For the First Time I Am in Despair for the West, as Well as Israel

[WIP]

Israelis will remain in Israel and fight to defend it to the death. They have nukes. This means that Israelis are going nowhere, and if push ever comes to shove and a real immanent threat to the existence of the state is at hand, Israel will turn the entire region into radioactive glass before turning tail and running to a refuge that doesn't even exist.

Worth noting that the ones who don't want a fight to the death, have mostly packed their bags and returned to the U.S. or elsewhere over the last 30 years. And the majority of those Jews answering the call of Aliya are more inclined to be fanatical deadenders, who will fight it out to the death. Some of those who have left, fought in the IDF and may have been irritated or annoyed by the intermittent calls to report for reserve duty over the years, but from one ex-Israeli I talked to about 10 years ago, what made him leave and bring his family back to Canada was the realization that, as his children were entering their teen years, that they would get called up for military duty, in an endless cycle of violence.

[eyeball]

Only in the fantasy land created by and then espoused by the chattering classes.

Interesting comment in a discussion about nations that may be here one day and gone the next.

The only thing more concrete than an arbitrary line on a map is the mind-scape it delineates.

[Argus]

The U.N. spends time pillorying Israel for collateral damage. Meanwhile, Israel has just been forced into a truce that gives Gaza apparently unlimited ability to arm itself. Now, they will have modern weaponry and Israel's destruction is a matter of time.

Modern weaponry? You mean like the rockets they've been steadily firing into Israel for months now? Honestly, what exactly are you talking about? Israel could crush the combined militaries of every nation around it if it wanted, even without American help. You don't have to fear 'modern weaponry'. The only thing Israel needs to fear is 'modern organization and discipline'. And there's no sign that's going to come to the Arab world any time soon.

Edited November 24, 2012 by Argus

[eyeball]

And, this little story that just popped up on Iran's PressTV website, informs us that China plans to increase oil imports from Iran by 20% in the coming year....sort of flies in the face of the U.S. led attempt to enforce an economic embargo on Iran.

Look how it dovetails very nicely however with Canada's official position that economics should trump virtue.

It's probably safe to say that if Hobbits sign onto the ways of Mordor that the fellowship of the U.N. is a lost cause.

[eyeball]

The natives continue to live in Canada and have the same rights (plus more) than the colonists from 3 centuries ago. They have a freedom of movement and can live anywhere they please.

Never mind the colonists of the past, native people have rights today that I'd give my left arm to possess. The little but growing fleet of native fishing boats materializing on Canada's west coast in the wake of Supreme Court rulings stands as a monument to justice and recognition.

I know in my heart I have the same fundamental right as any other human being to exist on the sustenance provided by the resources that surround me but the real tricky part is winning that recognition. If I went fishing as if I owned the place I'd be arrested.

[WIP]

Look how it dovetails very nicely however with Canada's official position that economics should trump virtue.

It's probably safe to say that if Hobbits sign onto the ways of Mordor that the fellowship of the U.N. is a lost cause.

Yes, and it's certainly clear now that the major powers have competing interests that cannot be resolved through cooperation. I am sure that China is not the only oil-importer breaking the embargo; they're just the ones saying so openly. Iran is one of the few countries left in the world with lots of conventional crude oil, so any attempt to blockade them is either going to be broken or lead to a world war.

[Rue]

I now directly respond to Hudson's comments .

Hudson stated:

"Only because Israel has done everything in its power to not allow it to be a nation. "

The above is the kind of rhetorical statement that suggests Hudson will throw out deliberately inflammatory name calling. Again in some forums this would be called trolling because it does not encourage or allow for debate. It simply is name calling. There is nothing to debate. So the question is since this thread producer with the name "Hudson" engages in it, can the rest of us not identify it for what it is and on both sides of the debate cease and desist with it? Is it conducive to discussing politics?

Hudson stated:

"The Palestinians were living in that land before the European Jews arrived there and forced the locals to carve out a large piece of their land so the Jews could have a nation."

The above is a recycled script. It of course offers a selective revision of history that suggests all Jews in today's Israel are from Europe. The fact is the actual Paletsinians were Jews,Muslims and Christians. The actual Palestinians who were Muslim were then displaced by Britain flooding the area with non Palestinian Muslims. In the revisionist script Hudson uses, he depends on his audience not to understand the history and role Britain played in flooding the area known as Palestine with external Arab Muslims to prevent a Jewish state. Palestinian Muslims were more likely displaced by external Arab Muslims who flooded the area than Jews as their population wasfar larger than the Jewish population.

Hudson also shows how the revised script he pumps out is categorically incorrect. In fact 8o% of Palestine was carvn ed out by the British not any Zionist and named the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. That Kingdom still to this day on its coat of arms refers itself to the Palestinian state, It offered any Palestinian Muslim instant citizenship and its laws to this day prohibit a Jew from becoming a citizen of Jordan or owning land in Jordan.

In fact of the remaining 20% Israel did not carve it out. History shows that prior to the War of Independence in 1949, Israel agreed to give up its rights to the 80% of Palestine unilaterally and illegally carved out by Britain for Jordan contrary to the League of Nations Mandate they agreed to administer and agree do settle for a vey small kidney shaped piece of land that would have in fact meant it was giving up its legitimate right to 95% of the area known as Palestine. The Arab League of Nations rejected that proposal (The Balfour declaration) saying they would never agree to even 1% of Palestine being a Jewish state and unilaterally invaded the are of Palestine outside Jordan with the express intent to slaughter the Jewish settlers there. The border that then came about known as the pre-1967 border was not carved out by Israel-it was the de facto border that came about as where the Arab armies turned around and withdrew-The Arab League created that border by default because that is where their soldiers panicked and ran from after being unable to kill the Jews they thought they would. Hudson can revise history all he wants to pretend that war never happened or how those borders arose or how the UN abandon the Jewish settlers after World War Two and left them on their own to fend against the Arab League of Nations but it won'tmake the history disappear.

He can repeat that misrepresentation all he wants but it won't change the fact that any alleged Arab refugees who fled from what is now Israel were arrested, rounded up and forced into Palestinian refugee camps by the Arab League of nations, not Israel or any Jew. The non Jews who stated in Israel have the highest standard of living of any Muslim in the Arab League and do not want to become Palestinian citizens. That Hudson willnot speak of.

In the script "Hudson" uses Jews suddenly appeared from Europe. They just came from Europe. They never orginated from the Middle East. He deliberately revises and selects history to pretend Jews were never originally from the Middle East and were always from Europe. That's the game his words play.

The fact is the Jews of Europe that ended up in Israelwere no more foreigners than the Arab Muslims who flooded the area as well but in the world of Hudson's rhetoric, we ignore anything that doesn't revise history to skip out anything that does not fit his narrow script.

Hudson states:

"Two former Israeli prime ministers were former leaders of Jewish terrorist groups, Irgun and Lehi. Hamas was elected by the Palestinians, so they should be dealt with. There is nothing you can do about it."

Of course what he skips out is that the groups they were in never amounted to more than 1% of the Zionists of Israel, in fact less than .5%. we are talking at its peak 300 people in these groups. That he does not mention, What he also does not mention is Nasser and Anwar El Sadat openly embraced and supoorted Hitler and both wore throughout their lives Hitler mustaches.

What he does not mention is the governments of Syria, Egypt and Iraq were all based on Hitler's government right down to their military uniforms,mukbarat secret police designed based on the Gestapo model and that they still wear world war two Nazi uniforms,goosestep and at Hezbollah

In the world of Hudson, Israel is terrorist but no one else in the Middle East was.

Hudson stated:

"That's code word for "damage to blood thirsty Zionist interests is catastrophic".

The above words are not code. They are in fact propoganda script. The only people who still use phrases like

"blood thirsty Zionist interests" are Hamas Iranian and Syrian disinformation script writers. The words blood thirsty originate from the blood

libel reference and the word "Zionist" is the actual coded word used for "Jewish" and "interest" is an appropriated word referring to the conspiracy of Jews to control the world.

The words are old, the script even older.

Here is an interesting phrase Hudson used:

"You will have to deal with Palestinians and their rights whether you accept it or not."

The person he addressed with this comment in fact did not deny Palestinians have rights. His response engaged in the well known motus opperandi of responding by suggesting someone who questions Palestinian terrorism questions Palestinian rights. Its an exercise that focuses away from the actual crtiticism of terrorism to accuse it of a critcisim of something else. Terrorism is of course difficult to justify directly.

[jbg]

Don't despair, JBG. Negotiations and dialogue are better than the alternative. Many seem to have an idea as to how a negotiated settlement would look - the quicker that such a settlement arrives the better.

Great bonhomie at those negotiations. Arafat and Rabin looked so photogenic shaking hands, and accepting the Nobel Peace Prize.

What happened next?

[Michael Hardner]

Why are you asking me? If you have a point, you should just go ahead with it.

[jbg]

What happened next was that Palestinian terror continued. And Arafat condemned it in English, not Arabic.

[GostHacked]

From what I understand is that Israel has all the benefits of a recognized nation state but the Palestinians do not. Here me out.

Israel is recognized and gets all the benefits and protections from the UN being a recognized state. The Palestinians do not have a recognized state, therefore cannot have any benefits in that area.

Scenario 1.Gaza attacks Israel.

Israel has all the rights to defend and push back the attacks being a sovereign recognized state.

Scenario 2. Israel attacks Gaza

Gaza, the Palestinians, have no right to defend themselves based on the fact they are not a recognized sovereign state.

If Gaza, the Palestinians did have an official recognizable state, then UN mandates against Israel would have to be honored. But as we know that is not the case and essentially Israel can attack with impunity even if they threw the first punch.

Let them have full rights, and if they attack, then I really have no problem if Israel levels Gaza. But if Israel attacks first, then you have a whole other ball game to play in which Israel now has to play within a different set of rules compared to what they have been playing with for the last 60+ years.

So there might be a benefit to Israel to keep the Palestinians stateless, for they simply do not have the same recognizable rights as a declared sovereign state like Israel.

[jbg]

So there might be a benefit to Israel to keep the Palestinians stateless, for they simply do not have the same recognizable rights as a declared sovereign state like Israel.

Part of being a recognized state is control over territory. If the authorities in control of Gaza are unable to prevent attacks emanating from Gaza they lack the essential attributes of a recognizable state.

[GostHacked]

Part of being a recognized state is control over territory. If the authorities in control of Gaza are unable to prevent attacks emanating from Gaza they lack the essential attributes of a recognizable state.

Israel controls the territory. They may not govern the territory, but they sure do control it.

[Hudson Jones]

Youtube version of jbg?

Edited November 25, 2012 by Hudson Jones

[eyeball]

From what I understand is that Israel has all the benefits of a recognized nation state but the Palestinians do not.

From what I understand Britain's initial diddling in the region is what resulted in a state of affairs that is now about as FUBAR as it gets.

Britain reminds me of Jerry Sandusky except without the spotlight, the glare of truth and the consequences.

[DogOnPorch]

From what I understand Britain's initial diddling in the region is what resulted in a state of affairs that is now about as FUBAR as it gets.

Up to a point. Post WW1, both France and Britain held Mandates in the region. Most nationalistic movements were satisfied with what the got.

Edited November 25, 2012 by DogOnPorch

[eyeball]

That sound's like something Jo Pa would point out whilst defending...you know.

[GostHacked]

From what I understand Britain's initial diddling in the region is what resulted in a state of affairs that is now about as FUBAR as it gets.

Yes, we have people invoking the Mufti to support their claim, but when these facts about Britain's involvement are also considered, we encounter push back from the other side saying it's irrelevant.

[jbg]

From what I understand Britain's initial diddling in the region is what resulted in a state of affairs that is now about as FUBAR as it gets.

Up to a point. Post WW1, both France and Britain held Mandates in the region. Most nationalistic movements were satisfied with what the got.

You have to place it in context. The Ottoman Empire more imploded than was defeated in WW I. Nature abhors a vacuum and the Middle East was no different. There was a real risk of chaos even worse than what happened if the Brits didn't get involved.

[eyeball]

You have to place it in context.

I thought I did that quite clearly when I made a reference to Sandusky and diddling.

Your appeal for context underscores why I also referred to Paterno.

[eyeball]

Up to a point. Post WW1, both France and Britain held Mandates in the region. Most nationalistic movements were satisfied with what the got.

Not just mandates but capital M Mandates?

Wow. I'm Impressed.

[jbg]

I thought I did that quite clearly when I made a reference to Sandusky and diddling.

Your appeal for context underscores why I also referred to Paterno.

I don't understand the need for sexual connotations.

What I was calling "context" was the fact that the Ottoman Empire held sway over the entire area from the border of Persia, now Iran to the southern shore of the Mediterranean (though Britain at some earlier point seized Egypt and I believe Libya and France seized Tunisia and Algeria). When the Ottoman Empire more or less vanished, someone needed to step in, or warlords (as well as already ascendant Zionists) would have polished each other off.

[eyeball]

They're required to convey the level of disgust that should be reserved for situations where powerful people, especially when they should know better go ahead and diddle the powerless anyway. Indicting those who would ignore, overlook, deny or apologize for these after the fact also seems apropos.

I think everything else you wrote is just a pile of irrelevant crap.

[jbg]

They're required to convey the level of disgust that should be reserved for situations where powerful people, especially when they should know better go ahead and diddle the powerless anyway. Indicting those who would ignore, overlook, deny or apologize for these after the fact also seems apropos.

I think everything else you wrote is just a pile of irrelevant crap.

Sexual innuendos and foul language do not win arguments. Reason does.

[DogOnPorch]

Not just mandates but capital M Mandates?

Wow. I'm Impressed.

Tens of thousands of Allied casualties in order to enjoy the BS we're seeing today rates a big M.