dre Posted June 7, 2010 Report Posted June 7, 2010 When exactly has the US "saved Israel from trouble". Israel has been saving itself, by itself, since its creation. Well... The US brokered peace between Begin and Sadat and forced Egypt to be a decent neighbor instead of a mortal enemy and still funds that deal today. They also have scuttled literally dozens of UN attempts to force Israel to comply with international law. They also give them billions in military and economic aid. They were also instrumental in Israel becoming a state in the first place and the first country in the world to recognize the fledgling state. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Bonam Posted June 7, 2010 Report Posted June 7, 2010 Well... The US brokered peace between Begin and Sadat and forced Egypt to be a decent neighbor instead of a mortal enemy and still funds that deal today. They also have scuttled literally dozens of UN attempts to force Israel to comply with international law. They also give them billions in military and economic aid. They were also instrumental in Israel becoming a state in the first place and the first country in the world to recognize the fledgling state. All of which, while perhaps helpful to some degree, does not constitute "saving". Quote
dre Posted June 7, 2010 Report Posted June 7, 2010 All of which, while perhaps helpful to some degree, does not constitute "saving". Thats hard to say. Without the US Israel probably would have faced the enforcement of some of the UN resolutions against it, and ended up in a war not only with regional players like Turkey, syria and jordan but western powers as well. Might not have gone real well. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Bonam Posted June 7, 2010 Report Posted June 7, 2010 Thats hard to say. Without the US Israel probably would have faced the enforcement of some of the UN resolutions against it, and ended up in a war not only with regional players like Turkey, syria and jordan but western powers as well. Might not have gone real well. War with western powers? Seriously? Which western power would be invading Israel exactly? And if they had the motivation to do so, do you really think that a western power would be dissuaded from such an action simply because some UN resolution didn't pass? Oh and Israel isn't at war with Turkey, or with Jordan either. Quote
dre Posted June 7, 2010 Report Posted June 7, 2010 War with western powers? Seriously? Which western power would be invading Israel exactly? And if they had the motivation to do so, do you really think that a western power would be dissuaded from such an action simply because some UN resolution didn't pass? Oh and Israel isn't at war with Turkey, or with Jordan either. War with western powers? Seriously? Which western power would be invading Israel exactly? The same ones that kicked Saddam out of Kuwait and Milosovich out of Kosovo. The UNSC "possee". Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Bonam Posted June 7, 2010 Report Posted June 7, 2010 The same ones that kicked Saddam out of Kuwait and Milosovich out of Kosovo. The UNSC "possee". You mean the US and its followers. Having the US not support Israel and having the US lead an international coalition to invade Israel are two different things. If your argument is that by refraining from invading Israel the US is saving Israel from being invaded by the US... well sure, but that's rather tautological. Quote
dre Posted June 7, 2010 Report Posted June 7, 2010 You mean the US and its followers. Having the US not support Israel and having the US lead an international coalition to invade Israel are two different things. If your argument is that by refraining from invading Israel the US is saving Israel from being invaded by the US... well sure, but that's rather tautological. Heh... its not a matter of the US leading a coalition, its a matter of them using their veto to prevent the UNSC from intervening. Heres a list of some of the UNSC resolutions against Israel (these are binding security council resolutions not general assembly resolutions) that the US has vetoed. In most or many of these cases the Security council was heavily in favor of the resolutions. Lots of 14-1 votes in there, and 12-1 and 11-1 votes. Lebanon: Draft condemned recent invasion by Israeli forces of Southern Lebanon and repeated a call for the immediate withdrawal of all Israeli forces from Lebanese territory; (S/19868) 5/10/1988 vetoed 14-1 (US) Lebanon: Draft strongly deplored the recent Israeli attack against Lebanese territory on 9 December 1988; (S/20322) 12/14/1988 vetoed 14-1 (US) Occupied territories: Draft called on Israel to accept de jure applicability of the 4th Geneva Convention; (S/19466) 1988 vetoed 14-1 (US) Occupied territories: Draft urged Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention, rescind the order to deport Palestinian civilians, and condemned policies and practices of Israel that violate the human rights of the Palestinian people in the occupied territories; (S/19780) 1988 vetoed 14-1 (US) Occupied territories: Strongly deplored Israeli policies and practices in the occupied territories, and strongly deplored also Israel's continued disregard of relevant Security Council decisions. 2/17/1989 Vetoed 14-1 (US) Occupied territories: Condemned Israeli policies and practices in the occupied territories. 6/9/1989 Vetoed 14-1 (US) Occupied territories: Deplored Israel's policies and practices in the occupied territories. 11/7/1989 Vetoed 14-1 (US) Occupied territories: NAM draft resolution to create a commission and send three security council members to Rishon Lezion, where an Israeli gunmen shot down seven Palestinian workers. 5/31/1990 Vetoed 14-1 (US) Middle East: Confirms that the expropriation of land by Israel in East Jerusalem is invalid and in violation of relevant Security Council resolutions and provisions of the Fourth Geneva convention; expresses support of peace process, including the Declaration of Principles of 9/13/1993 5/17/1995 Vetoed 14-1 (US) Middle East: Calls upon Israeli authorities to refrain from all actions or measures, including settlement activities. 3/7/1997 Vetoed 14-1 (US) Middle East: Demands that Israel cease construction of the settlement in east Jerusalem (called Jabal Abu Ghneim by the Palestinians and Har Homa by Israel), as well as all the other Israeli settlement activity in the occupied territories 3/21/1997 Vetoed 13-1,1 (US) Call for UN Observers Force in West Bank, Gaza 3/27/2001 Vetoed 9-1 (US), with four abstentions (Britain, France, Ireland and Norway) Condemned acts of terror, demanded an end to violence and the establishment of a monitoring mechanism to bring in observers. 12/14/2001 Vetoed 12-1 (US) with two abstentions (Britain and Norway) On the killing by Israeli forces of several UN employees and the destruction of the World Food Programme (WFP) warehouse 12/19/2002 12-1 (US)with two abstentions (Bulgaria and Cameroon) Demand that Israel halt threats to expel Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat 9/16/03 Vetoed 11-1 (US) with three abstentions (Britain, Germany and Bulgaria) Seeks to bar Israel from extending security fence 10/14/03 Vetoed 10-1 with four absentations (Britain, Germany, Bulgaria and Cameroon) Condemns Israel for killing Ahmed Yassin 3/25/04 Vetoed 11-1 (US) with three absentations (Britain, Germany, Romania) Calls For Israel To Halt Gaza Operation 10/05/04 Vetoed 11-1 (US) with three absentations (Britain, Germany, Romania) Calls For Israel To Halt Gaza Operation 7/13/06 Vetoed 10-1 (US) with four absentations (Britain, Peru, Denmark and Slovakia) Calls For Israel To Halt Gaza Operation 11/11/06 Vetoed 10-1 (US) with four absentations (Britain, Denmark, Japan and Slovakia) Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Bonam Posted June 7, 2010 Report Posted June 7, 2010 And which of those resolutions exactly authorized a Western invasion of Israel, which would have happened had the US not veto'd it, thus saving Israel? None and none obviously. Those resolutions were just toothless words. No Western power would have or is going to invade Israel, whether the US is there to veto it or not. Quote
dre Posted June 7, 2010 Report Posted June 7, 2010 And which of those resolutions exactly authorized a Western invasion of Israel, which would have happened had the US not veto'd it, thus saving Israel? None and none obviously. Those resolutions were just toothless words. No Western power would have or is going to invade Israel, whether the US is there to veto it or not. All of those resolutions could have resulted in a conflict with Israel and all of them could have resulted in enforcement in terms of actual physical enforcement or economic sabatauge in the form of sanctions and embargos. Most likely sanctions and economic punishment. They arent toothless words which is why the US was carefull to veto them all. Between the various things Iv mentioned life would have been very very hard for Israel without the US. They likely would have not been recognized as a state until as long as a decade later. They would still be feuding with Egypt, they would have come to blows with the UNSC and faced some kind of sanctions, and they would have had to do without hundreds of billions of dollars worth of US aid. And one more thing... They would have had to hide in their houses and prey when Saddam rained scuds down on TelAviv instead of using US anti missile systems to stop most of the missiles. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Bonam Posted June 7, 2010 Report Posted June 7, 2010 And one more thing... They would have had to hide in their houses and prey when Saddam rained scuds down on TelAviv instead of using US anti missile systems to stop most of the missiles. They had to do that anyway. In fact, it was US pressure that prevented Israel from striking back at Iraq and stopping the "rain" of scuds, instead having to huddle in bomb shelters waiting for the US to eventually put a stop to it. They likely would have not been recognized as a state until as long as a decade later. False, many nations recognized it immediately in May 1948, including the world's other superpower at that time. Quote
dre Posted June 7, 2010 Report Posted June 7, 2010 They had to do that anyway. In fact, it was US pressure that prevented Israel from striking back at Iraq and stopping the "rain" of scuds, instead having to huddle in bomb shelters waiting for the US to eventually put a stop to it. False, many nations recognized it immediately in May 1948, including the world's other superpower at that time. Youre DRASTICALLY underestimating the importance of the US. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 7, 2010 Report Posted June 7, 2010 Youre DRASTICALLY underestimating the importance of the US. And you're DRASTICALLY ignoring the actual history of American aid to Israel from 1948 to the 1970's: The close relationship between Israel and the United States was born out of Cold War tensions projected onto the regional conflict in the Middle East. Following the 1967 war, relations between Israel and its neighbors remained tense and by 1970, Israel found itself entangled in war of attrition with its southern neighbor Egypt. The U.S., implementing its policy of containment at the time, was competing with the Soviet Union for influence in regions around the world. So when the USSR began providing Egypt with their most advanced antiaircraft system and 1,500 combat personnel, the U.S. responded by providing Israel with a military loan of $545 million, nearly 20 times the military aid Israel had received the previous year and twice the total military assistance Israel had received in 22 years of existence.2 The alliance between Israel and the U.S. grew stronger through the 1970s as Soviet support of Arab states continued and as regional tensions peaked during the Yom Kippur War, and that alliance remains strong today. http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~hireview/content.php?type=article&issue=spring04/&name=feith Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
naomiglover Posted June 7, 2010 Author Report Posted June 7, 2010 And you're DRASTICALLY ignoring the actual history of American aid to Israel from 1948 to the 1970's: You are ignoring that the U.S. government is heavily influenced by Israeli lobby. You are also ignoring that the unconditional US government support for Israel has created a negative atmosphere and view of the U.S. Quote Jewish Voice for Peace Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East
bloodyminded Posted June 8, 2010 Report Posted June 8, 2010 The only bull is coming from your embrace of assumptions over verified capabilities. This is the secret memo by South Africa's military chief of staff, General RF Armstrong, asking for nukes on the Jericho missiles. It has been revealed before, but its context was not understood. We now know the memo was the direct result of a meeting between PW Botha and Shimon Peres, and the basis of Botha's demand for nukes. This memo was uncovered by Peter Liberman and published in the Nonproliferation Review.• Declassified memo from General RF Armstrong This cover page of an ISSA (ISrael-South Africa agreement) meeting in Pretoria between Israeli and South African officials on 30 June 1975 establishes the presence of General Armstrong, who wrote the nuclear memo. • Minutes of third ISSA meeting, 30/6/1975 This document details the another ISSA meeting during which Botha says he needs the 'right payload' and Peres offers it in 'three sizes' (paragraph 10). • Minutes from further ISSA meeting This is the cover page and two other pages from the secret military agreement between Israel and South Africa, signed by both Shimon Peres and Botha. Note on page two there is a clause that says the very existence of the agreement is secret. Both men have signed the agreement on page three. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/23/israel-south-africa-nuclear-documents So, Israel maybe doesn't have nuclear weapons. That they can magically agree to sell them to brutal, racist regimes is a result of magic, and doesn't prove anything. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 8, 2010 Report Posted June 8, 2010 ....So, Israel maybe doesn't have nuclear weapons. That they can magically agree to sell them to brutal, racist regimes is a result of magic, and doesn't prove anything. Well, if that be the measure of such capability...then I am sure that Canada has nuclear weapons as well. Lots of 'em. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
bloodyminded Posted June 8, 2010 Report Posted June 8, 2010 Well, if that be the measure of such capability...then I am sure that Canada has nuclear weapons as well. Lots of 'em. That's your response? Awesome. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 8, 2010 Report Posted June 8, 2010 That's your response? Awesome. ..and that's your response? Typical when faced with the tables turned in your direction. Last I checked, Israel wasn't killing any locals in Afghanistan. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
bloodyminded Posted June 8, 2010 Report Posted June 8, 2010 ..and that's your response? Typical when faced with the tables turned in your direction. Last I checked, Israel wasn't killing any locals in Afghanistan. What do you mean "in my direction"? I'm not one of the smug, Canadians-are-best posters you deliriously perceive like commies under the bed. You're just delicate about any criticism of Israel, or of the United States. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 8, 2010 Report Posted June 8, 2010 What do you mean "in my direction"? I'm not one of the smug, Canadians-are-best posters you deliriously perceive like commies under the bed. Of course you are, but this isn't about you...just play the game. You're just delicate about any criticism of Israel, or of the United States. Hardly delicate, and more than willing to engage the topic with vigor. Please send me some more depleted uranium. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
bloodyminded Posted June 8, 2010 Report Posted June 8, 2010 (edited) Of course you are, but this isn't about you...just play the game. You mock me for being a smug nationalist, and other times you mock me for not being a smug nationalist. Nationalist pussies can't understand that everybody doesn't think exactly as they do. Hardly delicate, and more than willing to engage the topic with vigor. Please send me some more depleted uranium. You're not eager to engage the topic. You're eager to support the conventional pieties of the right wing, while pretending to some sort of cool objectivity. Don't forget to "support the troops." Edited June 8, 2010 by bloodyminded Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 8, 2010 Report Posted June 8, 2010 You mock me for being a smug nationalist, and other times you mock me for not being a smug nationalist. You can eliminate nationalist as a common denominator...I mock you because your posts are very mockable. Nationalist pussies can't understand that everybody doesn't think exactly as they do. Nor do we care...may the best "pussy" win. You're not eager to engage the topic. You're eager to support the conventional pieties of the right wing, while pretending to some sort of cool objectivity. Don't forget to "support the troops." No, the problem is that when I do, you get mad and stomp your feet. Somebody has to represent the overwhelming reality of the situation as it exists. not the way you want it to exist. More uranium please.... Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
bloodyminded Posted June 8, 2010 Report Posted June 8, 2010 (edited) You can eliminate nationalist as a common denominator...I mock you because your posts are very mockable. No, you mock many people, because you long ago became tired of getting smacked down in every argument. Nor do we care...may the best "pussy" win. You do care. No, the problem is that when I do, you get mad and stomp your feet. You're the one who threw a tantrum because you considered me insufficiently fetishistic towards the Brave Troops. It's a fascinating religion. Somebody has to represent the overwhelming reality of the situation as it exists. not the way you want it to exist. You despise reality. It's your enemy. More uranium please.... Since you said please, no problem. Have as much as you like. Edited June 8, 2010 by bloodyminded Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 8, 2010 Report Posted June 8, 2010 (edited) No, you mock many people, because you long ago became tired of getting smacked down in every argument. I didn't say you were anything special, just mockable. You do care. About "pussy"?....yep...can't deny that! You're the one who threw a tantrum because you considered me insufficiently fetishistic towards the Brave Troops. It's a fascinating religion. No, you are a person without a country, remember? You have nothing to cheer for. You despise reality. It's your enemy. No, I despise your reality...mine is just fine. Since you said please, no problem. Have as much as you like. Of course...money talks...bullshit walks. Edited June 8, 2010 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
bloodyminded Posted June 8, 2010 Report Posted June 8, 2010 I didn't say you were anything special, just mockable. you're not even reponding to what I write. Lost and floundering in debate again.... About "pussy"?....yep...can't deny that! Your use of scare quotes suggests otherwise. No, you are a person without a country, remember? You have nothing to cheer for. I see you can't make up your mind again. But it's telling that you think a person must be a servile little patriot to have something to "cheer for." For you, it's the Manly Troops! That's your drug and your Faith. No, I despise your reality...mine is just fine. You can't even decide what my reality is--smug Canadian nationalist or anti-nationalist "man without a country." You can't despise what you are unable to comprehend. Of course...money talks...bullshit walks. Pay up. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 9, 2010 Report Posted June 9, 2010 you're not even reponding to what I write. Lost and floundering in debate again.... What you write is largely uninteresting and derivative. Your use of scare quotes suggests otherwise. Suggestions are important in your life. I see you can't make up your mind again. Correct...to continue to mock you...or not. But it's telling that you think a person must be a servile little patriot to have something to "cheer for." A person without a country must convince themself of this. For you, it's the Manly Troops! That's your drug and your Faith. ...and as always....a shrinking sexual reference always punctuates your retreat. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.