Wars and ConflictsΜύ permalink
.......Israel can't survive.
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Μύ
Posted by Erik Lindsay (U231970) on Sunday, 11th May 2008
The Canadian news magazine MacLean's headlines a recent cover story in this manner, and then explains. In essence, what it says is that if Israel continues, it can either be a Jewish state or it can be a democracy, but it cannot be both.
Why? Here's its justification for these observations:
Israel is currently living in a state of continued war with the Palestinian Arabs, and since Jews and Arabs of all faiths are now intermingling indiscriminately (in Gaza and the West Bank especially) this innate hostility cannot continue. Assuming Israel doesn't adopt a policy of genocide or "racial cleansing" and/or the peoples of these areas don't surreptitiously kill each other off, all will be united with Israel under a single government. Israel will then have two choices.
1. It can choose to be a democracy, and it's been boasting that it's the only one in the entire Middle East since its birth. That being the case, one assumes it would want to continue. In that circumstance, within a couple of decades the Muslim and Christian Arabs under Israeli control will outnumber the Jews. If each citizen has an equal voice (vote), which would have to be the situation if it's to remain a true democracy, the chances are very good that the country will cease to be controlled by a Jewish government, in which case it will no longer be a Jewish state. From the Jewish point of view -- unacceptable.
2. Of course the Jews of Israel could refuse to give equal voice to the peoples under its control, and insist that only the Jewish citizens could vote. In this case, it would retain its Jewish identity, but would no longer be a democracy, which it rather desperately wants to be known as -- at least that's what its people have always maintained. Not a democracy? Also unacceptable.
It seems like the Middle East has been a hotbed of unrest and violence forever, and it strikes me that this cannot continue much longer, ergo this could be an important question. So: What do you think? Comments? Observations? Predictions? Evaluations of the article? -
Message 2
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Sunday, 11th May 2008
Of course the Jews of Israel could refuse to give equal voice to the peoples under its control, and insist that only the Jewish citizens could vote. In this case, it would retain its Jewish identity, but would no longer be a democracyΜύ
Exactly when did Israel become a democracy?
After or before 1948?
Any country can win a vote if it drives out the opposition from its homeland.
Check out some background, e.g. the Balfour declaration and the Peel Commission Map. -
Message 3
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Monday, 12th May 2008
Erik,
Israel does not claim to offer either citizenship or the vote to those living in what we now call 'Palestine'. Nor, I think, do Jews and Arab Palestinians freely intermingle. If they did there would be a massacre. They are building a wall to stop such intermingling, and they perform high levels of security checks on any one crossing between Arab and Jewish controlled land.
There are a relatively small number of Arabs, both Christian and Muslim, living in Israel proper. They are the remnants of the Arab population that did not seek refugee status at the end of the 1948 war. However, I do not think that they are an immediate threat to Jewish hegemony within Israel.
The outcome you give is centred on the 'single state' solution. And it is why it will not happen.
A greater threat to Israel is the maintenance of perpetual enmity amongst Israel's neighbours. This situation requires permanent Israeli military dominance. As historians, we on this board should recognise that all powers fade over time. Seen in that light, Israel needs a settlement before too long that gives proper rights to the Palestinians. -
Message 4
Posted by Menudo (U11920660) on Monday, 12th May 2008
Israel is a democracy...if you are Jewish. The Canadian article is a statement of the obvious. All non Jews will eventually be squeezed out of Israel under one of several pretexts or incentives. Israelis have no intention of being displaced by prolific arab families.
M.
Re message #2.
When you start and lose four wars...itβs costs you real estate, especially when your enemy has been using the terrain it held prior to hostilities for taking pot shots at Israeli farmers. -
Message 5
Posted by Mike Alexander (U1706714) on Monday, 12th May 2008
...especially when your enemy has been using the terrain it held prior to hostilities for taking pot shots at Israeli farmers...Μύ I think many Brits would do the same if some foreign power decided to create a new state from scratch in the middle of their country. And it's not hard to lose four wars when your enemy's been armed to the teeth by the world's biggest superpower.
-
Message 6
Posted by cmedog47 (U3614178) on Monday, 12th May 2008
The long-term existence of Israel is seriously threatened and not just externally. The non-Jewish population within the nation is not so small and is growing as a percentage of the population. But while the national concept of "nationality" allows most modern democracies to assimilate aliens within their midst, Israel's national identity as a Jewish state does not. So it is a tribe of people defined by kin, with only nominal prospects for increase by expansion by religious conversion, and a low birth rate.
But then the same situation faces Europe in substance--while the European nations with low birth rates can technically assimilate their imported laborers by extending citizenship--assimilation in culture is not occurring so one is faced with European nations at some point in the distant future with old names but new populations and cultures.
The US faces a less threatening version of the same. It was once thought that southern Europeans were not assimilable to the American culture and civil life but such was not the case. While we too are facing change as a result of a lack of interest by American women of European descent in child bearing at replacement rates, the gap is not quite as great and the immigrant populations filling the gap are not so different, assimilate to the civic life after a generation or two, and share the majority faith. -
Message 7
Posted by MB (U177470) on Tuesday, 13th May 2008
The most important factor is the unquestioning support they get from the USA because of the powerful Jewish lobby there.
One day the number of Americans who do not agree with the huge amount of aid going to Israel will get enough power to start to reduce or end it.
MB -
Message 8
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Tuesday, 13th May 2008
Mike_Alexander,
"...especially when your enemy has been using the terrain it held prior to hostilities for taking pot shots at Israeli farmers..."
I think many Brits would do the same if some foreign power decided to create a new state from scratch in the middle of their country.Μύ
Which, I believe, is how England became England.
And it's not hard to lose four wars when your enemy's been armed to the teeth by the world's biggest superpower.Μύ
Since 1968, yes. Before then they bought from all over the market. France was their most important aircraft supplier. -
Message 9
Posted by Erik Lindsay (U231970) on Tuesday, 13th May 2008
Hi Kurt:
As usual, your observations cut to the core of the problem. I believe your post corresponds rather well with what the magazine article itself is claiming. Israel's non-jewish population is increasing while its Jewish birth rate is remaining rather static.
As far as the US is concerned, what I believe assists enormously in holding the American population together are the continual reminders - one could even, with justification, call patriotic propaganda - about how proud residents should be to be Americans and what a wonderful country it is; superior to all others in so many ways, etc. I know it grates on the nerves of those of other nations, but in a melting pot like the US, I think it's probably important. -
Message 10
Posted by Mike Alexander (U1706714) on Tuesday, 13th May 2008
Which, I believe, is how England became England.Μύ Exactly, and it didn't happen without a fight. And the conflict could have dragged on for longer, had it not been for the plague that swept through the Romano-Celtic world (in the 6th century, if memory serves).
-
Message 11
Posted by cmedog47 (U3614178) on Tuesday, 13th May 2008
Erik:
I think that is part of it. People are not made Americans in any useful or meaningful sense by handing out citizenship papers. It is a nation that is frankly defined by a civic ethic, and people become assimilated when they adopt that ethic as their own. It is a change of the heart, not legal status. Some immigrants are Americans before they get here. I know others who have been here 30 years and still see themselves as migrant workers taking advantage of an economic opportunity, and have no loyalty to the nation or the system. They cast their vote, in abrogation of their citizenship oath, for the benefit of their country of origin. But these folks have children who, much to their distress, don't give a fig for the old country or it's interests even as the parents grieve that their children are "too American".
Who wants to sign on to be part of a group that is apologizing for it's existence, does not passionately feel that it is tops and that being a part of it is something special. Without American Exceptionalism, America wouldn't just be more humble and less irritating to be around at cocktail parties, it would like a man whose soul is sickened rapidly decay and fracture.
I think that something of the sort is likely true for Canada as well. The Canadian self-concept, to borrow a marketing phrase from the the 70's, contains a heavy element of "the Un-America". It is a kind of exceptionalism, a proudfully worn badge of distinction. Where would Canada be without that? How long would it even remain together?
It saddens me that about the only "Englishmen" I know who are openly proud of all that England has to be proud of are Indians!
Back to the topic, I think Israel has traveled a long way on it's people's willingness to sacrifice for it because of their own sense of exceptionalism. Israel is also finished should her citizens come to see her as just another Western democracy with unfortunate geography. -
Message 12
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Wednesday, 14th May 2008
"And it's not hard to lose four wars when your enemy's been armed to the teeth by the world's biggest superpower."
But the multiple countries facing Israel had also been armed to the teeth by a superpower?
Plus Israel wan't armed by the US, the Use Franch, British, US and home grown equipment. -
Message 13
Posted by Mike Alexander (U1706714) on Wednesday, 14th May 2008
Wasn't it the airpower that really made the difference though?
-
Message 14
Posted by Colquhoun (U3935535) on Wednesday, 14th May 2008
Yes - French built Mirages in 1967.
-
Message 15
Posted by Steelers708 (U1831340) on Wednesday, 14th May 2008
"Plus Israel wan't armed by the US, the Use Franch, British, US and home grown equipment."
In the 1967 and 1973 wars the vast majority if the IDF's land equipment was American, or modified American for eg, M50 Sherman, M51 Sherman, M48 Patton, M60 Patton, M2/M3 Half-track, M113, M109 self-propelled howitzer, M107 self-propelled gun, M110 self-propelled howitzer, M50 self-propelled howitzer, along with British Centurions and approx 200 T54/55's that had been captured in earlier wars.
As for the Airforce it had a mixture of American (A-4 Skyhawks, F-4 Phantom II) and French (Mirage III, Mystere IV and Vautor) aircraft, along with the IAI Nesher(Mirage V).
The French Goverment put an arms embargo on Israel on the eve of the 1967 Six Day war.
And during the 1973 war the Americans made huge shipments of ammunition and spare parts etc to the Israeli's that were of vital importance at a critical time. -
Message 16
Posted by MB (U177470) on Wednesday, 14th May 2008
And during the 1973 war the Americans made huge shipments of ammunition and spare parts etc to the Israeli's that were of vital importance at a critical time.
Μύ
Aren't there reports that in one of the war the US painted out the markings on some aircraft on carriers in the Mediterranean and flew them to Israel to make up the losses of the Israeli air force?
I can never understand how they can give that amount of support when the Israeli deliberately killed 34 US servicemen on the USS Liberty.
MB -
Message 17
Posted by Mike Alexander (U1706714) on Wednesday, 14th May 2008
Well of course this was passed off as a 'mistake' - though certainly some didn't view it as such. Admiral George Morrison (father of Jim Morrison of the Doors!) argued that the Israelis were attempting to pass off their torpedo boats as Syrian vessels, in an attempt to provoke a US attack on Syria.
-
Message 18
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Wednesday, 14th May 2008
To Kurt
But then the same situation faces Europe in substance--while the European nations with low birth rates can technically assimilate their imported laborers by extending citizenship--assimilation in culture is not occurring so one is faced with European nations at some point in the distant future with old names but new populations and cultures.Μύ
Spot on Kurt.
Sounds like you have been to today's London. Schools with no white pupils are now commonplace.
Our capital has been given away. (The stats. show the fastest case of 'white-flight' since records began, far faster than NY in the 1960's)
The unspeakable truth is that is easier (for a white person) to feel kinship with a hard-working Polish catholic (a recent arrival) than a Pakistani Muslim, who probably arrived in 1972, whose wife perhaps still cannot speak a word of English and whose son might possibly be plotting to blow us up.
Jews displaced Arabs from "Palestine" by bribery, war, bullying and incessant immigration; as the multi-ethnic immigrant community has forever changed the face of London (and soon, the UK), by higher fertility and a more focused use of welfare housing and benefits. -
Message 19
Posted by ex4thhussar (U520216) on Thursday, 15th May 2008
JMB
You say" I can never understand how they can give that amount of support when the Israeli deliberately killed 34 US servicemen on the USS Liberty."
As someone who last personally experienced βfriendly fireβ in Italy in WW2 I have had to do a bit of research to remind myself of the details of the USS Liberty accident. I finally considered I could do a lot worse than quote Mitchell Bard on the subject (Mitchell Geoffrey Bard is an American foreign policy analyst who specializes in U.S.-Middle East policy).
In an article by Bard on July 10, 2003 entitled βDid Israel deliberately attack the USS Liberty?β the following major points were made.
1. The Israeli attack on the USS Liberty was a grievous error, largely attributable to the fact that it occurred in the midst of the confusion of a full-scale war in 1967.
2. Ten official United States investigations and three official Israeli inquiries have all conclusively established the attack was a tragic mistake.
3. None of Israel's accusers can explain why Israel would deliberately attack an American ship at a time when the United States was Israel's only friend and supporter in the world. Confusion in a long line of communications, which occurred in a tense atmosphere on both the American and Israeli sides (five messages from the Joint Chiefs of Staff for the ship to remain at least 25 miles - the last four said 100 miles - off the Egyptian coast arrived after the attack was over) is a more probable explanation.
4. Accidents caused by "friendly fire" are common in wartime. In 1988, the U.S. Navy mistakenly downed an Iranian passenger plane, killing 290 civilians. During the Gulf War, 35 of the 148 Americans who died in battle were killed by "friendly fire." In April 1994, two U.S. Black Hawk helicopters with large U.S. flags painted on each side were shot down by U.S. Air Force F-15s on a clear day in the "no fly" zone of Iraq, killing 26 people. In April 2002, an American F-16 dropped a bomb that killed four Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan. In fact, the day before the Liberty was attacked, Israeli pilots accidentally bombed one of their own armored columns (Hirsh Goodman and Ze'ev Schiff, "The Attack on the Liberty," Atlantic Monthly, September 1984).
5. Retired Admiral, Shlomo Erell, who was Chief of the Navy in Israel in June 1967, told the Associated Press (June 5, 1977): "No one would ever have dreamt that an American ship would be there. Even the United States didn't know where its ship was. We were advised by the proper authorities that there was no American ship within 100 miles."
6. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara told Congress on July 26, 1967: "It was the conclusion of the investigatory body, headed by an admiral of the Navy in whom we have great confidence, that the attack was not intentional."
7. Israel apologized for the tragedy and paid nearly $13 million in humanitarian reparations to the United States and to the families of the victims in amounts established by the U.S. State Department. The matter was officially closed between the two governments by an exchange of diplomatic notes on December 17, 1987. -
Message 20
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Thursday, 15th May 2008
JMB,
Aren't there reports that in one of the war the US painted out the markings on some aircraft on carriers in the Mediterranean and flew them to Israel to make up the losses of the Israeli air force?Μύ
Rumors and reports are two different things. -
Message 21
Posted by wollemi (U2318584) on Thursday, 15th May 2008
#1
In the event of demographic change, what the two choices fail to take into account is the response of the Jewish diaspora. Similar to citizens with dual nationality, could they not tip the balance back to a Jewish majority? -
Message 22
Posted by MB (U177470) on Thursday, 15th May 2008
Rumour and reports are different but there still can be something behind the rumours.
Government and the military are very good at suppressing the truth but it usually eventually comes through.
MB -
Message 23
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Thursday, 15th May 2008
"...Aren't there reports that in one of the war the US painted out the markings on some aircraft on carriers in the Mediterranean and flew them to Israel to make up the losses of the Israeli air force?..."
This idea raises, shall we say, some diffucult questions.
The crew of an aircraft carrier is huge. They are not all rabid Zionists. For this to be true, a relatively large number of individuals would need to be involved. Maintenance crew to re-paint, re-fuel and possibly re-arm them. Also, the aircrew themselves. and then no one noticed that many millions of dollars of equipment went missing ? The hangar deck would look a little empty, no ?
I would be a tad more convinced if you could name the aircraft carrier and even the war. They were separated by some years. The dispostion of the aircraft carriers should not be difficult to trace. Also, what type of aircraft ? Whenever vague rumour and Israel come together, scepticism should kick in. -
Message 24
Posted by Steelers708 (U1831340) on Thursday, 15th May 2008
TimTrack
"The crew of an aircraft carrier is huge. They are not all rabid Zionists. For this to be true, a relatively large number of individuals would need to be involved. Maintenance crew to re-paint, re-fuel and possibly re-arm them. Also, the aircrew themselves. and then no one noticed that many millions of dollars of equipment went missing ? The hangar deck would look a little empty, no ?"
Forgive me but the above statement is farcical, we are talking about Goverment actions, not actions carried out by a particular group of crewmen who happen to be "rabid zionists".
If the Israeli goverment had asked the US goverment for urgent replacement aircraft in either 1967 or 1973, common sense dictates that those aircraft (A4-Skyhawks & F-4 Phantom II's) could have been provided by those based on the US Sixth Fleet carriers stationed in the Mediterranean.
It would also be common sense for all markings on said planes to have been painted over so that there would be no accusations of direct US involvement,although President Nasser accused the US and Britain of being involved in the initial Israeli pre-emptive air strike in 1967 anyway, allegations which were later recanted by the Arab side.
As to tha "actual" rumour I've never heard it myself, although in 1970 when Syria invaded Jordan to support the PLO forces there, the Americans and Israelis threatened ground and air intervention in order to support King Hussain of Jordan. Part of this threatened intervention did involve flights into Israeli airports by aircraft of the US Sixth Fleet, so maybe that is the basis for the rumour. -
Message 25
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Friday, 16th May 2008
"...we are talking about Goverment actions, not actions carried out by a particular group of crewmen..."
On the contrary, we are talking about a particular group of crewmen. How else do you think that aircraft were re-painted ? How do you hide the fact that your aircraft went missing ?
I could understand a conspiracy theory that involves, say, a couple of dozen special forces, but we are talking an entire crew of an aircraft carrier. It is silly.
And the point of my 'rabid Zionist' remark was to refute the idea that that is what they were, not to promote the idea that all the shop's company would quietly sit by, over 30-40 years and say nothing. -
Message 26
Posted by MB (U177470) on Friday, 16th May 2008
And the point of my 'rabid Zionist' remark was to refute the idea that that is what they were, not to promote the idea that all the shop's company would quietly sit by, over 30-40 years and say nothing.
Μύ
There are people who worked at Bletchley Park who still will not talk about what they did. There are husbands and wives who only discovered that both worked there (or one of the outstations) many years after the war.
In the various cases of "friendly fire" involving British forces and accidents like the US aircraft that hit the cable car system. Evidence disappeared or was altered and it was very difficult to discover the truth.
MB -
Message 27
Posted by Steelers708 (U1831340) on Friday, 16th May 2008
"..On the contrary, we are talking about a particular group of crewmen. How else do you think that aircraft were re-painted ? How do you hide the fact that your aircraft went missing ?"
Why are you trying to hide aircraft? My what if scenario involved the Israelis saying to the US:
"we've lost X amount of aircraft in combat and desperately need replacements"
Now instead of waiting for factory fresh aircraft to be shipped from the States, time consuming you'll agree, the Americans say "ok if your that desperate you can have some of those based on the carriers in the Med". The markings would be painted out to avoid accusations of US aircraft being actively involved in the war and the crew would be told that they are being sent to Israel as replacements for aircraft lost in combat.
No conspiracy theories needed, no need to 'hide' missing aircraft from crew members, possibly just the need to keep it secret from other Goverments, but considering that both the Americans and Russians supplied the combatants during the wars not necessarily a problem. -
Message 28
Posted by clankylad (U1778100) on Friday, 16th May 2008
"Now instead of waiting for factory fresh aircraft to be shipped from the States, time consuming you'll agree, the Americans say "ok if your that desperate you can have some of those based on the carriers in the Med". The markings would be painted out to avoid accusations of US aircraft being actively involved in the war and the crew would be told that they are being sent to Israel as replacements for aircraft lost in combat."
That's vaguely plausible in 1973 when the Israeli air force had largely re-equipped with US aircraft, but totally implausible in 1967 when they were entirely equipped with French equipment. -
Message 29
Posted by Mike Alexander (U1706714) on Friday, 16th May 2008
2. Ten official United States investigations and three official Israeli inquiries have all conclusively established the attack was a tragic mistake.
3. None of Israel's accusers can explain why Israel would deliberately attack an American ship at a time when the United States was Israel's only friend and supporter in the world.Μύ
2. Only one investigation of any validity, according to wikipedia:
Critics -- including an active group of survivors from the ship -- assert that five U.S. congressional investigations and four other U.S. investigations were not investigations into the attack at all, but rather reports using evidence only from the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry, or investigations unrelated to the culpability of the attack but rather discussing issues such as communications. In their view, the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry is the only investigation on the incident to date. They claim it was hastily conducted, in only 10 days, even though the courtβs president, Rear Admiral Isaac Kidd, said that it would take 6 months to conduct properly. The inquiry's terms of reference were limited to whether any shortcomings on the part of the Liberty's crew had contributed to the injuries and deaths that resulted from the attack. Because of time constraints, only 14 survivors of the attack and no Israeli personnel involved were questioned.
Μύ
3. Admiral Morrison's theory was that they were attempting to make it look like a Syrian attack. I don't know what grounds he has for making this claim though.
Morrison's analysis and political motivation was at odds with the soft non-militaristic response ultimately taken by the US State Department and US Navy. Morrison asserted Israel intentionally attacked the USS Liberty, trying to disguise Israel torpedo boats as Syrian vessels in an attempt to provoke a war between the United States and Syria. This would have increased United States military and financial assistance during the Six Day War.
Μύ -
Message 30
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Friday, 16th May 2008
"...Now instead of waiting for factory fresh aircraft to be shipped from the States, time consuming you'll agree..."
Time consuming and irrelevant.
We are talking here of why this conspiracy would not work, not of whether the US would support Israel. US support is not exactly secret.
"...the crew would be told that they are being sent to Israel as replacements for aircraft lost in combat..."
If you told the crew this then it would eventually get out as something more than a vague rumour where even the war involved is un-known. That is the point. The impossibility of keeping it secret. Frankly it beggars belief. -
Message 31
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the in some way.
-
Message 32
Posted by Steelers708 (U1831340) on Sunday, 18th May 2008
If Israel is your "strongest ally by far" where are their troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, where were there troops during the Bosnian crisis in the 90's, where would their troops be if a new Korean war was to start for example.
The US may well be Israels strongest ally, but they certainly aren't the US's as they are either, unable or unwilling, to come to your assistance when you need support, which is the whole point of having allies.
You obviously don't appreciate the support the US is getting from Britain , Canada, Germany and Holland etc in such places as Iraq, Afghansitan and Bosnia, maybe all the others should just pack up and go home that way we won't have any more of our troops killed in action for bloody nothing. -
Message 33
Posted by MB (U177470) on Tuesday, 20th May 2008
You obviously don't appreciate the support the US is getting from Britain , Canada, Germany and Holland etc in such places as Iraq,
Μύ
Though the recent widely reported case of the German Special Forces unit that they allowed to a Taliban commander to escape, because they are not allowed to use lethal force, does you make you wonder just how valuable an ally the Germans are.
MB -
Message 34
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Tuesday, 20th May 2008
JMB,
"Though the recent widely reported case of the German Special Forces unit that they allowed to a Taliban commander to escape, because they are not allowed to use lethal force, does you make you wonder just how valuable an ally the Germans are."
I think that has more to do with rules of engagement than the ability of German forces... -
Message 35
Posted by MB (U177470) on Tuesday, 20th May 2008
I think that has more to do with rules of engagement than the ability of German forces...
Μύ
I don't think it matters how able individual members of any military unit are if they are allowed to fight.
MB -
Message 36
Posted by Erik Lindsay (U231970) on Tuesday, 20th May 2008
I have no particular affinity for Israel, but I have to say in the interest of fairness that it is unreasonable to expect Israel to donate troops to the fight in Iraq when it, itself, is surrounded and VASTLY outnumbered by enemies that are bent on destroying it. I think if Israel were to send a force of any significant size, it would weaken their defence systems to a point that might encourage an immediate assault on the country by its enemies... an assault that might well overrun the country.
-
Message 37
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Tuesday, 20th May 2008
Erik,
I would be far more concerned with the political fallout should Israeli forces set foot in Iraq...
It would be disasterous! -
Message 38
Posted by Ratswiskers (U7323852) on Tuesday, 20th May 2008
Just for the record the Mani I'll think you'll find there Israeli forces are in Northern Iraq.
The Iranians suspect them of training disaffected Iranian arabs in the boarder regions. -
Message 39
Posted by U11978661 (U11978661) on Tuesday, 20th May 2008
If Israel is your "strongest ally by far" where are their troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, where were there troops during the Bosnian crisis in the 90's, where would their troops be if a new Korean war was to start for example.
The US may well be Israels strongest ally, but they certainly aren't the US's as they are either, unable or unwilling, to come to your assistance when you need support, which is the whole point of having allies.
You obviously don't appreciate the support the US is getting from Britain , Canada, Germany and Holland etc in such places as Iraq, Afghansitan and Bosnia, maybe all the others should just pack up and go home that way we won't have any more of our troops killed in action for bloody nothing.
Μύ
What an odd message. Steelers is under the impression that Britain, Canada, and Holland ECT are in Afghanistan/Iraq to support the US. He then goes on to question why are Israeli troops not in Muslim countries fighting for America. I do think someone has hurt his feelings. -
Message 40
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Wednesday, 21st May 2008
Ratswiskers
Just to point out the inconsistency of your statement;
βI'll think you'll find there Israeli forces are in Northern Iraqβ
A statement of fact.
βThe Iranians suspect them of training disaffected Iranian arabs in the boarder regionsβ
The proof is not a statement of fact.
Although there will be Israeli agents working in all Arab countries. This is the nature of espionage and counter espionage, it has little to do with the political fallout should Israel send ground troops to an Arab country officially, which I commented about. -
Message 41
Posted by MB (U177470) on Wednesday, 21st May 2008
I always wondered how much Israeli influence there was on the US forces when they first went into Iraq, their heavy handed approach was very reminiscent of the IDF.
-
Message 42
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Wednesday, 21st May 2008
"...their heavy handed approach was very reminiscent of the IDF..."
Yes, yes, it is ALL israel's fault. The US has no record of heavy handedness anywhere, does it. -
Message 43
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Wednesday, 21st May 2008
JMB,
I would suggest it's far more reminiscent of US practices.
Do you think it's likely the US armed forces would copy an approach from the IDF? -
Message 44
Posted by Steelers708 (U1831340) on Wednesday, 21st May 2008
Peekabu,
"What an odd message. Steelers is under the impression that Britain, Canada, and Holland ECT are in Afghanistan/Iraq to support the US. He then goes on to question why are Israeli troops not in Muslim countries fighting for America. I do think someone has hurt his feelings."
I realise that we are in Iraq/afghanistan to supoort the so called democratic regimes, but we are also there supporting our ally the US in their so called "war on terror". If you remember the US, who are in overall command, has on several occasions asked the NATO countries to provide more "support" for the forces operating in those countries, be it troops, planes or helicopters, and several NATO countries have responded to those requests. Requests which come from the American military and Goverment, not from the Iraqi/Afghani goverments.
As to your second point I obviously know what would happen if IDF forces were to operate in Muslim countries, I'm not stupid! Thats why in response to the original posting, which has since been temporarily removed by the moderators, and which you may not have seen, I put that Israel was "UNABLE/unwilling" to send support, but I also mentioned a possible new Korean war and their is nothing Muslim about North Korea.
As it is nobody has hurt my feelings, but the original posting made such a ridiculous statement. -
Message 45
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Wednesday, 21st May 2008
Hi Steelers,
"If you remember the US, who are in overall command, has on several occasions asked the NATO countries to provide more "support" for the forces operating in those countries, be it troops, planes or helicopters, and several NATO countries have responded to those requests. Requests which come from the American military and Goverment, not from the Iraqi/Afghani goverments."
It would be wrong to mix the Afghan and Iraqi theatres.
Afghanistan IS a Nato exercise, not US. We and several other NATO countries have also requested more from our allies, not just the US. -
Message 46
Posted by U11978661 (U11978661) on Wednesday, 21st May 2008
Steelers,
The US is asking NATO countries to make a contribution. They would in no way be there supporting the United States. This is not the American war on terror. Your own country has been attacked by the people you are fighting in Afghanistan. To suggest that the British military is in some way helping out the United States by your presence is immature at best. -
Message 47
Posted by Steelers708 (U1831340) on Wednesday, 21st May 2008
Peekabu,
"The War in Afghanistan (2001βpresent), which began on October 7, 2001, was launched by the United States and the United Kingdom in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks. It was the beginning of the War on Terror. The stated purpose of the invasion was to capture Osama bin Laden, destroy al-Qaeda, and remove the Taliban regime which had provided support and safe harbor to al-Qaeda.
The U.S. and the UK led the aerial bombing campaign, with ground forces supplied primarily by the Afghan Northern Alliance. In 2002, American, British and Canadian infantry were committed, along with special forces from several allied nations. Later, NATO troops were added. The U.S. military calls the conflict Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF).
The initial attack removed the Taliban from power, but Taliban forces have since regained some strength.[12] The war has been less successful in achieving the goal of restricting al-Qaeda's movement.[13] Since 2006, Afghanistan has seen threats to its stability from increased Taliban-led insurgent activity, growing illegal drug production, and a fragile government with limited control outside of Kabul.[14]
Operation Enduring Freedom - Afghanistan, which is a joint U.S. and Afghan operation, with some involvement from other nations, is separate from the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), which is an operation of NATO nations including the U.S. The two operations run in parallel."
The above is from an article about the war in Afghanistan, as you can see it was "launched" by America and Britain in response to the 9/11 attacks and was the beginning of the "war on terror", as you can see we were supporting our Ameican allies. You will also note that the NATO contribution is a seperate operation to that of "Enduring Freedom"
As to your assertion that Britain has been attacked by the people we are fighting in Afghanistan I suggest you go and do some research, they were in Pakistan at some point and may have had Taliban/Al Queda sympathies, but they are not Taliban or directly connected to Al Queda.
They were British Muslims with extremist views who carried out the attacks, as a Goverment ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Office report on the bombings, compiled for the then ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ secretary Charles Clarke found out.
The article reports that the attack was planned probably with a budget of only a few hundred pounds by four men using information from the internet. While they had visited Pakistan, there was no direct support or planning by al-Qaeda; meetings in Pakistan were ideological, rather than practical. All four bombers died in the suicide bombings. While there was a search for a fifth suspect after police found an unused rucksack of explosives in the bombers' abandoned car at Luton station, there was no fifth bomber.
While the videotape of Mohammed Sidique Khan released after the attacks had footage of Osama bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Office believes the tape was edited after the suicide attacks and dismisses it as evidence of al-Qaeda's involvement in the attacks.
So instead of calling me immature, do some research before making statements. -
Message 48
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Thursday, 22nd May 2008
Hi Steelers,
There is a problem when using Wikipedia - As you will see on the article you have copied from has contradictory comments;
RE The Fall of Kabul;
βAfter these forces were neutralized Kabul was in the hands of the US/NATO forces and the Northern Alliance.β
You will also see that one of the main links to this thread is called the βNATO Invasion of Afghanistanβ
It doesnβt mention Article 5 of the NATO Charterm it doesnβt mention or the previous NATO actions that were invoked by Atricle 5 before the invasion started. What is missing from the article is an indication of itβs reliability
Itβs far from a reliable sourceβ¦.
Having said that, what you say about the London bombings is spot on... -
Message 49
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Thursday, 22nd May 2008
The point of NATO is that "An attack on one is an attack on all". That is what the US, quite rightly invoked after 9/11.
The Taliban were knowingly and with malice a forethought, providing shelter to a terror group that was actively engaged in attacking western interests. They had to go.
The statement that the terrorists who attacked London are not directly attached to Al Qaeda is, at best, contentious. Al Qaeda have no membership cards, but if they did, these people would qualify.
As for Israel not being involved in Korea, that is hardly surprising. Israel was created in 1848. The Korean war started within a couple of years. Israel was in no fit state to send troops abroad. In any case, the mere presence of Israeli troops could deter involvement from many of countries. -
Message 50
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Thursday, 22nd May 2008
"...Israel was created in 1848..."
Doh. 1948.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Μύto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ iD
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ links
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.