15
   

ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

 
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Feb, 2008 06:19 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:

...
So, their conventional military just sit around with their thumbs up their asses in your scenario?

Your 'escalating terrorist acts' haven't materialized anywhere, though for years you've been promoting those scare scenarios. It's a position which is not based in evidence or logic, but fear.

Cycloptichorn

Of course 'escalating terrorist acts' haven't materialized anywhere near the extent I suggested they would, if the USA discontinued its support of Israel. However, terrorist acts have indeed escalated throughout the world. But they haven't escalated anywhere near the extent they will if the USA were to discontinue its support of Israel.

My claim is that greater 'escalating terrorist acts' will materialize if the USA discontinues its support of Israel.


What does our support currently give to Israel, that prevents these terrorist attacks right now? Specifically.

Cycloptichorn

Our support does not prevent those terrorist acts. Our support enables Israel to defend itself against those terrorist acts better than it would be able if we discontinued our support. Becauise of our support, we enable Israel to limit those terorist acts significantly from what Israel would be able to do without our support.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Feb, 2008 06:32 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
Israel is a strong, effective state with a vibrant economy and a very strong military that has repeatedly shown it can take on and defeat its Arab neighbors.
...
It in Israel's best interests to begin now the process of finding a just accommodation with all the human beings in the region which it so utterly dominates. There is no good outcome realizable for Israel on any other path.

Israel is currently as strong as you say because of our help. However, I agree that Israel is going to have to find a way to reduce its dependence on the USA in the long term, if for no other reason, because the USA, regardless of whether or not it remains able, cannot be counted on to indefinitely support Israel in the manner Israel has become accustomed.

However, as long as the USA supports Israel it will continue to be "a strong, effective state with a vibrant economy and a very strong military that has repeatedly shown it can take on and defeat its Arab neighbors."
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Feb, 2008 06:42 pm
ican711nm wrote:
However, as long as the USA supports Israel it will continue to be "a strong, effective state with a vibrant economy and a very strong military that has repeatedly shown it can take on and defeat its Arab neighbors."


1. I believe Israel has long since reached the point (in terms of economic development, international trade, and - after the Russian migration - 'Jewish' population) at which it can survive and thrive without our help.

2. Our help undermines both Israel's long-term interests in the region & with the rest of the world, and our own as well. It has become the narcotic which insulates Israelis from reality and on which they (and their American claques) have become psychologically dependent. No one really benefits from it.

The First Law of Holes is "When you are in one, stop digging." It is long past time for both Israel and the United States to stop digging.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Feb, 2008 07:19 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
However, as long as the USA supports Israel it will continue to be "a strong, effective state with a vibrant economy and a very strong military that has repeatedly shown it can take on and defeat its Arab neighbors."


1. I believe Israel has long since reached the point (in terms of economic development, international trade, and - after the Russian migration - 'Jewish' population) at which it can survive and thrive without our help.

2. Our help undermines both Israel's long-term interests in the region & with the rest of the world, and our own as well. It has become the narcotic which insulates Israelis from reality and on which they (and their American claques) have become psychologically dependent. No one really benefits from it.

The First Law of Holes is "When you are in one, stop digging." It is long past time for both Israel and the United States to stop digging.

We disagree about this to the following extent. I think Israel cannot at this time survive without our help. It has not yet reached the point where it can alone, by merely adjusting its behavior, accomplish conditions of mutual tolerance with its Arab neighbors. Its Arab neighbors must themselves also decide that their current behavior is counter productive. They must realize they must bargain with Israel as a permanent factor in obtaining their own security of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Nevertheless, I must admit that I cannot help wondering what would happen if the USA were to quickly stop subsidizing Israel's Palestinian neighbors as well as Israel. However, I expect that some Arab nations (e.g., Saudi Arabia) would themselves take on the burden of subsidizing Israel's Palestinian neighbors. They would seek to conquer Israel, before Israel conquered its Arab neighbors. They would do that as quickly as they are able in order to limit the amount of subsidy they would otherwise have to provide.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Feb, 2008 10:06 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
Foofie,

You aren't being serious. You haven't yet attempted to address my points about Israel's (lack of) long-term prospects under the current situation. Nor have you addressed the contradictions we face, given the rising moral, strategic and economic costs of our continued security guarantee - not to mention the rapidly diminishing domestic political support for continuing it.

What really is in Israel's best interest in this situation?

Interestingly I had a similar conversation that touched on these points a long time ago with Ezer Weitzman, who was then the head of the IAF under the first Likud government. He frankly acknowledged the dilemma, but didn't go much farther. The idea that, in retaining the West bank, Israel had indeed embraced a tar baby, was then just becoming evident to some in the government.


Who are you that you had a conversation with Ezer Weitzman?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ezer_Weizman

However, if he didn't continue your conversation to some conclusive end, far be it for me to.

You are not talking on my frequency, in that you want Israel to do the rational thing, yet you seem not to be asking the same from the opposing sides?

Also, if you were talking to Ezer Weitzman when he was head of the Israeli Air Force, you are old enough to have seen a very complicated political situation become more complicated. You seem to believe that what you propose is in Israel's long term interests. You can't prove that. But, since you are not in the Knesset, your opinion is just opinion and you really need not convert me to it.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Feb, 2008 10:27 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
However, as long as the USA supports Israel it will continue to be "a strong, effective state with a vibrant economy and a very strong military that has repeatedly shown it can take on and defeat its Arab neighbors."


1. I believe Israel has long since reached the point (in terms of economic development, international trade, and - after the Russian migration - 'Jewish' population) at which it can survive and thrive without our help.

2. Our help undermines both Israel's long-term interests in the region & with the rest of the world, and our own as well. It has become the narcotic which insulates Israelis from reality and on which they (and their American claques) have become psychologically dependent. No one really benefits from it.

The First Law of Holes is "When you are in one, stop digging." It is long past time for both Israel and the United States to stop digging.


Just my opinion, but your willingness, or preference, to allow Israel to go it alone reminds me so much of the 1950's movie plot, Gentleman's Agreement (no inference, just reminds me of the plot). You so casually are willing to cut the tether makes me feel you are not connected to Israel in an emotional way, as either a Jew or Christian or historical humanist. That's fine. But don't expect all others to be that way.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Feb, 2008 10:34 pm
Well, I am an old guy.

I was skipper of a fighter (F-14s) squadron on USS Nimitz during the first ever port visit of a U.S. Navy Ship to Israel (Haifa) in the late 1970s. It occurred during Begin's first years in office as PM. There had been a good deal of antipathy in the Navy for Israel, mostly as a result of the attack on USS Liberty a decade earlier, but there were other factors as well, including suspicions that Israeli military missions at U.S. bases were stealing aircraft parts & technology. The event was made into a big deal by the Israelis - Begin and most of the cabinet flew out to the ship a day before we arrived in Haifa - Weitzman was among them, and I was in the reception group.

In Haifa we were well hosted by IDF Navy & Air Force officers - I spent a few days with the Navy guy (can't remember his name) who seized a couple of small patrol vessels from a shipyard in France (they were build for the Israelis, but France, for political reasons was withholding delivery.) and sailed them around Africa to Aqaba. I also spent several days at Ramat David as a guest of the Air Force - that's where the conversation took place (and later the trip to Massada). Actually Weitzman started the discussion, apparently out of concern that their administration of the West Bank was becoming a burden with no way out, but perhaps also to test our reactions. In any case he soon let the subject drop. However, I then had the clear impression that he was a bit out of step with the hardliners of the Likud.

It was a very interesting experience.

It's true I can't speak for Israel any more than you can. However I do have a fairly well informed opinion on the subject. I am convinced that the present policy will merely worsen the present situation while, as time passes, the population imbalance will grow apace and the economic power of the Moslem states will increase - in short Israel's situation will get worse, not better. U.S. domestic political support for our guarantees is clearly waning, and, if as appears likely, we get a Democrat Administration, I believe we will see the beginning of a new phase in the relationship -- another reason for Israel to think hard.

Finally, I am convinced that our security guarantees for Israel are - in addition to doing no real good for Israel - becoming increasingly harmful to the interests of our country.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Feb, 2008 10:42 pm
foxfyre wrote:
I think Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iran, and Lybia would have all made a great deal more mischief than they have without the presence of Israel and the USA in the Middle East. . .


What kind of mischief would these countries have been up to without the presence of Israel and the USA in the Middle East? The war and terrorism directed against Israel and the US is a reaction to their presence in the Middle East.

Quote:
. . .the presence of Israel of course gives us a valid reason to have a presence.


The defense of a necessarily discriminatory and oppressive regime is a valid reason to have a presence? Oy vey!

Quote:
I think militant Islam was inevitable had there never been an Israel.


I agree, it would still be a reaction to Western intervention in the region.

Quote:
And I don't know if those guarantees were so 'unqualified' either as Israel seems to mostly exemplify what a democratic country should be.


Yeah, it mostly exemplifies what a democratic country should be except for the little--Zionists would say inconsequential--matter of discrimination and oppression it must necessarily visit upon the Palestinian people in order for it to "exist."

Quote:
I am reasonably certain that should the Israelis pull up stakes and abandon Israel to the Arabs which is the Arabs' goal, we will not see increased stabilization of the Middle East and will most likely see things get worse.


Given your hypothetical extreme scenario based on your penchant for hyperbole, how would things get worse? Your extreme scenario wouldn't automatically stabilize the entire region, but it would eliminate one antagonizing force in the region. The intervention in the region of other Western forces would still be the source of destabilization there, however.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Feb, 2008 10:47 pm
It is true that Israel can probably defeat any Middle East aggressor if they utilize a no holds barred approach, take no prisoners, and don't pull their punches. That's assuming they have access to parts, armaments, etc. that they cannot produce in Israel.

Would you agree that the UN should allow Israel to fight with whatever they have and do whatever it takes to prevail if the United States pulled its support from Israel?

And what politician do you think might have the courage to alienate American Jews and others who are sympathetic to Israel?

What form would you see a constructive policy change taking? How should it look?
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Feb, 2008 10:48 pm
McCain is the next President of the United States. It won't be a Democrat. That's my feeling the pulse of the nation? I'm not talking about urban blue areas. I'm talking about small towns, trailer parks, and counties where American flags are on just about every lawn.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Feb, 2008 10:53 pm
InfraBlue wrote:
foxfyre wrote:
I think Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iran, and Lybia would have all made a great deal more mischief than they have without the presence of Israel and the USA in the Middle East. . .


What kind of mischief would these countries have been up to without the presence of Israel and the USA in the Middle East? The war and terrorism directed against Israel and the US is a reaction to their presence in the Middle East.

Quote:
. . .the presence of Israel of course gives us a valid reason to have a presence.


The defense of a necessarily discriminatory and oppressive regime is a valid reason to have a presence? Oy vey!

Quote:
I think militant Islam was inevitable had there never been an Israel.


I agree, it would still be a reaction to Western intervention in the region.

Quote:
And I don't know if those guarantees were so 'unqualified' either as Israel seems to mostly exemplify what a democratic country should be.


Yeah, it mostly exemplifies what a democratic country should be except for the little--Zionists would say inconsequential--matter of discrimination and oppression it must necessarily visit upon the Palestinian people in order for it to "exist."

Quote:
I am reasonably certain that should the Israelis pull up stakes and abandon Israel to the Arabs which is the Arabs' goal, we will not see increased stabilization of the Middle East and will most likely see things get worse.


Given your hypothetical extreme scenario based on your penchant for hyperbole, how would things get worse? Your extreme scenario wouldn't automatically stabilize the entire region, but it would eliminate one antagonizing force in the region. The intervention in the region of other Western forces would still be the source of destabilization there, however.


You have your opinions and prejudices on this Blue and I have mine. I do not believe Israel oppresses anybody who has not been bombing and shelling Israel. You do. We're probably just going to have to disagree on that. You don't know what would have happened under various scenarios any more than I do, but I imagine my guesses are as good as yours. I think some of militant Islam uses Israel as an excuse, but I think if Israel is removed from the equation, they'll find another excuse. I do not think the presence of Israel created Islamic terrorists, and I do not think relinquishing the entire Middle East to the mercy of Islamic terrorists is in the best interest of decent people anywhere. We'll probably have to disagree on that too.

And I didn't even have to argue ad hominem to say that.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Feb, 2008 10:54 pm
Foofie,

Well I hope you are right. McCain is a good ole boy (Naval Aviator) as well. I'll vote for him. However, I think the odds favor a Democrat victory, albeit by a small margin.

However, whoever wins will deal with a changing set of public attitudes in this country concerning Israel. Things that once couldn't (safely) be said among politicians are coming to the surface.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Feb, 2008 11:00 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
Foofie,

Well I hope you are right. McCain is a good ole boy (Naval Aviator) as well. I'll vote for him. However, I think the odds favor a Democrat victory, albeit by a small margin.

However, whoever wins will deal with a changing set of public attitudes in this country concerning Israel. Things that once couldn't (safely) be said among politicians are coming to the surface.


Nothing is coming to the surface; they were always just under the surface.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Feb, 2008 11:19 pm
Foofie wrote:
georgeob1 wrote:
Foofie,

Well I hope you are right. McCain is a good ole boy (Naval Aviator) as well. I'll vote for him. However, I think the odds favor a Democrat victory, albeit by a small margin.

However, whoever wins will deal with a changing set of public attitudes in this country concerning Israel. Things that once couldn't (safely) be said among politicians are coming to the surface.


Nothing is coming to the surface; they were always just under the surface.


You know, I it just now occurred to me that the candidates aren't really talking about Israel are they? I don't remember any points about Israel in any of the debates (I didn't see all the debates though.)

I went to my favorite site for the issues as they relate to the candidates and found very little re Israel. On a quick cursory run through I found these:

Mike Huckabee
Israel should not give up West Bank or Golan Heights. (Nov 2007) Not yet ready for two-state solution for Israel & Palestine. (Nov 2007)
Support Israel as strategic ally, but respect Palestine. (Jan 2007)


Mitt Romney (couldn't find a quote specifically on Israel)
Free Cuba and eliminate threat of people like Hugo Chavez. (Dec 2007)
To win the war on jihad, we need friends in Muslim world. (Aug 2007)
Encourage others to welcome democracy, without military. (Aug 2007)
Move Muslim world toward modernity so they reject extreme. (Aug 2007)
US is not arrogant, but we have resolve. (Jun 2007)

John McCain (couldn't find much on Israel here either. Closest related comments/votes:
No circumstances where president can disregard treaties. (Dec 2007)
Overthrow ""rogue"" governments to keep Americans safe. (Feb 2000)
Move the US Embassy to Jerusalem. (Nov 1995

Ron Paul
Cut off all foreign aid to Israel & to Arabs. (Dec 2007)
Foreign aid often more harmful than helpful . (Dec 2000)

Hillary Clinton
Only thing I could find related to Israel there:
Allegedly pro-PLO in 1960; but pro-Israel by 1981. (July 2007)

Barack Obama
Palestinian people suffer-but from not recognizing Israel. (Apr 2007)
FactCheck: Palestinian suffering from stalled peace effort. (Apr 2007)
Supports Israel's self-defense; but distrusted by Israelis. (Oct 2006)

http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Feb, 2008 11:33 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
It is true that Israel can probably defeat any Middle East aggressor if they utilize a no holds barred approach, take no prisoners, and don't pull their punches. That's assuming they have access to parts, armaments, etc. that they cannot produce in Israel.
Would you agree that the UN should allow Israel to fight with whatever they have and do whatever it takes to prevail if the United States pulled its support from Israel?
Well if Israel is attacked by a neighboring country, they will have every right to retaliate by almost any means they posess, regardless of what the UN may think. Israel has a remarkable self-sufficient defense industry and they are very adept at creating local versions of even U.S. and French tactical aircraft.


Foxfyre wrote:
And what politician do you think might have the courage to alienate American Jews and others who are sympathetic to Israel?
Among the present contenders, only Barac Obama. I think MCcain would like to see a change and may wait for public pressure to grow.

You are correct though - this does remain a bit of a taboo (see Foofie's comment, above). However, taboos, once broken rather suddenly shrivel up. Clearly though public attitudes in this country are changing.

Foxfyre wrote:
What form would you see a constructive policy change taking? How should it look?
It will be tough at first - AIPAC can control the votes of many in Congress when Israel's perceived self-interest is at stake. The Congress, at their behest, has intervened several times to sweeten various aid packages, trade concessions and other things. They even passed a requirement that any aid once authorized shall be immediately sent by the treasury to Israel - on the first day of the year authorized - without any administrative delay by the responsible agencies of government - amazing!

I believe change will initially flow out of the post-Bush policy reviews for the Persian Gulf & Middle east regions. If the Democrats win and we do the expected rapid pull out from Iraq, our leverage in the region will drop fast, requiring us to deal more with the Moslem states there to protect our interests.

Secondly I believe we are fast approaching a balance of payments crisis with respect to our rapidly increasing imports of now very expensive petroleum (Our domestic oil production is now only sufficient to meet the needs of our chemical industry - and falling every year. All the fuel we burn in vehicles is imported, and the amount is increasing fast. ) Environmentalists are resisting a rapid expansion of our nuclear power industry - the only way to significantly displace petroleum imports over the short term. The result is the oil producing Moslem states are rapidly accumulating power and money and we will have to deal with that.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Feb, 2008 11:35 pm
foxfyre wrote:
I do not believe Israel oppresses anybody who has not been bombing and shelling Israel.


It is Israel's very oppression of the Palestinian people (which began with Great Britain's abetment of the Zionists at the beginning of the last century) that is the cause of that bombing and shelling that Zionists are so willfully blinded to.

foxfyre wrote:
You don't know what would have happened under various scenarios any more than I do, but I imagine my guesses are as good as yours.


Okay, but at least I offered guesses based on the history of militant Islamic movements in the Middle East such as the Muslim Brotherhood and The Islamic Revolution in Iran. What are your guesses based on?

Quote:
I think some of militant Islam uses Israel as an excuse, but I think if Israel is removed from the equation, they'll find another excuse.


Absolutely, but you trivialize the reaction of these groups to the intervention and presence of Western forces in their countries and regions when you refer to it as "an excuse."

Quote:
I do not think the presence of Israel created Islamic terrorists. . .


It was both the intervention of Western nations and the imposition of Western peoples with bigoted and discriminatory ideologies (that's right, the Zionists) in the Middle East that caused Islamist reactions there.

Quote:
I do not think relinquishing the entire Middle East to the mercy of Islamic terrorists is in the best interest of decent people anywhere. We'll probably have to disagree on that too.


Neither do I, your attempted smear notwithstanding. And you talk about ad hominems. Pish!

I think that the discriminatory and oppressive ethnocentric regime that controls Palestine should be replaced with a pluralistic and egalitarian one that serves the interests of all the peoples therein.
0 Replies
 
blucher
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Feb, 2008 12:19 am
Have you all been to Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, Sudan, Kenya, Indonesia or lived in Israel? (I have) The moslem (not just Arab or Persian) world is as diverse as the Christian world. What to do with Jewish Palestinians (yes they exist)? Some Palestinians have blue eyes and red hair.
Within days after Bush left Israel, Israelis assassinated a "suspected" militant (and anyone else who happened to be near) with a "made in USA" missile. Don't call that terrorism.
The Palestinian hot heads responded w/ rockets of their own. So the chicken-egg, who hit who first scenario continues.
There are zionists who don't agree with Likud (once itself a terrorist organization).
Islamic militants have been successfully kept down (except for US sponsored Taliban) by Mid-Eastern governments for nearly 300 years (see 18th cent. Wahabism). If the US would get out and threaten to not supply those war toys for Israel (already the 5th largest military on the planet including nuclear weapons of mass destruction), a two state solution could become real and Mid-east govts. could get on with the business they know best while hate for the US would evaporate and the societies living under those governments would continue to evolve, even if when they broaden the franchise and democratize and their duly elected officers may not agree with the West. That is the idea behind sovereignty, correct?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Feb, 2008 04:10 pm
If the USA stopped supporting Israel, then Israel would have to exterminate the Palestinian Arabs to survive. Unfortunately, Israel does not have a reliable way to separate the good guys from the bad. So, Israel would be left with two choices: exterminate them all, or itself flee Palestine ... maybe trading places with the displaced Palestinian Arabs currently living outside Israel.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Feb, 2008 04:34 pm
Every US president has quickly learned (if they didn't already know it) that we get a terrific bang for the buck relative to aid given to Israel. For relatively peanuts, we get a presence in the ME, intelligence, military cooperation, technical assistance, etc., comparable to what we get from a presence in, say, Germany for about 50 times the expense.

Our anti-Israel posters persist in calling Israel oppressive, brutal, etc. What a joke, considering Israel is by far the least oppressive, etc., compared to the Pals and virtually every other regime in the ME.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Feb, 2008 05:11 pm
The anti-Israel posters, with their truly monotonous and false anti-Israel statements, remind me of the following.


"He is not only dull himself, he is the cause of dullness in others."
Samuel Johnson
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Israel's Reality - Discussion by Miller
THE WAR IN GAZA - Discussion by Advocate
Israel's Shame - Discussion by BigEgo
Eye On Israel/Palestine - Discussion by IronLionZion
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 07/12/2025 at 01:11:25