Yes, because it serves your interest and your dreams of expansion.
Livestream out of Syria
- Thread starter ooeat0meoo
- Start date
Yes, because it serves your interest and your dreams of expansion.
Since Muslims kill each other from Pakistan to Algeria and Mali, and from Yemen to Syria those Zionists have some dreams, don't they?
Israel doesn't give a feck about the rebels. In fact, there's a general realizaion here that we'd be better off with Assad's Syria compared with a fragmented territory ruled by regional warlords. Thus, Israel has a motivation to help Assad, but you wouldn't imagine saying Israel is helping him against the rebels. A motivation doesn't necessarily mean getting involved, and Israel have learned the hard way that getting involved in conflicts is much easier than getting out of them. Israel's name is mentioned every now and then in this conflict because both sides blame each other for collaborating with Israel. It still wins you sympathy in the Muslim world claiming you're fighting collaborators with the Zionists.
Having said that Israel has certain red lines and insists on them not being crossed. One of them is the threat to its aerial superiority in Lebanon, i.e. it makes sure that advancaed anti-aircraft missiles don't cross the border or that S-300 units in Syria do not become operational. Chemical weapons in the hands of Nassrallah are also not welcomed.
Look, nobody said you started all the problems in the Muslim world, but you (not you personally but as a country) definitely only want it to get worse, and will do what you can for it to get worse..
Let's not forget that the rise of Al-Qaeda and extremism/terrorism in the region was also helped by the United States, which in the eyes of the Arab world isn't much different from Israel (and time isn't proving them wrong on that issue).
If Israel had no preference, then the US would not have sided with anybody in the conflict. The situation is pretty clear to be honest.
Israel doesn't want to be publicly involved on a big scale, because it doesn't want to affect the image of the people they're supporting in the Arab world.
Well the Muslim world was a lot more peaceful before the establishment of Israel in 1948, that's a fact. Zionism only brought wars and destruction.
More peaceful than Israel, that's for sure, and that's not really relevant because the French, English empires were not very peaceful were they ? In our post war era, I only see one terrorist state in the world, it's Israel.
I think I stepped in enemy territory here, so excuse me I'm just a goy.
I'd disagree there. I definitely think Arab people have a point in that it has for a long time been their home region and they have been displaced from the position of hegemonic people through outside influence and force, but I think the region has always been unstable.
Whether that would have changed had Israel not come into being is anyone's guess.
I guess the establishment of Israel is also to blame for India's independence, or for the London Olympics. Could it be that the Muslim world became a collection of nation states during the 1940's, only that most Muslim countries never knew what to do with their good fortune?
You really do think that Obama and Kerry follow Israel's instructions, don't you? How.often do you reckon Obama steps in Bibi's office for a briefing?
What would you want your sworn enemies to do, when the alternative is pointing their weapons collectively at you?
Perhaps if Arab hate was mellowed they'd spot the difference between a superpower with global interests and a nation stl busy securing its existence.
No, I consider Israel more like the US' 51st state.
There is nothing called "securing your existence". The Palestinians have lived there for thousands of years, and they still couldn't "secure their existence". In that sense every single nation is (and should continue) trying to secure its existence, nothing special about Israel in that regard.
And I don't blame you by the way that you're doing that (triggering and encouraging regional conflicts).. Just don't play innocent like you have nothing to do with it.
Bollocks. The Palestinians or their fellow.Arabs will be safe in their sovereign states if they put their weapons down.Could you say the same about Israel? I don't think our thousands of years experience argument will be of any help.
Oh, and we have absolutely nothing to do with stirring shit in Syria even though there are obvious benefits in Hizballa being involved there at the expense of its popularity in Lebanon. Sometimes nations get lucky breaks.
I sometimes wish we were.
For many Arabs this reasoning makes Israel's prosperity easier to swallow. It puts a mirror in Arabs' faces, and what they see there isn't pretty. An easy escape route is pretending this is all down to the US ( with Jews pulling the strings there, obviously).
how about a good ol pre-emptive strike you always favour 
that solves everything....
that solves everything....
I don't think it's because they're just "jealous", or makes them "feel bad about themselves". Most Arabs look at the (prosperous) European countries with respect (even despite all the problems of the past, occupation...etc.). I think you're skimming too easily over the fact that you're on a land you occupied from other people (with the help of the US primarily, especially in the most recent years), and it didn't happen too long ago.
how about a good ol pre-emptive strike you always favour
that solves everything....
If stories are to believedIsrael have carried out several of those in Syria already. Those stories also point at our.friend in the White House as the source leaking the stories to the media. Always good.to have a true friend as president of the US.
You have bombed Syria several times already! And the US is getting publicly involved as much as it can, which if it wasn't for Israel, I don't see why they would like to be involved this heavily.
And about the bold part, really? So which weapon did they raise in 1948? How come the Palestinians now have no country to live in?
I feel we're in danger of going back to the old futile "who was here first" debate. It would.be.helpful if Arabs were educated that the people of Israel can not be possibly occupiers of the Land of Israel.
The European prosperity argument I'd draft if I'm honest. Zionism turned this MidEast shithole into a (relative) paradise compared with the backwardness of most neighboring states, and has done so without oil money. How is that as a reference to how badly Arabs fare?
Are you kidding me? Are you suggesting Israel started the 1948 war?
Does this argument (even if we assumed it's true) apply only to this spot on Earth, or everywhere, like for example the US?
I hope you understand how terrible this argument is, because you're basically giving the right for anybody to dig in the history books, and claim that he lived there first (and who cares if that's true or not), and then uses the power he has to invade that territory and displace the people living there, and occupy their land. If that's the case then don't be surprised if the Arabs kept trying to gain power and displace you again from this land when they can, because after all, according to their history books, they were here first too!
By the way, do you know incidentally that this is basically the same argument Saddam Hussein used to invade Kuwait?
People have been living there in peace for thousands of years. There is no justification for displacing them and occupying their land, and there is only one reason why that happened. It's because you had the power and the will to do so.
And believe me, HR, nobody in the Arab world really hates Israel just out of "jealousy".. I don't know where you got that idea from. Most Arabs actually have the tendency to respect the prosperous nations..
If we really went on about that, a large portion of the Earth's population would hav to be moved since it is difficult to find areas where at one point in history either through migration, conquest, etc one set of people did not move into the lands settled by another set of people.
No, I meant all the events that actually led to the declared war, which by the way also means that Israel did practically start the war indeed.
Didn't you start a war on Lebanon because they kidnapped two soldiers, and considered them the one who started the war? I'm pretty sure Israel did more than kidnapping two soldiers in 1948 (and before that) before the Arab countries reacted.
You'll find in my pst that I'm not a big fan of the argument myself, although hearing that the Palestinians have been here for millenia is funny, I have to admit. Palestinian history books is also a reason for a good laugh. Their history doean't go back more than a century.
There was a war in the late 1940's and people got displaced, both Jews and Arabs. Time to move on. The rest of the world has. A million Jews were displaced from thier homes in Arab countries. They have been assimilated in their nation state, and went on to contribute to its prosperity. It's the Arabs turn now to follow suit by overcoming their collective victim complex.
You must have read this in the same Palestinian history book claiming they've been here for thousands of years.
So we started a war by having our soldiers killed on our own soil (never mind the bombardment across the border the same morning)...We could well have started the 1948 war following this reasoning by being invaded by Egyptian, Iraqi, Jordanian, Lebanese and Syrian armies.
There's something Hitleresque about that sentence.
the sooner Israel and the Palestinians get back to the peace process the better.
...without pre-conditions.
...without pre-conditions.
They are a lot of things in common between them tbf. The arrogance of that sentence is amazing. But it doesn't surprise me, after all they are the chosen ones.
You may want to elaborate on your analogy. You'll do well finding reference to 19th century "Palestinians".
They are a lot of things in common between them tbf. The arrogance of that sentence is amazing. But it doesn't surprise me, after all they are the chosen ones.
Common things between who?
Between Israel and Nazis : Ethnic cleansing, apartheid to name a few. But with the backing of the US everything is possible.
I know you are an expert on Nazi Grmany, but let's check your grasp of Palestinian heritage.
Yes, Hitler (and to some extent the Russians) displaced the Jews and the Jews displaced the Arabs. Don't you think it sucks to be the Arabs in this scenario?
Oh and in case you're trying to mix things up here, the Jews were only expelled (or immigrated heavily) from the Arab countries after the 1948 war.
It's also interesting that you consider 60 years too long, and it's now time to "move on", while thousands of years weren't long enough for you to move on, about a century ago...
But I agree, the Arabs should stop playing the victims. They either do what you did when you were victim (i.e. do their best and use all the power in their hands to re-claim what they think is theirs) or shut up.
How many people/leaders have you assassinated on their own soil? And by the way, there is a reason why those soldiers were kidnapped. If there were Israelis detained in a prison of some country, will you forget about them, or you will always try to free them, no matter what the cost is?
If a war should be started for every 2 people killed on their home soil, or every rocket launched, then Israel has started hundreds of wars already (at least 5 of them against Syria in the last two years)..
Jews suffered pogroms in Arab countries before the State of Israel ever existed. Jews didn't just displaced Arabs but immigrated to their homeland after the fall of the Ottoman empire and during British imperialism. The displacent of Arabs resulted from a war that meant to rid this place.of the Jews. You can't expect the Jews to apologize for winning that war.
The Arabs don't have to accept the outcome of that war, and unfortunately it looks like they are waiting for their chance to "re-claim" what they think belongs to them. Only that we keep.hearing how.miserable.they are as they are the last."refugees" from 1940's displaced 10's of millions still "enjoying" the status. Victimhood.
Re your Lebanon comment, does that mean that Israel couldn't possibly start a war with Lebanon asong as Ron Arad isn't back? Alternatively, are you denying the fact that Lebanon bombarded Israel's north on the morning of the attack of the IDF vehicle?
Oh, and BTW there has been continuous Jewish presence here for thousands of years. That the British, Ottoman as well as other empires before them put obstacles to Jewish presence doesn't change that of the historical justice of Jewish self determination in Israel.
Anyway, this has been a cool hijacking of a thread. Should leave it for Syrian matters and argue in a separate thread.
Anyway, this has been a cool hijacking of a thread. Should leave it for Syrian matters and argue in a separate thread.
I agree, and I'm not in the mood for pointless arguments to be honest. I just wanted to show you the double standards in your position, blaming others for playing the "victim card" while being pretty much the justification you use for the whole situation, blaming others for firing a rocket and killing two people and describing it as "starting a war", while the Israeli strikes and assassinations in other countries are just "pre-emptive strikes", or "necessary measures to keep Israel safe"...etc.
Oh, and at some point you even claimed that you're completely innocent and that you have nothing to do with what's happening in the region, or in Syria right now, which is simply not true..
We're not going to argue whether you actually presented a convicing argument or not, are we?Back to Syria, obviously we're involved but not as has been presented here like the whole thing is a Zonists shit-stirring plot to get rid of Assad. We'll take great satisfaction in the weakening of a brutal political front which openly question our right to exist, while at the same time we aren't going to assist Muslim fundis of the AQ sort. For another angle of our involvement in Syria watch this: