EU should bomb Israel and tell americans to mind their own business

[Bereta_Eder]

Chris,
thank you for taking the time to reply. I appreciate it. The thread was written in a jocking fashion but it had concerns behind the jokes.

I understand your position.

Seriously though, could you tell me why the US support towards Israel is so adamant? What does USA gain from doing that?
I cannot accept that it is because of a sense of duty and justice towards Israel. Maybe in part, but there has to be a concrete interest in play?

Natan,
In my book having the support of a super power makes you automatically an extention of imperialistic policies. Otherwise you wouldn't have it.

BTW, the time of the greek revolution the whole Europe was shocked by the Napoleontian wars. All big powers saught to cruch rebellions and even the Vatican had labeled revolutions "demonic insurections .

After greek freedom was inevitable Britain started selling arms to us thinking that a new regional power would be born to stabilize the region as the Ottoman empire approached its collapse.
So your argument echos void. If you were talking about the british Lord Byron I would have accepted it without question.

Only one power helped concretely. (words are cheap). And that is good ole Russia in the naval battles of Navarino. It helped for its own reasons of course (to weaken the Ottoman empire) but its help was the only real one. The only thing Britain and France ever did was to accept Greek independence when it was already established.. Good for them...

In the second phase it was Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria, as organised states now, against the crumbling remains of the Ottoman Empire.

In 1922 when Turkey had sided with the Axis and Greece with the Allies it was Britain who sold Greece cheap in its efforts to push the Turks back to Asia and reclaim Asia Minor. (using greek soldiers as cannon fodder and then stopped supplying them with extra amunition, living them for dead in the clutches of the incoming turkish hoardes from far Anatolia - you should read about the Devastation of Smyrna - a small scale holocaust).

The bones of the 1821 fighters would rattle in the graves if I did not correct such falseties...

Coming back on topic,

maybe you can answer me for the constant support of the US towards Israel?

I have no illusions about what Jews suffered. Read about the Jews of the "Second Jerusalem" (Thessaloniki) during WW2 and you'd understand that I fully comprehend their past turmoils.

But today's constant support is uncoprehensible. Do you use Israel as a far away barometer of muslim feelings towards the US? Do you use it to limit the power middle eastern countries have to dectate oil prices?

There has to be a reason, sorry but I'm not conveinced by an all out wilsonian attitude towards another state.

Furthermore,

there is a breach in consciousness. Some say that this course of action has yielded no results what so ever.
Some say that the fact that Israel still exists is enough proof of the success of such policies.

I find it hard to believe that of all the places and countries in the whole world this situation is the only one who persists in its intensity.
Clearly it has to be serving some people of power or else it wouldn't go on.

One more thing. Terrorism works. It was terrorism that caused the upheavals in the Balkans and resulted, one way or another, in the detachment of Kosovo from Serbia. (with some... help).

Terrorism gain the Albanians of FYROM a powerful influence in the Skopjie parliement.

Terrorism added leverage to the people of Ireland.

And it was terrorism that made the US at least think about creating a palestinian state.

If nothing else, even Arafat was once thought of as a terrorist only to be proclaimed the acknowledged leader of Palestinians.

What can be wrong in creating a palestine with closed borders with israel where the palestinians can breed for as much as they please as long as they are o not migrate to Israel.

Why hasn't that solution been sought for before?

Israel is surrounded by hostile nations, one more, a weak one that would also remove the threat of terrorism would be a blessing.

Or do you also think that some Palestinians, due to their religion or what have you, are incapable of sitting quiet in their side of the map?

[Saint Marcus]

The Spanish Legion are highly feared. And so are the Spanish Marines.

Feared? By whom? The Portugese?

This also shows you have a phobia against the Spanish People.

Nah, just you. You're special

[Natan]

Originally posted by paiktis22
Natan,
In my book having the support of a super power makes you automatically an extention of imperialistic policies. Otherwise you wouldn't have it.

No, it's just means that the super power in question sees a benefit in helping you and that you do not refuse the help.

BTW, the time of the greek revolution the whole Europe was shocked by the Napoleontian wars. All big powers saught to cruch rebellions and even the Vatican had labeled revolutions "demonic insurections .

Which was mighty important at a time when the only even vaguely Catholic super power at the time was France.

After greek freedom was inevitable Britain started selling arms to us thinking that a new regional power would be born to stabilize the region as the Ottoman empire approached its collapse.
So your argument echos void. If you were talking about the british Lord Byron I would have accepted it without question.

Sounds just like America and Israel. The British tried to help the Arabs to gain support from the Arab states (they hoped to maintain hegemony over them) but when this failed, the west started backing Israel.

Only one power helped concretely. (words are cheap). And that is good ole Russia in the naval battles of Navarino. It helped for its own reasons of course (to weaken the Ottoman empire) but its help was the only real one. The only thing Britain and France ever did was to accept Greek independence when it was already established.. Good for them...

So you had Russian support, and then you had British trooped stationed on your territory in WWI, and had Britain's support against Turkey in the 20s.

In 1922 when Turkey had sided with the Axis and Greece with the Allies it was Britain who sold Greece cheap in its efforts to push the Turks back to Asia and reclaim Asia Minor. (using greek soldiers as cannon fodder and then stopped supplying them with extra amunition, living them for dead in the clutches of the incoming turkish hoardes from far Anatolia - you should read about the Devastation of Smyrna - a small scale holocaust).

You're preaching to the choir, but nonetheless, the British saw an advantage to be gained by helping you and did so to a certain extent - you were "an extension of imperialist policy." And let's not pretend that no turks suffered in that war either.

maybe you can answer me for the constant support of the US towards Israel?

I have no illusions about what Jews suffered. Read about the Jews of the "Second Jerusalem" (Thessaloniki) during WW2 and you'd understand that I fully comprehend their past turmoils.

But today's constant support is uncoprehensible. Do you use Israel as a far away barometer of muslim feelings towards the US? Do you use it to limit the power middle eastern countries have to dectate oil prices?

There are a number of reasons. One is tradition; most Americans can remember when Arafat was personally blowing up planes. There's also lobbying and political pressure, by Jews, Christian fundamentalists, and other conservatives who seem to have rallied around the issue. There's also cold political/military logic, in that Israel is a more reliable ally than any of its neighbors. This is what the Soviets painfully discovered in the 70s and 80s, and it led them to abandon their Arab allies. Basically, Israel provides America with an in-region military force, a counterweight to our enemies in the region, and a source of intelligence. This is not to even mention the number of people with dual-citizenship, or the

there is a breach in consciousness. Some say that this course of action has yielded no results what so ever.
Some say that the fact that Israel still exists is enough proof of the success of such policies.

I find it hard to believe that of all the places and countries in the whole world this situation is the only one who persists in its intensity.

Not sure what you mean here.

Clearly it has to be serving some people of power or else it wouldn't go on.

Sure, and I'm not sure what it shows. Israel does serve the goals of the west, but that's largely because it is part of the west.

One more thing. Terrorism works. It was terrorism that caused the upheavals in the Balkans and resulted, one way or another, in the detachment of Kosovo from Serbia. (with some... help).

Terrorism gain the Albanians of FYROM a powerful influence in the Skopjie parliement.

Terrorism added leverage to the people of Ireland.

And it was terrorism that made the US at least think about creating a palestinian state.

Yes, it works, like other forms of warfare.

If nothing else, even Arafat was once thought of as a terrorist only to be proclaimed the acknowledged leader of Palestinians.

What can be wrong in creating a palestine with closed borders with israel where the palestinians can breed for as much as they please as long as they are o not migrate to Israel.

Firstly, such a border could not be policed and would do nothing to protect Israel from mortar and rocket attacks. Secondly, I believe such a "palestine" would be labelled a bantustan, and would in fact be condemned to a permanent existance of squalor, conflict, and general badness. Thirdly, the first experiment in such a state, the PA, has been a failure so far.

Why hasn't that solution been sought for before?

It has, it was called Oslo.

Israel is surrounded by hostile nations, one more, a weak one that would also remove the threat of terrorism would be a blessing.

Or do you also think that some Palestinians, due to their religion or what have you, are incapable of sitting quiet in their side of the map?

I don't think they are "incapable" of it but I think the political and social realities of the area make it unlikely, and I don't think it would end terrorism because they can easily develop new demands just as Hezbollah agitated about Shabaa farms after Israel withdrew from Lebanon.

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by Natan

No, it's just means that the super power in question sees a benefit in helping you and that you do not refuse the help.

Fair enough. In other words its imperialist policy

Which was mighty important at a time when the only even vaguely Catholic super power at the time was France.

So you can understand how negative the environment was for any kind of revolution.

So you had Russian support, and then you had British trooped stationed on your territory in WWI, and had Britain's support against Turkey in the 20s.

Russian ships sinking the whole turkish fleet in Navarino along with the Greeks, yes. The only concrete help we ever received in our struggle for freedom.

British troops in WWI were there (and specifically in Piraeus) for a completely different reason Natan To stop us from attacking Turkey in a moment of history where it was certain that we would have demolished it completely.
That would destroy the leverage Britain would have in "playing around" and swifting balances between two regional powers. And it would weaken the Allied front somewhat (greek forces in Turkey instead of Europe). But what matters is what is more important to each one...

In the '20s, if you call using greek soldiers as cannon fodder against turkish hoards "help" then you are correct... Not to say anything about what was promised and never delivered.

You're preaching to the choir, but nonetheless, the British saw an advantage to be gained by helping you and did so to a certain extent - you were "an extension of imperialist policy." And let's not pretend that no turks suffered in that war either.

Agreed. Turks suffering sure. In comparison wih 400 years of slavery, it's nothing though. And Smyrna burning was a new legacy. But this is the past, I guess. In the present, Turks not violating air space would be a nice sign of willingness to change, we lifted our veto for their admission to the EU, what do we get in return? More air space violations. Thank you very much. It is a bad thing to confuse courtesy and willigness to negotiate with weakness.

There are a number of reasons. One is tradition; most Americans can remember when Arafat was personally blowing up planes. There's also lobbying and political pressure, by Jews, Christian fundamentalists, and other conservatives who seem to have rallied around the issue. There's also cold political/military logic, in that Israel is a more reliable ally than any of its neighbors. This is what the Soviets painfully discovered in the 70s and 80s, and it led them to abandon their Arab allies. Basically, Israel provides America with an in-region military force, a counterweight to our enemies in the region, and a source of intelligence. This is not to even mention the number of people with dual-citizenship,

ENFIN! An honest answer. Yes I can understand what you are saying and it makes sense.

Not sure what you mean here.

I'm surprised by the amount of bloodshed and the seemingly never ending turmoil of that region.

Firstly, such a border could not be policed and would do nothing to protect Israel from mortar and rocket attacks. Secondly, I believe such a "palestine" would be labelled a bantustan, and would in fact be condemned to a permanent existance of squalor, conflict, and general badness. Thirdly, the first experiment in such a state, the PA, has been a failure so far.

Was it a test or an inevitability because of Palestinian unrest?

I don't think they are "incapable" of it but I think the political and social realities of the area make it unlikely, and I don't think it would end terrorism because they can easily develop new demands just as Hezbollah agitated about Shabaa farms after Israel withdrew from Lebanon.

But when all you do is bomb, the minority that will only be satisfied if Israel is destroyed becames the majority... And the circle is vicious...

But since your interests are those you described I guess you are prepared to keep it up indefinately... The only light I see is the Israelis themselves trying something new.

BTW I don't think the palestinians will never give up untill they have a country of their own. Untill then, they are destined to have the support of a large fraction of europeans. If they get it and still indulge in terrorism, then I don't think anyone would object anymore

[Natan]

Fair enough. In other words its imperialist policy

Sure, but Arafat was supported by the USSR and then by the US and EU for several years.

So you can understand how negative the environment was for any kind of revolution.

That was sarcasm on my part.

In the '20s, if you call using greek soldiers as cannon fodder against turkish hoards "help" then you are correct... Not to say anything about what was promised and never delivered.

Look, they wanted to use you to defeat turkey and you were used, hence, you were a tool of their policy.

Agreed. Turks suffering sure. In comparison wih 400 years of slavery, it's nothing though. And Smyrna burning was a new legacy. But this is the past, I guess. In the present, Turks not violating air space would be a nice sign of willingness to change, we lifted our veto for their admission to the EU, what do we get in return? More air space violations. Thank you very much. It is a bad thing to confuse courtesy and willigness to negotiate with weakness.

You related to Eli, by any chance?

I'm surprised by the amount of bloodshed and the seemingly never ending turmoil of that region.

It's been around since the days of Sennacherib.

Was it a test or an inevitability because of Palestinian unrest?

I'd say the former, but I don't see why the two are mutually exclusive.

But when all you do is bomb, the minority that will only be satisfied if Israel is destroyed becames the majority... And the circle is vicious...

But since your interests are those you described I guess you are prepared to keep it up indefinately... The only light I see is the Israelis themselves trying something new.

I think that we may see this conflict finally treated as the proper insurgency and counter-insurgency it is. There are previous examples. Basically, Israel has to make it clear that accepting Israel's terms is better than the alternative through the combination of positive and negative incentives. Sure, there will be new elements, new offers, etc. (well, there would be if I were in charge, ) but basically it's what we've seen quite a few times throughout history.

BTW I don't think the palestinians will never give up untill they have a country of their own. Untill then, they are destined to have the support of a large fraction of europeans. If they get it and still indulge in terrorism, then I don't think anyone would object anymore

Anyone would object to what?

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by Natan

Sure, but Arafat was supported by the USSR and then by the US and EU for several years.

Of course. What makes one a terrorist and another a freedom fighter?

Interests.

That was sarcasm on my part.

Oh that explains it

Look, they wanted to use you to defeat turkey and you were used, hence, you were a tool of their policy.

Do you think that my inflated ego would burst if I conceided that we were used? Come on. Not only once. But it is better to understand when this happens and why. We were not used to defeat Turkey but to protect british soldiers staying at Constantinople. For that we were promised stuff - never delivered...
Oh well another day another dollar

You related to Eli, by any chance?

I have a feeling I may be actually

I'd say the former, but I don't see why the two are mutually exclusive.

The difference is defining. If it was a test it was a choice. If it was an inevitabiliy it was forced upon and it shows a pattern developing.

I think that we may see this conflict finally treated as the proper insurgency and counter-insurgency it is. There are previous examples. Basically, Israel has to make it clear that accepting Israel's terms is better than the alternative through the combination of positive and negative incentives.

It can't do that. The Palestinians won't have it. So we continue killing each other?

Anyone would object to what?

to the notion of who is right and who is wrong. Two states. Two people. Two clear cut responsibilities. The one who violates them gets international sanctions.

If only some people would at least make that happen.

[Natan]

The difference is defining. If it was a test it was a choice. If it was an inevitabiliy it was forced upon and it shows a pattern developing.

But either way, it tests the effectiveness of the strategy you suggest.

It can't do that. The Palestinians won't have it. So we continue killing each other?

I don't rule out a state as one of the encouragements for good behavior.

to the notion of who is right and who is wrong. Two states. Two people. Two clear cut responsibilities. The one who violates them gets international sanctions.

If only some people would at least make that happen

I think that's a bit of a naive view of human nature.

[Goingonit]

Originally posted by paiktis22

to the notion of who is right and who is wrong. Two states. Two people. Two clear cut responsibilities. The one who violates them gets international sanctions.

If only some people would at least make that happen.

1) International Sanctions don't work
2) Bias! If you had some person whose morality nobody would question, then maybe...
3) Who chooses the clear cut responsibilties? I would suggest:

-Palestinians halt all terrorism and arrest the heads of all known Terrorist organizations
-Israelis halt all new settlement building
-Israelis stop retaliation CONDITIONALLY that the Palestinians arrest terrorists and patrol their own border.
-Palestinians recognize Israel's right to exist
-Palestinians get right of return into Palestine, but not Israel
-Conditionally upon #1, Palestinians get access to Jerusalem, Israelis to Hebron/Nablus.

But other people would have it differently.

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by Natan

But either way, it tests the effectiveness of the strategy you suggest.


I don't rule out a state as one of the encouragements for good behavior.


I think that's a bit of a naive view of human nature.

But people shouldn't have to stand in line and be told what to do by foreigners. It gets them mad, they revolt. Human nature (for most people).

A half - solution (like the autonomous palestinian territories) doesn't really help you determine the effectiveness of anything.

Peopel well fed living in their independent place (what hell hole might that be) are not prone to terrorism.

If you think that a free Palestine would instantly adopt a rivarly with Israel (because that's what I get here) then at least they would both be on an even moral ground.

If this discontent continues (in the arab world and Europe in favor of Palestinians' plight of not having a home and being mistreated - in USA in favor of Israelis' plight of suffering terrorist attacks) the hatred just keeps on building.

Can it go on for ever like that?

I wouldn't imagine a single european feeling disconent at Israel if Palestine had a state. And if the Palestinian state ill behaves against Israel then the legitimacy of action by Israel is a given. Where it is not a given now under current circumstances.

Can it be possible that people are used to it or regard it 100% as a lesser evil? To continue in this fashion as things are now I mean.

Would Israel be more inclined to negotiate if it didn't feel like an american protegee? (for reasons you layed out and I agree they exist).

[Goingonit]

Israel doesn't like negotiating under fire. For good reason, too. This is why they aren't inclined to negotiate; they'd be even less willing if it weren't for USA.

As for the Europeans, I don't know why they dislike Israel but my fervent hope is that the reason doesn't start with "anti" and end with "semitism". I'm probably just being paranoid, but it's happened too many times for me to discount the idea totally.

[Natan]

A half - solution (like the autonomous palestinian territories) doesn't really help you determine the effectiveness of anything.

Why not? Surely it should have at least reduced the level of terrorism, but instead it increased it. Besides, the borders of a Palestinian state are arbitrary - as many have pointed out, Israel's (and therefore the Palestinians') claim to the area inside the '49 cease fire line is only as good as its claim to the land beyond it. As one Palestinian negotiator told his Israeli counterpart "it is like Solomon's trial with the baby: You are willing to cut the baby in half, you are not the true mother."

Peopel well fed living in their independent place (what hell hole might that be) are not prone to terrorism.

Firstly, I would point out that this is not neccessarily true. For example, the now late Al-Qaeda murderers were rich Saudis led by the son of a well-off Egyptian lawyer. Hamas has the same motivation.

If you think that a free Palestine would instantly adopt a rivarly with Israel (because that's what I get here) then at least they would both be on an even moral ground.

I doubt it, because they'll just find a new excuse and the world will do what it always does, which is to push whoever looks easiest to bend. The "international community" couldn't care less about justice and right, it just wants the area quiet.

If this discontent continues (in the arab world and Europe in favor of Palestinians' plight of not having a home and being mistreated - in USA in favor of Israelis' plight of suffering terrorist attacks) the hatred just keeps on building.

I think pragmatism

Can it go on for ever like that?

I wouldn't imagine a single european feeling disconent at Israel if Palestine had a state. And if the Palestinian state ill behaves against Israel then the legitimacy of action by Israel is a given. Where it is not a given now under current circumstances.

Look, Israel offered the Palestinians a good deal, they wouldn't take it. More importantly, they wouldn't make a counter-offer. If Israel pulls out of 90% of the West Bank, the Palestinians will demand the other ten percent. If Israel pulls out of 97%, they'll want the other 3% and the Arab parts of East Jerusalem. If they get that it will be the Jewish parts of Jerusalem as well, and the return of refugees, and if they get that, they'll demand the galillee, etc. and each time, it will be explained that if Israel will just give in, and so on. It will be just like appeasement in the 1930s. By the way, I should note that to do this, Arafat won't really need to declare war on Israel, he'll just keep pretending he can't control his own lips from telling his people to do it. No one notices now, no one will notice in the future.

[Bereta_Eder]

So why do you think this happens? Why Palestinians are so unwilling to compromise If Israel has been so generous in your opinion ?

[Natan]

Originally posted by paiktis22
So why do you think this happens? Why Palestinians are so unwilling to compromise If Israel has been so generous in your opinion ?

Because they feel they deserve more. And I never said that Israel has been "generous," because that word would be completely subjective and in this context, more or less meaningless.

[Bereta_Eder]

Ok Natan. Thank you for a very interesting discussion

[Natan]

Originally posted by paiktis22
Ok Natan. Thank you for a very interesting discussion

Okay, you two, by GRGRRRecian friend.