Printable View
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20579248
Why did Israel think the best way to respond to a UN vote is to build more settlements in disputed land.
Can someone who is well versed on the matter, or someone who has a strong Pro Israel viewpoint try and explain the rational for this?
I just can't understand what they are hoping to achieve, other than conflict.
Its all Irans fault with their one proto-nuke and Syria with their chems!
I'm not an expert on any of the middle east issues but I do feel that it has become so muddied that it is now tit for tat,; nobody knows who started it but everyone says we did this because you did that.
It does appear the Israeli treasury is trying to reduce the defence budget:Quote:
Originally Posted by blueball
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...274828,00.html
However,the rest of the government does not want that.
Also,the US defence budget looks like it will be reduced by up to $500 billion in the next 10 years:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...686d091e503d07
Now,remember Israel gets billions of dollars in defence aid from the US very year. Hence,having conflict means,the Israeli defence lot can still say they need to maintain spending and moreover it would mean their supporters in the US could also make that case.
Moreover,with the sabre rattling which is happening in the US regarding the middle east,it does make me think whether peace is really in the best interests of many people. Defence spending is a way for make people to make money. Peace does not drive forward defence spending.
i went to Gaza 3 years ago after operation cast lead , don't believe the the rubbish you get on the bbc or sky, the Palestinians live under the iron fist of the Israelis, they cant leave Gaza !! its like a concentration camp nothing comes in or out unless they smuggle it , limited water/electricity/food/medicine etc.......
we couldn't take in pasta because of the calorific content !
the Palestinians have always lived on this land they did not move here from russia or poland
massive tragedy
Well we could argue that all night. The region has belonged to so many people nobody knows who owns it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine
good thing your not Palestinian then , eh ?Quote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
for me this sums up the whole insanity of the problem , progress being dependent on killing each other rather than helping , as long as you endorse that you might as well be over their killing innocent Palestinians yourself .
It will never end until everything is destroyed which is precisely why it never has - yet
You mix money , weapons and war as the answer to our solutions and you will cause x 100 as many problems just to create a new one , and i dont think SABRE (Synergistic Air-Breathing Rocket Engine) is going to exactly solve or help diplomatic solutions do you ?
Would any of you enjoy being slaves ?
So this idea of containing the situation is BS , because countries being weaponized only increase the threat to start with till someones get hurts .
Divide and Conquer as they say , but whose doing the conquering certainly not the 99%
BTW that 1 % is comprised of a helluva lot of Pro Israel folk too ( big surprise given most of them are Jewish ), so any war that helps them ( in addition to gaining technology they can profit from and use ) is pretty much a win /win situation.
Last time I checked there were no Palestinians or Iranians in the Bildergroup -so you tell me whose going to care there about how far they go in eliminating behind closed doors ?
If you ask me the reason technology isnt progressing is as much down towards that , and their cronies in the government responsible for things like this ?
m
That's exactly what we get on the BBC. So you're saying we shouldn't believe it? *confused*Quote:
Originally Posted by wazi
Relatively simple reasoning - 'do something we don't like and we'll punish you'. Backed up with the equally schoolyardish 'you do something you said you wouldn't and we'll do something worse that we said we wouldn't'.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAnimus
But then they truly believe the Palestinian authorities are behaving little better than children, so deserve to be treated like children.
It's nothing more sophisticated than a giant "**** you" to the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAnimus
Israel knows that it can do anything at all, without fear of UN intervention, because the USA has a permanent seat on the security council and will always veto anything that comes up and is negative towards Israel.
UN votes in a way Israel doesn't like? "Well **** you guys, look at how much we give a ****"
The USA's permanent seat on the security council hasn't stopped the UN pass resolutions against Israel.
Which obviously hasnt worked- besides the UN are hardly angels themselves .Quote:
Originally Posted by aidanjt
there is no such thing as allegiances when their all playing the same game ,thats why wealth is so unbalanced.
How many countries truly serve its people ?
Iceland perhaps but not many
m
Actually it all started when the surrounding neighbouring states invaded Israel the day after the British Mandate of Palestine was finally hammered out and the territory handed over to the Israelis. That invasion resulted in many (not all, 20% of Israel's civilian population are still) Arabs fleeing from their land to the surrounding states/lands. Those in surrounding Arab states are kept stranded as refugees in crappy camps, and Gaza has little room to grow, it's already one of the densest cities in the world. Then another invasion attempt loomed, secondly thwarted. Basically the modern history of the region involves Arabs harassing Israeli civilians with shelling/rocketry and Israel getting pissed off with it and militarily handing their asses to them, and then Arabs pissing over themselves at the UN exclaiming all manner of nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by blueball
That's it in a nutshell.
Still, the settlement building doesn't help matters. Certainly not as a 'punitive' measure.
Indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by melon
No, it started *way* before that. The same parties have been involved in struggles for that bit of land for thousands of years. The (re)creation of Israel by Britain and allies was just yet another time the Arab nations were pushed out to make room for an Israeli state.Quote:
Originally Posted by aidanjt
I was talking about modern history, but if we're talking ancient history, the ancient Hebrews have primacy claim. Arabs didn't even show up on the historical record until the 9th century BC.Quote:
Originally Posted by kalniel
But talking ancient history makes about as much sense as talking about the plantation of Ireland when dealing with The Troubles in Northern Ireland. What happened hundreds to thousands of years ago is irrelevant, what matters is where we are now, and how best to proceed.
No it's really not irrelevant. We in the West have short memories but that could be because we've seen so much change in identity. Other cultures do not have such short memories, and the conflict in the middle east is a direct continuation of historical events. They are fighting because of ancient claims, not in spite of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by aidanjt
But that is the problem surely?Quote:
Originally Posted by kalniel
In the same way nationalisim does nothing but devide people. This is whats going on. We all share a common ancestor if we go back far enough. Who decides how far back one goes? Someone who is trying to serve their own agenda. If there is no living memory of something been owned, I can't understand the rational behind it.
I'm guessing you've never been to iceland, and no nothing of its politics. Compared to Norway, it's population really do not conisder themselve served by their goverment.Quote:
Originally Posted by melon
Why are you bringing SABRE into this?? A civilian program?? Why don't go up to Alan Bond who has dedicated his life to his project,scavenging funding for decades to push it forward,and tell him that then.Quote:
Originally Posted by melon
Why the heck do you have an issue with space??
Its all a luddite attitude,the world has x problems,blah,blah. Using your logic we would have never invented metallurgy,since most weapons use metal.
The morons don't understand we have been killing each other since the stone age. Its always about people nothing else. Yet,as usual just use an axe to grind as an excuse to screw over something you don't like,which is exactly what you are doing. You don't even realise it.
How about you don't use want the flipping weather forcasts then?? Or TV? Or use GPS?? Or any flipping thing to do with space or any space related or derived technologies?? You might find things such as solar panels,synthetic fabrics, and titanium alloys being on the list too. Don't use them.
How about we fire half the aerospace engineers and scientists in this country then??
Typical of this country. Just spit on the educated people,that it is all about that nowadays and yet benefit from all the advances. There is no pride in our achievements, at all,nothing.
Selfish self-centred person.
Are you just jealous of people more intelligent than you?? Typical Dog in the Manger attitude.
If you want to be a luddite then stop being a hypocrite,run off into a field and live in ditch,and don't use any modern technology.
You live in a world of science,rely on it and then piss on the people who have dedicated their lives to it.
One of the best rants I can recall in a long time - somewhat justified as the SABRE programme has nothing to do with the issue of Arab/Israeli territorial conflict.Quote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
The Palestinians remind me of small boys poking a stick into a hornet's nest and then complaing about being stung. The Israelis like the school bully who complains when someone gives him a bloodied nose.
This is not a conflict that will be resolved militarily. But until the two sides reach a diplomatic solution, the conflict will continue - and the UN has hardly covered itself in glory over this.
Yes, the historical claims are exactly the problem, and in these cases probably go right back to sibling or familial squabbles of ancient ancestors and/or their slaves etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAnimus
Just an example, but take a father who dies leaving two sons and unclear heritage (rights to first born normally, except where given away. Dispute caused by giving away of rights then changing mind). Each son takes their own tribe and fights over the land. Their descendants continue the fight. Their descendants continue the fight.. and so on for 300 generations or more until you have two nations who both believe they have a legitimate right to the land and the insult to themselves so grave that they will accept nothing else but the annihilation of the other nation.
What is really funny is if you asked me a single device that has provided a level playing feild for the world, it would be the mobile phone. With the exception of Maritaunia, every place I've been no matter how *third world* has a good form of mobile service that is very popular with its residents.Quote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
We've seen the difference it makes in political opression. But also just transfering knowledge. The difference the latter makes is massive, I had the pleasure of working with someone who was teaching people about the benefits of irrigation, many farms don't understand how a little bit of time spent digging better ditches, money on materials for storage of water can massively double their yeilds. All of his work relied on mobile internet and smart phone cameras.
Both the CCD sensor and microwave radio as we know it are almostly entirely by products of war. Hot or Cold. They make massive impacts in the quality of life of all people. They also allow for people like us to know whats going on.
I'm also sick to death of this whole one percent nonsense. It's just a way of people waving their hand and vaugly saying those types rather than accurately describing the behaviour they dislike. For instance the ascersion that the 'one percent' support israil is nonsense. There are many rather wealthy oil types who definately don't. I'd hazard a guess that the support of Israil is probably inline with country of residence and other things rather than economic ranking.
Well your making a assumption there , if you take into account the world is far older and possibly was more advanced ( in more ways than one ) than we are now , then perhaps technology without weapons and the need for war , was possible - or at least far less of itQuote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
My point is using fear to justify progress is a losing argument and even moreso if you buy into the idea its ok because theirs violence any way and unrest.
Then where do you draw the line there ?
Thats like saying its anything goes because it doesnt matter any way.
And what makes you think wed be less advanced if not for war ?
What about curiosity and mystery and the unkown and dreams , are you telling me killing folk is what motivated Einstein or Newton .
So I say BS , id rather have a happier cohesive and honest world than a corrupt, spoiled and grossly unbalanced one as we do now, and if space is responsible for that, then maybe we shoulnt be poking our nose in others worlds until we can take care of our own.
After all even if we do colonise mars or somewhere what makes you think we'll do a better job than our own ?
How would alien respond too looking at our history and your own logic ?
Do you think it would want to be part of that war too , and if so then we better sure as hell be prepared , eh ?
m
The thing is I am quite aware,of people want to keep a war going on,as it is profitable,both in money and power. But,that is an issue with the system and the people behind it,which means people are the only way to change it.
It happens everywhere,but that is nothing to with technology though, which annoys me when people blame technology for the worlds ills,because 3000 years ago the same thing happened. You can have an AK47 under your bed,but no one is forcing you to ever use it. The weapon itself is an inanimate object. People using it,gives it the life to kill. Its just a very easy way to pass the buck and a very lame way. Yet many of use would be either not be alive now,or even in a worse position now if it were not for scientific advances.
Moreover,the fact that we are even aware of these issues,is due to scientific advances which lead to better communications. Go back 500 years and a lot of use would not even know what would be happening 10 miles out of their own village/town.
Space is a very easy whipping boy for it all by clueless people,and as usual it is a Dog in the Manger attitude. However,in the scheme of things,total space private and public spending is a fraction of what people spend on prostitutes,porn,alcohol,recreational drugs and cigarettes worldwide. In fact humanity spends more on cigarettes worldwide than all public and private space spending.
Although,it does make me think the neo-luddite movement must be smoking some strong crap.
WTF,has SABRE got to do with war?? Fear?? What?? Space is responsible for the world's ill??Quote:
Originally Posted by melon
Have you been smoking some CLASS AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA+ stuff or something?? You seem really confused.
You are just warping things to fit some weird agenda,as you seem to have an axe to grind. It seems a FUD based compaign at work here.
Edit!!
I see where this is going.
Chau!
Definitely worth watching this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TTlK5bOQ2c
yes, and people are full of emotions and egos which is why technology becomes more dangerous the more advanced it becomes , because although you can create an off switch for technology , you cant do it for people. ( Esp those in positions of power like governments / super elite )Quote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
And once people have taste of that power technology brings - there is no turning back - it becomes a lust for the sake of having even more that is only being controlled
by those ( super elite ) who clearly cant control it all.
They just keep taking and taking and...
m
While this might be a suitable topic for a thread in its own right, it is not particularly relevant to the OP here. Please keep to the topic, which was Israel's building programme in disputed territory.Quote:
Originally Posted by melon
I disagree , it doesnt have to be a whole thread , its just a straightforward point .Quote:
Originally Posted by peterb
ego + technology = Power
Power + Ego = More Power ( More Ego )
REPEAT
more ego + more technology = Even More Power .....
etc etc
Technology never satisfies it only creates the need for more , because our egos want more , for the same reason more wealth never makes any one happy
Its just cycle of greed created by our egos need.
m
Technology doesn't create the need for more. That's completely a human reaction. Technology, being largely inanimate, can only do what the user tells it to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melon
The thread is not about technology per se - it is about the politics of the region - while technology may be used in the exercise of political power, it is in itself peripheral to the politics - which is the point of the thread - keep it on topic. As I have the technology on my side, I have proved your point, Melon, by exercising the power it brings but I really don't want to remove any more off topic posts. My bucket of patience is not infinitely deep.Quote:
Originally Posted by Smudger
I started this thread because I'd genuinely like to hear from someone who thinks that it is the right thing for Israel to be doing....
This is because from my understanding I just can't see how it will possibly be.
Can you understand how from their perspective, it seems like the right thing to do? They consider it their land, and only held back from building on it in the past due to agreements which the 'other side' are now 'breaking'. They consider that they made it clear that building would be the consequence of the breaking of these agreements, so to not go through with it would be an unacceptable climb down and weaken their negotiation position for the future.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAnimus
Large parts of France belonged to England in the past, until the Crown lost it in various ways, does that mean we can just go and populate it again?Quote:
Originally Posted by kalniel
All the nice parts of the US used to belong to someone else until it was taken from them.
Times change, borders move and just because there is a historical claim does not mean its valid forever.
It's less a historical claim, and more one that god gave them that land, and they will have it. They stopped settlement only as a condition to the bilateral peace talks. Since Palestine has asked to be recognised as an observer state, a unilateral action, Israel no longer feels bound to the agreement to stop taking the land god gave them. Obviously I don't agree with Israel, but its a case of 'when the dust settles and lines are drawn on the map, they will be drawn around where people live'. If they can squat (by force) on this land for long enough, they are de facto annexing it and it would be difficult for international negotiations and treaties to give it back to Palestine. Possession is 9/10 of the law, afterall...Quote:
Originally Posted by BobF64
Its more the Allies gave it to them,eventually. In the end it was the Palestinians,who were betrayed,so that Europe could repay its guilt over The Holocaust.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreaming
This is the issue for me, it doesn't appear in anyway exceptable for force your belief in religious entitlment over someone who is already occupying that land.Quote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
It might be a horrible side effect of me being an athiest, but I'd demand proof, and I'd fight to the death, with any means at my disposal to get that I suppose. This means I can completely sympathsis with the Palistinian side.
I would love to hear a good argument from someone of how you can morally annex someones land, because of a belief you can not proove, which the victim does not hold.
The land originally given was much less, then there was the war with Egypt, Jordan etc. where they flounced the opposition and legally annexed some land (but which was later returned with peace treaties) expanding their borders to the '1967 borders'.Quote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
Since then they have had a process of expanding and annexing additional land within the 'palestinian area', but have said they will trade land on a 1:1 ratio (however they are planning to trade desert in exchange for valuable land around Tel Aviv). Jerusalem for example has been completely annexed despite the UN saying it does not belong to Israel. Israel believes when the day finally comes to settle the score, they can say 'this is where our people are, and so it is our land' whilst at the same time refusing the right to return for Palestinians from those areas.
A lot of the expansion is mainly done for practical purposes e.g. a lack of affordable housing close to Tel Aviv.
If say a rape victim, was let go under the promise they never went to the police. Then said victim went to the police. I would have just as much sympathy for them as if they had never made such a promise. Promises and agrements made under duress in my mind need not be honoured.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreaming
Ultimately the only way I can see this being resolved is with both sides having equal recognition, with a nutural combined paramilatery police force enforcing any agreements.
I'm in agreement with you, and so it seems are the majority of the world:Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAnimus
http://107cowgate.files.wordpress.co...pg?w=500&h=309
I think it was just easier for Europe, to basically not really address the aftermath of what happened to the Jewish people and all the anti-semitism which had brewed up for a century, and instead remove their guilt and any problems in a sort of "out of sight,out of mind" way. Present the Jewish people with a pancea to their problems,then we don't need to worry about them in our back yard sort of attitude. The colonial powers did it to other parts of the world,and it is more a case of doing anything so you can just wash your hands of it quickly. Of course,that short sighted attitude caused more problems than it solved.
I don't think 'we can just go and populate it again' - France's military sizable and they would enjoy great support from other nations. But perhaps you're actually asking 'should we'? - in our situation the answer is clearly no. But we are not Israel, and we are not Israelies.Quote:
Originally Posted by BobF64
Israel believe different - it's an everlasting covenant, to be taken away and returned as God alone decides.Quote:
Times change, borders move and just because there is a historical claim does not mean its valid forever.
I wouldn't be so quick to sympathise entirely with one position over another - while forcing another populace out for religious reasons is absolutely repugnant, so is wanting to rid the world of another race, which is what many of the 'other sides' want.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAnimus
You've got two sides, one of which wants what it considers its own land, the other of which wants to annihilate the first.
In the eyes of some, the demand for land is the lesser of the two evils, because they do not want to wipe out the other people (they believe harm should only be either in defence or if for retribution it must be proportionate - an eye for an eye means *only* an eye for an eye, no more).
Bear in mind as well Israelis are taught they were 'ripped off' when the borders were drawn up initially - that they were supposed to have a large chunk of land but ended up with this tiny strip that bore little resemblance to the promised Israel. That's a tough pill to swallow if you've been waiting x000 years to have your land back.
Here's my take on answering the OP:
I think Israel are acting this way because they feel that no matter what happens they can't rely on the UN to uphold their interests. I can think of two main reasons for this, first, historically the UN in it's votes and actions has been hugely pro-'Palestinian'/anti-Israel and second, perhaps most significantly, there is very little, if anything, said to address the biggest Israel concern, the massive anti-Israel stance of many Arabs in the area. To put it more specifically, demands are made of Israel, but rarely is anything heard of demands that the Arabs in the area must accept the valid existence of the nation of Israel. That is the underlying issue which for some reason doesn't come to light, the elephant in the room, and since the UN wont acknowledge the elephant, then Israel will take its own path.
Gaza being a prime example - Gaza was a piece of land held by Israel which was released to Arab control. It has since then become a prime launching ground for rockets into Israel. It seems to me to be a valid - and yet surprisingly unmentioned (by the UN) - concern of Israel that any further land ceded to Arab control will not also become grounds for further attacks into Israel.
TLDR - There has been, and continues to be, a strong belief amongst many Arabs that Israel is invalid and has no right to exist. More than this, that it is an Arab/Muslim duty to destroy Israel. This is the elephant in the room that for whatever reason the UN seems never to deal with and so the Israelis feel they cannot trust the UN and will have to look after themselves.