Geo-Politics

[jjw]

as a brit we are born to help the underdogs mate,its all about fighting fairly.the middle east is a fucking nightmare on BOTH sides with the fanatics from both faiths being just as bad as each other.i fucking hate to see those palistianian toddlers wearing suicide belts!!the brits are too good to loose this war(it would never happon!)to israel unless America helped them out(no one can match your firepower!)we realy are the dogs bollox when it comes to trained killers,just need the american defence budget to match our skills to your harware
When the I.R.A bombed civvies over here on the main land in blighty did we behave as we are seeing in the middle east now!If we did it would mean bombing the fuck out of Dublin or even laying into Boston where a lot of green money turned into gun money.there is no need for this overkill aproach-mossad have the skills to do the work silently,i just wish out special forces from delts to speznaz teamed up and killed all these nutters silently with hardly anyone knowing about it-doing it the way we are at the moment anly makes there numbers bigger

[OnlineStageGear]

Israel has done everything short of surrendering ever bit of land they own for peace and nothing short of Israel's total removal would make the Islamic Extremists happy. I am glad to see Israel doing what they are doing. I am glad they finally said enough is enough. I give my total supprt of Israel.

[OnlineStageGear]

We also don't need to occupy the entire country to eliminate it as a military and economic threat. We can do that largely from the air and sea. We may take a few hits until we've sighted in on their air defense and command/control systems, then the next couple waves of US attacks will destroy those systems. Armies that can't communicate, or coordinate, will be cut apart. 100,000 US troops can beat a million Iranians that way, easily. With Israel's eager assistance we will cut their military to pieces.

Damn straight, and we can easily do that to every military threat in the middle east in a matter of a couple weeks.

[YetAnotherOne]

as a brit we are born to help the underdogs mate....

That's a noble goal but when two sides hate each other enough to go to war, and when at least one side is sworn to the absolute destruction of the other, does it really serve a high moral purpose to attempt to ensure balance between the acts of the underdog and the more powerful actor or does that merely guarantee that both sides will survive in a condition that allows them to participate in eternal conflict? There're some very interesting thoughts along those lines here. The money quote IMHO:

The advent of precision munitions created the public expectation that in future American wars, all targeting would be perfect. The press would be there to film every errant missile, bomb or shell. Ironically, the very existence of precision weapons implied to the Press, that all observed hits on nonmilitary targets were therefore deliberate. War Crimes. The possibility of error, even in an era of precision weapons, was not accepted. Ironically, the moral justification shifted from the precision bomber to the area bomber. Terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah, lacking sophisticated weapons, were now forgiven, even romanticized by the press for firing on civilian targets. 'What other weapon do poor men have?', they rhetorically asked, as if organizations funded by petro-dollars were somehow indigent, and men, having nothing to eat somehow found the spare change to buy billions in antiship missiles, drones, explosives and rockets. Nongovernment entitites with powers exceeding nations now attack women and children and we sing them sweetly on.The advent of precision munitions created the public expectation that in future American wars, all targeting would be perfect. The press would be there to film every errant missile, bomb or shell. Ironically, the very existence of precision weapons implied to the Press, that all observed hits on nonmilitary targets were therefore deliberate. War Crimes. The possibility of error, even in an era of precision weapons, was not accepted. Ironically, the moral justification shifted from the precision bomber to the area bomber. Terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah, lacking sophisticated weapons, were now forgiven, even romanticized by the press for firing on civilian targets. 'What other weapon do poor men have?', they rhetorically asked, as if organizations funded by petro-dollars were somehow indigent, and men, having nothing to eat somehow found the spare change to buy billions in antiship missiles, drones, explosives and rockets. Nongovernment entitites with powers exceeding nations now attack women and children and we sing them sweetly on.

[jjw]

yeahh fugit lets bomb Dublin and Boston while we are at it lads,good enough for Israel its good enough for anyone else

[toejam]

the really great thing is when threads about guitars get deleted too. it's particularly cool when threads are pruned and admins rewrite their posts. censor away...

Tim, you've had a problem with the other admins in the past and were suspended for a brief period. Wanna talk about it?

[jjw]

from experiance admins/mods do a good job on whole,they prob have a lot better things to do with their time than clean up here

[SeventhSon]

Israel has done everything short of surrendering ever bit of land they own for peace and nothing short of Israel's total removal would make the Islamic Extremists happy. I am glad to see Israel doing what they are doing. I am glad they finally said enough is enough. I give my total supprt of Israel.

(Usual disclaimers: I'm Republican, I voted for Bush, I am not an anti-Semite, etc.)

I wonder if most people understand the history of the Israeli state. After world war II, Palestine was ruled by Britain. At the time they had a policy of allowing Jews from Europe immigrate and buy land. In 1948, Britain decided to leave Palestine at which point they handed over the territory to the UN who carved out an Israeli state to all the Arabs objection. As soon as the Israeli state was declared by the UN, that's when the 1st war took place where Israel pretty much kicked everyone's ass. But in the process displaced over 600,000 arab citizens of the newly formed Israeli state from their HOMES into refugee camps where they still live today. The continuing unresolved fate of these israeli arabs is still a lightning rod of debate and embarassment among Jews that live in Israel.

Now many of you like to diss the UN (rightfully so). Imagine if the UN granted foreign landowners inside the US their own state inside our borders and those foreign landowners then kicked out US citizens from their homes. You would be a little pissed no?

Now, I'm not justifying the violence perpetuated by either side. But it's not like the Palestinians harbor hatred towards the Israeli state for no reason. Is it easy to create mindless radicals in such a emotionally charged situation like this? Probably. Doesn't mean I condone it. As with OJ, no reasonable person would ever condone his actions, but almost everyone can understand it. (plagiarized from Chris Rock).

A lot of that blind hatred is directed towards us because we are the biggest supporters of the israeli state. again, i'm not saying it's right, but i can understand it.

[Megadeth79]

(Usual disclaimers: I'm Republican, I voted for Bush, I am not an anti-Semite, etc.)

I wonder if most people understand the history of the Israeli state. After world war II, Palestine was ruled by Britain. At the time they had a policy of allowing Jews from Europe immigrate and buy land. In 1948, Britain decided to leave Palestine at which point they handed over the territory to the UN who carved out an Israeli state to all the Arabs objection. As soon as the Israeli state was declared by the UN, that's when the 1st war took place where Israel pretty much kicked everyone's ass. But in the process displaced over 600,000 arab citizens of the newly formed Israeli state from their HOMES into refugee camps where they still live today. The continuing unresolved fate of these israeli arabs is still a lightning rod of debate and embarassment among Jews that live in Israel.

Now many of you like to diss the UN (rightfully so). Imagine if the UN granted foreign landowners inside the US their own state inside our borders and those foreign landowners then kicked out US citizens from their homes. You would be a little pissed no?

Now, I'm not justifying the violence perpetuated by either side. But it's not like the Palestinians harbor hatred towards the Israeli state for no reason. Is it easy to create mindless radicals in such a emotionally charged situation like this? Probably. Doesn't mean I condone it. As with OJ, no reasonable person would ever condone his actions, but almost everyone can understand it. (plagiarized from Chris Rock).

A lot of that blind hatred is directed towards us because we are the biggest supporters of the israeli state. again, i'm not saying it's right, but i can understand it.

Perfect explanation. History tells us everything.

[SeventhSon]

Now many of you like to diss the UN (rightfully so). Imagine if the UN granted foreign landowners inside the US their own state inside our borders and those foreign landowners then kicked out US citizens from their homes. You would be a little pissed no?

Now here's the money shot. Imagine if those foreign landowners who were granted statehood by the UN inside the US...were Muslims.


I'm sure we'd all be holding hands and singing Kumbaya! :ROTF:

[YetAnotherOne]

Unfortunately for that view, the history of the region began before 1948.

Numerous accounts of pre-20th Century travelers to the Holy Land describe a desolate and very nearly deserted landscape. That should surprise absolutely no one since the land on which modern Israel sits was little more than a strategic waypoint that had passed via conquest from one empire to another for over a thousand years. Something about the perpetual march of hostile armies through the region had discouraged mass settlement.

In or around the mid-19th Century Jews began immigrating to the area where they *purchased* land on which to settle from the vanishingly few Arab subjects of the Ottoman Empire that actually inhabited the area. Large scale Arab immigration began only after the Jews were successful in establishing farms and some small industry. Then, as now, Arab society was an utter failure and Arabs moved into close proximity with the new Jewish landowners seeking the employment that their own societies could not offer them (OT: anyone else see the genesis of a few modern stereotypes in that?).

Unfortunately for the Ottoman Empire they chose to participate on the wrong side during WWI. British forces occupied an area from Baghdad to Jerusalem while the French occupied areas north (modern Lebanon and Syria). At approximately that point in time The League of Nations, the utterly useless predecessor to today's utterly useless United Nations, mandated the creation of a Jewish state comprised of modern Israel, Jordan, Gaza, and the West Bank, it's critically important to remember that the Jews had been moving to these areas and purchasing them for nearly a century.

Choosing to avoid provocation rather than follow international law, the British chose to ignore the LON's mandate as they had good relations with the Arabs who by this point were relatively more numerous than their Jewish landlords. This situation persisted until WWII. During that war the Arabs generally sided with the Axis powers (showing a remarkable propensity to choose losers which should surprise absolutely no one who has seen this part of the world in action). In fact the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (a Muslim) moved to Berlin and was a close confidant of Adolph Hitler as well as a very vocal supporter of Hitler's "final solution" for the Jews.

As a direct result of the Holocaust (remember which side the Arabs were generally on) the newly-formed United Nations took up the issue of a Jewish State in the late 1940s. Rather than following the original League of Nations mandate they chose to create Transjordan (modern Jordan) out of 80% of the land the League of Nations had mandated for a Jewish state. Modern Israel was formed from the remaining 20%, no word on how many Jews were dispossessed of their lands in the 80% of the LON mandate that was given to the Muslims.

Despite the fact that Jews had previously purchased a good portion of the land in question and despite the fact that Arab Muslims were given 80% of the land from the original LON mandate, Israel's new neighbors would tolerate no Jewish state of any size in their midst and launched a war of aggression less than a day after Israel's formation. Israel of course kicked everyone's ass quite severely and seized quite a lot of territory (e.g., in northern Egypt where Israel took and held an area five times its own size which was returned only in exchange for a peace treaty) all of which was returned to those nations who entered into peace treaties with Israel.

The original so-called "Palestinians" are Arabs that fled Israel believing that Muslim armies would crush the Jewish state and who fully expected to reclaim both their lands and those of the soon-to-be-dead Jews following the war. Israel asked their Muslim populations to stay put through the wars but few chose to do so. Expecting Israel to welcome with open arms persons who not only would not stand with them but who often openly sided with the Muslim invaders is asinine. Israel rightly closed the gates and did not allow large-scale reentry by these traitors following the various wars. There are, however, no accurate records of who was displaced and from where. An awful lot of Muslims have flooded into Gaza and the West Bank fully expecting the international community would someday force Israel allow all of these persons to enter Israel and claim lands, hence a great many of the so-called Palestinians are nothing more than Muslim opportunists who, once again, sided with the wrong team.

It's also important to note that the only free and independent Palestinian state governed by Muslims that has *EVER* existed in the entire history of the planet is the one Israel herself created out of her own territory in Gaza. And the Arabs continue to bitch. Whatever. Saying that Israel has no right to exist because it didn't exist before the late 1940s is no more defensible a position than saying that Muslims shouldn't be allowed to exist because they didn't exist before the 7th Century A.D.

[SeventhSon]

Your bias is obvious.

"Then, as now, Arab society was an utter failure".
"Israel rightly closed the gates and did not allow large-scale reentry by these traitors."

Must you spin everything into a Fox news editorial? Must every historical point you make also include a borderline racist comment against Arabs?

Take this paragraph

In or around the mid-19th Century Jews began immigrating to the area where they *purchased* land on which to settle from vanishingly few Arab subjects of the Ottoman Empire that actually inhabited the area. Large scale Arab immigration began only after the Jews were successful in establishing farms and some small industry. Then, as now, Arab society was an utter failure and Arabs moved into close proximity with the new Jewish landowners seeking the employment that their own societies could not offer them (OT: anyone else see the genesis of a few modern stereotypes in that?).

Here's my tongue in cheek spin...

In or around the mid-19th Century Jews began immigrating to the area where they "purchased" land from corrupt government British officials to help fund their occupation. Much to the surprise of the Arabs who were nomadic by nature and viewed the land as a shared resource, their way of life now crushed by owned settlements that destroyed their nomadic way of life, they were forced to live in these new settlements as servants to their new masters (OT: anyone else see a similar sequence of events in American history?)

You make a strong effort to make the point that land purchase/ownership somehow means a lot when deciding statehood. By that token should Hawaii fly the Japanese flag if the UN passes a resolution for it?

[YetAnotherOne]

Now here's the money shot. Imagine if those foreign landowners who were granted statehood by the UN inside the US...were Muslims.


I'm sure we'd all be holding hands and singing Kumbaya! :ROTF:

That's not a particularly accurate analogy. Closer would be a Mexican invasion of the United States that saw our illegal alien population take up arms in support of the Mexican cause and/or flee across the Mexican border seeking the sanctuary of that nation in the belief that it would win the war. But rather than losing as expected the US seizes Tamaulipas, Nuevo Leon, Coahuila, Chihuahua, Sonora, and the Baja but immediately returns them when Mexico signs a peace treaty. Thereafter Mexico demands that the US allow all illegals who had fled (along with any other Mexicans who care to claim that they had fled) the US and taken up arms against it to return. In response the US creates the state of Mexifornia stretching from roughly Los Angeles to San Diego and east to the Arizona border, allows all Mexicans who wish to to enter that area, then withdraws all US presence and allows the new state to govern itself. In response the Mexifornians import a great many arms from Venezuela and Cuba and commence shelling Phoenix and Tucson while on occasion staging raids into US territory. We, of course, would be expected to restrain ourselves and not respond against the poor dispossessed Mexifornians.

[SeventhSon]

That's not a particularly accurate analogy. Closer would be a Mexican invasion of the United States that saw our illegal alien population take up arms in support of the Mexican cause and/or flee across the Mexican border seeking the sanctuary of that nation in the belief that it would win the war. But rather than losing as expected the US seizes Tamaulipas, Nuevo Leon, Coahuila, Chihuahua, Sonora, and the Baja but immediately returns them when Mexico signs a peace treaty. Thereafter Mexico demands that the US allow all illegals who had fled (along with any other Mexicans who care to claim that they had fled) the US and taken up arms against it to return. In response the US creates the state of Mexifornia stretching from roughly Los Angeles to San Diego and east to the Arizona border, allows all Mexicans who wish to to enter that area, then withdraws all US presence and allows the new state to govern itself. In response the Mexifornians import a great many arms from Venezuela and Cuba and commence shelling Phoenix and Tucson while on occasion staging raids into US territory. We, of course, would be expected to restrain ourselves and not respond against the poor dispossessed Mexifornians.

No a better analogy would be the Mexicans attacking Baja peninsula after the UN decrees that the Baja peninisula is now the independent state of Waboria. In the process, many FAMILIES afraid for their lives of their children travel to their relatives' homes who live elsewhere in Mexico (surprise) and are now unable to return having been labeled as traitors by the victorious Waborites who proceed to take over their homes.

[YetAnotherOne]

Your bias is obvious.

As is yours. If mine is Fox News yours is al Jazeera or perhaps International A.N.S.W.E.R.

"Then, as now, Arab society was an utter failure".

"Israel rightly closed the gates and did not allow large-scale reentry by these traitors."

Must every historical point you make also include a borderline racist comment against Arabs?.

Name a significant achievement or contribution to the world (other than oil) made by Arabs living in an area where Arab culture in predominant in the last 50 years. No? The last 100 then? You'll find that the research will provide slim pickings for a rebuttal.

You’re confusing criticism with racism. It's not the least bit racist to point out that some cultures are failures (clearly the 'net needs a new Godwin's law but pertaining to the terms "racism", "racist", etc.). It's not politically correct and it certainly doesn't align well with the strictures of multiculturalism but I don't labor under that belief system's wrongheaded assertion that every culture is of equal worth because it simply isn't true. Arab culture certainly isn't the only failure but it was the only one relevant to the present discussion. There are many other backward-looking belief systems that will perpetually prevent the progress of those persons unfortunate enough to labor under them and so long as the world at large persists in claiming that there's nothing wrong with them they'll never advance at anything like the pace of the developed world. In the long run forcing failed cultures to face their shortcomings will do much for the peace, stability, and progress of the human race while facilitating their continued denial of the obvious will have precisely the opposite effect (eg the current conflict in the Middle East). Of course most Arab immigrants to the US are more successful than most US born persons, it's not the racial stock, it's the culture.

As for the “traitors” (I'll stick with that term as it is accurate), Israel as a sovereign nation has every right to refuse entry to anyone they damn well please, most especially those who emigrated in favor of hostile enemies rather than staying to defend the nation to which they now wish to lay claim. The real problem isn't the land it's the fact that Israel in its very short history easily passed up the achievements it had taken many centuries for their neighbors to secure. Israel is a constant reminder to everyone else in the region of their own failures and shortcomings.

In or around the mid-19th Century Jews began immigrating to the area where they "purchased" land from corrupt government British officials to help fund their occupation.

You'd have been hard-pressed to find a Brit of any sort much less a British official in that part of the Ottoman Empire in the 19th century. The sellers were Arab subjects of the Empire (not the British Empire) not some imagined European ruling class.

You make a strong effort to make the point that land purchase/ownership somehow means a lot when deciding statehood. By that token should Hawaii fly the Japanese flag if the UN passes a resolution for it?

I pointed out the fact that the Jews purchased a good deal of the land on which modern Israel sits before the UN formally created the Jewish state not as an endorsement of the concept that land purchase is the only valid way for a state to expand its territory, but because there's an ingrained mythology that innocent Arabs were forcibly removed from their lands while millions of evil Jews with no prior claim to the area poured in. That's a very incorrect conception but it underpins the understanding of many who assert the view you posted above, as such it was worth commenting on.

There are plenty of perfectly valid ways for a nation to gain lands. One you might find interesting is the Law of Conquest (you'll find a more detailed description in the first 10-20 pages of pretty much any Real Property casebook). It's essentially exactly what it sounds like: if you kick someone's ass you get to take away their toys. The modern conception of the victor giving the loser's lands back and rebuilding the losing nation then leaving is the aberration rather than the norm. The longstanding rules of war would have justified Israel's keeping every square inch of land they took away from the Arab states that repeatedly attacked them. That they chose to voluntarily relinquish those claims is almost unprecedented, particularly given that Israel is approximately the size of a postage stamp.