Israeli policeman stated on facebook desire to 'slay arabs'

Post Reply New Topic

Screw international law. Since there is no world government to enforce it, international law is somewhere between a convention and a joke. Nations do what they do according to their perceived interests and the hell with goodness or justice.

ruveyn

Okay , in that case you and I agree on many general points. Our views are very similar. I know it wasn't directed toward me and I don't believe in any kind of divine right to land or anything. I just wanted to make that point because some people have this image of white western imperialists in Israel. A lot of people don't seen to know that the majority are Mitzrahi jews who were persecuted in surrounding Arab, Persian and Turkish countries. As to the relevance of this -I don't know. I'm just going to leave it as a small interjection.

Sorry if I sounded really aggressive or overly argumentative before -I have PMS this week.

Last edited by daydreamer84 on 22 Mar 2013, 1:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Unfortunately , that's probably true.

Then why did the Suez Crisis of 1956 happen? Eisenhower was so ripshit at Israel that he was ready to send in the Marines, I do know that much. And if the IDF hadn't turned tail and run there would have been -- no question -- a shooting war between the US and Israel. Granted, Israel was probably sold down the river by both the UK and France, but there's no plausible way to claim Israel was looking at any part of that affair through a Cold War lens, either.

Funny how history like this gets shoved down the memory hole, but I think if nothing else it shows that the national interests of Israel and those of the US are not even close to being one and the same. And I'd say Israel has a far better grasp of this fact than the fools in DC.

Eisenhower sat in his chair, when the Russians came into Czeckoslovakia in 1968. Who sold who? After the U.S sent out all sorts of propaganda on Radio America promising aid to the Czecks the U.S. did nothing when the Czecks revolted against the Soviet Union. And I doubt whether there would have been armed conflict between the U.S and Israel on the matter of the Suez.

ruveyn

International relations. Don't expect to be taken seriously if you make those argument. That is all.

The only realistic and rational reason for a state to exist is being existent, having subjects, etc.

Israel has to have allies, so it can't afford to piss those allies off.

As I pointed out earlier countries don't always act in their interests, politic is full of individual interests, and pressures.

You could argue that though we like to help out in the middle east, we have been spending too much of out time on it, and actually we are not helping or helping ourselves, by being the middle man in this necrotic situation.

Ever notice every time there is talk of talks it's "we can't do this if (US/Norway/Turkey/Egypt/SA) is not on board". This is actually total nonsense, and excuse for inaction. It is funny because both sides are guilty of this, and even insisting on it even if it is not a natural ally.

I think when American citizens are going ape because a US candidate has or hasn't visited the middle east, as part of campaigning for a US election, then you know this going on way too far. There are far too many people with worthless opinions. When in actual fact it is only those that are living there that can find a solution, nobody else.

Like you say the charters should be ripped up, not least because they aren't worth the paper they are written on, and also because why limit.

I favor downgrading relations somewhat with both parties until some effort for a resolution is made, It is all to easy to talk of the impassible (Gaza, etc). But actually there are areas of improvement that can be made at grass roots level, and the are people already involved in this. So there is always opportunities to do something.

When people are wallowing in their own self pity, they often find themselves living in a squalor an missery. If a small number of them, sample better conditions, and get a taste for it, they are not going to want to turn back. This sets an example.

Eisenhower "sat in his chair" in 1968 because, well, he wasn't president by then. Did you not know this?

Or did you mean Hungary? Because he was in fact president when that happened, in 1956. But that still doesn't make any sense, given your claim and my counterclaim. As a gentle reminder, you claimed that Israel chose to side with the US in the Cold War. I point out that the Israel acted in her national interest in 1956, and antagonized the US as a result. You offer no rebuttal to the facts, merely throwing in what first I'll -- perhaps unfairly -- consider a "red herring" (and one that didn't even occur on Eisenhower's watch to boot) and then offer an opinion void of any reference to the actual events as they unfolded in the Suez in 1956.

In sum, I'm not really clear how to respond to this, since you've offered nothing to rebut my initial claim. Remember, you claimed that Israel chose to side with the US in the Cold War. I see no evidence for this at all, and presented one instance where Israel acted as anything BUT as being on the side of the US in the Cold War. You can refute my interpretation of the events of the Suez Crisis by reference to the facts, or you can offer other definite instances where Israel acted as being on "the side" of the US during the Cold War. Do either of these things and I'll thank you. Otherwise, I suggest you admit your error. As in an admission that Israel was indifferent to the Cold War, for reasons of her own.

You are right. It was Hungary. And Eisenhowr did sit on his ass. If the propaganda machine encouraged the Hungarians to revolt, that action in in the scope of the executive branch. Anything the propaganda machine turns out is the responsibility and perhaps the fault of the President. The President is responsible for -every last action- taken by the executive branch. And if an action was taken and the President did not know about it, then shame on the President for not knowing about it.

By the way, the Israelis turned over samples of every piece of Soviet equipment including planes and tanks to the U.S. Of course the Israelis, got the specification first, but the U.S. got the goods too. In military matters the Israelis were in close contact and often in accord with the U.S.

And if the Israelis do not fully trust various administration of the U.S. government I can hardly blame the. I have been a U.S. citizen since birth and I don't trust the U.S. government either. There are two things no decent person should ever have to see:

1. Sausages being made from bloody meat.
2. The operation of the government of the United States.

ruveyn

With all respect to the prior poster, Israel wanted to deal with the US, but that door was closed at the time. Eisenhower was far more sympathetic to the arguements of those who accepted Israel grudgingly at best. The French on the other hand...needed help in the 1950s. Israel and France had common interests, and the UK and France wanted to get back into the Suez, punish Nasser for supporting the rebels in Algeria, and Israel wanted to knock out it's most dangerous regional foe.

With all due respect to President Eisenhower, he badly handled Suez. Between the failures of western intellegence in Hungary, and the US State Department supporting a pro-Soviet ruler (Nasser), it was a mess all around that took years to clean up. In some respects, Suez/Hungary was the biggest Western loss for years to come, and it was mostly self-inflicted.

I do question the long term UK plan.....how did they seriously plan to hold and operate the canal for any length of time, even if Nasser was toppled? France was tied up elsewhere, and the UK still was fairly weak economically.