Israel vs. the rest of the world?

[When Skies Are Grey]

The Israelis are not just attacking Hamas while they're at home eating hummus; they are attacking Hamas while Hamas are continuously firing rockets at Israeli civilian areas. Now, do you seriously think the Israelis should sit back and let Hamas keep firing these rockets into Israel, because they've got human shields around them? It's a nice idea but how else do you propose to stop Hamas firing the rockets? Ask them nicely?

 

Seems to me like Israel and Hamas are interchangeable in that statement.....

[woolley]

According to Jon Snow from C4 news the average age of the people of Gaza is 17.

This is not surprising. I saw one report from Gaza where a man said he was worried for his 10 children and 99 grandchildren. From one man! Some demographic timebomb.

[Donald Trumps]

Would that NATO could bang heads together with these two after they've sorted out the ISIS Caliphate

Edited July 29, 2014 by Donald Trumps

[spook]

NATO should be disbanded. The US is abusing the NATO treaty in order to drag otherwise uninterested nation's into its continuing attempts of hegemony that will more than anything else result in the next global war.

[Thomas Jefferson]

Am Yisrael Chai. Get over it.

[woolley]

I agree with a lot you have posted on the thread, Spook but I don't see NATO or the US as eager to get involved in out of area conflicts now. If anything they are leaving vacuums everywhere which are being filled with all kinds of unpredictable scenarios. If anyone has a growing hegemony in several parts of the world right now, it's China.

[spook]

I agree with a lot you have posted on the thread, Spook but I don't see NATO or the US as eager to get involved in out of area conflicts now. If anything they are leaving vacuums everywhere which are being filled with all kinds of unpredictable scenarios. If anyone has a growing hegemony in several parts of the world right now, it's China.

Poland and the 1300 British troops makes the Obama anti - Putin agenda a NATO item.

 

I agree that there is a move in the ballance of power and that China is the probable successor but whenever there has been a seismic shift or when a great empire implodes there has always been huge bloodshed. Best is to remain detached and neutral as far as possible, Switzerland being a prime example. My fervent hope is that we and as much of Europe that realise this leave the US to deal with whatever takes place on their own to get on with it.

 

NATO treaties would preclude this and in any case NATO came into being to address a perceived need at the time. That need has disappeared as has the root cause that created that need. Now it's being used by the US for its own purposes. I really do believe the UK should walk away from it without a moments delay. America is no friend of anyone but America and does nothing unless it of advantage to America. The word altruism is not in the American vocabulary and never has been.

[woolley]

I think you can apply "self interested" to any great power, and there is nothing wrong with that. The NATO treaty provides for mutual protection in that an attack on one is tantamount to an attack on all. It has only been invoked on one occasion, following the 9/11 attack on New York. I would venture that the chances of an attack on a European state are much greater than an attack on the USA in the short to medium term. If NATO did not exist, I feel sure that Putin would be emboldened to chance his arm further since he knows well that the EU is a pushover militarily that will not say boo to anyone.

[spook]

Russia is not and never will be the USSR. If anything Europe should be looking to get much closer to Russia and putting figurative clear blue water in addition to literal clear blue water between Europe and the USA.

[woolley]

Russia is not and never will be the USSR. If anything Europe should be looking to get much closer to Russia and putting figurative clear blue water in addition to literal clear blue water between Europe and the USA.

So long as it is run as a dictatorship headed by a man schooled by the former KGB, it will always share similarities with the USSR, whilst the differences are not necessarily benign. Putin feels cornered even within his own country, much as Yeltsin did before him. His ratings rise when he is seen as a strong man as with Crimea. In my opinion, this is not the time to be breaking up NATO. It is very easy to be blase about an organisation under whose umbrella you have lived in peace all your life. It is not necessarily wise.

[spook]

I have far more fear about what Obama will do, or his successor will do faced with the mess that the US is rushing towards than anything that Russia is moving towards. If there is one thing that will be worth watching it is what the effect of Obamas racist and anti-(traditional) American presidency will be. Whatever it will be the certainty is that it won't be pretty.

[Lxxx]

 

Edited July 29, 2014 by Lxxx

[Lxxx]

 

Russia is not and never will be the USSR. If anything Europe should be looking to get much closer to Russia and putting figurative clear blue water in addition to literal clear blue water between Europe and the USA.

So long as it is run as a dictatorship headed by a man schooled by the former KGB, it will always share similarities with the USSR, whilst the differences are not necessarily benign. Putin feels cornered even within his own country, much as Yeltsin did before him. His ratings rise when he is seen as a strong man as with Crimea. In my opinion, this is not the time to be breaking up NATO. It is very easy to be blase about an organisation under whose umbrella you have lived in peace all your life. It is not necessarily wise.

 

Very true. Putin still thinks the power of a country is equivalent to the size of it's land mass, hence the posturing and focus on taking back some of the old states. Absolute bonkers. Japan disproved that one when it rose to No2 economy in the world on the back of the productivity of it's people and no natural resources. Russia doesn't have much of an economy to speak of apart from it's resources so Putin would do well to set his people free to try and build him one instead of relying on strong arm tactics and oligarch's focused around it's natural gas reserves and commodities.

 

It amazes me about this rivalry between the US and Russia. For years we were told it was all about communism v capitalism and now things have changed they are still the bogeyman. There always needs to be a bogeyman though to justify the obscene military spending the US seems committed to.

Edited July 29, 2014 by Lxxx

[Chinahand]

This conflict has so many political and religious dimensions, but is so often simply described as between Jews and Palestinian Islamists.

 

My feeling is that those in power on both sides see nothing to be gained from peace.

 

The Israeli government is right wing and against handing over sovereignty of the west bank, against the right of return (is any major party in Israel?) and will not have anything to do with Hamas which doesn't involve a tank and a 1000 lb bomb.

 

Hamas has its religious vows and genocidal hatred of Jews and a rhetoric of martyrdom to continue its fighting.

 

Israelis are split between those distrustful of Islamic violence who wish they had a partner for peace, and those who are more religious and nationalistic who want to expand their state and complete the annexation of occuppied lands.

 

For me the crucial constituency is the Palestinian street, but that is radicalized by the actions of all sides.

 

Israel's violence breeds anger and hatred which is fed by Hamas' lies. With such a young population, Isreael killing a terrorist simply recruits more siblings into the terrorist cause.

 

The blitz and countless other examples show that populations tend not to become more moderate and sue for peace in the face of bombing campaigns.

 

Hence I think Israel's current campaign is counterproductive.

It may bring respite due to simple attrition, but it motivates people to fight back, to hunker down til it is over and then to strike back.

 

What is happening is far far more than simple counter-battery fire against rocket attacks. Doing that, along with deploying Iron Dome and protecting the border from Hamas attacks would pretty effectively deal with what Hamas is trying to do and show the futility of Hamas' war crimes.

 

It would also reduce the criticism of Israel as the death toll from doing that would be far more slanted to Hamas militants.

 

But that wasn't enough for Bibi - he has nothing to gain from a political detente between Hamas and Fatah, and is mindful of the support he gets from settlers who hanker after a Greater Israel.

 

The result has been a huge campaign which, in my view, will not provide Israel with security.

 

The violence simply engenders radicalism on all sides.

 

Counter-battery fire, Iron Dome and securing the border would have had similar consequences for Hamas' ability to operate, and could have increased the chances of negotiations between Israel and Fatah.

 

Now that chance is gone with Abbas tarred as a collaborator, and the huge death toll hardening Palestinian attitudes.

 

Israel's right wing, against a peace settlement, are delighted with Bibi's response, and I bet Hamas's recruiters are too.

 

More deaths, violence and terrorism will result.

 

This is no path to peace.

 

The trouble is I'm not convinced the powers in Israel want peace. The settlements expand on the occupied West Bank, and the dream of Greater Israel, or a one state solution, still remains strong.

 

Goodness knows how this will end, but I see no peace prospects for a long long time. And Isis and its ilk will milk the death toll for every once of value they can get from it.

 

Yuck.

[pongo]

^ I I think your analysis is flawed Chinahand.

 

First of all - of course the Israeli Govt wants peace. A permanent peace. Israel should not have to live in a state of permanent war. Why would they negotiate with Hamas about the minor issues when Hamas remains opposed to the very existence of Israel? I do not believe that the govt is especially right wing. It is a mistake to believe that the settlers are backed by the govt. Israel also remains essentially leftish in many ways.

 

And they cannot permanently secure the borders because every day many people have to cross into Israel to work. The military operation seems to be clearly about neutering the threat from Hamas.

 

The international criticism of Israel is hypocritical - it is coming from quarters which in most cases have chosen to ignore or not report the huge and pointless loss of civilian life caused by the direct and proxy military interventions in Iraq, Libya, Syria etc which have resulted in greater international chaos - the deliberate policy of rubblization and destabilisation.