Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

No real threat to Israel? Think again!

S

strategist

Guest
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/p...ontrassID=1&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=0

Don't underestimate Assad Jr.

The disclosure that Syria has been acting as a secret arms supplier for Saddam Hussein is but the tip of the iceberg, testifying to strategic changes taking place in Syria since Bashar Assad succeeded his mythological father.

Belittling the young, inexperienced heir, who had once planned on a medical career, is a thing of the past. Bashar Assad's primary objective, it seems, is to create a strategic Syria-Iran-Iraq triangle against Israel, disregarding any emotional baggage left over from his father's time.



http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/p...ontrassID=1&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=0

Report: Iraq plans to arm PA terrorists with biological weapons

Britain suspects Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein is planning to arm a Palestinian terror cell with biological warfare to carry out attacks on U.S. or Israeli targets, the Sunday Times internet site reported Saturday.

According to the site, the latest assessment by Britain and the United States is that Iraq is developing a range of biological agents that can be delivered by an aerosol system, that can be used by a terrorist group.

The report also said that Saddam was planning to recruit a Palestinian terrorist group to carry out attacks for him, in the same way that Iran is funding and training terrorists groups to carry out attacks from Lebanon against Israel.



So, are you going to try convince Israelis that they are safe?

Are you going to try convince them that their neighbors want peace?

Will a Palestinian state support such moves?


These are some of the issues the Israeli left must face. Boycotts by the West will only hinder these efforts!
 
Ah yeah like where did you cut and paste this trash from then Aron?...how much are the Isreali`s paying you to post this one-sided garbage?..
Is this the same British security service ( that you quote from) that knew nothing of the then to be invasion of the Falkland islands..
The same "super intellengent" agency that let the Isreali embassy bombing in London go ahead (even with advance warning of it happening??).
Is is the same "intelligence" service that tried to have gaddfiy assasionated and instead it resulted in the deaths of women and chlidren??.
If you knew anything about the "British intelligence services" then you might realise that thier not very intelligent at all..so please post tribe like that elsewhere its not even worth the read!!
 
Interesting links and a credible report, strategist, thanks for posting it. It's worth bearing in mind that Eichmann's second-in-command, Alois Brunner, a man personally responsible for the deaths of an estimated 100,000 Jews, lived out his life as an honoured guest of the Syrian government until his alleged death in 1992. The Syrians are indeed committed "anti-zionists" of the old school. The same school which complained to Hitler that he was letting too many Jews escape.

The West would now be facing a nuclear-armed Iraq, with all that implies, if Israel hadn't prevented this by sending a couple of jet-fighters to blast Saddam's nuclear plant into rubble back in 1981. It is to be hoped that few similar surgical strikes could do the job this time, but with bio-weapons being produced this may not be possible, given the resulting contamination.

What's most ridiculous about those eager to believe and support such terrorist regimes is that they don't seem to realise that leftists are just as high on their extermination lists as Jews, gays, trade unionists etc, come the Holy War.

Personally, I would be extremely wary of simply automatically supporting a US strike, unless some pretty convincing evidence such as the above was to be definitely confirmed, but then I don't live in Israel. The reports seem both credible and completely consistent with the agressive expansionism of all three powers. Syria has already occupied the Lebanon with no reaction, and no doubt seeks to expand further.

It's all rather reminiscent of the empire-building of the European powers in previous centuries, but with nuclear, biological and chemical weapons instead of cannon, sail and steam. The damage European imperialism caused around the globe was enormous: if the new imperialists get their way, it will make those events look like the teddy-bears-picnic...
 
I'd agree with most of what you say there, Jock, especially that last point, but while I think the claims of a Damascus-Baghdad-Tehran axis shouldn't be dismissed out of hand, there's the problem of the inter-Ba'ath rivalry between the first two, and the fact that the third regards the first two as heathen secularists. Which would undermine (though not, I admit, rule out) the possibility of a long-term strategic alliance between the three.
 
So what do you want strategist? Do you want the British to reconstitute the British Empire, re-occupy the whole of the Middle East just to keep 'poor Israel' safe? Fight your wars to protect people like you? Palestinian militant groups are not enough - now it's Syria, Iraq and who else? You can include practically the whole of the Arab world, not to mention the Muslim world along with Syria and Iraq. All the people of these nations alone share the same views about Israel.

Do you think we love Zionists so much that we're prepared to put our lives on the line? For people like you?

There is a good reason why the Arab states are hostile to Israel. A very good reason.

No. You Israelis created your own shit. Now you can eat it.
 
My problem with reading your posts Patelscornershop, is that while I can understand and support the struggles of an undoubtedly oppressed Palestinian people, it is my wont always to substitute the word "Jew" for "Zionist" or "Israeli," when reading such opinions.

In this light, I fail to see that the likes of Hamas and Hizbollah are any less racist than the likes of Saddam Hussein, a man who had "Mein Kampf" translated into Arabic at his own expense. Or Gaddaffi, who supplied European neo-fascists with free copies of the notorious anti-semite pamphlet "Protocols of The Elders of Zion" in the 1970's. I saw a copy. Very tasteful. You may not be an anti-semite yourself, PCS, and I really am not trying to say you are, but you are keeping some very, very, dubious company...

Very belatedly edited to get PCS's name right.
 
So, "Jock" thinks Syria, Iraq and Iran are planning a new global empire ?
And a holy one as well ?
Very strange given that Syria and Iraq are secular, and Iran is moving that way.

And there was me thinking the Holy War was being waged by your beloved US/Israeli Old Testament gun freaks, who think their Torah promised them various bits of land

And (although this seems tame compared to the above racist rubbish), it seems that it is the Arab states who are rapidly expanding (into their own territories :confused: ), not Israel grabbing ever more land, and ethnically cleansing the original populations ?

Alois Brummer hmm ? Whoever he was, I wonder how many mass murderers of Arabs, and other victims of imperialism have lived out their lives comfortably in the West.

Fantastic stuff. And you call the Selfridges protestors drug crazed ?
You really are a psychotically deranged Zionist fanatic, aren't you ?

Oh, and you can substitute whatever fucking word you want for Zionist in that last sentence.


And Stategist, go back and answer the threads you keep running away from, instead of throwing up more of your trolling gibberish.
 
Oh, come on, Revolting, you can do better than this! Neither myself nor Strategist are "psychotic" or "deranged" simply because we both happen to disagree with received left-wing wisdom: ie, Jews=Bad: Arabs=Good.

And yes, I do think there are similarites between European imperialism and the trends in some Arab states. I am also vastly amused by the idea that a tiny nation of roughly the same area and population as Wales constitutes a threat to a couple of hundred million people in the Muslim world!

The Alois Brunner/Syria connection is well known. The USA has little to be proud of in this regard, either, mind you. See the Simon Wiesenthal Institute's website for more details on this disgusting business. Not a comfortable read for anyone.

Far be it from me to aim a punch below the belt, Revolting, but are you one of those people who would have criticised Israel's tracking down, arrest, and trial of Brunner's immediate superior, one Adolf Eichmann? Was this action not a service to humanity? And why didn't the western intelligence agencies lift a finger?
 
This thread perfectly illustrates the problems that the P&P is having (and I'm not singling out the posters here, this thread just happens to be the first one under my post).

There's some good debate in this thread, but is it any wonder that posts soon descend into endless attacks when points are peppered with stuff like this:

"where did you cut and paste this trash from"
"trolling gibberish"
"you can substitute whatever fucking word you want for Zionist"
"You Israelis created your own shit. Now you can eat it."
"You really are a psychotically deranged Zionist fanatic, aren't you?"
 
I am also vastly amused by the idea that a tiny nation of roughly the same area and population as Wales constitutes a threat to a couple of hundred million people in the Muslim world
Wales doesn't have nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, nor is it led by a man branded by the UN as a war criminal, nor is it given the green light by the world's only superpower that it's ok to massacre people in refugee camps who were thrown off their land two generations ago.

Plus it's a mistake to substitute the word 'Jew' everytime someone refers to an 'Israeli'. If you do this then every criticism of the actions of the Israeli state automatically sounds anti-Semetic. Many people are disgusted by the actions of the Israeli army in the occupied territories - some of these people are anti-Semetic, but most are not.
 
I don't know how much significance I give strategist's report - though I think it is credible - in terms of the actual likely foreign policy of those three states in the future. I don't think Iran wants to get sucked into anything that would incur the wrath of the USA, and is quite happy to just carry on supplying the Palestinian militants. At least, I think the moderates might be able to stymie any pushes the hardliners will make on the issue. As for Syria and Iraq - well, there I can believe it, but Iraq isn't going to be much help to anyone come October, by the looks of things.

What I do find very interesting about the report is the fact that people like strategist honestly believe that these are the threats that Israel faces.

There's an interesting thing I watched on C-Span a day or two ago about the much-debated Israeli bomb. The bomb aside, the guy who was giving the talk gave a little quote that he thought summed up the Israeli attitude to its relationship with the Arab world. Netenyahu, I think it was, was in the US talking to Clinton, and was asked point blank what he thought would happen if the Arab states were all to attack Israel again. In the same breath he said "Israel would be in mortal danger and our troops would be in Damascus in three days."

At the risk of going against the tide of blame allocation, I think that if we want to find a way to bring peace to the region, we have to understand the siege mentality that pervades Israel and account for it. That doesn't mean not making Israel face up to its responsibilities, when that's necessary - but, quite simply, the type of thing that seems to be expected a lot of the time is the sort of thing that will only happen if you put the Israeli population up against the wall and make them agree on pain of death. Which is no way to go about things.

Back to the bomb - it was interesting to hear the guy's interpretation of the leverage that the bomb gives Israel. He said that in the Six Day War the Israeli defence minister phoned Kissinger and said that if an airlift of weapons didn't start immediately, the Israelis would nuke everyone in sight. The airlift started about 3 hours later.

Maybe that would be an interesting perspective to factor into the interpretation of the US/Israeli relationship.

Anyway, let's see where this thread goes. I'd be interested to hear people's views. And just for the record, I know the history pretty well by now, so please no 1948 'The great calamity' lectures please.
 
is the sort of thing that will only happen if you put the Israeli population up against the wall and make them agree on pain of death. Which is no way to go about things.
But it seems this is the way to deal with the poor old Iraqis.

I know the history pretty well by now, so please no 1948 'The great calamity' lectures please.
If you post something which contradicts your claim to "know the history", then of course you will be called. It is not in the past, because it is unacknowledged and unresolved, and we do want to discuss reality don't we ?

I'm sorry H2O, that's not simply me being negative, but you're trying to base the thread on false foundations, and prescribe its limits, to achieve your desired conclusion. It doesn't work that way.
Maybe I should insist that we discuss Iraq without mentioning Iraqi WMDs (not so unreasonable actually, since they are fictional).


Editor, you outlined some name calling in my post above, but I simply did not know how else to respond in this instance.
It is simply delusional to claim that Iraq/Iran/Syria are about to take over the world. At the best of times, I might have thought I was talking to the David Icke of P&P, but in the context of the current and pending slaughter (and the plethora of posters on this forum calling for the extermination of all Iraqis/Palestinians - none of whom get pulled up), it felt more like Richard Perle.
Maybe I should simply put him on my ignore list.
 
Cautious Fred, you make a very good point, particularly with regard to Sharon, who I also regard as a butcher and a criminal, BTW. I'll also accept your criticism that my point could easily be read as the old anti-Zionist = anti-Semite slur. The problem being that it's quite difficult to sum up these issues in a line or two, so we all tend to revert to easy stereotypes.

Revolting,I really would like to know where any pro-Israeli (yes, Zionist if you like) poster, such as myself, has ever called for the "extermination of all Palestinians!" Jews and Arabs, are, after all, genetically of the same race. And I didn't really appreciate being called a Nazi on another thread for holding this position either - I won't go into the details as to why...
 
It is simply delusional to claim that Iraq/Iran/Syria are about to take over the world.


Breaking my ignore rule here.

Zeev Schiff wrote that article.

He is also the author of Israel's Lebanon War which is a highly respected book on the subject.

He was also the subject of a law suit by Sharon for defamation in that book and in Haaretz newspaper.

Schiff has been a critic of Sharon since the 1970's, but maintained a great deal of respect from all sides in this conflict (Israeli-Palestinian, Left-Right).

Dismissing his writings as being delusional is slightly innappropriate, especially considering he does not say they are about to take over the world.

If anything, they want to take over the fight against Israel, which is extremely troubling considering that each country (including Israel) has a short-medium range missile and chemical-biological weapons programs.
 
Revolting -

I'm not trying to stop people with different opinions from airing them, but yes, I'm trying to limit the debate - to the topic.

What I meant by the 'no great calamity lectures please' comment was that I would be interested to hear what people think might be a way to counter/alleviate the Israeli siege mentality, or even whether or not it is worth factoring into the analysis of Israeli policy.

What I wouldn't like to hear is another cliched diatribe about how, since the Israeli state was wrong since its birth in 1948, we shouldn't even consider what the Israelis of today might think or feel.

I don't mention it very often, because I don't think it adds anything to the argument, but I have huge problems with the existence of the Israeli state. But, personally, I don't see how lamenting the past will cure the future. And I am very interested in potential cures.

But please - and I mean this honestly - don't go around accusing me of trying to start with 'false foundations' to 'achieve [my] desired conclusion'. I just want to understand, and talking to other people helps that. And as for the 'false foundations' - well, if you can help show me where they are, I'd appreciate it. I thought I was being fairly even handed, maybe I didn't manage that.

But if we can't have an adult debate at all, just because we disagree, maybe I shouldn't bother coming back to this site again.
 
i dont know why, but my post got deleted for some reason. heres the article again, very accurately portrays the conflict


NY TIMES

An Ugly Rumor or an Ugly Truth?
By RICHARD BERNSTEIN


THE day after the deadly Palestinian attack on Hebrew University in Jerusalem, The Guardian, the left-leaning British newspaper, published an editorial criticizing Israel for what the paper called "random, vengeful acts of terror" against Palestinian civilians during its reoccupation of the West Bank town of Jenin last spring. This after a United Nations report dismissed Palestinian claims that Israel had massacred civilians there.

Over the past several months, such sentiments have become common in much of Europe. A few months ago, when Tom Paulin, a poet, Oxford University professor and regular guest on BBC television, told Al Ahram, Egypt's leading newspaper, that American-born Jews who have settled on the Israeli-occupied West Bank were Nazis who "should be shot dead," his remarks, which outraged some, were also met by approval and admiration.

A. N. Wilson, a prominent conservative British writer and editor, publicly defended Mr. Paulin, who has also published a poem in The Observer magazine that referred to Israeli soldiers as "the Zionist SS."

"Many in this country and throughout the world would echo his views on the tragic events in the Middle East," said Mr. Wilson, who himself wrote in The Evening Standard, the London newspaper, that he had "reluctantly" concluded that Israel no longer had a right to exist.

That, too, is a view that throughout Western Europe seems to command a fair degree of sympathy. In France, demonstrators held posters aloft saying "Death to Jews." In Italy, L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican daily, wrote that Israel was engaging in "aggression that turns into extermination." And José Saramago, the Portuguese Nobel laureate in literature, said, "We can compare what is happening on the Palestinian territories with Auschwitz."

It all raises a question: Does the ferocious moral condemnation of Israel mark a recrudescence of that most ugly of Western diseases, anti-Semitism? Or is it legitimate, if crude, criticism of a nation's policies? Where does one draw the line? And how does one judge?

The issue is complicated by several factors, not the least of them that many harsh critics of Israel are Jews. When, a few weeks ago, two British university professors called for an academic boycott of Israel, among the roughly 700 scholars who signed their petition were several Israelis.

Other observers, including a number of Jews, don't see anti-Semitism in the European anger at Israel but simply the success of the Palestinians' campaign to portray themselves as an oppressed people. The Palestinians get more sympathy than, say, the Tibetans, because their plight is what Europeans see in their newspapers and on their televisions every day.

Even those most worried about a new wave of anti-Semitism do not argue that it is the same as the anti-Semitism of the 1930's or even the 1950's in Europe, when to express contempt and hatred for Jews was respectable. These days, for the most part, it is not respectable.
 
"What you have is anti-Semitism without anti-Semites," said Oscar Bronner, the publisher and editor of Der Standard, a major Austrian daily newspaper. "If you talk to people who use anti-Semitic clichés without knowing what they are doing, they are shocked that somebody would think they were anti-Semitic. But it's everywhere. It's in print. It's dinner party conversations. When a dozen Israeli kids are killed because somebody throws a bomb in order to kill Israeli kids, then it's regrettable. If Israel kills a dozen kids as collateral damage when they try to kill a murderer who hides among children, then this is a war crime."

Nonetheless, there has also been a sharp increase in overt, physical anti-Semitism in the past couple of years. In France, such attacks are largely believed to be the work of resident Arabs, but some critics of the critics of Israel see a nasty kind of symbiosis, in which intellectual and journalistic condemnations of Israel have given the Arab hatred of Jews a kind of legitimacy.

AT the same time, Israel and the Palestinians are elements in the broader post-cold-war policy and cultural differences that have emerged between the United States and Europe, especially during the Bush administration.

"What is true is that Europe has moved toward an identification with international agencies acting collectively to help the disadvantaged and the poor, and there's a belief in Europe that the Americans haven't caught up with that," said Tony Judt, aprofessor of European Studies at New York University and a critic of current Israeli policy. "Israel, with its close identification with the United States, and vice versa, embodies this defect, and the fact that Israel is in violation of all sorts of laws about occupation makes it an obvious target, much as South Africa was in the 60's and 70's, because it is against everything that Europeans see themselves as standing for."

The question remains, however: Does the endless scrutiny and criticism of Israel to be found in Europe amount to anti-Semitism? Alexandre Adler, a French Jew and columnist for Le Monde, gives the phenomenon an anti-globalist interpretation. Anti-globalization, which is especially strong in France, is the new anti-Americanism, he argues, and Israel, America's close ally, is seen as an example of supposed American indifference to the plight of the world's poor.

The French anti-globalization activist José Bové, who won worldwide fame by leading an attack on a McDonald's in southern France, epitomizes this attitude, in Mr. Adler's view. Mr. Bové led a delegation that appeared alongside Yasir Arafat during Israel's military assault on Mr. Arafat's headquarters a few months ago, but he made no condemnation of Palestinian encouragement of suicide bombings against Israelis. When he returned to France, he made a statement on the radio to the effect that the Mossad, Israel's secret service, was behind the attacks on synagogues in France — a view very close to the popular opinion in France that the Sept. 11 attacks were carried out by the C.I.A.
 
"These are the people who refused to show solidarity with the United States after 9/11 and who think of Israel as one expression of American opposition to the wretched of the earth," Mr. Adler said. "They're not technically anti-Semitic in what they say, but what they say is nasty and it's of concern."

STILL, those who see a revival of European anti-Semitism masked as sympathy for Palestinians or anti-Zionism argue that the obsessive attention to the moral worth of the tiny country of Israel echoes the special attention that the tiny minority of Jews received in centuries past.

"I have to wonder about people who compare Israelis to Nazis," said Elie Wiesel, the writer, Nobel Peace Prize winner and holocaust survivor. "I ask myself, why do they hate Israel, which is, after all, the Jewish state, so much?" And Martin Sieff of United Press International, surveying press coverage of Israel's reoccupation of Jenin, which came after a week of suicide bombings that killed 33 Israelis, accused West European newspapers of a "wild and remarkably uniform hysteria."

The Guardian, for example, editorialized that Israeli actions in Jenin were "every bit as repellent" as the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 against the United States, and many publications simply accepted as fact Palestinian accusations of massacres and atrocities.

Indeed, the death toll in the most recent Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which began in September 2000, is just over 2,000 people, roughly 1,500 of them Palestinian. That is a far lower number than in most of the world's conflicts, and a fact that makes condemnation of Israel in Europe seem all the more disproportionate.

For example, Rwanda and Congo have just signed a treaty that may end their war of intertribal slaughter. Hundreds of thousands of people have died, but at no point have editorial writers like Mr. Wilson "reluctantly" suggested that those countries should no longer exist.

Similarly, the Russian bombing of civilians in Chechnya and the Chinese policies in Tibet have elicited less moral outrage in Europe than Israel's actions.

Once again, the question is why.
 
tribal - don't c&p, post the link... it's probably why the last one disappeared.

edited to add - now you've put three in a row. if you flood the thread, nobody's going to bother reading it...
 
oh ok, the thing is, you need a user name and a pw to read any arrticles from the NY TImes, so i made it easier for people to read. sorry
 
Back to the bomb - it was interesting to hear the guy's interpretation of the leverage that the bomb gives Israel. He said that in the Six Day War the Israeli defence minister phoned Kissinger and said that if an airlift of weapons didn't start immediately, the Israelis would nuke everyone in sight. The airlift started about 3 hours later.

You mean the 1973 yom kippur war, not the 1967 six day war.

Another story from 1973 is:

Syria told Kissinger that they wanted Israel to withdraw its troops 100 km from the Syrian border, which would leave no Israeli troop presence in all Northern Israel. Israel didn't know how to respond so Kissinger suggested that Israel demand Syrian troops to withdraw 1000 km from the Israeli border - which would remove all Syrian troops from Syrian territory. Naturally the Syrians backed down.

Yet another story, or rather joke from 1973 is:

Rothschild had a daughter who wanted to get married. Kissinger decided to intervene.

He approached a poor man and told him that he could arrange a marriage for the poor man's son. The poor man was against until Kissinger told him she was Rothschild's daughter. "Well in that case..."

Kissinger then approached the head of the World Bank and recommended the poor man's son as a Vice President. The head of the World Bank was against until Kissinger told him he was Rothschild's son-in-law. "Well in that case..."

Finally, Kissinger went to Rothschild and said that he had a young man to marry his daughter. Rothschild was against until Kissinger told him he was already a vice president at the World Bank. "Well in that case..."
 
OK Ed. I accept that criticism. 'Shit' is a strong word. I'll substitute 'mess' instead.

The point I am making is - if there is a threat to Israel, what of it? For over 55 years we've had problems in that region since the formation of the Jewish State (and you just can't get away from that fact, given European guilt over their treatment of Jews before and during the war) and this fact is not something you can just erase away and expect the Arabs to fall into line.

Given this, what is the subject of this thread? Effectively how to keep the lid on an already volatile situation. So you point to a couple of rogue states and say they're dangerous. And then when you're finished with them, blame the others. We've had enough of Arafat and Hamas, so let us move on to Syria, Iraq, then Saudi, Yemen, Iran and what-have-you. Where does this all end?

Now if you take a solution-centred approach, you can tell this is not something that is going to work, because all you will do is heighten tensions in the long term and create division, and division always leads to war, which means that you don't get peace. And it is not something I want the West to be dragged into. The creation of Israel and the practice of Zionism is the problem here and time and again we in the West have been called to bail Israel out and support Israel morally, financially and militarily. Which means we've managed to alienate the whole Arab world and beyond. We're not doing ourselves any favours here.

Even if Syria and Iraq were as big a threat to Israel as strategist is making them out to be (and I don't believe that they are) then you have make the choice. The choice is whether we love the zionist endeavour so much that we are prepared to defend it come what may, or whether we start looking at this from a fresh approach and say to Israel that if Israel wants peace then a whole load of concessions are going to have to be made because otherwise we're not fighting Israel's wars.

The Palestinian Ambassador told his Jewish counterpart during a debate two weeks ago that Israel must be the least safe place in the world for Jews to live in. I agree entirely. We all have to ask whether supporting this endeavour really is in our interests.
 
PCS -

Okay, I agree with you to a great extent.

How to drive the point home, though? I get the feeling that for as long as the Israelis feel like they're constantly mobilised for war, they won't be able to accept peace. How do we change their minds, how do we make a situation in which peace is possible?

And just a little point on the nuclear weapon thing - don't you think there's a risk that the Israelis will escalate things if they don't get their own way with the West? I think it's a common tactic of theirs - it worked better then because of the Cold War, of course, but do you see what I mean?

But yeah, I think they'll only accept peace when they realise how isolated they've become and how hollow their 'victory' has become. That has some truth in it. I still wonder how to create an image of a better alternative to war in the Israeli psyche though - at the moment it's pretty much all they know.
 
H2O, I simply disagreed with you, and told you that the contents of a thread could not be narrowly prescribed. It can of course be kept on topic, but that is a different nuance.
That is what I meant by false foundations, and it wasn't intended as a personal attack on you, so apologies if it was taken that way. Bear in mind that many posters are in denial about 1948, and 2 of them are on this thread.

Therefore, I don't really think this was the correct response:
But if we can't have an adult debate at all, just because we disagree, maybe I shouldn't bother coming back to this site again.


That aside, my main issue with the analysis behind your post is the emphasis it placed on understanding the Israeli siege mentality, and hence on supportive persuasion.
While they undoubtedly do possess an element of that (ie. siege mentality), the defining feature of Israel's mentality is power and arrogance. They believe that the Arabs can be bulldozed aside with brute force on every issue, and that short term unpopularity in the wider world can be ridden out, and then erased from the public memory, once they have achieved their objectives.
The way to approach this Israeli mentality would be very different obviously, and it involves sanctions and condemnation (unless you want Hamas suicide bombs to be the only possible avenue of struggle for the Palestinians), coupled with support for those (few) Israelis who do speak out. Anything less will reinforce their belief in a policy of power.

This distinction is very important, and is the theme of many of my messages.

America will keep the guns and money flowing, but given Israel's size and geographical position, opprobium from the rest of the world can have a beneficial effect, in making the Israeli public face reality.

For any other readers, fantasies about a military threat to US/Israel are precisely that.


[Edited to add: I see the post you've made just above acknowledges all these points]
 
haha, PCS, when did Europe ever lift its finger to help the Israelis? it wasnt the europeans, it was the americans. so what you are suggesting, is the destruction of israel, because shits like you deem it 'unworthy' of existing. and now we go back to the same problem we ve had before. no homeland for the jewish people, who havent been treated very well. adding to that, you are completely ignoring the fact that Israel did exist in that region a long time ago, and you are ignoring that an Israel exists there today, whose people have deep religious and psychological connections to the land. the threats are real, i dont know where you get the idea that europe ever helps israel in its 'moral' or military agenda. its the opposite.

chirac refused to condemn Hezbollah, because they happen to do some social work in lebanon. forget that they kidnap, murder and attack israelis, after a full withdrawal. you want to see what the situation will be if israel completely wiithdraws from W bank and gaza, then take a look at the northern border. negotiations with terror cells are useless.
 
I would prefer to think that people like Paulin are just genuinely outraged at the policies of the Sharon government, and are merely using the strongest possible language they can summon to condemn it.

I'd prefer to believe that. But I can't. It seems to me that a lot of people who are otherwise consistently progressive/left/liberal on other issues simply want Israel to go away so they won't have to think about the Holocaust anymore. They're bored with it. Why do those Jews keep going on about the Holocaust all the time? Who cares? Depends if you've ever held your Aunt's 1936 German passport in your hands, I suppose, with a Swastika on the cover and the word "JUDE" stamped in red letters an inch high on the outside and over her face on the inside. A 12-year-old, God help us all. Funny how trivial stuff like that can affect people, isn't it? She was the only one who got out, we think. Ah well, what do I know. I'm just another "Zionazi," or so I'm told....
 
PCS,


The point I am making is - if there is a threat to Israel, what of it?

Nice to see that you're so willing to throw away 5 million Israeli lives into the garbage.


For over 55 years we've had problems in that region since the formation of the Jewish State

Israel is hardly the cause of all, or even most of the problems. It has been a factor, but illiteracy, human rights, women's rights, minority groups, etc. are hardly anything to be proud of. If Israel's neighbors had been deomcracies, would the situation have continued for 50 years? I don't think so.


Given this, what is the subject of this thread?

The subject of the thread is that there is a threat to Israel, and that Israeli citizens take it seriously. Therefore, when making peace with the Palestinians, security does not just mean security from terror. It also means security from Syria, Iraq and Iran. Now, when there are boycotts of Israeli products, Israelis perceive this as weakening Israel in its economic prosition and therefore overall security from rogue states. Therefore, Israelis are likely to respond negatively to boycotts. Now, the Israeli left is trying to convince Israelis to make peace, but boycotts hinder that effort.


The choice is whether we love the zionist endeavour so much that we are prepared to defend it come what may, or whether we start looking at this from a fresh approach and say to Israel that if Israel wants peace then a whole load of concessions are going to have to be made because otherwise we're not fighting Israel's wars.

Like I have told you so many times, the Israeli left (when it was in power) already made many many concessions. It cannot make any more, such as the right of return. This is why Arafat tried the Intifada strategy.

I understand what you are really saying here. Since the right of return will never be accepted, peace will never be achieved, and therefore the West should stop supporting the 'zionist endeavour'.

So, in order not to be destroyed (by losing Western support), Israel should accept demands that will destroy it (which the right of return is undoubtedly a code word for, as you have managed to convince me of).

Catch 22. QED.
 
Tribal, Europe suports Israel to the hilt, with trade and cultural links, and even military aid (although that is symbolic, since Israel is more powerful). Despite not being in Europe, Israel is a member of every pan-European institution, and has a favoured trade association with the EU (under which, even settlement goods are recognised as Israeli).

On the other hand, the EU is a party to the death blockade on Iraq, and many states have taken part in armed action against it.
Europeans have also outlawed every Arab group the US/Israel tell them to, incl Hizbullah (who are a constitutional Lebanese party, with no sinister religious program, and good relations with other communities).

Unlike in the US, European leaders don't compete in public calls to cleanse and bomb the Arabs.
If you think this is pro-Arab, then it just shows how skewed the US debate is.

The major difference between Europe and the US is public opinion, not the government policies.
 
h20.

I don't think the pressure needs to be put on Israel. It needs to be put on America. So far Israel has everything it needs so it can afford to do what it wants and be aggressive because everything is relatively risk-free. I think you can go a long way with this.
 
Back
Top Bottom