Israeli Establishment Literally Wants Ethnic Cleansing

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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.

Originally Posted by Soluzar

Nobody will register more than a token protest if Arabs take decisive action.

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.

Most amazing jew boots

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

"MiG-29 fighter jet"


This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Soluzar

However, I'm not sure it will be that long before there's a certain Arab nation with nuclear weapons capability.

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.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Soluzar

So that's what Israel would do about it, but what exactly do you think the U.S. would do about it?

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.

Quote:

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...

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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.

FELIPE NO

Quote:

Sure if you want to look at things amorally.

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.

Quote:

No foreign occupier is justified in seeking the destruction of resistance movements.

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.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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?

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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

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.

Quote:

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

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?

Quote:

Possession of territory within Palestine's internationally recognized borders.

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.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

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

I was speaking idiomatically.