By Ted Belman
It is imperative that Naftali Bennet shift his votes to strengthen both Likud and Yishai. A deal should be cut in advance to that gives him the Defense Ministry and Shaked the Interior Ministry.
Netanyahu was right to talk to Congress as he did and did so admirably. There is no question that if a deal comes out of the negotiations, it will be a better deal, though not necessarily an acceptable deal.
Obama’s manufactured outrage at the alleged violation of protocol, has fueled the fire of the anybody-but-Bibi camp. As a result he may have won the battle but lost the war i.e., he won’t the Prime Minister after the elections.
According to Haaretz, as of early yesterday, the average of the recent pols show, Likud 23, Zionist Party 24, Bayit 12, Arab list 13, Kaluna 8, YB 6, Yesh Atid 12, Shas 7, Yishai 4, UTJ 7, and Meretz 5.
The only right wing seats we have is Likud, Bayit, Kulana, YB, Yishai, UTJ and Shas is 67. Of course this is before we see the polls after today.
There are two problems here, Likud isn’t the largest party and Yishai may not reach the threshold and thus 4 rightwing seats will be lost. This would be a calamity.
It is imperative that Naftali Bennet shift his votes to strengthen both Likud and Yishai. A deal should be cut in advance to that gives him the Defense Ministry and Shaked the Interior Ministry and Ariel the Housing Ministry.
Of course this is assuming the polls don’t get better.
Justin Said:
This goes to the heart of your argument. Israel chooses its battles. It does not want to be provocative, at this time, by regaining her rights on the Temple Mount but it does want to build housing even if provocative.
You are arguing that when we build we put America in a difficult position forcing it to condone what is legal thereby alienating the Arabs or Muslims or Europeans or all, or bashing Israel and trying to stop them. You don’t want Israel to build because it puts America in a bind. In other words, Israel is a liability to America. To this I say, America has its interests and Israel has its interests. These interests are often polar opposites. While Israel is prepared to take American interests into account where possible, she is not prepared to substitute American interests for her own. She will build even if it puts America in a bind. Its that important.
On the other hand, America should support Israel even if it means angering the Arabs, because we have the legal right to do so and because they are our friend and ally and because its the right thing to do. Unfortunately America goes out of her way to support the Arabs at our expense. We don’t have to go along or to put American interests above our own.
Why can’t America be impartial? Why not say that all issues are to be negotiated (as they so say)? Why come out in favour of ’67 lines which totally support the arabs. Why did they have to do this?
bernard ross Said:
I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the US has armed Israel with better weapons since 1974 and that there have been no further state invasions of Israel since that time. Air superiority means stealth capability including delivery of nukes.
As for Carter taking credit for the Egyptian treaty, I’m not one to speculate. All I know is that ever since 1973-1974, the US has trained and equipped Egypt’s military and at the same time Egypt stopped invading Israel every few years.
Your main point is that Iran can overcome the Sunni-Shia divide by being the Arabs sugar daddy in Israel. I might have been inclined to agree with you until the Syrian Civil War. Based on the propaganda coming from groups like ISIL it is clear that they hate the Shia even more than they hate Israel for the time being.
Fair enough.
Okay, what do you think?
Russia remains an existential threat to the US but the probability of attack is very low and the US cannot get rid of the Russian bomb at this time.
Iran is the only country in the Middle East whose dictators are more anti-Israel than its public.
http://richards10.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Iran-summary-of-IPS-survey-results-Mintz-June-2014-Final.pdf
Compare to other polls I’ve mentioned.
Almost 40 percent of the Iranian public agree that their country should
recognize Israel, if Israel signs a peace treaty with the Palestinian and
withdraws from Palestinian areas.
Whereas the US is still perceived as the number 1 enemy of Iran in the
world (Israel is a distant second), there is a very strong support among the
Iranians for establishing diplomatic and trade relations with the US. 74
percent of Iranian supports this.
The only ME populations intellectually capable of accepting a true two-state solution are the Shia ones. Israel may be a PR prize for Iran, but the Shia in Saudi that sit on the oil are of greater interest. Furthermore, Ali Khamenei is going to die in a year or two, and chances are he will be replaced by a more moderate leader (some say he will be the last that has such power). On the other hand, the Sunnis categorically reject the idea of a non-Muslim (non-Sunni) presence in Israel, period. They are the ones who share the ideology of Hamas and throwing Jews to the sea.
bernard ross Said:
There is nothing incompatible with a program being overpriced and strategically important.
The F35 is kind of the whipping boy of defense procurement in the US. I’m sure pockets have been greased.
Still, Israel will be the only country in the region (and one of a few in the world) to have a fleet of F35. In the memoir by Robert Gates, who was not an Obama crony, the US sought Israel’s blessing to export 60 BB arms to Saudi under the condition that Israel would receive the planes. This was in addition to help with bunker busting mortars and a little more help with Iron Dome. It was Netanyahu and Barak who insisted upon this concession. Something about the F35 was very desirable to Israel. It’s the best air-to-ground jet around, by most reports far superior to the Russian T50, and particularly adept at first-strike stealth capability.
Trust me – I’m not an expert by any means, but I’m not totally naive – these planes, in the hands of the best Israeli pilots, tilt the playing field against Iran significantly. If Israel were to attempt a unilateral strike against Iran, these would be the cavalry. Iran has already been seeking the blueprints for these planes, supposedly to copy the technology, but I suspect more to figure out some kind of air defense.
bernard ross Said:
I will and I will get back to you on this.
But to the broader point, I explained what I meant by provocative. I did not mean illegitimate as stated previously.
A lot of people – NOT ME, NOT ME, NOT ME – feel that the settlements are “against the law” in the jurisdiction. I don’t think “international law” is well-defined enough to pretend to make an objective claim on this matter. And for that matter, the UN declaration of rights is almost universally viewed as the cornerstone of “international law” with respect to human rights. Many of these “jurisdictions” you mention violate said law in unambiguous and gruesome terms.
I’ll wait to read your citations before responding.
Of COURSE the world makes libels against Jews and Israel while ignoring real abuses right around the bloc. This is nothing new as you know. It’s been going on forever. The world is not a just place, it never has been and it never will be. And of course, in the past, Jews have bent backwards to appease bigots only to be betrayed and targeted in an unprecedented manner. I would take issue with your statement that my Presidents have all abandoned Israel, but that’s another argument.
Now, if you assume the maximalist position, you can conclude for instance that Israel ought to occupy the Temple Mount, raze the al-Aqsa mosque, and get to building the new Temple. Why hasn’t that happened? Maybe you would say that the US has prevented it. I would say that Israel’s leaders have been aware of their rights but not suicidal.
My point was simply that I don’t think settlements SHOULD have become the issue because they detract from the real claim you raise – the claim to all of Jerusalem, from which any such development follows.
Let me provide an analogy: if by some force of history it had come to pass that Jerusalem was inhabited by secular humanists who were being driven out by Israel’s claim, I might critically question th claim on pragmatic grounds. But in my view, this would never have happened, because without the Arab hostility the Jews is evidently the root cause of the 67 war in the first place. Follow me?
Non-intervention is a two-way street. The US has commitments that were made a long time ago and cannot drop all of them at once on ideological grounds. Of course I think it is ultimately desirable for the US to end its support (or you would say subjugation perhaps) of Israel for both nations’ sake. On the other hand, I’d rather pursue that end after Israel either has some security guarantees or sufficient capability AND after the US witnesses some regional stability. The two go hand in hand in my opinion.
As far as Obama and leftism goes, I’m pretty sure the Obama narrative is “Israel has a moral obligation to make peace with the Arabs in conquered Israel but I had to seem to support Israel to be elected. The Arabs may behave badly but what can Israel expect given its cruel behavior?” If you don’t think that’s his view, let me know. If you find evidence that I support this view, let me know. I make the claim that the Arabs behave badly almost a priori because of their history – long before 1948 – and that Israelis should not be so quick to discount US friendship just because of a tactical disagreement.
Again, let me respond after carefully reading your documents.
Ted Belman Said:
I’m glad you asked these questions.
First, AGAIN, I don’t think there is anything wrong with a woman wearing a bikini on the beach. But if a western woman dons the bikini in Gaza or Saudi Arabia or Iran, it’s obviously provocative.
Now, the US State Department maintains relations with Saudi Arabia and Indonesia. Nonetheless, if a bunch of well-meaning American women started sunbathing in Mecca, the State Department would have its hands tied. It would say, “of course you should be allowed to sunbathe, but we cannot prevent the Saudis from harming you as a result. Our hands will be tied.” If the women persist then there is a decision to be made as to what kind of response the US ought to pursue. Too little and our commitment to our own citizens and morals will be doubted. Too much and we risk a minor crisis. The point is, these American women acted within the bounds of natural law but still placed the state in a needlessly-uncomfortable position.
If one were a doctrinaire libertarian, which I do not claim to be, the US ought to immediately withdraw from NATO and Asian security pacts, suspend all foreign aid, and assume the diplomatic posture of Switzerland essentially. Maybe this is a worthwhile goal to work towards but it is highly unrealistic. In reality we have allies and commitments going back to the turn of the century. So if we accept that we cannot abandon all of these commitments immediately, we ought to 1) prioritize commitments and 2) work with partners to reduce the cost of commitments.
In practical terms, to me, this means 1) seeking to become neutral with respect to Middle East tyrants and 2) seeking the most agreeable concessions from Israel that would allow us to do #1 without compromising Israel’s or our own security and economies. Every UN state save for the US and Israel (and some small islands) have been adamant that they want the settlements to stop first and foremost. Settlements become a flash point for conflict both locally and internationally. It is my opinion that Israeli settlements damage US credibility with the Arabs (who need to be seen as anti-Israel for political reasons) and impose a greater cost on US support for Israel. If Israel annexed the whole West Bank including A and compensated and kicked out the Arabs living there, perhaps the US would go along with it – perhaps not. But in either case, the US could at least say “we support Israel’s position” or “we do not support Israel’s position” knowing full well what the position actually is. By embracing the “peace process” and the theoretical two-state solution, America is seen as saying one thing but observing Israel do another. If we agree that Israel and America are natural allies – and I think this is pretty obvious – then it makes sense for both to be on the same page. As you would probably agree, if there’s one thing the region understands, it’s force.
Now, this line of thinking brings about two questions: first, how much cost is the US willing to shoulder on behalf of Israel, however justified? And second, is Israel capable of enacting such a policy on its own?
If Arab provocation is costless, then you are 100% right – Israel should annex the whole state and call it a day. I’m far more sympathetic to Israel than I am to the rest of the region, but I’m also realistic about what is achievable and what is desirable.
Justin Said:
with all this going on I must wonder as to your concern regarding the actions of Israel, as a non interventionist you appear to be quite involved in spreading the narrative of our enemies.
Justin Said:
not a shred of evidence for this statement
Justin Said:
what are you reading, everyone I read says it is fraught with problems, overpriced, not up to expectations, not worth the effort or money, etc. I have read nothing good, have you? it sounds like a welfare project for the US MIC. I am not qualified to comment
Justin Said:
Air superiority is not an “effective guarantee” of the US. air superiority arises from the superior training and deployment of weapons plus the tactic of preemption of the state of Israel. Israeli air superiority began dramatically with the opening of the 6 day war prior to any significant involvement of the US. Taking undeserved credit seems to be a habit as did Carter taking credit for the egyptian Israel treaty.
Justin Said:
I read the report and have read a number of others by Terrill.
1)Terrill is incorrect and offers no evidence for his conclusion. I aver that a more plausible reason for Tehran attacking Israel would be to rally muslims under their banner as attacking Israel especially successfully has done so in the past. Irans difficulty in extending its hegemony oove the sunnis is the religious divide. attacking Israel would bridge that gap and realize their already operative hopes of bringing the arab ME under their rule.
2) Terril is part of the US miliarty industrial establishment and pariticipates in forming US military policy and thought. the performane of US military assessments since korea has been poor; note that Korea, vietnam, lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan,etc are all still major problems demonstrating the failure of US military policy. this is why I stated NOT to cite US experts.
3)Justin Said:
another unsupported opinion. Furthermore, the use of terms like “most likely” carry little weight.
Justin Said:
Pure fairy tale specculation with no supporting evidence. Is this what you use as a bsis for your statement:
Justin Said:
Even if terrils specualtions were correct it could NEVER be a basis for reaching decisions involving existential threats… which you have ludicrously denied even exist… Terril has not stated that the threats do not exist but that they are not likely or not the most plausible. You are making yourself look like a sloppy troll with such ludicrous submissions as evidence and support.
Terril is part of that establishment which creates studies that affirm pre determined policy. It is like citing a German government study in 1940 which postulates that the third reich is not a threat to Jews.
Terrill is an advocate from 2005 report of advising rapprochement with Iran.
My 89 year old mother with no experience could come to the same conclusion: CAUTION
so much from US experts who hedge their bets to cover their butts.
Stop citing failures, the US perspective is culturally centric and apparently incapable of good judgement wrt ME, arabs and muslims. the Terrill report you cited is pure opinion devoid of support and poor judgement to boot.
Justin Said:
on the contrary:
when using this word the connotation implies that the one committing the action has responsibility for the one reacting. It assumes an illegitimacy on the part of the actor. In this case the one taking the action is acting legally and legitimately and the one reacting seeks to prevent the exercise of rights. The libelous western world, well aware of their signed international legal treaty obligations has propagated the libel of illegal or illegitimate Jewish settlement in the former Palestine mandate territory. Israel’s willingness through the decades to suspend full exercise of those ights in the interest of seeking peace with its intransigent neighbors has been taken for granted and mistaken for illegitimacy. the raction to Jewish settlement is like calling the exercise of free speech or entering one’s legal home illegal or illegitimate. Read the documents I cited to find out why.
Justin Said:
The reason it is provocative is that it is clearly against the law in those jurisdictions, therefore a poor analogy. calling the exercise of legal and legitimate rights provocative is libelous and insulting. furthermore, it affirms your covert agreement with the narrative of the libelers thus reaffirming my views of your prejudice towards Israel while pretending otherwise.
Justin Said:
The libelous reactions to Jews exercising their legal, historical and moral rights is provocative, illegal and illegitimate and worse is that those advancing the canards in the west are signatories to “facilitating Jewish immigration and encouraging jewish settlement in the Palestine mandate territory.
Justin Said:
NO, not a fact but a libel. Attempting to restrict jewish settlement in any part of the palestine mandate is illegal, in violation of agreements. what the world sees is unimportant; they see lots of bad things about the Jews which are lies. You appear to suggest that Jews should suspend their rights because it upsets bigots, liars, and renegers of treaties, including your presidents.
Justin Said:
There can be no people with a greater claim: legal, historic and moral to Jerusalem and Issrael than the Jewish people. If you believe it is legitimate why do you keep advancing the swindling canards of the detractors and defamers?
Bernard Ross Said:
You still have not answered to my assertion wrt you being a libertarian. Non intervention is not the same as advancing the narrative that jewish settlement is illegal or illegitimate when signed binding treaties state otherwise. I dont know of libertarians advancing that narrative, you appear to be the rare one to me, which is why I doubted your claim of libertarian and conservative. You narrative is more obama and leftist.
As you have still not answered to the legal documents governing the issue I assume you are unknowledgeable which implies you should not mention illegal or illegitimate unless you wish to libel.
Ted Belman Said:
Dicha of Deborah: ” provocateurs are un-appreciated” .
Justin Said:
So what if Arabs are provoked by Israel’s actions. Why should we care? Why do you care? I also believe that freedom of speech allows one to be offensive. Yet PC prohibits being either offensive or provocative. You as a libertarian should support the right to be both. If we have the legal right to be offensive or to settle the land then we can do it. But civility sometimes demands that we hold our tongue. In the case of Muslims why should they get any special consideration.
I think you are critical of our building in Judea and Samaria because it would be provocative. Kindly tell me why we should abandon our rights because the arabs would be provoked.
@ Justin:
By the way Bibi has said his proposal made a Bar Illan for a PAL state (conditional on recognition of a Jewish State, security acceptable to Israel, no splitting of Jerusalem, and no Pal refuges to Israel, finalization of the conflict) of is off the table given the current state of the middle east. He made the offer under duress by Obama.
If what you were asking me is what Abbas offered? Abbas was coerced into negotiating by Kerry and the EU. He has the same position he has always had. 1967 lines with minor land swaps. The Pals get all of East Jerusalem and its holy sites. No recognition of Jewish State, NO Israelis (Jews) in Pal State, “refugees” will determine by themselves if they can move to Israel or get compensation, foreign army in Jordan Valley. No to demilitarization and No to end of conflict.
He did not want to come to the table because they conditions imposed on Israel to get what they can now without giving anything up. They then intend to fight for the rest of Israel when they believe they are stronger and having flooded Israel with unwanted enemy aliens (Arabs). They believe if Israel where to give up Jerusalem it would implode. Which could very well be true.
… posted by accident.
Shmuel was adamant that the F35 deliveries were not that helpful. He said he’d prefer A10, that Israeli aerospace industry was just as capable as US, and that Israel produced the wings anyway.
IDF already decided against A10 because it wasn’t useful. It’s outdated and vulnerable to second-tier air defenses. Whether the F35 is a cost-effective replacement in general is an open question for both the US and Israel. However, the F-35 is or will become an important component of Israel’s nuclear delivery capability. Israel’s role in producing the wings is no indication of its capacity to produce the entire aircraft.
Of course F35 export to Israel benefits US defense industry. So does F35 procurement in the US. You know who doesn’t have to worry about this? Saudi Arabia. Read the book by Robert Gates.
Air superiority
http://strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/parameters/Articles/09spring/terrill.pdf
The most plausible reason for Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons is not
to destroy Israel, but to deter the United States from any thoughts of regime
change directed against Tehran. Correspondingly, the most likely reason for
Iran to attack Israel would be in response to a US threat against Iran. Under
such a scenario, the Iranian leadership would judge they have nothing to lose
since their own removal was imminent. Under any other scenario, Iranian
leaders would more than likely exercise restraint, hoping to save themselves
and their country. It should never be forgotten that Israel, despite its military
advantages, is also vulnerable to attack from Iran. Likewise, it cannot be assumed
that the threat of casualties to the Palestinians and Arab nations from
collateral damage will be enough to prevent an Iranian attack on Israel. The
prospect of an Iranian attack against Israel remains at some abstract level, although
such a threat is exceptionally remote as previously noted in this article.
@ Justin:
Te BBC (Sic) poll re: Israels influence?????? Who was polled general populations perceptions or governments?
There should be a difference between like/dislike and How much influence. Despite negeative views of Israel I srael has increased it’s trade relations and academic exchanges including granrts to Israeli projects by most countries in the West. Turkey despite all of the negative press and sour relations at the top have a thriving commercial import export and tourist relationship so good that our trade with Turkey has incresed so much they are now our 4th or 5th largest trading partner and India our 3rd largest. Trade with the EU and England in particular is thriving.
Influence. Reality shows that Israels influence is far greater than her size and economy with most countries listed. List for me a more coveted posting by any of the Wests diplomats than Israel????
Tell me how thy can force the 2 largest and the most powerful military to do anything they do not want????
America never for example imported more than 10% of her energy imports from the ME and that 10% could have easily been made up from other sources if needed.
The Eu threatens sanctions but Israel can import from other sources and find other markets in time to replace the EU imports from Israel. Since Israel imports more than 3 billion dollars more than her exports to the EU it will hurt EU more than Israel and cost them dearly at a time when they are functionally in a recession and eliminate any influence they have currently with Israel and the conflict with the Arabs. There will be some EU countries that will block sanctions like the Czech republic and if the decision is not unanimous it will not pass into anything operative.
No of course you wouldn’t but Duh??????????? I wonder why someone like you can’t figure out such any easy to answer question? Not too brite are ya???? 🙂
bernard ross Said:
Your reading is correct. Libertarians overwhelmingly favor “non-intervention.” So do I for the most part. Unfortunately, the US and the world has not been run by libertarians in the past, so it practically impossible to both participate in the international institutions and frameworks that exist today and insist on “non-intervention.” Rand Paul, for instance, cannot insist on ideological purity and seek the presidency. Those who stand to lose from such rigidity would be the most adamant opponents of Rand Paul.
As for settlements, I’m glad you made this point. Nothing about the word “provocative” confers disapproval. If you are a woman in Afghanistan and walk around the market donning a bikini, this is provocative. Even though I think this is perfectly normal and acceptable behavior, I do not expect the locals to agree. The word “illegitimate,” on the other hand, requires some basis for some kind of disapproval. If Shimon Peres assassinated the entire cabinet and declared himself King tomorrow, this would be both provocative and illegitimate. If Netanyahu authorizes settlement construction in the West Bank, this would be objectively provocative but not illegitimate (in my opinion).
By “provocative” I mean “likely to provoke” some significant people.
An example – Netanyahu has authorized residential development in the East Jerusalem. I don’t think any country in the world other than Israel accepts the Israeli claim to all of Jerusalem. By authorizing what he knew the world would see as “settlements” in the Arab-majority portion of a city that no state accepts as completely Israeli, Netanyahu did something provocative. This isn’t my opinion but a verifiable fact; I doubt you need me to find criticism and hostility from around the world. Now, I don’t think there’s anything illegitimate about the development of East Jerusalem. On the contrary I think this is a very good thing for East Jerusalem landowners and businesses in financial terms. Since Israel has already claimed the entire city, Israel is well within its rights to settle East Jerusalem assuming you accept the legitimacy of the Israeli claim to Jerusalem.
There is nothing incompatible with my statement and your claim that I am not initiating reasoned dialog. Of course I would disagree but even if we agree that I am being unreasonable that does not make you reasonable. As far as insults go, I try to avoid them – partially because I want to avoid unnecessary hostility or waste time, but mostly because insults convey unwillingness to challenge my own beliefs or consider/engage the other person in earnest. What good do they accomplish?
I’ll address the rest of this along with 1 and 6 and 10 separately.
Glad you mentioned the F35 program. I don’t remember your opinion on the issue but I do remember Sam Halevi was very adamant that the delivery of the F35
8)effectively guarantees Israel’s security from outside forces (not the Pals),….
Bernard Ross said:
Please enumerate the “effective guarantees”
9)or that it is the view of the intelligence establishment both in the US and abroad that Iran poses no existential threat to Israel, breakout-capability-or-otherwise.
Bernard Ross said:
Please explain ( ) and give evidence (beyond a couple of isolated political publications) for this incredibly ludicrous comment
10)These are the kinds of things I would be interested in discussing if I were not shot down as a mole or antisemite or Marxist every time I merely introduced some facts into the conversation.
Bernard Ross said:
I am still searching for ONE SINGLE FACT, regarding Israel, which you have introduced into this conversation or in the past.
we will know whether you are interested ins SERIOUS discussion or covert libel if and when you answer to the above.
still waiting for answers to these specific points made in reply to your first post…. assertions and allegations with no support
Justin Said:
Israels reaction to the murderof some of our soldiers and the kidnapping of three led to the Israeli military attacks. The attacks by were meant to make Hezbollah pay a heavy price for their actions against Israel. The aggression by Hezbollah against Israel was used to degrade as much of their rocket arsenal as possible through air-power and to re-establish deterrence.
Based on reports published at that time and afterwards Hezbollah admitted they miscalculated Israeli reactions and by hinsight would not have carried out the murders and kidnappings. Further Iran was very pissed at Hezbollah Leaders for expending and risking a rocket stockpile meant to be used as a deterrent and or distraction against Israel. were Israel to attack Iran. President Bush prevented Israel from attacking Lebanese civil and some military infrastructure which severely limited Israeli operational and tactical operations and their effectiveness. The rest you can chalk up to Israeli military and political incompetence.
The Lebanese conflict was triggered by the US-imposed democratization, a much-touted Cedar revolution which brought Hezbollah to power in free elections. Hezbollah demanded and got its legal right to half the government representation proportional to the election results. The then Presidt Saniora stuck to the correct, tribal, undemocratic arrangement of the religious groups’ quotas in government and parliament. The West pushed democratization enough to destroy the fragile Lebanese power equilibrium, but then stopped, stunned at the results. The West promised Israel to beef up the Lebanese army to rein in Hezbollah. Now the Lebanese army cannot even stop Hezbollah’s tire-burners. The currebt Lebanese government lacks political will or army’s support to crush Hezbollah and American government just doesn’t understand what goes on.
Syria was the only force that could control Lebanon. Now Hezbollah controls all of Lebanon even the Lebanese Army trained and armed by America and France is subservient to Hezbollah and Hezbollah is subservient to Iran.
Everybody here know that the ceasefire agreement 1701 brojered by Condi Rice was and is a Sham never honored by Hezbollah or enforced by the UN with American and EU backing.
Everybody knows an new round with Hezbollah is inevitable and the next round will have devestatinfg effect on Lebanon the region and Israel potentially as well all because of American stupidity and lack of geopolitical understanding of our region and for that matter based and cause and effect no other region in the world as well.
yamit82 Said:
The West includes more than the United States. The US public and moreso the voting population generally support Israel. Outside the US, other Western countries have a bad view of Israel. France tops them off at 20 percent. Russia is a bit better at 25 percent. See http://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/assets/4830948/BBC_Israel_polls_2012-2013-2014.png if you are interested.
The non-US Western states are the ones forcing international pressure on Israel. They keep the Israel-Arab conflict on the international agenda. Most or all of them wouldn’t hesitate to condemn Israel or even legitimize the use of force against Israel. The Times of Israel reported a few weeks ago that the EU was preparing sanctions against Israel. I don’t pretend to know why most of the world (including the West) is so fixated on Israel and view it so negatively.
@ bernard ross:
Reality Message!
Justin Said:
Justin Said:
….
Are Turkey, Saudi Arabia working together against Iran? Edit Link Al Monitor
https://www.israpundit.org/archives/63605232/comment-page-1#comment-63356000153277
…….
https://www.israpundit.org/archives/63605232/comment-page-1#comment-63356000153277
notice, no talk of fighting IS
bernard ross Said:
still waiting for answers to these specific points made in reply to your first post…. assertions and allegations with no support
bernard ross Said:
You still have not answered whether you have any knowledge of any facts when you claim Jewish settlement to be illegal or illegitimate. You are spreading libels which endanger Jews. Such libels in Jewish history always preceded pogroms and holocaust.
Its time to stop avoiding the central issue and the libels you spread. You say you seek reasonable discussion then answer my questions because without that knowledge there can be no reasonable discussion of that issue
I do not believe you should post any more obfuscation here until you deal with these scandalous libels you are spreading.
Justin Said:
And in spite of that I still have a thousand times more confidence in his and Israels assessments than the americans and the queen in the WH
Justin Said:
I agree, why would any one tout differently and try to force the jews into peace with their killers? This is why any notion of any real peace is absurd. that is why the treaties with Jordan and egypt which you tout as valuable are actually temporary and will fall apart depending on whose running the govs.
Intelligent people make plans based on realistic assessments and not hopey dreamy. A realistic assessment would plan for war but unlike in the past would kill as much of the enemy as possible and drive out the rest. Your own words show it s absurd to consider peace. Because the western nations are pushing “peace” down the Jews throats they must be treated as dangerous and you cannot speak honestly with dangerous people, fools and lunatics. Calling for BS peace plans is the same as calling for the annihilation of the Jews.
Justin Said:
you will have to go into the last few years of the archives here where I have been posting links to the articles all along. You can also google the names I quoted as a beginning in relation to benghazi which will probably lead you to more,. you will have to google their many articles from a couple of years ago.
As for the pilot, there are various stories and we only have those of the involved players. Individuals are expendable in grand schemes, didnt you know that, are you naive? Jordan could be bombing empty desert for all we know, but they have said they will send no ground forces.
Here is one guys view,
the point is that everyones stories are suspect and in the ME there have been many major false reportings, I cited the biggest the Jenin “massacre”, and the gaza fabrications, in which MSM colluded.
I cant even be sure of all they attribute to IS because it is a tactic to instill terror and get everyone to leave before you arrive, especially civilians. the iraqui solders left mosul and didnt even fight
Justin Said:
for 3 years I have been reading these reports which have a great deal more credibility from aaron klein and jerome corsi. Everything they said about benghazi and its purposes came out in MSM papers later including the NYT who will be the last to print such things. What you are starting to hear in your bengazi hearings I knew years ago and was posting here. If you are interested you can google, I cannot educate you in years of facts here.
Justin Said:
I believe that the “control” is the kind of control that comes through money and the control of the leadership of IS. I believe that the cannon fodder on the ground was recruited into various sunni organizations that may even have conflicting goals with each other because they are not aware of where their instructions lead, and they can even conflict with each other in small ways. However, the overall goals are the goals of the sunni monarchies and the prime goal appears to be the defacto control of land for leverage in final determination negotiations. Turkey is part of the deal.
Note that I am telling you what I speculate upon and my beliefs regarding those speculations. There has been as much, or more, corroboration of that especially with common sense,as the PC BS versions. Benghazi shows that the US was originally in on the deal, that they were shipping arms and training jihdis with Turkey, Jordan and GCC. After Obama backed off of attacking syria using the chem attacks as the basis, it becomes difficult to assess the current US real position, but the original goals remain and the lack of entry of obama in my view was the impetus for IS. A glitch in the original plan, but the same goal and most alliances remain.
Justin Said:
the key to successful occupation is not in numbers of soldiers but in the successful creation of subordinate, cooperative, local authorities. Western perspectives are doomed. Democracy is not an efficacious tool for occupational rule, hence hearts and minds with flowers is patently foolish. there are some proposals for rules with clans, hamulas. You can google them if you are interested in thinking out of the western parrot cage.
Justin Said:
do you prefer I quote the guy in the white house, would that be more relevant to successful achievement?
as for the anus bomber: note the saudi prince is not dead, note that people are murdered for other reasons with false flag terrorists, note that expendability of individuals is not unknown to state players. they tend to see the bigger picture and are willing to sacrifice pawns.
Justin Said:
not cunning at all when you have a stupid audience and a captive MSM in the theater of operations. Gosh, all of a sudden the gulf sunni monarchies are fighting against the ONLY sunni group who is successful in achieving what they were unable to achieve with the first batch of imported mercenaries and who are the only sunni group holding back the Iranian destabilization of the area. Now you want me to believe they are on the same side as the shias. We know from reports that bengazi was an arms supply of jihadis, that a saudi prince with cia help purchased 500 million of weapons fo eastern europe, that saudi and US werre vetting the original unsuccessful jihadis for (LOL) no past actions against US, we know that for years Jordan has been training sunni jihadis in cooperation with the US, we know that much of the supply to Iraq was going through Jordan and after IS took over the jordan iraq border we no longer hear those reports. We know that the MSM has been inaccurate for years in ME reporting as they rely primarily on local stringers. No cunning is required, just ignorance and stupidity in the audience.
Justin Said:
It is a meaningless comaparable as you may need more soldiers to police a border from the outside as opposed to from an occupation on the inside. From the inside you can, fire, depose, deport, incarcerate and create subservient ruling networks. Even the PA is basically a subordiante ruling network. your argument might be a good one for preferring the status quo to instituting a state. Security is less with a pal state. As for your 2 american occupations discussion is a waste of time because of hearts and minds as opposed to successful rule. Why go to american occupations as opposed to Israeli occupations. How was gaza during Israeli control, I gather it was much more secure then with less soldiers, what about sinai… ask Yamit he is familiar with both. Why speculate using american failures when you can see the record of actual participants. It is only euro and american restraint and pressure that prevent Israel from operating a more efficient situation and draining the swamp of undesirables. the world constantly pressures and stalks Israel and that prevents Israel from providing itself with successful security.
Look how many soldiers going back into the seventies that america has lost due to its failed evaluations of muslim theaters.
Justin Said:
you misperceive and do not pay attention. Whenever Israel is winning a war the US and UNSC pressure Israel into a cease fire.
Also, there is no trouble with hezbullah while it is rebuiding ists weapons stocks in violation of the cease fire but when they have enough they start again. If instead of restraining Israel every time there would not be a PLO, hamas or hezbullah today, the US is to blame for that situation.
Justin Said:
On the contrary my vision would free Israel from the euro/us puppet masters and realize the potential of the people. Peace would already have broken out long ago had Israel not been restrained from cairo, damascus and all the other wars by the US. the last real peace you knew was WWII and that peace was based on unconditional surrender, complete victory, total occupation, total cultural rewrite of the population. Similarly turkey was the same after WWI until the dangerous umulim ideology was allowed to reassert and regain power. You see, I refer to facts and history whereas you refer to BS hopey changey, hearts and minds, adolescent wanking. With that approach you can only lose.
Justin Said:
[1]We agree that the nuts must be kept in “check”. In civilized societies thare are prisons and lunatic asylums for keeping them in check. it matters not who and how they are kept in check but that they are kept in check.
[2]the US is more harm than good when it comes to threats from non state nutters as the US is clueless and tries to impose “hearts and mind” philosphies when sometimes a ruthless and merciless approach will result in success. the dictators tend to grow out of their pants and are put into meat freezers or mole holes. In the end it is Israel, not the US who knows the area and makes more sensible decisions.
[3] jihad raining down on other jihadis and on jew haters and civilians who send their toddlers to jew killing summer training camps is a good thing and is the way the universe presents ironic justice.
Justin Said:
LOL, this sounds like your same BS fabrication that Assad stands between Israel and the horror of sunni terror. My perspective is that egypt is now embroiled in a war on another front and similarly most arab states are in war.
They may have been acting as a foil to the gasan terrorists but certainly they are no buffer to Israel in Libya. Your ideas are silly. It appears that you are one of those who believe that stability and equilibrium are always good. In my view what is ideal is that sworn anti semitic enemies kill each other. I cannot imagine a greater blessing being bestowed on the jewish people at this time than seeing their wannabe killers killing each other. I look forward to the mother of anti semtismm, jew hatred and jew killing to sink further into civil strife with every libel it utters: illegal jewish settlement and illegitimate jewish settlement.
Anarchy, chaos, suffering and misery in the lands of the jew haters is a blessing.
Justin Said:
perhaps you should start making less assumptions and get facts from credible sources.
Justin Said:
all the more reason they must be driven out
Justin Said:
dont use american wars because as I told you the americans have become repeated losers… look at the last egyptian wars and add modern Israeli technology to it. In any case these prognostications are childish with you always saying the usual troll crap. Israel is strong and creative and proven everrytime to be have been restrained from its job to kill the enemy by the US. the enemy that you protected is now killing you even in your homeland. There can be no hearts and mind in dealing with muslims in war… listen to mohamed and bin laden to get your assesments on track.
Justin Said:
Occupy what gives benefit if not: strike, kill and leave decimating the population to the dark ages.
Justin Said:
Israel has been fighting them all for decades. How many wars has saudi won? they could not even prop up their neighbor from the houthis.
Justin Said:
I have no interest in you taking anything seriously as you are clueless citing figures rather than performance and the only performance you cite is the repeated american failures.
You never answered my 10 questions and I am still waiting also you never answered my questions regading the legal documents and jewish settlement. You keep wanting to go on to new bullshit stories and pretending that your last bs assertions are still pending. I am not interested in discussion military strategies with you as you know nothing and I know little. Your comments on israel and the military is summed up by “Israel will lose, Israel is in trouble”
Meanwhile the world around is in chaos and Israel is in the eye of the storm improving. That’s a fact.
@ Justin:
Applying ‘Occam’s Razor’ to you substantiates what I have believed about you.
A- You are stupid.
B- A provocateur and stupid because you are too obvious.
C- Your assumptions are weighted to negative opinions about Jews and Israel not based on the facts of the matter but mostly derived from nonfactual mostly lies and calumny against Israel used commonly by our enemies and detractors.
D- You cannot apply the ‘Occam’s Razor’s postulate with us because the arguments you use are not equal to the ones competing with yours here on Israpundit. Yours are not factual (You have not cited credible source authority for any of your positions when in contradiction to any of ours). That renders them opinion and have been shown to be at best inaccurate opinion and nefarious opinion at worst.
E- Conclusion: Your ‘Occam’s Razor argument does not refute in the least what I attributed to you: “If you want to know what someone really thinks of you, look at what they’re willing to believe about you.”, Your fallacious arguments and assumptins do not constitute equal hypothesis. Not even close.
@ Justin:
Speculating and guessing especially when one has zero experience or first hand knowledge about a subject is basically foolish at best!
Such as your comments about Israel and Sunni terrorists in cahoots.
I am getting the impression it does not bother you to look foolish on a subject. It appears it is more important to be noticed?
yamit82 Said:
The origins of what has come to be known as Occam’s Razor are traceable to the works of earlier philosophers such as John Duns Scotus (1265–1308), Robert Grosseteste (1175-1253), Maimonides (Moses ben-Maimon, 1138–1204), and even Aristotle (384–322 BC).
…
The principle states that among competing hypotheses that predict equally well, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove to provide better predictions, but—in the absence of differences in predictive ability—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better.
bernard ross Said:
No comment
Yeah, that’s what I described, actually. The only comparable events were the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq. Iraq is more urbanized and civilians were supposed to be evacuated while the clingers were either detained or killed. In Afghanistan it is much more rural and tribal so domicile-to-domicile sweeps aren’t really an effective option, I mean I don’t think they have a census over there. In both places insurgencies developed that chose to blend in with civilian population immediately after invasion and only later joined or participated in insurgent activities. Yes, people surrender in war. That doesn’t mean they surrender forever. Surely Israel of all countries understands this.
Yeah
Hindsight is 20/20. I never supported the war in the first place and yes the transition was terribly mismanaged by people who would have liked to arrive upon unicorns and rainbows and deliver Iraq a giant chocolate factory. But you think Israel would have been better received? Please. The US couldn’t even get them to recognize Israel diplomatically. The Arabs in Israel are the biggest al-Qaeda sympathizers in the world as demonstrated by poll after poll. Whatever benefit you think Israel has in dealing with the Arabs will be used entirely to counteract the Arab hatred of Israel. I don’t think the Arabs like the US but I know they hate Israel.
I cite the population because it is the relevant figure when determining the potential scale of a popular insurgency. FYI, neither Iraq nor Afghanistan declined in population even during the years of their invasions. People end up where they came from if they can and want to keep their property. That’s always been the case.
Right. The Egypt that is moving those guys to the Libyan border – the Egypt ruled by its US-trained and US-funded military – is acting as a buffer between the anarchy in Libya and Israel. Now in the alternate world we are talking about, maybe Israel is able to handle those tribes. Okay – so now what? Now Israel is spread that much thinner and with a much longer border that was a liability in 1973. Well, maybe you think Israel can occupy the major population centers of Egypt – even still, it would only be possible at tremendous expense and likely risk to Israel’s other security concerns like its civilians’ safety. I’m saying, who knows if they could occupy such a large area and population, and who thinks it would be worth the cost?
Being rich and populated is highly correlated with having better defense capability, at least as assessed by Janes or the website Global Firepower or paranoid national security journalists. Let me cite two very important figures about Saudi Arabia: $26K per capita in GDP despite 25% unemployment, and $67 BB – the Saudi defense budget, ranked somewhere between 10th and 3rd in the world and more than double Israel’s. Saudi in particular has a uniquely capable air fleet. I recall them having a ton of Eagle fighters. They also have a decent air defense system, maybe not the top notch that we reserve for Israel, but still up there.
Just cite any source that proposes what you are talking about and I’ll instantly take it about a billion percent more seriously.
@ bernard ross:
Okay, coming up next. That wasn’t intentional, I just had trouble keeping up with you.
bernard ross Said:
Yes, I saw the coverage. Israel did more damage and incurred more costs upon Lebanon. Hezbollah lost a lot of men. But Israel didn’t finish the group despite having complete air superiority (no Hezbollah air force) and a tremendous technological advantage. At the same time, has Hezbollah been a big problem for Israel since 2006? It’s not even on the radar. It hasn’t launched rocket attacks and has assumed an entirely defensive posture. I find it interesting that Israel did not assume the kind of all-in, total-war posture you favor, did some big damage but didn’t destroy Hezbollah in 2006, and yet in spite of it, managed to achieve what it wanted (quiet from Lebanese border) since that time.
That’s certainly one vision for the future of the Jewish people and all of humanity – conquest and “raw power.” I don’t think it’s what Theodor Herzl or David Ben Gurion had in mind, but to each his own.
By the way, your vision for Israel discounts what has made it flourish – its people, not its resources.
Okay, let’s define the question: how many Israeli soldiers would it take to occupy Saudi Arabia? Well, you could read Building a Successful Palestinian State by RE Hunter of RAND, who speculates that 7,000 Israeli troops would be needed along the tiny border of “Palestine” even if the Palestinian government was relatively friendly. He admits it is largely guess work but does employ comparables to estimate things. Compare peak # soldiers to populations for the only two occupations that are comparable in scale:
Occupation of Iraq: 28 MM people / 200 K soldiers = 140 people/soldier
Occupation of Afghanistan: 31 MM people / 130 K soldiers = 238 people/soldier
Let’s assume that Israel is better than the US/NATO at occupying large countries and that Saudi Arabia is more like Afghanistan than Iraq, a shaky assumption. Even if Israel requires a soldier per 300 people, which is unlikely, Israel would need to commit 100,000 soldiers to the occupation alone. I mean, come on.
There you go again – admiring Putin, quoting bin Laden – do you work for the FSB?
In seriousness, I understand your point. But I don’t think you should try to squeeze 2,000 years of enmity into a few decades of rage. If you want an eye for an eye, don’t jeopardize Israel’s ability to take revenge for the next 1,950 years by biting off more than you can chew.
I really don’t think the Saudis are that cunning. I think it was in 2009 when a Saudi royal insisted on allowing a “former” terrorist Saudi national to “thank him in person” without going through a security check. Due to that lack of cunning, however, the bomb exploded in the AQAP member’s anus and didn’t impact the royal. One for two isn’t bad.
Again in seriousness, though, do you have an iota of evidence for this claim?
Or these ones:
– the CIA helped or helps ISIL
– the US deliberately left arms behind for ISIL to use
– the ISIL conspiracy was in part intended to enable Kurdish independence
Must every paragraph must begin with an insult followed by a conspiracy theory? Your theory is actually pretty convincing and believable, since I do think the Saudis are morally bankrupt and capable of anything depraved in that regard.
But you make two big claims: first, that ISIL was a deliberate creation (not an unintended consequence) of the Saudis or their allies that they have retained control over, and second, that the Arabs’ inaction against ISIL stems from in-fact control rather than ideological or humanitarian sympathies.
I’d love to see any evidence… and do you think the Jordanian pilot is all a part of this elaborate Arab conspiracy?
Yes and yes, and I think you are making my point for me. The only difference is that maybe you think “populism” and “populist” movements, aren’t. But the fact that Hamas needs to be on a leash or that Abbas needs to rant against Israel to stay relevant seem to prove my point that hating Israel is a very popular political position in that part of the world. Doesn’t take a conspiracy.
Yes, Netanyahu spelling doomsday and predicting Middle East nuke proliferation using the same Iran-about-to-break-out-in-a-year-or-two script that he did in 92, 95, 09, 12, and the other day.
Justin Said:
when folks are in danger there are no innocents only enemies trying to kill you.
Justin Said:
there is no evidentiary reason to make that assumption. People surrender in war usually rather than die. they also fall into step with a new regimen to avoid death, torture and incarceration. Did you study what happened in previous similar wars prior to making your statement?
Justin Said:
which flag, IS?
you cannot compare the ludicrous screwup the americans make in every war they enter with people who make sensible decisions. The clueless US began reasonably with a military agenda but then abandoned that for political agendas like (LOL) “hearts and minds”. They ignored the advice of the gulf sunnis and sought to give the shias hegemony over the sunnis… how dumb can you get. You have the same culturally centric mindset as the americans who made all those stupid decisions with their buffoonish arrogance in total disregard of the reality on the ground. Israel would be much smarter and take into account the culture of their conquests, they know a lot more about the ME than the americans. Can you give me one success of the americans in the mid east or with muslims?
Justin Said:
why do you keep looking up the population of each country. dont you see how they are fleeing the war zones in Syria and Iraq to Lebanon and JOrdan? LOL, do you thnk that 80 million people are running to fight against heavy weapons after their army is destroyed? What happens is soldiers return home if they can and strife breaks out at home. Again you are way too simple minded and have no knowledge of how populations react in reality in war. Your opinions are without experience or knowledge and thus have no value, you just waste time which you should spend learning about the subject instead. You should study populations real reactions in war.
Justin Said:
I dont know… I expect that money plays a part in fomenting war and making peace. I suspect that Iran is funding the sinai tribes but I can be wrong.
Justin Said:
why do you put words in my mouth? I never said easily, but I am confident that Israel could handle those tribes. the problem is more that they have a treaty with egypt that they want to maintain and therefore do not have a free hand. Egypt is reassigning some of those troops to the libyan theatre. Libya is another good place for cannon fodder to die.
Justin Said:
I think it is just and feasible as I previously explained.
Justin Said:
You appear to claim that these attributes make it a formidable army. I notice you have an obsession with citing population figures. Do numbers convey a feeling of credibility of fact to you? What is the size of the army, etc. and how many wars have they entered and won?
Justin Said:
Of course you cannot see it… but your myopia is not based in an assessment of facts but rather an inability to envision. Also, now that Israel might become self sufficient in energy there is also the option of destroying the saudi wells.
Justin Said:
I never read that, who is our source?
Justin Said:
I have not read that perspective and it appears innacurate to me. It is the other way around, the jihadis have been on the border between Israel and Assad for a couple of years now and giving Israel no problem.
Justin Said:
the jihadis are thee and the only threats are from the iran hezbullah axis
Justin Said:
you are not thinking clearly, there are many scenarios other than a clear victory for either the sunnis or the shias in syria. the status quo where they kill each other is the best scenario. the next scenario is a fragmentation of syria similar to Iraq and that is probably what the sides are jokeying towards. It is better that assad, Iran and hezbullah are not on the border with Israel and in that regard Israeli support of anti iranian proxies would make sense. Another result of that scenario is that a syrian gov which is not soverign over its border with Israel cannot really have a claim to the Israeli golan. Various sunni jihadis have expressed their desire for Israel to support them and have offered cooperation. untrained jihadis with light weapons or evenheavy weapons may be better than an established army with resupply sources. Your view point is simplistic and superficial.
Justin Said:
I completely disagree, the last thing Israel wants is hezbullah and iran on their border, in that sense I would say that cooperation with the sunnis to drive them off makes sense, not dumb as you foolishly suggest.
Justin Said:
you forget that Israel hit the iranian and hezbullah commanders including mugniyehs son, the effeminate looking “jihad” mugniyeh. what I find interesting is that Israel allowed hexbullah to hit back without escalating. As I do not beleive there is fear of dealing with Hezbullah I suspect that it is an issue of timing and force locations. This suggests to me that Israel may be lining up their ducks for a major strike or they dont want it before the election. Certainly Hezbullah is stretched over Iraq, syria and lebanon prociding an attractive target and I doubt it would be too much trouble to cut them off from home. I expect that when the shiite hits the fan it will be the whole area where the sunni jihadis in syria, lebanon and iraq strike simultaneously… I would also expect the ethnic minorities of baluchis, azeris, kurds and sunnis to activated before or at the same time.
@ Justin:
If you want to know what someone really thinks of you, look at what they’re willing to believe about you.
bernard ross Said:
Alright, good point.
Well, sure, in the same way that the US could wipe out probably half of the population of Raqqa tonight if we didn’t care about knowingly killing tons of innocent people.
What, do you think that the Egyptians would line up and goose step towards their death? They would of course immediately respond by initiating some kind of guerrilla, ethnic/sectarian/tribal resistance movement. Saddam’s army didn’t fight to the death – it waited to fight another day, and now fights under a new flag. If you think 80 million restive people wouldn’t be a big problem for 500K (max) elite soldiers to control, you didn’t pay attention to the 33 million in Iraq.
Well I’m glad that I’ve graduated from troll to foolish novice, I guess…
As for your comments, maybe I am wrong and Israel can make peace with the tribes in Sinai. I’m sure they will be FAR more receptive to Israel than they have been to Egypt. According the Israeli government, the only thing that really unites the “organisations operational in Sinai is their link to Gaza; most of the Sinai-based organisations are believed to be offshoots of Gaza terror
groups and are active in both areas.” This sounds like a great plan – everyone knows how receptive and cooperative the people of Gaza are towards Israel! Come on. If you’re going to claim that Israel could easily handle the Sinai population, explain why you think so.
Well I would be interested to know more about it, so either I’ll ask him or he will be kind enough to let me know why I am so wrong about the Sinai.
Okay, I’ll again admit you make a good point. I should have learned a little more about Sinai before speaking about it in generality. It looks like it would be possible to develop agriculture and like Egypt is already trying to do just that, at great expense, in part to get the young population doing something constructive.
So when you say that “Saudi oil should be seized and operated by Israel” are you speaking in terms of what you think would be just, or what you think is possible for Israel to achieve unilaterally (assuming the US doesn’t intervene)?
I would be highly interested if you could provide any study or projection of a unilateral Israeli invasion of Saudi Arabia via the Israeli desert or any other plausible path. I mean, really. I’ve never seen anything that even suggests such an idea even in jest. Saudi is a rich country of 30 MM people and a fairly-capable, well-equipped military harking from all tribes and hailing to the royals. Honestly I can’t see a scenario where what you propose makes any sense. I’m sure it would be better for everyone, but I don’t think it’s within the realm of reality.
@ Justin:
by the way , I still notice that you never dealt with my questions put to you earlier but keep coming back with new valueless opinions. the questions are piling up along with your mountain of irrelevant obfuscation that is no more than unsupported parroted opinions.
Justin Said:
did you see lebanon? Israel was restrained and they have already warned that hey will not operate the same in the future. the more the Jews take some licks the more they will see how stupid it is not to immediately and mercilessly kill your enemy. there is no doubt that there can and will be no real peace. In spite of the “treaties” there are only temporary understandings that can go poof at any time. Israel will come to repudiate following foreigners dictates like yours and start to kill their enemies and seize their resources. The world is moving into a new paradigm which is reverting back to the old one. Power is king and all the emerging strong nations eschew the western paradigms of BS double standards. Europe is failing because its money cannot stop vlad and raw power, they are quivering in their boots.
Justin Said:
absolute rubbish, cite your evidence and sources for this ludicrous statement that obviously comes from the brain residing in our posterior. Saudi is no regional power. You might as well be wanking in public in pure daylight.
Justin Said:
I did not mention ease, there is never ease in Israel which is what makes choices easier. there is no easy choice, israel has always been at war but has refused to embrace the benefits and fruits of war and follows the instructions of the collectives that spent 2000 years killing jews. when Jews throw off the yoke and proceed to kill their enemies without restraint everything will fall into place. bin laden correctly stated “the world favors a strong horse”… Israel is a strong horse masquerading as a shtetl yid. when the Jews see the swindles of your ilk clearly they shall be free. its time for a change
Justin Said:
baloney, false flags, there are the sunnis and the shias and their goals clearly reflect their respective handlers. they are the cannon fodder who is fatwa’d into performing his paid deeds.
Justin Said:
absolutely, but with the help of the baath ex army officers and the CIA, IS is self sustainable. They got their arms for free from the US stock left behind which would have been sold for bubkis and their military strategies secured the oil revenues. Note that the Kurds are also conveniently breaking off from Iraq permanently. Without the spectre of IS none of this would have happened
Justin Said:
unaware is the best description of your status.
without IS there would be absolutely no leverage for saudi and the west to negotiate with the assad, russian iranian axis. IS has accomplished everything so far that the sunni mercenaries set out to do but were not ruthless enough to accomplish. three months before the emergence of IS the saudis began to distance themselves publicly from any jihadi connections as they had in the past been the lightning rod for all these adventures. this was when the US backed out of entering the war against Assad and all the GCC proxies were being routed. IS emerged on the scene with a new paradigm that worked but it was a paradigm that no one could be associated with. By this time saudi had established its faux anti jihadi credentials and IS went on to make the gains that all other sunni groups could not achieve. did you notice that the supposed arab-us coalition against IS after the first day of bombing by arab pilots they stopped keeping records of the arab pilots performance? That was because the arab pilots returned saying they could not find any targets to hit. the advantage of IS is that citizens everywhere will support an action against them, hence forces and material can be introduced into the area under this guise. You might have notice the recalcitrance of arab states to do much against IS, including turkey. IS has made the only gains the sunni axis has.
Justin Said:
populists are not a problem, they can be lit on fire without much effort. Military forces and heavy weapons are a problem.
Oddly, it is all the other nations outside of Israel who have to be concerned with arab “populism”. did you notice how hamas was leashed and dumped by the gulf monarchies proxy egypt, did you notice that most of abbas rants are performances to keep him relevant?
You should stop being a parrot as it is exceedingly boring as parrots tend to have a very limited thought process and vocabulary, they tend to repeat what they are told and unable to fathom their own words.
ring any bells? 🙂
Bear Klein Said:
This isn’t news to me! If I haven’t made it clear, my own assessment of the region matches that of the report I cited – basically, that the populations are nuts, typically so much so that they must be kept in check by those “moderate” Arab dictators. The point being that when we talk about the US-Israel alliance and costs/benefits, one of the benefits Israel receives is US support for these guys. It’s good for the US and Israel to prevent people from raining down jihad. And you know, it’s probably good for the people as well!
I’ve read this now several times in the news and I have to roll my eyes. LIBYA also has a very long shore line and has always had very weak and corrupt governance. I don’t think that any committed Islamist would have been somehow prohibited from taking a boat across the pond while the old regime was in power.
If you know of any specifics on the other side of the equation I’d be interested to learn what was offered.
Justin Said:
their definitiion of victory is irrelvant. they have a need to boast and appear macho. As long as they are sitting and whinging in a pile of rubble like they just did in gaza they may happily keep their definitions. did you notice that Israel never even really went in but they were all crying like abies sitting in a pile of their ownn doo doo while still boasting. Israel knows to let them boast while wiping them up in the shit. they are still boasting right now, which is hilarious.
Justin Said:
the more fuel the greater the fire. Are you aware of how good bodies are for fuel? Your comment is rdiculous in todays world where hundereds of thousands can be quickly wiped out.
Justin Said:
you are a clueless novice. You apparently now nothign about the arabs. Israel can and has formed individual alliances with clans, You are a creature who can only think in the limited box of his own bubble. You are massively ignorant and hardly worth responding to. You have absolutely no knowledge, evidence or experience to make that ridiculous comment. You just figure it sounds right so it must be right, LOL. Facts appear to be nonexistent in your posts.
Justin Said:
you are making completely absurd statements with no basis in history or evidence. You should ask Yamit, he lived in sinai.
You appear to be completely unaware of how israel operates. what an idiot.
Justin Said:
more idiocy, remember the Jews who turn deserts into farms unlike the muslims who turn farms into desert. you are really showing yourself to be an idiot now, reaching far beyond your intelllect and knowledge. If one is forced to maintian a high cost army it should be made to pay by making those who cause the problem pay the price. Ssaudi oil should be seized and operated by Israel to pay reparations for the terror they finced over the years. It is all foreigners who operate the oil there and the saudis are merely barnacle leeches in a desert that wont be missed. the foreigners will whine but quickly get used to it when they see the advantage of Israels control to their oil supplies. You may think its far fetched but you have not really looked at it. the only protection they have is the US who is becoming more averse to war and who also would see the efficacy of ne management. Saudi is just a hop from eilat.
bernard ross Said:
As I am sure you are aware, the Arabs currently have a very different definition of “victory” than do the Israelis. Israel would definitely defeat Egypt in a conventional military battle but that would not be the issue. The issue would be what happens next. In 1960 Egypt had fewer than 30 MM people and Israel had 2 MM. Today Egypt has more than 80 MM people while Israel has 8 MM. That’s a much bigger gap. The old Israel faced a much more docile governed population. Israel could not occupy any more than the Sinai without putting its soldiers or its civilians in significant danger. Even if it did, it would have to probably remove most of the people living there because it is currently a hotbed for the worst of the Egyptian jihadists. Now, for all that – Israeli lives lost, resources expended, bridges burned – you get even closer to your now-livid Egyptian neighbors, defending a patch of uninhabitable desert that is only ripe for invasion and jihad. Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should, right?
Israel has trouble managing a few million Arabs within its borders. It had trouble dealing with HEZBOLLAH of all things in 2006 and didn’t kill that many more militants than it lost soldiers. Hezbollah killed a not-insignificant number of Israeli civilians. It can do much worse. And we’re still not even to the oil fields yet!
Israel is a great country with tremendous defense capability and training and experience and technology. It is also a country of 8 million people in a region of 200 million people whose only unifying rally cry is hating Israel. Israel lacks the resources and the manpower to conquer and occupy any regional power without slaughtering most of the people, and any attempt at such a conquest would invite a response that would stretch the IDF too thin to be effective. You seem to think Israel is really holding back today and if only the US wasn’t restraining it from acting out, it would conquer its belligerent neighbors with ease. I don’t think that’s an accurate picture.
You know that these are all half-truths at best. All are cases of popular Arab-Islamist movements, most of which have turned on the governments that let the genie out of the bottle. Qaeda is not a friend of Saudi well before 9/11. That’s why bin Laden had to live out in Afghanistan. Do you think the Saudi government today funds IS? Of course it funds the idiotic evil ideology that leads to IS, but I am unaware of any evidence that the Saudi government funds or would even WANT to fund IS at this point. It’s a liability.
I would contend that these governments lit a spark in a region spilled with kerosene. That’s the popular anti-Israel, medieval, fascist fire that doesn’t take much to get going but takes a lot to put out. I think you prove my point for me: Israel should be concerned about Arab populism.
Justin Said:
LOL, what an anachronism. LIbya, egypt, syria,iraq, yemen, bahrain, etc….. all of these are in chaos and not one has anything to do with Israel. didnt you notice that justin?
by the way you never answered my questions as to what relevant facts you are aware. If you are not familiar with the legal documents then you cannot be taken seriously.
I am waiting for you answer to the following still:
bernard ross Said:
BTW are you aware that the KSA king
Abdullah who just died was the victim of an attempted assassination by ghadaffi before he became king?
What do you think, do you think abdullah let bygones be bygones, turned the other cheek?
Did you take into account in your analyses that abdullah being a muslim might not have turned the other cheek?
Did you notice that ghadaffi in his final hours and in his death was thoroughly humiliated, he spent his death in a meat freezer…. such an ignoble end.
Did you know that the saudis were at that time fielding AQ in libya?
sometimes the little things that your msm dont tell you have meaning.
before putting your pen to paper you should learn more about what really goes on outside your bubble. Ideology has little to do with it except to propel the “useful idiots” and the cannon fodder.
Bear Klein Said:
The way it was reported made it seem like Israel kind of decided to prod Hezbollah and show them who’s boss in that particular disputed area, maybe to remind them that they really weren’t supposed to be operating there. It ended up being a bigger deal because of the Iranian. Hezbollah responded militarily by killing two Israeli soldiers. Maybe Hezbollah got caught with their hand in the cookie jar, as Spyer is arguing, or maybe Israel needed to send a message, as Spyer also suggests.
The article is a good background for the official Israeli assessment of Hezbollah but doesn’t bring anything to light as to the important question: was there any evidence that the weapons and personnel movements were intended to attack Israel rather than defend Damascus? Or was this just about sending a message? I think that’s the important question that gets, well, glossed over. The author states that Nasrallah and Assad made unambiguous military threats throughout 2014 but doesn’t cite any of them. I’d like to know what was said, specifically. Also, the claim that Assad is interested in any kind of “jihad duty” against Israel is laughable. If you haven’t heard, Assad’s day job is pretty hectic these days. Israeli intelligence sources – people who are in the know – universally acknowledge that Assad is ironically the only barrier standing between Israel and the worst people on Earth. JPost, July 2014 for instance, “Israeli intel says that if Assad falls, the growing number of jihadists in Syria will take control and attack Israel.” That assessment hasn’t changed too much as far as I know.
So my brain is telling me that there is no way that any Israeli leader could be dumb enough to actually favor a, say, al-Nusra victory in southern Syria. In fact I think it is fairly revealing that Israel has even tolerated Hezbollah to operate and gain experience so brazenly and nearby. But I don’t think that it is beyond the pale to suggest that Israel and the Salafists may be cooperating tactically, sharing information, etc. Israel needs Damascus to stop the flood of Sunni jihadists but probably doesn’t want any more than the absolute minimum amount of Shia jihadist activity to achieve that goal.