The Israeli government dug this hole they're in. They've repeatedly fucked over the Palestinians for decades, stolen land and resources, ignored Palestinian attempts at peace and broken pretty much every agreement they've made.
The Palestinians fucked up their fair share of agreements as well.
While I don't approve of Israel's actions, the nations surrounding them have an irrational hatred of them and since Israel's inception have been trying to wipe them off the map. Honestly the whole thing is a clusterfuck.
Good job on ignoring 2500 years of history.
Okay whatever I didn't know I have to point out the incredibly long religious conflict with Jerusalem, or the equally long amount of existance of anti-semitism.
I thought we were just talking about the current nation of Israel and the conflicts involving it.
Thank you for being a wise ass though.
I'm not talking about the religious conflict. At all. I'm responding to your insane assertion that the intense dislike that Israel's neighbours have for it is irrational. It's not irrational - it's actually to be expected, given the history of the region for the past 2500 years. Even if we limit ourselves to the 20th century, one can fairly easily get a handle on why there is alot of Israel-hate. Let me give you a hint: it has very little to do with hating jews because they are jews, and alot more to do with a history of foreign oppression and injustice.
...which is then vented on a nation that pretty much had nothing to do with it.
The primary body which decided on the legitimacy of Ben Gurion's State of Israel was the UN, which included the arab states. Quite frankly if they had just accepted international decision instead of going gung ho then Israel wouldn't have expanded to its 1948 borders, and if they did then Israel would have been considered at fault for expanding on to the territory of the future Palestinian state.
Yeah, colonization was a fucked up idea, but are you saying that that hate extended for 60 years to a state that never claimed anything south of the Suez north of the Golan or east of the Jordan River?
I would think that Israel has been used more as a scapegoat in the past 60 years by incompetent leaders.
While I don't approve of Israel's actions, the nations surrounding them have an irrational hatred of them and since Israel's inception have been trying to wipe them off the map. Honestly the whole thing is a clusterfuck.
Good job on ignoring 2500 years of history.
Okay whatever I didn't know I have to point out the incredibly long religious conflict with Jerusalem, or the equally long amount of existance of anti-semitism.
I thought we were just talking about the current nation of Israel and the conflicts involving it.
Thank you for being a wise ass though.
I'm not talking about the religious conflict. At all. I'm responding to your insane assertion that the intense dislike that Israel's neighbours have for it is irrational. It's not irrational - it's actually to be expected, given the history of the region for the past 2500 years. Even if we limit ourselves to the 20th century, one can fairly easily get a handle on why there is alot of Israel-hate. Let me give you a hint: it has very little to do with hating jews because they are jews, and alot more to do with a history of foreign oppression and injustice.
...which is then vented on a nation that pretty much had nothing to do with it.
The primary body which decided on the legitimacy of Ben Gurion's State of Israel was the UN, which included the arab states. Quite frankly if they had just accepted international decision instead of going gung ho then Israel wouldn't have expanded to its 1948 borders, and if they did then Israel would have been considered at fault for expanding on to the territory of the future Palestinian state.
Yeah, colonization was a fucked up idea, but are you saying that that hate extended for 60 years to a state that never claimed anything south of the Suez north of the Golan or east of the Jordan River?
I would think that Israel has been used more as a scapegoat in the past 60 years by incompetent leaders.
So, when are you going to present me with the BBC logs of ME radio transmissions for that time period?
While I don't approve of Israel's actions, the nations surrounding them have an irrational hatred of them and since Israel's inception have been trying to wipe them off the map. Honestly the whole thing is a clusterfuck.
Good job on ignoring 2500 years of history.
Okay whatever I didn't know I have to point out the incredibly long religious conflict with Jerusalem, or the equally long amount of existance of anti-semitism.
I thought we were just talking about the current nation of Israel and the conflicts involving it.
Thank you for being a wise ass though.
I'm not talking about the religious conflict. At all. I'm responding to your insane assertion that the intense dislike that Israel's neighbours have for it is irrational. It's not irrational - it's actually to be expected, given the history of the region for the past 2500 years. Even if we limit ourselves to the 20th century, one can fairly easily get a handle on why there is alot of Israel-hate. Let me give you a hint: it has very little to do with hating jews because they are jews, and alot more to do with a history of foreign oppression and injustice.
...which is then vented on a nation that pretty much had nothing to do with it.
The primary body which decided on the legitimacy of Ben Gurion's State of Israel was the UN, which included the arab states. Quite frankly if they had just accepted international decision instead of going gung ho then Israel wouldn't have expanded to its 1948 borders, and if they did then Israel would have been considered at fault for expanding on to the territory of the future Palestinian state.
Yeah, colonization was a fucked up idea, but are you saying that that hate extended for 60 years to a state that never claimed anything south of the Suez north of the Golan or east of the Jordan River?
I would think that Israel has been used more as a scapegoat in the past 60 years by incompetent leaders.
So, when are you going to present me with the BBC logs of ME radio transmissions for that time period?
...which is then vented on a nation that pretty much had nothing to do with it.
The primary body which decided on the legitimacy of Ben Gurion's State of Israel was the UN, which included the arab states. Quite frankly if they had just accepted international decision instead of going gung ho then Israel wouldn't have expanded to its 1948 borders, and if they did then Israel would have been considered at fault for expanding on to the territory of the future Palestinian state.
Yeah, colonization was a fucked up idea, but are you saying that that hate extended for 60 years to a state that never claimed anything south of the Suez north of the Golan or east of the Jordan River?
I would think that Israel has been used more as a scapegoat in the past 60 years by incompetent leaders.
So, when are you going to present me with the BBC logs of ME radio transmissions for that time period?
:?:
What?
Which one?
Also, what?
The logs that would show the broadcasts indicating naked aggression. The BBC was monitoring public radio broadcasts at that period.
Israel did blast the crap out of Hezbollah, but what they didn't realize was how embedded Hebollah was in the cilivian population. The israeli intelligence agency is good at counterterrorism, not setting up a war, considering that they haven't worked to perfection since 1967.
Bullshit. They just decided that anything which could potentially supply anyone from Hezbollah with anything--including food, water, or medical attention--was "terrorist infrastructure," and bombed the shit out of it, and that anyone who didn't leave the area as soon as they decided to bomb it was a terrorist.
Okay, lets try this again.
The north was pretty much left alone despite the supply routes going through there to resupply Hezbollah during the war. If Israel was on some murderous rampage with the intention of killing everyone in Lebanon then they would have done so, but instead they targeted an enemy who primarily fought within the civilian population and hid himself after he launched a rocket. Declaring that they killed everyone who didn't evacuate is a boldfaced lie.
"Baldfaced." And Israel just happened to decide that water treatment facilities, bridges necessary for any sort of supplies to get across, and power plants constituted "terrorist infrastructure." Seriously, how fucking ridiculous can you get? Their kill rate of actual Hezbollah fighters was somewhere around, what, 10%? Whereas Hezbollah managed to maintain a kill rate at about 90% soldiers. Gee, who's supposed to be the good guys, again?
Israel, like the US and most other nations, does not imbed its military forces in civilian populations because, surprised, imbedding soldiers in civilian populations tends to raise civilian casualties in the case of armed conflict to unacceptable levels.
Groups like Hezbollah purposefully place themselves around civilians to ensure that there are civilian casualties if there is retaliation. Then, they can say "look at those horrible imperialist pigs! Killing civilians for no reason!"
I place the blood firmly on their hands in many cases. Israel certainly reacted heavy handedly and should not have used cluster bombs. At the same time, Hezbollah fighters who fired rockets from areas with civilians whom they knew would be caught in the crossfire are ultimately responsible for the civilians killed. They could very easily build fortified positions away from civilians. They CHOOSE NOT TO for propaganda and recruiting purposes.
That said, the use of anti-semitism and hair-triggering invocation of the Holocaust are definitely in evidence. I was called an anti-Semite in a facebook group supporting Israel's right to exist for suggesting that the IDF has been guilty of atrocities and should be far, far more careful in what weaponry they use in certain situations. That, also for suggesting that Palestinians were shafted pretty badly and have a legitimate claim to that land as well (though I think a 2 state solution is ultimately the best idea).
Let me give you a hint: it has very little to do with hating jews because they are jews, and alot more to do with a history of foreign oppression and injustice.
Give me a hint as to how the "2500 years" figure plays into that.
Given that Israel has mandatory military participation, i find it odd how you can distinguish between Israeli civilians and soldiers. Not that it isnt odd how we ingore the ecomonic engine that fuels the war and just look at the wheels as they turn as legitimate targets.
Given that Israel has mandatory military participation, i find it odd how you can distinguish between Israeli civilians and soldiers. Not that it isnt odd how we ingore the ecomonic engine that fuels the war and just look at the wheels as they turn as legitimate targets.
But with Hezbollah, this is much less the case.
You'd distinguish about the same way as in the US. An active-duty soldier is a legitimate target; the 70 year old ex-Army guy isn't.
And ignoring the economic engine is a good thing, in general. If you don't you end up with conflicts like WW2. The Soviet Union in that war lost over twenty MILLION civilians, Germany over 6 million.
I suppose it would make the Middle East situation somewhat "simpler", because Isreal, by following those rules, could have just firebombed every country around them into ruins back in the 60s..
My reading of what Israel was trying to do in Lebanon was this:
Place civil population under as most hardship as possible, and hope they turn on Hezbollah while also attacking Hezbollah's strongholds, and hope for as much US cover as they can get.
Elki on
0
Options
EmbraceThePingひきこもりWhere the Crabbits and the Iz roam and the Jungle Queen rules the plainsRegistered Userregular
edited August 2007
Wow. An impartial and empathetic look at the situation in the middle east, taking into consideration nearly a century of meddling by outside political powers with a deep and subjective understanding of the persecution and bigotry present on both sides.
/me reads thread
.... or perhaps not.
Wisdom. Read at your own peril!
Opinions are like arseholes.
Everyone has one but they shouldn't necessarily be 'aired' in public.
...which is then vented on a nation that pretty much had nothing to do with it.
The primary body which decided on the legitimacy of Ben Gurion's State of Israel was the UN, which included the arab states. Quite frankly if they had just accepted international decision instead of going gung ho then Israel wouldn't have expanded to its 1948 borders, and if they did then Israel would have been considered at fault for expanding on to the territory of the future Palestinian state.
Yeah, colonization was a fucked up idea, but are you saying that that hate extended for 60 years to a state that never claimed anything south of the Suez north of the Golan or east of the Jordan River?
I would think that Israel has been used more as a scapegoat in the past 60 years by incompetent leaders.
So, when are you going to present me with the BBC logs of ME radio transmissions for that time period?
:?:
What?
Which one?
Also, what?
The logs that would show the broadcasts indicating naked aggression. The BBC was monitoring public radio broadcasts at that period.
..Are...are you trying to say that Israel initiated its own independance war? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Israeli_War
"The Syrians, Egyptians, Iraqis, and Lebanese invaded the territory of the newly created state of Israel. "
"In the immediate aftermath of the United Nations' approval of the Partition plan, the explosions of joy amongst the Jewish community were counterbalanced by the expression of discontent amongst the Arab community."
I mean, the Arab's invaded Israel when Israel declared itself based on the UN partition. I'm sorry I don't understand what you're trying to say, could you please elaborate?
Israel, like the US and most other nations, does not imbed its military forces in civilian populations because, surprised, imbedding soldiers in civilian populations tends to raise civilian casualties in the case of armed conflict to unacceptable levels.
Groups like Hezbollah purposefully place themselves around civilians to ensure that there are civilian casualties if there is retaliation. Then, they can say "look at those horrible imperialist pigs! Killing civilians for no reason!"
The far more sane option for why not to build giant bases when attacking a country with far more military than you do:
Why give them an easy target.
Every rebellion group ever has hidden. There's NO reason to make a bunker with giant neon signs saying "REBEL BASE HERE" when your enemy has precision ordinance. Heck, we didn't even do it in the American Revolution, because announcing our location to a larger force would have been Retarded.
Essentially, while they're at fault for launching weapons from towns, Israel's weaponry is FAR more advanced as far as targeting launch sites goes, but Israel insists on using wide area weaponry in response to try and convince everyone not to fuck with them. It backfires. It also doesn't help that if someone launches weapons, they're going to LEAVE THE AREA. So why would you bombard it later, the guys who attacked you are gone, your Only target remaining are civilians. See: Shelling a fucking public beach, strafing apartment complexes with dumbfire rockets. When you have an advanced intelligence agency notorious for it's ability to assassinate people, why is the retailiation choice "kill everyone" instead of "snipe the dude who pulled the trigger". One makes everyone hate you, the other makes your little terrorist friends VERY afraid of shadows.
I hate Israel for all the reasons I like Israel; I like democracy and high living standards, and they make sure they provide both to their citizens. But their actions while dealing certain neighbors make it seem that they're determined those people never see either.
So yes, Israel, I like your democracy, but everyone who says "Israel is a democracy!" to excuse your actions should eat a dick and die. And you should probably eat a dick and die, too. Shaping up would probably be the better option, though.
Isreal's war against Lebanon was supposed to be a test run of our plan against Iran. Let the Air Force bomb the fuck out of everyone and then declare victory.
It didn't quite work out that well. The concept of "airpower" as a doctrine and a tactic is fucking ridiculous. No one ever held ground with air support alone, I'll tell you that much.
I'll go out on a limb and say Hezbollah produces the finest light infantry soldiers in the world, hand down. And that war was a light infantryman's battle field, and Isreal drove those nice heavy, shiny tanks right in there and thought Hezbollah would be too scared to respond.
Note to Isreali Commanders - You're not driving over Palestinians throwing rocks.
Let me give you a hint: it has very little to do with hating jews because they are jews, and alot more to do with a history of foreign oppression and injustice.
Give me a hint as to how the "2500 years" figure plays into that.
Also, I agree with everything sanstodo said.
Sure. The Jews and the other non-Jewish inhabitants of the Levant area have been in conflict for the majority of the last 2500 years. You've got all that awesome business in the Old Testament, and then you have the aftermath of Alexander the Great's conquest - the Diodochi explicitly antagonized both the Jews and the non-Jewish inhabitants in that area of the world in an attempt to destabilize one another. Then there's Antiochus IV's repression of the Jews and the resulting Maccabee revolt. The destruction of the temple by the Romans and the Great Diaspora that followed, and then 2000 or so years when it sucked to be a Jew even in the area of Israel. There is a whole history of collective hate and remembrance of atrocities committed against the Jewish people that makes it hard to take a step back and look at things without playing the anti-semitic card or being a complete douchebag (re: Palestinians).
Then of course you have the slightly important fact that more Jews lived in Europe, Anatolia, Persia, and then America than Israel from the time of the destruction of the Temple by the Romans until the end of the First World War - which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it can be fairly annoying for the people who have lived in that area of the world for more than 2000 years having these completely foreign individuals come back, proclaim "We're home, this is ours, get the fuck out" and then proceed to completely fuck over the people already there.
I'm going to have to go out on a limb here when I say this, but how the fuck can anyone call the dislike of the state of Israel irrational given all that has happened between the Jewish and non-Jewish inhabitants of the Levant?
I hate to be a dick, but every rebel group ever has not hidden.
Which haven't (and didn't VASTLY outnumber the enemy?)
The US during the revolutionary war slept in civilian housing at the outset (before they had a solid army and actual training camps), and fired from civilian buildings.
They were not trying to use civilians as a shield, it's just that they didn't have anything else to use.
Beyond that, who the heck didn't hide from an overwhelming enemy force as a rebel group? Who just stood there and got pounded by 4x their numbers without being wiped off the map?
Perhaps "irrational" wasn't the appropiate word, but Israel was established due to UN policy making.
What did all the Arab nations surrounding it do in response?
Try to wipe the fledgling state off the map in the Arab-Israeli Wars. What happened was Israel put up a fight and even made some expansions before giving them back.
I'd hardly call that situation the Jews coming in and saying "ok guys we're back GTFO." The state was established by the major powers of the UN. The Arab nations that disagreed with such establishment shouldn't have taken it out on the Israeli's.
However Israel nowadays in the current conflicts has been acting heavy-handed and for the most part are unjustified reactions.
Perhaps "irrational" wasn't the appropiate word, but Israel was established due to UN policy making.
What did all the Arab nations surrounding it do in response?
Try to wipe the fledgling state off the map in the Arab-Israeli Wars. What happened was Israel put up a fight and even made some expansions before giving them back.
I'd hardly call that situation the Jews coming in and saying "ok guys we're back GTFO." The state was established by the major powers of the UN. The Arab nations that disagreed with such establishment shouldn't have taken it out on the Israeli's.
However Israel nowadays in the current conflicts has been acting heavy-handed and for the most part are unjustified reactions.
This is part of the problem with Isreal. That wars 30 years ago are justification for heavy handed actions today.
The Jews and the other non-Jewish inhabitants of the Levant area have been in conflict for the majority of the last 2500 years.
There was a largely peaceful migration of jews into Ottoman-controlled Israel shortly before the first world war. I think you're basically taking a few notable conflicts and using them to make some point about how the jews get along with the arabs--as if either were culturally or politically continuous over such an absurdly long timespan. The Jews at the time the temple was destroyed have nothing to do with modern Jews.
...which is then vented on a nation that pretty much had nothing to do with it.
The primary body which decided on the legitimacy of Ben Gurion's State of Israel was the UN, which included the arab states. Quite frankly if they had just accepted international decision instead of going gung ho then Israel wouldn't have expanded to its 1948 borders, and if they did then Israel would have been considered at fault for expanding on to the territory of the future Palestinian state.
Yeah, colonization was a fucked up idea, but are you saying that that hate extended for 60 years to a state that never claimed anything south of the Suez north of the Golan or east of the Jordan River?
I would think that Israel has been used more as a scapegoat in the past 60 years by incompetent leaders.
So, when are you going to present me with the BBC logs of ME radio transmissions for that time period?
:?:
What?
Which one?
Also, what?
The logs that would show the broadcasts indicating naked aggression. The BBC was monitoring public radio broadcasts at that period.
..Are...are you trying to say that Israel initiated its own independance war? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Israeli_War
"The Syrians, Egyptians, Iraqis, and Lebanese invaded the territory of the newly created state of Israel. "
"In the immediate aftermath of the United Nations' approval of the Partition plan, the explosions of joy amongst the Jewish community were counterbalanced by the expression of discontent amongst the Arab community."
I mean, the Arab's invaded Israel when Israel declared itself based on the UN partition. I'm sorry I don't understand what you're trying to say, could you please elaborate?
What I'm trying to say is that one of the major pieces of evidence about the attack being an assault - that the Arab states sent a radio message telling the Palestinians that they would remove Israel cannot be documented. And when you look at such incidents such as Deir Yassin, it becomes clear that things are not nearly as cut and dried as you believe.
Perhaps "irrational" wasn't the appropiate word, but Israel was established due to UN policy making.
What did all the Arab nations surrounding it do in response?
Try to wipe the fledgling state off the map in the Arab-Israeli Wars. What happened was Israel put up a fight and even made some expansions before giving them back.
I'd hardly call that situation the Jews coming in and saying "ok guys we're back GTFO." The state was established by the major powers of the UN. The Arab nations that disagreed with such establishment shouldn't have taken it out on the Israeli's.
However Israel nowadays in the current conflicts has been acting heavy-handed and for the most part are unjustified reactions.
This is part of the problem with Isreal. That wars 30 years ago are justification for heavy handed actions today.
Perhaps "irrational" wasn't the appropiate word, but Israel was established due to UN policy making.
What did all the Arab nations surrounding it do in response?
Try to wipe the fledgling state off the map in the Arab-Israeli Wars. What happened was Israel put up a fight and even made some expansions before giving them back.
I'd hardly call that situation the Jews coming in and saying "ok guys we're back GTFO." The state was established by the major powers of the UN. The Arab nations that disagreed with such establishment shouldn't have taken it out on the Israeli's.
However Israel nowadays in the current conflicts has been acting heavy-handed and for the most part are unjustified reactions.
This is part of the problem with Isreal. That wars 30 years ago are justification for heavy handed actions today.
Isreal's war against Lebanon was supposed to be a test run of our plan against Iran. Let the Air Force bomb the fuck out of everyone and then declare victory.
It didn't quite work out that well. The concept of "airpower" as a doctrine and a tactic is fucking ridiculous. No one ever held ground with air support alone, I'll tell you that much.
I'll go out on a limb and say Hezbollah produces the finest light infantry soldiers in the world, hand down. And that war was a light infantryman's battle field, and Isreal drove those nice heavy, shiny tanks right in there and thought Hezbollah would be too scared to respond.
Note to Isreali Commanders - You're not driving over Palestinians throwing rocks.
Well, you can win certain wars with air power extremely effectively, so it's not necessarily a terrible doctrine, just stupid for the wars we fight nowadays. In "normal" wars, technology has gotten to the point that wars would be fought almost entirely in the air because controlling it means you can fuck with the ground without fear of retaliation.
We're just not in a normal war, and neither is Israel. Hearts and minds, people, hearts and minds.
Well, you can win certain wars with air power extremely effectively, so it's not necessarily a terrible doctrine, just stupid for the wars we fight nowadays. In "normal" wars, technology has gotten to the point that wars would be fought almost entirely in the air because controlling it means you can fuck with the ground without fear of retaliation.
We're just not in a normal war, and neither is Israel. Hearts and minds, people, hearts and minds.
Yeah, you can win certain wars with airpower. Lines of tanks in the desert being sniped by A-10 Warthogs being one such example. As far as bombing population centers and thinking you're going to subdue the populace through that while your tanks roll through their cities like you did with the Palestinians? Not so much.
Basically my argument here is that Isreal got what it deserved in spades. It suffered from the same problem the US military is currently dealing with right now: Air Force brass claiming that they can bomb everybody into submission and no ground troops are needed. However, when this dosen't work its the Army and Marines who have to go in and fix the mess the Air Force caused.
Its no surprise that the dude who was in charge of the Lebanon Invasion was an Air Force general. Much like my consternation that Richard Meyers, an Air Force general, was the head of the Joint Chiefs during much of the Iraqi Invasion.
Also, this from Wikipedia, in regards to the Revolt of the Admirals:
The generals of the newly-formed Air Force proposed the doctrine that strategic bombing, particularly with nuclear weapons, was all that would be needed to win any future war.
This kind of thinking never went away, believe it or not.
I'm going to have to go out on a limb here when I say this, but how the fuck can anyone call the dislike of the state of Israel irrational given all that has happened between the Jewish and non-Jewish inhabitants of the Levant?
I agree that that's a poor choice of words to use. I suppose I could see irrationality being a component of the feelings towards Israel and/or the Jews (where things like The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and other such littanies come into play), but I would certainly never label the entire sentiment irrational.
I'm going to have to go out on a limb here when I say this, but how the fuck can anyone call the dislike of the state of Israel irrational given all that has happened between the Jewish and non-Jewish inhabitants of the Levant?
I agree that that's a poor choice of words to use. I suppose I could see irrationality being a component of the feelings towards Israel and/or the Jews (where things like The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and other such littanies come into play), but I would certainly never label the entire sentiment irrational.
I'd say that a "wipe Israel off the map" position is irrational if not barbaric, given what the will happen in the process of doing that. That sort of agenda is going to lead to a lot of suffering for the Arabs before they either switch positions, or it is finally decided militarily. Unfortunately, too much of the region has that sentiment, especially among those on the outside with a lot less risk of reprisal than the Palestinians.
Israel's got blood on its hands, but that is rather unsurprising giving the position it is in. I can see why people who aren't irrationally anti-semitic have qualms about them or some of their activities, but that historian suggested that there aren't a whole lot of good options on the table at the moment. There needs to be an alternative to a choice between corrupt or crazy for the Palestinians.
I'm going to have to go out on a limb here when I say this, but how the fuck can anyone call the dislike of the state of Israel irrational given all that has happened between the Jewish and non-Jewish inhabitants of the Levant?
I agree that that's a poor choice of words to use. I suppose I could see irrationality being a component of the feelings towards Israel and/or the Jews (where things like The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and other such littanies come into play), but I would certainly never label the entire sentiment irrational.
So past wars and conflicts (some as many as 2500 years) justify aggressive actions taken in the current time? So when Greece gears up and attacks Turkey for wiping out the Byzantine Empire (only 500 odd years ago), this isn't completely irrational? The very idea that past warfare and conflicts in any way justifies new violence sickens me beyond belief (especially some of the beyond ancient history that someone cited going back to first temple, etc.). It's like the Clampett and McCoy feud times 1000. Seriously, if some redneck families were killing each other because of shit that happened 100 years ago (your granpappy shot mine, etc.) people on these boards would be lining up to ridicule these backward swamp denizens. However, if the retaliation is on a larger scale and is based on actions hundreds of years ago (sometimes thousands) it's a different story apparently. Man, I can't wait to drive down south and shoot some southerners because my ancestors died in the civil war. No irrationality here! And the Germans and the Japanese, they should be globally ostracised for their actions that occurred only 50 years ago!
If people want to shit on Israel for actions they have recently taken or continue to take that is fine. Trying to justify violence based on shit way in the past just perpetuates a never-ending cycle of violence (and that has worked so well in the Middle East).
I'd say that a "wipe Israel off the map" position is irrational if not barbaric, given what the will happen in the process of doing that.
If that's a reference to Ahmedinejad, it was a mistranslation. His actual words were, "this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".
In his speech, Ahmadinejad declares that Zionism is the West's apparatus of political oppression against Muslims. He says the "Zionist regime" was imposed on the Islamic world as a strategic bridgehead to ensure domination of the region and its assets. Palestine, he insists, is the frontline of the Islamic world's struggle with American hegemony, and its fate will have repercussions for the entire Middle East.
Ahmadinejad acknowledges that the removal of America's powerful grip on the region via the Zionists may seem unimaginable to some, but reminds the audience that, as Khomeini predicted, other seemingly invincible empires have disappeared and now only exist in history books. He then proceeds to list three such regimes that have collapsed, crumbled or vanished, all within the last 30 years:
(1) The Shah of Iran- the U.S. installed monarch
(2) The Soviet Union
(3) Iran's former arch-enemy, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein
In the first and third examples, Ahmadinejad prefaces their mention with Khomeini's own words foretelling that individual regime's demise. He concludes by referring to Khomeini's unfulfilled wish: "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time. This statement is very wise". This is the passage that has been isolated, twisted and distorted so famously. By measure of comparison, Ahmadinejad would seem to be calling for regime change, not war.
I'm going to have to go out on a limb here when I say this, but how the fuck can anyone call the dislike of the state of Israel irrational given all that has happened between the Jewish and non-Jewish inhabitants of the Levant?
I agree that that's a poor choice of words to use. I suppose I could see irrationality being a component of the feelings towards Israel and/or the Jews (where things like The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and other such littanies come into play), but I would certainly never label the entire sentiment irrational.
So past wars and conflicts (some as many as 2500 years) justify aggressive actions taken in the current time? So when Greece gears up and attacks Turkey for wiping out the Byzantine Empire (only 500 odd years ago), this isn't completely irrational? The very idea that past warfare and conflicts in any way justifies new violence sickens me beyond belief (especially some of the beyond ancient history that someone cited going back to first temple, etc.). It's like the Clampett and McCoy feud times 1000. Seriously, if some redneck families were killing each other because of shit that happened 100 years ago (your granpappy shot mine, etc.) people on these boards would be lining up to ridicule these backward swamp denizens. However, if the retaliation is on a larger scale and is based on actions hundreds of years ago (sometimes thousands) it's a different story apparently. Man, I can't wait to drive down south and shoot some southerners because my ancestors died in the civil war. No irrationality here! And the Germans and the Japanese, they should be globally ostracised for their actions that occurred only 50 years ago!
If people want to shit on Israel for actions they have recently taken or continue to take that is fine. Trying to justify violence based on shit way in the past just perpetuates a never-ending cycle of violence (and that has worked so well in the Middle East).
Japanese are ostracized in many places in the world. Why? Because Japanese society has never come to grips with the reality of the atrocities done by them. The same holds true here.
Well, you can win certain wars with air power extremely effectively, so it's not necessarily a terrible doctrine, just stupid for the wars we fight nowadays. In "normal" wars, technology has gotten to the point that wars would be fought almost entirely in the air because controlling it means you can fuck with the ground without fear of retaliation.
Not really. I think Afghanistan is the perfect example. The Soviet Union was effectively grounded in Afghanistan during the war there because of shoulder launched SAMs. A $20,000 or so missile that can be hand carried virtually removed the threat of $20M aircraft.
Silicon is right. If you want to win a war, there HAS to be troops on the ground securing territory.
Unless you turn the whole area into irradiated glass.....
I think it's pretty much a given that you're never going to replace the infantryman. And anyone who thinks so is an idiot who should not be let near any sort of command.
Well, you can win certain wars with air power extremely effectively, so it's not necessarily a terrible doctrine, just stupid for the wars we fight nowadays. In "normal" wars, technology has gotten to the point that wars would be fought almost entirely in the air because controlling it means you can fuck with the ground without fear of retaliation.
Not really. I think Afghanistan is the perfect example. The Soviet Union was effectively grounded in Afghanistan during the war there because of shoulder launched SAMs. A $20,000 or so missile that can be hand carried virtually removed the threat of $20M aircraft.
Silicon is right. If you want to win a war, there HAS to be troops on the ground securing territory.
Unless you turn the whole area into irradiated glass.....
I did say "certain" after all. Clearly the Soviet invasion was one of the many exceptions.
Well, you can win certain wars with air power extremely effectively, so it's not necessarily a terrible doctrine, just stupid for the wars we fight nowadays. In "normal" wars, technology has gotten to the point that wars would be fought almost entirely in the air because controlling it means you can fuck with the ground without fear of retaliation.
Not really. I think Afghanistan is the perfect example. The Soviet Union was effectively grounded in Afghanistan during the war there because of shoulder launched SAMs. A $20,000 or so missile that can be hand carried virtually removed the threat of $20M aircraft.
Silicon is right. If you want to win a war, there HAS to be troops on the ground securing territory.
Unless you turn the whole area into irradiated glass.....
I did say "certain" after all. Clearly the Soviet invasion was one of the many exceptions.
The only objective that can be achieved with air power is blowing shit up. You can't take or secure territory, intall governments, provide security etc... All air power can do is destroy things (and it is perfectly possible to secure high priority things or people against any air assault). If all of your war objectives can be achieved by smashing shit then you can "win" via air power. I cannot think of a single conflict in history that fits this description.
Well, you can win certain wars with air power extremely effectively, so it's not necessarily a terrible doctrine, just stupid for the wars we fight nowadays. In "normal" wars, technology has gotten to the point that wars would be fought almost entirely in the air because controlling it means you can fuck with the ground without fear of retaliation.
Not really. I think Afghanistan is the perfect example. The Soviet Union was effectively grounded in Afghanistan during the war there because of shoulder launched SAMs. A $20,000 or so missile that can be hand carried virtually removed the threat of $20M aircraft.
Silicon is right. If you want to win a war, there HAS to be troops on the ground securing territory.
Unless you turn the whole area into irradiated glass.....
I did say "certain" after all. Clearly the Soviet invasion was one of the many exceptions.
The only objective that can be achieved with air power is blowing shit up. You can't take or secure territory, intall governments, provide security etc... All air power can do is destroy things (and it is perfectly possible to secure high priority things or people against any air assault). If all of your war objectives can be achieved by smashing shit then you can "win" via air power. I cannot think of a single conflict in history that fits this description.
The invasion of Grenada, the Gulf War, the Falklands War....these conflicts are rare because there is rarely a point in pursuing them, but when they happen air power shows its might in staged conflict (stress on "staged, because that is the only time it works), even moreso nowadays with the incredible advancements made in such technology.
I agree that that's a lame excuse for pumping so much money into airpower and using it so much. Most situations the miltary will get into nowadays don't need airpower and will only be inhibited by it. But don't assume there are zero situations that it can be useful in.
Even in the recent invasion of Iraq, while the reliance on air power was a major folly, using it at all was not. It swept away the basic ground opposition that the RAF fielded very efficiently, and probably saved the lives of a few hundred soldiers. The problem is that we didn't have the ground forces to go in and back it up, and thousands of soldiers died as a result.
Also, if you think those shoulder-launched missiles have a chance against the stealth bombers the USAF uses nowadays, you're sorely mistaken.
Okay, I think it's agreed that air power is not the be all end all.
The problem with Israel, I think, is that their society is starting to experience a fair amount of cognitive dissonance, which is never healthy. They're far along enough generationwise that the rationale put forth by people such as Benny Morris really doesn't sit well with the younger set, which is why you're seeing the drain of the educated moderates.
Posts
The Palestinians fucked up their fair share of agreements as well.
...which is then vented on a nation that pretty much had nothing to do with it.
The primary body which decided on the legitimacy of Ben Gurion's State of Israel was the UN, which included the arab states. Quite frankly if they had just accepted international decision instead of going gung ho then Israel wouldn't have expanded to its 1948 borders, and if they did then Israel would have been considered at fault for expanding on to the territory of the future Palestinian state.
Yeah, colonization was a fucked up idea, but are you saying that that hate extended for 60 years to a state that never claimed anything south of the Suez north of the Golan or east of the Jordan River?
I would think that Israel has been used more as a scapegoat in the past 60 years by incompetent leaders.
:?:
What?
Which one?
Also, what?
Israel, like the US and most other nations, does not imbed its military forces in civilian populations because, surprised, imbedding soldiers in civilian populations tends to raise civilian casualties in the case of armed conflict to unacceptable levels.
Groups like Hezbollah purposefully place themselves around civilians to ensure that there are civilian casualties if there is retaliation. Then, they can say "look at those horrible imperialist pigs! Killing civilians for no reason!"
I place the blood firmly on their hands in many cases. Israel certainly reacted heavy handedly and should not have used cluster bombs. At the same time, Hezbollah fighters who fired rockets from areas with civilians whom they knew would be caught in the crossfire are ultimately responsible for the civilians killed. They could very easily build fortified positions away from civilians. They CHOOSE NOT TO for propaganda and recruiting purposes.
That said, the use of anti-semitism and hair-triggering invocation of the Holocaust are definitely in evidence. I was called an anti-Semite in a facebook group supporting Israel's right to exist for suggesting that the IDF has been guilty of atrocities and should be far, far more careful in what weaponry they use in certain situations. That, also for suggesting that Palestinians were shafted pretty badly and have a legitimate claim to that land as well (though I think a 2 state solution is ultimately the best idea).
Give me a hint as to how the "2500 years" figure plays into that.
Also, I agree with everything sanstodo said.
But with Hezbollah, this is much less the case.
Taiwan also has this.
My Chinese teacher was a soldier for two years.
He's not a soldier any more. He's a civilian.
That wasn't very taxing.
You'd distinguish about the same way as in the US. An active-duty soldier is a legitimate target; the 70 year old ex-Army guy isn't.
And ignoring the economic engine is a good thing, in general. If you don't you end up with conflicts like WW2. The Soviet Union in that war lost over twenty MILLION civilians, Germany over 6 million.
I suppose it would make the Middle East situation somewhat "simpler", because Isreal, by following those rules, could have just firebombed every country around them into ruins back in the 60s..
Place civil population under as most hardship as possible, and hope they turn on Hezbollah while also attacking Hezbollah's strongholds, and hope for as much US cover as they can get.
/me reads thread
.... or perhaps not.
Wisdom. Read at your own peril!
Everyone has one but they shouldn't necessarily be 'aired' in public.
In the land of the blind the one eyed man is a heretic.
..Are...are you trying to say that Israel initiated its own independance war?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Israeli_War
"The Syrians, Egyptians, Iraqis, and Lebanese invaded the territory of the newly created state of Israel. "
"In the immediate aftermath of the United Nations' approval of the Partition plan, the explosions of joy amongst the Jewish community were counterbalanced by the expression of discontent amongst the Arab community."
I mean, the Arab's invaded Israel when Israel declared itself based on the UN partition. I'm sorry I don't understand what you're trying to say, could you please elaborate?
The far more sane option for why not to build giant bases when attacking a country with far more military than you do:
Why give them an easy target.
Every rebellion group ever has hidden. There's NO reason to make a bunker with giant neon signs saying "REBEL BASE HERE" when your enemy has precision ordinance. Heck, we didn't even do it in the American Revolution, because announcing our location to a larger force would have been Retarded.
Essentially, while they're at fault for launching weapons from towns, Israel's weaponry is FAR more advanced as far as targeting launch sites goes, but Israel insists on using wide area weaponry in response to try and convince everyone not to fuck with them. It backfires. It also doesn't help that if someone launches weapons, they're going to LEAVE THE AREA. So why would you bombard it later, the guys who attacked you are gone, your Only target remaining are civilians. See: Shelling a fucking public beach, strafing apartment complexes with dumbfire rockets. When you have an advanced intelligence agency notorious for it's ability to assassinate people, why is the retailiation choice "kill everyone" instead of "snipe the dude who pulled the trigger". One makes everyone hate you, the other makes your little terrorist friends VERY afraid of shadows.
U.S.A.!!!!!
U.S.A.!!!!!
So yes, Israel, I like your democracy, but everyone who says "Israel is a democracy!" to excuse your actions should eat a dick and die. And you should probably eat a dick and die, too. Shaping up would probably be the better option, though.
Well played Loren. Well played.
It didn't quite work out that well. The concept of "airpower" as a doctrine and a tactic is fucking ridiculous. No one ever held ground with air support alone, I'll tell you that much.
I'll go out on a limb and say Hezbollah produces the finest light infantry soldiers in the world, hand down. And that war was a light infantryman's battle field, and Isreal drove those nice heavy, shiny tanks right in there and thought Hezbollah would be too scared to respond.
Note to Isreali Commanders - You're not driving over Palestinians throwing rocks.
Sure. The Jews and the other non-Jewish inhabitants of the Levant area have been in conflict for the majority of the last 2500 years. You've got all that awesome business in the Old Testament, and then you have the aftermath of Alexander the Great's conquest - the Diodochi explicitly antagonized both the Jews and the non-Jewish inhabitants in that area of the world in an attempt to destabilize one another. Then there's Antiochus IV's repression of the Jews and the resulting Maccabee revolt. The destruction of the temple by the Romans and the Great Diaspora that followed, and then 2000 or so years when it sucked to be a Jew even in the area of Israel. There is a whole history of collective hate and remembrance of atrocities committed against the Jewish people that makes it hard to take a step back and look at things without playing the anti-semitic card or being a complete douchebag (re: Palestinians).
Then of course you have the slightly important fact that more Jews lived in Europe, Anatolia, Persia, and then America than Israel from the time of the destruction of the Temple by the Romans until the end of the First World War - which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it can be fairly annoying for the people who have lived in that area of the world for more than 2000 years having these completely foreign individuals come back, proclaim "We're home, this is ours, get the fuck out" and then proceed to completely fuck over the people already there.
I'm going to have to go out on a limb here when I say this, but how the fuck can anyone call the dislike of the state of Israel irrational given all that has happened between the Jewish and non-Jewish inhabitants of the Levant?
Which haven't (and didn't VASTLY outnumber the enemy?)
The US during the revolutionary war slept in civilian housing at the outset (before they had a solid army and actual training camps), and fired from civilian buildings.
They were not trying to use civilians as a shield, it's just that they didn't have anything else to use.
Beyond that, who the heck didn't hide from an overwhelming enemy force as a rebel group? Who just stood there and got pounded by 4x their numbers without being wiped off the map?
What did all the Arab nations surrounding it do in response?
Try to wipe the fledgling state off the map in the Arab-Israeli Wars. What happened was Israel put up a fight and even made some expansions before giving them back.
I'd hardly call that situation the Jews coming in and saying "ok guys we're back GTFO." The state was established by the major powers of the UN. The Arab nations that disagreed with such establishment shouldn't have taken it out on the Israeli's.
However Israel nowadays in the current conflicts has been acting heavy-handed and for the most part are unjustified reactions.
This is part of the problem with Isreal. That wars 30 years ago are justification for heavy handed actions today.
There was a largely peaceful migration of jews into Ottoman-controlled Israel shortly before the first world war. I think you're basically taking a few notable conflicts and using them to make some point about how the jews get along with the arabs--as if either were culturally or politically continuous over such an absurdly long timespan. The Jews at the time the temple was destroyed have nothing to do with modern Jews.
(Summon Qingu!)
What I'm trying to say is that one of the major pieces of evidence about the attack being an assault - that the Arab states sent a radio message telling the Palestinians that they would remove Israel cannot be documented. And when you look at such incidents such as Deir Yassin, it becomes clear that things are not nearly as cut and dried as you believe.
The other problem is that Israel isn't as innocent as they claim, silicon.
Dude I was cheering Hezbollah on.
Take that, stupid ass Air Force commanders trying to dictate how ground warfare is going to go!
Well, you can win certain wars with air power extremely effectively, so it's not necessarily a terrible doctrine, just stupid for the wars we fight nowadays. In "normal" wars, technology has gotten to the point that wars would be fought almost entirely in the air because controlling it means you can fuck with the ground without fear of retaliation.
We're just not in a normal war, and neither is Israel. Hearts and minds, people, hearts and minds.
Yeah, you can win certain wars with airpower. Lines of tanks in the desert being sniped by A-10 Warthogs being one such example. As far as bombing population centers and thinking you're going to subdue the populace through that while your tanks roll through their cities like you did with the Palestinians? Not so much.
Basically my argument here is that Isreal got what it deserved in spades. It suffered from the same problem the US military is currently dealing with right now: Air Force brass claiming that they can bomb everybody into submission and no ground troops are needed. However, when this dosen't work its the Army and Marines who have to go in and fix the mess the Air Force caused.
Its no surprise that the dude who was in charge of the Lebanon Invasion was an Air Force general. Much like my consternation that Richard Meyers, an Air Force general, was the head of the Joint Chiefs during much of the Iraqi Invasion.
Also, this from Wikipedia, in regards to the Revolt of the Admirals:
This kind of thinking never went away, believe it or not.
I'd say that a "wipe Israel off the map" position is irrational if not barbaric, given what the will happen in the process of doing that. That sort of agenda is going to lead to a lot of suffering for the Arabs before they either switch positions, or it is finally decided militarily. Unfortunately, too much of the region has that sentiment, especially among those on the outside with a lot less risk of reprisal than the Palestinians.
Israel's got blood on its hands, but that is rather unsurprising giving the position it is in. I can see why people who aren't irrationally anti-semitic have qualms about them or some of their activities, but that historian suggested that there aren't a whole lot of good options on the table at the moment. There needs to be an alternative to a choice between corrupt or crazy for the Palestinians.
So past wars and conflicts (some as many as 2500 years) justify aggressive actions taken in the current time? So when Greece gears up and attacks Turkey for wiping out the Byzantine Empire (only 500 odd years ago), this isn't completely irrational? The very idea that past warfare and conflicts in any way justifies new violence sickens me beyond belief (especially some of the beyond ancient history that someone cited going back to first temple, etc.). It's like the Clampett and McCoy feud times 1000. Seriously, if some redneck families were killing each other because of shit that happened 100 years ago (your granpappy shot mine, etc.) people on these boards would be lining up to ridicule these backward swamp denizens. However, if the retaliation is on a larger scale and is based on actions hundreds of years ago (sometimes thousands) it's a different story apparently. Man, I can't wait to drive down south and shoot some southerners because my ancestors died in the civil war. No irrationality here! And the Germans and the Japanese, they should be globally ostracised for their actions that occurred only 50 years ago!
If people want to shit on Israel for actions they have recently taken or continue to take that is fine. Trying to justify violence based on shit way in the past just perpetuates a never-ending cycle of violence (and that has worked so well in the Middle East).
If that's a reference to Ahmedinejad, it was a mistranslation. His actual words were, "this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".
Emphasis from original article.
Japanese are ostracized in many places in the world. Why? Because Japanese society has never come to grips with the reality of the atrocities done by them. The same holds true here.
Not really. I think Afghanistan is the perfect example. The Soviet Union was effectively grounded in Afghanistan during the war there because of shoulder launched SAMs. A $20,000 or so missile that can be hand carried virtually removed the threat of $20M aircraft.
Silicon is right. If you want to win a war, there HAS to be troops on the ground securing territory.
Unless you turn the whole area into irradiated glass.....
I did say "certain" after all. Clearly the Soviet invasion was one of the many exceptions.
The only objective that can be achieved with air power is blowing shit up. You can't take or secure territory, intall governments, provide security etc... All air power can do is destroy things (and it is perfectly possible to secure high priority things or people against any air assault). If all of your war objectives can be achieved by smashing shit then you can "win" via air power. I cannot think of a single conflict in history that fits this description.
The invasion of Grenada, the Gulf War, the Falklands War....these conflicts are rare because there is rarely a point in pursuing them, but when they happen air power shows its might in staged conflict (stress on "staged, because that is the only time it works), even moreso nowadays with the incredible advancements made in such technology.
I agree that that's a lame excuse for pumping so much money into airpower and using it so much. Most situations the miltary will get into nowadays don't need airpower and will only be inhibited by it. But don't assume there are zero situations that it can be useful in.
Even in the recent invasion of Iraq, while the reliance on air power was a major folly, using it at all was not. It swept away the basic ground opposition that the RAF fielded very efficiently, and probably saved the lives of a few hundred soldiers. The problem is that we didn't have the ground forces to go in and back it up, and thousands of soldiers died as a result.
Also, if you think those shoulder-launched missiles have a chance against the stealth bombers the USAF uses nowadays, you're sorely mistaken.
The problem with Israel, I think, is that their society is starting to experience a fair amount of cognitive dissonance, which is never healthy. They're far along enough generationwise that the rationale put forth by people such as Benny Morris really doesn't sit well with the younger set, which is why you're seeing the drain of the educated moderates.