Israel and Palestine Again: Are we all hopeless and have given up?

12346

Comments

  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    Arethosemyfeet

    That’s not the half of it. The more recent horrors in the Congo have been documented by the UN. They have added an even more horrible dimension to the meaning of the term horrific. I can’t find a link to the UN report, though I’ve read summaries.

    But I’m not sure that’s got much if anything to do with South African involvement in Angola. That in any case was a spin off from the main purpose of the thread.

    I also agree wholeheartedly with MaryLouise.
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    MaryLouise wrote: »
    @Martin54 I'm just pulling out something you said here.

    Sir. I cannot substantiate it with regard to Zaire, but as I recall it is ascribed to Zairean forces in Angola by Ryszard Kapuscinski in Another Day of Life, or it may have been The Shadow of the Sun. So, no, I didn't mean it as metaphor, but as I cannot substantiate it yet, I apologize and withdraw it.

    I know you've quoted Ryszard Kapuściński before with great admiration, but one of the most disillusioning experiences I've had, as someone who has spent considerable time in Luanda, was reading Another Day of Life and realising it was full of lies and fictions. He was writing for the West and didn't think his work would be read by Angolans, except for that small elite who wanted his invented spin on that war. As a paid informer and collaborationist for Polish intelligence, Kapuściński was not free to write about much of what was going on. He was a brilliant fiction writer but not a trustworthy journalist.

    One of the problems and it is pertinent to a thread like this is the experiential gap between those of us who actually live and work in places that are just armchair debate topics for others. My own understanding of the catastrophic event called the battle of Cuito Cuanavale between South African and Cuban forces backing UNITA or the MPLA is partial, fallible and open to revision. It haunts all of us who lived through that time. Ryszard Kapuściński turned other people's lived history into a grandiose fantasy.

    I read the Guardian article before. Your take is an interesting one. I regard his writing as true regardless, as true dramatization is, which can be more true than BBC standard reporting. Were you in Angola as an adult in '76? When he was? All foreign correspondents at least serve their masters. His descriptions of the horrors of the Soviet Union, Africa, Iran and Ethiopia above all are as hideously beautiful as it gets.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    This tangent may have legs! I’ll keep an eye and split the thread if it looks worth it. There is scope for serious discussion, that’s for sure.

    B62, Purg Host
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Kwesi wrote: »
    KarlLB: This will never happen. Such a state would not guarantee a majority Jewish population and so would be unacceptable to a considerable Jewish Israeli contingent.

    You could well be right Karl. The problem, of course, is that the maintenance of an ethnically (racially)- based state will not solve the problem.

    The argument is that only in a majority Jewish country can Jews feel safe from becoming an oppressed minority. The problem is what then happens to the people whose existence upsets the demographics.

    Would that happen if Palestinians were given the right of return to their pre-'48 dispossessed ancestral property within the pre-'67 borders? I suspect so. Unless the UN can enforce social justice between two anti-plural cultures for the next thousand years, call it ten, it ain't gonna happen is it?
  • MaryLouiseMaryLouise Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    Yes, I attended my uncle's funeral in the suburb of Baixa de Luanda in April 1976, (this was before oil was found offshore). My aunt had married into a old military family who backed the MPLA. About a year later, the terrible MPLA massacres took place, denied and concealed for almost 50 years. Only very recently did the President of Angola offered the first public apology for the massacre in which so many Luandans died. There's very little about that war I don't know and it is messy, complex and heartbreaking. As is the situation in the Middle East.
  • MaryLouiseMaryLouise Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    @Martin54 if you are seriously interested in knowing more about that particular conflict, you shouldn't be reading BBC or Guardian reports. Get hold of the work of Rafael Marques or PM me for a list of more indepth histories in translation.
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    MaryLouise wrote: »
    @Martin54 if you are seriously interested in knowing more about that particular conflict, you shouldn't be reading BBC or Guardian reports. Get hold of the work of Rafael Marques or PM me for a list of more indepth histories in translation.

    I will @MaryLouise, thank you. It's essential recalibration of my life.
  • GalilitGalilit Shipmate
    MaryLouise wrote: »
    One of the problems and it is pertinent to a thread like this is the experiential gap between those of us who actually live and work in places that are just armchair debate topics for others.

    Seconded.
    Plenty of Shipmates live in places where they often find themselves in opposition to the decisions and actions of the government where they live.
    I see myself as just another one.
    When I am very sad I reread Ezekiel 34. (Which I would do wherever I lived.)

    I repeat: I do appreciate the concentration of you all on our Situation; I see your comments as weirdly-worded prayers for a just solution and for peace for all of us here
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Galilit wrote: »
    MaryLouise wrote: »
    One of the problems and it is pertinent to a thread like this is the experiential gap between those of us who actually live and work in places that are just armchair debate topics for others.

    Seconded.
    Plenty of Shipmates live in places where they often find themselves in opposition to the decisions and actions of the government where they live.
    I see myself as just another one.
    When I am very sad I reread Ezekiel 34. (Which I would do wherever I lived.)

    I repeat: I do appreciate the concentration of you all on our Situation; I see your comments as weirdly-worded prayers for a just solution and for peace for all of us here

    Galilit.

    It is one thing to speak from a distance. It is quite another to be part of what is happening. True. Just to let you know, some of us have been there or have had family members live there. My son lived in Ramada for a year, working for the Palestinian Lutheran Church. He has returned there three times since. I think he would love to return there permanently, but his wife has special needs that cannot be addressed there. In any case, I want you to know as for me and my family it is much more than sending thoughts and prayers. We support the Lutheran Church in the Holy Lands and Jordan, we communicate on a regular basis with our elected representatives. We take to many forums to express our views. It is most unfortunate at my age I cannot directly participate in recovery efforts. You are not alone.
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    Galilit wrote: »
    MaryLouise wrote: »
    One of the problems and it is pertinent to a thread like this is the experiential gap between those of us who actually live and work in places that are just armchair debate topics for others.

    Seconded.
    Plenty of Shipmates live in places where they often find themselves in opposition to the decisions and actions of the government where they live.
    I see myself as just another one.
    When I am very sad I reread Ezekiel 34. (Which I would do wherever I lived.)

    I repeat: I do appreciate the concentration of you all on our Situation; I see your comments as weirdly-worded prayers for a just solution and for peace for all of us here

    Shalom Galilit.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    IMO the aim should be to establish a one state solution where Israelis, Palestinians, and any others living in the territory enjoy a common citizenship, based on individual not group rights.

    This will never happen. Such a state would not guarantee a majority Jewish population and so would be unacceptable to a considerable Jewish Israeli contingent.
    You have hit the nail on the head.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    IMO the aim should be to establish a one state solution where Israelis, Palestinians, and any others living in the territory enjoy a common citizenship, based on individual not group rights.

    This will never happen. Such a state would not guarantee a majority Jewish population and so would be unacceptable to a considerable Jewish Israeli contingent.
    You have hit the nail on the head.

    As I posted earlier "The argument is that only in a majority Jewish country can Jews feel safe from becoming an oppressed minority. The problem is what then happens to the people whose existence upsets the demographics."

    That is actually the issue.
  • orfeoorfeo Suspended
    Telford wrote: »
    Terrorists = Israel.

    I don't recall Israel being the terrorists in Munich 1972

    The Hatfields remember when the McCoys did something wrong before they were born and the McCoys remember the same about the Hatfields.
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    Telford: This will never happen. Such a state would not guarantee a majority Jewish population and so would be unacceptable to a considerable Jewish Israeli contingent.

    As I remarked to KarlLB, my proposal is probably less likely to gain traction than a long-shot. My main purpose was to point out that any change to the status quo cannot be based on privileging the rights of a racial group but on rights based on the individual, and the destabilising colonising consequences of the 'right of return' cannot be allowed to continue if an alternative settlement is to be found. Indeed, to suggest that the present situation is a 'settlement' is to stretch language to its limits: as long as Israel maintains its military superiority underpinned by the USA and the Palestinians cannot be exterminated the drift towards catastrophe at some future point seems inevitable. If there was an easy solution it would have already appeared, which is why I remain in the pessimistic camp- hence my question "What do?" is born of despairing frustration following yet another interminably fruitless discussion of rights and wrongs. My solution, which I was challenged to produce, was meant to illustrate the fundamental issues which go to the heart of the creation of Israel that need to be addressed.
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    What catastrophe do you have in mind?
  • orfeo wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Terrorists = Israel.

    I don't recall Israel being the terrorists in Munich 1972

    The Hatfields remember when the McCoys did something wrong before they were born and the McCoys remember the same about the Hatfields.

    Who are these people and how does it apply?
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    Kwesi wrote: »
    Telford: This will never happen. Such a state would not guarantee a majority Jewish population and so would be unacceptable to a considerable Jewish Israeli contingent.

    As I remarked to KarlLB, my proposal is probably less likely to gain traction than a long-shot. My main purpose was to point out that any change to the status quo cannot be based on privileging the rights of a racial group but on rights based on the individual, and the destabilising colonising consequences of the 'right of return' cannot be allowed to continue if an alternative settlement is to be found. Indeed, to suggest that the present situation is a 'settlement' is to stretch language to its limits: as long as Israel maintains its military superiority underpinned by the USA and the Palestinians cannot be exterminated the drift towards catastrophe at some future point seems inevitable. If there was an easy solution it would have already appeared, which is why I remain in the pessimistic camp- hence my question "What do?" is born of despairing frustration following yet another interminably fruitless discussion of rights and wrongs. My solution, which I was challenged to produce, was meant to illustrate the fundamental issues which go to the heart of the creation of Israel that need to be addressed.

    Sorry. Flagging you this time.

    What catastrophe do you have in mind?
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    This helps to explain what has happened between Israel and Palestine in the modern era.

    Regarding the Hatfields and McCoys, here is a Wikipedia (where else?) article on who they were and what happened https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatfield–McCoy_feud
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    Martin54: What catastrophe do you have in mind?

    Well, to be honest I'm not sure, but I don't take it as inevitable that the Israelis will be in a position to hammer the Palestinians indefinitely, though they may be able so to do for some time. The Israeli position is heavily dependent on a continuing willingness and ability of the United States to underwrite its security. Additionally, there are the complicated relationships between the different Arab States, the role of Iran, and the regional interests of Egypt, Turkey and Russia, which the Israelis are able to exploit to their advantage. The mixture is highly combustible and is not guaranteed to remain favourable to a paranoid nuclear power facing an existential crisis. Call it Gotterdammerung or Armageddon. Alternatively, despite my antipathy towards Zionism, I do not wish to see a wholesale slaughter of Jews should the jackboot be on the other foot. History is full of injustices which have to be endured and compromised with in the pursuit of peace- ask the South Africans.
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    Kwesi wrote: »
    Martin54: What catastrophe do you have in mind?

    Well, to be honest I'm not sure, but I don't take it as inevitable that the Israelis will be in a position to hammer the Palestinians indefinitely, though they may be able so to do for some time. The Israeli position is heavily dependent on a continuing willingness and ability of the United States to underwrite its security. Additionally, there are the complicated relationships between the different Arab States, the role of Iran, and the regional interests of Egypt, Turkey and Russia, which the Israelis are able to exploit to their advantage. The mixture is highly combustible and is not guaranteed to remain favourable to a paranoid nuclear power facing an existential crisis. Call it Gotterdammerung or Armageddon. Alternatively, despite my antipathy towards Zionism, I do not wish to see a wholesale slaughter of Jews should the jackboot be on the other foot. History is full of injustices which have to be endured and compromised with in the pursuit of peace- ask the South Africans.

    Nobody wants an end game. Especially Russia and Turkey. As long as the US exists Israel will regardless. I cannot see how the military situation could ever be unfavourable to Israel. Egypt's honour was served in '73. Nobody else counts. Syria won't be a full Russian protectorate for years.
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    This helps to explain what has happened between Israel and Palestine in the modern era.
    It certainly does. I thought I knew it all. How bad we were. How absurd.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    Kwesi wrote: »
    Martin54: What catastrophe do you have in mind?

    Well, to be honest I'm not sure, but I don't take it as inevitable that the Israelis will be in a position to hammer the Palestinians indefinitely, though they may be able so to do for some time. The Israeli position is heavily dependent on a continuing willingness and ability of the United States to underwrite its security. Additionally, there are the complicated relationships between the different Arab States, the role of Iran, and the regional interests of Egypt, Turkey and Russia, which the Israelis are able to exploit to their advantage. The mixture is highly combustible and is not guaranteed to remain favourable to a paranoid nuclear power facing an existential crisis. Call it Gotterdammerung or Armageddon. Alternatively, despite my antipathy towards Zionism, I do not wish to see a wholesale slaughter of Jews should the jackboot be on the other foot. History is full of injustices which have to be endured and compromised with in the pursuit of peace- ask the South Africans.

    Nobody wants an end game. Especially Russia and Turkey. As long as the US exists Israel will regardless. I cannot see how the military situation could ever be unfavourable to Israel. Egypt's honour was served in '73. Nobody else counts. Syria won't be a full Russian protectorate for years.

    I have always wondered why Obama didn't intervene more forcefully in the Syrian civil war. His instincts didn't prevent him from ordering the capture or killing of Bin Laden in Pakistan. I suspect that he was warned off.

    On another issue, is there any reason why Hamas chooses to use the weapons it does to fight Israel. It strikes me that a shoulder held anti-aircraft weapon of the kind used in the Ukraine would be as easy to obtain as any other weaponry. Why don't they target the machines bombing Gaza? Please tag me if you have good info on this. I don't visit this thread religiously.
  • There's always the Jewish Autonomous Oblast in eastern Siberia I suppose, or in fictional Yiddish Policeman's Union, Jews could be relocated to southern Alaska.

    The Pale of Settlement was abolished after WW1, it could be reestablished but Nazi Germany's destruction of Jews there and post WW2 anti-Semitism attacks in the area (Poland, Belarus, parts of Ukraine etc) which picks up long term Russian Jew-hatred doesn't lend confidence.

    The world generally hasn't accepted Jews. Yes it is special pleading, but it's the one group with consistent vulnerability. They do need a country.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Kwesi wrote: »
    Martin54: What catastrophe do you have in mind?

    Well, to be honest I'm not sure, but I don't take it as inevitable that the Israelis will be in a position to hammer the Palestinians indefinitely, though they may be able so to do for some time. The Israeli position is heavily dependent on a continuing willingness and ability of the United States to underwrite its security. Additionally, there are the complicated relationships between the different Arab States, the role of Iran, and the regional interests of Egypt, Turkey and Russia, which the Israelis are able to exploit to their advantage. The mixture is highly combustible and is not guaranteed to remain favourable to a paranoid nuclear power facing an existential crisis. Call it Gotterdammerung or Armageddon. Alternatively, despite my antipathy towards Zionism, I do not wish to see a wholesale slaughter of Jews should the jackboot be on the other foot. History is full of injustices which have to be endured and compromised with in the pursuit of peace- ask the South Africans.

    Nobody wants an end game. Especially Russia and Turkey. As long as the US exists Israel will regardless. I cannot see how the military situation could ever be unfavourable to Israel. Egypt's honour was served in '73. Nobody else counts. Syria won't be a full Russian protectorate for years.

    I have always wondered why Obama didn't intervene more forcefully in the Syrian civil war. His instincts didn't prevent him from ordering the capture or killing of Bin Laden in Pakistan. I suspect that he was warned off.

    Three reasons

    1) Congress had already said it was not going to fund it.

    2) The UN would not sanction it;

    3) NATO was not willing to go in, though if Syria had attached Turkey, it could have gone in.

  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Kwesi wrote: »
    Martin54: What catastrophe do you have in mind?

    Well, to be honest I'm not sure, but I don't take it as inevitable that the Israelis will be in a position to hammer the Palestinians indefinitely, though they may be able so to do for some time. The Israeli position is heavily dependent on a continuing willingness and ability of the United States to underwrite its security. Additionally, there are the complicated relationships between the different Arab States, the role of Iran, and the regional interests of Egypt, Turkey and Russia, which the Israelis are able to exploit to their advantage. The mixture is highly combustible and is not guaranteed to remain favourable to a paranoid nuclear power facing an existential crisis. Call it Gotterdammerung or Armageddon. Alternatively, despite my antipathy towards Zionism, I do not wish to see a wholesale slaughter of Jews should the jackboot be on the other foot. History is full of injustices which have to be endured and compromised with in the pursuit of peace- ask the South Africans.

    Nobody wants an end game. Especially Russia and Turkey. As long as the US exists Israel will regardless. I cannot see how the military situation could ever be unfavourable to Israel. Egypt's honour was served in '73. Nobody else counts. Syria won't be a full Russian protectorate for years.

    I have always wondered why Obama didn't intervene more forcefully in the Syrian civil war. His instincts didn't prevent him from ordering the capture or killing of Bin Laden in Pakistan. I suspect that he was warned off.

    On another issue, is there any reason why Hamas chooses to use the weapons it does to fight Israel. It strikes me that a shoulder held anti-aircraft weapon of the kind used in the Ukraine would be as easy to obtain as any other weaponry. Why don't they target the machines bombing Gaza? Please tag me if you have good info on this. I don't visit this thread religiously.

    My understanding, from memory rather than recent source, is that Hamas rockets are largely homemade. What might be easily obtained at an arms market in Kazakhstan (say) is not necessarily easily got into Gaza.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    There's always the Jewish Autonomous Oblast in eastern Siberia I suppose, or in fictional Yiddish Policeman's Union, Jews could be relocated to southern Alaska.

    The Pale of Settlement was abolished after WW1, it could be reestablished but Nazi Germany's destruction of Jews there and post WW2 anti-Semitism attacks in the area (Poland, Belarus, parts of Ukraine etc) which picks up long term Russian Jew-hatred doesn't lend confidence.

    The world generally hasn't accepted Jews. Yes it is special pleading, but it's the one group with consistent vulnerability. They do need a country.

    So did the people already there. That is and always was the problem.
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Kwesi wrote: »
    Martin54: What catastrophe do you have in mind?

    Well, to be honest I'm not sure, but I don't take it as inevitable that the Israelis will be in a position to hammer the Palestinians indefinitely, though they may be able so to do for some time. The Israeli position is heavily dependent on a continuing willingness and ability of the United States to underwrite its security. Additionally, there are the complicated relationships between the different Arab States, the role of Iran, and the regional interests of Egypt, Turkey and Russia, which the Israelis are able to exploit to their advantage. The mixture is highly combustible and is not guaranteed to remain favourable to a paranoid nuclear power facing an existential crisis. Call it Gotterdammerung or Armageddon. Alternatively, despite my antipathy towards Zionism, I do not wish to see a wholesale slaughter of Jews should the jackboot be on the other foot. History is full of injustices which have to be endured and compromised with in the pursuit of peace- ask the South Africans.

    Nobody wants an end game. Especially Russia and Turkey. As long as the US exists Israel will regardless. I cannot see how the military situation could ever be unfavourable to Israel. Egypt's honour was served in '73. Nobody else counts. Syria won't be a full Russian protectorate for years.

    I have always wondered why Obama didn't intervene more forcefully in the Syrian civil war. His instincts didn't prevent him from ordering the capture or killing of Bin Laden in Pakistan. I suspect that he was warned off.

    On another issue, is there any reason why Hamas chooses to use the weapons it does to fight Israel. It strikes me that a shoulder held anti-aircraft weapon of the kind used in the Ukraine would be as easy to obtain as any other weaponry. Why don't they target the machines bombing Gaza? Please tag me if you have good info on this. I don't visit this thread religiously.

    They have 'shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles (MANPADS), such as the SA-7B, SA-18 Igla missiles, and it is believed a number of SA-24 Igla-S that it received from Libya.'

    Presumably they don't use them as they don't want a full on ground invasion from Israel regardless of the fact that that would hurt Israel in every way more than it hurt them.
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    Another reason is that Israeli anti-SAM technology and tactics outclass them. So far.
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    NOprophet_NØprofit: The world generally hasn't accepted Jews. Yes it is special pleading, but it's the one group with consistent vulnerability. They do need a country.

    Except to point out that Zionism does not resolve the problem because the security of Israel rests on the presence of a large number of Jews living in the United States. The solution to anti-semitism depends not on the creation of Israel but the willingness of a large and powerful multi-racial state to accept Jews. If it is argued that US Jews need Israel as a back-stop in case the US becomes anti-semitic is a fallacy, because for it to become so would expose Israel to its enemies. In fact, Israel is not a solution to anti-semitism but an unwelcome part of it because of its racist foundation.

  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    Kwesi wrote: »
    NOprophet_NØprofit: The world generally hasn't accepted Jews. Yes it is special pleading, but it's the one group with consistent vulnerability. They do need a country.

    Except to point out that Zionism does not resolve the problem because the security of Israel rests on the presence of a large number of Jews living in the United States. The solution to anti-semitism depends not on the creation of Israel but the willingness of a large and powerful multi-racial state to accept Jews. If it is argued that US Jews need Israel as a back-stop in case the US becomes anti-semitic is a fallacy, because for it to become so would expose Israel to its enemies. In fact, Israel is not a solution to anti-semitism but an unwelcome part of it because of its racist foundation.

    Excellent. Just excellent. But that solution should have been impossibly availed from 90 years ago. And Hitler should have been internally and externally vigorously opposed. And British Fascism in Palestine should have been called out. And... then as now, we live in the best of all possible worlds. I'm afraid. Is that Panglossian?
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Kwesi wrote: »
    Martin54: What catastrophe do you have in mind?

    Well, to be honest I'm not sure, but I don't take it as inevitable that the Israelis will be in a position to hammer the Palestinians indefinitely, though they may be able so to do for some time. The Israeli position is heavily dependent on a continuing willingness and ability of the United States to underwrite its security. Additionally, there are the complicated relationships between the different Arab States, the role of Iran, and the regional interests of Egypt, Turkey and Russia, which the Israelis are able to exploit to their advantage. The mixture is highly combustible and is not guaranteed to remain favourable to a paranoid nuclear power facing an existential crisis. Call it Gotterdammerung or Armageddon. Alternatively, despite my antipathy towards Zionism, I do not wish to see a wholesale slaughter of Jews should the jackboot be on the other foot. History is full of injustices which have to be endured and compromised with in the pursuit of peace- ask the South Africans.

    Nobody wants an end game. Especially Russia and Turkey. As long as the US exists Israel will regardless. I cannot see how the military situation could ever be unfavourable to Israel. Egypt's honour was served in '73. Nobody else counts. Syria won't be a full Russian protectorate for years.

    I have always wondered why Obama didn't intervene more forcefully in the Syrian civil war. His instincts didn't prevent him from ordering the capture or killing of Bin Laden in Pakistan. I suspect that he was warned off.

    On another issue, is there any reason why Hamas chooses to use the weapons it does to fight Israel. It strikes me that a shoulder held anti-aircraft weapon of the kind used in the Ukraine would be as easy to obtain as any other weaponry. Why don't they target the machines bombing Gaza? Please tag me if you have good info on this. I don't visit this thread religiously.

    The billion dollar Zero Dark Thirty operation against one man was achievable. Obama's (the drone collateral killer king) worst mistake was drawing a line in the sand that Trump actually enforced. Even though it was possibly against a false flag operation. Invading Syria for alleged WMD use in a civil war has no precedent. It wasn't even done in Iraq. How would it serve American national self interest?
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Kwesi wrote: »
    Martin54: What catastrophe do you have in mind?

    Well, to be honest I'm not sure, but I don't take it as inevitable that the Israelis will be in a position to hammer the Palestinians indefinitely, though they may be able so to do for some time. The Israeli position is heavily dependent on a continuing willingness and ability of the United States to underwrite its security. Additionally, there are the complicated relationships between the different Arab States, the role of Iran, and the regional interests of Egypt, Turkey and Russia, which the Israelis are able to exploit to their advantage. The mixture is highly combustible and is not guaranteed to remain favourable to a paranoid nuclear power facing an existential crisis. Call it Gotterdammerung or Armageddon. Alternatively, despite my antipathy towards Zionism, I do not wish to see a wholesale slaughter of Jews should the jackboot be on the other foot. History is full of injustices which have to be endured and compromised with in the pursuit of peace- ask the South Africans.

    Nobody wants an end game. Especially Russia and Turkey. As long as the US exists Israel will regardless. I cannot see how the military situation could ever be unfavourable to Israel. Egypt's honour was served in '73. Nobody else counts. Syria won't be a full Russian protectorate for years.

    I have always wondered why Obama didn't intervene more forcefully in the Syrian civil war. His instincts didn't prevent him from ordering the capture or killing of Bin Laden in Pakistan. I suspect that he was warned off.

    On another issue, is there any reason why Hamas chooses to use the weapons it does to fight Israel. It strikes me that a shoulder held anti-aircraft weapon of the kind used in the Ukraine would be as easy to obtain as any other weaponry. Why don't they target the machines bombing Gaza? Please tag me if you have good info on this. I don't visit this thread religiously.

    My understanding, from memory rather than recent source, is that Hamas rockets are largely homemade. What might be easily obtained at an arms market in Kazakhstan (say) is not necessarily easily got into Gaza.

    The main purpose of Hamas rockets appears to be to provoke a reaction from Israel
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Kwesi wrote: »
    NOprophet_NØprofit: The world generally hasn't accepted Jews. Yes it is special pleading, but it's the one group with consistent vulnerability. They do need a country.

    Except to point out that Zionism does not resolve the problem because the security of Israel rests on the presence of a large number of Jews living in the United States. The solution to anti-semitism depends not on the creation of Israel but the willingness of a large and powerful multi-racial state to accept Jews. If it is argued that US Jews need Israel as a back-stop in case the US becomes anti-semitic is a fallacy, because for it to become so would expose Israel to its enemies. In fact, Israel is not a solution to anti-semitism but an unwelcome part of it because of its racist foundation.

    Excellent. Just excellent. But that solution should have been impossibly availed from 90 years ago. And Hitler should have been internally and externally vigorously opposed
    Hitler was externally opposed vigorously as soon as we were capable of doing so. Internal opposition was far more difficult when the regime was totally ruthless.

  • No. Hitler was accommodated and appeased. Rhineland. Austria. Czechoslovakia. Only when Poland was invaded. Poland was far too late, noting that it was very anti-Semitic at the time, on its own.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Kwesi wrote: »
    Martin54: What catastrophe do you have in mind?

    Well, to be honest I'm not sure, but I don't take it as inevitable that the Israelis will be in a position to hammer the Palestinians indefinitely, though they may be able so to do for some time. The Israeli position is heavily dependent on a continuing willingness and ability of the United States to underwrite its security. Additionally, there are the complicated relationships between the different Arab States, the role of Iran, and the regional interests of Egypt, Turkey and Russia, which the Israelis are able to exploit to their advantage. The mixture is highly combustible and is not guaranteed to remain favourable to a paranoid nuclear power facing an existential crisis. Call it Gotterdammerung or Armageddon. Alternatively, despite my antipathy towards Zionism, I do not wish to see a wholesale slaughter of Jews should the jackboot be on the other foot. History is full of injustices which have to be endured and compromised with in the pursuit of peace- ask the South Africans.

    Nobody wants an end game. Especially Russia and Turkey. As long as the US exists Israel will regardless. I cannot see how the military situation could ever be unfavourable to Israel. Egypt's honour was served in '73. Nobody else counts. Syria won't be a full Russian protectorate for years.

    I have always wondered why Obama didn't intervene more forcefully in the Syrian civil war. His instincts didn't prevent him from ordering the capture or killing of Bin Laden in Pakistan. I suspect that he was warned off.

    On another issue, is there any reason why Hamas chooses to use the weapons it does to fight Israel. It strikes me that a shoulder held anti-aircraft weapon of the kind used in the Ukraine would be as easy to obtain as any other weaponry. Why don't they target the machines bombing Gaza? Please tag me if you have good info on this. I don't visit this thread religiously.

    The billion dollar Zero Dark Thirty operation against one man was achievable. Obama's (the drone collateral killer king) worst mistake was drawing a line in the sand that Trump actually enforced. Even though it was possibly against a false flag operation. Invading Syria for alleged WMD use in a civil war has no precedent. It wasn't even done in Iraq. How would it serve American national self interest?

    Well NATO did intervene in the Lybian civil war. There are times when it is totally justifiable to intervene in a civil war, witness the Tutsi and Hutu civil war. France got involved in that one.

    The most interesting thing about Trump supposedly enforcing the red line in Syria is before he orders the launch of the cruise missiles against the base where the Syrian planes were flying out of, someone in the administration warned the Russians of the pending launch and they were able to remove the planes fairly quickly, and the airfield was quickly patched up. Then a few months later he orders the pullout of American troops from Northern Syria leaving the Kurds to the mercy of the Turks and the Syrians and the Russians who were more than happy to fill our vacuum.


  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    No. Hitler was accommodated and appeased. Rhineland. Austria. Czechoslovakia. Only when Poland was invaded. Poland was far too late, noting that it was very anti-Semitic at the time, on its own.

    Did you not hear about WW2 in Europe ?
  • No. Hitler was accommodated and appeased. Rhineland. Austria. Czechoslovakia. Only when Poland was invaded. Poland was far too late, noting that it was very anti-Semitic at the time, on its own.

    Given how the start of WWII went for the allies I don't know that starting earlier was militarily possible. I suppose German rearmament would not have been as far advanced either.
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    edited June 2021
    No. Hitler was accommodated and appeased. Rhineland. Austria. Czechoslovakia. Only when Poland was invaded. Poland was far too late, noting that it was very anti-Semitic at the time, on its own.

    Given how the start of WWII went for the allies I don't know that starting earlier was militarily possible. I suppose German rearmament would not have been as far advanced either.

    It's noteworthy how timid the Germans were on the Western front in the Phoney War. There again not as much as the French and the British, Belgians, Dutch. Chopping a few trees down would have stopped their attack when it came through the Ardennes.
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    edited June 2021
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Kwesi wrote: »
    Martin54: What catastrophe do you have in mind?

    Well, to be honest I'm not sure, but I don't take it as inevitable that the Israelis will be in a position to hammer the Palestinians indefinitely, though they may be able so to do for some time. The Israeli position is heavily dependent on a continuing willingness and ability of the United States to underwrite its security. Additionally, there are the complicated relationships between the different Arab States, the role of Iran, and the regional interests of Egypt, Turkey and Russia, which the Israelis are able to exploit to their advantage. The mixture is highly combustible and is not guaranteed to remain favourable to a paranoid nuclear power facing an existential crisis. Call it Gotterdammerung or Armageddon. Alternatively, despite my antipathy towards Zionism, I do not wish to see a wholesale slaughter of Jews should the jackboot be on the other foot. History is full of injustices which have to be endured and compromised with in the pursuit of peace- ask the South Africans.

    Nobody wants an end game. Especially Russia and Turkey. As long as the US exists Israel will regardless. I cannot see how the military situation could ever be unfavourable to Israel. Egypt's honour was served in '73. Nobody else counts. Syria won't be a full Russian protectorate for years.

    I have always wondered why Obama didn't intervene more forcefully in the Syrian civil war. His instincts didn't prevent him from ordering the capture or killing of Bin Laden in Pakistan. I suspect that he was warned off.

    On another issue, is there any reason why Hamas chooses to use the weapons it does to fight Israel. It strikes me that a shoulder held anti-aircraft weapon of the kind used in the Ukraine would be as easy to obtain as any other weaponry. Why don't they target the machines bombing Gaza? Please tag me if you have good info on this. I don't visit this thread religiously.

    The billion dollar Zero Dark Thirty operation against one man was achievable. Obama's (the drone collateral killer king) worst mistake was drawing a line in the sand that Trump actually enforced. Even though it was possibly against a false flag operation. Invading Syria for alleged WMD use in a civil war has no precedent. It wasn't even done in Iraq. How would it serve American national self interest?

    Well NATO did intervene in the Lybian civil war. There are times when it is totally justifiable to intervene in a civil war, witness the Tutsi and Hutu civil war. France got involved in that one.

    The most interesting thing about Trump supposedly enforcing the red line in Syria is before he orders the launch of the cruise missiles against the base where the Syrian planes were flying out of, someone in the administration warned the Russians of the pending launch and they were able to remove the planes fairly quickly, and the airfield was quickly patched up. Then a few months later he orders the pullout of American troops from Northern Syria leaving the Kurds to the mercy of the Turks and the Syrians and the Russians who were more than happy to fill our vacuum.


    Er, in Rwanda - on Clinton's watch and that he precipitated by being defeated in Somalia - France backed the genocidal government and were part of the problem from the beginning. They did NOTHING to stop the genocide. The UN force watched too. Apart from the unbelievably Christlike Muslim Captain Senegalese Mbaye Diagne.

    And how were Western interests served by destabilizing Libya? Let alone the interests of the poor.
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    Martin54: And how were Western interests served by destabilizing Libya?

    Not just Western interests: the removal of Gaddafi without any thought for the consequences was stupid, reprehensible and irresponsible because it created a vacuum across west-central Sahara, exposing the region to Muslim extremism and heavily-armed banditry, with dire consequences for Mali, in particular. It was a case of the British and French looking for a cheap foreign policy PR coup, (typical Cameron), without any thought for what would follow. Enough to make Machiavelli despair.
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    edited June 2021
    Kwesi wrote: »
    Martin54: And how were Western interests served by destabilizing Libya?

    Not just Western interests: the removal of Gaddafi without any thought for the consequences was stupid, reprehensible and irresponsible because it created a vacuum across west-central Sahara, exposing the region to Muslim extremism and heavily-armed banditry, with dire consequences for Mali, in particular. It was a case of the British and French looking for a cheap foreign policy PR coup, (typical Cameron), without any thought for what would follow. Enough to make Machiavelli despair.

    Indeed, all of that horror has made life worse for the poor West. Another of the blessed Obama's triumphs. And Hollande's was it?
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    Yup, Martin54. From what I recollect, the action was largely on the part of the French and British administrations wanting positive newspaper headlines without having to commit troops or an occupying force to reconstitute Libya. To what extent Obama can be held culpable, I'm not sure. Kofi Annan, in particular, was unimpressed by the ignorance of those involved.
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    edited June 2021
    Kwesi wrote: »
    Yup, Martin54. From what I recollect, the action was largely on the part of the French and British administrations wanting positive newspaper headlines without having to commit troops or an occupying force to reconstitute Libya. To what extent Obama can be held culpable, I'm not sure. Kofi Annan, in particular, was unimpressed by the ignorance of those involved.

    Obama's bit: United States: The United States deployed a naval force of 11 ships, including the amphibious assault ship USS Kearsarge, the amphibious transport dock USS Ponce, the guided-missile destroyers USS Barry and USS Stout, the nuclear attack submarines USS Providence and USS Scranton, the cruise missile submarine USS Florida and the amphibious command ship USS Mount Whitney.[148][149] Additionally, A-10 ground-attack aircraft, two B-1B bombers,[150] three Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit stealth bombers,[151] AV-8B Harrier II jump-jets, EA-18G Growler electronic warfare aircraft, P-3 Orions, and both McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle[152] and F-16 fighters were involved in action over Libya.[153] U-2 reconnaissance aircraft were stationed on Cyprus. On 18 March, two AC-130Us arrived at RAF Mildenhall as well as additional tanker aircraft.[citation needed] On 24 March 2 E-8Cs operated from Naval Station Rota Spain, which indicated an increase of ground attacks.[citation needed] An undisclosed number of CIA operatives were said to be in Libya to gather intelligence for airstrikes and make contacts with rebels.[154] The US also used MQ-1 Predator UAVs to strike targets in Libya on 23 April.[155]

    Especially.
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    Martin54, apologies for my ignorance, clearly the Obama administration is similarly culpable of starting something for which they, too, were unprepared to take responsibility. There's no such thing as a just war on the cheap.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    No. Hitler was accommodated and appeased. Rhineland. Austria. Czechoslovakia. Only when Poland was invaded. Poland was far too late, noting that it was very anti-Semitic at the time, on its own.

    Given how the start of WWII went for the allies I don't know that starting earlier was militarily possible. I suppose German rearmament would not have been as far advanced either.

    It's noteworthy how timid the Germans were on the Western front in the Phoney War. There again not as much as the French and the British, Belgians, Dutch. Chopping a few trees down would have stopped their attack when it came through the Ardennes.

    Fun history lesson time - not sure timidity is the right word for the Dutch, although I suppose it depends when you're accusing them of timidity. During the German invasion of Holland they actually brought the invaders to a halt briefly. They were always going to lose, because so outnumbered, but the Germans got a reception that they really weren't expecting, and the Dutch fought and died hard.

    Not much known about outside the Netherlands (and Germany, funnily enough). The Germans thought they were going to walk in. Obviously they got in, but they were handed a massive kicking in the process by numerically much smaller forces. Much like the (German and Italian) experience in the invasion of Greece actually.

    French, British and Belgians less so, but I suppose the old saw of 'it wasn't quite that simple' applies to an extent. But the Dutch (IMO) don't deserve to be in the bracket.

  • The comment did specify during the phoney war, so actions of May 1940 wouldn't be relevant. In Sept 1939 with the declaration of war there were no effective German forces along the border with France - Hitler concentrated his forces in Poland, not because there was any doubt about Poland being quickly defeated but he didn't trust Stalin and thought that they'd need to fight the Soviets immediately. There were some French incursions into Germany, and if they'd been pushed forward then French troops could have been across the Rhine in weeks ... one could almost be tempted to say the war would have been over by Christmas.

    On the western front in those six months, it was the French who could be accused of timidity, the Germans just didn't have the forces there to do anything. May 1940 and the Germans were anything but timid. The unexpected resistance from the Dutch, and the more anticipated slowing of the advance by breaching the dykes, actually played into the German strategy because the invasion of the Netherlands was a feint, designed to draw the British forward into Belgium, with the main strike through the Ardennes to the coast cutting the British off from their supply lines in France, which would have succeeded in destroying the main British forces except for Dynamo. The delays in the Netherlands just encouraged the British to move even further forward into Belgium.
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    Martin54 wrote: »
    No. Hitler was accommodated and appeased. Rhineland. Austria. Czechoslovakia. Only when Poland was invaded. Poland was far too late, noting that it was very anti-Semitic at the time, on its own.

    Given how the start of WWII went for the allies I don't know that starting earlier was militarily possible. I suppose German rearmament would not have been as far advanced either.

    It's noteworthy how timid the Germans were on the Western front in the Phoney War. There again not as much as the French and the British, Belgians, Dutch. Chopping a few trees down would have stopped their attack when it came through the Ardennes.

    Fun history lesson time - not sure timidity is the right word for the Dutch, although I suppose it depends when you're accusing them of timidity. During the German invasion of Holland they actually brought the invaders to a halt briefly. They were always going to lose, because so outnumbered, but the Germans got a reception that they really weren't expecting, and the Dutch fought and died hard.

    Not much known about outside the Netherlands (and Germany, funnily enough). The Germans thought they were going to walk in. Obviously they got in, but they were handed a massive kicking in the process by numerically much smaller forces. Much like the (German and Italian) experience in the invasion of Greece actually.

    French, British and Belgians less so, but I suppose the old saw of 'it wasn't quite that simple' applies to an extent. But the Dutch (IMO) don't deserve to be in the bracket.

    I beg the Netherland's pardon. The Dutch resistance were awesome I know. I've stayed frequently in Amsterdam. They NEVER forget. Every house occupied by German forces is marked. And they starved, I know.
  • Telford wrote: »
    No. Hitler was accommodated and appeased. Rhineland. Austria. Czechoslovakia. Only when Poland was invaded. Poland was far too late, noting that it was very anti-Semitic at the time, on its own.

    Did you not hear about WW2 in Europe ?

    Perhaps you're unaware of the failure of the western powers; Britain and France to oppose Hitler? Appeasement.
    1936 - Hitler sent troops into the demilitarized Rhineland. Treaty of Versailles forbid this.
    1938 - Germany annexes Austria. The Treaty of Versailles also expressly forbade this.
    1938 - British PM Chamberlain agrees that Hitler can take over a good chunk of Czechoslovakia, the Czech president Benes is bullied into accepting, in a meeting organized by Chamberlain in Munich. In March 1938, Hitler occupied the whole country.

    Before 1936, the build up of Germany's military again illegal under the treaty of Versailles.

  • I've thought on a good few occasions that when modern Israel was created it should have been made a protected zone with a guarantee by the UN and designated trusted nations with sufficient military 'clout' that their borders and territory would be kept safe from invasion or other dangers from any who threatened them. This protection would be conditional on them behaving responsibly by respecting the rights and property of non-Jews within the territory and not seeking to arm themselves beyond the need to keep civil law and order - so no army, no missiles and no nukes!

    Unfortunately this didn't happen and Israel has become a rogue nation with nukes but can claim to be a democracy of a sort. Israel was hated and considered illegitimate by many of their neighbours from the start. The transfer of Palestinian land (by outsiders) made the Palestinians very unhappy and the way the state of Israel has acted over the years by taking land and treating it as their own by building settlements on it for their people makes people dislike them more. Meanwhile they treat the legitimate owners of the occupied land as hostile dangerous vermin in a truly aparthied state.

    They acquired nuclear weapons and are shielded from criticism at the United Nations by their 'protector' the US (and too many other nations, mostly European including the UK say little of consequence) while creating ongoing division and mistrust.

    How the hell did this state get nuclear weapons and then have the chutzpah to claim the moral high ground when another country in the area (Iran) try to get them?

  • The UK and USA support of apartheid-era South Africa as a "bulwark against communism" have something to do with them acquiring nukes. Re who supports who, compare to Thatcher's affinity for Chile's brutal Pinochet (dictator installed by USA back coup), Reagan's convoluted funding for the Nicaraguan right-wing Contras. With a consistent history back to the immediate post-WW2 of support whomever supports your country's strategic interests, formerly dressed up as anti-communist necessity. My awareness starts in 1954 with the successful CIA coup to over-throw the Guatemalan gov't.

    Israel was the western ally in the region, and things are lining up that way again. A weird cobble together of them and totalitarian Saudi Arabia, with the Chinese wild card, and God knows what about India and Pakistan. It's got all the features of the 19th century Great Game, with better weapons.

    Bottom line for why Israel is supported: it is strategically useful for USA. More jadedly, we could boil it down to that it supports American business.
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    @Furtive Gander. What's morality got to do with it?
Sign In or Register to comment.