Israel And The Palestinians (now with added Iran)

[Jacksgranda]

8 hours ago, Fullerene said:

After the War, the World decided the Jews should have their own homeland.  The UK offered up Palesttine without a great deal of thought to the people who are already living there.

Meanwhile over in Iran, the people elect a Prime Minister who thinks Iranian oil should belong to the Iranians.  The UK thinks this is a bad idea and along with the US replaced him with a dictator who though Hitler was misunderstood.  That proved unpopular and led to the revolution and the theocracy that Iran still has to this day.

If any country should be asked to sit this one out, I would suggest the UK.

Third time lucky?

[Self-raising Lazarus]

2 hours ago, Miguel Sanchez said:

Absolutely disgraceful what Iran's done to Israel. I only get my news from Britain so I have absolutely no idea why Iran attacked Israel. I am certain though that it was entirely unprovoked., out of the blue and undeserved.

Awaiting the totally unexpected and thoroughly deserved isreali style overreaction they are synonymous for.

[Hiram Holliday]

As long as we make money out of selling arms.

[Freedom Farter]

Further details here:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/13/shhh-or-ill-shoot-you-family-of-jailed-christian-woman-tell-of-israeli-raid

(if link is walled: https://archive.ph/qe2Cl)

Edited April 17 by Freedom Farter

[Hedgecutter]

I'm sure this will be settled in a calm and collaborative manner:

 

A former official at the Israeli spy agency says targeting nuclear facilities in Iran is among the options on the table as Israel decides how to respond to Saturday's attack. Meanwhile, Iran's president has warned the "tiniest move" against the country would bring a "fierce" response.

[Freedom Farter]

5 hours ago, Hedgecutter said:

I'm sure this will be settled in a calm and collaborative manner:

 

A former official at the Israeli spy agency says targeting nuclear facilities in Iran is among the options on the table as Israel decides how to respond to Saturday's attack. Meanwhile, Iran's president has warned the "tiniest move" against the country would bring a "fierce" response.

It's often commented that USA's awful foreign policy is a bipartisan effort, meaning their two political parties equally contribute. That's largely true but Iran is an exception. The Republican Party are far, far more to blame than the Democratic Party when it comes to awful Iran policy. From Eisenhower's overthrow of Mosaddegh, to Reagan's support for Saddam Hussein's Iran invasion, to Bush's "axis of evil" speech, to Trump's smashing up of the JCPOA. Then that last one is the most immediately relevant to the quote you've posted above, as we can see here:

The JCPOA is also known as "Obama's Iran Deal" and was US sanctions relief on Iran in return for Iran ending their pursuit of nuclear weapons. Israel vehemently opposed the deal which sounds counter-intuitive. Why would Israel be against a deal that stopped Iran pursuing nuclear weapons?

The reason is that Israel needs the continued US military aid. It needs it partly to continue its colonisation of the occupied Palestinian lands and its displacement of the Palestinian people within those lands. Its extremely expensive to maintain a military occupation as intense and thorough as the one they do in West Bank, as well as to bomb Gaza to the ground every decade or so. It also needs the continued US military sponsorship because Israel has built its economy around militarism, its tech industry is its equivalent of UK's financial industry - at the heart of its economy - and all its tech flows out from the military. They make innovations in military technology first which later get transferred to other purposes in the private sector.

Nobody buys it, not even the US tax payers, that Israel needs the military aid to "protect themselves" from all these women and children they've been slaughtering in Gaza. So instead Iran is posited as the threat. All the billions upon billions thrown at Israel is to "defend" them from Iran. That's the key narrative which Israel needs the Republican party to sell to US tax payers so those US tax payers continue consenting to their tax contributions being spent on Israel. Therefore, any thaw in relations between USA and Iran, anything that makes it harder to posit Iran as the bogeyman, is viewed by Israel as a threat to the military aid. This is why Netanyahu was so enraged by Obama's Iran deal and why Netanyahu's pal Trump was so desperate to end it as soon as he got the chance.

[beefybake]

Earlier in this thread, there were excerpts from letters by former Israeli leader, Moshe Dayan, in referring to the real reasons for the 1967 war.

He admitted that the real reason was not the threat from Syria, it was simply about territory. Israeli farmers would send their tractors into the  approaches towards the Syrians, deliberate goading to force a response,  and to make it look like Israel was the victim.

 

So here we are again, Israel attacks an Iranian consulate, Iran responds, and the West et al, go along with this sick joke that Israel is again the victim.

Watching that slime face Cameron talking his crap would almost make you want to puke. The utter moral bankruptcy of it all.

 

Edited April 17 by beefybake

[Shadow Play]

11 hours ago, beefybake said:

Earlier in this thread, there were excerpts from letters by former Israeli leader, Moshe Dayan, in referring to the real reasons for the 1967 war.

He admitted that the real reason was not the threat from Syria, it was simply about territory. Israeli farmers would send their tractors into the  approaches towards the Syrians, deliberate goading to force a response,  and to make it look like Israel was the victim.

 

So here we are again, Israel attacks an Iranian consulate, Iran responds, and the West et al, go along with this sick joke that Israel is again the victim.

Watching that slime face Cameron talking his crap would almost make you want to puke. The utter moral bankruptcy of it all.

 

Sorry, I’m not understanding the bit on bold.  Why would Syria respond to farmers in tractors being near their border.   I’m assuming I’m misunderstanding? 

[beefybake]

2 hours ago, Shadow Play said:

Sorry, I’m not understanding the bit on bold.  Why would Syria respond to farmers in tractors being near their border.   I’m assuming I’m misunderstanding? 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/11/world/general-s-words-shed-a-new-light-on-the-golan.html

 

"..... It is an article of faith among Israelis that the Golan Heights were seized in the 1967 Middle East war to stop Syria from shelling the Israeli settlements down below. The future of the Golan Heights is central to the search for peace in the Middle East, and much of the case against giving the Golan Heights back to Syria rests on the fear of reviving that threat.

But like many another of Israel's founding legends, this one has come under question lately, and from a most surprising quarter: Moshe Dayan, the celebrated commander who, as Defense Minister in 1967, gave the order to conquer the Golan.

General Dayan died in 1981. But in conversations with a young reporter five years earlier, he said he regretted not having stuck to his initial opposition to storming the Golan Heights. There really was no pressing reason to do so, he said, because many of the firefights with the Syrians were deliberately provoked by Israel, and the kibbutz residents who pressed the Government to take the Golan Heights did so less for security than for the farmland.

General Dayan did not mean the conversations as an interview, and the reporter, Rami Tal, kept his notes secret for 21 years -- until he was persuaded by a friend to make them public. They were authenticated by historians and by General Dayan's daughter Yael Dayan, a member of Parliament, and published two weeks ago in the weekend magazine of the newspaper Yediot Ahronot.

Historians have already begun to debate whether General Dayan was giving an accurate account of the situation in 1967 or whether his version of what happened was colored by his disgrace after the 1973 Middle East war, when he was forced to resign as Defense Minister over the failure to anticipate the Arab attack.

But on a more immediate level, the general's 21-year-old comments play directly into the current dispute over whether the Golan Heights should be returned to Syria in exchange for peace. The Government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is firmly opposed to returning the Golan, contending that the high ground is vital for Israel's security.

''Look, it's possible to talk in terms of 'the Syrians are b*****ds, you have to get them, and this is the right time,' and other such talk, but that is not policy,'' General Dayan told Mr. Tal in 1976. ''You don't strike at the enemy because he is a b*****d, but because he threatens you. And the Syrians, on the fourth day of the war, were not a threat to us.''

According to the published notes, Mr. Tal began to remonstrate, ''But they were sitting on the Golan Heights, and . . . ''

General Dayan interrupted: ''Never mind that. After all, I know how at least 80 percent of the clashes there started. In my opinion, more than 80 percent, but let's talk about 80 percent. It went this way: We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance farther, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was.''

[doulikefish]

Israel bombing Iran now 

[Claudia Gentile]

11 minutes ago, doulikefish said:

Israel bombing Iran now 

It's all the Palestinians fault.

[Shadow Play]

21 hours ago, beefybake said:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/11/world/general-s-words-shed-a-new-light-on-the-golan.html

 

"..... It is an article of faith among Israelis that the Golan Heights were seized in the 1967 Middle East war to stop Syria from shelling the Israeli settlements down below. The future of the Golan Heights is central to the search for peace in the Middle East, and much of the case against giving the Golan Heights back to Syria rests on the fear of reviving that threat.

But like many another of Israel's founding legends, this one has come under question lately, and from a most surprising quarter: Moshe Dayan, the celebrated commander who, as Defense Minister in 1967, gave the order to conquer the Golan.

General Dayan died in 1981. But in conversations with a young reporter five years earlier, he said he regretted not having stuck to his initial opposition to storming the Golan Heights. There really was no pressing reason to do so, he said, because many of the firefights with the Syrians were deliberately provoked by Israel, and the kibbutz residents who pressed the Government to take the Golan Heights did so less for security than for the farmland.

General Dayan did not mean the conversations as an interview, and the reporter, Rami Tal, kept his notes secret for 21 years -- until he was persuaded by a friend to make them public. They were authenticated by historians and by General Dayan's daughter Yael Dayan, a member of Parliament, and published two weeks ago in the weekend magazine of the newspaper Yediot Ahronot.

Historians have already begun to debate whether General Dayan was giving an accurate account of the situation in 1967 or whether his version of what happened was colored by his disgrace after the 1973 Middle East war, when he was forced to resign as Defense Minister over the failure to anticipate the Arab attack.

But on a more immediate level, the general's 21-year-old comments play directly into the current dispute over whether the Golan Heights should be returned to Syria in exchange for peace. The Government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is firmly opposed to returning the Golan, contending that the high ground is vital for Israel's security.

''Look, it's possible to talk in terms of 'the Syrians are b*****ds, you have to get them, and this is the right time,' and other such talk, but that is not policy,'' General Dayan told Mr. Tal in 1976. ''You don't strike at the enemy because he is a b*****d, but because he threatens you. And the Syrians, on the fourth day of the war, were not a threat to us.''

According to the published notes, Mr. Tal began to remonstrate, ''But they were sitting on the Golan Heights, and . . . ''

General Dayan interrupted: ''Never mind that. After all, I know how at least 80 percent of the clashes there started. In my opinion, more than 80 percent, but let's talk about 80 percent. It went this way: We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance farther, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was.''

Very much appreciate you taking the time to explain this in detail, although I’m more depressed than ever about any possible solution.  I just can’t see there being a solution in our lifetimes.

One thing I still can’t understand though.  Is the demilitarised area in Israel or Syria?   If it is in Israel why would Syria fire on tractors ploughing land in Israel? Would it not simply be better ignored?

[beefybake]

2 hours ago, Shadow Play said:

Very much appreciate you taking the time to explain this in detail, although I’m more depressed than ever about any possible solution.  I just can’t see there being a solution in our lifetimes.

One thing I still can’t understand though.  Is the demilitarised area in Israel or Syria?   If it is in Israel why would Syria fire on tractors ploughing land in Israel? Would it not simply be better ignored?

Definition of a demilitarized zone is where warring parties parties agree to cease open military warfare, pending a diplomatic solution. The dispute concerns territory. The border prior to the 1967 war is internationally recognised. Israel did not, and does, accept this border. The words of Moshe Dayan are an admission that Israel deliberately provoked further open military conflict, to expand the territories under its control, whilst giving the impression of being the victim.

Demilitarized zones are usually tense, fragile affairs. If you don't want conflict you don't send your tractors in, 'innocently' assuming it's OK. 

 

 

[coprolite]

3 hours ago, Shadow Play said:

Very much appreciate you taking the time to explain this in detail, although I’m more depressed than ever about any possible solution.  I just can’t see there being a solution in our lifetimes.

One thing I still can’t understand though.  Is the demilitarised area in Israel or Syria?   If it is in Israel why would Syria fire on tractors ploughing land in Israel? Would it not simply be better ignored?

I think the point isn’t that Syria were in the right but that Israel wasn’t being as defensive as they pretended to be. 
 

A tractor isn’t some neutral harmless thing if your opponent has a history of just taking land for farming. It’s not exactly a tank but it’s a pretty clear statement.

[Jacksgranda]

24 minutes ago, coprolite said:

I think the point isn’t that Syria were in the right but that Israel wasn’t being as defensive as they pretended to be. 
 

A tractor isn’t some neutral harmless thing if your opponent has a history of just taking land for farming. It’s not exactly a tank but it’s a pretty clear statement.

I think we need @Sergeant Wilson's take on this.

[Newbornbairn]

As my Palestinian colleague put it - "They're like inkblots spreading out over the land, always taking more"

[Sergeant Wilson]

42 minutes ago, Jacksgranda said:

I think we need @Sergeant Wilson's take on this.

 

I will defer to our Perth colleagues to review tractors. But with my technical knowledge I know they have big wheels at the back and wee ones at the front.

[Newbornbairn]

5 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

 

I will defer to our Perth colleagues to review tractors. But with my technical knowledge I know they have big wheels at the back and wee ones at the front.

<Cough>

[Sergeant Wilson]

Just now, Newbornbairn said:

<Cough>

Aye, it's all changed since my day.

[Newbornbairn]

1 hour ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

Aye, it's all changed since my day.

Oct 5th 1953?