This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Trimming Archduke Ferdinand's Hedges: Will Landscaping Be The Cause For Another Israel War?
Earlier today, the Middle East again came once step closer to war after the latest Israel-Lebanon clash claimed the most lives since the Second Lebanon War. As part of the escalation, 3 Lebanese soldiers and 1 journalist were killed, as well as an Israeli officer, over what appears to have been a day of gardening gone horribly wrong: Haaretz reports: "The violence apparently erupted over a move by Israeli soldiers to trim
some hedges along the border, a sign of the level of tensions at the
frontier where Israel fought a war in 2006 with the Lebanese militant
group Hezbollah." Surely this latest escalation explains the most recent surge in stocks, as Ben Bernanke will now have an excuse to take his money paradrop operation over to the Middle East, in hopes of keeping everyone occupied through endless amazon.com purchases of assorted useless gizmos.
More from Haaretz:
Lebanese and Israeli troops exchanged fire on the border Tuesday in the most serious clashes since a fierce war four years ago, and Lebanon said at least three of its soldiers and a journalist were killed in shelling.
The violence apparently erupted over a move by Israeli soldiers to trim some hedges along the border, a sign of the level of tensions at the frontier where Israel fought a war in 2006 with the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah.
Israel Defense Forces GOC Northern Command Maj. Gen. Gadi Eizenkot announced Tuesday that two Israeli officers had been very seriously hit during the exchange of fire. Eizenkot said that the incident had been a "deliberate ambush."
Eizenkot told Israeli media that "a routine operation was carried out during the afternoon near Misgav Am – an operation whose purpose was to trim some bushes near the border, in our [Israeli] territory. It was on both sides of the border but still within [Israeli] territory. Officers oversaw the operation from a permanent position. Sniper fire was directed at the officers, and two of them were wounded as a result."
The GOC Northern Command stressed that "this was a pre-planned event, aggression by the Lebanese army who shot at soldiers inside Israeli territory without any provocation. We view this as a very severe incident."
In other news, nothing like keeping the world on edge, and all eyes glued to the TV, as the terminal wealth transfer program in the US continues uninhibited and without intervention.
»
- 6782 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Prelude to knocking the Mullahs' hats off.
Green Party green light in Iran.
As ye sow so shall ye reap. Good luck with that.
It's funny that you used the Archduke reference in the title of the article, Tyler; first thing I thought of when I saw the headline this morning was John Goodman's riff in The West Wing when his character assumed the Presidency.
God I miss that show...
While I don't think the current shrubbercide incident will escalate that far, it would be sad if a similar riff was to be put together substituting a tree for the Archduke's nephew...hoping cooler heads prevail here...
...and eventually England declared war on Germany to defend Belgian neutrality.
The thing about 'The West Wing' is that after dialog like this the The President (Martin Sheen) would always say something asinine like "violence and war always begets more violence and war."
"Rubble don't make trouble" is closer to the truth and one way or another that's how this thing will eventually end.
Thousands of years have proven this point, with no doubt.
the assasin was LEON TROTSKY
*lulz*
It was the knights who say "Neh!"
shrubbery.
and eventually Woodrow "Too Proud to Fight" Wilson caved and sent Black Jack, Harmon, Lejeune, and a bunch of really hard men to get it right.
Then, tried to screw it up w/League of Nations.
and so it goes.
- Ned
Just stating facts son.
You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me? Then who the hell else are you talking... you talking to me? Well I'm the only one here. Who the fuck do you think you're talking to? Oh yeah? OK.
Take it easy sweetie.
What's With All the HFJ -- High Frequency Junking?
Is there an AIPAC mole running lose as a registered Zero Hedger?
Any clues, how long it will take for market to turn positive?
Are there any hidden bans on shorts?
maybe when hell freezes over, and then relocates to lower Manhattan?
clearing bushes aka establishing fields of fire... the PR firm who put together that "news item" ought to go work for the FED.
give me a break!
If you are out cutting bushes in your yard and your neighbor shoots you, don't complain. You provoked him.
yeah, the poor israelis are just soooo innocent of any part in this farce
redacted
gee mistur tough guy... I'm weally weally afwaid...
What are you afraid of cupcake?
not you skippy... any time you want to meet up and "dance" a bit I'd welcome the opportunity... cuz right now all I'm hearing is your walkin talkin BS mister hide behind the internet tough guy.
What part did the Israelis play in this farce?
"Never again! We have a right to dance!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2MvB134hK4
For those of you that didn't get the joke check out this lady that actually believes Israel is NOT a Democracy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRAldVlyxnY
If you harvest on a bad day for the IDF expect to be shot at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U62c5Tccj0I
Good morning! Time for some ethnic cleansing!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lOOBCUBryo
Yeah, right, never mind that you don't own the house, but instead invaded it, and are keeping the former owners at gunpoint in the basement where they are slowly starving to death.
When are you and your family departing for Europe? Have you deeded your house to a Native American?
Dude, the folks Israel stole from are still alive. They still have deeds in hand.
What a maroon. Try to sell that shit on the reservation, davey crockett. They will set you straight.
Try to sell that shit on the reservation, davey crockett.
My grandfather was shot for selling whiskey and horderves to the Indians.
+100 tmosely
Now tell us what happens when "your" shrubbery is in someone else's yard.
Funny. Since the US started its rule over the world, the gap between individual possibilities and group possibilities has never been so large.
People in group indulge themselves in behaviour they severely condemn when done on individual level.
Here's an example: that's the guy who keeps telling another guy in the distant neighbourhood conceals weapons that could kill massively. The guy keeps hammering the point over and over again and while the others are skeptical over his claims, he invades the home to show he is right.
He finds nothing of what he claimed to be concealed there. But hey, after killing the father and the mother who refused to cooperate and called on themselves the use of violence, there are kids to look after and raise and the guy has a big heart and deep principes. He sacrifices himself by settling him and part of his family in the new home, managing the property and promising to let children get their share of the wealth when they come to age.
Try this at home to see how this little scenario is accepted in your communauty. After your time in jail if lucky, if normal procedure, come back from the dead to report on how the plan went fine.
"Here's an example: that's the guy who keeps telling another guy in the distant neighbourhood conceals weapons that could kill massively."
I'm not insensitive to your apparent premise, but you failed to mention that the "another guy" actually used the "weapons" in dispute - and murdered others with them - the Kurds.
Posters who conveniently leave this information out of the equation diminish their argument in my eyes.
I dont know, to say it all.
I am quite aware of most of the little stories some have told about the individual versus group and the relationship between the two. Because if you read my post as it was written, I dont speak of citizens (which is a group conception by the way) and state (which is another group conception)
That is not group vs group in my post.
Not surprised as commonly, US citizens struggle at thinking out of group patterns.
The answer shows in the wrong place. Comes to answer the following comment on who said citizens djajaja
I left this piece of information out of the equation because it did not come to my mind. It did not come to my mind because it is irrelevant.
The question was not about this guy having owned peculiar weapons in the past but owning them in the present. The accusation falls on a present event, not a past event.
Actually, your approach made it worse as the weapons were provided by the guy who claimed that weapons are owned at present times.
As a side note, well, Iraq did not use those weapons only on Kurds. They used them on various targets, which included the bag guys of current storyline: Iranians.
Try this at home to see how this little scenario is accepted in your communauty.
Where in history has any one ever claimed that citizens had the same rights as states?
All manner of violence in the name of preemptive self-defense has long been the prerogative of nations only.
I have long been amazed at what I, in my role as a US citizen, can get away with by proxy around the world.
Watched while Viet Nam went from simmer to full boil, frustration from failure expressed as escalating horror.
Waited a lifetime for America to mature into the country I had always believed in, too tired to hope anymore
Ah your cause is all so pretty
And we`re ready to begin
We`re going to play the good guys
By singing the good guys hymn
- Melanie Safka
False. I suppose you should dig in the history of duels as they were practised for millenia.Very instructive.
As to 'pre-emptive self-defense' that is PC talk for attack, aggression, offensive.
Pre-emptive self-defense is a non sense that can lead to anything.
Currently, at the moment I wrote, somewhere in the world, a baby might be born who will kill me at some point in the future. Nobody cannot garantee me it wont happen. Therefore under the pretext of pre-emptive self-defense, I am justified in killing all babies to come.
Of course, I suspect that people who support that non sense of pre-emptive self defense do not acknowledge that possibility and are quick to extend it in as their kids might kill others in the future, justifying a pre-emptive killing of the said kids, the parents have to kill the others in order to prevent the kids from doing it and then give a justification to the others in killing the kids.
Can be confusing.
False +1-inherent right to self defense goes all around, well, except in Taxachusetts. - Ned
LOL! You got that right!
I was walking along the street the other day and I glanced at the cover of the New York Post and I had a chill down my spine and I was absolutely convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that we are at a level of smoke, mirrors, bread, circuses,dog & pony and tumblesaulting clowns juggling molotov cocktails in order to distract the masses in America from what is actually occuring in our once great nation.
Here is the link to the Photo that dominated the cover of the New York Post a few days ago:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/smashed_snooki_booked_fApeB1o3wRjLREy...
The same day.Micheal Stansbury was killed in Afghanistan. He was 21 years old. He will never know what is like to have a family. Find the woman of his dreams. Propose to her. Buy his first home and was barely even old enough to drink. He will never tell his children about his childhood and teach them valuable life lessons because they will never exist.
Do we honestly think his parents give two fucks Snooki was arrested?
More people care about Snookie than care about Michael Stansbury. The New York Times was simply doing what capitalism requires: go where the biggest return for your buck is.
Is Snooki a porn star that gives it to Helicopter Ben? /sarcasm
What will the O supporters say when he authorizes
a huge offensive on Iran ?
Which supporters? The financial supporters? They'll be cool with it.
Thank you. Go ahead and grab a cookie.
There is but one party, the banke rs.
Politics is for suckers.
http://tinyurl.com/2bwxx9k
grab a cookie.
Your posts in this thread have included "sweetie," "cupcake" and "cookies."
Empty calories and male curiosity, eh Georgie?
And in this land of absurdity, there is only one thing to say:
"We want a shrubery!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UbtcmjfKa8
Or was one of the soldiers after some bush and something was "lost" in the "translation."
Good Lord, we can't say that. ... >> ... Well this is almost saying the same thing isn't it? Brilliant! Run with it!
Just don't ask me to cut down the mightiest tree in the forest with...a herring.
From what I've been reading, I don't think the Federal Reserve needs an excuses to do more QE. The whole thing is a Ponzi. The treasury issues bonds and the feds buys them with its unlimited "off balance sheet" accounting. One day we'll look back and wonder how this was even permitted.
I am so damn tired of the mideast for Christ sakes. They have been fighting for thousands of years. If Israel wants war well let them have it,but no more foregin aid.Same thing with the Palestinan Authority. We have been giving military aid to israel,Palestian Authority,Lebanon,Jordan,Saudi Arabia,iraq,PakistanYemen,South korea,Japan etc. We are bankrupt power that does not mind its own damn buisness. If the Jews,Arabs,Turks,and Persians want war with eac other well let them have it but we should withdarw from the mideast and not takes sides. let them destroy each other we have too many damn problems at our own country. It makes no sense to me why we protect iraq,and Afghanistans's borders while ours is wide open.
I do not care what happens in the mideast no more there was always war there,there will be always war there but we stupidly are involved because we want to play empire and have vassal nations unde rour control mena while, our debt is 13.2 trillion,unfunded liabilties are 110 trillion. We have states going bankrupt,every indicator shows that we are going to have a deflationary depression(Alt-a,option arm,commercial real estate reset). Meanwhile neo cons like Micheal Savage,Sean Hannity,Rush Limburger are screaming bloody murder for war with Iran at the same time say we need fiscal restraint. We need to end the welfare and warfare state at once if we have a chance to save our republic but many of the so clled "tea partiers" are for war with Iran. Only Ron Paul is voice of reason,but the left vs right paradigm is so strong that people have more loyalty to their party then their nation. Stop watchning Faux News,MSNBS,CNN(Crap New Network),and read a book and enlighten yourselves and try to wake up the american sheeple.
The Tea Partiers support Palin. Sarah Palin was picked by Kristol to be Mac's VP. Shall I go on?
I'm a tea partier and I support Ron Paul.
As you should. The TP has some house cleaning to do.
Peter Thiel is one of Ron Paul’s main advisors (read handler) and Mr. Thiel is a Bilderberger
http://www.nndb.com/people/030/000124655/Mr. Paul is a Zio-puppet and Tea Party is a Zio front.
PS: 911 Inside Job
Are you pretending to be insane as a joke or are your actually insane?
I agree about not sending any more aid to anybody, especially since we're the poorest nation on earth.
Our country gets bamboozled into fighting wars via our media and the constant "terror alerts". What a bunch of BS! I'm starting to believe that the wars we fight in the Middle East are for Israel's benefit, because it sure ain't for Americans. Even the so-called "terrorists" tell the world, "We hate Israel, and the US for supporting it".
Want peace in the Middle East (for Americans)? It'll happen tomorrow if we just pull out. Let Israel back up their big mouth, and fight their own wars instead of being the punk in the schoolyard using others for their conflicts.
Israhole, I had a funny insight into what you are alluding to.
I realized that the War on Terror is actually the War of the Terrified.
The War of the Terrified.
Such a truer name, I feel.
ORI
http://aadivaahan.wordpress.com
Look behind you, there's a Joooooo!
well said weimar... let them all have at it and let us take care of ourselves for once
I'm with you in spirit but they aren't---> in their eyes:
mideast = oil
With the commencement of the Turning Point 4 national air raid drills across Israel earlier this spring, the IDF has unveiled a new local cellular alert system designed to notify the citizenry in the event of ballistic missile attacks possibly with chemical weapons from either Hezbollah to the north in Lebanon or the Shahab class missile emanating from more distant Iran. With memories still fresh with the stinging defeat at the hands of Hezbollah in the July 2006 war which culminated with Israel's withdrawal 10 years ago this month from its suzerainty in Lebanon, the Israelis are all too mindful of the growing military muscle of the Syrian and Iranian backed Hizbollah which forms a de facto government parallel to divided Beirut.
With a series of bunkers and fixed and mobile missile emplacements just north of the Litani river, Hizbollah's charismatic leader Sayed Hassan Nasrallah has made bold to confront the superior might of Ehud Barak's IDF. While Israel seems publicly fixated on the potential for the ongoing development of Iranian nuclear capabilities, private concerns are voiced concerning the more immediate threat of the "Party of God" to the north which claims to have stockpiles of more that 20,000 missiles pointed at the Jewish state including Fateh 110 and Fajr-5 large ballistics as well as outdated behemoth Scuds from the Syrians at the ready in the event of any hostile Israeli actions.
Hizbollah is conducting war games near Baalbak in the northern Bekka Valley in response to the ongoing Israeli defense exercises as Nasrallah daily rattles the scimitar in the direction of his Zionist foes all the while proclaiming the ascendncy of ultimate "divine victory" over the 'Zionist entity". Once again a proxy battle is joined as Russian president Medvedev provided to Syria Pantsir surface to air missiles MIG jet fighters and anti-aircraft batteries while Obama responded on the very same day with $133m for Israel's rocket defense systems. Meanwhile Iran awaits the long delayed delivery of the much coveted Russian S-300 missile defence system which military analysts unamimously agree will be a critical game changer possible tipping the balance in Iran's favor in any conflict with Israel's F-16 and F-15 fighter jets, essential to the precise delivery of U.S. bunker busting bombs on deeply fortified underground Iranian nuclear facilities.
It's been said that the S300 has already been technically breached... but may be just another lie in a long cold war.
I'd be interested in the IDF's selection of garden tools, the press release makes it sound like they shot a guy in overalls wielding hedge clippers.
Exactly, IDF was probably trimming the hedge with machinegun fire...
Probably? You base your opinion on what...your extreme gardening prowess? Or your extreme bigotry?
experience with a burned out M-60? certainly no M-deuce. - Ned
canw e all keep in mind that he israeli soldiers were still in their own territory,
the fence is located in israeli territory for this exact reason
Goddammit, butters...
Let's all keep in mind that we only know what we've been told.
So you're saying israelis were trimming their bushes?
Actually, you're wrong, the trees were in Lebanese territory, across the border fence.
Actually, you're making an incorrect assumption. The fence is completely within Israeli territory, not right on the border. The other side of the fence is Israeli territory also. The Lebanese know this and it is not disputed.
The Israeli's were cutting trees on their own land.
Actually, there seems to be some questions raised by the Lebanese about the blue line.
How convenient - UNIFIL has no question about it, and they were standing right there next to them. This had nothing to do with crossing the blue line, elements within Lebanon wanted a show. The media was there in advance to video the whole thing, how do you think that occurred?
Wasn't there myself, sorry - and kind of conspiracy theorist yourself, no? No proof of malice in the incident, yet. Still, if the UN said the Israelis were in the right, it's not for me to question it.
They really ought to have used one of these:
http://www.aworldofrentals.ca/images/equipment/lawn-garden/tree-pruner-gas-lg.jpg
that way they could reach it from *behind* the fence...
I would imagine the next time they need to trim some bushes, they do it with artillery, from a distance.
This new version of the 'final solution' been a matter of when, not if, for a long time. You don't build up these kinds of offensive, not defensive, military assets without the intent to use them. There are a lot more than 20,000 rockets aimed at Israel, and the IDF has a lot more than conventional weapons ready to go. The only questions are (1) timing and (2) pace. In fact it has already started. Anyone who thinks that any of the parties are going to move back from the brink now doesn't read history or understand human nature.
The world will be a much better, safer, fairer place if Iran manages to develop its nuclear weapons program before Israel convinces Uncle Obama and Aunt Hillary to invade and/or "bomb them to the stone age."
Anyone who wants peace and fairness should be hoping that Iran gets the nuke.
This is the stupidest post I've seen on ZH to date.
Go fuck yourself idiot.
LOL.
I see I hit a nerve.
What's the matter? Afraid you won't be able to push around every 90 pound weakling on your block once Iran gets the nuke?
Fuck off, little fascist.
I guess that whole Shah thing worked out poorly.
I would want the bomb too if I were in their shoes!
megatoxic brings up some great points. I love this site! :)
I second the motion, this is one of the stupidist posts ever to be seen on ZH!
Perhaps you can explain to the Iranian citizenry how Fascism works?
but, as the childrens like to say, "he who smelt it, delt it"
Really?
So you think it's productive for one state in the region to have nuclear weapons as well as unconditional, unlimited military and economic support from "the world's only superpower?"
Seems to me that Mutually Assured Destruction worked reasonably well during the Cold War. Heck, we managed to go 50 years without fighting a single hot war against a powerful enemy who wanted to wipe us off the planet.
Yet somehow, the logic of M.A.D. doesn't apply to Israel? Funny how many of the rules of civilized society don't apply to that country, isn't it?
You seem to be an expert on MADness. Why don't you try your experiment on a grand scale? Give everyone a nuke, I am sure no one will use them. Certainly a country that has promised to wipe out their neighbor wouldn't.
LOL. Of course we're not talking about "giving everyone a nuke," are we? We're talking about a specific nation--Iran--which has developed the technical expertise to build one on its own. They have that right, just as Israel has that right. Furthermore, history suggests that when two enemies are both armed with nuclear weapons, they tend to be a little more cautious in their actions, if not their rhetoric.
I support nuclear weapons for Iran for the same reason I support the 2nd Amendment in the US. I believe President Reagan referred to it as "Peace Through Strength."
In any case, there really is no stopping Iran from getting the weapons if it wants them badly enough. Iran is a rising nation with a rich cultural history and tremendous potential. Israel would do best to reconcile herself to that reality and begin modifying her behavior accordingly.
Iran is a rising country ruled by a brutal repressive police state/clergy that murders its own citizens. The fact that you want to 'give' nuclear weapons to them (and what about Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc? You do realize a nuclear Iran upsets the balance with these countries don't you?) says more about you than Iran.
Not to mention Israels' neighbors have attacked and attempted to destroy it more than once.
What could go wrong?
Let me try again: we are not "giving" nuclear weapons to anyone. Iran is developing them. On its own. All the more impressive given the sanctions regime we have imposed on them.
If Israel is not a police state, then I don't know what is.
Bottom line: Israel might want to modify its behavior so as to get along better with its neighbors. Because the days of being the only bully on the block with nuclear weapons and the unconditional support of Uncle Sam are coming to an end. If Israel cannot make the adjustment, then I don't expect it to survive (at least in its current military apartheid manifestation).
I wish Israel the best, but I fail to understand why maintaining its position of absolute military dominance over the ME is a vital interest of the United States. We can survive with or without Israel, correct?
That's odd, Iran says they aren't building a nuke. Are you saying they are lying? That they may have a hidden agenda? I wonder what that might be...
As for modified behavior, where is your concern for the way Iran treats its' people?
And Israel claims it doesn't have a nuke. In fact, they jailed the nuclear scientist who went public with their nuclear status 20+ years ago! Naked hypocrisy is a direct consequence of the aburd non-proliferation regime.
So...is Iran lying? I assume they are. I would too, if I were them. Lying about one's nuclear ambitions is practically a rite of passage on the route to international pre-eminence.
Iran mistreats its citizens, of course. As does Israel. And China. And Pakistan. And India. And North Korea. And Russia. And the United States, for that matter. Being morally clean isn't a prerequisite for having nukes or being a player on the world stage, it seems.
What is your solution, Internet Tough Guy? Should Israel bomb Iran? Should we invade? Should we assassinate Ahmadinejad and his cohorts? How about the nuclear scientists?
I'd genuinely like to hear how you think this situation would best be handled.
It's a bad situation, I agree. But it's not comparable to the 2nd amendment. As an american citizen you cannot own a nuke, and the idea that a lying, holocaust-denying dictator will not push the button is a stretch. Too much of a stretch for even Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and the other countries that are secretly hoping for(and aiding) a possible strike.
Can you please provide a faithful Farsi translation not provided via western media outlets so we can discuss A-meds "denial"?
Well on that we can certainly agree. It's a very bad situation. Made worse, imo, by decades of US meddling and bullying. That being said, there is plenty of blame to go around.
Somehow, we've managed to avoid nuclear war between Islamist Pakistan and Hindu nationalist India. Between Communist Russia and "Capitalist" (lol!) USA. Between insane N. Korea and hypervigilant S. Korea. I do not think Ahmadinejad is insane. He, like every leader, will ultimately act in what he believes is his and his country's self-interest. In no scenario is it in Iran's self-interest to nuke Israel. They would be erased from the planet within 30 minutes if that happened.
Of course this is not true. Saddam, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Hitler, Mao, Stalin. History is littered with dictators that acted against their nations' interest.
We will just have to disagree, but thanks for a civil discussion.
Fair point. Not to mention Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton...
I guess I would modify my point to say: leaders will not act in such a manner as to *guarantee* the total annihilation of their country.
If you read what he wrote (you should have in order to be able to answer to his points), it is about what the said leaders believe to be their and their nation's best interests.
Your comment caught my attention because apparently, you know what nations' interests are.
Could you provide for example what the best interests of Iran are? Not what you believe them to be, but what they are. If you cant, please provide what you believe they are.
Ahmadinejad doesn't rule Iran , its ruled by islamic clergy , president is just a front man , something like in the US :)
How many wars has Iran fought in the last 10 years? 20? 50?
How many wars are they engaged in right now?
How many are WE engaged in?
You fucking moron
Funny how many of the rules of civilized society don't apply to that country ...
The rules of civilized society have never applied to a country that is under constant attack. And there is a moral difference between those who would use nukes for defense versus those who would use nukes for offense. These concepts are missing from your conversation.
How convenient.
All a nation has to do is define itself as being "under constant attack," and it is exempt from the rules of civilized society.
Perfect.
And with that comment, you have pretty well defined yourself.
Oh, I'd like to think I "defined myself" pretty well with all of my comments on this thread.
I support liberty, justice, truth, and peace. In that order.
Are you rigid about that or is it more like "guidelines".
From a different one of your posts, above: Israel might want to modify its behavior so as to get along better with its neighbors.
You think that all of the attacks that have come against Israel since 1948 are because Israel was not behaving properly?? You think that if Israel modifies it's behavior, the attacks will stop? Do you think maybe it is the reverse? Do you think that Israel's behavior is maybe a result of it being constantly attacked since 1948? Do you think Israel's behavior might change if the attacks stopped and all of Israel's neighbors (including Iran) acknowledged Israel's right to exist?
If you claim Israel has no right to exist, then you have negated all of the other points you have made in this thread.
Why do you think that Israel has been attacked by its neighbors?
Could it be because they mistreat ethnic and religious minorities who are the majority population in surrounding countries?
Could it be related to the fact that they expropriated land en masse from its original owners?
Could it be a consequence of having set up a de facto apartheid state in which Jewish citizens enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the world while Arabs are consigned to permanent poverty and military occupation?
I absolutely believe that Israel has the right to exist, just as I always believed South Africa had the right to exist. That does not mean that I support its policies anymore than I supported apartheid.
Eventually, Israel is going to have to make a choice: either jettison its Zionist/Jewish Supremecist legacy or face permanent war that threatens its very existence. Demographics alone should make this perfectly obvious.
Saudi Arabia is an apartheid state.
Egypt, Syria, Iran, all mistreat their ethnic minorities. Where are the jews of Mecca?
This is your weakest argument yet, and the closest to racism.
Well, I'll leave it to you to decide who is and who isn't "racist." I'm not too concerned with that game, since it is historically used to stiffle debate and silence opposition on any number of issues.
You only have issues with what Israel does. If its' neighbors do the same (or worse) you give them a pass. What do you call that?
I call it nonsense.
Read all my posts, and try again.
Jewhate.
Perhaps you could enlighten us as to why the Jews of Hebron were massacred at the hands of the Arabs in 1929?
None of your after the fact, artificial time line in the sand arguments work there. It has always been like this. We will not allow it to happen again - that's the reality.
israel has a right to exist, just not in palestine
How about Madagascar, Gruppenfuhrer?
palestine - you've grown fond of the name the area was changed to by the Romans after defeating the Jews of that period. Too bad - we're back and we're not ever leaving again.
You may not ever leave again, but you are most certainly going to return to the minority status you held prior to the invasion, occupation, and theft of Palestinian land in the early part of the 20th century.
You might want to consider treating the future majority with a little more respect, as opposed to treating them like "beasts who walk on two legs," per Menachem Begin.
Apartheid and racial supremecy don't generally work out so well in the end for the perpetrators. Just ask Israel's former allies, the Boers.
You keep spouting that line - When you rely on statistics compiled by the PA that have been shown to completely false by the world bank's numbers, thats going to happen. Why you would believe anything they publish is beyond me. Maybe you just want to.
Here's a number that you will know is true - Right now we have a 67% Jewish majority between the Mediterranean and the Jordan river. In 1947 we had 33% in the same area. We still have another 6 million or so Jews to import. As things continue to deteriorate in the rest of the world, Israel will look more and more attractive to those that haven't made aliyah yet.
megatoxic - I was editing my last post while you were posting your comment. The edit was not allowed because you responded. So I will post that edit here.
-------
If you claim Israel has no right to exist, then you have negated all of the other points you have made in this thread. If you claim Israel has a right to exists, then you must acknowledge that being under attack since 1948 is going to influence a large part of Israel's behavior. Which also negates most if not all of the other points you have made in this thread.
I think you are arguing an issue about which you are woefully underinformed. Not a criticism. Just a statement. I've been here myself. But at least you are joining the debate. It's one of the ways we get educated and get our minds changed.
Hint: Israel is not being attacked because of the way it behaves. The attacks won't stop if only Israel plays nice. Once you learn the real reason Israel is being attacked, all of the responses to your posts in this thread will make sense to you.
re: "Right to Exist."
I've always been a little perplexed by this phrase. I'm not aware of any other nation that feels the need to so vigorously defend its "right to exist." To my mind, nations either exist or they do not exist. Where would the right to exist come from? God? In what form does God confer the right to exist? Did He draw the lines upon the Earth? Did He say, these people has the right to live in this spot, and those people has the right to live in another spot, and so shall it be forever? If it is not God who confers the right to exist upon a nation, then who does? The United Nations? Some agreement made among men? Then it is no right at all. It is a contract. Men cannot confer rights anymore than men can take rights away. All men can do is obstruct through the use of force.
My answer is that any nation must continually earn its right to exist. It must adhere to principle and it must be prepared to defend itself when threatened. We live in an imperfect, unjust world in which MANY nations and MANY empires have risen, declined, and ultimately died. I'm sure that every single one of them felt that they had a right to exist.
My view is that Israel is going to have to come to terms with demographic realities. It was founded on Zionist principles and Jewish privilege. That worked for a time, as the native Arab population was relatively small, and Jewish immigration from Europe and the Soviet Union provided a demographic advantage to Israeli Jews.
The problem for Israel is that its Arab population is exploding, while the Jewish majority is shrinking. At some point in the not too distant future, Jews will once again be a minority. What then? I hope that Israel has the foresight to plan for this and create a truly open, multi-ethnic state that does not seek to privilege one group over another. So far, there has been scant evidence of this.
You've been here 19 weeks and that's the stupidest comment you've seen?
Many people believe that Julius and Ethel Rosenberg made the right decision when they gave the nuclear secrets to Russia because it brought balance to the world at a time when US Hegemony would have been assured.
Good Jews the both of them. Why would MAD work any different on a smaller scale?
I agree with megatoxic. Iran doesn't hate Americans, it hates Israel. Americans are only on the list because we support Israel.
How about Israel just takes care of itself, and quit telling Americans how to spend their money. I'd much rather secure our southern border, a real threat every day, than be "spreading freedom" in the Middle East. Fact is, Israel runs the US, and Israel uses American funds and firepower (along with implied threats) for Israel's benefit.
Iran does not hate Israel. You are confused.
The thugs in charge of Iran hate Jews.
Seriously, dude. There's a Jooooooooo standing right behind you.
There's a Swede standing behind you.
You're right, Iran doesn't hate Israel; Iran hates the thugs in charge of Israel.
Is that a Muslim standing right behind you?
But why not hear it straight from the horse's mouth?
Harold Wallace Rosenthal, 1976:
http://www.google.com/search?q=Harold+Wallace+Rosenthal+interview
So, enlighten us, is that what being Jew is about - or are you just being as played as the rest of the world?
ps: he was killed soon after, btw - talk about 'an inconvenient truth'.
"Anyone who wants peace and fairness should be hoping that Iran gets the nuke."
Can you please elaborate WHY we'll have MORE "peace and fairness" in the world if Iran and the radical Islamists obtain nuclear weapons? You don't think that the planes of 9/11 did enough for "peace and fairness" with out them?
Sorry, I just don't think that living under sharia law/caliphate is something that my wife, my children or I desire - and we're NOT Jewish or evangelicals or whatever!?! Sorry, I'm NOT enamored of what I see of this form of government.
I will, though, express my genuine disgust with Wall St and GS - adding Sharia doesn't seem like it'll make a challenging situation better, though - just sayin'.
Perhaps when you move to Iran or someplace similar I'll take your "reasoning" much more seriously!
Oh for God's sake, don't be such a drama queen. Sharia law? LOL.
Iran's beef is with Israel, not us. Or rather, their beef with us is directly related to our historical meddling in their affairs and our knee-jerk support of every act of Israeli aggression and provocation. The country that has the most to lose if Iran gets the nuke is Israel.
And what is it that they have to lose? Quite simply, the ability to act with impunity. They will no longer be able to invade their neighbors, mistreat ethnic and religious minorities within their borders, and generally behave as a latter-day incarnation of apartheid South Africa. Most people around the world see this as a good thing!
We are not going to be living under Sharia Law if Iran gets a nuke! LOL. But we also won't be able to prowl around in that particular neighborhood without risking serious consequences.
As for radical Islamists, all I can tell you is that Pakistan has had the nuclear weapon for 20 years or so. During most of that time, its security services were under the supervision of a known proliferationist and Islamist. Pakistan was and is a far greater threat to US security and world stability than Iran.
What is your "solution," btw? Are you suggesting that we invade Iran? Bomb Iran. Have Israel do it for us? Assassinate its leaders? Kill its scientists? I'd like to hear how any solution to this so-called problem would be better than simply acknowledging the fact that the "nuclear club" is about to expand by one member.
"What is your "solution," btw? Are you suggesting that we invade Iran? Bomb Iran. Have Israel do it for us? Assassinate its leaders? Kill its scientists? ...."
I was simply commenting on your belief that Iran-Nuclear Weapon-Peace & Harmony don't necessarily belong, IMO, in the same sentence.
I'm guessing that you're obviously quite sympathetic to the Iranian people, etc. and that is fine - I'm sympathetic, too. I could even guess that the basis of your sympathies - which I do consider germane to this discussion - it is why I identified myself as "not Jewish nor evangelical," etc.
But to call me a "drama queen" for NOT ignoring what the leaders of that "Islamic Republic" state publicly and clearly regarding their intentions regarding Islamic law and destroying the "Great Satan" would be, don't you think, foolish?
I haven't called you names or engaged in emotional insults. I'm truly interested in "light" rather than "heat" in this dialogue. Should we call Paul Revere, though, a "drama queen" for shouting on his ride "The British Are Coming?"
I will acknowledge that I am most likely less informed than you are on this, IMO, an area of great personal interest for you. But I contend that this partially assists me to see that there is a bit more grey here than you're willing to recognize.
Lastly, I believe that Israel has had nuclear weaponry for a while - and has never used it. Why, then, do you think it so important than Iran have it? I'm sure that this will make the Middle East a less fearful and dangerous location in the future - because so much of that area is governed and motivated by rationality and peace.
First, I apologize for calling you a "drama queen." That was unnecessary and counterproductive.
I'm not sure what you mean about the basis of my sympathy for the Iranian people. Do you think I am a Muslim, perhaps? Fact of the matter is that I am a white-bread American from flyover country. Moderately "religious" though skeptical of organized religion. Tend toward libertarian politics in both economic and social areas. Solidly middle class, though very much chasing the ever receding American dream of independent wealth.
My sympathy for the Iranian people is rooted in a sense of basic justice and fairness. They live under a benighted, repressive regime. Before that, they lived under a benighted, repressive regime that we installed in order to rob them of their oil. Every Iranian I have ever met has been delightful, though I admittedly haven't encountered any of the mullahs at the local mall!
Your last two points are very key. On the first one, I see nothing but shades of gray, friend. However, here in the US, the debate is nearly always cast in starkly black and white terms: Israel = good, Iran = evil. This is foolish. If I seem one-sided, it is because I have a natural tendency to buck conventional wisdom. I enjoy doing that.
On the second point, you are 100% correct that Israel has had nuclear weapons for many years. The point of having nuclear weapons is NOT to use them. The point is to be able to do what you want in terms of foreign and domestic policy because of the THREAT of using them.
On the other hand, once an opponent has them, then your ability to act with impunity vanishes. This is why I fervently hope that Iran acquires nuclear weapons. It would provide a natural check to Israel, making the possibility of peace with the Palestinians at least marginally higher. More importantly, it would provide a natural check to US aggression in the area, which might open the door for us to move AWAY from empire and back TOWARD the constitutional republic our founders envisioned.
Megatoxic, thank you very much for your last post of "light" and not "heat." I truly learned from and appreciated it. Based upon your self-description, we have much in common and it is unfortunate that internet dialogue too frequently, for a variety of reasons, declines in terms of civility. I have been guilty of this, too. Sadly, "our betters" world-wide have the same difficulties with this issue.
One area of disagreement - I don't believe that the Palestenian people are interested in "peace" under any terms. Better people than you and I - both "liberal" and "conservative" had gone done this path before - and have NOTHING to show for it. I don't believe that adding another nuclear weapon - under the control of leadership which has vowed to wipe Israel off the map - is going to help. Peace.
I don't believe that the Palestenian people are interested in "peace" under any terms
That is what you have been led to believe. But Fatah and even the more radical Hamas have agreed to a two state solution based on the 1967 borders. That is a very generous offer considering the fact that in 1947, Jews owned only seven percent of the land in present day Israel and they took the rest by force of arms.
In their willingness to accept the 1967 borders, the Palestinians have accepted Israel's right to exist. But Israel refuses to accept Palestine's right to exist. In fact, almost no one does. When have you ever heard the talking heads ask if Palestine has a right to exist?
Haniyeh: Hamas willing to accept Palestinian state with 1967 borders
http://www.haaretz.com/news/haniyeh-hamas-willing-to-accept-palestinian-...
Joint Hamas-Fatah plan implies acceptance of 1967 bordershttp://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/joint-hamas-fatah-plan-implies...
Meanwhile, in other news:
http://mondoweiss.net/2010/07/the-world-wont-say-a-thing-netanyahu-on-on...
http://www.peres-center.org/Media/from%20oslo%20to%20taba.pdf
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=182159
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/tricky-bibi-1.302053
Phatah talked the talk, but never walked the walk. Hamas did neither.
The country that has the most to lose if Iran gets the nuke is Israel.
megatoxic - you keep making statements similar to this - without providing proof.
First: You are not claiming Israel has the most to lose because Iran will make it go poof. You claim they have the most to lose because then they will have to behave. By whose standards is Israel misbehaving? That is the point. Your comments in this thread demonstrate that you are woefully underinformed, as I've stated elsewhere. You conclude that Israel is misbehaving, based on a premise you have. If your premise is not correct, (which, historically, it is not), then your conclusion is not correct.
Second - Saudi Arabia may well have more to lose than Israel if Iran gets a nuke. Your conversation does not address this at all.
It would provide a natural check to Israel, making the possibility of peace with the Palestinians at least marginally higher.
See - part of your premise (or maybe all of it) is that Israel's neighbors want peace with Israel. When you learn that none of Israel's neighbors actually want peace with Israel, you can maybe begin to appreciate the situation for what it actually is, not for what you want to pretend it is.
How can any of your points be true when measured against the fact that none of Israel's neighbors (including Iran) will acknowledge Israel's right to exist?
Please post information or a link to an ocassion when Israel has attacked another nation without Israel being attacked first, or without Israel pre-empting an imminent attack. In other words, when has Israel acted purely as an agressor rather than in self-defense of some sort (pre-emptive strikes count as self-defense, not agression)?
RichardP:
Do you honestly believe that Iran is simply going to lob a nuke into Jerusalem in Tel Aviv? The game is bigger than that. A nuke buys them a seat at the table. THAT is what they are after, not the so-called annihilation of Israel.
Making Israel go "poof" makes Iran go "poof." Sorry, but I'm not buying the Sean Hannity-Benjamin Netanyahu-Hillary Clinton line that Ahmadinejad is a "nut" who will martyr his entire nation simply to exterminate a few million Jews living on the shores of the Mediterranean Sea. LOL! I'm sorry, but that's so ludicrous that it isn't even deserving of a serious response.
Israel is built on a flawed ideology that it can no longer support through superior force and demographic management. In 20 years, there will be more Arabs living inside Israel's border than Jews. Either those Arabs have full rights, or they do not. If they do, then Israel will necessarily change, and peace with its neighbors will be possible. I believe this is what will happen eventually. Heck, if South Africa could do it, why not Israel?
Barring that, then the future for Israel is very grim.
Peace with its neighbors is going to entail some very significant changes for Israel, not the least of which is the jettisoning of its ideology of Jewish privilege.
BTW, several of those neighbors are already at peace with Israel. Egypt. Jordan. Saudi Arabia (de facto, if not de jure). Careful not to paint with too broad a brush lest *you* look "uninformed." ;-)
Hitler did.
Hitler slaughtered millions of Jews, but he certainly did not believe he was martyring his nation in doing so. For one thing, there WERE no nukes then...
Thank you, you made my point. Hitler thought he could win, he was irrational. You assume the holcaust-denier-in-chief is rational. But if he isn't?
Hitler was quite rational. He had every chance of winning. Had he left the war to his generals (who advised against invading Russia) he very well might have. Had Japan not made the fatal error of bombing Pearl Harbor, thus giving FDR the pretext he was seeking to enter the war, the outcome may have been very different. In fact, there are any number of small details in WWII that could have led to a Axis victory. To suggest that Hitler was irrational is a grave mistake, imo.
Regardless, this situation is a very different: today, the United States has the firepower to literally wipe Iran off hte face of the earth. This could be accomplished in about 30 minutes, with ICBMs deployed from our nuclear subs. Everyone knows this. The entire MAD doctrine that goverend the Cold War was based on this logic. It has worked everywhere around the world. I've already cited the examples.
Ahmadinejad is every bit as "rational" as any other politician/dictator around the world. He is not going to take an action that will literally guarantee the destruction of his entire civilization...forever.
If Israel truly believes otherwise, then it has no choice but to attack preemptively, possibly using nuclear weapons herself. I highly doubt they will do this, which is the "tell" that this is not about the threat of extermination but the constrainment of Israeli power.
You assume the Iranian dictator sees the calculation as you do. You assume he believe we would nuke him. You assume he wants 'a seat at the table'. This may be completely wrong.
He may believe we won't nuke him, just as Hitler believed we wouldn't enter the war. He may just want the bomb to use it.
If your assumptions are wrong, it will be nuclear war. Everyone who starts a war thinks they will win. Many are wrong. The Iranian may believe he can win.
We can only deal in probabilities, because there are no certainties.
You seem to believe that Ahmadinejad has absolute power in Iran, that he could simply ask an aide to bring the "button" to his chambers, push it, and "poof" no more Israel.
This is not reality. Reality is that there is a military command and control structure in place. There are the clerics. There are other bases of power in Iranian society. It stretches credulity beyond the breaking point to think that all of these interests would be willing to destroy Iranian civilization forever just to destroy several million Jews living in another country. Good God, no leader in recent history has been more batshit crazy than Kim Jong-Il, but even North Korea has managed to maintain stable control over its nuclear weapons for 30+ years.
Let's assume for a moment, however, that you are correct. That Ahmadinejad is a madman who will launch nukes the very day he gets them. Your only option is preemptive war, possibly involving nukes. The risks involved in this kind of preemptive war are incalculable. In my opinion, there is a far greater chance that such an action will lead to nuclear war (and even the annihilation of Israel) than simply acknowledging the Iranians' right to pursue nuclear weapons.
Hitler was said "If the German people are destroyed in the process of his attempted conquest of the world then so be it." Of course I am paraphrasing but the point was that the sacrificing of the general population was a completely acceptable and justifiable outcome.
I'd like to add another point to the "Sean Hannity-Benjamin Netanyahu-Hillary Clinton line" that America is at serious risk if Iran gets nuclear weapons. The logic that they need to be attacked to 'prevent' an attack here is extremely flawed. How do they propose Iran will attack American soil with said nukes? Well theres two ways, build a long range icbm, which they don't have or pass off the nuclear materials to terrorists who would then in turn smuggle it into the country. Both ways can be countered FAR more cheaply than an invasion. How come no one points this out? Missile defense system for their undeveloped icbms, done. Since they would have to take time to develop them, we could take the same time to develop a reliable counter to them. Were much closer to missile defense then they are to icbms. Take all those soldiers you were gonna throw away in Iran and station them at every port, airport, and border crossing and search every crate, box, vehicle, and container for nuclear materials. If they still managed to get it in somehow, which would be highly unlikely, then you have justification for retaliation with your own gigantic nuclear stockpile, something I HIGHLY doubt they want to be on the receiving end of.
Remember when "they" said that Saddam was going to fly his (non-existent) Weapons of Mass Destruction across the Atlantic Ocean on unmanned drones?
To this day I get a laugh out of picturing Saddam's model airplanes winging their way over the waves to the good ole USA. Of course 5,000 Americans and a million Iraqis aren't laughing...
AMEN
No more $3,000,000,000 per year to Israel and no more money to the rest of the nations in that area either. Let 'em paddle their own canoes. Pull out all American troops and from Iraq and Afghanistan and have them fix bayonets outside the next Bilderberg meeting and order "charge" and cut their New World Order guts out and hang their headless carcasses upside down from lamp posts and throw gasoline on them and zippo them up.
Amen.
Indeed Megatoxic.
The UN "security" council has to be the biggest, most un-funny joke played on the world.
ORI
http://aadivaahan.wordpress.com
Israel exists at the pleasure of the USA. It is our 51'st state.