Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The British Catastrophe

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
    As someone who supports a solution where everyone takes responsibility, yes. I feel it's a good corner to take.

    I realize that is anathema to you and your only solution is a ghetto-ization of the evil Israelis. Good luck with that.
    Where everyone takes responsibility.... Care to illustrate where you think the Israelis should take responsibility?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by zraver View Post
      Where everyone takes responsibility.... Care to illustrate where you think the Israelis should take responsibility?
      Sure
      http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/mid...one-condi.html
      http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/int...tml#post808864
      http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/int...tml#post843634
      http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/int...tml#post843671
      http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/mid...tml#post845899

      There's plenty more but that'll do.
      You'll note you've read and replied to some of them, some quite recent.
      Last edited by Parihaka; 03 Aug 12,, 01:16.
      In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

      Leibniz

      Comment


      • My position hasn't changed, I'm calling for the same things today I was in those posts. Yet you went from mostly agreeing with me, including agreeing that the whole claim that Israel needed the West Bank for defensive depth was poppy cock to accusing me of wanting to shove the Jews in to Ghettos if they got pushed out of the settlements. Previously the only real area where we disagreed was on Jerusalem.

        So I standing here completely bumfuzzled as to what changed to the point where you felt you had to accuse me of what you did.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by zraver View Post
          My position hasn't changed, I'm calling for the same things today I was in those posts. Yet you went from mostly agreeing with me, including agreeing that the whole claim that Israel needed the West Bank for defensive depth was poppy cock to accusing me of wanting to shove the Jews in to Ghettos if they got pushed out of the settlements. Previously the only real area where we disagreed was on Jerusalem.

          So I standing here completely bumfuzzled as to what changed to the point where you felt you had to accuse me of what you did.
          Because of your adamant refusal to allow any negotiation over boundaries and acceptance of responsibility by anyone other than the Israelis.

          An arbitrary withdrawl to pre 67 boundaries is a hell of a lot different that the 2000 Camp David Agreement.

          Refusal by the surrounding Arab States to accept any of the responsibility for their own people but instead characterise it as a purely Israeli created problem to solve will never get the Palestinians anything but continued use as a weapon aimed at Israel. the surrounding Arab nations need to be held to account just as much as Israel does.

          If the WB/Gaza issues can be at least stabilized then the right wing Israeli politicians lose the ability to keep fear within the Israeli population as a means of control, and saner politicians can be elected. I've stated this point before too.
          Last edited by Parihaka; 03 Aug 12,, 01:34.
          In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

          Leibniz

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
            Because of your adamant refusal to allow any negotiation over boundaries and acceptance of responsibility by anyone other than the Israelis.
            If someone stole your car and offered to give it back as long as they got to keep the radio and engine would you accept that offer? I blame Israel for Israel's actions, not the actions of others. Israel is the occupying power and it is Israel who has the legal obligation. But I've also pointed out that Jordan the only arab country that borders the Palestinian areas had made all but 137,000 of the 2 million Palestinans in Jordan- Jordanian citizens.

            The major forgien powers using the Palestinians as a bludgeon are Iran and Syria... how exactly are we supposed to hold them to account? More sanction... that would go over well in Arabia. Hell even the Saudis have made major olive branch extensions to Israel and its Israel who does the rebuffing.

            An arbitrary withdrawl to pre 67 boundaries is a hell of a lot different that the 2000 Camp David Agreement.
            The law is the law. Israel kept stalling on both Olso and Camp David so she could continue to build so that when she finally got around to final status talks there would be nothing of value left.

            Refusal by the surrounding Arab States to accept any of the responsibility for their own people but instead characterise it as a purely Israeli created problem to solve will never get the Palestinians anything but continued use as a weapon aimed at Israel. the surrounding Arab nations need to be held to account just as much as Israel does.
            Already disproven.

            If the WB/Gaza issues can be at least stabilized then the right wing Israeli politicians lose the ability to keep fear within the Israeli population as a means of control, and saner politicians can be elected. I've stated this point before too.
            The Israeli hard-right does not want peace, it is more useful to them to have conflict.

            Comment


            • Mihais Reply

              "...I'll also ask which nation will receive the ~8 millions Israelis if it ever comes for them the change neighborhoods..."

              Good question.

              Here's a better question though-what makes you think the arabs/palestinians would allow them to reach the boats?

              Second question-what's war got to do with it? Israel could evict every Palestinian tomorrow without having to fight a soul from another land. What muslim/arab nation would rise to their defense?
              "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
              "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

              Comment


              • In the path of the fleeing enemy I'd throw golden bridges. Given the Israeli nuclear arsenal(yes,I know the good colonel has his doubts about it,but for the arabs is prudent to take this one for real) a horde of scimitar wielding,blood thirsty, Arabs hunting Jews is not a realistic prospect.Thus a long term strategy of making life unbearable may be the only viable prospect of the Arab world.Including limited wars,blockades,demograpgic conquest.Enough to disrupt the life of the israelis to such a degree they'd consider immigration.That happens already,but the degree of violence is not enough.
                As for the second question,I'm under no illusion there's real peace between Israel and the Muslim world.Just a temporary armistice.Such armistices happened before in history.Some may last decades,but the underlying causes of conflict don't dissapear.No individual muslim state will fight for real,but a confederation will.Israel removing Palestinians may not face Egyptian tanks imediately,but it may fasten the formation of such a behemoth.
                Those who know don't speak
                He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

                Comment


                • Mihais Reply

                  "...Given the Israeli nuclear arsenal(yes,I know the good colonel has his doubts about it,but for the arabs is prudent to take this one for real) a horde of scimitar wielding,blood thirsty, Arabs hunting Jews is not a realistic prospect..."

                  Forgive me. I thought you were proposing a defeated Israeli nation-one whose people are at the mercy of their conquerors. Did you not suggest the fighting might "...end..." differently than we've become accustomed?

                  "...Fighting is a tricky bussines,it may end either way."

                  Under such a condition I propose that reaching the boats might prove problematic for the surviving Israeli people. Where they might debark may seem a peripheral issue to escaping the onslaught.
                  "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
                  "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by S2 View Post
                    "...Given the Israeli nuclear arsenal(yes,I know the good colonel has his doubts about it,but for the arabs is prudent to take this one for real) a horde of scimitar wielding,blood thirsty, Arabs hunting Jews is not a realistic prospect..."

                    Forgive me. I thought you were proposing a defeated Israeli nation-one whose people are at the mercy of their conquerors. Did you not suggest the fighting might "...end..." differently than we've become accustomed?

                    "...Fighting is a tricky bussines,it may end either way."

                    Under such a condition I propose that reaching the boats might prove problematic for the surviving Israeli people. Where they might debark may seem a peripheral issue to escaping the onslaught.

                    Given Israel's nuclear arsenal however, any attempt at genocide on the part of the Arabs will undoutably reduce one race to just a fraction of its former numbers though I don't think it will be the Jews.

                    Comment


                    • "...any attempt at genocide on the part of the Arabs will undoutably reduce one race to just a fraction of its former numbers though I don't think it will be the Jews."

                      Don't know. There are a lot of arab states unlikely to be directly engaged. Further, genocide committed upon the Israelis can only be a function of total arab victory. I can't imagine the conditions for such arising again anytime soon short of the acquisition of nuclear weapons by the likely confrontation states.

                      Israel won't again stay its hand in the face of a certain attack as they did in 1973. One defeat is more than they can bear and 1973 was far too closely-run. 1967 would be the more likely scenario faced with a conventional attack-pre-emption.

                      How that might change were enemy conventional forces to be massed under the protection of a nuclear umbrella is uncertain to me. I've no competency with Israeli nuclear employment doctrine but I doubt Israelis envision their state surviving a nuclear exchange. Therefore a retaliatory capability is moot.
                      "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
                      "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by zraver View Post
                        Given Israel's nuclear arsenal however, any attempt at genocide on the part of the Arabs will undoutably reduce one race to just a fraction of its former numbers though I don't think it will be the Jews.
                        Nope. There would still be groups of Muslims that still outnumber the Jews by a big margin.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by S2 View Post
                          "...any attempt at genocide on the part of the Arabs will undoutably reduce one race to just a fraction of its former numbers though I don't think it will be the Jews."

                          Don't know. There are a lot of arab states unlikely to be directly engaged.
                          I don't think Israel cares, they've made comments in the past that they would be willing to start WWIII if they were being over run and take everyone with them.


                          Further, genocide committed upon the Israelis can only be a function of total arab victory. I can't imagine the conditions for such arising again anytime soon short of the acquisition of nuclear weapons by the likely confrontation states.

                          Israel won't again stay its hand in the face of a certain attack as they did in 1973. One defeat is more than they can bear and 1973 was far too closely-run. 1967 would be the more likely scenario faced with a conventional attack-pre-emption.
                          73 wasn't that close. Egypt had no desire to press forward, they wanted a win on the canal for bargaining power. Jordan didn't want the war at all and didn't invade. That leaves Syria and the Syrian army lacked the depth to go the distance and was aimed at the Golan not Tel Aviv.

                          How that might change were enemy conventional forces to be massed under the protection of a nuclear umbrella is uncertain to me. I've no competency with Israeli nuclear employment doctrine but I doubt Israelis envision their state surviving a nuclear exchange. Therefore a retaliatory capability is moot.
                          Based on previous statements and estimated arsenal and delivery means there wont be a major Arab city left and Russia will have to decide if she honors her commitments or not and thus the US/UK will have to decide...

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
                            Nope. There would still be groups of Muslims that still outnumber the Jews by a big margin.
                            Ya living in farming villages.... not cities.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X