Israeli forces attack humanitarian convoy in intl. waters

[The Duchess of Zeon]

As long as we're quoting from San Remo, let's look at some other rules on blockades:


102. The declaration or establishment of a blockade is prohibited if:

(a) it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival; or
(b) the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade.

103. If the civilian population of the blockaded territory is inadequately provided with food and other objects essential for its survival, the blockading party must provide for free passage of such foodstuffs and other essential supplies, subject to:

(a) the right to prescribe the technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted; and
(b) the condition that the distribution of such supplies shall be made under the local supervision of a Protecting Power or a humanitarian organization which offers guarantees of impartiality, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross.

104. The blockading belligerent shall allow the passage of medical supplies for the civilian population or for the wounded and sick members of armed forces, subject to the right to prescribe technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted.

"If the civilian population of the blockaded territory is inadequately provided with food and other objects essential for its survival, the blockading party must provide for free passage of such foodstuffs and other essential supplies, subject to:

(a) the right to prescribe the technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted; and
(b) the condition that the distribution of such supplies shall be made under the local supervision of a Protecting Power or a humanitarian organization which offers guarantees of impartiality, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross."

A state of chronic malnutrition exists in Gaza

Chronic malnutrition in Gaza blamed on Israel


The Israeli blockade of Gaza has led to a steady rise in chronic malnutrition among the 1.5 million people living in the strip, according to a leaked report from the Red Cross.

It chronicles the "devastating" effect of the siege that Israel imposed after Hamas seized control in June 2007 and notes that the dramatic fall in living standards has triggered a shift in diet that will damage the long-term health of those living in Gaza and has led to alarming deficiencies in iron, vitamin A and vitamin D.

The 46-page report from the International Committee of the Red Cross – seen by The Independent – is the most authoritative yet on the impact that Israel's closure of crossings to commercial goods has had on Gazan families and their diets.

The report says the heavy restrictions on all major sectors of Gaza's economy, compounded by a cost of living increase of at least 40 per cent, is causing "progressive deterioration in food security for up to 70 per cent of Gaza's population". That in turn is forcing people to cut household expenditures down to "survival levels".

"Chronic malnutrition is on a steadily rising trend and micronutrient deficiencies are of great concern," it said.

Since last year, the report found, there had been a switch to "low cost/high energy" cereals, sugar and oil, away from higher-cost animal products and fresh fruit and vegetables. Such a shift "increases exposure to micronutrient deficiencies which in turn will affect their health and wellbeing in the long term."

Israel has often said that it will not allow a humanitarian crisis to develop in Gaza and the report says that the groups surveyed had "accessed their annual nutritional energy needs". But it warned governments, including Israel's, that "food insecurity and undernutrition, including micronutrient deficiencies" were occurring in the absence of "overt food shortages".

A 2001 Food and Agriculture Organisation definition classifies "food security" as when "all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life."

The Red Cross report says that "the embargo has had a devastating effect for a large proportion of households who have had to make major changes on the composition of their food basket." Households were now obtaining 80 per cent of their calories from cereals, sugar and oil. "The actual food basket is considered to be insufficient from a nutritional perspective." The report paints a bleak picture of an increasingly impoverished and indebted lower-income population. People are selling assets, slashing the quality and quantity of meals, cutting back on clothing and children's education, scavenging for discarded materials – and even grass for animal fodder – that they can sell and are depending on dwindling loans and handouts from slightly better-off relatives.

In the urban sector, in which about 106,000 employees lost their jobs after the June 2007 shutdown, about 40 per cent are now classified as "very poor", earning less than 500 shekels (£87) a month to provide for an average household of seven to nine people.

The report quotes a former owner of a small, home-based sewing factory, who said he had laid off his 10 workers in July 2007. "Since then I earn no more than 300 shekels per month by sewing from time to time neighbours' and relatives' clothes. I sold my wife's jewellery and my brother is transferring 250 shekels every month ... I do not really know what to say to my children." Others said they were not able to give their children pocket money.

In agriculture, on which 27 percent of Gaza's population depends, exports are at a halt and, like fisheries, the sector has seen a 50 per cent fall in incomes since the siege began. Among the two-fifths classified as "very poor", average per capita spending is down to 50p a day. In the fisheries sector, which has been hit by fuel shortages and narrow, Israeli-imposed fishing limits, "People's coping mechanisms are very limited and those households that still have jewellery and even non-essential appliances sell them".

The report says that if the Israeli-imposed embargo is maintained, "economic disintegration will continue and wider segments of the Gaza population will become food insecure".

Arguing that the removal of restrictions on trade "can reverse the trend of impoverishment", the Red Cross warns that "the prolongation of the restrictions risks permanently damaging households' capacity to recover and undermines their ability to attain food security in the long term."

The detailed Gaza fieldwork for the report was carried out between May and July. An International Monetary Fund report confirmed in late September that the Gaza economy "continued to weaken".

Mark Regev, the spokesman for Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, said that, contrary to hopes when Israel pulled out of Gaza, the Gazan people were being "held hostage" to Hamas's "extremist and nihilist" ideology which was causing undoubted suffering. If Hamas focused resources on the "diet of the people" instead of on "Qassam rockets and violent jihadism" then "this sort of problem would not exist", he said.

Therefore under San Remo Israel has a legal obligation to allow supplies into Gaza. It does have a right to inspect the ships, but it legally must allow the supplies into Gaza. There is simply no question about that and more to the point it explicitly must be distributed by a protecting power or humanitarian organization, not the blockading belligerent, and furthermore mandates free passage, not seizure and redistribution. International law is being overwhelming violated by the Israeli refusal to cooperate with the terms of San Remo and therefore the resistance was being legitimate. The defenders of Israel in this case are conveniently ignoring that.

Here is the Israeli statement that they would violate international law: Blatantly given before the actual attempt. I already posted it, so I'm just reposting the relevant part:

Israel has said it will overtake the ships as soon as they enter a 20—mile Israeli—controlled zone off Gaza. They will then be towed to the Israeli port of Ashdod, where the foreign nationals will be handed over to Immigration Police for deportation abroad, said Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor.

San Remo requires free passage to a blockaded territory of foodstuffs and other essential supplies when a country is not receiving enough of them through a blockade. Gaza is chronically malnourished and is therefore by definition not receiving sufficient foodstuffs. Therefore Israel had a international legal requirement to allow free passage under San Remo, and announced in advance that it would not do so, but instead seize and divert the ships, in violation of international law. This made resistance to the Israeli violation of international law legitimate and legal. Israel is simply blatantly in the wrong with this seizure and to say anything else is to participate in their propaganda machine trying to whitewash their hunger blockade of Gaza.

[ShadowDragon8685]

The notion of international law and laws of war have merit only inasmuch as other nations are prepared to wage war to enforce them. This is in fact the root of all law - legitimacy only comes with the power to enforce your so-called legitimacy through violence.

Joe No-good, a two-bit crook wants to knock Johnny Dingledorf on the head and take his wallet. He doesn't because Officer Shield Blue is standing right there and, if Joe tries anything, Officer Blue will take out his truncheon, beat seven kinds of six out of Joe, and cart his ass to the lock-up.

Isreal wants to decide what gets into Gaza, and when. They're willing to deploy armed ships with air support to enforce their point of view. This action is viewed as illegal, but who is willing to go to war to enforce it's illegality? Hmmm?

Duchess, would you be willing to sign up if they had a war to break the military blocade of Gaza? Would any of us? Would any of us want it, even if we didn't personally suffer a single inconvienance as a result?

I wouldn't. I wouldn't want to see the blood of a single American soldier, a single Canuck or Aussie, a single Briton or Frenchman, a single Israeli or Turk shed over this. I doubt anyone would, either.

So then, if nobody is willing to go to war to enforce San Remo, exactly what force does it have? There's no great big non-governmental army that's waiting to wage a war to enforce nation's abiding by the rules of warfare or other international law, and until such an entity so large and powerful - and willing to claim and enforce the right to enforce such rules - exists, they will continue to be abided by only as long as other nations are willing to wage significant war to enforce them.

So really, what's the fucking point arguing the illegality? The Israelis are having themselves a blocade whether you like it or not, and just like a corporation, you can't haul "The State of Isreal" into a court-room and put them on trial.

Whether you like what they're doing or not is really immaterial; the fact is that they're doing it. Was boarding and seizing a vessel a good thing? I don't know. Was it illegal under the rules of maritime law? That's in dispute. Is anybody going to be willing to have a war over it if they refuse to back down and capitulate to Turkish naval might?

I highly doubt it.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Duchess, would you be willing to sign up if they had a war to break the military blocade of Gaza? Would any of us? Would any of us want it, even if we didn't personally suffer a single inconvienance as a result?

To fight a bunch of assclowns who can't remember to turn on their own radars? Sure. Of course you're being pretty stupid by endlessly making this a choice between "do nothing" and "war", but I'll humour you, sure whatever, yes I'd fight. I always wanted to be in the military and I'd still apply for OCS right fricking now, if the medical requirements were changed and DADT dropped so I could.

I wouldn't. I wouldn't want to see the blood of a single American soldier, a single Canuck or Aussie, a single Briton or Frenchman, a single Israeli or Turk shed over this. I doubt anyone would, either.

So then, if nobody is willing to go to war to enforce San Remo, exactly what force does it have? There's no great big non-governmental army that's waiting to wage a war to enforce nation's abiding by the rules of warfare or other international law, and until such an entity so large and powerful - and willing to claim and enforce the right to enforce such rules - exists, they will continue to be abided by only as long as other nations are willing to wage significant war to enforce them.

So really, what's the fucking point arguing the illegality? The Israelis are having themselves a blocade whether you like it or not, and just like a corporation, you can't haul "The State of Isreal" into a court-room and put them on trial.

Whether you like what they're doing or not is really immaterial; the fact is that they're doing it. Was boarding and seizing a vessel a good thing? I don't know. Was it illegal under the rules of maritime law? That's in dispute. Is anybody going to be willing to have a war over it if they refuse to back down and capitulate to Turkish naval might?

I highly doubt it.

Well, for starters, we could, you know, just pull our military aide from Israel. That would fuck them over right quick. The Turks could also fight, and fight hard, and if I was Turkish I'd certainly be willing. But a war isn't necessary unless Israel has literally gone completely insane, and in that case it is a humanitarian war to stop a mad regime. I don't think we're remotely there, and I think you should shut the fuck up, because your endless RAR WAR scenarioizing, even in this case, is just plain stupid and you need to grow up and think about options other than our bending over and sucking Tel Aviv's cock and an all-out military crusade against Israel.

[Starglider]

The notion of international law and laws of war have merit only inasmuch as other nations are prepared to wage war to enforce them. This is in fact the root of all law - legitimacy only comes with the power to enforce your so-called legitimacy through violence.

Oh I agree, I was just countering the current Israel-apologist line of 'mass murder is perfectly legal!'. I fully expect them to switch to plain old 'might makes right' as soon as this position becomes completely untenable. The fact that Israel is surrounded by completely reprehensible, terrorism-supporting rogue states does not mean that we should turn a blind eye to the long list of crimes Israel is guilty of. Perhaps in the cold war it was necessary to unconditionally support the bad vs the worse, but no longer.

[Lonestar]

It doesn't produce international incidents. As long as no one complains, it doesn't matter.

Wrong, it establishes a legal precedent. No American would say that it's okay to pick and choose in the application of law in those cases.

Besides, it's a difference wether you just inspect them inside your trade zone or wether you enforce a blockade - different measurments and zones.

Several hundred miles off the West coast of South America is "inside America's trade zone"? And the blockade does not have to only be enforced within territorial waters.

Well of course they did! They were at war with another nation, remember?

And Israel doesn't recognize a different government in the West Bank and Gaza?(The PA)

Well, the american civil was was quite a while ago. I don't know wether it's relevant or not - but again, times of war are different.

It was relevant enough that the UK used the USA precedent for stopping ships whose goods might go to Germany during WW1. As all the preeminent maritime powers adopted that precedent, why wouldn't it still be applicable(if we are assuming that Gaza is NOT another country and Israel is treating it as a region in rebellion)?

I agree that what Israel did was politically stupid, but no member of NATO(except maybe Turkey) is going to be willing to throw existing maritime law out the window "just because".

[ShadowDragon8685]

To fight a bunch of assclowns who can't remember to turn on their own radars? Sure. Of course you're being pretty stupid by endlessly making this a choice between "do nothing" and "war", but I'll humour you, sure whatever, yes I'd fight. I always wanted to be in the military and I'd still apply for OCS right fricking now, if the medical requirements were changed and DADT dropped so I could.

So you'd fight because you'd think it would be easy (the radars bit,) or because you'd like to go to war?

Either one scares me. Assuming a fight will be easy is the biggest cause of getting people who go picking fights killed, and the idea that you want to go and fight a war is kind of terrifying in it's own right.

Well, for starters, we could, you know, just pull our military aide from Israel. That would fuck them over right quick. The Turks could also fight, and fight hard, and if I was Turkish I'd certainly be willing. But a war isn't necessary unless Israel has literally gone completely insane, and in that case it is a humanitarian war to stop a mad regime. I don't think we're remotely there, and I think you should shut the fuck up, because your endless RAR WAR scenarioizing, even in this case, is just plain stupid and you need to grow up and think about options other than our bending over and sucking Tel Aviv's cock and an all-out military crusade against Israel.

Exactly what other choices do you have to force compliance upon a regime that refuses to comply? Starving them? We tried that in North Korea, the Isralies themselves are trying it in Gaza, and it does not work. Pulling aid? They can always find other sources of aid if they really, really want to throw into another camp. Worse, pulling aid would start a war - in the Israeli's position, if the US pulled all of it's support, I'd be left with the choice between certain anihilation at the hands of the arab hordes who have declared mission statements to "drive us into the sea," and pre-emptively launching a blitzkrieg attack (and yes, that was deliberate) to put myself in the position of momentum in the hope I can somehow survive this nightmare. I sure wouldn't want to wait and hope the surrounding peoples decide they just don't feel like making good on all their threats today, and tomorrow, and the day after that.

That's not insanity, it's the cold calculus of survival. Exactly what sort of pressure do you think can be exerted, how far are you willing to go to enforce the terms of San Remo?

Force is the only root of legitimacy. Nobody and no law can have legitimacy if all they're doing is making breathless speeches and producing ream after ream of paper. At the end of the day, if you want to have legitimacy, you have to be willing to bust heads until everyone acknowledges that legitimacy and that ability to enforce that legitimacy.

So, how far are you willing to go? Pulling military aid? Pulling all aid? Enforcing an embargo or even a blocade? Launching a war?

Frankly, I don't think any of those are called for at all. My point of view is that we should say "Whatever, Israelis and Palestinians are being horrible to each other again. Change the channel."

The notion of international law and laws of war have merit only inasmuch as other nations are prepared to wage war to enforce them. This is in fact the root of all law - legitimacy only comes with the power to enforce your so-called legitimacy through violence.

Oh I agree, I was just countering the current Israel-apologist line of 'mass murder is perfectly legal!'. I fully expect them to switch to plain old 'might makes right' as soon as this position becomes completely untenable. The fact that Israel is surrounded by completely reprehensible, terrorism-supporting rogue states does not mean that we should turn a blind eye to the long list of crimes Israel is guilty of. Perhaps in the cold war it was necessary to unconditionally support the bad vs the worse, but no longer.

I never said mass murder was legal, and if they actually had taken the Commodore Hoth/Captain Shepilov route, I'd be more willing to entertain the notion of punitive actions.

As it is, I just don't give a damn. From a practical point of view, Israel is a heat magnet. Supporting them means that there's a hell of a lot of terrorism-loving jihadist wannabes in the states around them all focused on thinking of ways to make Israeli lives miserable without pulling the U.S. into a full-scale war. If there weren't any Israelis there, they'd be living the high life consolidating their power and thinking about jihading into other places.

Even if it's not the cold war, there's practical purposes to keeping Israel around. But moreover, I simply see no compelling reason to change the status quo. The Israelis are being shitcocks in Gaza, but the Palestinians have vowed to genocide the Israeli people. They're both mutual shitcocks to each other, and neither of them have done anything Shepian enough (whether through unwillingness (Israeli) or inability (Palestinian)) to warrant doing a damn thing about it.

When the Israelis actually sink a ship, or mustard gas the strip, or when the Palestinians get 'hold of a nuke and it goes off in Tel Aviv, or when they start raping Israeli children on Al Jazeera, then it might be time to do something about it. But this is just garden variety shitcockery, and I don't think it's worth having a war over, or enacting any punitive measures over.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Am I purhaps the only american of partial jewish extraction that would savor the irony of Isreal's leadership having a visit to the Hague?

[ShadowDragon8685]

Am I purhaps the only american of partial jewish extraction that would savor the irony of Isreal's leadership having a visit to the Hague?

Most likely not. I'm not of any Jewish extraction, but I'd certainly savor the irony, too.

But that wouldn't happen unless a NATO force conquered Israel. If the Arabs do it, we'll just see a Holocaust 2.0, and the eastern bloc couldn't give less of a damn about IvP. Who's left except the AU, and I imagine they give less of a damn than the Eastern Bloc. South America? That's laughable.

So... Are we going to be conquering Israel anytime soon? Do we want to inherit their problems? What are we even going to do about it if we do - forcibly relocate the non-Palestenian population? To where? Try to forcibly integrate two populations who have effectively been in a state of blood-fued for the better part of a century?

[Illuminatus Primus]

Completely surrounded? Jordan and Egypt are institutionally terrorist-supporting states (I mean, you might be right in a Chomsky-esque total reversal sense; that they carry out unlawful force against the masses and democracy in the interest of a U.S.-dominated system, but I doubt that's what you mean)? Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt are "rogue states"? Only Israel flagrantly disobeys international law, consensus, and capriciously invades its neighbors and generally imposes violent aggressive force beyond its borders. When's the last time any of the above states did anything like that? How often do they engage in bombing their neighbors or trying to subvert foreign regimes? Either "rogue state" has a substantive definition in which case it refers to Israel over its neighbors or its just a recent rhetorical innovation of U.S. propaganda.

[Sea Skimmer]

Completely surrounded? Jordan and Egypt are institutionally terrorist-supporting states (I mean, you might be right in a Chomsky-esque total reversal sense; that they carry out unlawful force against the masses and democracy in the interest of a U.S.-dominated system, but I doubt that's what you mean)? Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt are "rogue states"? Only Israel flagrantly disobeys international law, consensus, and capriciously invades its neighbors and generally imposes violent aggressive force beyond its borders. When's the last time any of the above states did anything like that? How often do they engage in bombing their neighbors or trying to subvert foreign regimes? Either "rogue state" has a substantive definition in which case it refers to Israel over its neighbors or its just a recent rhetorical innovation of U.S. propaganda.

The last time they bombed their neighbors? I dunno, few months ago? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8360015.stm The Saudis have bombed and invaded Yemen quite a few times in the last year and used upwards of 100 jets at a time to do it. But of course the world doesn't give a shit about that, and you clearly had no idea either.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

So you'd fight because you'd think it would be easy (the radars bit,) or because you'd like to go to war?

Either one scares me. Assuming a fight will be easy is the biggest cause of getting people who go picking fights killed, and the idea that you want to go and fight a war is kind of terrifying in it's own right.

Someone has to do it if war is decided upon, and if it isn't me, it might be someone who has children. But you're still too young and self-centred to have a thought process like "if there's going to be a war, then better I volunteer and fight than someone who could leave three kids as orphans." I guess the idea of not being self-centred would scare a little kid like you.

Exactly what other choices do you have to force compliance upon a regime that refuses to comply? Starving them? We tried that in North Korea, the Isralies themselves are trying it in Gaza, and it does not work. Pulling aid? They can always find other sources of aid if they really, really want to throw into another camp. Worse, pulling aid would start a war - in the Israeli's position, if the US pulled all of it's support, I'd be left with the choice between certain anihilation at the hands of the arab hordes who have declared mission statements to "drive us into the sea," and pre-emptively launching a blitzkrieg attack (and yes, that was deliberate) to put myself in the position of momentum in the hope I can somehow survive this nightmare. I sure wouldn't want to wait and hope the surrounding peoples decide they just don't feel like making good on all their threats today, and tomorrow, and the day after that.

What Arab hordes? Jordan and Egypt currently have relations with Israel. Why is Israel going to magically collapse without US aid? It would just make life hard for them, and if they complied with humanitarian law, we could resume it, hell, on an even larger scale.

That's not insanity, it's the cold calculus of survival. Exactly what sort of pressure do you think can be exerted, how far are you willing to go to enforce the terms of San Remo?

It's insanity because your scenario is pure bullshit. I guess Hitler was just exercising the "Cold Calculus of Survival" when he decided the Drang Nach Osten was the only way for the German Race to survive. When your premises are total bullshit your conclusion will be too, no matter how internally consistent it is.

Force is the only root of legitimacy. Nobody and no law can have legitimacy if all they're doing is making breathless speeches and producing ream after ream of paper. At the end of the day, if you want to have legitimacy, you have to be willing to bust heads until everyone acknowledges that legitimacy and that ability to enforce that legitimacy.

Once upon a time I believed that, and then I grew up.

So, how far are you willing to go? Pulling military aid? Pulling all aid? Enforcing an embargo or even a blocade? Launching a war?

Frankly, I don't think any of those are called for at all. My point of view is that we should say "Whatever, Israelis and Palestinians are being horrible to each other again. Change the channel."

Again, you're a self-centred shitlick. Palestinians (and Israelis for that matter) are human beings.

When the Israelis actually sink a ship, or mustard gas the strip, or when the Palestinians get 'hold of a nuke and it goes off in Tel Aviv, or when they start raping Israeli children on Al Jazeera, then it might be time to do something about it. But this is just garden variety shitcockery, and I don't think it's worth having a war over, or enacting any punitive measures over.

Why, because you think Israel will treat the world like a game of Command and Conquer and promptly blitzkrieg the entire Arab world? Jesus, can someone please call this kid's daycare ? Israel has been progressively growing worse and worse as the enfant terrible of international politics and must now be brought to heel. You are, however, the only one in this thread who seriously thinks a war would break out, and only because you learned everything you know about international politics by playing video games. Grow up.

[ShadowDragon8685]

Someone has to do it if war is decided upon, and if it isn't me, it might be someone who has children. But you're still too young and self-centred to have a thought process like "if there's going to be a war, then better I volunteer and fight than someone who could leave three kids as orphans." I guess the idea of not being self-centred would scare a little kid like you.

There might be causes in this world worth fighting and dying over. Smashing down upon a state that frankly, I'd rather have in full force, even given what they do, than the other powers in the region, is not amongst them. It's the difference between deciding to enact lethal force upon the guy who's trying to break into your home, versus gunning down your neighbor because he's whaling on a crook he caught in his house with a baseball bat.

You might be able to justify it in both cases, but in neither case are you obligated to do so. In the second case, I probably would not choose to shoot my neighbor, even if he is being a shithead.

What Arab hordes? Jordan and Egypt currently have relations with Israel. Why is Israel going to magically collapse without US aid? It would just make life hard for them, and if they complied with humanitarian law, we could resume it, hell, on an even larger scale.

They have relations with Israel currently; but do remember that to Muslims, a truce with the infidel is "written in sand," IE, just a cease-fire to lull the infidel into a false sense of security and re-arm. If they thought they could wipe Israel off the map and get nothing but a sternly-worded letter in reply, do I think they'd jump at the chance? Faster than you can say "Bombs away."

Don't kid yourself into thinking that the threat of getting hammered isn't the only thing preventing Israel from being promptly invaded.

It's insanity because your scenario is pure bullshit. I guess Hitler was just exercising the "Cold Calculus of Survival" when he decided the Drang Nach Osten was the only way for the German Race to survive. When your premises are total bullshit your conclusion will be too, no matter how internally consistent it is.

He was, as it happens. Why do you think I used the word "Blitzkrieg?" The German people were thrust into a desperate position during the lead-up to the second world war, and once it was determined by them that the only way to survive was to say "fuck Versaillies," there was no stopping the war; and once they got a taste for conquest, they went for it. In this case it's even worse, since there are various powers in the region which have actually declared their intent to commit genocide upon every single Jew the moment they can get away with it.

In this case, they legitimately have reason to fear being attacked, instead of setting out to conquer for survival and finding it to their taste.

Force is the only root of legitimacy. Nobody and no law can have legitimacy if all they're doing is making breathless speeches and producing ream after ream of paper. At the end of the day, if you want to have legitimacy, you have to be willing to bust heads until everyone acknowledges that legitimacy and that ability to enforce that legitimacy.

Once upon a time I believed that, and then I grew up.

If not from force, then where, pray tell Duchess, does legitimacy come from?

A Constitution? A constitution is only worth the willingness of those in power to enforce it. The USSR and later the current Russia have had several extremely liberal, humanitarian-written constitutions.

A crown, or tradition? Kings' heads have been lopped off same as those of paupers, and traditions only last until the number of people deciding to get rid of it overwhelm the numbers who want to stick to it.

God or Gods? Theocracies the world over have been toppled and fallen to ruin.

The People? The Will of the People can only take effect if there are not those organized enough and with violent means enough to prevent it. (See also: Burma.)


Sensing a pattern here, Duchess? At the end of the day, authority and legitimacy are the prizes of those who sieze it and hold onto it. It can be relinquished, but never without a fight. Whether or not the fight involves bullets is another matter, but it is the extreme exception, not the rule, for power to shift outside of the framework of a democratic system of electorate, without a violent fight.

So, how far are you willing to go? Pulling military aid? Pulling all aid? Enforcing an embargo or even a blocade? Launching a war?

Frankly, I don't think any of those are called for at all. My point of view is that we should say "Whatever, Israelis and Palestinians are being horrible to each other again. Change the channel."

Again, you're a self-centred shitlick. Palestinians (and Israelis for that matter) are human beings.

Yes, and they all want to be horrible to each other. Palestinians want to see every Jew dead, and would enact that goal immediately if it was but within their means. The Israelis probably don't want every Palestinian dead, or at least aren't willing to suffer the political fall-out from so doing.

Palestinians launch rockets into Isreal and kill schoolchildren, Israelis retaliate by sending bulldozers into the Strip and raze schools. Palestinians kidnap soldiers and kill them, Israelis perform helicoptor gunship strikes on the leadership of the current Palestinian power and civilians die in the crossfire. Israelis shoot down some Palestinians in cold blood, and Palestinians retaliate by sending in kids with suicide vests. Israelis try to starve the Palestinians, and the Palestinians retaliate by instigating a P.R. coup that makes the Isrealis look like Nazis. Hatfields kill a McCoy, McCoys kill a hatfield - change the fucking record!

I just don't care anymore. It's going to happen! The Hatfield-McCoy fued lasted twelve years, and that was only a rivalry between two families. Here we have two entire populations of people, three generations of whom have grown up bitterly feeling the other side to be their blood enemies - that they'd be slain in a moment if the other guys got the jump on them, so they should get the jump first.

The only way to stop the fued would be to (a) completely eradicate one population or another, or (b) completely and totally conquer the lot of them and excercize a level of control over both Israelis and Palestinians that the Israelis have failed to excercize over the Palestinians for at minimum one generation. You want to be occupying Isreal-Palestine for longer than we were mired in Iraq and Vietnam combined? Ironically, the only thing it might acomplish is giving them a mutual cause - kicking out the occupiers so they can go back to killing each other.

When the Israelis actually sink a ship, or mustard gas the strip, or when the Palestinians get 'hold of a nuke and it goes off in Tel Aviv, or when they start raping Israeli children on Al Jazeera, then it might be time to do something about it. But this is just garden variety shitcockery, and I don't think it's worth having a war over, or enacting any punitive measures over.

Why, because you think Israel will treat the world like a game of Command and Conquer and promptly blitzkrieg the entire Arab world? Jesus, can someone please call this kid's daycare ? Israel has been progressively growing worse and worse as the enfant terrible of international politics and must now be brought to heel. You are, however, the only one in this thread who seriously thinks a war would break out, and only because you learned everything you know about international politics by playing video games. Grow up.

The alternative is what - wait for the states around them, who no longer fear the sound of American fighter jets launching from American carriers in support of Isreal, to attack? They will be attacked when the surrounding states decide they can take them on, win, and not draw the U.S. into it. The Israelis, on the other hand, will realize that if the U.S. condemns them and backs off, they're wide-open for an attack. It's a game called cat and mouse, and it should be common knowledge that the only way to win is not to be the mouse.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Completely surrounded? Jordan and Egypt are institutionally terrorist-supporting states (I mean, you might be right in a Chomsky-esque total reversal sense; that they carry out unlawful force against the masses and democracy in the interest of a U.S.-dominated system, but I doubt that's what you mean)? Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt are "rogue states"? Only Israel flagrantly disobeys international law, consensus, and capriciously invades its neighbors and generally imposes violent aggressive force beyond its borders. When's the last time any of the above states did anything like that? How often do they engage in bombing their neighbors or trying to subvert foreign regimes? Either "rogue state" has a substantive definition in which case it refers to Israel over its neighbors or its just a recent rhetorical innovation of U.S. propaganda.

Syria has and continues to meddle with Lebanon politics, including the assassination of a Lebanese Prime Minister?

[Lonestar]

The alternative is what - wait for the states around them, who no longer fear the sound of American fighter jets launching from American carriers in support of Isreal, to attack? They will be attacked when the surrounding states decide they can take them on, win, and not draw the U.S. into it. The Israelis, on the other hand, will realize that if the U.S. condemns them and backs off, they're wide-open for an attack. It's a game called cat and mouse, and it should be common knowledge that the only way to win is not to be the mouse.

The Arab states didn't fear the US intervening in every other major war they fought with Israel, and they still got their asses kicked. And at least two of them will lose several billion dollars worth of annual bribery money if they abruptly DID decide to attack Israel.


Go read a history book.

[ShadowDragon8685]

The alternative is what - wait for the states around them, who no longer fear the sound of American fighter jets launching from American carriers in support of Isreal, to attack? They will be attacked when the surrounding states decide they can take them on, win, and not draw the U.S. into it. The Israelis, on the other hand, will realize that if the U.S. condemns them and backs off, they're wide-open for an attack. It's a game called cat and mouse, and it should be common knowledge that the only way to win is not to be the mouse.

The Arab states didn't fear the US intervening in every other major war they fought with Israel, and they still got their asses kicked. And at least two of them will lose several billion dollars worth of annual bribery money if they abruptly DID decide to attack Israel.


Go read a history book.

That was also earlier, before the Israelis steamrolled them during the 7-days-war, then we rolled in, and made everybody play nice under the implied threat that we'd curb-stomp the ever-loving shite out of anyone who started it again, in addition to overfunding Isreal's air force.

[Simon_Jester]

To fight a bunch of assclowns who can't remember to turn on their own radars? Sure. Of course you're being pretty stupid by endlessly making this a choice between "do nothing" and "war", but I'll humour you, sure whatever, yes I'd fight. I always wanted to be in the military and I'd still apply for OCS right fricking now, if the medical requirements were changed and DADT dropped so I could.

So you'd fight because you'd think it would be easy (the radars bit,) or because you'd like to go to war?

Either one scares me. Assuming a fight will be easy is the biggest cause of getting people who go picking fights killed, and the idea that you want to go and fight a war is kind of terrifying in it's own right.

In this case, the Duchess's analysis (the beating the tar out of the Israeli Navy would be easy) is pretty well established, by professional military analysts. I've read some of the analysis, even.

Remember, sometimes the experts are right...

Exactly what other choices do you have to force compliance upon a regime that refuses to comply? Starving them? We tried that in North Korea, the Isralies themselves are trying it in Gaza, and it does not work. Pulling aid? They can always find other sources of aid if they really, really want to throw into another camp.

What, Israel? Not really. The US is pretty much their only friend. The problem is that Israel has nothing to offer any country that makes up for the price that country pays in the rest of the Middle East for supporting them. We do it more or less out of charity (as in, because there are millions of American voters who are either Jewish and support Israel just as Irish-Americans support the IRA, or because there are millions of American voters who see Israel as the front line against Vaguely Defined Muslim Enemies).

At this point, the Israelis have pissed off enough of the rest of the planet that no one is going to grant them the massive military aid they rely on in order to outgun all their neighbors.

Worse, pulling aid would start a war - in the Israeli's position, if the US pulled all of it's support, I'd be left with the choice between certain anihilation at the hands of the arab hordes who have declared mission statements to "drive us into the sea," and pre-emptively launching a blitzkrieg attack (and yes, that was deliberate) to put myself in the position of momentum in the hope I can somehow survive this nightmare. I sure wouldn't want to wait and hope the surrounding peoples decide they just don't feel like making good on all their threats today, and tomorrow, and the day after that.

...Is there not the possibility of them going "holy fuck we'd better do stuff different so we can get the money again!"

I mean, that's what I'd do. I'd rather change my behavior than trigger a massive war that I probably wouldn't be able to win without a steady supply of advanced weapons that I don't have.

As it is, I just don't give a damn. From a practical point of view, Israel is a heat magnet. Supporting them means that there's a hell of a lot of terrorism-loving jihadist wannabes in the states around them all focused on thinking of ways to make Israeli lives miserable without pulling the U.S. into a full-scale war. If there weren't any Israelis there, they'd be living the high life consolidating their power and thinking about jihading into other places.

So, given your familiarity with Arab history, what makes you think that there would even be a jihadist fundamentalist movement in the Middle East without an Israel for it to react against? Or that it would be aggressive and expansionist, as the Taliban and the Iranian ayatollahs have not been?

They have relations with Israel currently; but do remember that to Muslims, a truce with the infidel is "written in sand," IE, just a cease-fire to lull the infidel into a false sense of security and re-arm. If they thought they could wipe Israel off the map and get nothing but a sternly-worded letter in reply, do I think they'd jump at the chance? Faster than you can say "Bombs away."

On what evidence do you base this belief?

It's insanity because your scenario is pure bullshit. I guess Hitler was just exercising the "Cold Calculus of Survival" when he decided the Drang Nach Osten was the only way for the German Race to survive. When your premises are total bullshit your conclusion will be too, no matter how internally consistent it is.

He was, as it happens. Why do you think I used the word "Blitzkrieg?" The German people were thrust into a desperate position during the lead-up to the second world war, and once it was determined by them that the only way to survive was to say "fuck Versaillies," there was no stopping the war; and once they got a taste for conquest, they went for it.

...This is foolish, and here's why:

1) The Germans were not faced with any imminent threat that required military buildup
2) In 1933 the Germans had a perfectly sound international system to call on if they desperately needed to repel an invader; the only reason it wasn't still around in the late '30s was because they (and the Italians) helped kick it to pieces.
3) There was no objective reason why the Germans had to continue their policy of territory annexation after reoccupying the Rhineland. Or after the Anschluss. Or after Munich and the annexation of the Sudetenland. If they had stopped at any of those points, they would have still had a very strong strategic position in central Europe, without fighting a general war.

Or do you really believe that if Germany had not declared war on the Allies, the Allies would have declared war on Germany? It is to laugh.

[Ryan Thunder]

What is the alternative? Leaving the ship alone?

Yep.

The objective is to stop the ship. That's not an alternative.

[Starglider]

Israel hasn't been reliant on the US to defend it from outright invasion since it acquired nuclear weapons. There is no way any neighbour state could inflict a 'holocaust', because if they tried it they'd be incinerated. Israel does not need US support to survive, it needs US support to maintain a level of conventional superiority sufficient to bully its neighbours with impunity. There is no reason to provide such support if Israel refuses to act in a civilised fashion, e.g. obey international law and actually try to find a positive solution to the Palestian problem. If you truly believe that Israel needs the US, then the US should without question cut off all aid, because Israel is sure to come back begging for help in a few years, at which point the US can dictate the terms of fresh support.

[Lonestar]

That was also earlier, before the Israelis steamrolled them during the 7-days-war, then we rolled in, and made everybody play nice under the implied threat that we'd curb-stomp the ever-loving shite out of anyone who started it again, in addition to overfunding Isreal's air force.

No, we didn't. In fact the most we have ever came to saying that we'd "curb-stomp" ( ) the Arab states is by us amply funding the IDF. I might add that the IDF in the years before the Yom Kippur war(which was the last major war, not the SIX Day War, you idiot) was armed with whatever Israel could afford, not a wishlist handed out by Joe Q. Taxpayer. And they kicked ass and took names against Arab states that were heavily subsidized by the Russians.

How old are you?

I seriously advise you to quit now while you're, well, not as behind as you're going to get. That you're misnaming wars and the order that they happened in tells me that you really don't have the foggiest clue as to what you're talking about.

[ShadowDragon8685]

In this case, the Duchess's analysis (the beating the tar out of the Israeli Navy would be easy) is pretty well established, by professional military analysts. I've read some of the analysis, even.

Remember, sometimes the experts are right...

The Duetschemarine folded more or less like a wet paper bag once the Allies established air control; so surely it must have been a cakewalk invading and conquering all the way to Berlin, right?

First off, the IAF would put up the steepest air fight that this world has ever seen, a true clash of modern and ultramodern air power, and the U.S. naval aviation field would lose a hell of a lot more than it ever bargained for in a fight with anyone except Russia or China. Second off, you'd be provoking an insurgency from a people who have spent the better part of a century combating an insurgency. Compared to the Israelis, they'd make every insurgency witnessed in the 20th and 21st centuries look like rank amatuers.

I'm not saying that taking Isreal wouldn't be possible; it would be patently possible. But the butcher's bill will be far, far higher than we ever want to pay - expect the fleets launching the fighters to get nuked at the very least. Then we'll have to win the initial fight against the Israeli army, on their home turf and with technology far, far in advance of what the Republican Guards in Iraq had. And then we have to fight an insurgency against a people who know our equipment and tactics probably better than we do, and have been countering an insurgency for longer than most of the people fighting the war will have been alive.

Possible, yes. But it will make Vietnam and Iraq look like warm-up runs. And we'll be waging it against a Western society, so you won't even be able to play up the xenophobic hatred of brown people or little tan people; public support will start in the shitter, and it can only go worse from there.

Frankly, I think the American public would quite sooner see the U.S. withdraw from NATO than be dragged by a Muslim country into conquering and occupying a nation which still enjoys vast levels of public support. You bet your ass that the next wave of politicians to be elected will be a clean-sweep of pro-Israli/extreme isolationists, who will promptly make everything worse.

So, no. It will not be easy. Sinking their navy might be easy, in the same way that letting Captain Shepilov rake the decks of an unarmed freighter with gunfire and then sink it with a torpedo cracking the keel would be easy.

What, Israel? Not really. The US is pretty much their only friend. The problem is that Israel has nothing to offer any country that makes up for the price that country pays in the rest of the Middle East for supporting them. We do it more or less out of charity (as in, because there are millions of American voters who are either Jewish and support Israel just as Irish-Americans support the IRA, or because there are millions of American voters who see Israel as the front line against Vaguely Defined Muslim Enemies).

The Russians might well see value in supporting anybody who pisses the fuck off out of Turkey, and the Chinese seem to be preferring to get their oil from non-Mideast countries, so they might not give a good goddamn about pissing off the Mideast if Isreal can prove to be worth their while. Hint: with all their inroads made into American military technology and the nigh-legendary intelligence of the MOSSAD, the Chinese would probably find it worth their while to support a little country in it's fight against several neighbors, none of whom pose any threat to China, economic, political or military.

(For that matter, we've backed Isreal to the hilt so far, and the Mideast still sells to us. So I see no reason they wouldn't continue to sell to China, all the whilst grumbling about the Allahless Great Eastern Satan.)

At this point, the Israelis have pissed off enough of the rest of the planet that no one is going to grant them the massive military aid they rely on in order to outgun all their neighbors.

If you're willing to dance with the devil, you can almost always find a devil willing to dance with you. In this case, if the Isrealis feel like the U.S. has sold them upriver, they'd probably not think twice about selling us upriver in kind, by trading all their information on us to the Russians or Chinese.

Worse, pulling aid would start a war - in the Israeli's position, if the US pulled all of it's support, I'd be left with the choice between certain anihilation at the hands of the arab hordes who have declared mission statements to "drive us into the sea," and pre-emptively launching a blitzkrieg attack (and yes, that was deliberate) to put myself in the position of momentum in the hope I can somehow survive this nightmare. I sure wouldn't want to wait and hope the surrounding peoples decide they just don't feel like making good on all their threats today, and tomorrow, and the day after that.

...Is there not the possibility of them going "holy fuck we'd better do stuff different so we can get the money again!"

I mean, that's what I'd do. I'd rather change my behavior than trigger a massive war that I probably wouldn't be able to win without a steady supply of advanced weapons that I don't have.

Maybe, but they'd have to try and figure out if they can (a) survive long enough to make nice before they get overrun from without, and (b) figure out if the new terms we supply won't result in them coming under siege from the strip again. And (c) weigh those against the possibilities of inflicting enough damage on the nearby territories to completely eliminate their ability to launch an overrun before I run out of those advanced weapons. If you strike fast and hard enough with air power, you can anihilate the other guy's ability to wage offensive war in the short and medium terms. The seven days' war proved this.

Me, I'd feel better if I'd smashed the Egyptian, Jordanian and Saudi ability to project power completely and utterly, and then try to make nice. Better to beg forgiveness and all that; plus it would make the rest of the world (including us) wonder just how far they're willing to go if we make them feel entirely isolated. Nobody wants to see nukes dropped after all, but I garuntee that they'd quite gladly nuke wherever they could drop the bombs if it seemed as if they were going to be overrun. We would, too.

As it is, I just don't give a damn. From a practical point of view, Israel is a heat magnet. Supporting them means that there's a hell of a lot of terrorism-loving jihadist wannabes in the states around them all focused on thinking of ways to make Israeli lives miserable without pulling the U.S. into a full-scale war. If there weren't any Israelis there, they'd be living the high life consolidating their power and thinking about jihading into other places.

So, given your familiarity with Arab history, what makes you think that there would even be a jihadist fundamentalist movement in the Middle East without an Israel for it to react against? Or that it would be aggressive and expansionist, as the Taliban and the Iranian ayatollahs have not been?

Did you forget September 11, 2001? The Taliban didn't have to sail here under the Afghanistani flag to tacitly support the most devastating attack upon American soil since December 7, 1941.

When dealing with a people that hate our way of life intrinsically and without possible reconciliation, I'd quite frankly rather not take the risk of letting them plot and scheme in peace; Isreal is a safety outlet, since it keeps their attentions focused on that tiny strip instead of supporting a supposedly-deniable 'asset' in attacking us.

They have relations with Israel currently; but do remember that to Muslims, a truce with the infidel is "written in sand," IE, just a cease-fire to lull the infidel into a false sense of security and re-arm. If they thought they could wipe Israel off the map and get nothing but a sternly-worded letter in reply, do I think they'd jump at the chance? Faster than you can say "Bombs away."

On what evidence do you base this belief?

Have you forgotten the six-day war? Grudges don't vanish easily, and this entire thread is about people doing shitty things to others if they can get away with it. If Isreal's relations with everyone else froze to the point that they wouldn't be aided even if there were tanks rolling through Tel Aviv, and if the surrounding nations were convinced they could effectively neutralize the Isreali ability to nuke them in retaliation, I am quite convinced the would take that option and get rid of the Isreali agitators once and for all.

...This is foolish, and here's why:

1) The Germans were not faced with any imminent threat that required military buildup.

How much worse would it have been if they had been?

2) In 1933 the Germans had a perfectly sound international system to call on if they desperately needed to repel an invader; the only reason it wasn't still around in the late '30s was because they (and the Italians) helped kick it to pieces.

And who's going to come to Isreal's aid at this stage?

Though so. Now if we make it clear we no longer support them, who's left?

Riiight. Nobody.

3) There was no objective reason why the Germans had to continue their policy of territory annexation after reoccupying the Rhineland. Or after the Anschluss. Or after Munich and the annexation of the Sudetenland. If they had stopped at any of those points, they would have still had a very strong strategic position in central Europe, without fighting a general war.

I do believe I pointed that out. Once the conquest ball gets rolling, once the killing ball gets rolling, the people who're on the winning side start to like it. I'm just as certain as I am that if they could eradicate Isreal without suffering reprecussions, the surrounding Arabs would, that if Isreal could anihiliate or effectively anihiliate the surrounding states without suffering reprecussions, they would.

Or do you really believe that if Germany had not declared war on the Allies, the Allies would have declared war on Germany? It is to laugh.

There were those within the allies who were seriously talking about pre-emptively throwing down with Hitler's ass. As it happened, they were right. The Allies would've had things go a lot smoother if they had pre-emptively called a general ganking against Germany.

No, we didn't. In fact the most we have ever came to saying that we'd "curb-stomp" ( ) the Arab states is by us amply funding the IDF. I might add that the IDF in the years before the Yom Kippur war(which was the last major war, not the SIX Day War, you idiot) was armed with whatever Israel could afford, not a wishlist handed out by Joe Q. Taxpayer. And they kicked ass and took names against Arab states that were heavily subsidized by the Russians.

Isn't it possible for someone to know what they're talking about and misname it? Especially when the two conflicts are divided by the interval of one frigging interger? And I was referring to the IAF's performance in the six day war.

How old are you?

You can't figure it out?

I seriously advise you to quit now while you're, well, not as behind as you're going to get. That you're misnaming wars and the order that they happened in tells me that you really don't have the foggiest clue as to what you're talking about.

And I seriously advise you to stop being a gobshite and telling me to stop talking. I'm not trolling, I'm allowed to talk. Here's a rusty spoon, I imagine you can guess what you're cordially invited to perform upon yourself with it.

[Lonestar]

Isn't it possible for someone to know what they're talking about and misname it? Especially when the two conflicts are divided by the interval of one frigging interger? And I was referring to the IAF's performance in the six day war.

(1)Not when you fuck up the timeline of wars as well.
(2)You were referring to us "rolling in" afterwards. That happened, at best, during the Yom Kippur war(and we were airlifting material, not "rolling in"), not the Six-days war.

You can't figure it out?

Twelve? At an age when you don't even have pubes yet, all your peers(I hesistate to say "friends") do, so to compensate you talk like a big man on the internets?

And I seriously advise you to stop being a gobshite and telling me to stop talking. I'm not trolling, I'm allowed to talk. Here's a rusty spoon, I imagine you can guess what you're cordially invited to perform upon yourself with it.

Listen kid,

You do not have the foggiest of notions of the timeline of the Arab-Israeli conflicts.

You can't even name the wars right.

You do not have the faintest idea of the actual security relationship the US has with Israel with regards to neighboring states.

You also do not have the faintest idea of the actual security relationships that the US has with the Neighboring Arab states(and Turkey).

I highly recommend you cut your losses and go.

[ShadowDragon8685]

Isn't it possible for someone to know what they're talking about and misname it? Especially when the two conflicts are divided by the interval of one frigging interger? And I was referring to the IAF's performance in the six day war.

(1)Not when you fuck up the timeline of wars as well.
(2)You were referring to us "rolling in" afterwards. That happened, at best, during the Yom Kippur war(and we were airlifting material, not "rolling in"), not the Six-days war.

All right. I seem to have conflated the Camp David accords with the end of the Six-Day's War. I was wrong.

You can't figure it out?

Twelve? At an age when you don't even have pubes yet, all your peers(I hesistate to say "friends") do, so to compensate you talk like a big man on the internets?

He who liveth in glass houses ought not cast stones.

And I seriously advise you to stop being a gobshite and telling me to stop talking. I'm not trolling, I'm allowed to talk. Here's a rusty spoon, I imagine you can guess what you're cordially invited to perform upon yourself with it.

Listen kid,

You do not have the foggiest of notions of the timeline of the Arab-Israeli conflicts.

As a matter of fact I do; foggy it might be, but I do in fact have a notion of the timeline.

You can't even name the wars right.

If they wouldn't name them after the number of time intervals they took, it might not be so bloody easy for someone who's given to transposing numbers if he's in a groove to mix them up!

You do not have the faintest idea of the actual security relationship the US has with Israel with regards to neighboring states.

Seems pretty clear to everyone the (current situation is the) implied threat that if the Arab nations look to be about to overrun Isreal that we'd intervene and run them the hell out of town shock and awe style.

You also do not have the faintest idea of the actual security relationships that the US has with the Neighboring Arab states(and Turkey).

Our security relationship with Turkey is that they're a member of NATO, whom we are obliged to defend if they are attacked. Our relationship with Saudi Arabia is that we'll suck their cock on any issue except them invading Isreal thanks to all that delicious, delicious black gold. Our relationship with Egypt is pretty much the same, except it's more along the lines of them not being general shitcocks to us and not deciding to close the Suez to ships that deliver us and our friends things that we like to have. Jordan, well, I'll admit that I know nothing about our relationship with them; from this I can infer that we don't really have one, positive or negative; they're kind of there, and we don't hate them enough to say anything bad about them, and they aren't exporting any huge petrochemical plunder, nor do they control vital shipping routes.

I highly recommend you cut your losses and go.

And I highly reccomend you try swirling the spoon while it's going in.

[Lonestar]

He who liveth in glass houses ought not cast stones.

I told you to take a rusty spoon and inflict bodily harm with it to yourself? I'm running aorund screaming "YAR WE CAN'T REMIND ISRAEL WHOSE BOSS IN THE RELATIONSHIP BECAUSE THE AY-RABS WILL INVADE!"?

Sure thing sport.

As a matter of fact I do; foggy it might be, but I do in fact have a notion of the timeline.

You just admited you screwed up a (1)Name with a (2)War that caused the uS to step in with (3)a peace conference.

No you don't.

If they wouldn't name them after the number of time intervals they took, it might not be so bloody easy for someone who's given to transposing numbers if he's in a groove to mix them up!

I know! Man, if only I made even the briefest of searches on google or wiki to make sure I know what the hell I was talking about!

Seems pretty clear to everyone the (current situation is the) implied threat that if the Arab nations look to be about to overrun Isreal that we'd intervene and run them the hell out of town shock and awe style.

Yeah? Because I'm pretty sure the extent to our security agreements with Israel are "give them tools(at taxpayer expense) for self defense", not "get entangled in a war with a good portion of the Arab world".

Our security relationship with Turkey is that they're a member of NATO, whom we are obliged to defend if they are attacked.

It's a bit more complex than that. See, unlike the Israelis, they also give in our relationship with them. For us and Turkey, it really IS a two way street. Israel is a parasite.

Our relationship with Saudi Arabia is that we'll suck their cock on any issue except them invading Isreal thanks to all that delicious, delicious black gold.

Close.

Our relationship with Egypt is pretty much the same, except it's more along the lines of them not being general shitcocks to us and not deciding to close the Suez to ships that deliver us and our friends things that we like to have.

Nope, guess again.

HINT: It has to do with that peace conference you were referring to when you misnamed the war in an incorrect point in the timeline when we rode in.

Jordan, well, I'll admit that I know nothing about our relationship with them; from this I can infer that we don't really have one, positive or negative; they're kind of there, and we don't hate them enough to say anything bad about them, and they aren't exporting any huge petrochemical plunder, nor do they control vital shipping routes.

Try harder.

And I highly reccomend you try swirling the spoon while it's going in.

Man, is middle school out for summer already?

[ShadowDragon8685]

I told you to take a rusty spoon and inflict bodily harm with it to yourself? I'm running aorund screaming "YAR WE CAN'T REMIND ISRAEL WHOSE BOSS IN THE RELATIONSHIP BECAUSE THE AY-RABS WILL INVADE!"?

I said we can't withdraw our support from Isreal without risking massively destabalizing the region, fucknuts. I didn't say that we couldn't try other methods to bring them to heel - I said it wasn't worth it to fucking try.

I'm saying that nothing short of the strongest measures stand a chance of working, and I'm too fucking apathetic to the situation to bother with anything less. Let them have at each other. It's no skin off our nose.

As a matter of fact I do; foggy it might be, but I do in fact have a notion of the timeline.

You just admited you screwed up a (1)Name with a (2)War that caused the uS to step in with (3)a peace conference.
No you don't.[/quote]

I said a notion, and foggy. I have the important points down: Arab states and Isreal have repeatedly clashed, in each instance Isreal has survived and pushed back, and usually they come out ahead, and it all tends to end with the rest of the world sitting them down at a table to tell them to behave, please.

I have no reason to believe that if we withdraw our support, they won't go back to clashing with each other.

I know! Man, if only I made even the briefest of searches on google or wiki to make sure I know what the hell I was talking about!

Rusty Spoon. You get the idea.

Yeah? Because I'm pretty sure the extent to our security agreements with Israel are "give them tools(at taxpayer expense) for self defense", not "get entangled in a war with a good portion of the Arab world".

Do you really think we wouldn't intervene if, say, it looked as if Tel Aviv was about to fall? I'm quite certain we would, if for no other reason than any President and his party that allowed the Isreali state to be conquered on their watch would be more or less anihilated in the coming election cycle.

But since we don't want to have to do that, we'd prefer to give Isreal enough toys that they can curb-stomp anyone who tries on their own.

It's a bit more complex than that. See, unlike the Israelis, they also give in our relationship with them. For us and Turkey, it really IS a two way street. Israel is a parasite.

Yes, but in much the same way a family pet can be technically described as a parasite. We do get something out of it - maybe not material goods and maybe they're not perched on a vital shipping lane, but we still get something out of it.

Nope, guess again.

HINT: It has to do with that peace conference you were referring to when you misnamed the war in an incorrect point in the timeline when we rode in.

Go ahead and enlighten me, then; exactly what the fuck do we get from Egypt besides the Suez canal being open and a warm, fuzzy feeling and a second parasite?

Try harder.

Really, who gives a flying fuck about Jordan? If they don't go and kick the apple cart over, I doubt very much we'd give a damn one way or another.

Man, is middle school out for summer already?

Don't you already know?

[Simon_Jester]

In this case, the Duchess's analysis (the beating the tar out of the Israeli Navy would be easy) is pretty well established, by professional military analysts. I've read some of the analysis, even.Remember, sometimes the experts are right...

The Duetschemarine folded more or less like a wet paper bag once the Allies established air control; so surely it must have been a cakewalk invading and conquering all the way to Berlin, right?

Berlin wasn't in artillery range of the coastline.

First off, the IAF would put up the steepest air fight that this world has ever seen, a true clash of modern and ultramodern air power, and the U.S. naval aviation field would lose a hell of a lot more than it ever bargained for in a fight with anyone except Russia or China.

While the Israeli Air Force is probably more competent than the Israeli Navy, they haven't got the size or strategic depth to fight the US. The Turks? I do not know, but again it is worth bearing in mind that the entire country is within missile range of ships (or planes) off the coast. That means their air defense centers are easy targets, and they cannot deploy air defense networks between those centers and the incoming planes.

Second off, you'd be provoking an insurgency from a people who have spent the better part of a century combating an insurgency. Compared to the Israelis, they'd make every insurgency witnessed in the 20th and 21st centuries look like rank amatuers.

Do you have any actual evidence for this, or are you just making it up? Fighting guerillas (and not all that effectively, I may add) does not make you an effective guerilla in your own right.

I'm not saying that taking Isreal wouldn't be possible; it would be patently possible. But the butcher's bill will be far, far higher than we ever want to pay - expect the fleets launching the fighters to get nuked at the very least. Then we'll have to win the initial fight against the Israeli army, on their home turf and with technology far, far in advance of what the Republican Guards in Iraq had. And then we have to fight an insurgency against a people who know our equipment and tactics probably better than we do, and have been countering an insurgency for longer than most of the people fighting the war will have been alive.

Why? I mean really, why?

What would the objective of this war be? It is not simply "devastate Israel." This war would be an extension of political objectives- to place the Israelis in a situation where they must agree to certain conditions. Such as allowing ships inspected by the customs agents of certain neutral countries to carry humanitarian aid into Gaza. Or, if we're feeling ambitious, altering their general Palestinian policy.

And those objectives can be achieved well short of total war that ends with an occupation of Israel contested by Jewish guerillas, as should be obvious to you. Israel cannot afford to fight a war of annihilation against a modern opponent once its own supplies of modern weapons are cut off, because it needs those weapons to fight the surrounding Arab states by your own damn argument. Which means, again as should be obvious to you, that they will call for terms if they're not too stupid to realize that not every war is a computer game war of total national annihilation.

The Russians might well see value in supporting anybody who pisses the fuck off out of Turkey, and the Chinese seem to be preferring to get their oil from non-Mideast countries, so they might not give a good goddamn about pissing off the Mideast if Isreal can prove to be worth their while. Hint: with all their inroads made into American military technology and the nigh-legendary intelligence of the MOSSAD, the Chinese would probably find it worth their while to support a little country in it's fight against several neighbors, none of whom pose any threat to China, economic, political or military.

So. Can you show any examples of Russian or Chinese approaches to Israel, or is this just pure random speculation based on the axiom that if we don't, someone else will?

(For that matter, we've backed Isreal to the hilt so far, and the Mideast still sells to us. So I see no reason they wouldn't continue to sell to China, all the whilst grumbling about the Allahless Great Eastern Satan.)

Yeah, but they also export terrorists to us. China has no interest in beocming the Great Eastern Satan and becoming a high-profile target for major terrorist attacks, any more than we do. We accept the price because there's a big pro-Israel constituency in our government. China doesn't have such a constituency.

Did you forget September 11, 2001? The Taliban didn't have to sail here under the Afghanistani flag to tacitly support the most devastating attack upon American soil since December 7, 1941.

The Taliban were not expansionist, and you will note that they did not launch the attack themselves. They supported the attack, yes, and we rightly held them responsible, but they supported the attack for reasons that had nothing to do with long term Taliban objectives of overthrowing the US (or anything else). They put up with Al Qaeda because Al Qaeda was supporting their own rather shaky rule.

Now, you're still dodging the question by using platitudes instead of answers. Would there be a strong Islamic fundamentalist movement if Israel as we know had not been founded? If so, why so? And Do you think that if the movement existed, it would be strongly expansionist and aggressive against Western powers? If so, why so? What is your evidence? Do you have a historical argument here, or does the limit of your reasoning extend to "well, they're Ay-rabs, so they hate our freedom!"

They have relations with Israel currently; but do remember that to Muslims, a truce with the infidel is "written in sand," IE, just a cease-fire to lull the infidel into a false sense of security and re-arm. If they thought they could wipe Israel off the map and get nothing but a sternly-worded letter in reply, do I think they'd jump at the chance? Faster than you can say "Bombs away."

On what evidence do you base this belief?

Have you forgotten the six-day war? Grudges don't vanish easily, and this entire thread is about people doing shitty things to others if they can get away with it. If Isreal's relations with everyone else froze to the point that they wouldn't be aided even if there were tanks rolling through Tel Aviv, and if the surrounding nations were convinced they could effectively neutralize the Isreali ability to nuke them in retaliation, I am quite convinced the would take that option and get rid of the Isreali agitators once and for all.

So, what is your evidence that today, not forty years ago, the Arab states would launch an immediate attack on Israel (which, you will note, they aren't necessarily mobilized to do) the moment they scented blood in the water?

The time between the present and the Six Day War is twice that between the Six Day War and the founding of Israel. What is your reasoning when you claim that times have not changed, given how much has changed in the domestic Arab political situation? Remember that the Arab-nationalist leaders who backed the Six Day War are now gone, mostly replaced by corrupt autocrats who profit politically from leaving Israel in place because it gives them an excuse for endless saber-rattling.

...This is foolish, and here's why:
1) The Germans were not faced with any imminent threat that required military buildup.

How much worse would it have been if they had been?

Did you even understand what I just said? My point is that your claim that Germany was faced with some actual threat that required them to stage a buildup was flat wrong. You said "The German people were thrust into a desperate position during the lead-up to the second world war." That's not true; the Germans weren't in a desperate position at all, or at least not one they needed to shoot their way out of.

So your implication (that the German strategy of aggression was a predictable response to feeling trapped) falls flat on its face; such a response is not justified and should not be tolerated by responsible states. If Israel wishes to be a responsible state, one that makes a good faith effort to honor international laws and refrains from vindictive abuses against civilian populations, then they deserve our sympathy and support. If not, they do not, and they aren't so tough that we should be mortally afraid of a limited confrontation with them.

Or do you really believe that if Germany had not declared war on the Allies, the Allies would have declared war on Germany? It is to laugh.

There were those within the allies who were seriously talking about pre-emptively throwing down with Hitler's ass. As it happened, they were right. The Allies would've had things go a lot smoother if they had pre-emptively called a general ganking against Germany.

And yet they did not, and you're still missing my point.

Nazi Germany may have thought it was threatened, and that somehow the answer to this threat was to conquer France and the Ukraine. They were wrong. And in being wrong, they provoked a major war, and their country was utterly devastated as a consequence. This should be a lesson to us, in the basic flaw of the "cold calculus of survival" as you put it. Like individual survivalists, survivalist nations are prone to paranoia and misunderstanding of what they need to do to counter a threat. Unlike individuals, survivalist nations' paranoia and bad strategy can hurt innocent people. There is a limit to how far we should be willing to tolerate that paranoia.

I seriously advise you to quit now while you're, well, not as behind as you're going to get. That you're misnaming wars and the order that they happened in tells me that you really don't have the foggiest clue as to what you're talking about.

And I seriously advise you to stop being a gobshite and telling me to stop talking. I'm not trolling, I'm allowed to talk. Here's a rusty spoon, I imagine you can guess what you're cordially invited to perform upon yourself with it.

He's not telling you to stop talking; he's advising you to stop making an idiot of yourself. There's a difference.