RE: Israel

RE: Israel (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Anaxagoras -> RE: Israel (10/6/2012 6:48:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: You seem to focus on condemning one while not addressing the wrongdoing of the other. The USSR (and China to some extent) was at least as bad, if not worse. For a start Eastern Europe was under the vice-like grip of the USSR, the harmful effects of which most of those societies are still struggling with today. Only because we saw communists hiding under every bed and the fear permeated our politics, was used to exploit our politics, and not only led us down the road to Vietnam but impelled us to ugly deeds throughout the Americas. I suggest the misdeeds of the McCarthyite era, though serious, pale into insignificance compared to the parallel behaviour of America's foes, e.g Stalin's show trials. McCarthy did indeed go way too far there was some reason to be concerned at the political activities of the USSR in the West. There have been a number of revelations, such as a recent book by a Russian academic based on stolen state archives which revealed the extent of their interference. I cannot recall his name but will try to dig out information on it in a while. quote: quote: I did disagree with your point (albeit not completely) and thought I did say so quite plainly. If you want to take a more selective approach to history then by all means do so but I don't think it sufficient to understand a problem that has fundamental roots in the 7th Century. This is fundamentally a religious issue, written into the very fabric of ME civilisation. As such it is intractable. On reflection I will concede you are correct with the caveat that the Sunni/Shia conflict became conspicuous with the withdrawal of the Colonial Powers and the fall of the Ottomans. All the more to emphasize the folly of GWB's invasion of Iraq. Af far as I know the Sunni-Shia tensions persisted for quite a number of centuries. They reduced with the fall of the Ottoman Empire with the increasing foreign presence but returned with a vengence due to the Iran-Iraq war from 1980. The Iraq war was indeed a folly. There we can agree. quote: Which brings us back to Israel. Her army and 200 nuclear warheads and her insistance on this border or that do not seem so much advantage in such a turbulant and treacherous neighborhood. Does she really gain security by expanding settlements to the east, or is that not also driven by a zealous religion? And what are the vital national interests of the West with respect to supporting Israel? If oil is our chief interest in the ME how is that interest served by having Israel "as our staunchest ally in the region" as some say? The importance of the settlement issue is grossly exaggerated since Israel offered to abandon almost all its West Bank settlements under Oslo II (mid to late 90's), Camp David (1999-2000), at Taba (2001), withdrew settlements from Gaza without demand of any parallel Palestinian concessions in 2005 with a view to starting talks over the West Bank, and were most generous with the Olmert-Abbas talks in 2008 where Olmert offered virtually 100% of Abbas' territorial claims with some land swaps. Nothing was settled (excuse the pun), and it seems apparent at least to me that resolving the settlement issue will not bring any significant reduction in conflict. Despite what many pro-Palestinians say, it is a non-issue that Abbas uses to avoid talking. It hasn't been reported much but Netanyahu tried to talk with Abbas for months with representatives meeting in Amman for an extended period early this year. The talks about talks failed. Abbas was to meet a senior Israeli to again discuss talks during the summer. There was huge opposition to the move and rioting in Palestinian Street so he didn't meet. We can believe Israel doesn't want peace but the truth is that the conflict is fundamentially a pan-Arab/Islamic battle over Israel's existence. I suspect we won't agree on that point however, as with the rest of what you say with respect to the above quote so I'll leave you with the last word on that if you so wish. [:)]

vincentML -> RE: Israel (10/6/2012 8:11:23 AM)
quote: I suggest the misdeeds of the McCarthyite era, though serious, pale into insignificance compared to the parallel behaviour of America's foes, e.g Stalin's show trials. McCarthy did indeed go way too far there was some reason to be concerned at the political activities of the USSR in the West. There have been a number of revelations, such as a recent book by a Russian academic based on stolen state archives which revealed the extent of their interference. I cannot recall his name but will try to dig out information on it in a while. I was not referring to Stalin's show trials. They were emulated with varying degrees of ferocity by Pol Pot, Mao, Saddam Hussein, Ruhollah Khomeini, and an endless list of despots. The fear of communism/socialism pollutes my nation's politics to this day. I would be interested in the book you mentioned. However, unless shown otherwise I will contend that Latin America would not have been susceptible to Soviet intrigues if not for more than one hundred years of imperialism and racism by presidents and corporations that exploited the indigenous peoples to our south. quote: I suspect we won't agree on that point however, as with the rest of what you say with respect to the above quote so I'll leave you with the last word on that if you so wish. The survival of Israel is a persistant factor in the politics of my Nation. I cannot find a satisfactory reason why.

tweakabelle -> RE: Israel (10/7/2012 1:49:54 AM)
quote: The survival of Israel is a persistent factor in the politics of my Nation. I cannot find a satisfactory reason why. This is a question I have posed many times without ever getting a satisfactory answer. I am unable to discern any advantage the US gets from its close relationship with Israel. Whether the question is examined on political, diplomatic, economic, strategic, or military grounds, the answer is invariably that Israel gets an awful lot from its relationship with the US, while the US gets virtually nothing in return except negatives. The old cliche - shared values, that the US supports the "only democracy in the ME" - is no longer valid. There are quite a few democracies in that area eg Turkey, Lebanon and new ones joining the list all the time eg Egypt, Tunisia, Libya. The only answer that ticks all the boxes is that AIPAC has a stranglehold on US policy in the ME, and that it uses this stranglehold ruthlessly to promote Israeli interests at the expense of the US's best interests.

vincentML -> RE: Israel (10/7/2012 5:27:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: The survival of Israel is a persistent factor in the politics of my Nation. I cannot find a satisfactory reason why. This is a question I have posed many times without ever getting a satisfactory answer. I am unable to discern any advantage the US gets from its close relationship with Israel. Whether the question is examined on political, diplomatic, economic, strategic, or military grounds, the answer is invariably that Israel gets an awful lot from its relationship with the US, while the US gets virtually nothing in return except negatives. The old cliche - shared values, that the US supports the "only democracy in the ME" - is no longer valid. There are quite a few democracies in that area eg Turkey, Lebanon and new ones joining the list all the time eg Egypt, Tunisia, Libya. The only answer that ticks all the boxes is that AIPAC has a stranglehold on US policy in the ME, and that it uses this stranglehold ruthlessly to promote Israeli interests at the expense of the US's best interests. The other possibility that is beginning to emerge in my thinking is that our involvement is a remnant of the Soviet/West cold war struggle for oil resources and influence in the region in addition to our desire to block russian access to a warm water port. The large ship of american foreign policy often turns about slowly from the past to the future and takes many little chugging tugs to right her. I think Obama made an early stumbling effort to engage the arabs and persians, which may account for his apparent intrangency in complying to Bibi's wishes. Romney, however, has declared russia to be our major foe. But we have a long way to go. I just read a reporter's account of Saddam's use of chemical weapons during his war with Iran and later on the Kurds. The description of the effects was sickening, but also troubling was the allegation that in the early 1980s america had 60 advisors on the ground with Saddam and that the gas was manufactured by a german company. That's how we 'knew' Saddam had chemical weapons. We supplied them (allegedly) ETA: the influence of the eschatological Right should not be underestimated. They long for the Rapture. Some in this thread dismiss the End Timers as a small, inconsequential fringe, the dismissers not understanding the prominance of these wing nuts in american politics.

vincentML -> RE: Israel (10/7/2012 9:42:54 AM)
quote: The other possibility that is beginning to emerge in my thinking is that our involvement is a remnant of the Soviet/West cold war struggle for oil resources and influence in the region in addition to our desire to block russian access to a warm water port. Nevermind. Correcting myself here. The issue is Iran. Ya gotta keep your eye on what the right hand is doing while the left hand is waving a shiny coin at you. Not a remnant at all if one is to believe Robert D Kaplan. This information and the following quotes are taken from free excerpts of his new book provided by Stratfor: The Revenge of Geography. It is estimated that 55% of the world's oil reserves are to be found in the Persian Gulf region with more located in the north around the Caspian Sea. Shipping lines radiate south and then east and west from the Straits of Hormuz. Caspian pipelines do now or will in the future radiate west toward europe and east toward china. Iran has a rugged, forested coast line on the south Caspian. She also has (including inlets) 1356 nautical miles of coastline inside the Strait of Hormuz and about 300 miles of Arabian Sea frontage stretching to Pakistan. Additionally: "To the east and northeast, the roads are open to Khorasan and the Kara Kum (Black Sand) and Kizyl Kum (Red Sand) deserts of Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, respectively. For just as Iran straddles the rich energy fields of both the Persian Gulf and the Caspian Sea, it also straddles the Middle East proper and Central Asia. No Arab country can make that claim (just as no Arab country sits astride two energy-producing areas)." And: "Iranian influence in the former Soviet republics of the Caucasus and Central Asia is potentially vast. Whereas Azerbaijan on Iran's northwestern border contains roughly 8 million Azeri Turks, there are twice that number in Iran's neighboring provinces of Azerbaijan and Tehran. The Azeris were cofounders of the first Iranian polity since the seventh century rise of Islam. The first Shiite Shah of Iran (Ismail in 1501) was an Azeri Turk. There are important Azeri businessmen and ayatollahs in Iran, including current Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei himself. The point is that whereas Iran's influence to the west in nearby Turkey and the Arab world has been well established by the media, its influence to the north and east is equally profound. . . . " So, hypothesis: our interest in defending Israel is her (est) 200 nuclear warheads as a balance against a future Iranian stockpile of nuclear weapons, if regime change in Iran is not accomplished beforehand. The Palestinians unfortunately would be pretty unimportant in that game. Comments are welcome. I strive always to be the student.

Politesub53 -> RE: Israel (10/7/2012 10:04:36 AM)
I think a lot will depend on Venezuelas election. If Capriles gets in the US may be able to repair ties. He is a supporter of the free market and admires the way things are being done in Brazil. Since Venezuela has the worlds largest oil reserves, repairing ties wouldnt be such a bad idea.

vincentML -> RE: Israel (10/7/2012 11:44:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 I think a lot will depend on Venezuelas election. If Capriles gets in the US may be able to repair ties. He is a supporter of the free market and admires the way things are being done in Brazil. Since Venezuela has the worlds largest oil reserves, repairing ties wouldnt be such a bad idea. Correct me if i am mistaken . . even under Chavez the US remains an important export market for Venezuela, so I don't see how the political change will effect the supply of oil. It may however effect the profits of oil sevice companies whose infrastructures were expropiated.

YN -> RE: Israel (10/7/2012 12:12:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 I think a lot will depend on Venezuelas election. If Capriles gets in the US may be able to repair ties. He is a supporter of the free market and admires the way things are being done in Brazil. Since Venezuela has the worlds largest oil reserves, repairing ties wouldnt be such a bad idea. It currently appears Chavez will win, (and the polls will certainly be contested) but actually as far as which person becomes president is not relevant for what will be going on in South and then Central America and likely much of the Caribbean. UNASUR will be fully implemented in the next decade, and while it is compared to the EU in actuality the resulting confederation will more resemble the United States, with less federal control. Panama and Mexico are already observers, And Cuba makes representations about their desire to join. Here is an adequate overview in English - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_South_American_Nations I am surprised the Anglo press is not covering it more. Romney is making mistakes one after the next as are many of the US republicans regarding this. English politicians and your government should also carefully consider what is happening. For instance the Argentine position on the Malvinas will be regulated and restrained, but in turn some of the saber waving from the UK will also need to diminished, if the UK desires good relations. Note that UNASUR when fully implemented will have a central diplomatic organization to act regarding external governments. For example Kirchner can say what she wants, but UNASUR will make the diplomacy, her views will be much like those of reactionaries in certain rural US states, annoying but of small real importance. Venezuela will be the home of the UNASUR central bank. There is open talk here of our joining as there is among the other Central American republics. The economic entity created will exceed the EU with fewer of the problems as we are culturally similar. But not to further diminish the discussion concerning the Zionist experiment.

Politesub53 -> RE: Israel (10/7/2012 12:57:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Correct me if i am mistaken . . even under Chavez the US remains an important export market for Venezuela, so I don't see how the political change will effect the supply of oil. It may however effect the profits of oil sevice companies whose infrastructures were expropiated. Sorry for getting slightly off topic, but where the US obtains oil from will indeed affect politics in the Middle East. US oil imports from Venezuela have fallen by a third. Export to China has increased, as have loans from China to Venezuela. My guess is if Chavez is re-elected this trend will continue, more so as Chinas demand for oil increases. So while the US is still an important buyer, it may not always stay that way. http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_epc0_im0_mbblpd_a.htm

vincentML -> RE: Israel (10/7/2012 8:05:05 PM)
~FR~ Israel 'ready to negotiate borders with Palestinians' Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, has bowed to US pressure by agreeing for the first time that a Palestinian state should roughly follow the contours of the 1967 ceasefire lines separating the West Bank from Israel. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/8676212/Israel-ready-to-negotiate-borders-with-Palestinians.html

vincentML -> RE: Israel (10/7/2012 8:15:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Correct me if i am mistaken . . even under Chavez the US remains an important export market for Venezuela, so I don't see how the political change will effect the supply of oil. It may however effect the profits of oil sevice companies whose infrastructures were expropiated. Sorry for getting slightly off topic, but where the US obtains oil from will indeed affect politics in the Middle East. US oil imports from Venezuela have fallen by a third. Export to China has increased, as have loans from China to Venezuela. My guess is if Chavez is re-elected this trend will continue, more so as Chinas demand for oil increases. So while the US is still an important buyer, it may not always stay that way. http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_epc0_im0_mbblpd_a.htm I can see the fall off from Venezuela since 2007 has been substantial. [the chart you cite] The overall fall off is evident from2007. Recession? What do you speculate by: "where the US obtains oil from will indeed affect politics in the Middle East."

vincentML -> RE: Israel (10/7/2012 8:25:15 PM)
quote: Venezuela will be the home of the UNASUR central bank. There is open talk here of our joining as there is among the other Central American republics. The economic entity created will exceed the EU with fewer of the problems as we are culturally similar. Thank you for the link. Amazing how little coverage this has gotten in the US press, or I have been inattentive.

YN -> RE: Israel (10/7/2012 9:15:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: Venezuela will be the home of the UNASUR central bank. There is open talk here of our joining as there is among the other Central American republics. The economic entity created will exceed the EU with fewer of the problems as we are culturally similar. Thank you for the link. Amazing how little coverage this has gotten in the US press, or I have been inattentive. You are welcome. As was expected Chavez won, with over 54%. As I noted about the UK and Argentina, the US should refrain from starring in Chavez's political theater, for he will certainly honorably die in office and his replacement will appear during the implementation of UNASUR's diplomatic functions. But the UNASUR operated central bank with a large gold reserve and a common currency will correct many problems, and also avoid the mess the EU got into with their scheme and the trouble the US has with their hermaphrodite Federal Reserve. The bank's home will be in Caracas in honor of it's champion.

Politesub53 -> RE: Israel (10/8/2012 2:04:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML I can see the fall off from Venezuela since 2007 has been substantial. [the chart you cite] The overall fall off is evident from2007. Recession? What do you speculate by: "where the US obtains oil from will indeed affect politics in the Middle East." If the US had a guaranteed supply of oil from Venezuela, which I cant see happening unless rleations with Chavez get patched up, then the US would not be so dependent on ME oil. Therefore the need to protect oil rich states in the ME would not be so great. In 2008 the US accussed Chavez of sponsoring terrorists, and wanted to add Venezuela to the list of terrorist sponsoring countries. In the few years previous to that, there was a lot of animosity between Bush and Chavez, while China was making inroads with Chavez. China lent him billions for his social projects, he paid them off by supplying oil in exchange. So to my thinking, Chavez became less dependent on the US as a major importer of Venezuelan oil. I think the future threat lay not with the Chinese military, but the Chinese financial might they are gradually buidling up.

vincentML -> RE: Israel (10/8/2012 7:28:29 AM)
quote: As I noted about the UK and Argentina, the US should refrain from starring in Chavez's political theater, for he will certainly honorably die in office and his replacement will appear during the implementation of UNASUR's diplomatic functions. I would not place a wager on my nation's ability to refrain from poking about in the affairs of Latin American nations. Curious to know, if you have the answer, what exactly happens when an industry is nationalized? The oil drillers in Venezuela, por ejemplo (don't ask me for much more Spanish than that[:D]) Were there contracts or joint ventures dismantled? Were the drillers [Halliburton, Schlumberger, whoever] compensated for their rigs? What happened to the work force and their wages? And their composition? As I said, just curious.

YN -> RE: Israel (10/8/2012 8:05:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: As I noted about the UK and Argentina, the US should refrain from starring in Chavez's political theater, for he will certainly honorably die in office and his replacement will appear during the implementation of UNASUR's diplomatic functions. I would not place a wager on my nation's ability to refrain from poking about in the affairs of Latin American nations. Curious to know, if you have the answer, what exactly happens when an industry is nationalized? The oil drillers in Venezuela, por ejemplo (don't ask me for much more Spanish than that[:D]) Were there contracts or joint ventures dismantled? Were the drillers [Halliburton, Schlumberger, whoever] compensated for their rigs? What happened to the work force and their wages? And their composition? As I said, just curious. Not being from Venezuala, I cannot say with perfect and specific details what happened to the whole work force, but generally it appears they still showed up for work under the new managers, though there have been complaints about delayed wages, and such. But Chavez did pay the corporations for their properties, though naturally they did not think they received enough, there was not much they could do about it and the amounts paid were generally viewed as fair by disinterested observers, especially considering some of the corporations were demonstrated to be engaged in various criminal activities. As for Argentina and Venezuela, I was not clear apparently. Better stated would be to say the US and the UK should treat certain of the Kirchner and Chavez statements as one would treat utterances of internet trolls. Obama and his government have been doing well to ignore the provocations for instance. But not to diminish the Israel thread.

vincentML -> RE: Israel (10/8/2012 9:12:40 AM)
Thank you for the clarifications [:)]

vincentML -> RE: Israel (10/8/2012 9:27:01 AM)
quote: If the US had a guaranteed supply of oil from Venezuela, which I cant see happening unless rleations with Chavez get patched up, then the US would not be so dependent on ME oil. Therefore the need to protect oil rich states in the ME would not be so great. In 2008 the US accussed Chavez of sponsoring terrorists, and wanted to add Venezuela to the list of terrorist sponsoring countries. In the few years previous to that, there was a lot of animosity between Bush and Chavez, while China was making inroads with Chavez. China lent him billions for his social projects, he paid them off by supplying oil in exchange. So to my thinking, Chavez became less dependent on the US as a major importer of Venezuelan oil. I think the future threat lay not with the Chinese military, but the Chinese financial might they are gradually buidling up. Polite . . . we were dependent upon ME oil before Chavez. We probabaly will be dependent upon it after Chavez unless we so thoroughly botch up our shale lands with pollutants, maybe. China would be an issue for a seperate thread imo. There is much to learn and debate about that, isn't there? Back to the OP. Why does Israel exist as a nation? What is the justification? What is the fate of the Palestinians? How long this ME apartheid? Why is the west at war with Iran? Not sure I agree with what was said earlier that the central issue is the Sunni/Shia conflict. Anyone?

Politesub53 -> RE: Israel (10/8/2012 11:17:27 AM)
Sunni Shia is certainly a mainstream issue in the ME. Certainly with regards to Shia Iran and its mainly Sunni neighbours. Europe as a whole, view Iran as sponsors of terrorism, this is part of the reason we didnt engage with them much in the last few decades. The current issue is about Iran getting nuclear power. Thats always seemed odd to me as we seem to have no issues with Pakistan being a nuclear power. I am unsure we can trust Iran not to build the bomb, which is why europe wanted to cut a deal. There were talks for European nations to help build nuclear power stations. The US have side issues added onto this, involved with the whole Shah/Hostages/Islamic revolution thing. I am unsure anyone but the UK would embark on any military adventure on the issue, at least one not backed by the UN. The settlements need to be halted, as do rocket attacks on Israeli towns. As for Israel, they have a right to exist, then again so do the Palestinians. UN resolutions and old peace agreements should be fully observed, until both sides do this, I think there will be an impass. Sooner or later something has to give, either one side will need to make a big shift in policy, or we will have a constant problem.

vincentML -> RE: Israel (10/8/2012 1:31:38 PM)
quote: Sunni Shia is certainly a mainstream issue in the ME. Certainly with regards to Shia Iran and its mainly Sunni neighbours. There are Shia and then there are Shia. Robert Kaplan (cited earlier) reports: "Shiism even has a quietest strain that acquiesces to the powers that be and that is frequently informed by Sufism. Witness the example set by Iraq's leading cleric of recent years, Ayatollah Ali Sistani (of Iranian heritage), who only at pivotal moments makes a plea for political conciliation from behind the scenes" quote: The settlements need to be halted, as do rocket attacks on Israeli towns. This article from The Independent today: Israeli forces and Gaza militants exchange fire Notice it is forces vs militants. Then, if you get past the headline you learn this: "The exchange of fire began after Israel launched an airstrike into southern Gaza on Sunday night targeting two men, killing one. Israel says they were militant jihadists responsible for attacks." Who are we to believe? In the meanwhile Gaza suffers from overcrowding, severe medical and sanitation problems as well as diminishing potable water. quote: As for Israel, they have a right to exist, then again so do the Palestinians. UN resolutions and old peace agreements should be fully observed, until both sides do this, I think there will be an impass. Sooner or later something has to give, either one side will need to make a big shift in policy, or we will have a constant problem. Perhaps old plans and resolutions are beyond the Pale now.

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125