nuckin_futz Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 1 hour ago, slickjim23 said: So they're taking back what was once their land... Don't see any problem here... Carry on. You don't say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalky Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 4 hours ago, Kragar said: Some instances are found earlier in the thread, in the article posted by Heretic. Sinai and Gaza are mentioned. FYI, to any that care (and I was surprised to learn), The whole Sinai peninsula, which Israel held after the 6-day war, is larger (about 3 times) than Israel itself. It's way too oversimplified. My point wasn't about any land that was taken or conceded, it was about the motives for the actions...and reactions. I don't believe any of it was done in the name of peace. I'm not a Palestine apologist nor do I universally chastise Israel for all their foreign policy, but I struggle to accept assertions from working history backwards. In my opinion Israel's current policy is belligerent and untimely. An advantage of this timing for Israel is the possible destabilization the warming trend between the West and Tehran, who will be an ally in the fight against ISIS. The USA and Britain will be forced into damage control and will be pissed. If there is one thing Iran and Israel have in common, it's the joy they get from watching the other suffer. Jazz cherry picked a point that without context is irrelevant and then added a fictitious motivation. I sincerely wanted him to to the reading and back up the point he as making...if it interests him anyways. Peace to the Middle East. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancaster Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuckyLuciano Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 Was watching Misfits the other day and a Jewish man had traveled back in time to kill Hitler. Unfortunately for the man, he failed and dropped his smartphone in the past. Thus providing the Germans technology before its time and ultimately taking over the world. Which got me thinking, would any of this battle between Palestine and Isreal existed if Hitler had succeeded? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucklehead Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 Anyone else loving the transparency coming out of Jerusalem these days? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 14 hours ago, nuckin_futz said: You don't say. I actually left this thread at that comment because that comparison was soooo close to my heart it was just to easy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kragar Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 15 hours ago, Chalky said: It's way too oversimplified. My point wasn't about any land that was taken or conceded, it was about the motives for the actions...and reactions. I don't believe any of it was done in the name of peace. I'm not a Palestine apologist nor do I universally chastise Israel for all their foreign policy, but I struggle to accept assertions from working history backwards. In my opinion Israel's current policy is belligerent and untimely. An advantage of this timing for Israel is the possible destabilization the warming trend between the West and Tehran, who will be an ally in the fight against ISIS. The USA and Britain will be forced into damage control and will be pissed. If there is one thing Iran and Israel have in common, it's the joy they get from watching the other suffer. Jazz cherry picked a point that without context is irrelevant and then added a fictitious motivation. I sincerely wanted him to to the reading and back up the point he as making...if it interests him anyways. Peace to the Middle East. While giving that territory back was in the name of peace may be debatable, IMO the Arab world would have been going nuts if they saw Israel as expansionist. And if their forces and leadership were so much better than their opposition as it appeared back then, returning those lands can be seen as a sign that they just wanted to keep what was theirs, and for the rest of them to back off. Perhaps their current actions are ill-timed, but when their biggest ally has spent a good portion of the last 7 years bending over to the rest of the Middle East and being less of an ally to Israel, I can understand Israel being on edge and acting out (whether it is right or not). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxi Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 21 minutes ago, Kragar said: While giving that territory back was in the name of peace may be debatable, IMO the Arab world would have been going nuts if they saw Israel as expansionist. And if their forces and leadership were so much better than their opposition as it appeared back then, returning those lands can be seen as a sign that they just wanted to keep what was theirs, and for the rest of them to back off. Perhaps their current actions are ill-timed, but when their biggest ally has spent a good portion of the last 7 years bending over to the rest of the Middle East and being less of an ally to Israel, I can understand Israel being on edge and acting out (whether it is right or not). This news announcement actually has a lot more to do with whats going on inside Israel. There has been a recent increase in stabbing attacks, including an attack on a pregnant woman. In response to this, the government needs to be seen as challenging the attackers not backing down from them. This move doesn't really change much on the ground, as the settlers already live in the areas that Israel is "seizing". This move appeases settlers by politically legitimizing them. There's currently a stale mate between the Palestinians, who are saying they won't back down from using violence in response to Israelis expansion, and the Israelis who back down from expanding in response to violence. As far as the influence of outside powers go, Israel has realized that no matter what they do, the reaction to them will be the same. Therefore, they might as well just do whatever they can to shore up their own defences. This mentality has a lot to do with the bi-partisanship that has gripped Western politics. Different political parties will irrationally support or condemn Israel, so it gives them no motivation to appease anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kragar Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 3 minutes ago, taxi said: This news announcement actually has a lot more to do with whats going on inside Israel. There has been a recent increase in stabbing attacks, including an attack on a pregnant woman. In response to this, the government needs to be seen as challenging the attackers not backing down from them. This move doesn't really change much on the ground, as the settlers already live in the areas that Israel is "seizing". This move appeases settlers by politically legitimizing them. There's currently a stale mate between the Palestinians, who are saying they won't back down from using violence in response to Israelis expansion, and the Israelis who back down from expanding in response to violence. As far as the influence of outside powers go, Israel has realized that no matter what they do, the reaction to them will be the same. Therefore, they might as well just do whatever they can to shore up their own defences. This mentality has a lot to do with the bi-partisanship that has gripped Western politics. Different political parties will irrationally support or condemn Israel, so it gives them no motivation to appease anyone. Hadn't heard about the stabbings, so good to know. And, agreed on the last part. Even their allies pressure them on occasion, so Israel feels can only really trust themselves for their own defense, and anything else they get from the outside world is a bonus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DefCon1 Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 On 1/21/2016 at 6:58 AM, Fateless said: Honestly, you may as well just let them fight it out at this point. Westerns trying to influence politics in the Middle East is like University Professor trying to explain quantum physics to a 4 year old - they won't understand it nor do they care. Its not like the UN is being all that helpful anyways - everyone has skin in the game because different countries want different sides to prospoer, all we do by getting involved is make the situation even more convoluted. This should honestly just come down to the very basics of statehood via the Montevideo conception - what areas are held by which powers for a lengthy period of time with an established border, population and the ability to work on the international stage. Separate it either side disagrees - move in with the UN. Someone has to man up here and its not going to be Israel or Palestine. Israel has been giving land up for decades in the name of peace and Palestine is all "give give give" but never reciprocates in any way. This has lead to Israel no longer trusting or desiring to work with Palestine. Palestine just comes off greedy no matter which way you look at it - this isn't to say they don't deserve their own area, but I'm just pointing out that they'll never be content until Israel doesn't exist. Yes, cause the West was never at all interested in the oil money and the business side of it. Like putting a US puppet Shah in Iran in order to get the best oil deal. Give me a break, West's interest in the middle east was not about influencing politics, rather profiting from chaos, war and their natural resources. Also Palestine was a peaceful country until Israel was created and put on the map, thanks to the West again. Of course they wouldn't be content when the US sponsored UN just took some lands from Palestine and gave it to Israelis while making Palestine an illegitimate state. How would you like it if the UN took some Canadian lands and gave it to the Russians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxi Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 6 hours ago, DefCon1 said: Yes, cause the West was never at all interested in the oil money and the business side of it. Like putting a US puppet Shah in Iran in order to get the best oil deal. Give me a break, West's interest in the middle east was not about influencing politics, rather profiting from chaos, war and their natural resources. Also Palestine was a peaceful country until Israel was created and put on the map, thanks to the West again. Of course they wouldn't be content when the US sponsored UN just took some lands from Palestine and gave it to Israelis while making Palestine an illegitimate state. How would you like it if the UN took some Canadian lands and gave it to the Russians. At the time Israel was declared a nation, there was already a huge Jewish population. The Arab population had already been given a country called Jordan. There was also no pre-existing "Palestinian" state. It was territory that the UK seized after it dismantled the Ottoman Empire. Israel today is home to most of the Jews that lived in other parts of the Ottoman empire. It's hardly a fare comparison. A better comparison would be if Canada broke up into a bunch of smaller nations that favored one specific religion/ethnicity. Those other nations then began persecuting a minority group, then that minority group was given a small sliver of land to live on. That small sliver was then attacked by its neighbours, won that war and expanded its borders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.