Is Israel preparing to attack Iran ?

the_syco

St_Crispin wrote: »

The US give massive amounts of money and equipment to Israel. If a fraction of that went into humitarian aid and development then israel might not have a load of angry people sitting on it's doorstep.

Isreal have had people bombing it a long time before they copped on, and went on the offensive. The best defence is a good offence.

ejmaztec

the_syco wrote: »

Isreal have had people bombing it a long time before they copped on, and went on the offensive. The best defence is a good offence.

Weren't the prospective Israeli citizens bombing Palestine before the Israeli state was born? I think that they have been on the offensive even before day 1.

dlofnep

Manic Moran wrote: »

Generally speaking, cross-border military incursions such as UK into Spain, Switzerland into Liechtenstein, India into Pakistan, Mexico into USA, USA into Canada, UK into Ireland and so on and so forth tend to be resolved by the members of the one country's military or police politely pointing out to the members of the other country's military that they have crossed over to the wrong side, and would they mind awfully if they turned around and went back to their side. Coming out guns at the ready and outright capturing them is a little on the aggressive/excessive end of the scale.

I would also point out that there's a difference between a focused gathering of intel in the devious sense and simply keeping an eye on activity in border region, on both sides of the border, which is a perfectly normal and sensible activity and which is what was admitted by the captain in charge.

NTM

If the two countries have cordial relations, then sure - there would be no problem. But when relations are bad, and another country is gathering intel in their waters - then they are well within their rights to assume and act defensively with the matter.

Look, I'm not saying it could of been avoided - But the facts of the matter were, they were gathering intel and the relations between the two countries were poor. Iran did what it did to make a point, but it did not harm it's captives.

You want to make a comparison of that, compared to Israel's long list of human rights abuses and the slaughtering of 1000's of civilians and knocking down their homes? Or Americas list? A little bit of subjectivity would go a long way. Could you imagine if Iran operated sometime like Guantanamo bay? Where they just lynched American, British of Israeli citizens without ANY reason, just because they fit the bill.. And then imprison them, torturing them until the brink of near-suicide - all without trial? There would be worldwide MURDER about it. But because it's Israel or the US, backed by the western media, then everything is ok.

Get a grip. Seriously.

Manic Moran

dlofnep wrote: »

If the two countries have cordial relations, then sure - there would be no problem. But when relations are bad, and another country is gathering intel in their waters - then they are well within their rights to assume and act defensively with the matter.

India and Pakistan are anything but cordial. I sit next to a Pakistani Army officer in class whose previous assignment was a two-year stint on the border in Kashmir, and we asked him outright how they deal with border incursions given that the border is anything but clearly defined. The answer: A loudhailer. He tells me that it has almost never failed to achieve the desired result on either side. The reason for the Indian/Pakistani army patrols is precisely to gain intelligence on what the other side is doing, just like any border patrol would be. This is perfectly normal procedure. About the only place I can think of where an incursion is going to automatically result in detention or vigour as a first course of action is the Korean DMZ, which is anything but vaguely defined.

NTM

dlofnep

India & Pakistan can't afford to have a falling out, due to the possibility of it being used as a pretext for a war. Which would be disasterous.

You have conveniently overlooked the most important points I've made. You cannot compare a slap on the wrist to a few marines who were gathering intel, to the human rights abuses by Israel & The US.

marcsignal

St_Crispin wrote: »

Just wanted to point out that semites are the decendants of abraham. Arabs are a semite race. So technically arabs can't be anti semitic. (I know Jimmy Carter isn't an arab, but considering israeli rhetoric, I just thought it was worth mentioning)

Yes, technically you are correct about this, but the term 'Anti Semite' is generally speaking one that describes hostility towards Jews, originating in Europe a few hundred years ago. The reason this is the case, I guess, is that Jews had travelled throughout Europe and were treated with disrespect by many Europeans, as where Arabs hadn't, and didn't suffer hostility in the same way.

Again, strictly speaking you are right, but there isn't much point in confusing the issue over, what is broadly,a technicality, for the want of a better word.

jonny72

Manic Moran wrote: »

No reason to believe it would be treated any differently to a Cuban, Mexican, or anyone else's nation that happens to cross over. "This is US Coast Guard Cutter Blank. You are in US Waters. Turn around immediately"

NTM

Two hostile countries act very differently. North Korean boat in Japanese waters is very different from a Norwegian boat in UK waters. It depends entirely on the hostilities between the two countries. If the Iranians politely asked the Brits to leave there I am sure there would be more incidents, however the Iranians put their foot down and the Brits won't be 'veering' into those waters again in a hurry.

I don't disagree with the West aggressively sabre rattling the Iranians into giving up any nuclear programs, however I am disappointed that the media swallows it all and spits it out as Iranian aggression.

is_that_so

marcsignal wrote: »

Yes, technically you are correct about this, but the term 'Anti Semite' is generally speaking one that describes hostility towards Jews, originating in Europe a few hundred years ago. The reason this is the case, I guess, is that Jews had travelled throughout Europe and were treated with disrespect by many Europeans, as where Arabs hadn't, and didn't suffer hostility in the same way.

The Church position until fairly recently also blamed them for the death of Christ and they were often viewed with great suspicion. They became involved in banking and finance which meant that they were afforded a lot of official protection.
The Jews were allowed to settle but they were also allowed to keep their own laws and set up their own communities. This helped them develop a degree of autonomy much of the rest of society did not have. Naturally enough when things went wrong, the Black Death, economic recession or anything else, they were very easy targets.

Manic Moran

dlofnep wrote: »

You have conveniently overlooked the most important points I've made. You cannot compare a slap on the wrist to a few marines who were gathering intel, to the human rights abuses by Israel & The US.

How the devil does one get from a border incident to human rights abuses? The two are utterly unrelated.

NTM

St_Crispin

the_syco wrote: »

Isreal have had people bombing it a long time before they copped on, and went on the offensive. The best defence is a good offence.

Jews were forming militias and preparing to found a state of israel by force before the UN charter was even signed. They formed special squads designed to terrorise arab towns. The first suicide bomber in palestine was a jewish man who blew himself and a load of british soldiers up. Palestinians were forcibly removed from their property. There's even documented massacres of arab civilians at that time. So before you start trying to argue this, I'd recommend that you at least do a minimum of research on the matter.

There were millions of people who had to leave palestine. Most of them ended up in refugee camps. And their decendants are still in those camps. That's why they're pissed off with israel. They live in horrible conditions. They have no prospects at all. They were kicked out of their homes and are refused citizenship of both israel and their host countries. There's feck all education, medical care or even employment. Plus they get bombed occasionally.

My point was that maybe if those people had homes, medical acre and education prospects, then maybe they wouldn't be angry. All anyone wants, be they israeli/Arab/irish/russian/etc... is a place where they can be safe, make a living, improve themselves, raise children and know that their children will grow up safe and with a good future.

And maybe if a fraction of the money that israel gets in military aid went into creating a better lebanon/gaza/westbank there wouldn't be so many without hope who are willing to kill themselves and others just because they can't see a better tomorrow for themselves or their loved ones.

marcsignal wrote: »

Yes, technically you are correct about this, but the term 'Anti Semite' is generally speaking one that describes hostility towards Jews, originating in Europe a few hundred years ago. The reason this is the case, I guess, is that Jews had travelled throughout Europe and were treated with disrespect by many Europeans, as where Arabs hadn't, and didn't suffer hostility in the same way.

Again, strictly speaking you are right, but there isn't much point in confusing the issue over, what is broadly,a technicality, for the want of a better word.

But arabs have always considered themselves semites. So Calling them anti semite is like us calling the welsh anti celtic. We could say it about the english, germans etc... But not the welsh.
That's why I always have a chuckle when I hear people saying that about arabs.

BTW, you seem to have forgotten about spain during the inquisition.

ejmaztec

St_Crispin wrote: »

Jews were forming militias and preparing to found a state of israel by force before the UN charter was even signed. They formed special squads designed to terrorise arab towns. The first suicide bomber in palestine was a jewish man who blew himself and a load of british soldiers up. Palestinians were forcibly removed from their property. There's even documented massacres of arab civilians at that time. So before you start trying to argue this, I'd recommend that you at least do a minimum of research on the matter.

There were millions of people who had to leave palestine. Most of them ended up in refugee camps. And their decendants are still in those camps. That's why they're pissed off with israel. They live in horrible conditions. They have no prospects at all. They were kicked out of their homes and are refused citizenship of both israel and their host countries. There's feck all education, medical care or even employment. Plus they get bombed occasionally.

My point was that maybe if those people had homes, medical acre and education prospects, then maybe they wouldn't be angry. All anyone wants, be they israeli/Arab/irish/russian/etc... is a place where they can be safe, make a living, improve themselves, raise children and know that their children will grow up safe and with a good future.

And maybe if a fraction of the money that israel gets in military aid went into creating a better lebanon/gaza/westbank there wouldn't be so many without hope who are willing to kill themselves and others just because they can't see a better tomorrow for themselves or their loved ones.

I think that is an accurate summation.


I understood that the Israelis would never allow the evicted to return, as the evicted would outnumber those currently residing in Israel, thereby leaving the present regime vulnerable to being voted out of office.

marcsignal

St_Crispin wrote: »

But arabs have always considered themselves semites. So Calling them anti semite is like us calling the welsh anti celtic. We could say it about the english, germans etc... But not the welsh.

yeah that's well summed up

St_Crispin wrote: »

That's why I always have a chuckle when I hear people saying that about arabs.

Me too, I have to agree with you here. I think the term Anti-Semite is hugely abused, and tbh I feel it's one that's just churned out again and again at anyone who critisises Israel. This brings me back to the lobby groups in the U.S. Norman Finkelstein recently revealed, that A few years ago the ADL http://www.adl.org/ did a survey in Europe about the level of Anti-Semitism there. The survey (and survey results can be notoriously misleading) assertained, that something like 2/3 of Europeans had Anti-Semetic leanings. Now that would seem like a shocking thing, however, Finkelstein called into scrutiny some of the questions that were asked, and one of them was:

"Do you think Jewish people talk too much about the Holocaust?"

If you answered 'Yes' to that question, you were considered to fall into the Anti-Semitic category. However when the 'Pew Group' http://pewforum.org/surveys/ did a similar survey, they found there had actually been a reduction in Anti-Semetic attitude, and in incidents that may be considered Anti-Semetic, in Europe (damage to Jewish property / desecrating cemeteries etc), and that in fact, Jewish people were viewed more favourably than ever in Europe today.

France was one of the countries cited by the ADL as being the most Anti-Semetic, and you have to ask yourself why? Might it be because France objected to the Gulf War? or maybe because it has a relatively high Muslim population? The strange thing is, in the 'Pew Group' survey, the French Muslims questioned saw no difference between a French Jew, and any other French Citizen.

In the case of Italy in one University, according to the ADL survey, the fact that some students were seen to be wearing PLO Scarves (don't know the correct name for them) and that at one student function, books from Palestinian authors were on sale, were cited as evidence of Anti-Semitism there.

CPT. SURF wrote: »

Sorry marcsignal but I really have to disagree with you on this one. I live in the states, and have done so for quite a while now, and Jimmy Carter is not generally popular. Its not that people hate him or anything, in fact he would be more popular than the current president (not too hard considering he has the worst approval rating of any president in history right now), its just that he is seen as weak. He may be extremely popular outside the US though.

Fair enough, I don't live there so I guess you're probably closer to the coal face as regards US public opinion, and in that respect better informed

CPT. SURF wrote: »

But I would love to hear some more about how terrible the USA is, its so interesting.

Well I don't go for America Bashing for the sake of it, but you have to admit, there is a double standard element when it comes to Iranian kidnappings and US Extraordinary Rendition flights. From what I've been listening to on the BBC World Service lately, there is considerable concern in the U.S. today, among ordinary Citizens, and in some Political circles, about Americas' Public Image throughout the world, and about the perceived legacy of the Bush Presidency.

dlofnep

Manic Moran wrote: »

How the devil does one get from a border incident to human rights abuses? The two are utterly unrelated.

NTM

It's a comparison between what you consider to be an aggressive state, and what really IS an aggressive state. Israel started all this nonsense. They are the aggressors and you should just man up and admit it, instead of trying to peddle around the topic at hand. If Iran is attacked, it has my full support in defending itself. It's a shame that Israel hasn't learned a thing through the atrocities of this world. not only a few decades ago, they Jewish people were the most oppressed on the Planet - Now the jewish state of Israel is one of the biggest oppressing nations on the planet.

I wish they could all solve out that big mess in the middle east, because there will be way too many innocent Iranian and Israeli lifes lost at the cost of poor government decisions.