It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is Israel Worth the Cost?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 11:31 PM
link   
1. Does the United States Support Israel?
Absolutely; Israel gets aid from both the Defence and State department. It also sells weapons to China (in spite of U.S protests). But it is still gets supplied by both U.S weapons and government money with which to buy them.

Quote…
“Since 1976 Israel has been the largest Israel had been the largest annual recipient of U.S. foreign assistance”
“The most commonly cited figure is $3 billion a year, with about $1.8 billion a year in Foreign Military Financing (FMF) grants from the Department of Defense and an additional $1.2 billion a year in Economic Support Funds (ESF) from the Department of State. In the last decade FMF grants to Israel have totaled $18.2 billion. In fact, 17% of all U.S. foreign aid is earmarked for Israel.”

www.worldpolicy.org...

According to this site…
www.fas.org...

“Since 1950, the United States has provided more than $46 billion dollars in grant military aid to Israel”

“Israel has been accused of actions that may violate U.S. arms export control laws. Specifically, some Israeli military operations and reported retransfers of U.S. weapons or technology may have violated the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) and the Foreign Assistance Act.”

Apparently they have been selling arms to China.

In fact arms “U.S arms sales Israel” makes a really good search…
google.co.uk


2. Do the American people really support the war that’s going on? I wonder if many still believe that, it’s a case of Israel retrieving a few kidnapped soldiers?
As from July 18th:
Israeli deaths totalled 25. But Lebanese were over 250. Source…
www.bloomberg.com...
That is in spite of the hundreds of inaccurate Soviet Union era rockets fired into Israel by Hezbollah militants. I believe so far at least 300 civilians have died (according to the TV).

3. Is Israel securing its future?
How is it securing it if all it has done is to disrupt the lives of tens of thousands of ordinary Lebanese? Because it is actually turning ordinary people (who really are like you and I) into people who support terrorism. And if someone bombed by city-neighbourhood and made me want to become a refugee (never mind force) then I too would be pissed.

4. Is the war just?
Lebanon has a population of 3,874,050 (July 2006 est.) according to this source CIA fact book source www.cia.gov...
Israel has a population of 6,352,117 according to the same site www.cia.gov...

5. What does Israel do for You America?
Does it have lots of oil? Is a westernised population of 6.25 million (most of whom are settlers who chose to be there) really so important as to fund? Doesn’t Israel have its own taxpayers? And in ether case if they receive tax should they at least not litter roads with landmines www.timesonline.co.uk...

To add to the already present landmine legacy: “An estimated 75 percent of the more than 400,000 suspected landmines still in the ground are in the immediate area of the UN delineated “blue line,” affecting more than 90,000 inhabitants.” www.newssafety.com...

And if it is to fight terrorists then why did they bomb the airport? Was there even a hostage taking going on over there? The answers no. In fact we could have done with that airport to get our people out. Yet we fund this nation!! Please tell me why the price is worth it? Maybe it’s a coincidence but they are also one of the leading reasons why Al Qaeda recruits (apart from Iraq of course… www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2005/10/23/wirq23.xml)

So I guess there’s got be something you get back in return? Otherwise it doesn’t make sense (unless corruption like in the form of Friends of Israel lobbying could justify it?). Speaking of which I have investigated the Zionist influence within the U.K government; read towards the end of the first page, and you will find about one third of our government’s (the Labour Party) individual donors are Jewish (6 out of 8 have been granted titles). politics.abovetopsecret.com...
So I was wondering “maybe Americans feel we share the same problem?

Perhaps its pro Israel, Israeli funded lobbying at the heart of government?
It’s unoriginal of me; but if George Bush was a Christian I wonder what his god would say about Lebanon?

mod edit to shorten link

[edit on 20-7-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]




posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 12:27 AM
link   
....

Do you really think that the US would be better off with an islamist palestine sitting in its stead? Do you really think that if there had never been an Isreal that muslims the world over would be lovely dovey with america? Heck no. Isreal is a liberal democracy, so of course its worth the cost.



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 12:48 AM
link   
Israel exists for one reason only: wealth transfer. Israel allows the massive corporations that control our government to extract even more money out of the American people by using Israel to hide the shell game that is going on. The money of the People of the United States (not to mention other western countries) gets sent to Israel to the tune of $15 million a day. That money is spent on weapons (bought from the American military industrial complex), construction (from American contracting and engineering firms), and incentives to American corporations.

A great example of this shell game in action is the recent deal between Intel Corporation and Israel that resulted in the building of a fabrication plant and development center in Israel. The Israeli government offered several billion dollars in incentives to Intel Corporation in order to help convince them to build in Israel instead of Ireland or India. (Hmm, what is with all the I- countries?)

Congratulations American citizens you were just successfully suckered out of billions of tax dollars by a corporation that makes over $25 billion a year!

Is Israel worth the cost? No! In fact, Israel has to go - not only for the good of the people of the United States, but also for the people of all countries that are robbed by the very existence of Israel.

Jon



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Liberal1984

2. Do the American people really support the war that’s going on? I wonder if many still believe that, it’s a case of Israel retrieving a few kidnapped soldiers?
As from July 18th:
Israeli deaths totalled 25. But Lebanese were over 250.
That is in spite of the hundreds of inaccurate Soviet Union era rockets fired into Israel by Hezbollah militants. I believe so far at least 300 civilians have died (according to the TV).


So . . . what're you saying here? It would be better if Israel were losing? You're phrase "a few kidnapped soldiers" is sort of ironic. What response would you recommend? Ignoring Hezbollah?

It's obvious to most people, (from listening to Hezbollah's own rhetoric) that Hezbollah is spoiling for a fight, and hopes for a general conflagration in the region. When you're enemy WANTS to fight you, what is the sane course? Enter negotiations?

What would your nation do, if foreigners were kidnapping its citizens? What have they done in the past? The USA fought the First Barbary War because a foreign (islamist) state was kidnapping US marines and sailors, and holding them for ransom.

America first tried paying a ransom, but the Dey of Algiers simply kidnapped even more hostages, and demanded more money.

I don't know what kind of appeasement you'd recommend, but I know what hasn't worked in the past.

I bet most reasonable people can see that, if you host terrorists in your nation, it can bring you to a state of war. Some of the rockets lauched have come from lebonese military bases. . . .

"Is Israel worth it?" is sort of like asking "Is South Korea worth it?" It all depends on what your goals are.

There is a flipside to be asked as well:

will deserting Israel buy peace for America?

If you think that we can give up on Israel, and thus avoid making enemies, then you'd have to explain why Hezbollah and Iran refer to Israel as "the little Satan." You know who "the GREAT SATAN is;" It's not the jews by the way---it's the United States.



Of course, there are some people who don't think Israel could ever be worth helping.



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 02:01 AM
link   
Double-props for liberal for a meaty and well documented conversation starter, and another for Strangecraft for an interesting retort.


I haven't got 2 cents to spare at the moment, but my pocket-lint on this subject is as follows:

1. Will everyone stop yelling appeasement at the idea that Israel may not have to carry out a genocide against its neighbors, please? Israel is going to have to do what everyone else does about terrorists: it's called police work.

Or... is there anybody here who thought the US should have carried out airstrikes on Tim McVeigh's hometown of Buffalo, NY after the OKC bombing?

When John Walsh says that one of America's most wanted might be in the Pittsburg Area, do you want to bomb his appartment building and accept all of the innocents as collateral damage?

That's what Israel does. The only thing I changed in that analogy is that I made the it a crime by Americans against Americans so that you couldn't feel disconnected from the wrongdoing. If you don't want to bomb Buffalo, you need to accept the possibility that Israel has gone too far.

The Palestinians aren't doing enough, I agree. But you wouldn't bomb Buffalo just because their police did a half-wit job chasing McVeigh either. Unless you can say that the Palestinian government has had an operational role in every attack thats ever resulted in Israel bombing their territory, you have no grounds to believe that Israel should be hitting them this much.


2. Israel may be worth a little loose change. Probably not as much as we give them, but they're worth some. They make a good contingency plan for the stuff hitting the fan in that volatile and important region.

What Israel is not worth is not measured in dollars and cents. Israel is not worth our unquestioning tollerance and even support for their wrongs. We never draw a line in the sand for the Israelis because too many of our voters actually believe in ancient Hebrew mythology. Well excuse me but I gotta go now... gotta pray for Ra to bring the sun back tomorrow morning. The fact that evangelicals have been duped into the belief that America must support Israel at all costs is disgusting.

Our willingness to turn a blind eye to Israel's nuclear weapons program has cost us the diplomatic credibility we need to deal with other nuclear threats in the region. If we went to the Sunni nations and said, "hey, we kept Israel disarmed back in the 60s, and now we need you to get on board with us and keep Iran disarmed too" we'd have some support. But you know what, if there's anything that draws Shias and Sunnis together its Western powers implementing double standards that favor Jews.

America SHOULD have a relationship with Israel, but let's not forget who's the pimp and who's the ho. They're little and we're big, they need money and we know how to get it. They work for us. I hate to be a jerk about it, but what other way is there to interpret the situation? We can make or break them and we've chosen to make 'em, and in the interest of self preservation it is their duty not necessarily to do everything we say, but certainly to respect us as allies and keep the relationship mutually beneficial, because when it ceases to be America should walk and Israel should fall.



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 03:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
When John Walsh says that one of America's most wanted might be in the Pittsburg Area, do you want to bomb his appartment building and accept all of the innocents as collateral damage?


Depends. Are there people in the apartment building with rocket launchers, shooting at the police?






Unless you can say that the Palestinian government has had an operational role in every attack thats ever resulted in Israel bombing their territory, you have no grounds to believe that Israel should be hitting them this much.


The Palestinian government? You mean Hammas? Would I say they've had an operational role in EVERY attack?

Why, no. The PLO used to do some, too. And Hezbollah. So I guess you're right. Israel shouldn't be reacting, if Hammas only does SOME of the bombings. Since the bombings are done by multiple attackers, then I guess that really no one should be held accountable.





2. Israel may be worth a little loose change. Probably not as much as we give them, but they're worth some. They make a good contingency plan for the stuff hitting the fan in that volatile and important region.


I'd agree with you there. But I'd go further, and venture that no state is worth the foreign aid that gets lavished on them by a kick-back controlled congress.




The fact that evangelicals have been duped into the belief that America must support Israel at all costs is disgusting.


Especially when all it takes, is to point out to them is that Israel is a democracy, with a HUMAN government, just like Lichtenstein (no offense, lichtensteiners). Until Messiah shows up and starts handing out judgment, any human government on Mt. Zion would be . . . um . . . interlopers.



Our willingness to turn a blind eye to Israel's nuclear weapons program has cost us the diplomatic credibility we need to deal with other nuclear threats in the region.

The pan-islamist movement wasn't going to grant us any "diplomatic credibility" anyway, until our flag is green. . . .



If we went to the Sunni nations and said, "hey, we kept Israel disarmed back in the 60s, and now we need you to get on board with us and keep Iran disarmed too" we'd have some support.


personally, I doubt it. But, I can at least imagine such a scenario.



America SHOULD have a relationship with Israel, but let's not forget who's the pimp and who's the ho.


With our rather one-sided history of espionage, I tremble to wonder who the ho might turn out to be . . .

.



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 03:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
Depends. Are there people in the apartment building with rocket launchers, shooting at the police?


I'll bite on that one. For the sake of this hypothetical, the answer is that you kind of suspect there are, but you can't be sure and nobody will ever know for sure after the fact either, however you know to a certainty that innocents will be killed.

So... you've got one of America's most wanted who might be there, and there has been a report of shots fired in the area that you can't nail down to that building with any certainty, but you can be pretty dang sure that if you blow up the building you're gonna hit someone whose just minding their own business. Do you bomb Buffalo?



The Palestinian government? You mean Hammas? Would I say they've had an operational role in EVERY attack?
Why, no. The PLO used to do some, too. And Hezbollah.


Mmm red herring. Got any tartar sauce to go with that?
Give me an honest answer: are you saying that Israel has NEVER blamed the Palestinian government for the actions of a lone gunman? Are you telling me that isolated radicals have NEVER foiled the peace process, but that it has always been a matter of the Palestinian government agreeing to deals that it didn't want, just to turn around and centrally plan the failure of them only a day later?


So I guess you're right. Israel shouldn't be reacting, if Hammas only does SOME of the bombings. Since the bombings are done by multiple attackers, then I guess that really no one should be held accountable.


If you don't consciously know that you're twisting me words then I'm concerned that this will never go anywhere. You probably know... so I'm concerned that this will never go anywhere. Gee, lose-lose, why do I bother?



no state is worth the foreign aid that gets lavished on them by a kick-back controlled congress.

Hey, that's why I bother. You really do have your moments. Full agreement.




The pan-islamist movement wasn't going to grant us any "diplomatic credibility" anyway, until our flag is green.


You're right about that. That's why we've got all of those nice corrupt monarchies over there. And for that matter, even osstenisble Ba'athists will sell out now and then for reasons of Realpolitik, like Syria in 1991.



personally, I doubt it. But, I can at least imagine such a scenario.


Let's not forget that it is Iran we're talking about. The heretic, non-arab boogiemen against whom the Saudis even contest the very name of the Persian Gulf. I don't think that any of those nations will compromise their own interests with us, but I believe that they will gladly sell their neighbors up the river if the price is right and they feel like we're not out to get them. A Persian Shia bomb should be a nightmare for Saudi... but not as much of a nightmare as not having a Muslim bomb at all while Israel remains nuclearized.



With our rather one-sided history of espionage, I tremble to wonder who the ho might turn out to be . . .


Well, I grant you that when it comes to the cloak and dagger we ain't the ones holding the dagger but in the bigger picture, if we could get away from the whole evangelical defference to "God's people" thing, we're still holding most of the cards.

There's the golden rule... he who has the gold makes the rules...
and the very similar ICBM rule...
and of course the UNSC Veto rule...

Not to mention the fact that we wouldn't have to ask nicely to get the UN to slap sanctions on Israel given their past record.



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond

Mmm red herring. Got any tartar sauce to go with that?
Give me an honest answer: are you saying that Israel has NEVER blamed the Palestinian government for the actions of a lone gunman?



At some point, I'm not sure of the degree to which the philosophical independence of a lone gunman is a material issue.

Consider the JFK assasination, by way of contrast. Even if Oswald had helpers, or was part of a cell (my theory), no one contends that the average citizen of Dallas supported his efforts.

The situation is the opposite with Israel's neighbors. Even if they don't get together, they are ideologically unified, as you pointed out re Iran and Sa'ud.



Are you telling me that isolated radicals have NEVER foiled the peace process, but that it has always been a matter of the Palestinian government agreeing to deals that it didn't want, just to turn around and centrally plan the failure of them only a day later?


Seriously, the point you bring up shows the limits of western-style law enforcement when applied to political revolutionaries. The american white supremecist movement has come up with a program they call "leaderless resistance." And it works quite effectively. Basically, law enforcement is not allowed prosecute groups unless they can prove a connection. Since they have no single leader, law enforcement cannot punish an individual or cell for a crime they would have LIKED to have committed . . .

That's where I think the law enforcement model breaks down, when it comes to insurgencies. If you're going to stop them, you've got to consider it from additional angles, besides mere criminality.




If you don't consciously know that you're twisting me words then I'm concerned that this will never go anywhere. You probably know... so I'm concerned that this will never go anywhere. Gee, lose-lose, why do I bother?


Twisting? Well, I'll admit to that, if you can admit that Hammas has multiple identities, and switches between them in order to avoid being held responsible for it's various acts, all of which are aimed at the destruction of someone else's government.

This is how terrorists usually operate. They have a political wing that claims to negotiate, while the "revolutionary guard" is busy killing civiilians. The IRA, the African National Congress, Hammas, the Shining Path, all of them have a "political wing" they use to diffuse their human rights abuses, such as specifically targeting civilians.

Hezbollah is doing exactly this in Lebanon, and the Lebanese government has offered to do precisely NOTHING to remove Hezbollah.

That makes them participants in attacking a foreign state.

How can they NOT expect to experience the wrath of their neighbor, when they provide infrastructure and political protection for people who say they are "ready for world war three" ?

They haven't asked Iran or Syria to help Hezbollah be transported out of Lebanon. They have not asked the UN to help them disarm Hezbollah. They haven't done anything that I can see. That's not the behavior of a neutral nation. It's the (in)action of a belligerant state.

If Israel is making a mistake, it is in skipping the formal declaration of war against Lebanon. But then, I think that Israel has a policy of no longer bothering to declare war, and simply carrying out their military objectives without any labels.

World War I started in a similar fashion.
The Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assasinated in Serbia, and the Serbs refused to allow Austrian police to investigate the crime, but couldn't seem to make an arrest, even after they had identified the shooter.

While America was against them in that conflict, Germany and Turkey followed through on treaty commitments with Austria. Russia used Austrian Aggression to occupy the Balkans, and France joined them. UK and US joined in to defend France. . .



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 11:36 AM
link   
Dr-strangecraft

I don’t know what kind of appeasement you'd recommend, but I know what hasn't worked in the past.


The reason why you don’t know what kind of appeasement I would recommend is because I don’t recommend any. But I am a little annoyed at the ferocity of Israel’s attacks against things like airports, and dare I say power stations? It’s a kind of warfare (conducted under the banner of fighting terrorism) that I suspect-hope most Americans don’t support (especially as it is almost destined to create more terrorist recruits).
Maybe you can see another use but isn’t its only purpose to destroy peoples economies? I.e. hold the Lebanese people like hostages? Because there government is apparently unable to deal with Hezbollah?

Israel has already lost more of its citizens than it can ever save from terrorists-that’s all very well for a good long term outcome. But if the stupid way they have conducted this war means that they make the situation worse for themselves then nobody but the arms industry and regional players wins.
Trouble is I don’t think this is about saving hostages; I think it’s about border expansion. First they will create a Lebanese buffer zone…

Quote: “Troops cleared an area extending up to one kilometer from Israel’s northern border” www.freerepublic.com...
Quote: “Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz indicated Israel planned to create a buffer zone in southern Lebanon to stop rocket attacks from Hezbollah.”
www.cnn.com...

(I speculate) they will eventually allow settlers to move in, then they will build a better buffer zone around the settlements. They have done this before to Palestine in the past; and have kept all the fruits-settlements worth keeping. Chances are they will do it again. I mean how else do you make sense of this operation? Especially given the economic infrastructure attacked, as a degraded population is an easy to crush population.

Let’s not forget that before Israel went to war over the actions of a few terrorist; Israel had cut of all tax revenue to the Palestinian people (not because Hamas was at war with them). But peace i.e. a ceasefire wasn’t good enough; instead Israel wanted Hamas to kiss its diplomatic ass by recognising Israel (whatever that means if you’ve already got a ceasefire). Could the Israeli government be addicted to its own defence spending in the same way America is? Because I think they been spoiling for war-territory expansion; especially since they withdrew from those hard to defend (un cost effective) settlements about last year.

My Point: By financing Israel America is associating itself with every crime Israel commits; and will continue to do so until it rejects something. But when people started to talk about Lebanese civilians (maybe airports) I think George Bush gave them the diplomatic two fingers by not criticising them anything they have done. Al Qaeda recruits people because of America’s support for “corrupt Arab leaders” (they need to be corrupt otherwise places like Saudi Arabia wouldn’t be pro Israel or America) and it recruits people because of what’s going on in Chechnya; it also does well because a intellectual religious minority are pissed at the constant spread of western culture throughout the Arab world (e.g. Arab women wearing western clothing). So it is true they would always be an enemy to us. But the biggest recruitment posters by far are the situation in Iraq, and Israel

The Arabs don’t have border issues with the West like they do with Israel. But they do have our support of Israel because of that. Really it’s Israel that’s the great Satan but America is the Big Satan because it always backs the great one, guaranteeing its strength and existence. And I do find it incredible we supply them with hi tech weapons as long as they are prepared to supply them to China. America just has to say “no” for about a week and Israel will bring its Chinese arms export policy into line. And even if they didn’t; wouldn’t that be proof that the money is wasted?

Why does America support Israel’s bombing of things like airports? Firstly it’s immoral, and secondly its hardly good getting our people out, or long term security (especially when it comes to hearts and minds). America has Israel round the balls not just with cash aid, but also trade. So if your leaders didn’t like the way this brutal military exercise was being conducted, they object, and ensure it be noted. Why don’t they?



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 11:47 AM
link   
Israel under the Likud party has thrown gasoline on this powderkeg since the beginning
and now that some of them like Hezbollah are fighting back they will wipe out everyone
in the region including civilians.

A bit of history on the likud:

"The PLO under the leadership of Mohammed Abdel-Raouf Arafat al-Qudwa al-Husseini was run much like a western organization. Arafat was viewed as a freedom fighter and was loved by the Palestinians. He was a threat to the very existence of Isreal. Arafat amassed a fortune through Arab charities and many shady deals including drug trafficing. He was almost Machiavellian in his tactics. In the media he looked like a shy, mousy fearful leader who was desperately trying to hold off this super state named Israel. This made him a darling in the eyes of the media."

The enemy of my enemy: Israel's ties to the birth of Hamas

Mod Edit: Posting work written by others. – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 17-8-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
....

Do you really think that the US would be better off with an islamist palestine sitting in its stead? Do you really think that if there had never been an Isreal that muslims the world over would be lovely dovey with america? Heck no. Isreal is a liberal democracy, so of course its worth the cost.


He has it right on. America supports Israel for a few reasons, all logical and it doesn't matter if the American people like it or not.

First off, Israel IS a democracy in the region, an ideal western state in the middle of a chaotic region.

Secondly the Mossad intelligence service is one of the best in the world, they provide much better intelligence on it's neighbors in the ME then CIA ever could.

Third, Israel is a self sustaining state, unlike Germany, Japan, South Korea and other states we help develop, Israel has I would say the second strongest military in the entire world. Their civilians are all trained to combat in the case of all out war, they have a powerful high tech standing army, ready to attack or defend at a moments notice, and of course they have an extremely powerful air force, of course we gave it to them but their pilots are some of the best in the world. This is the main reason we keep on funding, if the USSR ever actually did get a foothold in the ME Israel would have been our proxy to stop the invading spread of communism. America never had influence in the ME either, it was a buffer zone between us and the USSR and Israel was our golden state there to defend our interest.

Fourth is the massive Jewish lobby here in the states, they ensure our leaders that we need them just as much as they need us.

Fifth, it is a liberal democracy that does not discriminate based upon race or religion, they allow access to holy sites by Muslims and Christians, they acknowledge that their faith is sharing the holy land with the peoples of the book.

Sixth and final reason I can think of is because of WWII the Jews need a homeland and it is where we put them, and because we put them there in such a hostile land it is our responsibility to make sure they are not slaughtered again.



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rasputin44
Israel under the Likud party has thrown gasoline on this powderkeg since the beginning
and now that some of them like Hezbollah are fighting back they will wipe out everyone
in the region including civilians.



Israels Likude seperated with Sharone to form the Kadima party, a center party not to far right and not to far left. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is also of the Kadima party.




mod edit, shorten quote

[edit on 17-8-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Liberal1984
Dr-strangecraft

I don’t know what kind of appeasement you'd recommend, but I know what hasn't worked in the past.


The reason why you don’t know what kind of appeasement I would recommend is because I don’t recommend any. But I am a little annoyed at the ferocity of Israel’s attacks against things like airports, and dare I say power stations? It’s a kind of warfare (conducted under the banner of fighting terrorism) that I suspect-hope most Americans don’t support (especially as it is almost destined to create more terrorist recruits).



Functionally, I think they are working on keeping Hezbollah from being resupplied, and especially re-staffed from around the Islamist middle East.

Thinking of Iraq, most of the "insurgents" the US have battled have actually been foreign nationals who have come in over the objections of the civilian population to continue to wage a war.

Perhaps Israel is isolating Hezbollah--since the bulk of their support comes from outside Lebanon itself, removing transport facilities means no new troops in, and no new trucks with rockets entering Lebanon.

You make some telling points. This is a serious crisis. Israel is betting all of its money on a single hand of cards. Its been doing that since 1948.


You also imagine that Israel's aims are to annex territory. Yet most recently, Israel ceded the Gaza strip, and communities in the West Bank, even dragging its own citizens away to give the land over to Hammas.

The peace they purchased by yielding territory didn't last two weeks. But they were willing to try. I suspect that they KNEW this would happen, but wanted to demonstrate who their opponents really are, on the world stage.

As for stirring up more popular hatred of Israel in Lebanon, that would be difficult to achieve.

The south was once majority Christian and pro Israel. So Syria invaded, and forceably removed Christian communities, or "invited" them to emigrate to America.

The Bekaah valley was a Christian enclave 35 years ago, but that community was ousted, and replaced with Hezbollah and foreign militias. They were planted there BECAUSE they hated Israel. So it'd be hard to find NEW terrorists there.


Why is hezbollah present anyway? The terms of the 1978 UN-brokered withdrawal of Israeli troops from south lebanon was supposed to be followed by a withdrawal of Hezbollah.

Yet they remain today.

I can't wait to see what sort of 'cease-fire and withdraw' the UN has in mind this year. I'm sure that, whatever it is, it will allow Hezbollah the time it needs to re-arm and resupply from Syria.



I'd be curious to see a thread about Hezbollah's misdeeds, and the "costs" of letting them have a free hand, a de facto army of occupation in Lebanon. But that's one thread I dont' expect to see anytime soon.

The focus will always be on Israel.

.



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 02:42 PM
link   

You also imagine that Israel's aims are to annex territory. Yet most recently, Israel ceded the Gaza strip, and communities in the West Bank, even dragging its own citizens away to give the land over to Hammas.


What makes you think Israel withdrew from settlements ether because it was the morally right thing to, or because it was an attempt at peace?
In fact there was anger in Israel because it was a unilateral withdraw without reference to the Palestinians being obliged to keep any peace deals-agreements. It was a victory for terrorism because the only material reason why Israel withdrew was because it too expensive for Israel to maintain the settlements (i.e. military patrols ect to protect the population).
I was surprised Israel forcefully removed the settlers; as judging from the way they behaved I think it would have been best to just leave them there without any military protection so that they could be massacred by the Palestinians. Then again it’s this political-humanitarian consideration that caused Israel to make the withdraw forceful. And in a way (as someone who isn’t Israeli) I don’t argue with their wisdom-decision.

However there is nothing about the Israeli mindset that caused them to withdraw from Gaza which is against creating new territory providing it can be easily policed.
Hay at least if it had been part of some peace deal they might not have not demolished every building accept for public facilities. Although apparently the militants approved of this I would be surprised if it’s really true for the ordinary people. Then again Israel built it, so they can destroy it; that said it would have made a neat form of “rent” from them.

As for foreign fighters coming into Iraqi being responsible for most of the fighting; well I don’t know how true that is, or how much of it’s actually Pentagon propaganda. Whatever the truth you might like to see this October 2005 Iraqi opinion poll conducted by our Ministry of Defence www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2005/10/23/wirq23.xml
Quote: “Forty-five per cent of Iraqis believe attacks against British and American troops are justified - rising to 65 per cent in the British-controlled Maysan province;”
At the very least this proves foreign fighters will be welcomed in Iraq but much of the population. This source is a right wing newspaper often called the “Tory Graph” because it is very pro Conservative Party (which like our government also supports the war).

It’s relevant because if that’s true of Iraq then imagine how true this must be of Palestine regarding Israel or Lebanon with a semi westernised population angry at being suddenly subjected to foreign economic degradation? I think Israel bombing wickedly (airports and power stations) will have created plenty of room for Al Qaeda recruitment. I call it “the blitz effect” because before Hitler bombed London the English people were quite disapproving of Churchill and very sceptical about his war. So Hitler thought blitzing London would make Churchill even more unpopular. Not so though; instead they united around there leader. Hezbollah could easily have handed back the hostages and prevent things getting were they are; but why would they? Especially as Israelis kind of response can only restore Hezbollah’s popularity (from looks at it) over where it was before?

The airport and power stations are actions which are bound to infuriate civilians; so to will the use of overly powerful bombs. And every terrorist is born civilian.
I could be an Arab in Egypt, and if I saw what was Israel was doing, knew America was backing it (diplomatically and financially) then I too could support the next 9/11. (Unless I was smart enough to realise that the reason for all the 9/11 conspiracy theories is because terrorism too unites our people around our wretched leaders).

Israel’s (self declared) intentional targeting of the airport, and other (blatantly) civilian infrastructure makes this kind of warfare (as opposed to the warfare itself) something that will do nothing but intensify Al Qaeda’s support (admittedly mostly similar terrorist groups).
And by making no complaint against their actions (never mind changes to cash aid) America is fully associating itself with Israel’s actions to the detriment of its citizens own safety. Perhaps keeping Israel’s cash grants flowing isn’t so bad if we at least distanced ourselves a bit by making a few comments about some of their targets?

But if Israel (through financial lobbying) has our politicians by the bulls so much; that we won’t even diplomatically-publicly distance ourselves from some of its most absence targeting’s, then in my view that’s the biggest reason why Israel isn’t worth the cost (because it holds our own balls too much). Isn’t it that argument (perhaps above all others) which is most relevant to American people?



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 02:55 PM
link   
I think the US uses Israel as a sacrificial lamb. In order to keep the terrorist from blowing themselves up in the US, you give them a target that is closer to home. You can have all the advantages of a base of operations in the region, and have a more appealing target for your enemies.



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 04:49 PM
link   
Again, from a tactical standpoint, I think Israel targets infrastructure in Lebanon because it has so little to lose. Like I said before, the Lebanese govt located palestinian refugees in the south, as well as Shiite immigrants who are Hezbollah.

That population is dedicated to the eradication of Israel.

And with Hezbollah/Syria controlling all branches of the Lebanese government, I think the Sunna, Christian, and Druze minorities are probably accepting of anything that might mean a lessening of Shiite/Syrian/Iranian control of their homeland.

From an economic standpoint, Syria is hugely reliant on Lebanon for imports from the west. Syria is not landlocked, but most western development has been via banking etc. in Lebanon, which was once called the Arab version of switzerland.

Israel's damage to Beirut will have a regional (negative) effect in the Arab world.


Obviously, the Israeli regime has weighed the various options in the balance, and have decided that this one is worth the diplomatic and military risks.


Personally, I'm beginning to wonder whether Hezbollah/Nasrallah expect the Syrians to save them---while the Syrians and Iranians don't seem to be that interested in getting embarrased by a war in Lebanon, where they can no longer move troops in and out of the country freely. The arab world has a history of "not following through" that goes back to 1956 in Egypt.

.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join