Israel bombs Syria

[+and-then]

On this one, AT, my belief is modest--perhaps minimal. On an Earth which has a crust soaked in blood, it's worth a try (I can't imagine the State of Israel agreeing to such, but what do I know?).

They may have no choice soon. If they lose the support of an American president then they might well be forced into such an action. If they do and if it fails as I expect it would, it will be instructive to see how the world reacts to the conflict that would arise. My guess is that the world consensus will be that Israel is to blame - regardless the facts on the ground. Eventually Israel is going to either be attacked unjustly OR is going to be pushed into a situation where her leaders feel justified in lashing out in a HUGE way at her enemies. I say this based on my belief in scripture and the prophecies concerning Israel in the end time eschatology. If that is something that seems ridiculous to you I will understand, no harm no foul. Many believe that Damascus will soon be destroyed and made uninhabitable - overnight. If that occurs then anyone who still refuses to consider the validity of biblical scripture will be without any excuse IMO.

On point, I believe Jerusalem will be made an "international" city and a peace will be struck for a period of 7 years. The timing will be about "confidence" building gestures I think. It will probably come about AFTER a last war between Israel and her neighbors that leads to the edge of the nuclear brink.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

So you believe a UN force could remain unbiased and keep both sides from hostilities?

I can't see why not.

They might get biased against people shooting at them and throwing rocks at them though.

[+and-then]

I can't see why not.

They might get biased against people shooting at them and throwing rocks at them though.

Well, notwithstanding Saint's concerns, UN forces have been known to choose sides in such situations and have also simply walked away when needed most. Remember, peace can only be kept by those willing to remain peaceful.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Well, notwithstanding Saint's concerns, UN forces have been known to choose sides in such situations and have also simply walked away when needed most. Remember, peace can only be kept by those willing to remain peaceful.

Yes, they usually choose the side of the person not shooting at them.

If the Palestinians are as mad as you say, getting the UN in and shot at by the Palestinians can only be a good thing for Israel.

[+and-then]

Yes, they usually choose the side of the person not shooting at them.

If the Palestinians are as mad as you say, getting the UN in and shot at by the Palestinians can only be a good thing for Israel.

Well I might agree but for the disproportionate numbers of anti Israel resolutions over the years. When a body spends THAT much energy on a small country with so little global impact and ignores real crimes happening on much more massive scales elsewhere it smacks of an unnatural obsession imo.

[Frank Merton]

UN troops are neutrals and not belligerents. Therefore they should be present only when the risk is trivial, which means only to oversee a peace agreement that has already been reached.

[XingWi]

I say this based on my belief in scripture and the prophecies concerning Israel in the end time eschatology. If that is something that seems ridiculous to you I will understand, no harm no foul. Many believe that Damascus will soon be destroyed and made uninhabitable - overnight.

Well, I think I have a solution to your 'apocalypse' problem. I am sure there are some good cult deprogramming psychiatric facilities in your area. You should seriously consider joining one of those for their exit-counseling sessions. Problem solved.

[+and-then]

Well, I think I have a solution to your 'apocalypse' problem. I am sure there are some good cult deprogramming psychiatric facilities in your area. You should seriously consider joining one of those for their exit-counseling sessions. Problem solved.

That's it buddy always stay classy

[Yamato]

UN troops are neutrals and not belligerents. Therefore they should be present only when the risk is trivial, which means only to oversee a peace agreement that has already been reached.

Overseeing a peace agreement is absence in the face of high risk? In the face of combat? No. UN troops can't sit idly while battles rage in the streets between the two sides they're there to keep the peace between. They would look impotent, and they've been called such things before.

Peacekeeping is what Russia did to Georgia. Peacekeepers must have teeth. And very large teeth, granted where we're talking about inserting them.

Edited November 6, 2013 by Yamato

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Israel bombs Syria - justified action in defence of Israel.

Palestine fires rockets into Israel - scummy war criminals full of hate!

Andy, you're bias is showing.

[Frank Merton]

Israel bombs Syria - justified action in defence of Israel.

Palestine fires rockets into Israel - scummy war criminals full of hate!

Andy, you're bias is showing.

I think you oversimplify it and thereby show your own bias. The devil is in the details of why and how it was done.

[+and-then]

Israel bombs Syria - justified action in defence of Israel.

Palestine fires rockets into Israel - scummy war criminals full of hate!

Andy, you're bias is showing.

Overseeing a peace agreement is absence in the face of high risk? In the face of combat? No. UN troops can't sit idly while battles rage in the streets between the two sides they're there to keep the peace between. They would look impotent, and they've been called such things before.

Peacekeeping is what Russia did to Georgia. Peacekeepers must have teeth. And very large teeth, granted where we're talking about inserting them.

Yam do you actually believe a force of Blue helmets can do such a job? Where have they EVER? Who would primarily compose this force? Israel would probably only trust US forces, Palestinians probably only ANYONE ELSE. Vlad, man bra model Putin would probably insert himself into the action somehow then what do we have? Short version is that ANY action that benefitted Israel would be condemned and any action - no matter how obvious - that benefitted palestinians would be overlooked. What you are hoping for is a force of jailers for the Israelis on their own land - good luck with that

[Yamato]

Yam do you actually believe a force of Blue helmets can do such a job? Where have they EVER? Who would primarily compose this force? Israel would probably only trust US forces, Palestinians probably only ANYONE ELSE. Vlad, man bra model Putin would probably insert himself into the action somehow then what do we have? Short version is that ANY action that benefitted Israel would be condemned and any action - no matter how obvious - that benefitted palestinians would be overlooked. What you are hoping for is a force of jailers for the Israelis on their own land - good luck with that

Doesn't have to be the UN. NATO or any "Coalition of the Willing" is fine. If we can defend some Sheik's oil well in the Middle East we can defuse this human tragedy there isn't enough money in for people to take action over.

Israel would probably only trust US forces, Palestinians probably only ANYONE ELSE. Vlad, man bra model Putin would probably insert himself into the action somehow then what do we have? Short version is that ANY action that benefitted Israel would be condemned and any action - no matter how obvious - that benefitted palestinians would be overlooked. What you are hoping for is a force of jailers for the Israelis on their own land - good luck with that

Then don't slap flags on sleeves. The forces should be mixed and speak multiple languages. Ideally this force should be composed of some of the world's finest citizens, on balance.

[+and-then]

Doesn't have to be the UN. NATO or any "Coalition of the Willing" is fine. If we can defend some Sheik's oil well in the Middle East we can defuse this human tragedy there isn't enough money in for people to take action over.

Then don't slap flags on sleeves. The forces should be mixed and speak multiple languages. Ideally this force should be composed of some of the world's finest citizens, on balance.

The UN already feels they have that covered. But NATO would be a better choice, marginally anyway. Either way, I think it's coming to a peace table near us and probably soon. Settlers being dragged from their homes and probably even Israeli on Israeli violence. Followed by a pause and then more rocket, mortar and missile attacks. I don't even blame the Palis for it - they're only getting by with what they're given by a gullible Israel hating world. But they also will be the one's who pay when they start attacking again - which they inevitably will.

edited - spelling

Edited November 6, 2013 by and then

[Yamato]

When there's thousands of Israelis marching in the streets comparing Bibi to Morsi, it's pretty clear that Israelis are tired of paying the inflation of the police state.

The Israeli Black Panthers movement "isn't afraid" and is ready to take the fight to Jerusalem. "Now is the time to escalate." ~ Israeli Black Panthers Founder Charlie Biton

[Yamato]

The Israeli govt has been shown to do heinous things, to embrace heinous policies. Do I think for one second that the Israeli govt won't pull the same stunts on its own people? No, not for one second. Supporting the Israeli govt is hardly supporting Israelis' best interests.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

I think you oversimplify it and thereby show your own bias. The devil is in the details of why and how it was done.

Really?

How is it different? Both sides justify their actions as "protecting their sovereign soil from a belligerent neighbour". Both sides claim that their "enemy" wants them gone.

If I'm biased, it's for "holding everyone to the same level of scrutiny" (and here comes And Then to say "the Israelis are getting bullied by other nations, no matter what they do the international community will say they're wrong").

How is one fine and the other not?

Are they both fine or both illegal?

[+and-then]

Really?

How is it different? Both sides justify their actions as "protecting their sovereign soil from a belligerent neighbour". Both sides claim that their "enemy" wants them gone.

If I'm biased, it's for "holding everyone to the same level of scrutiny" (and here comes And Then to say "the Israelis are getting bullied by other nations, no matter what they do the international community will say they're wrong").

How is one fine and the other not?

Are they both fine or both illegal?

Can you point to any instances where the international community have applauded the behavior of the Israeli government? One, even? The UN is a body that is supposed to help all the nations on the planet to live in peaceful coexistence - helping with education and the building of closer ties among nations. Of all the resolutions that have been expressed over the entire life of this body fully one third have been condemnations of Israel. Over the past roughly seventy years with all the mayhem the world has been through does this seem reasonable to you? If it were GB who had been given this disproportionate amount of negative attention would you agree with it - or would it seem like "piling on"?

As to the both sides being equivalent argument I say that one must choose a side to support in such a situation OR wash your hands of the situation entirely. There is no solution - CAN be no solution until the minds and hearts of those who hate are changed. The question that most don't bother to even ask is WHY does the world even care about this so much? Why does the seemingly petty, irreducible hatred of two groups of people - one almost miniscule in global population, rivet the attention of our world year after year?

[Frank Merton]

I think you responded better than I would have. Israel is not the bully, it is the underdog that has to work harder and be smarter surrounded by hostile neighbors. They are routinely subjected to "human rights" abuses of all sorts, that we hardly ever hear of, and they necessarily from time to time strike back (oh the horror of the little kid knocking the bully into the gutter and scraping his knee!).

[+and-then]

I think you responded better than I would have. Israel is not the bully, it is the underdog that has to work harder and be smarter surrounded by hostile neighbors. They are routinely subjected to "human rights" abuses of all sorts, that we hardly ever hear of, and they necessarily from time to time strike back (oh the horror of the little kid knocking the bully into the gutter and scraping his knee!).

That is the enigma that I try to point out. Yes, both sides want the same land. Yes, both sides resort to violence to try and keep what they have and to gain more. But we are discussing a country that is the size of a fingernail on a giant - yet the world stays fixed on everything happening there. Detractors of Israel say it's because America protects her. Some even being honest enough to say they think America is controlled by some secret Jewish cabal. The war that seems to be inevitable for this region is going to happen simply due to hate - nothing more exciting or profound than that - just hate - Jew for Muslim and vice versa. But we forget that many other countries have far more wealth and power than the parties to this conflict. Why is this particular grudge so worthy of world attention? If the major powers stepped back and ignored the situation there what would happen? A prolonged hot war would be impossible. If Israel used it's nukes it would be a pariah state forever after. No, it's like all the hatred of the world got channelled into one conflict and the world is waiting for it to be resolved. It's just bizarre when you really look at it dispassionately.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Can you point to any instances where the international community have applauded the behavior of the Israeli government?

Can you, in all honesty, say that when the international community's gotten up on it's hind-legs about Israel's actions it didn't have a good reason to?

Bombing other countries.

Assassinations in other countries.

Blowing up airplanes full of innocent people just to get one person.

If anyone did that, it'd be cause for outrage. Unless it's Israel, where it should just be accepted as "they're defending themselves in a hostile world".

Does the International Community routinely say things like "we laud Australia for taking a lead on climate change and implimenting a carbon tax?" or "we fully support Scotland's move to remove all non-electric cars by 2020?"

No. The only time the International Community speaks out, it's to criticise. So Israel doesn't need to be feel offended or bullied by that. It's how everyone is treated.

I'll reiterate my opinion on Israel for the record too:

It has a right to exist. It has a right to conduct itself as it sees fit in order to survive. It has a right to be criticised for it's choices.

If it's God's chosen land, then no matter what happens, God will look out for it, and there is AMPLE evidence in the Bible of God saying "you lot have crossed a line, time to learn some manners/contrition/etc" and I (IMO) see them going down that road AGAIN, so frankly I'd like to avoid seeing another Diaspora just so the Israelis can learn so self-control or whatever lesson God's got planned for them because they've fallen off the path designated for His chosen people.

Edited November 7, 2013 by Sir Wearer of Hats

[+and-then]

Can you, in all honesty, say that when the international community's gotten up on it's hind-legs about Israel's actions it didn't have a good reason to?

Bombing other countries.

Assassinations in other countries.

Blowing up airplanes full of innocent people just to get one person.

If anyone did that, it'd be cause for outrage. Unless it's Israel, where it should just be accepted as "they're defending themselves in a hostile world".

Does the International Community routinely say things like "we laud Australia for taking a lead on climate change and implimenting a carbon tax?" or "we fully support Scotland's move to remove all non-electric cars by 2020?"

No. The only time the International Community speaks out, it's to criticise. So Israel doesn't need to be feel offended or bullied by that. It's how everyone is treated.

I'll reiterate my opinion on Israel for the record too:

It has a right to exist. It has a right to conduct itself as it sees fit in order to survive. It has a right to be criticised for it's choices.

If it's God's chosen land, then no matter what happens, God will look out for it, and there is AMPLE evidence in the Bible of God saying "you lot have crossed a line, time to learn some manners/contrition/etc" and I (IMO) see them going down that road AGAIN, so frankly I'd like to avoid seeing another Diaspora just so the Israelis can learn so self-control or whatever lesson God's got planned for them because they've fallen off the path designated for His chosen people.

The issue is the disparity between the condemnations - and yes, many can be justified, but many also are obviously based on hatred of other groups for this state. If you believe in the scripture about this country then you have an idea what is coming for them and you understand that God is not mocked and Israel will suffer for her wrongdoing just as America and every other nation. I support the right of the Jewish people to live in the land and have a state of essentially Jewish character. I do NOT support them no matter what crimes they may commit. It is amazing to me however that Europeans and those from the US - the west in general can look at this country and not realize that for all it's warts it is still the only democracy in the region and the only semblance of stability and sanity there. Most people on this site are clueless about Israel's fate because they refuse to accept the bible as anything more than a book of fairy tales. Even those who do think of it as inspired don't seem to want to accept that prophecy just might be coming true in our day. All I demand for them is equity of justice in comparison to other nations who have done much worse yet been given a pass. What will happen to them soon enough is tragic - no need to pile on before it comes.

[Yamato]

I'll reiterate my opinion on Israel for the record too:

It has a right to exist. It has a right to conduct itself as it sees fit in order to survive. It has a right to be criticised for it's choices.

If it's God's chosen land, then no matter what happens, God will look out for it,

I've repeated the very same thing and will echo it here.

It's an inconsistency with and then's position when he claims to believe it's God's Will, but then also seeks to intervene and support certain policy. In order to reconcile this contradictory position, I can only find one way to do it: Israel must be doing His Will

[Yamato]

The issue is the disparity between the condemnations - and yes, many can be justified, but many also are obviously based on hatred of other groups for this state. If you believe in the scripture about this country then you have an idea what is coming for them and you understand that God is not mocked and Israel will suffer for her wrongdoing just as America and every other nation. I support the right of the Jewish people to live in the land and have a state of essentially Jewish character. I do NOT support them no matter what crimes they may commit. It is amazing to me however that Europeans and those from the US - the west in general can look at this country and not realize that for all it's warts it is still the only democracy in the region and the only semblance of stability and sanity there. Most people on this site are clueless about Israel's fate because they refuse to accept the bible as anything more than a book of fairy tales. Even those who do think of it as inspired don't seem to want to accept that prophecy just might be coming true in our day. All I demand for them is equity of justice in comparison to other nations who have done much worse yet been given a pass. What will happen to them soon enough is tragic - no need to pile on before it comes.

It's just horrible for you to spread these ugly myths that it's "the only semblance of stability and sanity there". It's a load of bunk to say that it's the "only democracy" too, and so what if it was? Anyone who loves liberty is not going to support Zionist policy getting used on them for one minute in their own habitats.

[buckskin scout]

Sophisticated weaponry in the hands of Israel's enemies is what threatens Israelis most. We both know that Israel isn't interested in a war with Syria and as such did not go after that state but rather just a weapons depot. Interesting that they keep finding exactly where these weapons are stored isn't it? If Assad could strike back he would. Yet he keeps (apparently) trying to pay off Hezbollah with surface to air and surface to ship missiles. If Obama continues to sound the alarm and make everyone aware of Assad's "failings" then Assad may well have to act to maintain his credibility among his brethren.

I would appreciate it if you would stop with the nasty little jabs as well Yam. It does nothing to help the discussion.

Compromise will change Mideast debate by John B. Quigley

Since the 1960s, Israel has had a monopoly in the Middle East on nuclear weapons. Israel is reliably thought to have warheads ready to deploy a sizable arsenal of nuclear weapons on a moment's notice. Yet, alone among nuclear powers, Israel refuses to acknowledge even that it has nuclear weapons. When Israel has been called on its nuclear program, the United States has stepped in to protect it. The United States will not state publicly that Israel has nuclear weapons.

While Iran is a party to the 1968 nuclear non-proliferation treaty, Israel is not. So while Israel chides Iran for concealing what it is developing, Israel has never opened itself to any outside monitoring.

Then there are chemical weapons. A recently surfaced CIA report shows Israel with a substantial arsenal. If the recent U.S.-Russia brokered deal on Syria is implemented, Syria’s arsenal of chemical weapons will be eliminated, leaving Israel with a monopoly in the region on those weapons as well.

As with nuclear weapons, a treaty in place calls for the elimination of chemical weapons, and under international supervision to boot. This is the 1992 Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and Their Destruction. Syria as of a few days ago is a party. Israel is not.

So if Netanyahu prevails, Israel will be outside any international inspection of weapons of mass destruction and will be the only country in the Middle East to possess them. The two treaties provide no exemption for countries that claim moral superiority.