Russia was also an agressor in WW2. It started wars. And yes, was once attacked with it's pants down, but did have plans to attack Germany (assuming that Germany would be weakened by fighting the Western allies, namely Britain then).Was the Soviet Union the aggressor after the pushing back the Germans on the Eastern front? Poland fell under their control. So did Berlin. Do we describe the USSR as the aggressor in this war? — BitconnectCarlos
The actions how Israel defends itself and what it tries or doesn't try to solve the conflict is something surely be a topic to discuss and to be critical about. Any country should be under scrutiny if they have annexed territory with other people than themselves.Another way of saying, yet again, stay on topic, which concerns the proportionality of Israel's military response and whether the U.S. should support it. — Baden
The only time Israel anticipated such a move was when the Cold War ended. After the Soviet Union wasn't a threat, they correctly understood that Washington could perhaps look at whom it supports at a new light. This happened to South Africa: suddenly the US didn't need an ally to keep in check Marxist advance in Southern Africa and the Apartheid system became the real issue. Hence Israel took the initiative with the Oslo Peace process. Unluckily the Palestinians didn't understand that this was once in a lifetime opportunity.But pressure inside the US is changing rather quickly and sooner or later, this will have a strong reaction in Israel, because they will be isolated and won't be able to kill children like nothing and destroy press buildings. — Manuel
1. The fact there is no peace, can be laid fully at the feet of the Israeli government as its even greedier than the land it already stole in 1967;
2. Israel has been in breach of international law since 1948, the same legal regime it bases its own rights on (you can't have your cake and eat it);
3. As long as right-wing political zionism is effectively in control of policy, it's a policy of de facto ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people as their presence is slowly eroded through evictions in East Jerusalem and through settler colonisation (and let's not get started on the Apartheid rule in Israel proper itself, which is another atrocity);
4. Israel therefore deserves no help or respect from the international community until such time as it enters into good faith negotiations with the people its oppressing;
5. Considering Israel's obvious bad faith approach to any form of peace, I conclude that every Israeli tragedy is of its own making and every tragedy befalling the Palestinians is wreaked upon them by the Israelis. — Benkei
If it would be just the military industry, then I guess the US would have done the same as France: switch sides to a more profitable arms export market. This actually has happened thanks to the Peace agreements. Let's not forget that France was the major arms supplier for Israel first and only later did it become to be the US. France helped Israel with it's nuclear weapon, not the US.Sure. But the real Israel lobby is the military industrial complex including the Pentagon. They have strategic interests in Israel, they can depend on it to do dirty business for the US, including eliminating secular Arab Nationalism as they did when they defeated Nasserism. — Manuel
I'm not so sure that Israel wants to "empower" the Gulf States. Just having a same threat (Iran) does go only so far.To add to those, the U.S. shares close geopolitical goals with Israel, to empower the Gulf States — Saphsin
Another way of saying, yet again, stay on topic, which concerns the proportionality of Israel's military response and whether the U.S. should support it. — Baden
1. Which Israeli government? Netanyahu? Olmert? Sharon? Who are you blaming exactly?
2. So what happens then if we want to go back to '48 borders? What happens to buildings built post-1948 land? Contracts? You want to just move everyone again? Who's going to do this move? Who's going to pay for it? Is the UN going to raise money for it? How much will they compensate the home and business owners?
3. I would like to know exactly how you define 'right wing political zionism.'
4. -
5. I can't tell if you're only talking about Netanyahu or other Israeli PMs as well. Regardless, in attributing every Palestinian tragedy to the Israelis you discount the Palestinians' own agency. Even in dire circumstances, even if Gaza was the Warsaw ghetto and the Palestinian ruling party was the Judenrat moral responsibility would still exist and they'd still be responsible for their actions and policies. — BitconnectCarlos
And if there is a revolution in Saudi-Arabia and the Saudi prefix is dropped? What if Saudi-Arabia goes the way as former US allies like Iran and Pakistan? From friend and ally to an enemy or problematic partner? Just like with Egypt, there is a possibility for a potential conflict.Sure, but who does Saudi Arabia use these weapons against? Yemen. Besides being a crime of the very worst calibre in global affairs, Saudi Arabia is not going to use all those weapons against an enemy that can fight back to some degree. — Manuel
Since Bitconnect doesn't understand that Israel starting a war ("Pre-empting", as they say) and annexing territory in 1967 from three of it's neighbors makes it an agressor, this debate won't go anywhere.You can't be an oppressor and then claim victimhood when the oppressed lash out. — Benkei
I don't think that that position (the necessity argument above) is ultimately wise because I believe only lasting peace can secure safety and security. — Benkei
(AP) Now, as Israel and Gaza’s Hamas rulers wage their fourth war in just over a decade, Netanyahu’s fortunes have changed dramatically. His rivals’ prospects have crumbled, Netanyahu is back in his comfortable role as Mr. Security, and the country could soon be headed for yet another election campaign that would guarantee him at least several more months in office.
The stunning turn of events has raised questions about whether Netanyahu’s desperation to survive may have pushed the country into its current predicament. While opponents have stopped short of accusing him of hatching just such a conspiracy, they say the fact that these questions are being asked is disturbing enough.
Russia was also an agressor in WW2. It started wars. And yes, was once attacked with it's pants down, but did have plans to attack Germany (assuming that Germany would be weakened by fighting the Western allies, namely Britain then).
Russia annexed a lot of territories from many countries during and after WW2. Some that it kept after agreeing to slice East Europe and the Baltics (and Finland) with Nazi Germany. So yes, not an innocent victim with only peaceful objectives in mind. Far from it.
German and Soviet troops having a nice time after another successful historical division of Poland in 1939. Brothers in arms then. — ssu
Since Bitconnect doesn't understand that Israel starting a war ("Pre-empting", as they say) and annexing territory in 1967 from three of it's neighbors makes it an agressor, this debate won't go anywhere. — ssu
Aside from the territories, do you consider Israel the aggressor in the '67 war? I don't mean the one who took the offensive, I mean the one who is in the wrong. — BitconnectCarlos
I believe Israel as insurance for Jews as a safe place, regardless of all its policies, means many Jews will defend it to their last breath because that insurance is more important to them than anything else. I consider that morally clear and a consistent position (and I suspect Eli Wiesel thought like this until very late in his life) - just admit to the crimes and then say BUT it's necessary because the security of Israel and therefore the safety of Jews everywhere is paramount. What I don't like is people defending Israel by pretending it's not a terrible Apartheid state, pretending it's a victim and pretending there are no war crimes. — Benkei
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.