Israeli Establishment Literally Wants Ethnic Cleansing
 

I know you guys are all tl;dr but seriously you have to read this if you ever want to understand the current state of Israel's political establishment.

Israeli foreign minister wants Palestinians stripped of citizenship and relocated - The National Newspaper
Now that Israel has been discredited in the International Community as a lawful international actor, the far right government under Netanyahu is starting to push for a whole hog hail mary ethnic cleansing of Arab Israelis.

Eventually enough time will have passed since the holocaust for it not to be seen as a terrible thing to kill jews again and the rest of the world will side with the arabs and wipe Israel off the map. I like that their security adviser is called Uzi though.

Right after Hell freezes over. Besides, killing people en masse is never good regardless of the circumstances. I think Israel's actions are pretty indefensible, but I'd rather the rest of the world not sink to their level.

I honestly wonder if there's any solution the Palestinians would really accept though. If Israel withdrew back to their pre-1967 borders, I can't help but think the Palestinians would still want all the land for themselves.

Many different Palestinian factions have already stated that they would go for this solution [the return to green-line borders] if it where to bring peace. The Israelis are the ones who are blocking it tooth and nail, because they are looking to expand their territory to include anything worthwhile as far as resources and trade routes goes while boxing in the Palestinian territories.

As far as the rest of the world is concerned, most of it already is siding with the Palestinians in the sense that they are condemning the Israel Defense Forces' constant incursions into Gaza. The United States is one of the only countries who continues to defend their aggression, not surprising since they are sponsoring it to a large extent. There are a few other governments who side with the States on this one - I'm sad to say that Canada under Harper pretty much adopts the US position in its entirety - but the gist of it is that the world doesn't believe Israel's actions are justified in most cases. If the States ever reverse gear on this matter, we can expect to see a very real reduction in the amount of bloodshed, if only because the UN won't be roadblocked at every step of the way. Also, the Israelis would have a much harder time getting away with some of the war crimes they are committing where they to lose the US veto support and vows of legitimacy.

Somewhat related: Ken O'Keefe - American-born badass

YouTube Video

I don't think European nations would ever invade Israel but I certainly don't think they'd put up much of an argument if Syria or Lebanon did (Again) and even less so if a confederation of Arab nations turned on Israel. It really is only America that supports Israel internationally and if they ever lost that support, I don't see anyone else rushing to their defence.

Which is precisely the reason why I think the next country to actually pop off with a nuke will be the Israelis.

If Israel goes down, believe she'll try to take everyone else in the region with her.

That I will agree with. Nobody, even America is going to care enough about Israel after all that has happened. Nobody will register more than a token protest if Arabs take decisive action. It won't be considered a good thing but plenty of nations if not all will be happy to turn a blind eye.

Additional Spam:
I stand corrected.

Sure. That's true, and I don't deny it. I just don't think any non-Arab nation is actually going to join in with direct action. They might sympathise, but that's as far as it goes.

sanctioning the voyages of Gaza Aid Flotillas is pretty serious direct action that sends a significant message to Israel.

But it's not military action, which is what Soluzar and Shin were talking about.

Any "decisive action" Arabs might want to take is going to result in their utter destruction until at least one of them becomes a nuclear weapons state. They know this, which is why the last Arab-Israeli war was in 1973.

You really think Israel would have the bollocks to drop a nuke? If nothing else, turning an oil rich area into a radioactive wasteland is going to really upset your government.

Given that first, we're operating under the premise that Israel is a nasty, racist rogue state that will do what it wants; second, that Israel's first response to problems tends to be overwhelming force; third, that people are treating very seriously the idea that Israel might nuke Iran to destroy it's nuclear weapons program; and finally, that the objective of this Arab attack you're hypothesizing here is to wipe Israel off the map and the rest of the world sans the United States is cheering for the Arabs to do just that? Yes, they would have the bollocks to drop a nuke.

With the circumstances you gave, Israel wouldn't have anything left to lose, and no reason not to take as many of their enemies as possible down with them.

Israel is most likely to drop a tactical nuke, maybe a bunker-buster on Iranian facilities. Nothing that would seriously precipitate nuclear exchange, but something that would still cause a major international incident and put Israel in some seriously hot water.

It would be rather hard for a non-Arab country to join in with military action against Israel, seeing how it would be tantamount to a war declaration on the United States.

Russia is the country that consistently comes the closest to this by selling arms (or in some cases, gifting jet fighters) to Arab countries, mainly Lebanon and Syria.

http://english.pravda.ru/img/idb/mig-5.jpg
"MiG-29 fighter jet"
:tpg:

I acknowledge the point, at the present it would be impossible. However, I'm not sure it will be that long before there's a certain Arab nation with nuclear weapons capability. You must appreciate however, that I don't regard the scenario under discussion as in any way likely. I just don't suppose that the rest of the world would waste much time in weeping about it. They might issue an official statement condemning the actions taken against Israel, but it would be a token gesture.

Additional Spam:
Yes, it is. As per Styphon's post, may I correct my previous statement to say 'direct military action. Ultimately if anything is going to happen it will be down to the Arabs to do it. The most likely development is going to be that Iran develop nuclear weapons capability and restore somewhat of a balance of power. There are several potential paths this could take the situation down from there, and I don't claim to be prescient enough to know exactly what the outcome would be.

Only if they keep it so far under wraps that Israel, the U.S. or anyone else likely to tell them don't hear a word about it. Israel tends to respond to suspected nuclear weapons programs in countries it doesn't like and who don't like them with air strikes, assassinations and whatever other violent mischief they deem necessary.

So that's what Israel would do about it, but what exactly do you think the U.S. would do about it? I'm thinking a lot of saber-rattling but not a lot of action. I could be dead wrong, but I'm thinking that the Americans don't have a lot of appetite for getting involved in yet another middle-east war right now.

As for the Israeli response, I don't doubt you're right but things are different now than they were. Isn't it possible that knowing about the Israeli propensity for such actions the putative nuclear power might take greater precautions? I admit I might just be naive here...

Also we talk about "what if", but isn it already starting?

If the U.S. found out about a nuclear weapons program in a state hostile to Israel, it's a safe bet that the U.S. would tell Israel about it.

Greater precautions to keep from being discovered? In order to fill my required history infodump quota, let me point out that the Manhattan Project and Ultra were two of the biggest secrets of World War II. Very few people were on the lists of people authorized to know what they were, or even that they existed. The Soviets, despite being on our side in the war against Germany, were not on the list of people authorized; Soviet intelligence penetrated both of them. Mossad is, or at least was, an intelligence service of the same caliber. They'd find out, even if the resources required for nuclear weapons research weren't enough to make it known something was up.

It would be much simpler to not hide it and just say you're researching peaceful applications for nuclear technology, in a way that's plausible, and hope enough of the world buys it for long enough to get a bomb done.

As for physical security from air strikes, they can put them underground in bunkers reinforced enough to withstand air strikes like the ones against Iraq in 1981 and Syria just a couple years ago. Which is why people are talking about Israel potentially taking things a step or more further and employing bunker-busting tactical nukes in a strike on Iran's nuclear program.

Israel could always just go all Munich Solution on the nuclear scientists in Iran until the rest consider a career change. That'd cause a lot less fallout (Of both kinds) and if there's one thing they've a proven track record off it's political assasinations.

Iran doesn't seem like the easiest place to pull off a Mossad assassination campaign these days.

Behave, I'll wager that there are agents from most major nations all over Iran right now and probably half the SAS dotted about the place. I'd be amazed if we saw nukes in Iran before we saw gunships in the suburbs and carbombs and shit.

I don't doubt that there are agents IN Iran, but nuclear scientists are an extremely valuable commodity to the Iranians, and assassinating an Iranian VIP isn't like globetrotting to bust caps in FLO terrorists.

That depends. Unless Iran sequesters them all, along with their families, in lots of undisclosed locations, the scientists have lives outside of their work, as well as homes. Intelligence operatives can identify those and act accordingly, be it with gunmen, bombs or something else.

haha Lolman is filthy Zionist scum

Who the fuck is Lolman?

He just downpropped every post that indicates Israel isn't so great.

Holy shit I raged

So it's not okay to say butchering other people isn't cool, and that maybe both sides are sort of (by sort of I mean WICKED) retarded?

How retarded is it to resist occupation by an aggressive and racist foreign power?

You can definitely argue the merit of Hamas and Hezbollah's tactics, but there's little doubt that their cause is in the right and Israel is the sole actor which is capable of accomplishing peace should it so desire.

Well, you know, I would argue both sides of an argument who say the best solution is the whole sale destruction of the other party are pretty idiotic.

But Israel should be destroyed as a Jewish state.

Additional Spam:
In any case, Hamas has been willing for a while now to negotiate a two-state solution. Maybe if Israel didn't create its own existential threats it'd have nothing to worry about.

It's those yamulkes, I swear, if the Israelis didn't dress that way then they wouldn't have so much trouble in the first place.

You know full well there are plenty of people on the other side saying the only solution is the utter destruction of Israel. However, the constant US support of Israeli terrorism is idiotic, as well.

Well, we need some way to assure the second coming of Jesus, man.

(and we'll be damned if we have to support towelheads over kikes to get our oil)

And you know full well that the Israelis have engaged in a program of settlement, disenfranchisement, and genocide.

Additional Spam:
The moral precedent for Hamas is as such: were the European resistances justified in seeking the utter destruction of Nazi Germany?

Given that they were at war, yes they were. At the same time, given that they were at war, Nazi Germany was justified in seeking the utter destruction of the European resistance movements.

Brady, thus my belief that I would be hard pressed to be sad for anything beyond the human cost if both sides of this conflict were to take each other out. I think they're both acting like children.

Sure if you want to look at things amorally. No foreign occupier is justified in seeking the destruction of resistance movements.

Shouting "a pox on both houses!" and likening their behavior to children overlooks the fact that it is a very adult thing they are doing, and well-reasoned. The ultimate goal of Israeli Zionism is to expel the Arabs from Palestine for the purposes of Jewish settlement. To reclaim the Holy Land from 'squatters' who have lived there for millenia.

There's nothing childish about Israeli paranoia and the view that there are existential threats to Israel everywhere. It's part of a concerted effort on the part of Israeli "academia," media, and political leadership to brow-beat the Israeli people into a forever war against their neighbors.

There's nothing childish about taking up arms when your dignity and land has been stripped away by decades of oppression and ethnic cleansing. I'd like to see how your worldview would be shaped if Jews shot your family members and beat you in prison.

If you're looking for morality, you would be better served to look for it in something besides war. War tends to be a pretty amoral business.

One of the objectives of war is the neutralization of a threat. As long as there is a resistance actively continuing to fight, the occupying force is justified in continuing to fight the resistance until its threat is neutralized; if neutralizing the threat requires its destruction, then it does.

In Defense of the Nazis: War is all Fucked Up!
a post by Lord Styphon

Your idea that the Four Powers should have just let any armed resistance movement that might have arisen in occupied Germany kill them at will instead of seeking its destruction is charming, but silly.

Now should we continue this discussion while pretending to be civilized people, or are you going to continue to Godwin the thread when the people discussing it with you don't fall in behind your particular viewpoint immediately and completely?

Honestly Brady, just stop digging.

Unfortunately, Styphon is completely correct. Just because Nazi Germany did horrendous acts during the war does not mean they'd simply roll over and die when a resistance formed. Likewise, just because Israel is doing horrendous things to the Palestinians does not mean they'll simply stop when they fight back.

Well first of all it's not my idea, you're putting words into my mouth.

I should have used the aggressor qualifier in my statement, although if the Allied occupation of Germany was nearly as brutal as the Nazis then it too would lose legitimacy.

You don't understand what I'm saying. Nowhere have I said that the Nazis or the Israelis would or will give up their occupation, only that they should morally speaking.

What Styphon is talking about is reasoned justification, what I am talking about is moral justification.

I agree, morally they should stop. However wars tend to not be fought with morality in mind, and this is what Styphon is trying to tell you. Should they? Yes. Realistically though, that can and will not happen in this, and most, instances. Israel will need be forced to stop what they are doing in Palestine, and at this stage I simply don't see that scenario occurring without a full blown war in the region.

Ignoring the fact that occupying a foreign country is by its nature an aggressive act, using the words you did use, it would apply to all foreign occupiers, which the Allied occupation of Germany after World War II certainly was.

As for legitimacy and brutality, the legitimacy of the occupation was established by the victorious Allies at Yalta and Potsdam, with no higher power to appeal to. So far as the brutality goes, the plans included the ethnic cleansing of Eastern Europe of Germans by means of mass expulsions, as well as deindustrialization that would have required the deaths of close to 25 million more Germans to accomplish, according to Herbert Hoover.

Objectively, that sounds to be pretty brutal. The Soviet Union, which had just suffered an occupation at least as brutal as the Palestinians are suffering from the Israelis now, would have been perfectly happy implementing it fully. And to take it even further if they suffered armed resistance.

So far as this applies to the Israelis, there is an important question to consider here; just what counts as being Israeli occupation? Everything they captured in the 1967 war? Everything outside of the 1947 UN partition plan? Or the entire country?

Except the Allies weren't the aggressors in World War 2.

Yes, but those are all still Bad Things that didn't happen, barring the gang rape and expulsions.

Possession of territory within Palestine's internationally recognized borders.

The Soviet Union invaded Poland, Finland, Romania and the Baltic States before Barbarossa.

The United States began attacking German submarines in the absence of provocation from Germany.

France and the United Kingdom were preparing to occupy Norway to cut Germany off from Swedish iron ore and on the morality front were lucky the Germans preempted them.

And Poland, meanwhile, whose getting invaded started the War in Europe, took advantage of the Munich agreement to grab a piece of Czechoslovakia for itself.

And the Soviet Army putting down an uprising in East Germany in 1953. But even ignoring that, wouldn't the expulsions alone be equivalent to the ones Foreign Minister Lieberman wants Israel to do?

Which are? There is the region called Palestine, which derives from the League of Nations mandate, and there's the State of Palestine, declared in 1988 and recognized by around 100 countries to various degrees. The former has defined borders, while the latter, as of 2010, does not, and will not until Hell freezes over and Israel and the Palestinian Authority agree on them.

If your define Palestine's borders as Mandatory Palestine, you say that Israel is a foreign occupier even within it's internationally recognized borders. Given that, and that you aren't alone in your thinking, you've managed to justify Israel's paranoia about existential threats.

I'm not saying that the Allies were saints, merely that they weren't the aggressors. By Allies here I also do not mean the Soviets and I feel it's an important distinction to make. I'm also not going to defend the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe and all of the legitimate revolutions they quelled until they gave up the ghost in the 80's.

I guess if you really want to pin me down and get a clear answer, the territories under occupation since 1967 are illegally possessed by Israel. Of course this ignores all of the Arab land in Mandatory Palestine which was taken when the Jews expelled them in the Nakba.

And because I know you like to bring up irrelevant stuff: yes I know those territories were occupied by Egypt and Jordan, and no I don't see those occupations as any more or less legitimate.

The distinction between the Western Allies and the Soviets is important, and lots of people make it, even to the point of breaking the European war in two seperate wars. While it's there, and important, there are limits to how far it can be taken. For all their differences, the Western Allies and the Soviets cooperated to defeat Germany together, and later cooperated to occupy Germany. In the separate joint occupation of Berlin, they continued to cooperate until the Cold War ended. The Western Allies also agreed to Soviet domination of Eastern Europe.

So yeah, it's important to differentiate between the Western Allies and the Soviets, separating them completely is impossible in regards to Germany.

I did, and now that I have, there are plenty of people in Israel who agree with you, and even among those who will disagree about the legality of the occupation (like Ariel Sharon before his stroke, apparently) think it's time to just accept that a Palestinian state is inevitable, and the problem is specifics, with whatever adjustments are needed before the final agreement on borders.

Of course, this is a big problem, since Israel wants to take as much of the West Bank as it can, even if it means hacking Palestinian territory into three separate parts, which isn't viable for an independent Palestinian state. Israeli settlers are a separate but related problem. The Palestinians, meanwhile insist on the right of return and East Jerusalem. And since Israel holds all the high cards here, they feel they can hold on until the Palestinians give up. They may or may not be right.

Since we're pinning positions down, my solution would be that the Palestinians give up East Jerusalem and the right of return and accept everything in Israel as lost to them. Israel, meanwhile, gives the Palestinians everything else: the West Bank minus Jerusalem, Gaza and all those really nice settlements the Israelis have built and continue to build. The settlers can either return to Israel proper or take their chances as Palestinian citizens.

Sadly, nobody there is as reasonable as I am.

All settlers should be drowned in the Red Sea.

Except they split the country into two different states along ideological backgrounds and administrated them differently.

Not that the Allied occupation of West Germany didn't have its problems.

This Lolman guy cracks me up. Doesn't have the balls to post his views, just disses if you don't say 'Israel is awesome.'

And he won't be doing that in PP anymore.

Can we zealban him?

Such is the fate of Hasbara scum.

YouTube Video

I just watched the video, and it was pretty terrifying and disgusting. Then I read the comments on the YouTube page clamoring for the blood of Israelis.

I know that we were just saying how we shouldn't dismiss the situation as they are both children, etc., but come on. I never hear anything from either side except for shouting for blood.

I wonder if peace is ever going to be manageable.