Gee whiz, ma

[FMBI]

Link

 

Ooh, that fat little Fresnoan predicted this 2 years ago. Lovable little butterball. I am, of course, referring to War Nerd's 2006 Hezbollah war column which got pretty much everything right.

 

So now Israel has Syria armed with the latest anti-tank weapons and chemical weapons, Egypt with a !@#$%^&*load of aircraft and tanks, Hamas with plenty of suicide bombers and small arms, and Hezbollah with rockets, more anti-tank weapons, and enough small arms to mow down half the civilians in Israel.

 

And this is the country that's still considering bombing Iran's nuclear facilities.. Geniuses, they ain't.

[Machu]

Link

 

Ooh, that fat little Fresnoan predicted this 2 years ago. Lovable little butterball. I am, of course, referring to War Nerd's 2006 Hezbollah war column which got pretty much everything right.

 

So now Israel has Syria armed with the latest anti-tank weapons and chemical weapons, Egypt with a !@#$%^&*load of aircraft and tanks, Hamas with plenty of suicide bombers and small arms, and Hezbollah with rockets, more anti-tank weapons, and enough small arms to mow down half the civilians in Israel.

 

And this is the country that's still considering bombing Iran's nuclear facilities.. Geniuses, they ain't.

 

You already talked about this in the Penis chat. STFU ALRDY ILL CUT U

[SeVeR]

"If we were weak, Israel would not hesitate to start another war," he said. "We are stronger than before and when Hizbollah is strong, our strength stops Israel from starting a new war... We don't seek war, but we must be ready."

 

Very well put. Alot of truth in this statement, not only for Israel but for the USA.

 

Hezbollah have survived being labelled a terrorist organisation, and the truth is starting to break through that they're actually a civilian army from Southern Lebanon who represent the views of the people in that region.

 

They hate Israel as a result of the Israeli occupation of Lebanon for about 20 years up to the year 2000, they hate Israel for the massacre of their people in the recent conflict where over 1000 Lebanese civilians died (about 30% were children, so don't tell me they were soldiers), and they hate Israel for the kidnapping of their people who remain without charge in detention centres in Israel.

 

When Hezbollah returns the favour by kidnapping SOLDIERS (not civilians like Israel), Israel kills a thousand civilians. Hezbollah target military bases with their rockets and kill more Israeli soldiers than civilians.

 

These kind of facts don't get reported.

[AstroProdigy]

Link

 

Ooh, that fat little Fresnoan predicted this 2 years ago. Lovable little butterball. I am, of course, referring to War Nerd's 2006 Hezbollah war column which got pretty much everything right.

 

So now Israel has Syria armed with the latest anti-tank weapons and chemical weapons, Egypt with a !@#$%^&*load of aircraft and tanks, Hamas with plenty of suicide bombers and small arms, and Hezbollah with rockets, more anti-tank weapons, and enough small arms to mow down half the civilians in Israel.

 

And this is the country that's still considering bombing Iran's nuclear facilities.. Geniuses, they ain't.

 

Let's not overestimate here. Syria is a basket case run by a minority religious group that would easily collapse, Egypt's military is dependent on the US, Hamas is weak and can't do much of anything beyond Gaza since the West Bank is under heavy Israeli occupation and even Gaza is completely blockaded and can be starved into submission (cruel but effective), and Hezbollah may be powerful enough to attack Israel, but mow down half the civilians in Israel requires a complete collapse of Israel's military and confiscation of its weapons.

[NBVegita]

Agreed with astro.

 

Also sever remember, Hezbollah was the one to start the aggression in 2006. Whats also ironic is a major clause of the peace treaty that ended the war in 2006 (which hezbollah could not have won) was the disarmament of Hezbollah.

 

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjVlM...GQ4OGQxMDA1YjQ=

 

Also an interesting article for those of you who read politics during the war.

 

Being I don't support Iran's non transparency in nuclear matters, I surely don't support them attempting to threaten us (by threatening Israel) into not taking further sanctions against them.

[PaRa$iTe]

They don't have to be strong enough to win the war. They just have to be strong enough to ensure that a war will cost more than it's worth. Even if they "only" are able to kill one-eighth of Israeli civilians, that still is too much (at least for anyone who cares the least bit about casualties).

[FMBI]

Veg, rofl @ you linking to National Review. Also, while you are correct in saying that Hezbollah started the aggression in 2006, they did not start the war in 2006. What most people don't realize is that the 2006 war was just a long-overdue continuation of Israel's Ben-Gurion policies, where massive (ie, 75-100 people dead) raids would be planned so that Israel could "retaliate" whenever any of the Arab states did anything.

 

Astro -

 

Syria won't fall apart. We've spent 91 years waiting for oppressive regimes to fall apart, but, with the exception of the USSR, Iraq, and various African states, very few significant "regime changes" have actually occurred, and the revolutionary regimes that replace them often pursue very similar policies. Besides, as Iraq showed us, war is a very good thing for authoritarian states, unless the population is already very pacificistic, as with Russia.

 

Egypt is dependent on the US, but remember that N!@#$%^&*er went to the USSR in the 50s, against his better instincts. I see no reason why the current fairly similar (though non-populist, and with few democratic pretenses) government couldn't become Venezuela 2.0 and get support from Russia, China, or any of the various arms-dealing states, such as South Korea or Singapore. And we also saw back in 1973 that Egypt has a much stronger long-war capability than Israel does.

 

Hamas is weak, but they can blow away hundreds of Israelis within days using suicide bombs, and they could probably break down blockades, divert military forces, and threaten the Israeli government. Remember how the government panicked when Saddam sent a few dozen SCUDs at them? Imagine having a full-blown paramilitary insurgency, and being unable to shut it down.

 

Hezbollah can easily infiltrate into Israel and kill, at the least, a few thousand civilians, which would, as with Hamas, put the government under incredible pressure, and severely weaken the military's position on the other fronts.

 

 

Basically, none of these factors could bring down Israel alone, but combined, there's no conceivable way they could lose, except for direct US military intervention. Syria and Egypt could just grind down Israel's military over a few weeks, while the twins (H&H.. how cute) could mop up inside its borders. And I mentioned the chemical weapons because, if Israel felt it was going too far, it is likely they'd pull out the nukes. Knowing you're gonna go too is, as they say, quite a deterrent.

 

edit - And keep in mind that the demographics have also steadily been moving in the Arab's favor. Israel has to make a final political settlement within 5 years, or else they're going to get run over no matter what happens. So either they have a good peace, a bad war, or a bad peace.

Edited August 4, 2008 by Finland My BorgInvasion

[NBVegita]

And what are the chances, with all of those people attacking them, that none of Israel's allies would aid them? You would have another "Coalition" force that would bail them out.

 

I know it's a hard concept for you, but be realistic.

 

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/07/13/afr...0712mideast.php

 

Hezbollah did start the war.

 

Is the New York Times a source I can use? Please tell me which sources would be "appropriate" for you.

[FMBI]

National Review is one of the most obviously neocon sources out there, hence my disapproval.

 

Also, again, you need to look at it in terms of historical context. Israel was well known back in the day for taking a minor incident and using it as an excuse to kill dozens of people at a time. In line with their penis-length contest mentality, they probably felt the need to put down the uppity Arabs again, and decided to go with the old-time strategy. I personally find it much more believable that Israel had the war already planned out and used the kidnapping as an excuse to launch it, than to think that Israel was willing to kill 1000 people and destroy most of southern Lebanon in an honest, but failed, attempt to rescue its personnel.

 

 

Lastly, Israel has no chance in !@#$%^&* of scraping together a coalition to defend it. France and Britain would have, in the good old days, but that was only when they saw political gain in it. Western Europe is even more dependent on Arab oil than the US is, and an embargo would be ten times as harmful this time around. Even if nobody else interfered, Libya, Iran, and Algeria would probably cut off, or at least cut down, exports. And that's !@#$%^&*uming Israel even has allies - it doesn't. Europe is much less forgiving of the Palestinian situation, so you'd be left with the US and possibly a few people from ASEAN or the old SEATO zone who'd help out. Which isn't so bad, except that you'd definitely trigger a general oil embargo, you'd have Europe sucking Russia's !@#$%^&* just to keep the lights on, and you'd watch US military power face a serious dilemma - pull out and let Israel face an all-out terrorist campaign from pissed off Arabs, or stay in and watch public support totally dissolve.

 

I still see no way out for Israel, except for peace.

[darkhosis]

peace with what? there will not be peace for israel while it is surrounded by fanatic muslim neighbors. i dont get what you are suggesting by peace. you mean israel should just do nothing and wait to be nuked, suicide bombed over and over, and/or attacked by conventional methods? how to make peace with people that believe you shouldnt exist at all?

 

what is this peace for israel? pay russia to set aside some land in siberia for a new israel?

 

you better hope that israel defends itself well enough so it doesnt have to start launching nukes, cause it will..

 

well, maybe if it was just localized aroudn that general area.. i guess it would speed up development for alternative energy sources.. make the world a Greener place... peace love and harmony.. <3

Edited August 5, 2008 by darkhosis

[FMBI]

I assume you're referring to the Jewish Autonomous Oblast?

 

dark, the #1 misconception is that Israel "can't make peace while it's surrounded with fanatical muslim neighbors".

 

While its neighbors do certainly have the capacity to take it out, ironically, they aren't doing so when it's in their interests to. Egypt has been entirely peaceful since the post-73 agreements, Syria and Israel have been privately negotiating for a while, and Jordan's never been a threat.

 

So, while I predict an absolute defeat of Israel if it attacks any of its neighbors, that isn't to say the neighbors will attack it.

 

Hamas lacks the capability to do serious damage without a military distraction (as Astro said), and Hezbollah, while very tough, and obviously threatening to Israel, is devoted to gaining popular control in Lebanon, and thus won't be a serious threat for several more years - by which time Israel will probably have made a permanent peace.

 

 

Also, note that I'm not advocating a full-fledged attack on Israel, though, as a war-fantasizer, I relish the thought of anything that could seriously upset the international balance. I don't give a !@#$%^&* one way or the other, but something's gotta give eventually, and unless Israel takes the "right way" out, it won't have a chance at survival in the long term.

Edited August 5, 2008 by Finland My BorgInvasion

[darkhosis]

I assume you're referring to the Jewish Autonomous Oblast?

 

dark, the #1 misconception is that Israel "can't make peace while it's surrounded with fanatical muslim neighbors".

 

While its neighbors do certainly have the capacity to take it out, ironically, they aren't doing so when it's in their interests to. Egypt has been entirely peaceful since the post-73 agreements, Syria and Israel have been privately negotiating for a while, and Jordan's never been a threat.

 

So, while I predict an absolute defeat of Israel if it attacks any of its neighbors, that isn't to say the neighbors will attack it.

 

Hamas lacks the capability to do serious damage without a military distraction (as Astro said), and Hezbollah, while very tough, and obviously threatening to Israel, is devoted to gaining popular control in Lebanon, and thus won't be a serious threat for several more years - by which time Israel will probably have made a permanent peace.

 

 

Also, note that I'm not advocating a full-fledged attack on Israel, though, as a war-fantasizer, I relish the thought of anything that could seriously upset the international balance. I don't give a !@#$%^&* one way or the other, but something's gotta give eventually, and unless Israel takes the "right way" out, it won't have a chance at survival in the long term.

i wasn't, it was tongue-in-cheek because obv people in israel would not want to settle in such an area. !@#$%^&*, they probably wouldnt relocate to an israel sized slice of california, it was just something ahmadiedjiedjiadjajdeijamjamadinejad proposed in a brilliant flash.

 

anyway, what about Egypt's people? what do they think? saudi arabia is outwardly all nice and joyful now too, but what happens if ruling family gets deposed?

 

i see an absolute defeat for israel at some point regardless. the question becomes how many people does it take down with it? i predict at least 100x the amt that it loses itself.

 

i guess there's a slim possibility it could outlast this rise in religious fanaticism. i dont see how granting concessions will help it any when complete destruction of israel is the objective?

[PaRa$iTe]

i wasn't, it was tongue-in-cheek because obv people in israel would not want to settle in such an area. !@#$%^&*, they probably wouldnt relocate to an israel sized slice of california

Why? Because their religion makes the area they live in important. Same goes for the muslims. What makes either of them more fanatic? Please note that the muslims lived in the area for around 2,000 years before the Israel of today was founded. And how did that happen? The West just thought Hitler had been a !@#$%^&*, so they made a homeland for the Jews (and if anyone pulls out the racism card screw you, it's the correct term here) in a random English colony, kicking out all the Palestinians.

anyway, what about Egypt's people? what do they think? saudi arabia is outwardly all nice and joyful now too, but what happens if ruling family gets deposed?

I doubt the Egyptians really care any more than I do. You're confusing "muslim" with "terrorist". I know a few Egyptians and am sure they don't give a !@#$%^&*.

i see an absolute defeat for israel at some point regardless. the question becomes how many people does it take down with it? i predict at least 100x the amt that it loses itself.

Wow. I hope this doesn't mean what it looks like. Now, as I see it, if the path you're following leads to total annihilation, you have to try a different route. Do you seriously mean that they should just continue as before, without trying other options to see if they work, and try to take as many civilians down with them as possible? (combined with your earlier "Isreal must fight"-post, this is what is implied)

i guess there's a slim possibility it could outlast this rise in religious fanaticism. i dont see how granting concessions will help it any when complete destruction of israel is the objective?

The complete destruction of Israel isn't something from the Koran, or any of the basic Muslim commandments. Ergo, it must have another reason. Why do fanatic muslims attack Israel? Because they believe that dying when fighting the enemy is an instant ticket to Paradise. Now, if Israel wasn't the enemy...

[NBVegita]

Keep in mind, prior to the Muslims, the Jews did actually live there.

 

Also note that the Muslims gained power of that land because they occupied it. During the first World War England occupied it. If you look at history, once the ottoman empire was unable to fend off the English from occupying it, they lost all claim to the land.

 

The problem Israel has is there are thousands of Arabs who will not rest until Israel is destroyed. !@#$%^&* they hate Israel more than they hate us, and that's saying something. So the "right way" you're talking about is having all of the Israeli's leave Israel and give in to the Arab persecution.

 

Israel has no allies!? lol.

 

As for Hezbollah, no matter if Israel wanted a war or not, without Hezbollah launching an offensive and capturing the soldiers, there wouldn't have been a war (at that time)

[PaRa$iTe]

Keep in mind, prior to the Muslims, the Jews did actually live there.

Also note that the Muslims gained power of that land because they occupied it.

And before that, the Jews gained power over the land because they occupied it. At least according to the Old Testament, they spent like half of their time away in Egypt / Babylonia / Insert Place Here and then returned to kill everyone in the country. The Romans finally forced them to leave it, afaik; the arabs basically moved in on empty land. They've lived there for thousands of years, which is way longer than, for example, anyone except for Native Americans have lived in North America. Excluding religious reasons, we have about as much right to Africa as the Jews had to Palestinia - I mean, research indicates that we all came from there. Regardless, I don't see anyone saying colonialism was right. The way the Arabs see it, Israel was made by making thousands of people leave their home country, an area in which their ancestors had lived for thousands of years. They're not trying to eliminate Israel, the country. They're trying to get rid of the foreign power that conquered their own land. The Jews, of course, don't see it this way. But if neither side budges, they're bound to keep fighting until either side is eliminated.

[NBVegita]

No matter if you consider it right or wrong, the British occupation of the land gave them control of the land to do with what they saw fit. Times are a bit more civilized now, but that does not mean that Britain was not in their right to "give" the land to the Jews?

 

Specially in war time things like this happen. If we had another world war and somehow america was overtaken and occupied, we thusly lose our right to the land.

 

Land is something that can be taken or given, bought or sold. Simply having lived in an area for an extended period of time means nothing. If your family has owned land for 300 years and decides to stop paying taxes, does the government say "oh you can keep your land because you've been there longer than our country has"?

 

It's the cruel truth of the world. Now we have strict regulations and international policies to help stop things like this now, but unfortunately for the Palestinians, in the real life game of musical chairs, they got caught standing.

[FMBI]

Fine, Veg, I'll change that statement. Israel has a minor ally in South Africa. And it might get support from a few Maronites. Other than that, GG.

 

 

As far as your "land" statement, let me compare two quotes of yours. o_O

 

The problem Israel has is there are thousands of Arabs who will not rest until Israel is destroyed. !@#$%^&* they hate Israel more than they hate us, and that's saying something. So the "right way" you're talking about is having all of the Israeli's leave Israel and give in to the Arab persecution.

 

Land is something that can be taken or given, bought or sold. Simply having lived in an area for an extended period of time means nothing. If your family has owned land for 300 years and decides to stop paying taxes, does the government say "oh you can keep your land because you've been there longer than our country has"?

 

So..

 

In other words, the Jews were justified in claiming Israel (and kicking out hundreds of thousands of Palestinians) because land doesn't matter, but if the Palestinians go nuts and try to kick the Jews out, they're suddenly evil fanatics who are persecuting the poor Jews?

 

Umm..

 

Yeah.

[NBVegita]

In other words, the Jews were justified in claiming Israel (and kicking out hundreds of thousands of Palestinians) because land doesn't matter, but if the Palestinians go nuts and try to kick the Jews out, they're suddenly evil fanatics who are persecuting the poor Jews?

 

Not at all true Finland. Nor have I ever said such a thing. Not so good at that whole deductive reasoning thing are you?

 

Never once did I say I support or don't support Palestinian action against Israel. I was pointing out that your concept of the "Right-way" was inferring that the Israeli's should just hand over their land.

 

The only things I have said are I didn't support was Iran arming Hezbollah in a manner to try to blackmail us into not enforcing sanctions, that Hezbollah started the 2006 war and that the Israeli's have a problem with the Arabs hating them more than they hate us.

 

I could honestly care less who occupies the land. If Palestine invaded Israel tomorrow and took it over, I'd say more power to Palestine.

[SeVeR]

1. You cannot compare the Arab conquest of the holy lands 1400 years ago with the Jewish conquest 60 years ago, unless you want to ignore almost two millenia of human moral development. 1400 years ago it was right, 60 years ago it was wrong.

 

2. Saying the British had a right to give the land to the Jews is quite frankly ridiculous. The British had no right, and it is even more criminal that they (but mainly America) gave the land to their political allies, the Jews. The par!@#$%^&*ion gave 55% of the land to a Jewish population that was 1/3 the size of the Arab population, and additionally, most of this Jewish population had only been living there for a few decades as a result of the American government changing laws in order to allow m!@#$%^&* immigration to Israel.

 

3. I hope we've all seen the "UN vote", and i have discussed this in detail on other topics. Suffice to say all neighboring countries were against the par!@#$%^&*ion plan, almost guaranteeing the wars to follow. They were over-ruled by the corrupt America-allied South American dictatorships of the time, a crippled group of European countries who were reliant on U.S. loans and thus had no choice but to follow America, and chiefly, an American government run by Harry Truman... who at the time of the creation of Israel was urged by U.S. diplomats from the Middle East not to heed Zionist urgings. He replied: "I'm sorry, gentlemen, but I have to answer to hundreds of thousands who are anxious for the success of Zionism: I do not have hundreds of thousands of Arabs among my cons!@#$%^&*uents." . Extremely racist...

 

4. Lets be absolutely clear that Judaism and Jewish people are not the enemy, Zionism and Israel is. Nothing about the Muslim aggression against Israel is racist, although we are led to believe they are racist through our carefully controlled media who want us to dismiss these people as irrational nut-jobs by attributing them with the ultra-sensitive, absolute moral crime that is racism. If the majority of Americans knew their history, and knew why the Muslims were fighting, then the Muslims would actually get some public support. This is a clear example of how the views of the people have been aligned with the views of their leaders.

[NBVegita]

1) Sever, ironically for what happened 60 years ago to be considered unacceptable, why is it that the Face of (Central) Europe and the middle east was a virtual Mr. Potato Head during the world wars through the 1950's? It is still acceptable today, we just do it in the back ground instead of in the fore front.

 

You might consider it unacceptable and you are en!@#$%^&*led to that.

 

2) The British for all purposes "owned" the land. !@#$%^&* they could have kept it. Also the war did occur, and with help, the Israeli's won the war, and the right to the land.

 

3) Welcome to the world of politics. Grab a seat, stay a while.

 

4) I've never depicted them as racists, in fact I don't even use the term "Jews" I use the term Israeli's.

[FMBI]

In other words, the Jews were justified in claiming Israel (and kicking out hundreds of thousands of Palestinians) because land doesn't matter, but if the Palestinians go nuts and try to kick the Jews out, they're suddenly evil fanatics who are persecuting the poor Jews?

 

Not at all true Finland. Nor have I ever said such a thing. Not so good at that whole deductive reasoning thing are you?

 

Never once did I say I support or don't support Palestinian action against Israel. I was pointing out that your concept of the "Right-way" was inferring that the Israeli's should just hand over their land.

 

The only things I have said are I didn't support was Iran arming Hezbollah in a manner to try to blackmail us into not enforcing sanctions, that Hezbollah started the 2006 war and that the Israeli's have a problem with the Arabs hating them more than they hate us.

 

I could honestly care less who occupies the land. If Palestine invaded Israel tomorrow and took it over, I'd say more power to Palestine.

 

I didn't say that. However, the only way the Israelis will get to keep their state intact at all will be to retreat to the 1948 borders and accept Palestinian de jure independence. Otherwise they're screwed.

 

Hezbollah has nothing to do with the sanctions. Iran would only use Hezbollah if we actually declared war on Iran.

 

I still disagree with your !@#$%^&*essment of the war.

 

The Israelis do have a problem with the Arabs hating them, but the Arabs hate the state, not the people. Most Arabs just want an actual political settlement for once, rather than more of Israel playing for time while it cries about the big bad Arabs.

 

You reverse yourself yet again. First the Arabs are "persecuting" Israel, and now you don't care if Palestine completely takes over Israel? wtf?

 

 

Let me explain further what I mean by a settlement, since you seem to interpret it as an insistence that they all fly to NYC or something.

 

* Israel ends settlement building

* Israel retreats to 1948 borders

* Israel ends blockade of Gaza

* Israel either seriously backs Fatah, or else recognizes Hamas

* Israel enforces discipline among troops (no more hushed up civilian killings in peacetime)

* Israel provides "get off the ground" aid to Palestinians, especially in Gaza

* Israel signs a permanent peace with Syria

 

None of those things could cause a strategic disaster for Israel in any way, shape, or form. Plus, taking out the primary casus belli for future aggression would destroy support for the vast majority of Islamic terrorists. So once more.. If you truly support Israel, then you support a peaceful settlement along these lines. If you don't support Israel, then you act like CUFI and wait for 95% of Israel's population to die in a future war.

[FMBI]

1) Sever, ironically for what happened 60 years ago to be considered unacceptable, why is it that the Face of (Central) Europe and the middle east was a virtual Mr. Potato Head during the world wars through the 1950's? It is still acceptable today, we just do it in the back ground instead of in the fore front.

 

You might consider it unacceptable and you are en!@#$%^&*led to that.

 

2) The British for all purposes "owned" the land. !@#$%^&* they could have kept it. Also the war did occur, and with help, the Israeli's won the war, and the right to the land.

 

3) Welcome to the world of politics. Grab a seat, stay a while.

 

4) I've never depicted them as racists, in fact I don't even use the term "Jews" I use the term Israeli's.

 

1) We considered that unacceptable because the USSR was installing puppet authoritarian governments, and ignoring the popular will. I'd say the same thing happened in Palestine, because the vast majority of the population slowly watched their rights weakened, and then, in 1948, almost eliminated.

 

2) The British also "owned" South Africa, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Burma, Australia, Canada, Iraq, Jordan, Cyprus, Kuwait, South Yemen, Oman, the Trucial States, British Somaliland, Nigeria, Gold Coast, Sudan, Kenya, Tanzania, Rhodesia, North Rhodesia, Malawi, Bechuanaland, Namibia, British Guiana, Ireland, and Hong Kong, among other minor colonies. But I don't recall them installing foreign governments in any of them.. except for South Africa.. which was internationally hated for decades.. But we know Israel was nothing like South Africa, so it's all good.

 

3) I personally regard that as Truman's biggest jerk moment. It makes the steel mill debacle look relatively good. He sacrificed the next 60 years (and, most likely the next 10 or 20 from here) to get a little political support. !@#$%^&*.

 

4) You know how the conservatives always like to point out cases where Muslim nutcases denounce "ANTI-ISLAMIC SENTIMENTS"? Well, guess what, now any time someone says anything about Israel those same conservatives call it "ANTI-SEMITIC SENTIMENTS". It's almost funny, except for the fact that the vast majority of Americans believe it.

[NBVegita]

the only way the Israelis will get to keep their state intact at all will be to retreat to the 1948 borders and accept Palestinian de jure independence. Otherwise they're screwed.

 

Your opinion, which you're en!@#$%^&*led to.

 

"Any American strike on Iran, for example, could be the trigger for a Hizbollah attack on Israel. "

 

Taken from your article.

 

The Arabs are persecuting the Israeli's. I never said that I was against that, just that I don't believe that Israel should give in to the persecution. If they fight a war and Israel loses, well then too bad for Israel.

 

* Israel ends settlement building

* Israel retreats to 1948 borders

* Israel ends blockade of Gaza

* Israel either seriously backs Fatah, or else recognizes Hamas

* Israel enforces discipline among troops (no more hushed up civilian killings in peacetime)

* Israel provides "get off the ground" aid to Palestinians, especially in Gaza

* Israel signs a permanent peace with Syria

 

Oh is that all? And of course that would just appease everyone. How wonderful. Idealism and realism rarely coincide.

 

Note that Britian allowed those commonwealths and states to become their own countries (per the statute of Westminster in the 1930's I believe). At least in the case of the major ones. Just as they allowed Israel to become a country. What point were you trying to make?

[FMBI]

They did not "allow" Israel to become a country, they forced Israel into existence.

 

Also, the conditions I listed are generally accepted as sufficient, by everyone from western analysts to Arab-on-the-street polls.

 

 

Uhh.. I said that Iran would only use Hezbollah if we attacked Iran. Thanks for repeating what I said?

[NBVegita]

So a military venture to enforce sanction set forth by the U.N. is declaring war?

 

It was mandated by the U.N. and the British agreed. No matter what you think of the U.N. at the time, politics is politics.

 

I could go through why some of those conditions would not work, but I've not the time this afternoon. So I will attempt to later or tomorrow.

 

Btw could you cite any of these sources? thx.