong, but i'm fairly sure ALL nuclear powers would follow a similar principle if they were literally being overrun by conventional forces to the point where their nation is going to cease to exist. The Israelis just made it nice and clear to everyone near them, that's all.

Really, it's just a standard nuclear deterrent, but with the "will they or won't they" aspect removed. They will.

All nuclear powers have a retaliation strike doctrine ( except India afaik ) while Israel has FUCK YOU WORLD doctrine. There is a slight difference between those.

Cue1*
September 4 2012, 02:03:01 AM
Israel being paranoid is certainly justified, but them being defensive does not excuse in any way their occupation of the Palestine territories and settlement programs there. Or are those a necessity for the survival of their nation?


Nope They could get on just fine if they didn't expand. Also does anyone know why it was decided a good idea to let Israel have nukes? Small barely barely stable country that's a bit trigger happy with some very angry neighbors doesn't seem like a place were you want to let have nukes.

Not only that, but if you read about some of the crazy doctrines Israel haves on the use of nuclear weapons (see Samson retaliation doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option)) it was not only a bad idea to give Israel nuclear weapons, but outright insane.



I could be wrong, but i'm fairly sure ALL nuclear powers would follow a similar principle if they were literally being overrun by conventional forces to the point where their nation is going to cease to exist. The Israelis just made it nice and clear to everyone near them, that's all.

Really, it's just a standard nuclear deterrent, but with the "will they or won't they" aspect removed. They will.

All nuclear powers have a retaliation strike doctrine ( except India afaik ) while Israel has FUCK YOU WORLD doctrine. There is a slight difference between those.

If by a FUCK YOU WORLD doctrine, you mean that they'd launch against everyone if their existence was ever threatened, that is exactly what a retaliation strike doctrine means to all nuclear powers. The US called it MAD. If one country puts a nuclear warhead to use, every single other nuclear armed nation will follow suit, nuking whoever it is they dislike most.

Zeekar
September 4 2012, 11:01:30 AM
No, MAD was at least in wording meant using nuclear weapons on the would be aggressor. So they deploy weapons of mass destruction you deploy yours against them assuring they dont survive the conflict. Israels doctrine is, that if their country existence is ever threatened they will nuke everybody and making sure if they go down the entire world goes down with them.

Lallante
September 4 2012, 11:30:18 AM
Israels nuclear doctrine is COMPLETELY different to any other nuclear weapon holder. Claiming otherwise is pure unmitigated bullshit.

The USA abandoned the "massive retaliation" doctrine during the cuban missle crisis. Noone else has a similar doctrine - everyone else calls for limited use in specific and focused circumstances not "nuke ALL the peoples"

Sacul
September 4 2012, 02:52:27 PM
Israels nuclear doctrine is COMPLETELY different to any other nuclear weapon holder. Claiming otherwise is pure unmitigated bullshit.

The USA abandoned the "massive retaliation" doctrine during the cuban missle crisis. Noone else has a similar doctrine - everyone else calls for limited use in specific and focused circumstances not "nuke ALL the peoples"

Funny that. I met a old old jew once at a family meet and he was really drunk. When having a discussion about 'being wiped out and into the sea' he said "dont worry young one every enemy capital allready has a nuke planted, it will be a short war".

I wasnt sure if i should start laughing or call him a fool. Was something about the tone of his voice that made me get another Glenfiddich and stfu.

p.s.
Not taking it serious but fml if it wouldnt indeed be a very short war.

Frug
September 4 2012, 08:20:23 PM
Israels nuclear doctrine is COMPLETELY different to any other nuclear weapon holder.

What is their doctrine, exactly?

Zeekar
September 4 2012, 11:44:48 PM
Israels nuclear doctrine is COMPLETELY different to any other nuclear weapon holder.

What is their doctrine, exactly?

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

Its pretty much if Israel goes down they will take the entire world down with them in a nuclear winter.


"We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force. Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: 'Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.' I consider it all hopeless at this point. We shall have to try to prevent things from coming to that, if at all possible. Our armed forces, however, are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.

Quote by: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_van_Creveld

There are several more in the wiki article but all in all they are showing that Israel is currently the most dangerous country in existence.

FourFiftyFour
September 5 2012, 02:49:48 AM
Do they have ICBMs?

Varcaus
September 5 2012, 03:22:11 AM
Do they have ICBMs?

Don't need the if your just aiming to fuck you world nuclear winter.

helgur
September 5 2012, 07:30:40 AM
Israel doesn't have enough nukes to start a nuclear winter. But yes, the Israelis do have the Jericho III ICBM, which means it can target any major city in the world. You could ask yourself, what would Israel want with ICBM's if it wasn't to follow through on the Samson doctrine? What possible other use would Israel have of ICBM's?

It is a scary thought, but also a bit interesting. As it really draws in a clear picture the paranoia the state of Israel is built upon

Lallante
September 5 2012, 07:48:04 AM
Israel doesn't have enough nukes to start a nuclear winter. But yes, the Israelis do have the Jericho III ICBM, which means it can target any major city in the world. You could ask yourself, what would Israel want with ICBM's if it wasn't to follow through on the Samson doctrine? What possible other use would Israel have of ICBM's?

It is a scary thought, but also a bit interesting. As it really draws in a clear picture the paranoia the state of Israel is built upon

How else will Israel be able to nuke Berlin and finally avenge WWII?

Frug
September 5 2012, 03:44:17 PM
Israels nuclear doctrine is COMPLETELY different to any other nuclear weapon holder.

What is their doctrine, exactly?

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

Its pretty much if Israel goes down they will take the entire world down with them in a nuclear winter.

Yes I can wiki that too. You seem to have missed the point of my question. Here's a hint: The reason I asked that question was slightly rhetorical. The answer is in the article you just linked. Can you find it? It's actually plastered all over the article you just linked.

Incidentally, citing a military historian's ramblings about what they can do is not citing policy or doctrine.

If you're still at a loss, here's a far better answer to my question:

the Israelis do have the Jericho III ICBM, which means it can target any major city in the world. You could ask yourself, what would Israel want with ICBM's if it wasn't to follow through on the Samson doctrine? What possible other use would Israel have of ICBM's?
That's a tad worrisome.

Armyofme
September 6 2012, 06:51:43 AM
the Israelis do have the Jericho III ICBM, which means it can target any major city in the world. You could ask yourself, what would Israel want with ICBM's if it wasn't to follow through on the Samson doctrine? What possible other use would Israel have of ICBM's?
That's a tad worrisome.
Indeed. Of all the countrys in the world, i have to say Israel is the one i see most likely to cause a global disaster

Lallante
September 6 2012, 09:22:49 AM
Israel or North Korea - the two most rogue of rogue states

Armyofme
September 6 2012, 10:01:56 AM
Israel or North Korea - the two most rogue of rogue states

To be honest i dont really fear North Korea that much. They seem more likely to blow themselfs up, then manage to blow up another country

Sacul
September 6 2012, 10:51:26 AM
the Israelis do have the Jericho III ICBM, which means it can target any major city in the world. You could ask yourself, what would Israel want with ICBM's if it wasn't to follow through on the Samson doctrine? What possible other use would Israel have of ICBM's?
That's a tad worrisome.
Indeed. Of all the countrys in the world, i have to say Israel is the one i see most likely to cause a global disaster

Why? I think Israel has shown amazing restraint.
Remember Gulf war 1? When Saddam tried to bomb Israel with his Scud missiles? The anti missile defence shield from the Patriot batteries was terribru and it was unknown if the next missile would contain a chemical warhead. If ever there was a time to nuke a arab state it was then, i was in Israel at that time and altho young i remember the fear well.

I could also name a few other occasions when the ironclad hawks screamed that Israel would be overrun but none more clear than 1991.

Armyofme
September 6 2012, 11:55:58 AM
Remember Gulf war 1? When Saddam tried to bomb Israel with his Scud missiles? The anti missile defence shield from the Patriot batteries was terribru and it was unknown if the next missile would contain a chemical warhead. If ever there was a time to nuke a arab state it was then, i was in Israel at that time and altho young i remember the fear well.

I could also name a few other occasions when the ironclad hawks screamed that Israel would be overrun but none more clear than 1991.
A lot of truth in your post i guess. But lets face it, Israel have never really been the most friendly of countrys to have around either.
And no, i dont belive Israel is the cause of every problem there is in the middle east, not even close to it. But you have to agree it does seem like they are doing their very best to keep the agression going in that part of the world.
And in my eyes, Israel having nukes is just as bad as if Iran has them.

Sacul
September 6 2012, 12:11:14 PM
Remember Gulf war 1? When Saddam tried to bomb Israel with his Scud missiles? The anti missile defence shield from the Patriot batteries was terribru and it was unknown if the next missile would contain a chemical warhead. If ever there was a time to nuke a arab state it was then, i was in Israel at that time and altho young i remember the fear well.

I could also name a few other occasions when the ironclad hawks screamed that Israel would be overrun but none more clear than 1991.
A lot of truth in your post i guess. But lets face it, Israel have never really been the most friendly of countrys to have around either.
And no, i dont belive Israel is the cause of every problem there is in the middle east, not even close to it. But you have to agree it does seem like they are doing their very best to keep the agression going in that part of the world.
And in my eyes, Israel having nukes is just as bad as if Iran has them.

I dont disagree with you and its the main reason i live in NL and not in Israel. Especially the last 20 years have been terrible with what many people now call the slow genocide.
As terrible as it is there is a hardcore group of people in power at the moment who see what they are doing right now as guaranteeing the survival of the jews over many generations.

Thats the biggest mistake people make when analyzing the situation. The hardliners are thinking over multiple generations and they dont care about the suffering at this moment for both sides aslong as they are making sure their childrens childrens children will still be around.

Zeekar
September 6 2012, 01:49:57 PM
Israel or North Korea - the two most rogue of rogue states

North Korea is kept in check effectively by China. Last time NK started stirring shit China sent a delegation to South Korea and it was all quiet since then.





Remember Gulf war 1? When Saddam tried to bomb Israel with his Scud missiles? The anti missile defence shield from the Patriot batteries was terribru and it was unknown if the next missile would contain a chemical warhead. If ever there was a time to nuke a arab state it was then, i was in Israel at that time and altho young i remember the fear well.

I could also name a few other occasions when the ironclad hawks screamed that Israel would be overrun but none more clear than 1991.
A lot of truth in your post i guess. But lets face it, Israel have never really been the most friendly of countrys to have around either.
And no, i dont belive Israel is the cause of every problem there is in the middle east, not even close to it. But you have to agree it does seem like they are doing their very best to keep the agression going in that part of the world.
And in my eyes, Israel having nukes is just as bad as if Iran has them.

I dont disagree with you and its the main reason i live in NL and not in Israel. Especially the last 20 years have been terrible with what many people now call the slow genocide.
As terrible as it is there is a hardcore group of people in power at the moment who see what they are doing right now as guaranteeing the survival of the jews over many generations.

Thats the biggest mistake people make when analyzing the situation. The hardliners are thinking over multiple generations and they dont care about the suffering at this moment for both sides aslong as they are making sure their childrens childrens children will still be around.

This is the whole truth of the matter. When you let religion extremists to rule over you, you get a shit country. And this is what is happening in Israel.

Lallante
September 6 2012, 03:56:44 PM
Israel wouldnt be a problem if the rest of the western world didnt repeatedly bend over backwards to enable its genocidal and horrific behaviour.

indi
September 6 2012, 04:19:28 PM
Shit is complicated, yo.

- Israel is the one "western" type state in that - unstable - area, or so many feel. It's a foothold and a destabilizer (see next point).
- Divide and rule: Western world has lots of interest in the oil developing countries.
- There's lots of guilt. Plenty of Western countries did nothing to prevent or actively participated in the persecution of Jews (longer period of time than "just" WWII). They also stood by in 1948 and at other times.
- Palestinians are the underdogs now, but nobody likes terrorists. And Al Fatah was pretty much one of the inventors (think Munich, but also attacks on kibbutsim). The Jews were the underdogs at some point, and some have not forgotten.
- And so forth, et cetera, und so weiter.

I for one sympathize with the voices of reason on both sides.

Lallante
September 6 2012, 07:06:17 PM
The voices of reason pretty much agree with the main palestinian leadership point of view on all this though. 2 state solution, 1967 borders with landswaps, redress for crimes, land seizures etc, right to return (with citizenship), removal of illegal settlements, Jerusalem shared and a free city, etc etc.

Theres a horrible trend in modern politics (particularly in america) where being "balanced" or "reasonable" means "assuming both sides are equally valid". Thats bullshit. You can be perfectly balanced, fair and reasonable and still admit the Israeli government is the problem and their position is completely untenable.

helgur
September 6 2012, 08:20:27 PM
Well, the problem is that if you really want to be balanced you can't demand Israel to go back to the 1967 borders. Yes various UN security council resolutions have put fourth the demand of the withdrawal of Israel to pre 1967 borders, but part of the problem Israel as a state faces is that many of its surrounding Arab neighbors do desire nothing else but the elimination of the Jewish state. You can't possibly believe the zealous factions within those Arab countries will stop at the UN demands, do you? In order to call yourself balanced you need to face these realities, and from those realities work out a compromise that will benefit both the Palestinians and the security concerns of the Jewish state.

Forget the UN resolutions, Israel will never live up to them unless you remove the occupied territories from Israel with force. Do you think that is a good idea?

FourFiftyFour
September 6 2012, 09:01:52 PM
TBH the US wouldn't support Israel nearly as much if they didn't constantly play up the underdog position and I Hamas stopped all terrorist attacks.

Non violence is the beat way to turn world opinion and thus support away from a violent israeli government.

ValorousBob
September 7 2012, 06:58:07 AM
Israel doesn't have enough nukes to start a nuclear winter.

I'm not so sure. There was a thing in Newsweek a couple years ago about how if Pakistan and India used just a small number of their nuclear weapons on each other, it'd still be enough to start a nuclear winter and kill like a 1/3 of the planet from starvation.

Alex Caine
September 7 2012, 07:07:54 AM
The voices of reason pretty much agree with the main palestinian leadership point of view on all this though. 2 state solution, 1967 borders with landswaps, redress for crimes, land seizures etc, right to return (with citizenship), removal of illegal settlements, Jerusalem shared and a free city, etc etc.




I don't think truly reasonable people would expect or push for such a totally unrealistic solution tbh.
Might as well say "the voices of reason think Jews should live on moon colonies", it's just as likely to happen.

Any reasonable approach will be nessecity have to be one that has a realistic chance of being agreed to by both sides, or there's no fucking point.

And again, when you say "redress for crimes", I assume you mean on both sides? Because the Arab side has just as many crimes and war criminals, if not more, than the Israelis, so that would be only fair.

Lallante
September 7 2012, 08:54:05 AM
Well, the problem is that if you really want to be balanced you can't demand Israel to go back to the 1967 borders. Yes various UN security council resolutions have put fourth the demand of the withdrawal of Israel to pre 1967 borders, but part of the problem Israel as a state faces is that many of its surrounding Arab neighbors do desire nothing else but the elimination of the Jewish state. You can't possibly believe the zealous factions within those Arab countries will stop at the UN demands, do you? In order to call yourself balanced you need to face these realities, and from those realities work out a compromise that will benefit both the Palestinians and the security concerns of the Jewish state.

Forget the UN resolutions, Israel will never live up to them unless you remove the occupied territories from Israel with force. Do you think that is a good idea?

Explain to me how Israel with 1967 borders is less stable than Israel with current borders? Everything you've identified (e.g. zealous neighbours) applies either way, but with 1967 borders you have both the moral high ground and full international support. Moderates everywhere who were previously ambivilent would flock to Israels support. Not to mention its the RIGHT thing to do.

"Balance" isnt about drawing a line an equal distance between two viewpoints and calling it a good compromise, its about weighing each argument purely according to its merits.

You dont need force to stop Israel, just sanctions. Without US aid, military assistance and public support Israel would compromise very quickly indeed as a direct result of the external pressures you yourself identify.

Lallante
September 7 2012, 08:57:12 AM
The voices of reason pretty much agree with the main palestinian leadership point of view on all this though. 2 state solution, 1967 borders with landswaps, redress for crimes, land seizures etc, right to return (with citizenship), removal of illegal settlements, Jerusalem shared and a free city, etc etc.




I don't think truly reasonable people would expect or push for such a totally unrealistic solution tbh.
Might as well say "the voices of reason think Jews should live on moon colonies", it's just as likely to happen.

Any reasonable approach will be nessecity have to be one that has a realistic chance of being agreed to by both sides, or there's no fucking point.

And again, when you say "redress for crimes", I assume you mean on both sides? Because the Arab side has just as many crimes and war criminals, if not more, than the Israelis, so that would be only fair.

Seriously, half the world is pushing hard for 1967 borders with landswaps - it was the basis of Camp David. Its the basis of every neutral mediators attempts to broker peace. The idea thats its "unrealistic" is patent nonsence.

Who actually thinks its unrealistic beyond the Israeli hardliners, US(and UK) hawks and random islamaphobes? Pretty much noone

By redress I mean that where someone has had their home bulldozed illegally by the Israeli government, they get compensation to build a new one, and where land has been illegally seized, it gets returned.

Armyofme
September 7 2012, 09:18:34 AM
Who actually thinks its unrealistic beyond the Israeli hardliners, US(and UK) hawks and random islamaphobes? Pretty much noone

By redress I mean that where someone has had their home bulldozed illegally by the Israeli government, they get compensation to build a new one, and where land has been illegally seized, it gets returned.

We all know thats never gonna happen. At least not as long as Israel has USA on their side.
For most Arabic countrys this works out fine though, as they can feel they have a moral highground for whatever they do.

Israel dont actually win any points in the western world by screaming out anti-semitism claims to anyone speaking up against Israel (Wich annoys the hell out of me)

Zeekar
September 7 2012, 09:30:58 AM
The voices of reason pretty much agree with the main palestinian leadership point of view on all this though. 2 state solution, 1967 borders with landswaps, redress for crimes, land seizures etc, right to return (with citizenship), removal of illegal settlements, Jerusalem shared and a free city, etc etc.




I don't think truly reasonable people would expect or push for such a totally unrealistic solution tbh.
Might as well say "the voices of reason think Jews should live on moon colonies", it's just as likely to happen.

Any reasonable approach will be nessecity have to be one that has a realistic chance of being agreed to by both sides, or there's no fucking point.

And again, when you say "redress for crimes", I assume you mean on both sides? Because the Arab side has just as many crimes and war criminals, if not more, than the Israelis, so that would be only fair.

Seriously, half the world is pushing hard for 1967 borders with landswaps - it was the basis of Camp David. Its the basis of every neutral mediators attempts to broker peace. The idea thats its "unrealistic" is patent nonsence.

Who actually thinks its unrealistic beyond the Israeli hardliners, US(and UK) hawks and random islamaphobes? Pretty much noone

By redress I mean that where someone has had their home bulldozed illegally by the Israeli government, they get compensation to build a new one, and where land has been illegally seized, it gets returned.

And that is enough support that you will never see it happening.

As for UN resolutions, they arent worth the paper they are printed on if EVERY mayor power doesn't stand behind them. Just take a look at Iran debacle.

helgur
September 7 2012, 11:51:20 AM
Explain to me how Israel with 1967 borders is less stable than Israel with current borders?

From a military tactical viewpoint Israels borders pre 1967 is much harder to defend, especially from the north.



Everything you've identified (e.g. zealous neighbours) applies either way


Offcourse it does, but in order to not fall under the category of a zealot yourself, you need to see this from the perspective of both sides. I am just trying to be pragmatic here



, but with 1967 borders you have both the moral high ground and full international support. Moderates everywhere who were previously ambivilent would flock to Israels support.


Yes, undoubtful. Before the 70-80ies most of the political left in Norway was strongly pro Israel, even supplying them with crucial raw materials to build the bomb. Now almost nobody from that political camp is supporting Israel.



Not to mention its the RIGHT thing to do.


If by morally it is the right thing to do. Yes I agree with you. But even so, Israel is taking a very big risk by withdrawing according to the UN security resolutions. You don't need to be pro-Israel to see that.



"Balance" isnt about drawing a line an equal distance between two viewpoints and calling it a good compromise, its about weighing each argument purely according to its merits.


That is what we are trying to do here, isn't it?



You dont need force to stop Israel, just sanctions. Without US aid, military assistance and public support Israel would compromise very quickly indeed as a direct result of the external pressures you yourself identify.


I agree fully that Israel needs to be sanctioned heavily. Not necessarily to force them to withdraw exactly according to UN (because that will never happen unless you pry that land from their cold dead hands), but to get them to the negotiating table. This will fuel the political will to police their own settlers and demolish any settlements that have been erected unlawfully and acknowledge the right for the Palestinians. That is at least a start

Lallante
September 7 2012, 12:09:13 PM
Who actually thinks its unrealistic beyond the Israeli hardliners, US(and UK) hawks and random islamaphobes? Pretty much noone

By redress I mean that where someone has had their home bulldozed illegally by the Israeli government, they get compensation to build a new one, and where land has been illegally seized, it gets returned.

We all know thats never gonna happen. At least not as long as Israel has USA on their side.
For most Arabic countrys this works out fine though, as they can feel they have a moral highground for whatever they do.

Israel dont actually win any points in the western world by screaming out anti-semitism claims to anyone speaking up against Israel (Wich annoys the hell out of me)

Are you reading my posts? My whole point is all it will take is the USA doing a "sorry, nop" and Israel will be FORCED to compromise.

Fara
September 7 2012, 12:42:14 PM
Who actually thinks its unrealistic beyond the Israeli hardliners, US(and UK) hawks and random islamaphobes? Pretty much noone

By redress I mean that where someone has had their home bulldozed illegally by the Israeli government, they get compensation to build a new one, and where land has been illegally seized, it gets returned.

We all know thats never gonna happen. At least not as long as Israel has USA on their side.
For most Arabic countrys this works out fine though, as they can feel they have a moral highground for whatever they do.

Israel dont actually win any points in the western world by screaming out anti-semitism claims to anyone speaking up against Israel (Wich annoys the hell out of me)

Are you reading my posts? My whole point is all it will take is the USA doing a "sorry, nop" and Israel will be FORCED to compromise.

I don't think I have to tell you why that will not happen in the forseeable future.

Armyofme
September 7 2012, 04:11:27 PM
Who actually thinks its unrealistic beyond the Israeli hardliners, US(and UK) hawks and random islamaphobes? Pretty much noone

By redress I mean that where someone has had their home bulldozed illegally by the Israeli government, they get compensation to build a new one, and where land has been illegally seized, it gets returned.

We all know thats never gonna happen. At least not as long as Israel has USA on their side.
For most Arabic countrys this works out fine though, as they can feel they have a moral highground for whatever they do.

Israel dont actually win any points in the western world by screaming out anti-semitism claims to anyone speaking up against Israel (Wich annoys the hell out of me)

Are you reading my posts? My whole point is all it will take is the USA doing a "sorry, nop" and Israel will be FORCED to compromise.Ive read your posts, and i agree with you on most points.
But we all know USA will never turn their back on Israel.

FourFiftyFour
September 11 2012, 02:08:45 PM
Simple public opinion in the US won't let that happen.

Whichever party pushes for it will be slammed with messaging about how they abandoned the Jews to the Muslims (terrorists) who surround them on all sides.

The 9/11 terror attacks will tip the scales in favor of a non Muslim nation for as long as my generation is alive.

Reed Tiburon
September 14 2012, 08:27:01 PM
No, because you're being completely one-sided. And you're not acknowledging the huge usage of Katyusha rockets.
Huge in number of attacks, maybe. They don't kill that many people at all. Look up the numbers, I'm too lazy atm.

If by a FUCK YOU WORLD doctrine, you mean that they'd launch against everyone if their existence was ever threatened, that is exactly what a retaliation strike doctrine means to all nuclear powers. The US called it MAD. If one country puts a nuclear warhead to use, every single other nuclear armed nation will follow suit, nuking whoever it is they dislike most.

That's not what MAD is :facepalm:

ValorousBob
September 14 2012, 11:55:06 PM
I'm not so sure. My guess is that everyone is afraid of the neo-con Jewish lobby in the US because no one's challenged them and realized they're not that powerful. The Republicans have been saying all kinds of shit about Obama abandoning the Jews and it doesn't seem to have done them a whole lot of good. Besides, Americans have short memories. It wouldn't be to surprising if in a couple years voters largely "forgot" about 9/11.

Keorythe
September 15 2012, 05:09:27 AM
I'm not so sure. My guess is that everyone is afraid of the neo-con Jewish lobby in the US because no one's challenged them and realized they're not that powerful. The Republicans have been saying all kinds of shit about Obama abandoning the Jews and it doesn't seem to have done them a whole lot of good. Besides, Americans have short memories. It wouldn't be to surprising if in a couple years voters largely "forgot" about 9/11.

Jewish lobby runs on both sides. The whole debacle when Villaraigosa had the vote over reinstating Jerusalem into the DNC language showed that is still a good portion of the delegates who still support Israel pretty vigorously.

Zumwalt
September 15 2012, 04:44:21 PM
Say what you will about Obama, I like him because he is not in the pocket of Israel.