View Full Version : Financial Aid to Israel
So in the other thread which has now been locked for being dragged off topic continuously (I guess it was easier to just keep deleting posts and then lock it altogether than to ask people to stop posting that particular information) I've decided to start a new thread.
Specifically dealing with US aid to Israel.
Here's the latest report I can find:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf
Printed in December.
The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs uses this report to generate a table of values making it easier to go through the data but Evo has said this is not a mainstream source, so I'm not going to bother posting it anyone interested can look it up themselves.
From the usaid.gov website I found this report from 1994:
http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PCAAA469.pdf
The summary states:
Israel is not economically self-sufficient,
and relies on foreign assistance and
borrowmg to maintain its ecoromy.
At this time they were receiving around 1.2 billion dollars per year for Economic Grants since 1985.
However, in recent times, Israels economy has been thriving, in my opinion, and they have been receiving less, and less money from USA for their Economy. Nearly 100% of loans/grants were given to Israel for military purposes. This is usually done through 'buying credits' for American equipment/technology. (in 2008 0$ were given in Economic loans/grants)
So this begs the question, if the Israeli economy is now self-sufficient and can run without so much foreign aid why does America continue to pour the largest amount of foreign aid it gives into Israels military? Would Israel be able to continue being a powerful military prescence in the Middle East without the American support? Does this support in Israeli military from the American government show that America supports Israeli military policies?
I guess the most important question is: Does it seem to you like America is using Israel as an 'outpost' in the Middle East and is this a negative thing?(especially taking into account the recent boarding of merchant ships... which in my mind were completely legal and authorized but most developed nations disagree with that)
I can think of many more questions but those are just a few to start a discussion... hopefully one which doesn't end up locked. If my sources aren't good enough for the forums then I truly do not know what is good enough to be cited here.
However, in recent times, Israels economy has been thriving, in my opinion, and they have been receiving less, and less money from USA for their Economy. Nearly 100% of loans/grants were given to Israel for military purposes. This is usually done through 'buying credits' for American equipment/technology. (in 2008 0$ were given in Economic loans/grants)
My question to you is: military hard ware is expensive - extremely expensive. How does the military funding we've given them compare to some other metric, like their GDP. This will give you a better indication of the relative magnitude of military/civilian spending.
So this begs the question, if the Israeli economy is now self-sufficient and can run without so much foreign aid why does America continue to pour the largest amount of foreign aid it gives into Israels military?
Lobbyists.
Would Israel be able to continue being a powerful military prescence in the Middle East without the American support?
I have to argue, no. Google Isreali Army. You will see Apache helicopters, F-16s, M-16s, Humvee's, and many other made in USA products.
Does this support in Israeli military from the American government show that America supports Israeli military policies?
Absolutely, if you have moral and legal objections to another countries actions, you don't help arm them (and exclusively militarily, since '08 according to your data) for the past 25 years.
I guess the most important question is: Does it seem to you like America is using Israel as an 'outpost' in the Middle East and is this a negative thing?(especially taking into account the recent boarding of merchant ships... which in my mind were completely legal and authorized but most developed nations disagree with that)
Yes, the point of Israel is not like that of Iraq, which was to show democracy can work, and hopefully spread in the region. Instead, Israel is used effectively as a proxy military base for the United States.
I can think of many more questions but those are just a few to start a discussion... hopefully one which doesn't end up locked. If my sources aren't good enough for the forums then I truly do not know what is good enough to be cited here.
The question is, why isn't the United States actively talking with other Arab countries, particularly Syria, who reached out the the US but got a cold back from the Bush Administration. Blind support of Israel is not a silver bullet that will solve all the problems of the Middle East.
The better question is, what is the US and Israel doing to get rid of the corruption in Palestine (none). Until you set up a stable internal workings in Palestine, you're never going to have any chance of peace. You can dump all the US's money into Israel and you still wont solve anything.
I'm going to tentatively allow this since obviously talking about it without knowing the extent of the military and strategic benefits the US gets makes the thread rather pointless. Was there some point? I didn't see one.
Look up US aid to Gaza. And they are not an ally.
The military financial aid to Israel is a blessing to the US military-industrial complex more than it is to Israel's army. That way the armament/defense companies in the US are kept more busy, and competing for contracts instead of falling apart because of lack of demand. All the goods produced, the high-tech military hardware has to be unloaded somewhere, and tested in the field, so giving it away to a really trusted ally is beneficial for the US.
It is also clear that Israel is systematically annexing (legally and illegally) Palestinian property. Similar situation occurs in Tibet when the Han Chinese are moving in the region by the boatloads. Given enough time of maintaining the status quo, perhaps in another generation they will have more bargaining chips when claiming lands because the ingenious population became a minority.
Office_Shredder
Jun7-10, 11:50 PM
It is also clear that Israel is systematically annexing (legally and illegally) Palestinian property. Similar situation occurs in Tibet when the Han Chinese are moving in the region by the boatloads. Given enough time of maintaining the status quo, perhaps in another generation they will have more bargaining chips when claiming lands because the ingenious population became a minority.
a) How can you possibly expect Israel to gain a majority in the Gaza strip when they forcibly removed all the settlers there?
b) What does this have to do with financial aid to Israel? If the answer to this is nothing, please don't reply (no need to derail yet another thread)
I have to argue, no. Google Isreali Army. You will see Apache helicopters, F-16s, M-16s, Humvee's, and many other made in USA products.
A lot of countries use lots of USA made products. Most places don't have the technology and manufacturing base to make all their own equipment
@Cyrus. I typed up a response to what you wrote but when I clicked post the thread was no longer here, so I lost the post. :rofl:.
Anyways I went and looked up Israels GDP per capita and PPP they are just under 30k and 214billion. I think this is decent and when you look at the growth going on it makes it seem even more 'stable' (considering foreign aid into the economy went to 0 as my other source states.)
I got this data from the IMF datasets from April 2010. I'd post the source but I'm on another computer and I'm not so sure how to post the data since it's done in a graph format with no URL.
I'm not sure what this data means relative to the over 2 billion$ in foreign US aid to Israels military.
I had come to similar conclusions as you except it just brought a more pressing question. Would America use this foreign aid to try and control Israeli policy or have they already??? The total amount of loans/grants given to Israel accounts for 44% of it's GDP... most of it though was 'waived' (the vast majority).
I wonder how long Israel has to continue being USAs 'puppet' government/military outpost in the middle east. Will it's recent actions put strain on the national relations between the countries? I mean I know that America comes out and 'condemns' Israeli actions calling for increases in aid and the works but will they actually take action against Israel?
I'm going to tentatively allow this since obviously talking about it without knowing the extent of the military and strategic benefits the US gets makes the thread rather pointless. Was there some point? I didn't see one.
Look up US aid to Gaza. And they are not an ally.
Evo have you even been reading the sources provided?
A lot of countries use lots of USA made products. Most places don't have the technology and manufacturing base to make all their own equipment
Precisely.
China supports North Korea for same reason as US supports Israel, regional interests IMO.
USA financial aid to Israel is based on credit (not actually money [something like: win points get prizes]) that Israel uses to buy military equipment from the USA.
This aid was a part of the peace agreements between Israel and Egypt negotiated by the USA in 1979. (See "Camp David Accords").
(Egypt granted it's own financial aid by the USA)
Israel also has "less public" agreements with the USA on the topic of military developments.
(In fashion of: Israel develops, USA pays and gets the technology too)
(In some cases USA, gives us the red light, like in the Lavi project)
To summarize things informally:
Russian political and strategical grip is in form of weak Arabic countries in the middle east.
USA has the same kind of grip in form of the strongest country in the middle east, Israel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAI_Lavi#Results_of_development
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_David_Accords#Terms_of_the_agreements
Oh, these sources are little bit funny, but most of formal sources are only Hebrew (can't find them in English).
estro, if you want to you can head here:
http://translate.google.com/#
And past the source of the webpage that you wish to translate or the section of text or whatever.
Israel is in a strategic geographic position, and America would like to have an ally next to Iran etc. Going further you might say that America has a military presence by proxy through the state of Israel.
Remember that whatever level of monetary aid the US gives Israel, it is money borrowed by the US, and we are paying interest on the debt. Also, financial aid to Israel (unlike to other countries) is given in a lump sum instead of in structured payments throughout the fiscal year, meaning that the US forgoes all the interest that might have accrued.
So this begs the question, if the Israeli economy is now self-sufficient and can run without so much foreign aid why does America continue to pour the largest amount of foreign aid it gives into Israels military? Would Israel be able to continue being a powerful military prescence in the Middle East without the American support? Does this support in Israeli military from the American government show that America supports Israeli military policies?
To follow up on the first part of my previous post, if US cuts military aid to Israel, then Israel could buy military hardware from other countries - the Euro-zone, Russia perhaps or any lowest bidder. But in the end the US will lose out on stimulating its military-industry which is absolutely crucial in keeping the US military on the cutting edge, and will also lose out on projecting a significant military power at the boundary of middle east which is of great strategic importance for the US.
Does this support in Israeli military from the American government show that America supports Israeli military policies?
When it comes to national interests which is a priority for every country, or internal affairs then no.
Office_Shredder
Jun8-10, 03:46 PM
Something I only just thought of... as an example, how much money was it worth for Israel to blow up whatever they blew up in Syria back in 2007? That's essentially unanswerable because none of us know the implications of that attack.
How much is it worth to have the Mossad working in our interests in a region where our intelligence routinely fails?
How good is the Mossad information they provide?
How much is it worth to have what amounts to a massive base in the heart of the Middle East, from a tactical and strategic perspective?
Have we ever used this as a base, in Gulf War I or II, or Afghanistan? Not really.
How much is it worth to have an entity which routinely assassinates targets we deem to be dangerous as well, and harries such characters as Imad Mugniyeh?
While also blowing up half an apartment building filled with civilians?
How much was it worth when the Israelis destroyed the Iraqi nuclear facility in the 80's and how much will it be worth when they do the same and worse to Iran, eventually?
I find it highly unlikely they will try to attack Iran, given the reach Iran has with its missile system.
We could build partnerships with the other Arab countries, so we don't need to back Israel.
I think it's because Israel has proven that they can be trusted not to take what we have helped them develop and not use it against us.
I think it's because Israel has proven that they can be trusted not to take what we have helped them develop and not use it against us.
Err....
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/u-s-jew-indicted-as-possible-israel-spy-1.265740
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Pollard
Err....
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/u-s-jew-indicted-as-possible-israel-spy-1.265740
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_PollardAn American Jew selling secrets. Not exactly the government of Israel using our weapons against us eh?
What about that American that sold a list of all of the US agents in Russia that got them all killed?
Off topic.
An American Jew selling secrets. Not exactly the government of Israel using our weapons against us eh?
What about that American that sold a list of all of the US agents in Russia that got them all killed?
Off topic.
The point is that the guy wasn't caught because Israel turned him to US officials in when he tried to pass them information. That doesn't speak well for them.
nRbpzFKsPYg&feature=related
What was Geigerclick's comment again? "How much is it worth to have Mossad working in "our" interests in a region...?"
If this is the kind of stuff the Mossad does for us, as an American, thanks, but no thanks.
Do you know, or are you being rhetorical?
That was actually a question.
The vast majority of our human intelligence comes from Ha Mossad; Sigint is more our thing. Obviously finding examples of this is not the easiest thing in the world, but we can employ logic here. Ha Mossad has captured people such as Eichmann, whom we had an interest in seeing hanged, assassinated a number of people involved in Iraqi weapons projects, and leads intelligence for the IDF. http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/world/israel/mossad.htm
Thank's for that information.
You ask questions that can be partially answered by Wikipedia, so I am doubting your sincrity a bit. One example:
I strongly suggest you read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mossad#Suspected_activities
It was a loaded question, :wink:.
This is a bit misleading; we train for desert combat in the Negev, and it is a fairly critical regime. They are also, and have always been, a buffer between Iran and our other "friends" in the Middle east, as a last ditch given a fallen Iraq. They are as a I said, much more than a base, but also a proxy. You think this is really just for Israel's benefit?
Agree with you here.
**** happens, we blow up civilians all the time to get to targets. Granted, it's usually not a mistake when we do it, but we do it. You're free to disagree with the methods employed by the USA, UK, USSR/Russia, Israel and more, but this is not a valid argument.
Again, it was a loaded question. My point is that they knowingly use excessive force to assassinate a target. It is by no means a swat team like precision engagement (Note: there are a few cases where it is, but many where it is not).
Cite? Do you REALLY believe that if it comes down to it Israel will allow Iran to gain nuclear weapons? There is precedent with a less hostile regime that they will not. The capacity to neutralize Iranian missile threats is not inconsiderable, and the use of non-conventional weapons should not be ruled out. I realize this is a personal topic for you, but that does not change the objective reality.
Not really personal, as I don't care or like the Iranian government (despite having historical ties there). If someone were to bomb Iran, I would want it to be the United States, and no one else.
That sounds nice, but it never really seems to work out. Israel needs us to survive, and we're never going to have that on an arab or persian nation. That is the kind of mutual aid that nations thrive on, and frankly, I don't think our government has had much success dealing with Arab nations. Who shall we deal with? Mubarak of Egypt, and his oh-so-stable "democracy"? Perhaps we should deal even more with Saudi Arabia, sorry, The House of Saud, or Syria, or Lebanon?! :rofl:
Clearly, the surrounding governments are a problem. But if no one is actively working to change it, you will not have peace.
Hell man, why make friends with the list of countries Israel crushed a day after its inception, when we can be partners with Israel?
I'm not saying to be partners with them after the first war. It's been 60 years, and times have to change in terms of how we think about alliances and partnerships.
Given your later post, tarring all of Israel for the actions of one man, I suppose we can draw even sterner conclusions about Arab nations. For Persia/Iran, its leadership, and such joyful puppies as Imad Mugniyeh and Hezbollah. Same for Syria and Lebanon. Saudi Arabia and Egypt... well... you must get my point by now, or not at all. You're showing what appears to be a bit of bias here, and poorly substantiated bias.
I don't trust anything from those governments as well. Actually, I don't trust any government that isn't my own, because fundamentally another government is supposed to put its own interests first - not US interests. The problem is that this is not the actions of "one man", this is a past history of the Israeli government participating in spying on the US. They took the information, on *nuclear secrets* no less!
Proton Soup
Jun8-10, 10:15 PM
I think it's because Israel has proven that they can be trusted not to take what we have helped them develop and not use it against us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aipac
An American Jew selling secrets. Not exactly the government of Israel using our weapons against us eh?
What about that American that sold a list of all of the US agents in Russia that got them all killed?
Off topic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident
Proton Soup
Jun8-10, 10:19 PM
I think you're reaching here, in a big way.
how so?
Office_Shredder
Jun8-10, 11:09 PM
how so?
You've cited a lobbying organization and a friendly fire styled incident during a war
Proton Soup
Jun8-10, 11:22 PM
You've cited a lobbying organization and a friendly fire styled incident during a war
well, that's what lobbying organizations do, they lobby congressmen to give them things. and this thread is all about financial aid to israel. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Israel_Public_Affairs_Committee#Steiner_r esignation)
Steiner resignation
In 1992, AIPAC president David Steiner was forced to resign after he was recorded boasting about his political influence in obtaining aid for Israel. Steiner also claimed that he had
met with (then Bush U.S. Secretary of State) Jim Baker and I cut a deal with him. I got, besides the $3 billion, you know they're looking for the Jewish votes, and I'll tell him whatever he wants to hear ... Besides the $10 billion in loan guarantees which was a fabulous thing, $3 billion in foreign, in military aid, and I got almost a billion dollars in other goodies that people don't even know about.[30]
Steiner also claimed to be "negotiating" with the incoming Clinton administration over who Clinton would appoint as Secretary of State and Secretary of the National Security Agency. Steiner stated that AIPAC had "a dozen people in [the Clinton] campaign, in the headquarters... in Little Rock, and they're all going to get big jobs."[30]
NY real estate developer Haim Katz told The Washington Times that he taped the conversation because "as someone Jewish, I am concerned when a small group has a disproportionate power. I think that hurts everyone, including Jews. If David Steiner wants to talk about the incredible, disproportionate clout AIPAC has, the public should know about it."[31]
as for the Liberty incident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident#Ongoing_controversy_and_unres olved_questions):
Dean Rusk, U.S. Secretary of State at the time of the incident, wrote:
I was never satisfied with the Israeli explanation. Their sustained attack to disable and sink Liberty precluded an assault by accident or some trigger-happy local commander. Through diplomatic channels we refused to accept their explanations. I didn't believe them then, and I don't believe them to this day. The attack was outrageous.[49]
i believe that means the official position of the US government at the time is that it wasn't an accident.
Office_Shredder
Jun8-10, 11:46 PM
well, that's what lobbying organizations do, they lobby congressmen to give them things. and this thread is all about financial aid to israel. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Israel_Public_Affairs_Committee#Steiner_r esignation)
But what does that have to do with not trusting Israel?
i believe that means the official position of the US government at the time is that it wasn't an accident.
At the time being the day of the attack? I'm confused. The US government performed an investigation and concluded that it was an accident. What would Israel even gain by sinking an American ship?
It's hard for me to understand why you're so focused on military aid to Israel, why not discussing economic\military aid to Egypt?
I'm in personal opinion that US-Israel relations have strong roots with both sided getting what they want. While I'm not so that the US gets the same yield from Egypt, nevertheless no one has something to say about it.
It seems to me Israel is just a hot (too hot to handle maybe?) topic, and many want and like expressing their opinions toward Israel with or without any actual reason.
Proton Soup
Jun9-10, 12:37 AM
But what does that have to do with not trusting Israel?
actually, i'm not even sure why i included the aipac link after that evo quote now. had the source of funding on my brain for some reason. in any case, if one is to wonder why we give them so much, i think it is easy to conclude that it is because they expend a lot of effort lobbying our government for it.
as for trust, why the glee from Steiner about getting a billion in aid that no one knows about? and why should i trust any group that expends so much effort lobbying my government in favor of a foreign government? if this were about the chinese, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
At the time being the day of the attack? I'm confused. The US government performed an investigation and concluded that it was an accident. What would Israel even gain by sinking an American ship?
it was later declared an accident? i would say that was diplomacy, given that the Sec. State says he still doesn't believe it was an accident.
israel "gained" us not observing what they were doing at a very sensitive time.
Proton Soup
Jun9-10, 12:43 AM
It's hard for me to understand why you're so focused on military aid to Israel, why not discussing economic\military aid to Egypt?
I'm in personal opinion that US-Israel relations have strong roots with both sided getting what they want. While I'm not so that the US gets the same yield from Egypt, nevertheless no one has something to say about it.
It seems to me Israel is just a hot (too hot to handle maybe?) topic, and many want and like expressing their opinions toward Israel with or without any actual reason.
we provide tanks and other things to egypt and the saudis. perhaps others as well. we even have arabs working here in the US on the contracts to support that equipment. i have no idea though how much direct aid is involved vs. simply sales of equipment and support.
we provide tanks and other things to egypt and the saudis. perhaps others as well. we even have arabs working here in the US on the contracts to support that equipment. i have no idea though how much direct aid is involved vs. simply sales of equipment and support.
1.3 billion $ of U.S military aid annually.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_Armed_Forces
Char. Limit
Jun9-10, 11:44 AM
it was later declared an accident? i would say that was diplomacy, given that the Sec. State says he still doesn't believe it was an accident.
Does a former Secretary of State represent the U.S. Government now?
Personally, I would support Israel because we have to. If we attempted to support the Arab nations, keeping in mind the fact that we need them, they don't need us, they'd soon betray us, make our lives miserable, etc. Israel needs us to survive, and we should support the one least likely to betray us. The Arab nations, upon whom we depend but who do not depend upon us, are far more likely to betray us than Israel, who depends on us.
Also, the right wing in our country would never allow us to endorse a nation that espouses, heaven forbid, Islam! Remember that whole anti-Arab, anti-Muslim current in our right wing? They'd just filibuster.
Does a former Secretary of State represent the U.S. Government now?
Personally, I would support Israel because we have to. If we attempted to support the Arab nations, keeping in mind the fact that we need them, they don't need us, they'd soon betray us, make our lives miserable, etc. Israel needs us to survive, and we should support the one least likely to betray us. The Arab nations, upon whom we depend but who do not depend upon us, are far more likely to betray us than Israel, who depends on us.
Also, the right wing in our country would never allow us to endorse a nation that espouses, heaven forbid, Islam! Remember that whole anti-Arab, anti-Muslim current in our right wing? They'd just filibuster.
I think there is another reason for US-Israel ties.
Many governments in Europe are under constant pressure by their Muslim population, and which in turn influences their policies towards Israel.
But in the US the opposite phenomena occurs, many high profile post are held by Jews, and the Jewish population make itself known.
russ_watters
Jun9-10, 07:20 PM
Is the cost of the first Gulf War included in our "aid" to Saudia Arabia and Kuwait?
vertices
Jun10-10, 02:11 PM
Israel needs us to survive, and we should support the one least likely to betray us.
This language makes me a bit uncomfortable. It is Holocaust tinged and appeals to emotion. I don't for a second doubt that the regimes surrounding Israel are despotic and extremely repressive, but it would be absurd to suggest that they wish to destroy Israel.
The fact of the matter it is not is any nation's interest to blindly support Israel's increasingly outrageous actions. As much as the world adores him, Barack O. stands to lose a great deal of moral credibility if he continues to tactilely support Israeli intransigence.
This language makes me a bit uncomfortable. It is Holocaust tinged and appeals to emotion. I don't for a second doubt that the regimes surrounding Israel are despotic and extremely repressive, but it would be absurd to suggest that they wish to destroy Israel.You do know that they have said that they will not be happy until Israel ceases to exist?
tiny-tim
Jun10-10, 02:23 PM
This language makes me a bit uncomfortable. It is Holocaust tinged … Israel's increasingly outrageous actions … Israeli intransigence.
Your language makes me uncomfortable …
you raise the Holocaust when nobody else has mentioned it, and you criticise Israel as being outrageous and intransigent without giving any reasons, as if it was obvious to anyone of your intelligence. :redface:
The fact of the matter it is not is any nation's interest …
This is a scientific forum …
do you actually understand the difference between fact and opinion? :frown:
vertices
Jun10-10, 02:30 PM
tiny-tim - I was thinking about Israel's actions in Gaza last year which left hundreds of children dead, and the fact it forged UK passports in order to carry out an extra judicial assassination in a sovereign nation (you can't make this up!). And more recently ofcourse, this flotilla incident, technically an act of piracy.
Evo - Well, I'm guessing you're referring to Iran - specifically Mr Ahmadinjad's comment that he wishes to see "Israel wiped off the map"? As much as I hate the guy (and the wacky views he espouses), this comment was infact a mistranslation.
An Iranian friend was explaining that Farsi is a poetic metaphor-ridden language (in contrast to English which is clinically precise). These things happen, and should not be blown out of context for political reasons.
tiny-tim
Jun10-10, 02:52 PM
tiny-tim - I was thinking about Israel's actions …
Having objected to your language, you now make it worse by going completely off-topic, with remarks both highly biased and highly questionable.
Evo - Well, I'm guessing you're referring to Iran - specifically Mr Ahmadinjad's comment that he wishes to see "Israel wiped off the map"?
Since Evo clearly used a different phrase, I expect she wasn't referring to Iran. Again, you're raising off-topic material for no apparent reason (and accurate Farsi translate is obviously possible … you can find accurate English translations of Ahmadinejad's words fairly quickly on a google search, if you can be bothered).
zomgwtf
Jun10-10, 03:14 PM
tiny-tim - I was thinking about Israel's actions in Gaza last year which left hundreds of children dead, and the fact it forged UK passports in order to carry out an extra judicial assassination in a sovereign nation (you can't make this up!). And more recently ofcourse, this flotilla incident, technically an act of piracy.
Evo - Well, I'm guessing you're referring to Iran - specifically Mr Ahmadinjad's comment that he wishes to see "Israel wiped off the map"? As much as I hate the guy (and the wacky views he espouses), this comment was infact a mistranslation.
An Iranian friend was explaining that Farsi is a poetic metaphor-ridden language (in contrast to English which is clinically precise). These things happen, and should not be blown out of context for political reasons.
I would much rather you didn't drag this topic further off course :rofl:. I was actually interested in the answers, considering many people on these forums are American. I know their answers and opinions have been given but I'd still rather this topic not be locked in case something else comes up or something.
vertices
Jun10-10, 03:28 PM
I would much rather you didn't drag this topic further off course
That wasn't my intention. tiny-tim pointed out that I had criticised Israel "without giving any reasons". I gave my reasons in couple of lines. Let's move on.
tiny-tim:
I don't want to prejudge Evo's response, but I am pretty certain that no other state in the Middle East (you guys call it the "Near East"?) has said anything to that effect, other than Iran. As for the mistranslation: well, it is an illustration of the power of media- repeat something often enough, it becomes the "truth". "Wiping of the map" is more headline grabbing than "vanish from the page of time".
ON TOPIC: I don't get why the US gives so much aid to a relatively well-off, 1st world country anyway. It shouldn't be called aid. There are 30,000 children dying per day of starvation: as a Brit I have no right to berate the US (as my government's record is pretty bad on this front), but even in terms of cold hard utilitarian calculus, the combined $4billion Israel and Egypt get, could do so much more good elsewhere.
I don't want to prejudge Evo's response, but I am pretty certain that no other state in the Middle East (you guys call it the "Near East"?) has said anything to that effect, other than Iran. As for the mistranslation: well, it is an illustration of the power of media- repeat something often enough, it becomes the "truth". "Wiping of the map" is more headline grabbing than "vanish from the page of time".Hamas has made similar statements, was just reading one from one of their leaders the other day, I don't remember which article it was in.
vertices
Jun10-10, 04:06 PM
Hamas has made similar statements, was just reading one from one of their leaders the other day, I don't remember which article it was in.
Yes but Hamas isn't a state, it's an organisation. As such, it is comprised of a bunch of people (yes, some of them are terrorists) who tend to spew great deal of rhetoric that is often-times beneath contempt. It doesn't have press offices to vet the comments people make.
...
but it would be absurd to suggest that they wish to destroy Israel.
So you say that the 7 wars we had to fight (many, for our existence) are not because they want to destroy us but a gesture of love?
I think your reasoning is blocked by hatred, the same hatred flows and floods in our wild neighbors veins .
Our wild neighbors will never rest in fact, until this hatred will be kicked out of them and will be replaced by stunning fear. But I believe we are too peace loving for doing that...
*sorry for being too emotional, these kind of "opinions" make me boil.
Our wild neighbors will never rest in fact, until this hatred will be kicked out of them and will be replaced by stunning fear. But I believe we are too peace loving for doing that...
Guess what estro, the more you call them your 'wild neighbors' the more they won't like you either. Overall, I think this statement is a bit absurd on many levels.
Guess what estro, the more you call them your 'wild neighbors' the more they won't like you either. Overall, I think this statement is a bit absurd on many levels.
Your talking based on air, my talking based on blood.
You opinions based on media (cartoon network?), my based on blood.
Your talking based on air, my talking based on blood.
<shrug> Okayyyyy??.....
All things seem very simple, when they are far away...
All things seem very simple, when they are far away...
<shrug> Okayyy....???? When did I say anything was simple?
<shrug> Okayyy....????
I'm happy we reached agreement =)
I'm happy we reached agreement =)
My point is this: I understand you don't love the countries around you; however, blind hatred is only going to lead you, and your country, into years of more aggression. Consider what I just said, and your reply a few posts back about wild dogs and your proposed 'solution' to this problem.
My point is this: I understand you don't love the countries around you; however, blind hatred is only going to lead you, and your country, into years of more aggression. Consider what I just said, and your reply a few posts back about wild dogs and your proposed 'solution' to this problem.
1. I never said "dogs".
2. Israeli policy (which I fully support) has nothing to do with hatred.
3. I would love to love them (heh), the problem they will never love me back.
Char. Limit
Jun10-10, 05:05 PM
I thought of something else today... Israel won every territory it has in wars that it didn't start. Is this not correct? It won the West Bank, the Golan Heights, and the Gaza Strip in wars that Israel, quite frankly, did not instigate. Now, my facts may be wrong on the war in 1967 (tbh I can't remember if Israel started the war or not), but I know the 1948 war was defensive. And if you win territory in a war you didn't start... I say let them keep it. To the victor go the spoils of the enemy.
1. I never said "dogs".
2. Israeli policy (which I fully support) has nothing to do with hatred.
3. I would love to love them (heh), the problem they will never love me back.
Sorry, I meant to say "wild neighbors." Wild dogs is an american saying, and I accidentally mixed the two up when I replied to your post.
To your second item, your reply was just that - yours. Not Israeli policy, as far as I am aware.
To your third point, don't underestimate other people. Not all of them are the same.
I thought of something else today... Israel won every territory it has in wars that it didn't start. Is this not correct? It won the West Bank, the Golan Heights, and the Gaza Strip in wars that Israel, quite frankly, did not instigate. Now, my facts may be wrong on the war in 1967 (tbh I can't remember if Israel started the war or not), but I know the 1948 war was defensive. And if you win territory in a war you didn't start... I say let them keep it. To the victor go the spoils of the enemy.
The 1967 war started after Israeli intelligence revealed Egypt have plan to attack, in this war we conquered the Sinai. (returned by peace treaty)
tiny-tim
Jun10-10, 05:12 PM
… blind hatred is only going to lead you, and your country, into years of more aggression. Consider what I just said, and your reply a few posts back about wild dogs and your proposed 'solution' to this problem.
Who said anything about hatred, blind or otherwise? …
you made that up!
Who said anything about dogs? …
you made that up!
And estro made it clear that, although he said other countries hate Israel, Israel didn't hate them and was too peace-loving to stop the hatred (by "stunning fear").
"blind" well describes your reading of estro's post :redface:
Sorry, I meant to say "wild neighbors." Wild dogs is an american saying, and I accidentally mixed the two up when I replied to your post.
To your second item, your reply was just that - yours. Not Israeli policy, as far as I am aware.
To your third point, don't underestimate other people. Not all of them are the same.
I don't make policies and don't want to, I voted for PM B. Netanyahu whom I trust to deal with policies.
I never talked about all people, I talked about the majority.
Who said anything about hatred, blind or otherwise? …
you made that up!
"Our wild neighbors will never rest in fact, until this hatred will be kicked out of them and will be replaced by stunning fear."
That would fall under the definition of blind hated, in my opinion. This statement doesn't make sense at any level to be taken seriously.
Who said anything about dogs? …
you made that up!
That was a slip, as I pointed out. I corrected that in my post above.
And estro made it clear that, although he said other countries hate Israel, Israel didn't hate them and was too peace-loving to stop the hatred (by "stunning fear").
"blind" well describes your reading of estro's post :redface:
Ah, yes. You are correct, I misread that part. My apologies.
That being said though, I do not buy the argument that Israel is "too peace loving to stop the hatred" based on its actions in the past, but Im not going to go into it and derail the thread.
I think sometimes my clumsy English backfires on me =)
Off Topic: (About the Palestinians).
Many times IDF soldiers we have to deal with Palestinian civilians, and many times I got the impression they trust us more then they trust their "goverment" and in fact are prisoners of their extremists...
I know not all of them want this conflict, but terror is too rooted in their culture.
(Hamas brainwashing kinds from very early)
I think sometimes my clumsy English backfires on me =)
Your English fine :wink:.
Your English fine :wink:.
So you think it is my opinions?:rolleyes:
tiny-tim
Jun10-10, 05:41 PM
Sorry, I meant to say "wild neighbors." Wild dogs is an american saying
"Lame dogs", yes. "Wild horses", yes.
but since when was "wild dogs" an American saying? :confused:
I understand you don't love the countries around you; however, blind hatred is only going to lead you, and your country, into years of more aggression.
Who said anything about hatred, blind or otherwise? …
you made that up!
"Our wild neighbors will never rest in fact, until this hatred will be kicked out of them and will be replaced by stunning fear."
That would fall under the definition of blind hated, in my opinion.
Yes, estro, in the words you've highlighted, was very clearly describing the neighbouring countries
But you were acccusing estro (or Israel) of hatred …
and you did make that up.
… That was a slip, as I pointed out. I corrected that in my post above.
Ah, yes. You are correct, I misread that part. My apologies.
Three strikes. :frown:
"Lame dogs", yes. "Wild horses", yes.
but since when was "wild dogs" an American saying? :confused:
You've never heard someone say "wild as a dog"? (Anyways, if you have not it doesn't really matter and arguing this any further is a waste of time).
Yes, estro, in the words you've highlighted, was very clearly describing the neighbouring countries
But you were acccusing estro (or Israel) of hatred …
and you did make that up.
Three strikes. :frown:
Tim, he clearly said: "until this hatred will be kicked out of them and will be replaced by stunning fear."
He said, quite clearly, that the surrounding countries will never end their hatred towards Israel until it is replaced by "stunning fear". I did not make this up. Reread his statement.
An equally absurd statement would be akin to:
"Well, you see, the United States could drop all our nuclear bombs on Iraq and Afghanistan and end the war on terrorism; but we are too peace loving to do that so we don't".
You take the most extreme position in the first sentence, and then contrast it by saying how you are so peaceful because you don't actually do it in the next sentence. That is not a demonstration of being peaceful.
vertices
Jun10-10, 06:08 PM
terror is too rooted in their culture[/B]
When you say things like this and when you constantly refer to Arabs as "wild", what you are doing is dehumanising them which really makes me despair.
Do you live in Sderot or Askhelon? I've been there (to Sderot) and I know how it affects people living in constant fear of rocket attacks - I really do.
But hatred flows both ways. I made a point to see how the other side lives and although I won't share with you what I witnessed, suffice it to say, I saw some pretty twisted things which must have been sanctioned by the Government (not the Israeli people).
What I did take away from my trip is that Israel (Jerusalem in particular) is a truly magical place where Jews, Muslims and Christians historically lived alongside each other in peace and harmony. This is how it is meant to be.
The only way to restore it is to stop both sides dehumanising each other. And this is possible and happening right now - take the village of Neve Shalom, where Arabs and Jews live together - it is so touching to see these two communities living out the ideals of equality and peace.
ANYWAY.. a bit more ON TOPIC:
As regards your point about Israel's survival.
What I am saying is that it is simply not true to say that at present Israel is surrounded by states hell bent on its destruction. Israel now has peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan and the Saudis recognises Israel. Ofcourse there is tension with Syria over Golan Heights, but do you honestly think Syria will attack Israel militarily?
When you say things like this and when you constantly refer to Arabs as "wild", what you are doing is dehumanising them which really makes me despair.
I have seen it from inside.
Do you live in Sderot or Askhelon?
No, but I have lost friends in the army.
The only way to restore it is to stop both sides dehumanising each other. And this is possible and happening right now - take the village of Neve Shalom, where Arabs and Jews live together - it is so touching to see these two communities living out the ideals of equality and peace.
This is my dream.
As regards your point about Israel's survival.
What I am saying is that it is simply not true to say that at present Israel is surrounded by states hell bent on its destruction. Israel now has peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan and the Saudis recognises Israel. Ofcourse there is tension with Syria over Golan Heights, but do you honestly think Syria will attack Israel militarily?
Syria restrained by fear, but we can't disregard their ability to cause serious damage (They have massive quantity of artillery [long/short range])
What about Iran?
vertices
Jun10-10, 06:43 PM
This is my dream.
Estro, I don't think it's a dream. It's a real possibility although it might not look like it. Have you heard of a band called Idan Raichel Project (they are amazing!)?
I went to one of their gigs in Jerusalem: they have a gorgeous Ethiopian lady, a Palestinian Arab as well as Jews from all over the world. To me the band symbolises what Israel can and should be.
Syria restrained by fear, but we can't disregard their ability to cause serious damage (They have massive quantity of artillery [long/short range])
What about Iran?
Well, Iran may be hostile but again, I don't think it will do anything to attack Israel. Interestingly, a couple of the people I met in Hebron who happened to be Hamas supporters told me they really do not trust Iran at all because they belong to a different Islamic sect...
Office_Shredder
Jun10-10, 06:47 PM
Well, Iran may be hostile but again, I don't think it will do anything to attack Israel. Interestingly, a couple of the people I met in Hebron who happened to be Hamas supporters told me they really do not trust Iran at all because they belong to a different Islamic sect...
Oh crap, we all forgot UN Resolution 1492: Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend
This could have all been sorted out back in 1968
Estro, I don't think it's a dream. It's a real possibility although it might not look like it. Have you heard of a band called Idan Raichel Project (they are amazing!)?
Yes they are!
I went to one of their gigs in Jerusalem: they have a gorgeous Ethiopian lady, a Palestinian Arab as well as Jews from all over the world. To me the band symbolises what Israel can and should be.
Amen!
...
Interestingly, a couple of the people I met in Hebron who happened to be Hamas supporters told me they really do not trust Iran at all because they belong to a different Islamic sect...
I remember doing a mounted patrol in Hevron, they drooped refrigerator on our jeep.:surprised
I remember doing a mounted patrol in Hevron, they drooped refrigerator on our jeep.:surprised
lol, that's hilarious. I hope no one got hurt. What did you guys do in return?
lol, that's hilarious. What did you guys do in return?
Checked out the Palestinian kitchen.
Checked out the Palestinian kitchen.
You should have put the fridge back in the kitchen for them and say "I think you dropped this." :rofl:
lol, that's hilarious. I hope no one got hurt. What did you guys do in return?
Actually there is nothing we could do. Palestinians are very creative and such things were almost a routine.
vertices
Jun10-10, 07:41 PM
I thought of something else today... Israel won every territory it has in wars that it didn't start. Is this not correct? It won the West Bank, the Golan Heights, and the Gaza Strip in wars that Israel, quite frankly, did not instigate. Now, my facts may be wrong on the war in 1967 (tbh I can't remember if Israel started the war or not), but I know the 1948 war was defensive. And if you win territory in a war you didn't start... I say let them keep it. To the victor go the spoils of the enemy.
Well the territory captured by Israel in 1967 is theirs - this is uncontroversial insofar as all the Arab states are willing to accept this.
However, it is unacceptable and morally reprehensible when Israel encroaches further and further into Palestinian territories, annexing land that is clearly not their's. The whole world recognises that this is wrong and totally in defiance of International Law (hence the term "occupied territories"). I mean, imagine the trauma of having menacing soldiers barge their way into your home to forcibly evict you in the middle of the night (that's when it always happens) - hundreds of Arabs who've lived in Jerusalem for generations are in this awful predicament. This is one of the state policies alongside the crippling, pain and death-inducing blockade imposed on Gazans that Israel must immediately reconsider.
Office_Shredder
Jun10-10, 08:07 PM
Well the territory captured by Israel in 1967 is theirs - this is uncontroversial insofar as all the Arab states are willing to accept this.
However, it is unacceptable and morally reprehensible when Israel encroaches further and further into Palestinian territories, annexing land that is clearly not their's. The whole world recognises that this is wrong and totally in defiance of International Law (hence the term "occupied territories"). I mean, imagine the trauma of having menacing soldiers barge their way into your home to forcibly evict you in the middle of the night (that's when it always happens) - hundreds of Arabs who've lived in Jerusalem for generations are in this awful predicament. This is one of the state policies alongside the crippling, pain and death-inducing blockade imposed on Gazans that Israel must immediately reconsider.
The West Bank was captured in 1967, as was the Gaza strip, and Israel ended up giving back other territories for peace.
zomgwtf
Jun10-10, 08:13 PM
I somewhat cringe when I hear people continually say 'international law'. I'm not entirely sure why people think international law is ACTUALLY 'laws' that need to upheld. It's just an 'idea', one that in my opinion fails miserably.
I tend to think people should be more realist than idealist. And right now the 'realist' in me is saying that if no one is willing to stop Israel then Israel has every right to do whatever it wants to. I also feel that if no one is going to stop a nation from commiting genocide then it has every right to. I wouldn't agree that no one should stop them, but if no one is going to then shut up.
Zombieland: Nut up or shut up. International law warriors have yet to nut up.
mheslep
Jun10-10, 08:45 PM
...I remember doing a mounted patrol in Hevron, they drooped refrigerator on our jeep.:surprised
Along with a cry of Allahu Akbar!! ?
vertices
Jun10-10, 09:47 PM
I somewhat cringe when I hear people continually say 'international law'. I'm not entirely sure why people think international law is ACTUALLY 'laws' that need to upheld. It's just an 'idea', one that in my opinion fails miserably.
I tend to think people should be more realist than idealist. And right now the 'realist' in me is saying that if no one is willing to stop Israel then Israel has every right to do whatever it wants to. I also feel that if no one is going to stop a nation from commiting genocide then it has every right to. I wouldn't agree that no one should stop them, but if no one is going to then shut up.
Zombieland: Nut up or shut up. International law warriors have yet to nut up.
I mentioned International Law once in a very specific context - the whole world thinks Israel is wrong in continuing to expropriate land from the Palestinians (the land grabs go way beyond the internationally recognised 1967 'green line') and displace people from their homes.
I wasn't actually discussing the merits of it but because you want me to(!), these are two pennies:
I kind of disagree with your logic that because IL can't be enforced, this renders it useless (this is essentially what you're saying right?). Yes it is a mere 'idea' but it is one that's incredibly powerful.
In game theory you have a situation called the prisoners dilemma which stipulates that you have a lot to lose if you don't play by the rules. In the case of the 'players' of the game being human beings, the state can perhaps mete out punishment to the cheaters (eg. people being fined for speeding).
When the players are nation states, there is no agent to keep them in check as such. However, the damage to nasty state's 'reputation' is a stern form of punishment. Israel is fast becoming a pariah state; it has already lost Turkey as an ally and even the US is beginning to see it as a liability.
mheslep
Jun10-10, 09:53 PM
- the whole world thinks When will folks finally stop posting on behalf of the whole world? It's ridiculous.
I mentioned International Law once in a very specific context - the whole world thinks Israel is wrong in continuing to expropriate land from the Palestinians (the land grabs go way beyond the internationally recognised 1967 'green line') and displace people from their homes. No, only a tiny fragment think that. And it's not hard to guess who those are.
vertices
Jun10-10, 10:31 PM
No, only a tiny fragment think that. And it's not hard to guess who those are.
I have to go to bed now, but yes sorry when I said the "whole world", what I meant was the "whole world minus Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Tuvalu and Nauru". I'm sorry if I have offended anyone from these countries:redface:
See: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/ga10791.doc.htm. Scroll down to Annex IV (UN Vote on Peaceful Settlement - ie. the resolution that calls for a two-state settlement based on the June 1967 border)
The resolution itself can be found here:
http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/cd358b22995a4b078525767e006ac786?OpenDocument
I have to go to bed now, but yes sorry when I said the "whole world", what I meant was the "whole world minus Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Tuvalu and Nauru". I'm sorry if I have offended anyone from these countries:redface:
See: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/ga10791.doc.htm. Scroll down to Annex IV (UN Vote on Peaceful Settlement - ie. the resolution that calls for a two-state settlement based on the June 1967 border)
The resolution itself can be found here:
http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/cd358b22995a4b078525767e006ac786?OpenDocumentThe UN is not viewed favorably by many.
zomgwtf
Jun10-10, 10:39 PM
The UN is not viewed favorably by many.
me included! *raises hand*
...
I have to go to bed now, but yes sorry when I said the "whole world", what I meant was the "whole world minus Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Tuvalu and Nauru". I'm sorry if I have offended anyone from these countries
...
I believe you forgot a couple of countries or two...
I mentioned International Law once in a very specific context - the whole world thinks Israel is wrong in continuing to expropriate land from the Palestinians (the land grabs go way beyond the internationally recognised 1967 'green line') and displace people from their homes.
Can you be specific? What lands?
I believe we can make this interesting...
vertices
Jun11-10, 04:55 AM
The UN is not viewed favorably by many.
Did you read the Annex 4?
The question isn't about how favourably UN is seen - it is about how the world voted in a modest resolution calling on Israel not to encroach and build settlements on land that is not their's.
BTW Evo where do you get your facts from (genuine question)? Other than the US and Israel, can you name me one democratic state that has ever been consistently against the UN on record? (I'd be interested to know).
vertices
Jun11-10, 05:00 AM
Can you be specific? What lands?
I believe we can make this interesting...
I am primarily talking about East Jerusalem (although land grabs may well be occurring in other WB areas, but I don't know about them)
Take the separation wall - to Israel I'm sure it is seen as a means of security, but to Palestinians it is an apartheid wall which cruelly and ruthlessly snakes through Palestinian land. As an Israeli you cannot see this, but do you have an idea how much damage and distress it causes to ordinary Palestinians? This is an example of what I way saying about both sides being unable to comprehend the misery felt by the other..
zomgwtf
Jun11-10, 08:51 AM
Did you read the Annex 4?
The question isn't about how favourably UN is seen - it is about how the world voted in a modest resolution calling on Israel not to encroach and build settlements on land that is not their's.
BTW Evo where do you get your facts from (genuine question)? Other than the US and Israel, can you name me one democratic state that has ever been consistently against the UN on record? (I'd be interested to know).
It's become a joke and I think all the developed nations recognize that. Have you ever heard of the 'League of Nations'. Yet another fail.
It doesn't matter what the governments say in these meetings, their foreign policy matters and what their citizens say. I can tell you that a lot of Canadians don't care about the UN or "International Laws" and I can say that most Americans don't care either. The Americans aren't surprising considering how much money they fork out. A lot of European countries don't care for it anymore. I'd say NATO is a better option.
The only countries that really 'embrace' the UN idea or International Laws idea are the small useless countries of the world. Normally they embrace it just to take advantage of it. "LOL International Law SAYS SO!!!". How many criminals has USA given up according to International Law?
I am primarily talking about East Jerusalem (although land grabs may well be occurring in other WB areas, but I don't know about them)
Jerusalem is a Jewish capital since ancient times, and will be such forever.
Take the separation wall - to Israel I'm sure it is seen as a means of security, but to Palestinians it is an apartheid wall which cruelly and ruthlessly snakes through Palestinian land. As an Israeli you cannot see this, but do you have an idea how much damage and distress it causes to ordinary Palestinians? This is an example of what I way saying about both sides being unable to comprehend the misery felt by the other..
The wall in on our territory [67, you mentioned before?], are you sure you know what you talking about?
OmCheeto
Jun11-10, 10:15 AM
....
Take the separation wall - to Israel I'm sure it is seen as a means of security, but to Palestinians it is an apartheid wall which cruelly and ruthlessly snakes through Palestinian land. As an Israeli you cannot see this, but do you have an idea how much damage and distress it causes to ordinary Palestinians? This is an example of what I way saying about both sides being unable to comprehend the misery felt by the other..
Oh! We've got those here in America also. We call them fences. They are everywhere. I've never quite seen them as cruel or ruthless, just necessary devices. Kind of like having a door on the bathroom, to keep people out while you are pooping.
One thing we don't have to do though is make them out of steel and extend them many meters underground, like the Egyptian fence does.
Wait a minute. What does this have to do with financial aid to Israel? Are the walls funded by other countries?
TubbaBlubba
Jun11-10, 10:15 AM
Jerusalem is a Jewish capital since ancient times, and will be such forever.
It's also been a holy city of Islam for 1500 years.
...
Wait a minute. What does this have to do with financial aid to Israel? Are the walls funded by other countries?
No, we just having discussion on some other interesting points=)
So you are aware of historic events, now you just have to be aware of the timeline involving these events.
It's also been a holy city of Islam for 1500 years.
Oh, really? What is your points? The Islam is little bit late on making Jerusalem holy for them.
The oldest part of the city, the City of David was settled in the 4th millennium BCE, making it one of the oldest cities in the world. Jerusalem is the holiest city in Judaism and has been the spiritual center of the Jewish people since c. 1000 BCE, when David the King of Israel first established it as the capital of the united Kingdom of Israel, and his son Solomon commissioned the building of the First Temple in the city.
The al-Aqsa Mosque was originally a small prayer house built by the Rashidun caliph Umar, but was rebuilt and expanded by the Ummayad caliph Abd al-Malik and finished by his son al-Walid in 705 CE. - Wikipedia.
1. Al-Aqsa was build on the ruins of Jewish most sacred temple.
2. Jerusalem was [b]build by the Jews, and destroyed many times by others, including the Muslims.
0. (Before anything else). I advise you to learn some history before making chichi statements. PM me and I happily advise some good books on the topic. This way the opinionated kid will transform to the knowing kid.
vertices
Jun11-10, 11:34 AM
It's become a joke and I think all the developed nations recognize that. Have you ever heard of the 'League of Nations'. Yet another fail.
It doesn't matter what the governments say in these meetings, their foreign policy matters and what their citizens say. I can tell you that a lot of Canadians don't care about the UN or "International Laws" and I can say that most Americans don't care either. The Americans aren't surprising considering how much money they fork out. A lot of European countries don't care for it anymore. I'd say NATO is a better option.
The only countries that really 'embrace' the UN idea or International Laws idea are the small useless countries of the world. Normally they embrace it just to take advantage of it. "LOL International Law SAYS SO!!!". How many criminals has USA given up according to International Law?
I am not going to get drawn into a debate about the UN. As I said, no one here is claiming that we should try to embrace International Law - so no reason to get so hot and bothered over this.
What I am saying is simply this: when whole world* comes together (and sends their delegates to the UN) to call on Israel to commit to universal standards of moral decency - this is meant to be diplomatic slap in the face. This probably won't ever result in any military action but it still has real consequences (which I mentioned in my previous post). No self respecting state would want to wantonly damage its reputation because ultimately, what goes around comes around.
*before people get their knickers in a twist, let me add the qualification, "bar Tuvalu, Nauru, Tuavalu and Micronesia" - as an aside, has anyone ever heard of these countries?
The only countries that really 'embrace' the UN idea or International Laws idea are the small useless countries of the world. Normally they embrace it just to take advantage of it.
like Tuvalu, Nauru, Tuavalu and Micronesia?
I am primarily talking about East Jerusalem (although land grabs may well be occurring in other WB areas, but I don't know about them)
Take the separation wall - to Israel I'm sure it is seen as a means of security, but to Palestinians it is an apartheid wall which cruelly and ruthlessly snakes through Palestinian land. As an Israeli you cannot see this, but do you have an idea how much damage and distress it causes to ordinary Palestinians? This is an example of what I way saying about both sides being unable to comprehend the misery felt by the other..
Jerusalem is a Jewish capital since ancient times, and will be such forever.
The wall in on our territory [67, you mentioned before?], are you sure you know what you talking about?
The oldest part of the city, the City of David was settled in the 4th millennium BCE, making it one of the oldest cities in the world. Jerusalem is the holiest city in Judaism and has been the spiritual center of the Jewish people since c. 1000 BCE, when David the King of Israel first established it as the capital of the united Kingdom of Israel, and his son Solomon commissioned the building of the First Temple in the city.
The al-Aqsa Mosque was originally a small prayer house built by the Rashidun caliph Umar, but was rebuilt and expanded by the Ummayad caliph Abd al-Malik and finished by his son al-Walid in 705 CE.
You have made proclamation.
I gave you contradictory facts, and asked a question. I'm curiously waiting for your replay.
vertices
Jun11-10, 11:47 AM
Oh! We've got those here in America also. We call them fences. They are everywhere. I've never quite seen them as cruel or ruthless, just necessary devices. Kind of like having a door on the bathroom, to keep people out while you are pooping.
I'll put it out there, I don't believe in borders in general.. but I'd have no problem if the wall was inside Israel. There is a problem when the wall encroaches on Palestinian territories. It is cruel and ruthless when it encircles neighbourhoods cutting them off from each other, when it forcibly demands the mass eviction of hundreds of families which dare lie in its path and when it uproots ancient olive trees, once a livelihood for the affected Palestinian families. The wall has effectively divided the WB into cantons peppered with checkpoints, which are are unimaginably inhumane (infact my attitude towards Israel only hardened upon witnessing state-sanctioned collective punishment at these checkpoints).
Wait a minute. What does this have to do with financial aid to Israel? Are the walls funded by other countries?
Well, ofcourse. Israel receives ~$billion from the US (goes without saying, a vast sum of money). To my mind, the question is why does the US financially support Israel in the face of all this intransigence, especially when 30,000 children are dying every day of starvation.
zomgwtf
Jun11-10, 12:27 PM
*before people get their knickers in a twist, let me add the qualification, "bar Tuvalu, Nauru, Tuavalu and Micronesia" - as an aside, has anyone ever heard of these countries?
like Tuvalu, Nauru, Tuavalu and Micronesia?
What are you going on about? I'm seriously debating reporting you for spreading misinformation.
The countries that were against were:
Against: Australia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Palau, United States.
The ones that abstained were:
Abstain: Cameroon, Canada, Tonga.
And the ones absent were:
Absent: Belize, Burkina Faso, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Kiribati, Madagascar, Malawi, Niger, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu.
The majority of countries voting 'in favour' are really useless countries. In my mind what Afghanistan has to say about the international stage is completely meaningless. This is true for probably 90% of the countries that go to UN meetings.
Nothing will ever come out of the UN. What have they done that has helped the international community? Nothing. No wars prevented and no wars stopped no mass genocides prevented and nothing done when they occur.
Countries really don't care what UN says about them, it's no such 'slap in the face' to Israel. They ALREADY know that 90% of the Muslim world hates them and some developed nations don't agree with their militant actions, so what? As long as they have the support and back up of various power houses of the world they can continue as they were.
vertices
Jun11-10, 12:52 PM
zomgwtf:
In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cambodia, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
Keep yer knickers on. Here is an exercise: count the number of countries above. And count the numbers you listed.
You do realise that you are offending the pretty much the whole world by labelling them as 'useless'?
Your comment frankly scares me - they could have come out of pre-civil rights, Jim Crow America. Every human being in the world, be they black, white, male, female, Muslim, Christian should have their voices heard (I can't believe I am having to spell that out).
You are clearly saying some voices should be repressed. Truly shocking.
Office_Shredder
Jun11-10, 12:56 PM
Your comment frankly scares me - they could have come out of pre-civil rights, Jim Crow America. Every human being in the world, be they black, white, male, female, Muslim, Christian should have their voices heard (I can't believe I am having to spell that out).
You were literally just minutes ago claiming that Micronesia voicing support for Israel was irrelevant because nobody has ever heard of that country before
vertices,
I am still waiting for your answer to my last post here...
If you unable to support your proclamations, I'll have conclusions about the worth of your "opinions", considering the report button in the process of reading your future posts.
vertices
Jun11-10, 02:06 PM
estro: there are somethings I can't argue against with people.
For example, the Qu'ran contains some downright sexist and homophobic passages but it is futile to argue against such things with hardcore Muslims.
Similarly, when you say that Jerusalem historically belongs to Jews. You believe what you believe and I am not going argue with you on a physics forum of all places.
All I will say is that generations of Palestinians have lived in Jerusalem, and these people are NOT responsible for their ancestors' actions (much like the people of European ancestry living in the New World are not responsible for the actions their ancestors). Israel is brutally expelling hundreds of families who can trace their roots in Jerusalem back hundreds of years. To any rational observer this is blatant injustice.
vertices
Jun11-10, 02:10 PM
You were literally just minutes ago claiming that Micronesia voicing support for Israel was irrelevant because nobody has ever heard of that country before
erm, no. Did you note my language - "as an aside...". It's called 'making an observation'.
I said nothing disparaging or racist about these countries.
estro: there are somethings I can't argue against with people.
And I know why.
...
Similarly, when you say that Jerusalem historically belongs to Jews. You believe what you believe and I am not going argue with you on a physics forum of all places.
This has nothing to do with believe, but only historical facts.
vertices
Jun11-10, 02:32 PM
This has nothing to do with believe, but only historical facts.
So let me get this straight - you think it is perfectly okay for the Israeli State to kick hundreds of people out of their homes. Homes they have resided in for generations.
Just checking.
Office_Shredder
Jun11-10, 02:33 PM
erm, no. Did you note my language - "as an aside...". It's called 'making an observation'.
I said nothing disparaging or racist about these countries.
It's similarly an observation that Afghanistan's opinion means nothing on an international scale
vertices
Jun11-10, 02:36 PM
It's similarly an observation that Afghanistan's opinion means nothing on an international scale
pray tell. where did I say the opinions of the people residing in Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru and Palau mean nothing.
zomgwtf
Jun11-10, 02:39 PM
zomgwtf:
Keep yer knickers on. Here is an exercise: count the number of countries above. And count the numbers you listed.
You do realise that you are offending the pretty much the whole world by labelling them as 'useless'?
Your comment frankly scares me - they could have come out of pre-civil rights, Jim Crow America. Every human being in the world, be they black, white, male, female, Muslim, Christian should have their voices heard (I can't believe I am having to spell that out).
You are clearly saying some voices should be repressed. Truly shocking.
It doesn't matter the numbers, it matters the power they hold, first of all.
Second of all the point of me listing the ACTUALLY countries that voted against, abstained, or were absent was to show that your continuous posting of 'the whole world voted for blah blah slap in Israels face ... well except these 3 rather minor countries' was complete misinformation and I will not stand for it, regardless of if it's on topic to my thread or not.
Third of all, I could care less if the 'rest of the world' gets offended because I call their country useless on an international level. They probably know it's true anyways deep down.
Fourth of all, the UN is not about 'all the people of the world voicing their opinion,' it's a ****ing political 'tool' and right now the countries enjoying it the most happen to be rather insiginifcant on the international level.
Fifth of all 'voices' of individuals shouldn't be 'repressed' however many of the governments you have listed as voting 'for' in this huge monumental slap to Israels face repress their people in much worse ways than just saying 'lol shut up'. So don't try and take this 'high moral ground' argument with me on that issue. That's complete bogus.
Face it: The UN is quite useless and powerless when it comes to actually getting stuff done. They talk a lot at their meetings, and whenever it's in a countries favour they make a big huge huff and puff of 'OH WELL THIS AND THAT OF THE UN AND IL AND BLAH BLAH' but no actions. Big waste of money.
vertices
Jun11-10, 02:42 PM
It doesn't matter the numbers, it matters the power they hold, first of all.
Second of all the point of me listing the ACTUALLY countries that voted against, abstained, or were absent was to show that your continuous posting of 'the whole world voted for blah blah slap in Israels face ... well except these 3 rather minor countries' was complete misinformation and I will not stand for it, regardless of if it's on topic to my thread or not.
Third of all, I could care less if the 'rest of the world' gets offended because I call their country useless on an international level. They probably know it's true anyways deep down.
Fourth of all, the UN is not about 'all the people of the world voicing their opinion,' it's a ****ing political 'tool' and right now the countries enjoying it the most happen to be rather insiginifcant on the international level.
Fifth of all 'voices' of individuals shouldn't be 'repressed' however many of the governments you have listed as voting 'for' in this huge monumental slap to Israels face repress their people in much worse ways than just saying 'lol shut up'. So don't try and take this 'high moral ground' argument with me on that issue. That's complete bogus.
Face it: The UN is quite useless and powerless when it comes to actually getting stuff done. They talk a lot at their meetings, and whenever it's in a countries favour they make a big huge huff and puff of 'OH WELL THIS AND THAT OF THE UN AND IL AND BLAH BLAH' but no actions. Big waste of money.
You are like a broken record aren't you? I have no interest in debating about the UN and how bad it is.
World opinion matters to me. It clearly doesn't to you.
Nothing more to be said.
zomgwtf
Jun11-10, 02:43 PM
pray tell. where did I say the opinions of the people residing in Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru and Palau mean nothing.
Notice how you're changing it to the opinion of a GOVERNMENT interested in POLITICS to the opinion of individual people? Completely different but none-the-less the opinion of a lot of people from various countries I would consider worthless. Especially on an international scale.
The opinion of people like 'The Taliban' now THAT'S something that's worth listening to cause they can really **** **** up. But opium farmer Moe from Afghanistan? Probably has very little impact on the rest of the world, very little knowledge of the rest of the world, and very little power to change anything.
zomgwtf
Jun11-10, 02:45 PM
You are like a broken record aren't you? I have no interest in debating about the UN and how bad it is.
World opinion matters to me. It clearly doesn't to you.
Nothing more to be said.
I wonder when it will sink in: The UN is NOT a place for 'individual people to present their world opinions'.
When the UN accomplishes something worthwhile during the rest of its miserable and hopefully short existence send me a PM.
vertices
Jun11-10, 02:45 PM
Notice how you're changing it to the opinion of a GOVERNMENT interested in POLITICS to the opinion of individual people? Completely different but none-the-less the opinion of a lot of people from various countries I would consider worthless. Especially on an international scale.
The opinion of people like 'The Taliban' now THAT'S something that's worth listening to cause they can really **** **** up. But opium farmer Moe from Afghanistan? Probably has very little impact on the rest of the world, very little knowledge of the rest of the world, and very little power to change anything.
yeah those illiterate opium farmers. Not worthy of anything..
Don't take this the wrong way, but I don't really want to respond to anymore posts from you... (nothing personal)
zomgwtf
Jun11-10, 02:47 PM
yeah those illiterate opium farmers. Not worthy of anything..on the international stage
Don't take this the wrong way, but I don't really want to respond to anymore posts from you... (nothing personal)
Fixed and in 99.9% of cases its true. Unless of course they band together and form some unified opinion and take action to get **** done. Completely worthless.
second time I'll refer to the zombieland quote: Nut up or shut up.
And I know why.
This has nothing to do with believe, but only historical facts.
Estro, your objections are moot: <srug> so what if it was originally built by the Jews? That does not mean they can come and uproot people from their homes and expect said people to take it sitting down. The Jews want that land. Similiarly the arabs want that land. Both have ties to that land for generations, both want it. Clearly, you both can't have it. Learn to share, or be prepared for never ending violence on both sides.
Estro, your objections are moot: <srug> so what if it was originally built by the Jews? That does not mean they can come and uproot people from their homes and expect said people to take it sitting down. The Jews want that land.
What are you talking about?
What are you talking about?
And if tomorrow morning I'll want Mecca, it mean Saudia needs to share it with me?
This analogy doesn't make any sense, the Jews (as far as I am aware) have not been living in Mecca for generations.
So if tomorrow Jews will settle Mecca, we can make a "sharing agreement" after few generations?
[We have theoretical physics, why not having theoretical politics?]
So if tomorrow Jews will settle Mecca, we can make a "sharing agreement" after few generations?
[We have theoretical physics, why not having theoretical politics?]
I don't understand the point of this hypothetical - I don't do hypotheticals.
vertices
Jun11-10, 05:16 PM
So if tomorrow Jews will settle Mecca, we can make a "sharing agreement" after few generations?
[We have theoretical physics, why not having theoretical politics?]
If Jews were to settle in Mecca and establish themselves as a community, it would be wrong for the Saudi government to expel them, especially if they've lived there for generations. There is infact a phrase for this in English - it is called ethnic cleansing and is a crime against humanity.
BTW I thought you were with me on Jews and Arabs coexisting - you said it was your dream?
Many Arabs have Israeli citizenship, and leave peacefully as a community.
Can't understand your point...
Israel never expelled or uprooter no one from their homes...
Israel never expelled or uprooter no one from their homes...
This is flat out wrong, becuase Israel has uprooted its own people when it had to give back land to the Arabs. Needless to say, the Jews uprooted in the settlement didn't go without making a big stink about it.
vertices
Jun11-10, 05:41 PM
estro:
consider: http://www.haaretz.com/news/un-u-k-slam-israel-s-eviction-of-arab-families-from-east-jerusalem-1.281231
vertices
Jun11-10, 05:43 PM
Many Arabs have Israeli citizenship, and leave peacefully as a community.
Actually, they are discriminated against. Just like Mizrahi Jews in Sderot. Israel clearly has problems within its own borders it needs to deal with first.
This is flat out wrong, becuase Israel has uprooted its own people when it had to give back land to the Arabs. Needless to say, the Jews uprooted in the settlement didn't go without making a big stink about it.
On this one you right, we made sacrifice to try making peace with them. But we all know the consequences.
---
I'm very tired of discussing this topic...
I can't change your opinion, and I don't condemn you about your opinions, since some things can be understood only by personal experience.
Hopefully one day we and the Palestinians could live in peace, but Jerusalem status will not be negotiated. Jerusalem was built by my ancestor, and Jerusalem will remain our capital city forever, your opinion is irrelevant. (Who want Jerusalem will have to come and take it from my cold bloody hands)
Israel will continue to be honest, patient and gentle towards peaceful civilians (of all religions).
Israel will continue to defend what belongs to the Jewish people, we love peace but we know the art of war, we crashed our enemies in the past we will crash our enemies in the future.
You talk your opinions, but my nation will act according to ours.
I hope we can enjoy discussion on other topics.
Hopefully one day we and the Palestinians could live in peace, but Jerusalem status will not be negotiated. Jerusalem was built by my ancestor, and Jerusalem will remain our capital city forever, your opinion is irrelevant. (Who want Jerusalem will have to come and take it from my cold bloody hands)
This kind of dogma is precisely what will get you into trouble.
Israel will continue to be honest, patient and gentle towards peaceful civilians (of all religions).
Israel will continue to defend what belongs to the Jewish people, we love peace but we know the art of war, we crashed our enemies in the past we will crush our enemies in the future.
Unfortunately, this is just propoganda.
drankin
Jun11-10, 07:18 PM
Unfortunately, this is just propoganda.
Doesn't make it incorrect.
Doesn't make it incorrect.
But in this case, it is incorrect. It's not even a meaningful statement. What does "belong to the Jewish people" even mean? Do the Christian or Muslim people have something that "belongs to them"? No.
This thread has gone way off topic.
Closed.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.