Like I said in my post, paternalism won’t work because there are too many Israelis who are against it, even violently so. You ask “why can’t we just try?” Because the last time an Israeli prime minister tried, he was shot to death by a young and idealistic Jew who saw any compromise with the Palestinians as a betrayal of his people. Until you deal with that portion of the mix, any solution you propose will be unworkable.
Handing out smiley face buttons with the slogan “think positive” on them isn’t going to change a thing.
OK, Duck, that more or less crosses the border. Telling an Israeli that his air force needs “help” (other than a chance to improve on your best technology) is like walking into a Dallas bar and saying “Well, them Rangers are OK, but I think we can teach them a thing or two about football”, with one major difference - unlike the Rangers, the IAF never loses.
As for the Marines - aside from the fact that we hardly need a sea landing into a track of land we share a long border with - thanks, but no thanks. I’ve met Marines, and they seem like competant soldiers and really nice guys, but… well, they have much nicer dress uniforms than we do. And those MREs are real cool.
No offence, but the big advantage the U.S. military has over the IDF is size and the ability to project power across great distances. Not much else.
Rick:
Yeah, we’d probably do that. But bear in mind that that money is there to counter the large amounts you give to Egypt, the huge infuence the Gulf States have on you, and the huge amounts of money those states have flowing towards our enemies. We may be trying hard, but we’re only a small state and we can’t counter all that damn oil money.
The thing is, all that money is a means for the U.S. to moderate and control Israeli actions, which answers Duck’s question:
Because you’re our friend and we owe you a lot, and we want your approval. Is it wrong to ask?
This poll shows that in early '99, before the current intifada, the vast majority of Palestinians supported the peace process even though they were pessimistic about its outcome. Three years and many bombings, shellings, blockades and targeted killings later, that opinion has obviously changed.
[quote]
Emphasis mine.
The Palestinians supported the Peace Process, and why not? They were getting a shitload of stuff - land, money, guns, prestige - and giving only promises in return. Who wouldn’t be happy with that? The thing is, they may have wanted the process, but I’m not sure they wanted peace, because peace meant the end of the conflict - no more demands. Both countries could go their seperate ways, peacefully existing side by side.
And they do seem in need of strong moderation and control, but that’s a bit of a moot point right now, as Sharon has been pushing the line of what is “acceptable” further and further out and Dubya is unlikely to put a stop to it in any meaningful way. The money (and lenience) the US gives to Israel is more a result of the powerful Jewish lobby in the US than it is a counter-balance to other funds going to Israel’s enemies (and who are we talking about when we say enemies?).
How facetious. The only obvious answer to DDG’s question is that Israel is officially declaring “terrorism” in order to gain US approval as they step up military action against Palestinians, in what amounts to state terrorism. They don’t want the US’s help, they just don’t want the US (or anyone else) to interfere with their plans. Using the excuse that they are targeting terrorist organizations, they are demolishing Palestinian infrastructure and blockading millions of people. The logical goal is to pound them until Israel’s negotiating advantage is such that Arafat will be forced to strike any deal he is offered (which is why he is not being killed right away).
Why would the most powerful military in the area need help to fire on populations of unarmed Palestinians? Israel doesn’t need outside military help, and it’s in their best interests to keep foreign militaries out of their country.
What an absolute load of rubbish. Once again, ignorance on the way the UN operates is displayed on this board. I have been thinking about starting a thread validating the UN for a while, and might have to do that tomorrow.
The UN makes no value judgments. It is a non-partisan player in world affairs. It has to be in order to get anywhere with everybody, instead of somewhere where a few. It is not a world government - the world is in anarchy, on the level of international relations. It has no authority, except that which member states give it. It is an international forum, which operates a conciliation process.
The worse thing is that the UN gets blamed for the actions of its members. Israel is one country. The Arab states which gang up on Israel are many. As the UN is a forum for international discussion, the enemies of Israel use it to pick on Israel. That is not the UN’s fault.
Lets look at the UN’s approach to Israel in 1967, specifically Res. 242, from this site:
It seems to me that the American people have had poisonous bile from the likes of Jesse Helms drip into their collective ears for such a long time that they now firmly believe that the UN is something that it is not, and think it should be accountable for something which it has not responsible for.
Thank you, Dave. I was going to try to tackle that same nonsense next, but I’m glad you beat me to it. I too am tired of hearing the same silliness about the UN over and over again, and I know a few others like Collounsbury are as well.