How important is Israel politically/geographicaly to the U.S??
- Thread starter toastonrye
- Start date
-
- Tags
- idf israel middle east politics
- Status
wittmanace
Active Member
Some of the assetions here are getting absurd in their double standards. Terrorism against jews in palestine in 1920? How about terrorism against british forces who are fighting the nazis? Heard of Lehi or the Stern gang? Does this then prove that the British needed to have a state there to protect the Brits from jewish terorists?
The assertion that Nckel Grass had no impact is absurd. look at the figures (someone else has already provided some here) and get back to us on that. And if that were true, that it had no impact, then it supports the argument that aid in that form to Israel should cease. It had a very big impact on the states that were involved (the 73 oil crisis, seven sisters affairs, etc).yet supposedly had no impact on Israel. So why do it?
The issue of aid to Egypt was brought up. Does this not hint that supporting the pro western regimes in the region works, rather than the continued support of the country that is the source of most of the tensions and trigger of fanaticism? Israels behaviour is one of the key radicalising influences in the middle east, and has been for 60 odd years...
What oeace and or stability has the support of Israel brought? The aid to Egypt has brought alot of gains, in terms of increased stability as well as countering the prior trend of anit westernism in rhetoric and action (suez, see egyption nationalism, and the muslim brotherhood, etc).
I might also add that the weapons supplied to Israel are legally conditional on being used for defence only...hard to see cast lead was not a violation of this, as an example. If you receive the aid under these conditions from an ally that actually doesnt need you...why continue supporting you when you violate this one condition? It is biting the hand that feeds you. Make no mistake, the relationship is no longoer symbiotic, if it ever was.
A counter to Soviet influence? the Soviet Union dissolved long ago, so if this was the reason, it is one more reason to stop the military aid. The Soviet Union no longer exists.
If you use the argument that America cant abandon its ally, as it will be a sign for all other allies, consider what the georgians saidin this regard, consider the UK in the Falklands too, for that matter.
As for the claim that could continue its path on its own in this way, let me know what Israel would use in place of the money the US provides, in place of F16s, F15s etc. calling it the raam doesnt make it a product of israeli industry. I may not be an american, but it is bizarre to claim that Israeli military technology isnt largely based on the US sharing intel, tech and equipment in addition to heavy funding. That attitude is simply going to get the hand that feeds you to wonder why it does. see what happens.
The idea that claims Israel carried out the assasination are fictitious is equally absurd. The UK sent investigators to Israel, and they determined the passports were acquired by a state agency that copied passports at the international airport in tel aviv, and that the individual assasins then listed fake addresses and numbers with the embassy. these addresses and numbers were tracked down. The idea that you know more than the governments of the UK others is not likely, to the point that it can be discounted. If you want to see interviews with people involved:
BBC iPlayer - Panorama: Passports to Kill
note that it was hamas that asked to UAE to investigate the cause of death. if Hamas had done it, as someone here suggested might be the case, why ask for an investigation into cause of death (which was later determined definitively). And as to the question, why palesinians were arrested...are you suggesting Hamas copied the passports as in this manner, and then had 20 jewish Israelis assasinate on of their own in Dubai, with drugs intended to avoid an austopsy and suspicion, then called and asked the UAE to investigate? the assertion that Israel could not bungle it like this...well, they did when they went for Meshal, and the agents were only released in exchange for the antidote.
The basis for so many of these pro Israeli arguments suggests that many are pro Israeli for the sake of it. Why not discuss this issue purely on its own merits? no one here is arguing against the relationship on any pre-formed anti Israeli basis it seems. The pro Israeli argument does however seem to be a case of having a conclusion then trying to find a basis for getting there, rather than the other way round. That is no flame, but simply a question. If ones belief in support for Israel is simply ingrained and automatic, whether for religious cultural or for whatever reasons, then why not simply say so? That last comment is not aimed at anyone in particular, but rather an observation.
The assertion that Nckel Grass had no impact is absurd. look at the figures (someone else has already provided some here) and get back to us on that. And if that were true, that it had no impact, then it supports the argument that aid in that form to Israel should cease. It had a very big impact on the states that were involved (the 73 oil crisis, seven sisters affairs, etc).yet supposedly had no impact on Israel. So why do it?
The issue of aid to Egypt was brought up. Does this not hint that supporting the pro western regimes in the region works, rather than the continued support of the country that is the source of most of the tensions and trigger of fanaticism? Israels behaviour is one of the key radicalising influences in the middle east, and has been for 60 odd years...
What oeace and or stability has the support of Israel brought? The aid to Egypt has brought alot of gains, in terms of increased stability as well as countering the prior trend of anit westernism in rhetoric and action (suez, see egyption nationalism, and the muslim brotherhood, etc).
I might also add that the weapons supplied to Israel are legally conditional on being used for defence only...hard to see cast lead was not a violation of this, as an example. If you receive the aid under these conditions from an ally that actually doesnt need you...why continue supporting you when you violate this one condition? It is biting the hand that feeds you. Make no mistake, the relationship is no longoer symbiotic, if it ever was.
A counter to Soviet influence? the Soviet Union dissolved long ago, so if this was the reason, it is one more reason to stop the military aid. The Soviet Union no longer exists.
If you use the argument that America cant abandon its ally, as it will be a sign for all other allies, consider what the georgians saidin this regard, consider the UK in the Falklands too, for that matter.
As for the claim that could continue its path on its own in this way, let me know what Israel would use in place of the money the US provides, in place of F16s, F15s etc. calling it the raam doesnt make it a product of israeli industry. I may not be an american, but it is bizarre to claim that Israeli military technology isnt largely based on the US sharing intel, tech and equipment in addition to heavy funding. That attitude is simply going to get the hand that feeds you to wonder why it does. see what happens.
The idea that claims Israel carried out the assasination are fictitious is equally absurd. The UK sent investigators to Israel, and they determined the passports were acquired by a state agency that copied passports at the international airport in tel aviv, and that the individual assasins then listed fake addresses and numbers with the embassy. these addresses and numbers were tracked down. The idea that you know more than the governments of the UK others is not likely, to the point that it can be discounted. If you want to see interviews with people involved:
BBC iPlayer - Panorama: Passports to Kill
note that it was hamas that asked to UAE to investigate the cause of death. if Hamas had done it, as someone here suggested might be the case, why ask for an investigation into cause of death (which was later determined definitively). And as to the question, why palesinians were arrested...are you suggesting Hamas copied the passports as in this manner, and then had 20 jewish Israelis assasinate on of their own in Dubai, with drugs intended to avoid an austopsy and suspicion, then called and asked the UAE to investigate? the assertion that Israel could not bungle it like this...well, they did when they went for Meshal, and the agents were only released in exchange for the antidote.
The basis for so many of these pro Israeli arguments suggests that many are pro Israeli for the sake of it. Why not discuss this issue purely on its own merits? no one here is arguing against the relationship on any pre-formed anti Israeli basis it seems. The pro Israeli argument does however seem to be a case of having a conclusion then trying to find a basis for getting there, rather than the other way round. That is no flame, but simply a question. If ones belief in support for Israel is simply ingrained and automatic, whether for religious cultural or for whatever reasons, then why not simply say so? That last comment is not aimed at anyone in particular, but rather an observation.
IMO it is time you were banned but I will leave that judgement to those with far more experience in such matters.
I think you need to go away and gain some more life experience, read more books and learn some humility regarding the clear limitations of your own intellectual capacity.
I am sorry to write this but its just not good enough.
InnoTactics
New Member
Most of the parties that are at conflict with Israel denounce it's right to exist. You can find many of it on MEMRI dot org.
The above discussion gravitated around stopping aid and support given to Israel. Under those conditions, with Iran around things can change. Also, Israel's geography will put it in grave danger once a peace treaty is signed with the Palestinians. At any war time scenario Israel will be cut in half somewhere along it's 20 mile wide band west of the 1967 line. Most cities, roads and airports will be under mortar and MANPAD range. Israeli's realize that a peace treaty makes them dependent of the international community preventing the arming of the Palestinian state, otherwise it's suicide. And with the recent experience of the world (not) preventing the rearming of Hezballah, you can understand (one of the reasons) why the Israelis are afraid to sign.
As to your second claim, I take it from your profile that you live in the UK. While the Palestinians openly supported Hitler, the Jews send their young to fight under British command. This was the same in WWI, when huge amounts of intelligence to the British forces was provided by the Jewish society that opposed the Turks.
If it were so that Israel is a powerful state able to send unused forces to help distant countries, your expectation would be in place. Israel does provide intelligence to the UK, humanitarian aid to as far as Haiti, captured Russian equipment for research at the west, and generally whatever it can. So you seem to forget that the Jews in Israel DID do their best to help along the way.
wittmanace
Active Member
Juat a quick point to answer here before I head home...
Yes several of them deny Israel's right to exist...some dont. Israel in practice denies Palestine's right to exist. A point to consider. The resolution calling for the Israeli state to exist also calls for a Palestinian state, sovereign independent and free. Israel has stated it would consider a sort of state, if it did not have an army, control its airspace or waters....Which state is denying which's right to exist as a state? Who controls the arms going into Israel? clearly not effectively..since Israel has nukes...so excuse me but the idea that the west should monitor arms going to Palestinians if they had a state, is a heavy double standard.
Yes several of them deny Israel's right to exist...some dont. Israel in practice denies Palestine's right to exist. A point to consider. The resolution calling for the Israeli state to exist also calls for a Palestinian state, sovereign independent and free. Israel has stated it would consider a sort of state, if it did not have an army, control its airspace or waters....Which state is denying which's right to exist as a state? Who controls the arms going into Israel? clearly not effectively..since Israel has nukes...so excuse me but the idea that the west should monitor arms going to Palestinians if they had a state, is a heavy double standard.
InnoTactics
New Member
How exactly does Israel denies the Palestinian state to exist? There is a de facto Palestinian state since the Oslo accords, and I would say even two states since the Gaza withdrawal. The Palestinians on the other hand still have no Israel on it's official maps, teach their children that 'liberation of all of Palestine' is their dream, and launch rockets from Gaza.
The Israeli's accepted the Partition plans before 1948, and it was the Palestinians and the Arabs that launched the 1948-1949 war. In 1967, a war brought by Egyptian amassment of forces and closing of the Tiran straights, Israel begged Jordan not to intervene, but they did, and lost the West Bank (which they occupied in 1948). Yes, after 1967 some voices in Israel talked about keeping the land. But these are today a tiny minority, with almost all Israeli's and the major parties accept a two state solution. So far the record shows that Israel tries to solve this and the Palestinians do not / can not.
You're missing the context. Israel is still threatened and peace with Egypt and Jordan came only after they recognized that Israel cannot be defeated. Allow the Palestinians to arm themselves to their teeth a few minutes drive from Tel Aviv and they might rethink that. Don't forget that a huge number of the Palestinians support Hamas, which clearly states that it's a religious goal to destroy Israel completely and that afterward Jews as a Jews should be killed too. If you want, I can bring you a link and quotes from the Hamas charter.
If demanding a murderous criminal to live unarmed while allowing it's neighbor to bear arms in self defense is a double standard, then so be it. I prefer to live by it rather than forget history and allow for an existential threat to Israel once again.
Don't be sorry, it's your opinion. I am not being mean, but that is my opinion. It doesn't bother me that you put that. If i were a moderator i would too, but it's a good thing i'm not.
Don't be sorry, your fine!
- wf
Already covered that cold war aspect in other posts on this subject - I was just proffering that the mere fact that the Israeli's finished the war with more ammunition cannot be taken as a fact in isolation. Where that ammunition came from (the US - one of the two superpowers on the planet at the time) and how it was delivered (much of it by air - very expensive - only for important allies) says probably more than the actual value of the munitions.
Thanks for the correction
So how many times have the US used Israeli soil for basing their operations? There may have been the odd covert operation, but as has been pointed out by others, if anything Israel was a liability in GWI and GWII. Any direct involvement in that war and the coalition and basing opportunities would largely have disappeared. I'm sure at odd times Israel is (or more probably was given that there are now bases that can be used in other countries in the region)advantageous to have. I understand the need for bases and allies such as the US facilities in my own country, Australia (Pine Gap, North West Cape), and in Australia's case there is a quid pro quo to be had. The US gets to use some of our training areas and ranges, we share intel, we provide a friendly pro US influence in the region and I believe we were the first international nation to step forward with assistance when the US requested in GWII, and we get US assistance if things turn to poo in our region. So I understand that very well. What does Israel provide to the US? Where is the quid pro quo?
Yowzers!
You cannot invade and control a country without putting troops on the ground - stupid pointless argument. A better argument would have been to point out where the US has people (some uniformed, most not) on a Pakistani Airbase. Now that is a far better example given the geo-political implications of foreign basing.BTW, you may want to explain how using the Carrier groups is difficult and dangerous to use. I cannot remember any carrier being targeted by suicide bombers or VBIED in the past 50 years - unlike say Baghdad. Also difficult? The US has perfected carrier ops in the 1930's and seems to have faith in the 12 carrier groups and the ability of the USMC or for that matter the US army's airborne and airmobile forces.
So, you believe we need Israel as an ally to invade one of these 4? Why, where is the threat? If the US is going to strike Iran, it will strike Iran, not Syria (besides, the cynical would possibly point out that there is not sufficient oil under Syria to bother). If you think it will do that from Israeli territory, you'd be very much mistaken. As with anything in that region, that will inflame sentiments in the Arab world against the US, why would the US risk trashing the diplomatic relations it has carefully built by doing that? So, any strike against an Arab country cannot be conducted from Israel - explain to me again its usefulness as a base?
At the end of the day, all money is a bribe - a method to seek influence. The Egyptians have upheld their part of the bargain, the Israeli's seem hell bent in making the US look like fools (ignoring US requests to stop building settlements on disputed territory, scuttling US attempts at peace in the region). So, explain again the point of the $2.5Bn...
My quote about bugger any sense of restraint has to do with the Israeli settlements and their attitude to their neighbours. No, I do not define all relationships this way, but tell me, where was the quid pro quo in all this? What does America get out of its expensive relationship with Israel? We have established that it is useless for launching any attack from as this is politically unacceptable given the regional sensitivities. The US is often targeted BECAUSE of its ties with Israel. How often have IDF units participated in opwerations with US or allied forces?
When you look at what the US gets from it relationships with Australia or the UK it pales by comparison with what it gets from Israel (at face value - obviously I am not privy to any intel links etc). From the outsiders point of view if it wasn't for a vocal jewish minority with influence or power in the US, the US would have and probably should have dumped its close ties with Israel at the end of the cold war.
Again, I ask, why is there such support in the US for Israel?
I didn't know you covered it as I don't have time to read through all the posts. Still, you made an assertion about US support for Israel during the '73 war without addressing the bipolar power balancing context so I assumed you were unaware of it, or otherwise discounted it.
The ammunition delivered had little military[/I ]impact. If you want to make the point that there was some psychological effect on Israel fine, though it is difficult to quantify those types of intangibles. It became relatively moot a few years later when Egypt eventually abandons the Soviets for the Americans. After '76 the only ME states that accepted more Soviet arms transfers than US arms were Iraq, Syria, and North and South Yemen.
Supporting Israel within the Cold War context made sense, however those Arab states that took support from the Soviets had no qualms about switching to the Americans. Today, with no USSR, the preponderance of arms comes to the region from the US; 53% of arms in the region comes from the US as opposed to 7% from Russia. http://books.sipri.org/files/misc/SIPRIBP0907.pdf
So what does all this mean? Does the US give too much aid to Israel? Probably, in my view. Is Israel that important to the US in the region? Not as important as some Israelis think they are. Can the US force a nuclear-armed Israel to modify its state behavior? Not without some difficulty. There are more important allies in the region that the US should/could cultivate yet the Israel/US relationship can be a hindrance in this regard, though there are domestic pressures that force US policy-makers to continue the relationship.
I did not say terrorism started after the Six Day War I said the War of Attrition started, and yes it was a real conflict, and no I was not wrong on historical facts. Terrorism is a relative term, so I try to keep my morality away from my foreign policy.
Which is why so many Moslems joined al Qaeda after 9/11.
It is far easier to recruit militants when an army invades your country/territory and bears down on the local populace. One could argue that more militants were created due to the response to a terrorist act, rather than the act itself (e.g. 9/11, and the invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan).Iran and Syria are not what I would consider "big players", they don't have the force projection or financial capabilities to stand toe-to-toe with actual big players (AKA Great Powers-US, Russia, China, etc.) so they use an asymmetrical response, aka terrorism, but thanks for proving the point.
Little damage compared to what a nation-state can do when at war. Look at the destruction caused by WWI as an example, or the Gulf War, or WWII, or Vietnam War. The most destructive terrorist attack in history only caused 3,000 deaths, yes, yes tragic to be sure, and I am not trying to mitigate the loss, but in comparison to what a military can do, well there is no comparison.
Irrelevant, appeal to pity, or appeal to the people. Life sucks, I know, get used to it.
Rationality is used in a different context by Waltz, Mearshimer, etc. When you get to Waltz let me know and we can readdress these arguments again.
A fallacious argument by definition cannot be valid. What a slippery slope argument means is that you take a scenario and imply some implausible, or unlikely, or unproven chain of events will happen because of it. If A then B-Y then Z. One could argue the contra, that it is because of the existence of Israel that extremism exists, and if Israel is removed then everything will be better.
Which is precisely why your argument is weak, as there are multiple factors which may preclude the rise of extremism.
Good grief, yet another fallacy, an appeal to fear. Obviously you are very emotional about this subject, so until you calm down, or present your arguments more coherently, there probably won't be much constructive thought to be had from debating you.
I understand. Debatable though if Israel needed it or not to win the '67 or '73 wars. Would they turn down the aid? No, of course not. As I stated in another post, within the Cold War context giving aid to Israel made sense as the Soviets gave aid to Egypt and Syria. But soon after that '73 war Egypt re-aligned with the US. So the amount of aid to Israel is probably not necessary, especially if it is in the form of grants as the chart shows, and thus I assume do not need to be repaid.
Ananda
The Bunker Group
Just Give The Palestinian Their Own Nation
This arguments concerning Israel and the Arabs won't be resolved until the Palstinian got their own nation. That's mean a Viable nation and not some patch work land that the Right wingers in Israel and US try to give the Palestinian.
As a Moeslem I said Arafat is a Fool, when he did not grab right away the israel offer in the last stage sof Oslo. This when he still have supported US and Israel administrations. But then again I could be wrong since even if Arafat take the offer, what guarantee the right wingers in Israel will not sabotage it.
People who support Israel and the legions of Right Wingers in US will always says the offer in Oslo was the fact that Israel willingness to live with Plastnian state as their neighbour.
However which part of ISrael sociaty that willing ??
Yitchack Rabin was the only Israel Prime Minister that's been welcomed in open armed by any administrations in Indonesia (the largest moeslem nation in the world). However much controversy on his visit, this show that majority of Moeslem World willing to accept Israel..as long as they show sincere wilingness to settle with Palestinian.
What's happen then..Rabin was gun down by the supporters ofthe same right wingers that's now in control of Israel politics..
Thus any supporters of Israel can see what massege that is to the rest of the moeslem world..
" we'are willing to give palastinian only in our terms..anybody who're willing to gave more concesion to the palestinian..will be gun down..regardless he's a fellow Jews and prime minister of Israel"..
With that kind of massage..it's my perplextion on why Israel supporters still fantasies and wandering why the moeslem world still hostile with Israel..??
With that kind of ideology in Israel..it'd not a genius to see that some part of their neighbours will try to equalize Israel in armed...
Iran will have nuclear weapons sooner or later...just because the environment the right wingers in Israel creates..was everything any moeslem fanatics looking for an excuse to continue on the path to destroy Israel.
The right wingers in Israel continue to create and enriched the soil of militancy in their neighbourhood.
As for the US..now it's time for the US to see whether this Right Wingers still the regime in ISrael that they can cooperate..
US will support the ISrael..however they have to choose whther this MIlitants in Israel administrations is the right partners.
This arguments concerning Israel and the Arabs won't be resolved until the Palstinian got their own nation. That's mean a Viable nation and not some patch work land that the Right wingers in Israel and US try to give the Palestinian.
As a Moeslem I said Arafat is a Fool, when he did not grab right away the israel offer in the last stage sof Oslo. This when he still have supported US and Israel administrations. But then again I could be wrong since even if Arafat take the offer, what guarantee the right wingers in Israel will not sabotage it.
People who support Israel and the legions of Right Wingers in US will always says the offer in Oslo was the fact that Israel willingness to live with Plastnian state as their neighbour.
However which part of ISrael sociaty that willing ??
Yitchack Rabin was the only Israel Prime Minister that's been welcomed in open armed by any administrations in Indonesia (the largest moeslem nation in the world). However much controversy on his visit, this show that majority of Moeslem World willing to accept Israel..as long as they show sincere wilingness to settle with Palestinian.
What's happen then..Rabin was gun down by the supporters ofthe same right wingers that's now in control of Israel politics..
Thus any supporters of Israel can see what massege that is to the rest of the moeslem world..
" we'are willing to give palastinian only in our terms..anybody who're willing to gave more concesion to the palestinian..will be gun down..regardless he's a fellow Jews and prime minister of Israel"..
With that kind of massage..it's my perplextion on why Israel supporters still fantasies and wandering why the moeslem world still hostile with Israel..??
With that kind of ideology in Israel..it'd not a genius to see that some part of their neighbours will try to equalize Israel in armed...
Iran will have nuclear weapons sooner or later...just because the environment the right wingers in Israel creates..was everything any moeslem fanatics looking for an excuse to continue on the path to destroy Israel.
The right wingers in Israel continue to create and enriched the soil of militancy in their neighbourhood.
As for the US..now it's time for the US to see whether this Right Wingers still the regime in ISrael that they can cooperate..
US will support the ISrael..however they have to choose whther this MIlitants in Israel administrations is the right partners.
Last edited:
I don't think Arafat is a Fool because he could not have done a deal without being killed by the extremists on his side too (and now that he is dead, he can't do deals). The problem is both sides (Palestinians and the Israelis) hate each other and there is no one on either side with the credibility to deliver a deal acceptable to both sides. If we are to do the blame game, the blame needs to be spread both ways - the radicals on the Palestinian side are just as dead set against peace.
There was a chance for peace. It came and it passed. Not sure why the current American administration thinks that they can advance the peace talks when the situation on the ground has not changed and all parties have a vested interest in the status quo.
The art of a deal is the art of the possible - there is no good outcome possible in this current situation (given the lack of commitment of all parties - external and the parties in conflict) and in fact I'm very cynical of the current US administration's motives - maybe it's just to make them look good or appear to do something (I'll leave that for someone else to speculate). Here's a link on the explaining how to understand one bit of the Israeli political spectrum.
Whoever inks a peace deal between a peace deal between the Palestinians and the Israelis need to pay in blood the deal signed to stop the attacks on Israel. And in the Middle East no good deed goes unpunished.
IMO, no external party is going to have the will to send troops (who will meet lot's of RPGs, IEDs and suicide bombers) for at least the next 2 decades to disarm the Palestinian radicals to provide the security Israel legitimately needs to stop these rocket attacks and to wait for Palestinian civil society to develop. Further, a number of Palestinian groups are proxies for Iran and/or Syria, so there's a never ending stream of supply of weapons. In this context, there just simply isn't the will by any party mediating to really stop the supply of weapons by external parties. And any mediator who acts against the interest of any faction of the Palestinian radicals would do well to remember October 23, 1983.
That's my 2 cents from my layman point of view.
Last edited:
Ananda
The Bunker Group
Opssg, I think that's the point I was trying to make. It's just now seems to me the blame (terorists, fanatics, bla, bla, bla..) was directed moreto the Arabs and the Palstinian, while in some part of western sociaty seems put bilnd aye on the RADICALIZATION of Israel politics.
ISreal wants to make peace says the suporter of Israel..but what massage they have shown to the other parties...the one prime minister that show much willingness to deal with palestian was gundown by a supporters of the current right wingers that control Israel.
I don't know how the peace can move on now..since the HOT HEADED that control Israel and Palestinian now basicaly wants to have a clash.
But trying only to Squeze only to Israel adversaries from US stand of view...will only push down any potential or current US friends in the region outside Israel. Thus this will only help fanatics like Iranian current administrations to continue current path..like arming themselves with Nuclear weapons. With present conditions..It's matter of time before Iranian technology was mature enough to build Weapons grade plutonioum or enriched uranium.
However what incentives from other neighbours outside ISreal to stop Iran..??
None..with current politics in ISrael..no matter how the Arab Sunni dislike with the Iran Syiah..they do nothave enough incentives to stop a fellow moeslem to developed Nuclear weapons against increasingly HOSTILE jewish nation.
NO matter how much barvado of ISrael capabilities. It's clear that ISrael can not launch significant attack on Iran except with the US help and some blind eyes from the other Arab neighbours. Something that now no the neighbours had enough incentives to do. ISrael can only attack by launching nuclear stirike. But again this ill onlyplay to the fanatics advantages. They will show the world that a Nation that build on the result of Hollocaust, now build it's own hollocaust. Something that even ISrael hardliners will have difficult to defend.
Yes I agree..the one who control politics in ISrael and Palestinian wants status quo..Sometime I believe the Righ Wingers in ISrael secretly wants Iran to reach weapons grade technology to DEFEND their own hostile strategy.
Back to the topic ofthis thread. I only want to state that US now has to make a choices..whether US wants to be the MAKER or FOLLOWERS of the current game in Midlle East. This can be started with show with CLEAR INTENTIONS what kind of Government in Israel the US wants to be partner with.
This talked about ISrael can change the partner outside US was totally Nonsense in my oppinion. Nobody in this world willing to defend ISrael as much as US willingness and also US the only one who has capacity to do that. Israel technology much depend on the access that US been given to the Isreal for co developed or funding. Israel neeed US more than ever. and not the opposite.
Irrespective of the President's personal feelings towards Israel, there won't be any change to the special relationship between the U.S. and Israel. I'm assuming you were refering to the recent statements made by the U.S. concerning the building of settlements. The importance of the relationship is such that nothing will be allowed to jeopardise the U.S./Israeli relationship, certainly not the continued building of Israeli settlements on illegaly occupied Arab land.
Amidst all the talk of Iran being a danger to Israel and a threat to regional stability, I think the question that should be asked is why exactly would Iran want to launch any conventional or non-conventional ballistic missile attack on Israel knowing that this would result in a devastating military reponse fron Israel and the U.S.? Iran has all to lose and nothing to gain from such an action.
In the past the neoconservatives were fond of talking about Israel's, the U.S. and western interests in the Gulf, but what about Iranian security concerns and regional interests? At the moment, Iran has U.S. troops on 2 of its borders and across the Gulf faces a number of U.S. aligned Sunni Arab states that wholeheartedly supported the Baathists during the Iran/Iraq war.
The million dollar question for me is whether U.S. unconditional support for Israel the past few decades has been at the expense of causing harm to American national interests and its relationship with the Muslim world.
Lets be very clear on this point.
The Palestinians and many Muslim states don't recognise Israel NOT because they want to ''drive the Israelis to the sea'' BUT because of Israel's hold on captured Arab land.
Land that Israel was supposed to vacate under UN Resolution 242........
You mentioned ''teach the children''. What about about certain Israelis who ''teach their children'' that it is Israels god given right to to annexe the West Bank?
Yes, yes........ We all keep hearing about the threat to Israel but which Arab state has the intent or capability to threaten the state of Israel??? Certainly not Syria which has an economy close to stagnation and a military which is in bad need of modernisation. And certainly not Egypt, Jordan, Saudi and the Gulf Arab states who have all aligned themseves with the west and are more concern with regime survival and their economies.
Last edited:
If you are going to cite UN Resolution 242, please explain:
(i) what it says;
(ii) what it means to the Arabs; and
(ii) what is the position of the UN Security council and how they came to draft it (and when it was passed by the security council).
(ii) what it means to the Arabs; and
(ii) what is the position of the UN Security council and how they came to draft it (and when it was passed by the security council).
If not you are engaging in a manner that is very one sided. Further, when did the Palestinians accept UN Resolution 242 and how do they understand it?
I'm not a fan of the Israeli position but I also don't like to see the various positions misrepresented. Are the Arabs part of the solution or are they part of the problem in the way things operate in the Middle East?
And while the Arabs are busy blaming others, in other news reported on 26 March 2010, it seems that UAE had fired upon a small patrol vessel from Saudi Arabia after a dispute over water boundaries. The Saudi vessel was forced to surrender, and its sailors were delivered into custody in Abu Dhabi for several days, before being released and handed over to the Saudi embassy earlier this week.
Last edited:
How could I be engaging in a manner that appears be one sided? I was responding to a post that in my opinion appeared to be one sided.
I cited UN Resolution 242 as I believe had it been implemented, of course whith certain gurantees to Israel and confindence building measures by the Arabs, the region would not be facing many of the problems faced today.
The Arabs are part of the problem in the sense that since 1948 they have never been united and never offered themselves as a single, united front to negotiate with Israel for peace and land. As as you rightly mentioned had a tendency to blame others for their misfortunes. All the Arab states at some point, be it Iraq, Syria or Egypt, were in direct competition with one another and only supported the Palestinian cause as a means to an end to achieve their aims. As you're aware, there have been a number of attempts in recents years by all parties concerned to finalise a peace deal that unfortunatly still remains elusive.
Another problem was that for a long period, the Palestinians were asking the impossible, that for Israel to vacate all of Palestine. But things have changed, all the Arab states have since made it clear that they are willing to officially recognise Israel, offer security guarantees and have full diplomatic/trade relations. Not for once am I implying that the current mess is totally the fault of Israel.
Last edited:
Explain the difference in positions and the chronology. I was quite specific on the areas you need to address to clarify in a manner I understand. Please give it a go. I would love to understand how a Malaysian sees as the problem.
The reason why I'm asking is because I want to understand your perspective and without sufficient details, I cannot understand your stand. Many thanks in advance (Edit: Sorry, don't mean to sound so aggressive in my questions
).
Last edited:
Words are cheap. They lack the ability to destroy Israel. Also, in most cases, such threats are for internal consumption, as in extreme left wing organisations, where the real enemy is the similar rival, & the Big Bad Capitalist is a mostly rhetorical enemy, with action against it undertaken for credibility with other left-wing groups, not with any real expectation (or even desire) to overthrow it. It's the usual politics of the weak.
Some have serious intent, but they are far too weak to carry it out. Israel is not under existential threat, & realistically, hasn't been since some point in 1948.
As for the rest - what I see is 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'. And while most of the Yishuv accepted the Haganah policy of active co-operation with Britain for the duration of the war, many, including a later became prime minister of Israel, rejected it.
Killing British soldiers & police, shooting down neutral RAF aircraft - these are not the actions of a true friend.
- Status