If you have a military occupation of another people/people’s land then the occupiers are inviting reaction. It’s as simple as that.
Midesatweb. Yeah. The 22% thing is the standard way that most people/newspapers etc. around the world refer to the bits of land currently known as the Palestinian territories. But whatever, let’s say it’s 22% of the combined Israel/Palestinian territory land mass. Whatever makes you happy.
Again, this far over-estimates the impact of US aid. It’s a military fanasy to ever suppose that the Palestinians could, on their own, pose any sort of existential military threat to Israel, however equipped. If the Egyptians and Syrians couldn’t do it when outfitted by the Soviets, and together with the Palestinians and Jordanians and others, at a time when Israel was not receiving any US aid, there is simply no way on earth the Palestinians will ever pose a realistic threat on their own.
I think the Israeli side of the story is pretty well represented on this board and in the mainstream media.
I don’t think that we are missing too many of those arguments.
It’s understood that that’s going to happen at some point down the road, once Israel feels that its safety has been reasonably guaranteed. At this point in time, however, Israel is at war with “Hamastan”, and is employing a military blockade as part of its war efforts.
I think the Palestinian side of the story is also represented perfectly well in mainstream media.
So are you saying that if the US had sided with the Palestinians, funding their military and providing them with the military edge over the last 60 years, israel would more or less be in the same situation they find themselves in today?
I think the US has been instrumental creating the balance of power that currently exists in the Middle East. I think that it was probably in US interests to have a powerful Israel in the middle East but I don’t know what purpose Israel serves in US foreign policy in a post-cold war world and I think that without AIPAC, we would have stopped funding them under Clinton.
Which means the whole “we cant make peace with Palestinians till we feel secure”, or “we cant negotiate with the Hamas because they have a Death to Israel article in their charter” is pure and simple bullshit. You cant have the cake and eat it.
If Israel has overbearing military superiority, then they can make peace whenever they want.
Now, the Israeli reasoning is more “we’ll negociate when we dont have superiority anymore”.
Talk about a conundrum.
It is moreso now but this has nto always been the case. I grew up in the 70’s and 80’s without any idea why the crazy arabs were blowing themselves up. It was pretty onesided. I think the focus on the middle east became more nuanced after 9/11 when we realized that the shitstorm we kick up there can reach our shores.
I’ve made connections between 9/11 and the Palestinian refugee crisis in the past (and been shouted down as an anti-semite by one poster in particular), but I think the connection between the two are significant, certainly more significant than any connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein.
I’m saying that no conceivable amount of funding & support would make the Palestinians a credible, existential threat to Israel today.
You cannot create military effectiveness by simply shoving money at a country - this is a lesson learned over and over again by both superpowers during the Cold War. Both of them attempted (and failed) to do just that - consider that Soviet aid over years to Egypt quite failed to turn Egypt into a match for Israel, and Egypt has many multiples of the inherent resources available to the Palestinians. This at a time when Israel lacked any aid from the US.
Israel without aid would be more than a match for Palestine with aid.
Nonsense. Israelis are not worried and never have been by the Palestinians posing an existential threat, as in, having the ability to (on their own) invade and militarily defeat Israel.
They are worried, and rightly, about on-going terrorism, random rocket attacks and bombings. They are also worried about the ability of the Palestinian cause to be used as the rallying-point for a wider coallition against them by others in the ME.
The US did not invade Afganistan because (lord help us) the Afganis posed an existential threat to the US, but because their then leaders refused to hand over the terrorists who masterminded the bombing of the WTC. Posing an existential threat is not the only way to pose a threat.
Edit: I did not understand Damuri Ajashi’s proposal as being that the US ought to equip the palestinians to more effectively carry out terrorism.
God, you Americans can be so provincial smetimes. When I said “mainstream media”, I meant the mainstream *global *media, not those news networks that happen to operate in the U.S.
Overwhelming military superiority is not much use against terrorism. Israel can say, “for every one of us you kill, we’ll kill ten of yours”, and the Palestinians will go ahead and kill one Israeli. And then the world will condemn Israel for killing ten Palestinians.
So tell me, how does overwhelming military superiority help us keep that one Israeli alive?
Okay, fine, Israel or Qatar. It’s a rule of thumb. I’m not saying you can’t trust them, I’m saying on those subjects, check twice.
No, you haven’t.
In fact, IIRC, the last time you claimed you’d been accused of “anti-Semitism” the only link you could provide was to a factual refutation and no accusation of racism, at all.
I’d wager that this is much the same.
Got cite?
Your ignorance is probably not someone else’s fault, however.
Black September at Munich in 1972. Hardly lacked for press.
Achille Lauro 1985. Hardly lacked for press.
No, it means that you’re playing word-games and conflating demands that the government will crack down on terrorism and genocidal incitement, and there won’t be rockets launched into Israeli territory with a lack of an existential-threat.
As for not negotiating with an entity like Hamas which repeatedly (not just in their charter) states that they will one day destroy your nation and commit genocide against your citizens and that they’re never going to recognize your right to exist, readers can figure out why that’s “bullshit”, I suppose.
Do explain how that military superiority effectively stops campaigns of, say, suicide bombings. Explain how it allows them to “make peace” if Hamas et al will still launch attacks. What sort of “peace” is it if it’s typified by one side attacking the other?
Facts. Yeah.
The fact is interesting, naturally, as you used the 22% figure despite its dramatic inaccuracy. Jordan actually fought a civil war over the fact that many Palestinians saw Jordan as a Palestinian state, being as how it was the largest territory carved out of “historic Palestine”, even larger considering it conquered the West Bank in '48 and the prevented an independent Palestinian state from being formed on it. Jordan now sits on the vast majority of what was “historic Palestine”, and has recently been stripping some of its Palestinian population of citizenship.
Interesting how Jordan always gets left out of such calculations. Just like Kuwait gets left out of discussion even though after the Gulf War it caused a refugee problem roughly equal to that caused in '67.
Such is life, I suppose.
You may recall a traveling official of the US government, who over a year ago stated in Egypt that US policy was to accept no further Israelis “settling” in the West Bank.
“Who is this guy” asked the Israelis. “We, and not this guy, make US policy in the Middle East”. Sure enough, the guy is forced into a humiliating backdown and becomes an object of global derision. He adopts the traditional posture of obsequious fawning to the Israelis.
About which Israel doesnt give a rat’s ass. So, what was your point here?
Last major operation wasnt ten Palestinians for an Israeli, it was more than 250 for one Israeli. Palestinian stock value is going down.
The US has in turn been bombed with Israeli propaganda to the point of saturation, for decades. In the face of which the easy option has been to surrender.
So does this match the qualifications for a ZOG accusation?
:dubious: And yet this type of simplistic horseshit gets constantly tossed in with hardly a ripple…and would probably not make a ripple if asserted in most places in either the US or Europe. Interesting that if the ‘Israeli side’ has been adequately portrayed either on this board or by the MSM that this level of willful ignorance still persists, don’t you think?
-XT