View Full Version : Did Barry just surrender on Israel's behalf?
Washington reportedly sends Tehran indirect message saying it will not back Israeli strike on nuclear facilities as long as Iran refrains from attacking American facilities in Persian Gulf.
The United States has indirectly informed Iran, via two European nations, that it would not back an Israeli strike against the country's nuclear facilities, as long as Tehran refrains from attacking American interests in the Persian Gulf, Yedioth Ahronoth reported Monday.
...
In return, Washington reportedly expects Iran to steer clear of strategic American assets in the Persian Gulf, such as military bases and aircraft carriers.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4276276,00.html
Littlelebowski
09-03-12, 18:39
Perhaps Israel can do something on her own without needing us to bail her out.
Perhaps Israel can do something on her own without needing us to bail her out.
Israel does a lot on it's own and always has. We should stand firmly by steadfast allies with whom we share extremely dangerous foes that want us all dead.
When the US had to threaten the end of financial support to Israel to prevent them from selling AWACS technology to the Chinese, you should have figured out that Israel is anything but a steadfast ally.
Far as I know China has not overtly proclaimed the need for our destruction, we are free to visit there at will without fear of kidnapping or death and we do billions in business with them. Don't fully trust them of course, but regardless I would like to see solid proof verifying your claim.
Our next big war will be with China. Count on it.
Israel does a lot on it's own and always has. We should stand firmly by steadfast allies with whom we share extremely dangerous foes that want us all dead.
Then volunteer YOUR SKIN & COIN and let the rest of us alone, please.
Far as I know China has not overtly proclaimed the need for our destruction, we are free to visit there at will without fear of kidnapping or death and we do billions in business with them. Don't fully trust them of course, but regardless I would like to see solid proof verifying your claim.
Don't be naive. Don't think that the years of humiliation they suffered at the hands of the British isn't fresh in their minds. The Chinese are playing for keeps, and they ain't ****ing around. They aren't itching for a war right now because they are quietly improving their capabilities. When the time is right, they will flex their muscle just as America has done during the last 50 years. They may not go out of their way to start a war, but will sure as hell get more aggressive in their posturing.
Our next big war will be with China. Count on it.
There's a strong possibility....wars are started for various reasons, but you can usually pinpoint the cause of most conflicts to be over territory and resources. The next conflict the U.S. will be engaged in will be with an up and coming super-power.
When the US had to threaten the end of financial support to Israel to prevent them from selling AWACS technology to the Chinese, you should have figured out that Israel is anything but a steadfast ally.
Thank you...
Actually, we are looking to dominate BOTH Russia and China.
It ain't gonna work... BOTH are playing for keeps! Christian Russia was overrun by Communist Bolshevik scum and China was overrun by... The West, unfortunately.
I believe they'd light the earth afire before succumbing to the Western-dominated new world order.
Bank it.
Actually, we are looking to dominate BOTH Russia and China.
It ain't gonna work... BOTH are playing for keeps! Christian Russia was overrun by Communist Bolshevik scum and China was overrun by... The West, unfortunately.
I believe they'd light the earth afire before succumbing to the Western-dominated new world order.
Bank it.
Absolutely. It won't be pretty if we try to screw with them. It's also important to remember that around the world, American is seen as a meddler in other countries affairs, not the force for good that our media and leaders would like us to believe.
Far as I know China has not overtly proclaimed the need for our destruction, we are free to visit there at will without fear of kidnapping or death and we do billions in business with them. Don't fully trust them of course, but regardless I would like to see solid proof verifying your claim.
Google it. I'm on my mobile.
The US and Israel have overlapping interests. We'd do well to remember that they are poor friends.
BrigandTwoFour
09-03-12, 21:39
Perhaps Israel can do something on her own without needing us to bail her out.
The problem is that if Israel openly attacks Iran, preemptively or not, they are immediately going to find themselves surrounded by countries and islamic groups that will stop at nothing when it comes to seeing Israel flattened. These groups will have the backing of Iran and other islamic nations for both supplies and training.
As good as Israel may be, they aren't THAT good against odds like that. A big factor that keeps these groups at bay is the US.
The Saudis would love for Israel to strike Iran. The Emirates as well. Jordan made their peace, and being Sunnis are likely to turn a blind eye to an attack. The Syrians are busy. Iraq, Egypt and the Palestinians would have a problem with it.
The Saudis would love for Israel to strike Iran. \.
Then why don't they provide refueling?
montanadave
09-03-12, 22:14
Meanwhile, Hezbollah's top dog says Iran will retaliate against U.S. military assets in the Persian Gulf should Israel launch a preemptive strike.
So while we have a concurrent thread speculating about Obama launching a "false flag" operation to get into another hot war to maintain power, Likud conservatives in Israel who hate his ass are getting ready to pull the U.S. right into a shootin' war with Iran and give Obama just what the conspiracy theorists think he wants.
Oh, what a tangled web we weave.
Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2
Regardless of what the President may have said, we will find ourselves involved because Iran will use any attack on them to launch terrorist style attacks against the U.S.
They will also harass oil tankers and such just like they did back in the 80's until we intervened.
We will then find ourselves in a position that requires the President to strike back or sit on the sidelines and make America look weak.
As for China. There is no doubt that our economic interests are linked and the amount of trade we do is staggering, but they are smart. We tend to look at things in 4 year cycles. They are thinking about life 25 years ahead of time. Hence their drive to secure oil in Iraq, Libya and Africa.
Perhaps Israel can do something on her own without needing us to bail her out.
Like this,
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Osirak.html
I wouldn't put it past Israel to time their hit on Iran to sink Obama, whom they despise. I wouldn't put it past the US to abandon Israel when they need backing the most. We have a LONG history of doing exactly that.
When you base your foreign policy on selfish interests, you tend to reap what you sew. :(
We will then find ourselves in a position that requires the President to strike back or sit on the sidelines and make America look weak.
I expect Hussein Obama to do exactly what he's been doing alll along, that is to sandbag the USA and her allies. Who do you folks think it is thats behind the Arab spring anyway?
I would be shocked if Obama didn't loose American assets upon Israel in defense of the emerging islamic caliphate, which Obama, and his "ahh" administration, are very sweet on and apparently, that the little RonPaulbots are sweet on too, just as long as it's aimed at jews....
FromMyColdDeadHand
09-03-12, 23:52
The Saudis would love for Israel to strike Iran. The Emirates as well. Jordan made their peace, and being Sunnis are likely to turn a blind eye to an attack. The Syrians are busy. Iraq, Egypt and the Palestinians would have a problem with it.
It's cute when people think it is Jews vs Muslims in the middle east, isn't it? It is way more complex than that, just as you've pointed out.
Protect Israel from the rest of the middle east? More likely the other way around. In a conventional war, what could Lebanon, Syria, Eqypt and Jordan exactly do right now?
Saudi Expeditionary Force? Is there even an Arabic word for that?
Tell Iran that if they screw with our stuff and they'll personally pay.
The problem is that if Israel openly attacks Iran, preemptively or not, they are immediately going to find themselves surrounded by countries and islamic groups that will stop at nothing when it comes to seeing Israel flattened.
Nothing new here. They have been surrounded since 1948.
These groups will have the backing of Iran and other islamic nations for both supplies and training.
Name one... Hezbollah and Hamas couldn't mount a paralyzed goat let alone an offensive operation that would even cause Israel to consider them a threat.
As good as Israel may be, they aren't THAT good against odds like that. A big factor that keeps these groups at bay is the US.
Couldn't disagree more. They are that good and have proven it many times. This is the perfect time for the Israelis to attack Iran. All of the other goat ****s are preoccupied, literally. Iran will watch their nuke facilities get bombed and do absolutely nothing about it.
Jordan is no threat to Israel. They've made their peace.
Perhaps Israel can do something on her own without needing us to bail her out.
Agreed. Unless it looks like Israel is about to be overrun and defeated (won't happen.
We should sell them lots of advanced weaponry, and stay out of their command structure.
Our next big war will be with China. Count on it.
That would benefit neither nation. There would need to be a reason, and a damn good one, to stop the hundreds of billions in trade and resort to fisticuffs. I don't see it happening.
I think instead there will be some sort of Arab unity and we will be fighting a half dozen nations throughout the Mideast and north Africa. Even that's probably far fetched because the Sunnis and Shiites hate eachother.
Pan Arabism died with Nasser.
My colon lining died with my girlfriends' chili
Littlelebowski
09-04-12, 07:15
Then volunteer YOUR SKIN & COIN and let the rest of us alone, please.
We gotta have beers sometime.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident
Littlelebowski
09-04-12, 07:16
Our next big war will be with China. Count on it.
Shooting war? Where?
FromMyColdDeadHand
09-04-12, 08:21
We are 15 to 20 years from a conventional war with anyone. By then our advantage, or even supply, of advanced weapons will be diminished and someone will be close to parity with us as no has since the Soviets in the 80s. Until then it is suicide to go division vs division, fleet vs fleet with us.
In 20 years or lack of investment in military technology to pay for Ms. Flukes birth control, a change from kinetic to information/electronic warfare, and an overall pussyfication of the US will make the prospect of going directly (or what will be called directly then) a feasible endevour, or more likely a playable bluff for other powers to play against us.
Interstingly, China, in whatever form it takes then, will be facing a population distribution that makes Japan's and the EUs look tame.
Shooting war? Where?
Over Taiwan. China has made it absolutely clear that it intends to take over Taiwan regardless of certain facts which it chooses to ignore:
a. The first ethnic Chinese people to inhabit Taiwan immigrated there illegally in the 1600s.
b. During the Qing dynasty, the Chinese govt did not attempt to occupy or administer Taiwan until the 1880s. Prior to that, Taiwan was considered beyond the borders of China, and China denied any obligation to curtail piracy from Taiwan.
c. In the 1880s, realizing Japans intentions in Asia, China made Taiwan a province.
d. In 1895, after losing a brief war to Japan, China ceded Taiwan to Japan in perpetuity. So note that Taiwan was a province of China for a little over a decade only until it became Japan's property.
e. At the end of WWII, Japan relinquished Taiwan but did not specifically relinquish it to China. Nationalists troops from China occupied Taiwan.
f. In 1949, Nationalists troops fled China after losing the civil war and camped out in Taiwan, hoping to retake China some day.
g. Since 1949, Taiwan has been ruled separately from China. Separate borders, currency, government, passports, etc.
Taiwan is a successful capitalistic democracy. It would gravely damage the worldwide democracy if the US were to allow a communist country to take Taiwan. Further, if China takes Taiwan, it will create a security nightmare for the US and Japan. And count on Korea becoming a vassal state of China.
The US and Japan have made many pronouncements to the effect that it is in their joint national security interests to maintain Taiwan's independence.
And yet, China is a building a miltiary specifically designed to fight the U.S., and they make no secret that their first goal is to take over Taiwan and their second goal is complete control of the south china sea.
In the Chinese military, there is discussion of development of a first strike doctrine for use against the US. Basically a Pearl Harbor attack in modern times, but the attack would be against Hawaii, Guam, Okinawa, and US ships at sea.
CarlosDJackal
09-04-12, 10:52
In exactly 9-weeks we will be determining the future not only of the USA, but the rest of the world. Those who have family in Israel can either vote based on the way they have always traditionally voted (like in 2008) or the way we all know we need to if we want our Society to continue to survive (against obama).
If these individuals vote like they did 4-years ago, then we need to back away from helping out Israel because they are basically asking for it. And if they vote for the incumbent, then shame on them for dooming their own friends and family to a life of servitude as second class citizens of the land of islam. JM2CW.
AZ-Renegade
09-04-12, 12:11
**********
I expect Hussein Obama to do exactly what he's been doing alll along, that is to sandbag the USA and her allies. Who do you folks think it is thats behind the Arab spring anyway?
I would be shocked if Obama didn't loose American assets upon Israel in defense of the emerging islamic caliphate, which Obama, and his "ahh" administration, are very sweet on and apparently, that the little RonPaulbots are sweet on too, just as long as it's aimed at jews....
Who is behind the Arab Spring? Why he STRAUSSIAN NEOCONS, OF COURSE.
Israel does a lot on it's own and always has. We should stand firmly by steadfast allies with whom we share extremely dangerous foes that want us all dead.
Having allies is one thing, but being personally responsible for the continued existence of a state is another. And if that is what we are going to do, they need to start paying income tax.
VooDoo6Actual
09-04-12, 12:28
**********
THIS.
Army Chief
09-04-12, 12:51
Our next big war will be with China. Count on it.
You never know. China is pretty isolated geographically, possesses little in the way of an expeditionary capability, and has some very dangeous fracture lines internally. There is a staggering disaparity in wealth between those in the coastal areas, and those living in the interior, and given a population of 1.3 billion, that is likely to keep them focused on their own problems for quite some time. Their attempts to improve their naval capabilities may signal some intent to move into a more prominent position on the world stage, but that will take decades to achieve, assuming they are even willing (or able) to make the necessary investment. China may always feel like the next major adversary, but it seems unlikely that that will actually prove to be the case in our lifetimes.
AC
SW-Shooter
09-04-12, 12:58
Two more months and he becomes a lame duck, I hope Iran doesn't realize that and do something stupid. FBHO & DNC.
You never know. China is pretty isolated geographically, possesses little in the way of an expeditionary capability, and has some very dangeous fracture lines internally. There is a staggering disaparity in wealth between those in the coastal areas, and those living in the interior, and given a population of 1.3 billion, that is likely to keep them focused on their own problems for quite some time. Their attempts to improve their naval capabilities may signal some intent to move into a more prominent position on the world stage, but that will take decades to achieve, assuming they are even willing (or able) to make the necessary investment. China may always feel like the next major adversary, but it seems unlikely that that will actually prove to be the case in our lifetimes.
AC
Not to mention a couple thousand years of isolationist history, Taiwan notwithstanding.
Then volunteer YOUR SKIN & COIN and let the rest of us alone, please.
Remember one thing to help keep proper context regarding our discussion. There is absolutely doubt that you are and always have been an over the top conspiracy theorist who thrives on ludricrus, imagined international scenarios.
I know many here don't like Israel for various reasons, some reasonable, some debatable and some simply prejudicial. Regardless, nothing I stated isn't true at the very least and certainly isn't outrageous unless there is a bias in place.
My primary concern for the next two decades is a nuclear Iran creating havoc and insighting a potential world war. If you don't agree then I suggest you pay closer attention, but so be it.
Remember one thing to help keep proper context regarding our discussion. There is absolutely doubt that you are and always have been an over the top conspiracy theorist who thrives on ludricrus, imagined international scenarios.
I know many here don't like Israel for various reasons, some reasonable, some debatable and some simply prejudicial. Regardless, nothing I stated isn't true at the very least and certainly isn't outrageous unless there is a bias in place.
My primary concern for the next two decades is a nuclear Iran creating havoc and insighting a potential world war. If you don't agree then I suggest you pay closer attention, but so be it.
I just read this three times and I can't make heads or tails of it. The phrase "hot mess" comes to mind. :blink:
kaiservontexas
09-04-12, 13:56
I don't worry about China. They have border guards that shoot their own people from crossing, what we would consider from going state to state like Texas to Oklahoma, into other provinces without permission. In other-words they are completely fractured and stuck in a command control system. On the bright side they now have more Christians then Communist party members, and they are changing as a society as they get sick of the nonsense. For them to go to war would require something to rally the entire populous to it's cause, and they are so fractured and back biting I do not see that happening unless you nuke a city of their's, something 9/11 or Pearl Harbor like.
Israel and Iran is just silly. It is not like either nation can march to the other one. No nation between them would allow it. They are being completely silly if you ask me, and yes I think it is all rhetoric fueling it, example all the I am going to kill you/bomb you bs. Maybe if they shared borders I would worry, but the Arabs would lose it if Iran tried marching to Israel. (BTW that is why Israel needs the US to attack if that is really their wish cause they can't reach each other feasibly.) And last I looked the Arabs are not keen on dreams of a Persian Empire, nor are the Turks. BTW the Turks are diligently working on becoming militaristically independent and as stands has more conventional muscle then all of those mid-east nations combined due to the old Russian threat and NATO. I'd sooner worry about a renewed Ottoman then anything the Persian, Jew, or Arab can think of . . .
Over Taiwan. China has made it absolutely clear that it intends to take over Taiwan regardless of certain facts which it chooses to ignore:
a. The first ethnic Chinese people to inhabit Taiwan immigrated there illegally in the 1600s.
b. During the Qing dynasty, the Chinese govt did not attempt to occupy or administer Taiwan until the 1880s. Prior to that, Taiwan was considered beyond the borders of China, and China denied any obligation to curtail piracy from Taiwan.
c. In the 1880s, realizing Japans intentions in Asia, China made Taiwan a province.
d. In 1895, after losing a brief war to Japan, China ceded Taiwan to Japan in perpetuity. So note that Taiwan was a province of China for a little over a decade only until it became Japan's property.
e. At the end of WWII, Japan relinquished Taiwan but did not specifically relinquish it to China. Nationalists troops from China occupied Taiwan.
f. In 1949, Nationalists troops fled China after losing the civil war and camped out in Taiwan, hoping to retake China some day.
g. Since 1949, Taiwan has been ruled separately from China. Separate borders, currency, government, passports, etc.
Taiwan is a successful capitalistic democracy. It would gravely damage the worldwide democracy if the US were to allow a communist country to take Taiwan. Further, if China takes Taiwan, it will create a security nightmare for the US and Japan. And count on Korea becoming a vassal state of China.
The US and Japan have made many pronouncements to the effect that it is in their joint national security interests to maintain Taiwan's independence.
And yet, China is a building a miltiary specifically designed to fight the U.S., and they make no secret that their first goal is to take over Taiwan and their second goal is complete control of the south china sea.
In the Chinese military, there is discussion of development of a first strike doctrine for use against the US. Basically a Pearl Harbor attack in modern times, but the attack would be against Hawaii, Guam, Okinawa, and US ships at sea.
Yeah, they've really been upgrading their fleet lately. :rolleyes:
http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t5/d90king/bohai_cuizhu.jpg
China wants to be left the **** alone, not wage war with the West. Not only can they not afford to lose their economy, but they seriously lack the capabilities needed to wage war with the U.S.
Littlelebowski
09-04-12, 14:31
China's military spending isn't even close to what we spend. We are in competition with no one else; such is the magnitude of our military spending.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
Adjust for PPP and find the military spending hidden in other ministries and Chinas defense budget is equivalent to 1/3-1/2 ours.
My primary concern for the next two decades is a nuclear Iran creating havoc and insighting a potential world war. If you don't agree then I suggest you pay closer attention, but so be it.
And I think it is probably in Israels best interest to "hit it again" as they have done in the past.
Certainly we have many common issues and concerns with Israel and there is no reason not to form alliances based upon those issues.
But that doesn't mean we are in any way responsible for sustaining Israel. If Israel cannot sustain itself then it is essentially a puppet state of the US and should be treated accordingly.
I honestly think it would be in the best interest of Israel if we stopped sending checks and as a result stopped dictating to Israel what they may and may not do. Israel would then be free to tend to her own issues of security without getting approval from the US and could seek a final resolution (really ironic phrase) with her Arab neighbors who threaten her.
China's military spending isn't even close to what we spend. We are in competition with no one else; such is the magnitude of our military spending.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
Not to mention that China is currently winning an economic war with the US and military action would destroy all they have already accomplished. This is why there was no significant reform in Hong Kong because it was a cash register.
The worst thing China could do is lose the US market for their goods. There aren't a lot of Wal Marts in the Middle East. The best thing that could happen to the US is for China to engage in some military action and give us a reason to not repay the massive debts we owe them.
Certainly China would like to have Taiwan, but they'd be better off buying it.
Israel won't be cut loose because 60% of Democratic campaign contributions come from Jewish persons or Jewish managed organizations and the Republican party believes that God favors those who favor Israel.
Israel won't be cut loose because 60% of Democratic campaign contributions come from Jewish persons or Jewish managed organizations and the Republican party believes that God favors those who favor Israel.
And as a result no meaningful solution or resolution will ever exist.
I'm concerned that the Conservative Jewish presence in the IDF is now strong enough to prevent military action against settlers.
Remember one thing to help keep proper context regarding our discussion. There is absolutely doubt that you are and always have been an over the top conspiracy theorist who thrives on ludricrus, imagined international scenarios.
I know many here don't like Israel for various reasons, some reasonable, some debatable and some simply prejudicial. Regardless, nothing I stated isn't true at the very least and certainly isn't outrageous unless there is a bias in place.
My primary concern for the next two decades is a nuclear Iran creating havoc and insighting a potential world war. If you don't agree then I suggest you pay closer attention, but so be it.
http://img.tapatalk.com/d/12/09/05/2e2uva8e.jpg
Yawn...
And as a result no meaningful solution or resolution will ever exist.
Can you clarify what you mean here, or maybe explain what your ideal scenario would be? I'm of Italian decent and have not a drop of Jewish blood, just genuinely curious as to why so many choose not to support an extremely disadvantaged, highly reliable ally against muslim extremism.
Israel is not a reliable ally. They sell our military tech to the Chinese. If they thought another country was a better guarantor of their safety they would cross us in a heartbeat.
Israel is not a reliable ally. They sell our military tech to the Chinese. If they thought another country was a better guarantor of their safety they would cross us in a heartbeat.
I asked you for proof regarding the Chinese assertion, so far all I've heard back was "google it". Weak.
As far as Israel standing by us because we have a military alliance, it goes way beyond that. We also have cultural connections and similarities which have led many to call America home.
But really, spend your time simplisticly loathing Israel if you want. I'd rather spend my time deciphering the actions and motives of real enemies, not imaginary ones.
I don't loathe Israel at all, I'm simply not a fool about the nature of our relationship.
I'm on my mobile, in a remote area that makes the Internet very slow. You're looking for a 1993 article in the NYT noting that James Woolsey alleged tech transfer since 1983, articles about a threat of aid cuts in 2000 and 2005 when Israel was planning to sell AWACS tech and other things to the PRC and an article alleging that Mossad posed as the CIA to recruit Pakistani terrorists in London to attack nuclear scientists in Iran.
Google Pan Arabism and Nasser while you're at it, for the other guy.
Hey, how about listing US enemies in the ME. I suspect your list wouldn't match up with the USG list.
Can you clarify what you mean here, or maybe explain what your ideal scenario would be? I'm of Italian decent and have not a drop of Jewish blood, just genuinely curious as to why so many choose not to support an extremely disadvantaged, highly reliable ally against muslim extremism.
Meaning "so long as we give them money but tell them they can't do anything" nothing will ever change.
I don't loathe Israel at all, I'm simply not a fool about the nature of our relationship.
I'm on my mobile, in a remote area that makes the Internet very slow. You're looking for a 1993 article in the NYT noting that James Woolsey alleged tech transfer since 1983, articles about a threat of aid cuts in 2000 and 2005 when Israel was planning to sell AWACS tech and other things to the PRC and an article alleging that Mossad posed as the CIA to recruit Pakistani terrorists in London to attack nuclear scientists in Iran.
Google Pan Arabism and Nasser while you're at it, for the other guy.
Hey, how about listing US enemies in the ME. I suspect your list wouldn't match up with the USG list.
Hey, no truth, my friend! He can't handle it. It's "conspiracy theory" and "anti-Semitism" to question this. Didn't you know? How can you love America so much that you focus on the health and prosperity of your own nation? Why don't you continue to GIVE YOUR HARD-WON MONEY AND BLOOD and then have them embarrass your leaders and nation.
I have no words for the likes of you. You need to watch more TV. That will cure your ills. No more reading and independent thought.
LOL!
You "loather", you!
Meaning "so long as we give them money but tell them they can't do anything" nothing will ever change.
So you want them to succeed, you just don't think we should help out with the common cause? Yet we send billions to Afghanistan and millions to Pakistan?
And this even though they are in the middle of everything related to the international threat and also geographically surrounded by countries that want you and I, and our children to die? Sound dramatic? Well it is, but for most of their backwards assed citizens it's also very true and you know it.
Not trying to give you a hard time and I do often respect your opinion, it just fascinates me where all of this callousness in the form of practicality comes from.
So you want them to succeed, you just don't think we should help out with the common cause? Yet we send billions to Afghanistan and millions to Pakistan?
And this even though they are in the middle of everything related to the international threat and also geographically surrounded by countries that want you and I, and our children to die? Sound dramatic? Well it is, but for most of their backwards assed citizens it's also very true and you know it.
Not trying to give you a hard time and I do often respect your opinion, it just fascinates me where all of this callousness in the form of practicality comes from.
I think you missed everything I was trying to say.
We give them money, and then we hold that money over their heads and tell them what they can and cannot do. This results in an endless perpetuation of the situation. In a way it's a LOT like giving money to countries that hate us (Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi, etc.) in the beliefs that we are buying assistance with terrorism.
If we stop giving money to Israel (and we also need to stop giving money to just about everyone else except maybe the UK since they are the only ones who ever show up to help when there is fighting to be done) and then we won't be able to tell Israel what they can and cannot do and then Israel will be free to do whatever they feel is necessary.
Make no mistake, if I have to pick sides between Israel and their enemies (even though Israel doesn't have a drop of oil to offer) I know the muslim countries hate us and wish to see us dead and even with Israels known transgressions they are obviously by far the most US friendly place in the Middle East.
But at the same time, we don't owe them an existence any more than we owe something to Mexico or Canada.
The people of the "holy land" areas have problems dating back to pre history and we aren't going to fix any of them. Best we can do is stay out of the way and let them get it figured out. Otherwise they will BOTH continue to keep starting shit secure in the knowledge that the US will prevent either one of them from doing anything big and we will pay them not to do anything.
It's a big stupid game and we are dumb enough to keep playing.
The troubles between jew and muslim in the holy land go back less than 150 years.
Don't confuse nations with states. The Saudis and Jordanians, by that I mean the state, are as reliable to us as Israel... Their people are repressed and as long as they stay that way it's not important what they think.
Don't sell our other allies short. Oz on particular. Cultural ties are stronger than most credit.
Israel won't be cut loose because 60% of Democratic campaign contributions come from Jewish persons or Jewish managed organizations and the Republican party believes that God favors those who favor Israel.
You are clueless, repeat clueless! From the frontpage article,
In fact, Israel is among the few countries in the world, and the only Middle Eastern state, to consistently stand alongside the United States on strategic issues in the UN and in other venues for international cooperation. Israel votes with the USA in the UN about 94% of the time. No other nation holds that record.
But amicable support alone cannot justify tens of billions of taxpayer dollars in US aid to Israel. Happily, the USA has two very strong reasons to conclude that money to Israel is an investment for which the American people get a truly excellent return.
First, there is a financial reciprocity in this “special relationship” quite unlike any other that the USA has. Much, and in many years most, of the money that the USA gives Israel has been used by Israel to purchase goods and services, both military and civilian, from the USA, so that American aid money is recycled back into the American economy. Nearly 90% of US aid to Israel is military, and Israel spends about 75% of that buying U.S. goods. This aid has been described as an indirect American subsidy to U.S. arms manufacturers.
But, second, there is more to this issue than merely Israel’s using American money to help the US economy. Israel is a very powerful military ally as well. The security cooperation between Israel and the United States is vast, and Israel has consistently been a major security asset to the United States, an asset upon which America can rely, far more so than have been other state recipients of American largesse.[4]
In the field of military intelligence Israel is arguably the world’s leading expert in collecting intelligence on terrorist groups and in counter-terrorism. It provides intelligence and know-how to the U.S. According to Maj. Gen. George J. Keegan Jr., former head of U.S. Air Force intelligence, America’s military defense capability “owes more to the Israeli intelligence input than it does to any single source of intelligence,” the worth of which input, he estimated, exceeds “five CIAs.” He further stated that between 1974 and 1990, Israel received $18.3 billion in U.S. military grants. During the same period Israel provided the U.S. with $50-$80 billion in intelligen*ce, research and developmen*t savings, and Soviet weapons systems captured and transferre*d to the U.S.
Its arguable that the three billion dollars per year in aid to Israel is amongst the very best of our defense expenditures...But we won't let that stop the little ronpaulbots from entertaining us with their brilliant discourse on shitting all over our best ally in the middle east, after all, they are part of the 99%...:rolleyes:
The troubles between jew and muslim in the holy land go back less than 150 years.
Don't confuse nations with states. The Saudis and Jordanians, by that I mean the state, are as reliable to us as Israel... Their people are repressed and as long as they stay that way it's not important what they think.
Don't sell our other allies short. Oz on particular. Cultural ties are stronger than most credit.
It was a little important on 9-11 when a bunch of Saudis flew planes into the WTC.
The Saudis haven't been honoring the Truman Doctrine for decades.
Regardless of who has been fighting over the holy land, or for how long, the bottom line is they need to settle that shit by diplomacy or war and get it over with. Certainly the US paying off both sides isn't fixing things.
Palau and Micronesia are more likely to vote with the US at the UN.
Israel buying things in the US is a weak sales point, considering that we could spend that on our own military and skip the tear down inspection by the PLA.
Israel a military ally? How so? I haven't seen any Israeli flags draped over coffins headed back from the war on terror. Lots of other countries... But not Israel.
They do share intelligence when it suits them. They also spy on us. Pollard comes to mind among about a half a dozen other Israeli spies arrested by the US. AIPAC lobbies for his release every year. Then you have Mossad posing as the CIA to hire terrorists...
Steyr, correct wrt the source of terrorists. Al Qaeda turned on the US for two reasons, support for Israel and our presence in Saudi.
Israel should be thought of as a budget item and a tool, not an ally or cause.
Steyr, correct wrt the source of terrorists. Al Qaeda turned on the US for two reasons, support for Israel and our presence in Saudi.
1. We are allowed to choose with whom we ally. We don't need permission from anyone.
2. We were permitted by the Saudi Royal family to be there, otherwise we wouldn't. Again, we don't need muslim approval.
3. The above two reasons are irrelevant when dealing with Al Quida and other Wahhabists. Eventually, sooner or later, they would have gotten around to us as they hate us because we are not muslim. Same reason they hate all other non muslims and even some muslims.
These are the same people who kill over cartoons. Attempts at appeasement are pointless and foolish. Letting their concerns dictate our foreign policy and whom we choose for allies would be as useless a gesture as refusing to show a cartoon Mohammed on South Park in the hopes that it will somehow stop Islamic terrorism.
They want to destroy Israel but remember what happened to Egypt and a few others who tried direct action. So they threaten Israel in an effort to extort protection money from the US. We should stop the checks, cut the leash and let Israel do whatever they feel they need to do to protect themselves.
The game has been about Israel for some time, might as well let them play.
The troubles between jew and muslim in the holy land go back less than 150 years.
Don't confuse nations with states. The Saudis and Jordanians, by that I mean the state, are as reliable to us as Israel... Their people are repressed and as long as they stay that way it's not important what they think.
Don't sell our other allies short. Oz on particular. Cultural ties are stronger than most credit.
That's an incredibly naive and shortsighted view of history in the ME. The Jews have had issues with other inhabitants of the region since Joshua led them in battle in the 12th century B.C. The Diaspora, when the Assyrians destroyed Israel in 722 B.C. and the Babylonian Captivity of Judah under Nebuchadnezzar in 586 B.C. were periods of exceptional conflict. The 12 tribes have been ruled variously by the Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Macedonians, Persians, Egyptians (again), Romans, Byzantines (Eastern Roman Empire), dhimmitude under various Muslim Caliphates, Christians through the Crusades, more Muslims, the Ottoman Empire, British rule, and currently under the hegemonic thumb of the United States. The one thing that Israelites are completely unfamiliar with is peace.
The Fertile Crescent is at once the cradle of civilization and the cradle of human barbarity. The tribes are nomadic and the Holy Land has been under contested rule for 10,000 years. Calling Israel a good friend of the United States is an abject failure to understand our relationship with them. We are the hand that feeds them, for now. They fully understand the fickle finger of fate and they recognize that the U.S. will be their allies only so long as it suits us. We have a checkered history of dropping allies like a hot rock if they become problematic. Israel knows this because they understand history like no one else.
I have to laugh when any group from that region gets indignant about the transgressions of another group. They're all a bunch of wannabe tyrants and rulers of the so-called "civilized" world. There's nothing at all civil about it. :rolleyes:
The Diaspora was before Mohammed, so my statement is true. The Arab-Jewish conflict dates to the late 19th and early 20th century when the Zionists moved to the Holy Land in large numbers.
I am in absolute agreement that Israel is the best ally in the Mid-East that money can buy.
However, here is some food for thought on what the Israelis themselves think about the viability of their country.
http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2012/06/22/plugging-israels-brain-drain/
http://www.fmep.org/analysis/analysis/the-million-missing-israelis-israeli-emigration
http://jewishdailyreport.wordpress.com/2010/07/27/50-russian-jews-in-israel-leave/
The Diaspora was before Mohammed, so my statement is true. The Arab-Jewish conflict dates to the late 19th and early 20th century when the Zionists moved to the Holy Land in large numbers.
Rather than start in antiquity and move forward, I prefer to start in modern times and move backwards to determine who has the most legitimate claim to the land that is now called Israel. That is to say, the Arabs that would control "Palestine" have been on the losing side of at least 4 significant conflicts in the 20th Century: 6-day War, 1948 Arab-Israeli War, WWII, and WWI. Well, wars have consequences for the winner and losers (at least they once did before it became custom for the winner to restore the loser to a condition better than existed before the conflict). It is the outcomes of these wars that determined the current geography of Israel. Perhaps the Arabs should have reconsidered their positioning in these wars (esp. WWII) if they wanted a different outcome?
As for the US relationship with Israel - we helped to break it, so we bought it. Israel came about due to Britain's inability to solve their "Jewish problem" after WWII. We (the post-WWII UN which was heavily US influenced) went along with the plan to create the State of Israel and plop a bunch of Jews in the middle of some hostile Indians. Thus, we were the parents to this red headed step-child, and we therefore feel the need to keep them from being over-run by their neighbors. Over the years, this relationship has naturally changed as the "child" matured and now, on occasion, challenges its parent. It is still not strong enough to survive completely alone, but has just enough autonomy to become a real pain in the parent's ass.
Rather than start in antiquity and move forward, I prefer to start in modern times and move backwards to determine who has the most legitimate claim to the land that is now called Israel. That is to say, the Arabs that would control "Palestine" have been on the losing side of at least 4 significant conflicts in the 20th Century: 6-day War, 1948 Arab-Israeli War, WWII, and WWI. Well, wars have consequences for the winner and losers (at least they once did before it became custom for the winner to restore the loser to a condition better than existed before the conflict). It is the outcomes of these wars that determined the current geography of Israel. Perhaps the Arabs should have reconsidered their positioning in these wars (esp. WWII) if they wanted a different outcome?
And I think some people have forgotten and the issue needs to be demonstrated again.
As for the US relationship with Israel - we helped to break it, so we bought it. Israel came about due to Britain's inability to solve their "Jewish problem" after WWII. We (the post-WWII UN which was heavily US influenced) went along with the plan to create the State of Israel and plop a bunch of Jews in the middle of some hostile Indians. Thus, we were the parents to this red headed step-child, and we therefore feel the need to keep them from being over-run by their neighbors. Over the years, this relationship has naturally changed as the "child" matured and now, on occasion, challenges its parent. It is still not strong enough to survive completely alone, but has just enough autonomy to become a real pain in the parent's ass.
Not quite. After WWII nobody wanted the European Jews (who understandably didn't wish to remain in Europe) and Palestine became the popular dumping ground. The European Jews desired the creation of a "homeland" so they evicted their British land owners (ironically enough with pioneering efforts in terrorism such as the bombing of the King David Hotel). The British didn't value the Palestinian territory enough to want to defend it (no oil, unruly occupants) so they said "screw it" and left. The US and UK did not forcibly "put them there", that is where they wanted to go when nobody else would accept them.
With the official landlord gone, the Jews fought with the arab inhabitants for control of the area and won and then evicted most of the palestinian arabs. So the founders of Israel are solely responsible for the country they created after taking it from the British. We owe them nothing. Palestinian Jews wanted Israel, they used force to bring it into existence, they fought wars to keep it and it is up to them to continue to do so.
In the Cold War era most arab states were allied with the Soviet Union so it is hardly surprising that Israel ended up voting with us in the UN on many issues regarding the region.
AUG, dead on. Israelis took the land by force, claiming that most ancient right to the land as Athens did to Melos. It's as good a claim as any.
At this point I think the Arab peace plan is most practical. Land swaps to bring most of the settlements into Israel, evict everyone from the rest, a Pali state etc. I would demilitarize Jerusalem, make it the capital of both and have it be a shared district. Hire the Swiss to run the city if necessary.
We have no moral obligation to Israel.
FromMyColdDeadHand
09-05-12, 13:37
What about the Canaanites that the Jews pushed out? Isn't really their land
What about the Canaanites that they Jews pushed out? Isn't really their land
In that case we need to give this country back to the people who had it taken from them by those we currently call "native Americans."
Sadly there is no "master plan", land is owned by those who can acquire it and keep it.
It seems the most rightful claimants are those who presently inhabit the land. Otherwise we have to turn the clock back worldwide and undo all the various diaspora events.
And I think some people have forgotten and the issue needs to be demonstrated again.
Not quite. After WWII nobody wanted the European Jews (who understandably didn't wish to remain in Europe) and Palestine became the popular dumping ground. The European Jews desired the creation of a "homeland" so they evicted their British land owners (ironically enough with pioneering efforts in terrorism such as the bombing of the King David Hotel). The British didn't value the Palestinian territory enough to want to defend it (no oil, unruly occupants) so they said "screw it" and left. The US and UK did not forcibly "put them there", that is where they wanted to go when nobody else would accept them.
With the official landlord gone, the Jews fought with the arab inhabitants for control of the area and won and then evicted most of the palestinian arabs. So the founders of Israel are solely responsible for the country they created after taking it from the British. We owe them nothing. Palestinian Jews wanted Israel, they used force to bring it into existence, they fought wars to keep it and it is up to them to continue to do so.
In the Cold War era most arab states were allied with the Soviet Union so it is hardly surprising that Israel ended up voting with us in the UN on many issues regarding the region.
My comments about the creation of the state of Israel were meant to reflect that there was a UN Partition Resolution that was passed with significant support from the US. In fact, Truman actively undermined British efforts to limit the Jewish influx immediately prior to passage of the UN resolution. Without this resolution, it is not likely that the State of Israel would have come to exist as we know it today.
At this point I think the Arab peace plan is most practical. Land swaps to bring most of the settlements into Israel, evict everyone from the rest, a Pali state etc. I would demilitarize Jerusalem, make it the capital of both and have it be a shared district. Hire the Swiss to run the city if necessary.
Why should they do that? They took it by force fair and square.
Additionally, I don't think the arabs have any genuine desire for peace. I think if we split the country in two evenly they would always want the other half regardless of which half they were given and the war would continue.
And that's without even bringing up the issue of the Israelis who would kill to prevent such a thing. We all remember why Rabin was shot right?
These are religious fanatics and there is no "reasonable" compromise or "rational" solution when dealing with that form of insanity. And there are plenty of fanatics on both sides and they hold hostage the more rational parts of both populations.
The only possible solution would be forced integration where everyone had to live with each other in close proximity. And make no mistake there would be a brutal adjustment period that would have made 60s desegregation of the south in the US look like Disneyland in comparison. It would also probably take two generations at least to normalize.
But short of doing that, they should all be left to solve their own problems.
I would demilitarize Jerusalem, make it the capital of both and have it be a shared district. Hire the Swiss to run the city if necessary.
Popular opinion, but it has a snowball's chance in hell.
My comments about the creation of the state of Israel were meant to reflect that there was a UN Partition Resolution that was passed with significant support from the US. In fact, Truman actively undermined British efforts to limit the Jewish influx immediately prior to passage of the UN resolution. Without this resolution, it is not likely that the State of Israel would have come to exist as we know it today.
I disagree. I think the UN resolution was inevitable. Nobody else wanted the European Jews and the UK didn't value the Palestinian territory enough to fight over it since there was no oil. It was the most expedient solution to the problem.
In fact the UN Partition Resolution was meant as a permanent solution and not a road to the creation of Israel. But once the arab and jewish states were created, it was only a matter of time before one tried to go after the entire ball of wax.
Granted there was no guarantee the jews would win, but the attempt was inevitable.
Why should they do that? They took it by force fair and square.
Additionally, I don't think the arabs have any genuine desire for peace. I think if we split the country in two evenly they would always want the other half regardless of which half they were given and the war would continue.
And that's without even bringing up the issue of the Israelis who would kill to prevent such a thing. We all remember why Rabin was shot right?
These are religious fanatics and there is no "reasonable" compromise or "rational" solution when dealing with that form of insanity. And there are plenty of fanatics on both sides and they hold hostage the more rational parts of both populations.
The only possible solution would be forced integration where everyone had to live with each other in close proximity. And make no mistake there would be a brutal adjustment period that would have made 60s desegregation of the south in the US look like Disneyland in comparison. It would also probably take two generations at least to normalize.
But short of doing that, they should all be left to solve their own problems.
Because it is fair and it looks fair. I think the time has come to impose peace rather than let them bicker. Both sides have factions that retain their power because of the conflict. Peace would be their undoing. **** those guys.
But for the aforementioned reasons the US lacks the will to accomplish anything.
Popular opinion, but it has a snowball's chance in hell.
Because in the only country on earth that could make it happen the right thinks God favors those who favor Israel and the left needs Jewish money to get elected.
I disagree. I think the UN resolution was inevitable. Nobody else wanted the European Jews and the UK didn't value the Palestinian territory enough to fight over it since there was no oil. It was the most expedient solution to the problem.
In fact the UN Partition Resolution was meant as a permanent solution and not a road to the creation of Israel. But once the arab and jewish states were created, it was only a matter of time before one tried to go after the entire ball of wax.
Granted there was no guarantee the jews would win, but the attempt was inevitable.
I suppose that you are correct in that the UN partition plan would have created a two state solution, but that went out the window when the Arabs attacked in 1948.
Because it is fair and it looks fair. I think the time has come to impose peace rather than let them bicker. Both sides have factions that retain their power because of the conflict. Peace would be their undoing. **** those guys.
But for the aforementioned reasons the US lacks the will to accomplish anything.
So you want the US to committ more troops to the ME to enforce a 2-state peace process? It's not that we lack the will - we don't have the resources.
No, this is something that the Arabs and Israelis will have to sort out.
It's a lack of will. It's not a hard job. Move the Israeli fence to the new border, expel settlers as necessary, kill all who resist or try to attack across their border. And hire a Swiss city manager to run Jerusalem. Blackwater/Xe can supply police. Filipinos with Anerican officers.
Like I said its just a lack of will.
No, this is something that the Arabs and Israelis will have to sort out.
Then the situation is hopeless.
Here is a very informative website. If one wishes for more depth then there are a lot of ways to obtain more.
http://www.full-spectrum-dominance.com/
This is where I came across it:
http://www.blacklistednews.com/
Then the situation is hopeless.
I disagree. I think if we removed ourselves from the situation a undisputed resolution would be forthcoming.
Then the situation is hopeless.
Perhaps. However, our recent record of pacifying culture wars in the ME is not all that stellar - wouldn't you say? It can be done, but it typically takes more blood, treasure, and time than most people anticipate.
We've been trying RyanB's method in A-Stan against a much less sophisticated enemy than Hammas, Hezbollah, and IJ. Our progress there has been fair, at best.
No peaceful solution will likely come about as the Zionist element in Israel does NOT want peace: Eretz Ysrael claims all land btwn the Euphrates and the Nile Rivers.
The Judaists who reside in Israel will have to rein in their hawkish rulers.
Here is a very informative website. If one wishes for more depth then there are a lot of ways to obtain more.
http://www.full-spectrum-dominance.com/
Hey, thanks for that website. I especially enjoyed the article that describes how the Osama raid was staged, and the Team 6 helo crash was done on purpose :secret:. For the life of me, I can't understand why that website would be begging for money on its splash page...
No peaceful solution will likely come about as the Zionist element in Israel does NOT want peace: Eretz Ysrael claims all land btwn the Euphrates and the Nile Rivers.
The Judaists who reside in Israel will have to rein in their hawkish rulers.
Can't you find another forum to pollute? I enjoy spending some of my spare time taking part in in sensible discussions here and individuals such as yourself **** it all up.
Can't you find another forum to pollute? I enjoy spending some of my spare time taking part in in sensible discussions here and individuals such as yourself **** it all up.
In all fairness, and I'm not suggesting agendas don't exist here, but it wasn't arabs who killed Rabin.
The Diaspora was before Mohammed, so my statement is true. The Arab-Jewish conflict dates to the late 19th and early 20th century when the Zionists moved to the Holy Land in large numbers.
Let's talk for a moment about revisionist history. Like yesterday:
The troubles between jew and muslim in the holy land go back less than 150 years.
Don't confuse nations with states. The Saudis and Jordanians, by that I mean the state, are as reliable to us as Israel... Their people are repressed and as long as they stay that way it's not important what they think.
Don't sell our other allies short. Oz on particular. Cultural ties are stronger than most credit.
So is it Muslims or Arabs we're talking about here? BTW, believing that what "their people" think isn't important got us 9/11.
As for your ridiculous belief that Jewish/Muslim issues only go back 150 years, seriously? Who do you think Muslims in that region are? They are the very same people that fought the Jews and Israelites BEFORE Muhammed came into the picture. Regardless, Muhammed was merely a catalyst for Arabic expansionism under the banner of Islam. They expanded into the Holy Land in the 7th century A.D., not 150 years ago. They've served Muslim masters as 2nd class citizens since Umar, the 2nd Caliph in 638 A.D. Therefore, your timeline is about 1/10th of reality and patently false. The population numbers have absolutely nothing to do with it.
AUG, dead on. Israelis took the land by force, claiming that most ancient right to the land as Athens did to Melos. It's as good a claim as any.
At this point I think the Arab peace plan is most practical. Land swaps to bring most of the settlements into Israel, evict everyone from the rest, a Pali state etc. I would demilitarize Jerusalem, make it the capital of both and have it be a shared district. Hire the Swiss to run the city if necessary.
We have no moral obligation to Israel.
Sayyid Qutb explains it best:
Islam’s mission is to correct the injustices of the world. What he has in mind is that if Islam does not control a society, then injustice dominates it, ipso facto. But if Islam dominates it, then justice rules it (In the Shade of the Qur’an, vol. 7, pp. 8-15).
Qutb and many other Muslims believe that Islam must conquer the whole world to express Allah’s perfect will on this planet. That includes the Jewish state of Israel. The Islamic Arabs will never be satisfied until the entire region is under Sharia Law. Your "practical Arab peace plan" is ludicrous and foolhardy.
Because it is fair and it looks fair. I think the time has come to impose peace rather than let them bicker. Both sides have factions that retain their power because of the conflict. Peace would be their undoing. **** those guys.
But for the aforementioned reasons the US lacks the will to accomplish anything.
Again, you're staring in the face of 10,000 years of conflict. Do you seriously think your fairness assertion has a snowballs chance in hell? Do you actually believe you could impose a lasting peace between these millennial combatants? Neither side will be satisfied until the other is eliminated or subjugated. The current oppression the Israelis impose on the Palestinians is the exact same thing the Arabs have done to the Jews for centuries.
It's a lack of will. It's not a hard job. Move the Israeli fence to the new border, expel settlers as necessary, kill all who resist or try to attack across their border. And hire a Swiss city manager to run Jerusalem. Blackwater/Xe can supply police. Filipinos with American officers.
Like I said its just a lack of will.
You didn't think this one through, did you. I guess technically it isn't a "hard" job. It's an impossible job. It hasn't been achieved in 10,000 years, and you think some Swiss managers and American mercenaries could accomplish this? Laughable.
You are correct that we have the means, but not the will. However, it would not be accomplished by your plan. Hitler's Final Solution would've accomplished it. Only by exterminating one side could you form a lasting peace. Are you willing to slaughter tens of millions of Jews across the world to have it? Billions of Muslims? You'd still be left with the Christians vs. whoever was left. Good luck with that one.
Lasting peace in the Middle East is a fool's errand. It will not be accomplished in this lifetime or a dozen more. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. We're doomed and damned proud to be so. :(
The Jews left Israel. We even have a term for the event. You should check into it.
The Jews left Israel. We even have a term for the event. You should check into it.
Not "all" of them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_diaspora
The diaspora began with the 6th century BCE conquest of the ancient Kingdom of Judah, the destruction of the First Temple (c. 586 BCE), and the expulsion of the population, as recorded in the Bible. The Babylonian ruler, Nebuchadnezzar allowed them to remain in a unified community in Babylon. Another group of Jews fled to Egypt, where they settled in the Nile delta. From 597 BCE onwards, there were three distinct groups of Hebrews: a group in Babylon and other parts of the Middle East, a group in Judaea, and another group in Egypt.
Not "all" of them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_diaspora
The diaspora began with the 6th century BCE conquest of the ancient Kingdom of Judah, the destruction of the First Temple (c. 586 BCE), and the expulsion of the population, as recorded in the Bible. The Babylonian ruler, Nebuchadnezzar allowed them to remain in a unified community in Babylon. Another group of Jews fled to Egypt, where they settled in the Nile delta. From 597 BCE onwards, there were three distinct groups of Hebrews: a group in Babylon and other parts of the Middle East, a group in Judaea, and another group in Egypt.
He may not have been talking about the Diaspora. Either way, he's out of his depth. The 12 tribes haven't always been unified and the Holy Land has never been completely abandoned. Besides, the Jewish Right of Return can always be asserted, the validity of which can be debated till the cows come home. Regardless, his attempt to play coy is a vain attempt to avoid capitulation.
Either way, I still contend that the fertile crescent and by default, the Holy Land will never be without conflict. That struggle is as old as time itself. Nothing we come up with in the here and now will irrevocably alter this.
There were always a group of Jews in Palestine. They did well under the Ottomans. The conflict didn't come until the Zionist movement started and Jews moved back.
Palestinians terrorism isn't like Wahabi terrorism. It's nationalist. Not that they aren't religious, buy they are more importantly nationalist...
Can't you find another forum to pollute? I enjoy spending some of my spare time taking part in in sensible discussions here and individuals such as yourself **** it all up.
Sorry, you prefer to bury your head in the sand.
When you bury your head in the sand your ass is exposed.
Cover your 6, bro.
Either way, I still contend that the fertile crescent and by default, the Holy Land will never be without conflict. That struggle is as old as time itself. Nothing we come up with in the here and now will irrevocably alter this.
I think history demonstrates this very well. And while I agree the problem will never be solved "for all time" I think it can be solved "for a time" and it simply needs to be done in a decisive manner that will be remembered by a given generation.
The mistake is believing that the major conflict is Arab-Israeli. In fact it is Sunni-Shia. That suits my purposes just fine.
The mistake is believing that the major conflict is Arab-Israeli. In fact it is Sunni-Shia. That suits my purposes just fine.
It is both. I think the arabs have simply found it is easier to fight their inter clan wars than start an actual shooting war with Israel.
Arab governments like to ratchet up the rhetoric to keep their people in line. There are only so many people in a society who want to be insurgents, and smart leaders buy them a bus ticket to a different war.
Palestinians terrorism isn't like Wahabi terrorism. It's nationalist. Not that they aren't religious, buy they are more importantly nationalist...
Nationalist people who have never had their own nation.
There were always a group of Jews in Palestine. They did well under the Ottomans. The conflict didn't come until the Zionist movement started and Jews moved back.
Palestinians terrorism isn't like Wahabi terrorism. It's nationalist. Not that they aren't religious, buy they are more importantly nationalist...
Yes, it's easy to have peace (for a time) when one group subjugates the other as 2nd class citizens. Problem is, that can be a double edged sword as the Palestinians have discovered. :(
... governments like to ratchet up the rhetoric to keep their people in line... and smart leaders buy [Wahhabists and jihadists] a bus ticket to a different war.
That would be the US Intel Agencies then, right?
Al Qaeda is a product of Brzezinski, etc., and we've used them in Kosovo, Dagestan, Ingueshetta, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt and now Syria. I would say Iran but that is Jundullah.
At times, sure. As long as we're careful I'm not opposed to it.
Nationalist people who have never had their own nation.
One could say the same thing about the people we displaced in the 18th and 19th century. Not sure it amounts to justification.
Yes, it's easy to have peace (for a time) when one group subjugates the other as 2nd class citizens. Problem is, that can be a double edged sword as the Palestinians have discovered. :(
No record of Jews being "second class citizens" in the Muslim world. They THRIVED in Babylon, afterall.
No record of Jews being "second class citizens" in the Muslim world. They THRIVED in Babylon, afterall.
Some people do thrive in repressed societies. Look at the Chinese for example. The Jews were Dhimmis and considered "People of the book". The fared better under the Caliphate than under Christian rule during the Crusades, but they were still 2nd class citizens. Restrictions were place on them that didn't apply to Muslims. That held through the reign of the Ottoman Empire as well.
Some people do thrive in repressed societies. Look at the Chinese for example. The Jews were Dhimmis and considered "People of the book". The fared better under the Caliphate than under Christian rule during the Crusades, but they were still 2nd class citizens. Restrictions were place on them that didn't apply to Muslims. That held through the reign of the Ottoman Empire as well.
I don't think "thrive" is as correct a word as "endure."
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.