Israel

[Mojo Hand 4580]

7 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Or you know, Israel could let the UN send peacekeepers into Gaza like they want to.  That would guarantee security.  Instead, Israel bitches and the USA vetoes because it isn't really about security at all.  Its about keeping the status quo while Israel figures out how to take all of the West Bank while removing all Palestinians from it without massive international blowback.  In fact, encouraging minor terrorist attacks is a good thing for Israel.  It allows them to say "see, we told you," while systematically settling the West Bank, and disenfranchising West Bank Palestinians to the point where they leave.  Eventually, they'll just declare it Israel because "we're already here."   Once the West Bank is fully considered Israel, they'll instantly let the UN enter Gaza, and unilaterally declare the nation of Palestine as Gaza only.

The UN proposal I saw was for forces to "protect the Palestinian people" or something along those lines.   Was there a proposal for UN forces to go in and root out the people shooting rockets?   I'd be fine with that.  And there are certainly hard-liners in Israel who think the way you describe, but plenty of Israelis who don't as well.   It's by no means inevitable that the hard-liners win out, but the Palestinians are doing everything they can to help them. 

[Orca of Peace 109]

19 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

Yeah, Orca.  And again, "expulsion" from a place isn't exactly what people think of when they hear "ethnic cleansing."  No one, to my knowledge, is calling for extermination.

And I wonder what percentage of Arabs would like to see Israelis expelled from Israel.

I'm not taking sides here, either.  I think Israel is every bit the bad actor that Hamas is.  I think it's absurd when anyone takes sides in that fiasco.  All I see is two ruthless groups fighting over a patch of land.  Oldest story in history.

ethnic cleansing isn't always extermination, more commonly it's expulsion. I was watching a WW2 doc last week where many Germans were expelled from other nations back to Germany in 1946, thousands were murdered but the vast majority were simply made to walk or railwayed back. 

[Orca of Peace 109]

23 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Or you know, Israel could let the UN send peacekeepers into Gaza like they want to.  That would guarantee security.  Instead, Israel bitches and the USA vetoes because it isn't really about security at all.  Its about keeping the status quo while Israel figures out how to take all of the West Bank while removing all Palestinians from it without massive international blowback.  In fact, encouraging minor terrorist attacks is a good thing for Israel.  It allows them to say "see, we told you," while systematically settling the West Bank, and disenfranchising West Bank Palestinians to the point where they leave.  Eventually, they'll just declare it Israel because "we're already here."   Once the West Bank is fully considered Israel, they'll instantly let the UN enter Gaza, and unilaterally declare the nation of Palestine as Gaza only.

UN peacekeepers is the perfect idea to protect the Arab civilian population from massacre by the IDF. 

[realgreggym 838]

40 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Or you know, Israel could let the UN send peacekeepers into Gaza like they want to.  That would guarantee security.  Instead, Israel bitches and the USA vetoes because it isn't really about security at all.  Its about keeping the status quo while Israel figures out how to take all of the West Bank while removing all Palestinians from it without massive international blowback.  In fact, encouraging minor terrorist attacks is a good thing for Israel.  It allows them to say "see, we told you," while systematically settling the West Bank, and disenfranchising West Bank Palestinians to the point where they leave.  Eventually, they'll just declare it Israel because "we're already here."   Once the West Bank is fully considered Israel, they'll instantly let the UN enter Gaza, and unilaterally declare the nation of Palestine as Gaza only.

You mean like when there were UN peacekeepers in southern Lebanon a few years ago to provide a buffer between Israel and Lebanon. And when Hezbollah attacked Israel, the peacekeepers sided with Hezbollah. Sounds like a great idea.

If Israel wanted the West Bank, they could take it. The UN is already highly anti Israel so the blowback would be nothing new.

Only some one like you would believe that Israel thinks encouraging terrorist attacks is a good thing. A few days ago, a 22 year old IDF soldier was killed by Hamas  A couple of weeks ago, 3 female members of the IDF all under the age of 22 were murdered in a terrorist attack and a couple were murdered a few weeks earlier. Right, thats a good thing. And maybe you don't remember or never knew that on several occasions the IDF went into the West Bank and removed settlers that caused much violence from some of those WB settlements. Doesn't support your WB takeover does it.

All that you are doing is regurgitating old nonsense. BTW, why doesn't anyone complain that the border between Gaza and Egypt is blocked as well. Doesn't work into your mantra.

[realgreggym 838]

30 minutes ago, Orca of Peace said:

UN peacekeepers is the perfect idea to protect the Arab civilian population from massacre by the IDF. 

You mean like the Jenin massacre? 

[Orca of Peace 109]

the recent and ongoing Gaza massacre where 65 were killed in one day where another 1200 were shot but didn't die. 

 

Quote

If Israel wanted the West Bank, they could take it. 

for 51 years they have taken it

Edited July 25, 2018 by Orca of Peace

[realgreggym 838]

1 hour ago, Orca of Peace said:

the recent and ongoing Gaza massacre where 65 were killed in one day where another 1200 were shot but didn't die. 

 

for 51 years they have taken it

Most of those killed were Hamas and if you are stupid enough to go to anarea where Hamas was going to intentionally cause violence, then what do you expect. Stay away from the border and you won't get shot.

They tookthe WB in battle just like Texas was won in battle against Santa Anna.  And if the Israelis wanted, they could get rid of every Palestinian if they chose to do so. Instead they offered the WB as a Palestinian country and the Palestinian leaders declined even after they were thrilled with the negotiations for their own country.. 

[David Dennison 19553]

1 minute ago, realgreggym said:

Most of those killed were Hamas and if you are stupid enough to go to anarea where Hamas was going to intentionally cause violence, then what do you expect. Stay away from the border and you won't get shot.

They tookthe WB in battle just like Texas was won in battle against Santa Anna.  And if the Israelis wanted, they could get rid of every Palestinian if they chose to do so. Instead they offered the WB as a Palestinian country and the Palestinian leaders declined even after they were thrilled with the negotiations for their own country.. 

If Israel wanted to offer up the West Bank they could always just recognize it as Palestine and leave. 

Edited July 25, 2018 by David Dennison

[realgreggym 838]

If the Palestinians wanted their own country, they could have accepted the deal that they were offered and approved of..

They don't want their own state, they want Israel wiped of the face of the earth and thats not happening.

[David Dennison 19553]

1 minute ago, realgreggym said:

If the Palestinians wanted their own country, they could have accepted the deal that they were offered and approved of..

They don't want their own state, they want Israel wiped of the face of the earth and thats not happening.

What does that have to do with Israel recognizing Palestine as a state and ending the occupation?

[JBJ 3828]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

If Israel wanted to offer up the West Bank they could always just recognize it as Palestine and leave. 

Yeah, they could have a phased plan.  They could start by leaving Hebron, Jericho, and Nablus.  Then, the rural agricultural settlements.  And lastly the sparsely inhabited areas.

If they could pull that off, then the only thing necessary for peace would be for Arab Palestinians to not attack the non-Arab civilians.

[realgreggym 838]

There is no occupation. That land was won in battle. Its that simple.

When they are willing to guarantee Israel's right to exist and its right to its security, then something may happen. 

 

 

[David Dennison 19553]

7 minutes ago, realgreggym said:

There is no occupation. That land was won in battle. Its that simple.

When they are willing to guarantee Israel's right to exist and its right to its security, then something may happen. 

Then annex it. 

[Orca of Peace 109]

15 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Yeah, they could have a phased plan.  They could start by leaving Hebron, Jericho, and Nablus.  Then, the rural agricultural settlements.  And lastly the sparsely inhabited areas.

If they could pull that off, then the only thing necessary for peace would be for Arab Palestinians to not attack the non-Arab civilians.

this is a very sensible plan 

[Orca of Peace 109]

13 minutes ago, realgreggym said:

There is no occupation. That land was won in battle. Its that simple.

When they are willing to guarantee Israel's right to exist and its right to its security, then something may happen. 

 

 

your friend Arafat accepted Israel around 1988 or 1993 , can't remember. So has the PLO to this day and in fact cooperates with Israel on many issues. 

The occupation denial is almost as wacky as the other denial.  Winning something in battle doesn't mean you have it if the occupied poeple don't want you.. that's the definition of ccupation. Denial!

[hpslugga 4097]

1 hour ago, realgreggym said:

Its that simple.

It is, in the Land of Make Believe and Pretend. 

Edited July 26, 2018 by hpslugga

[FondrenRoad 4378]

1 hour ago, realgreggym said:

There is no occupation. That land was won in battle. Its that simple.

When they are willing to guarantee Israel's right to exist and its right to its security, then something may happen. 

 

 

Lol. A minute ago Israel didnt want the West Bank. Now it isnt even occupied. They won it in battle so its theirs. 

Be a fucking man and admit what you want. You want the West Bank to be part of Israel and you want the Palestinians on it to be removed. Gaza is just a useful tool, but for sure, at the end of this, you want Gaza to be the entirety of Palestine. 

[JBJ 3828]

1 hour ago, Orca of Peace said:

this is a very sensible plan 

It sounds really familiar, too.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Every day that passes, Israel’s position gets  stronger.  That’s a good thing IMO.  

[WhatTheBuck 28931]

3 hours ago, realgreggym said:

There is no occupation. That land was won in battle. Its that simple.

By the Arabs. Many centuries ago. But apparently there's a double standard involved. Hmmmm...I wonder what that might be. 

[realgreggym 838]

3 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

Lol. A minute ago Israel didnt want the West Bank. Now it isnt even occupied. They won it in battle so its theirs. 

Be a fucking man and admit what you want. You want the West Bank to be part of Israel and you want the Palestinians on it to be removed. Gaza is just a useful tool, but for sure, at the end of this, you want Gaza to be the entirety of Palestine. 

You know what I want you piece of trash, I want peace in the middle east. You're too G-d damn stupid to know that its Israel that wants peace. What the fuck have the piece of feces Palestinians done to make you believe they want peace.

[realgreggym 838]

42 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

By the Arabs. Many centuries ago. But apparently there's a double standard involved. Hmmmm...I wonder what that might be. 

You're not smart enough to understand this but the Israelis won the land in battle most recently. 

[Fozzz 152]

Having to support apartheid seems to be eating you up realgreggym.  

[MaybeACoordinator 8350]

I spent seven months over there as a Gentile kibbutz volunteer, early September of '93 to April '94. It was relatively peaceful. High hopes on all sides after the Rabin - Arafat handshake. No major incidents during that entire time.

After an extent in a kind of Martian kibbutz in the most arid part of Israel -- Yahel, on the Jordanian border about 40 miles north of Eilat -- we transferred up to Kfar Blum, which was tucked up in the north east, at the foot of both the Golan Heights and the Lebanese hills. Shit was a little more tense there, as the IDF was roaming around the Bekaa Valley just over the lush green hills we could could see from our kibbutz.

Fighter jets flying low, rattling the windows and breaking the sonic barrier were routine, this Israeli told me. That was just to intimidate the Arabs. But if we ever saw helicopters? That meant trouble.

The very day my ex and I left Kfar Blum, and Israel, we saw a convoy of choppers heading over the hills and into Lebanon. Seemed like we picked a good day to GTFO of there, especially as neither of us had a dog in the fight.

Turns out an IDF patrol had been ambushed and took heavy casualties from a Hezbollah unit....

And the ex and I were in Prague by the time Baruch Goldstein took his revenge at the Mosque in Hebron, and the Second Intifada was on, and before all that shit was over Rabin would be assassinated by right wingers, and any chance of some kind of equitable solution for Palestinians would be over.

So....we have Israelis killed on foreign soil, a massacre of Palestinians in a town that was 95 percent Arab, retaliations by Palestinians, followed by MASSIVE retaliations by the IDF, and now, here we are, well on the way to an "Arabrein." Eretz Israel, as opposed to Medinat Israel. Eretz means "land," as in this belongs to us, and Medinat means "state," as in something we might consider sharing. And that they did share with Israeli Arabs until last week. 

 

 

[Gil Bang 26244]

Just stopped by to say “fuck Israel”.

[MaybeACoordinator 8350]

This has been floating around on the Israeli right forever, but Bibi is putting it back out there that the Holocaust was all the Palestinians' fault. 

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/netanyahu-absolves-hitler-of-guilt-1.5411578

Quote

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sparked public uproar when on Tuesday he claimed that the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, was the one who planted the idea of the extermination of European Jewry in Adolf Hitler's mind. The Nazi ruler, Netanyahu said, had no intention of killing the Jews, but only to expel them.

In a speech before the World Zionist Congress in Jerusalem, Netanyahu described a meeting between Husseini and Hitler in November, 1941: "Hitler didn't want to exterminate the Jews at the time, he wanted to expel the Jew. And Haj Amin al-Husseini went to Hitler and said, 'If you expel them, they'll all come here (to Palestine).' According to Netanyahu, Hitler then asked: "What should I do with them?" and the mufti replied: "Burn them."

Netanyahu's remarks were quick to spark a social media storm, though Netanyahu made a similar claim during a Knesset speech in 2012, where he described the Husseini as "one of the leading architects" of the final solution.

 

[WhatTheBuck 28931]

1 hour ago, realgreggym said:

You're not smart enough to understand this but the Israelis won the land in battle most recently. 

Do you think they won Jerusalem by armed conflict? They definitely lost it by armed conflict a long, long time ago. Obviously their God was too weak to defend it on his own. There wouldn't even be an Israel if other nations, Britain and the U.S. specifically, didn't make it happen. 

We should stop giving money to Israel. If God wants the Jews to have their own country, let him pay for it.

(I don't normally respond to trolls so that's all the time I'm wasting on you.)

[FondrenRoad 4378]

9 hours ago, realgreggym said:

You know what I want you piece of trash, I want peace in the middle east. You're too G-d damn stupid to know that its Israel that wants peace. What the fuck have the piece of feces Palestinians done to make you believe they want peace.

Yeah, you want Israel to annex the West Bank officially into Israel and remove or completely disenfranchise the Palestinians who currently live on it.  Israel doesn't want peace.  If they did, they could have built the wall and left the West Bank long ago.  They are the only party with power there.  They can create a Palestinian state entirely unilaterally.  

Greggy: If Israel wanted the West Bank, they could take it.

DD: If Israel wanted to offer up the West Bank they could always just recognize it as Palestine and leave.

Greggy: There is no occupation. That land was won in battle. Its that simple.

Yeah, that sounds like someone that wants to create a Palestinian state in the West Bank.

But here's your problem, greggy.  The below simply isn't true, and you know it:

Greggy: And if the Israelis wanted, they could get rid of every Palestinian if they chose to do so.

Unfortunately, the world will tolerate your apartheid just as it tolerated South Africa's.  It will even tolerate the inhumane treatment of people.   It won't tolerate genocide, so you'll continue to be stuck trying to figure out what to do with the Palestinians there.

Edited July 26, 2018 by FondrenRoad

[FondrenRoad 4378]

7 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Do you think they won Jerusalem by armed conflict? They definitely lost it by armed conflict a long, long time ago. Obviously their God was too weak to defend it on his own. There wouldn't even be an Israel if other nations, Britain and the U.S. specifically, didn't make it happen. 

We should stop giving money to Israel. If God wants the Jews to have their own country, let him pay for it.

(I don't normally respond to trolls so that's all the time I'm wasting on you.)

He's not a troll.  He's someone who puts another nation state ahead of his own.  There's a name for that.  He's also senile.  Sounds like someone we know in DC right now.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

17 hours ago, Mojo Hand said:

The UN proposal I saw was for forces to "protect the Palestinian people" or something along those lines.   Was there a proposal for UN forces to go in and root out the people shooting rockets?   I'd be fine with that.  And there are certainly hard-liners in Israel who think the way you describe, but plenty of Israelis who don't as well.   It's by no means inevitable that the hard-liners win out, but the Palestinians are doing everything they can to help them. 

Who said they wouldn't root out people shooting rockets?  UN forces would protect the peace generally.  Israel doesn't want anyone there because they don't want observers present.  Israel wouldn't even the let the US send forces in if we wanted to and we're entirely in their pocket.  That's because a US soldier isn't going to stand by and watch protesters get shot in the back either.  If you want to talk about "both sides" then act like it.  Put someone else on the fence, and step back from the fence.  If someone tries, from either side, to attack over the fence, then a 3rd party force should and would go after them.

[hpslugga 4097]

8 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Yeah, you want Israel to annex the West Bank officially into Israel and remove or completely disenfranchise the Palestinians who currently live on it.  Israel doesn't want peace.  If they did, they could have built the wall and left the West Bank long ago.  They are the only party with power there.  They can create a Palestinian state entirely unilaterally.  

Greggy: If Israel wanted the West Bank, they could take it.

DD: If Israel wanted to offer up the West Bank they could always just recognize it as Palestine and leave.

Greggy: There is no occupation. That land was won in battle. Its that simple.

Yeah, that sounds like someone that wants to create a Palestinian state in the West Bank.

But here's your problem, greggy.  The below simply isn't true, and you know it:

Greggy: And if the Israelis wanted, they could get rid of every Palestinian if they chose to do so.

Unfortunately, the world will tolerate your apartheid just as it tolerated South Africa's.  It will even tolerate the inhumane treatment of people.   It won't tolerate genocide, so you'll continue to be stuck trying to figure out what to do with the Palestinians there.

To the world's credit, they will not tolerate the apartheid arrangement. The problem is that the UN has a defect in its structure, namely the permanent member status and all the powers/rights that come with it. Were it not for the US veto, Palestine would be an established state going back to 1976 at the very latest. But people like greg don't want to hear that and they want to forcefully tell fanciful stories, almost as if to convince themselves, that the fantasy world they live in is any more real than the Wizard of Oz.

[Orca of Peace 109]

3 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Who said they wouldn't root out people shooting rockets?  UN forces would protect the peace generally.  Israel doesn't want anyone there because they don't want observers present.  Israel wouldn't even the let the US send forces in if we wanted to and we're entirely in their pocket.  That's because a US soldier isn't going to stand by and watch protesters get shot in the back either.  If you want to talk about "both sides" then act like it.  Put someone else on the fence, and step back from the fence.  If someone tries, from either side, to attack over the fence, then a 3rd party force should and would go after them.

that's a good point about US troops, If US troops were stationed on the Gaza border and 30,000 protestors showed up one day, I doubt US troops would be murdereing medics, journalists, 14 yo boys, shooting guys in wheelchairs etc etc.  US troops would be much better behaved. 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

3 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Who said they wouldn't root out people shooting rockets?  UN forces would protect the peace generally.  

Again, the most recent proposal I saw from Kuwait was expressly for UN forces to protect Palestinian civilians.  That was the stated mission.  What is your basis for contending that they would be authorized, let alone directed, to run military operations against rocket launching sites?  

[FondrenRoad 4378]

28 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Again, the most recent proposal I saw from Kuwait was expressly for UN forces to protect Palestinian civilians.  That was the stated mission.  What is your basis for contending that they would be authorized, let alone directed, to run military operations against rocket launching sites?  

For one, rocket launches endanger Palestinian civilians as well.  Also, UN forces are a 3rd party, and that in itself would cool tensions.  And if Israel or the US actually gave a shit, they could word the fucking resolution exactly the way they want to and get it passed.  They could also specifically identify which countries they want the UN forces to come from.  Instead, here you are playing at semantics.  Bibi could draft a new resolution that would satisfy him today, put it on Trump's desk tomorrow so he could color the pictures, and the UN security council would pass it the next day.  But Bibi doesn't want anyone there observing, so 0 resolutions would satisfy him, so none of that is going to happen.

As it is, the IDF is not only an interested party, but has many soldiers who are entirely hostile to one side and that makes it difficult, if not impossible, for them to protect the peace.  So while Israel has been trying to figure out how to keep the West Bank, the population of the combined Palestinian territories has climbed to 4.5 million.  Israel had their chance to drive them into the sea or into Jordan decades ago.  They're never going to be given a green light to exterminate or relocate people.  It would be in everyone's best interest, including Israel's if they just announced a Palestinian state, including East Jerusalem, built a wall, built an elevated fenced viaduct to allow transit between Gaza and the West Bank, and called it done.  Terrorism would even go down because there would be no humanitarian requirement for Israel to allow any border entries at all from a bordering independent state.  Most of the world would even agree to allow Israel to monitor and secure Gaza's port if Israel did this.  And in a few decades, the animosity would die down, everyone would have a state, and you'd have a neighbor and trading partner who knows that good trade with you is economically beneficial to them.  With the status quo, though, animosity will never die down.  Its an open wound that you won't let scab over. 

Edited July 26, 2018 by FondrenRoad

[Fozzz 152]

I thought terror kites were the new boogeymen, not those Hobby Lobby caliber rockets?

[Orca of Peace 109]

5 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

I thought terror kites were the new boogeymen, not those Hobby Lobby caliber rockets?

terror condoms 

 

 

Edited July 26, 2018 by Orca of Peace

[Fozzz 152]

Gonna need 500 dead Palestinian children to offset every terror condom unleashed from Gaza.  Tis only fair. 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

12 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

For one, rocket launches endanger Palestinian civilians as well.  Also, UN forces are a 3rd party, and that in itself would cool tensions.  And if Israel or the US actually gave a shit, they could word the fucking resolution exactly the way they want to and get it passed.  They could also specifically identify which countries they want the UN forces to come from.  Instead, here you are playing at semantics.  Bibi could draft a new resolution that would satisfy him today, put it on Trump's desk tomorrow so he could color the pictures, and the UN security council would pass it the next day.  But Bibi doesn't want anyone there observing, so 0 resolutions would satisfy him, so none of that is going to happen.

As it is, the IDF is not only an interested party, but has many soldiers who are entirely hostile to one side and that makes it difficult, if not impossible, for them to protect the peace.  So while Israel has been trying to figure out how to keep the West Bank, the population of the combined Palestinian territories has climbed to 4.5 million.  Israel had their chance to drive them into the sea or into Jordan decades ago.  They're never going to be given a green light to exterminate or relocate people.  It would be in everyone's best interest, including Israel's if they just announced a Palestinian state, including East Jerusalem, built a wall, built an elevated fenced viaduct to allow transit between Gaza and the West Bank, and called it done.  Terrorism would even go down because there would be no humanitarian requirement for Israel to allow any border entries at all from a bordering independent state.  Most of the world would even agree to allow Israel to monitor and secure Gaza's port if Israel did this.  And in a few decades, the animosity would die down, everyone would have a state, and you'd have a neighbor and trading partner who knows that good trade with you is economically beneficial to them.  With the status quo, though, animosity will never die down.  Its an open wound that you won't let scab over. 

So, no basis for your assumption other than, hey I'm sure the UN would go after rocket launchers and other militants, and their presence would probably make people not want to fight Israel anymore.  Not very persuasive.  It's unreasonable to expect Israel to agree to the presence of international human shields with such vague assurances of reciprocal protection.

And I don't think the UN would approve a mission to go after Palestinian militants that was drafted by Netanyahu.  They routinely refuse to approve resolutions even condemning Hamas, and you think they'd go after Hamas militarily?  No way. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

2 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

So, no basis for your assumption other than, hey I'm sure the UN would go after rocket launchers and other militants, and their presence would probably make people not want to fight Israel anymore.  Not very persuasive.  It's unreasonable to expect Israel to agree to the presence of international human shields with such vague assurances of reciprocal protection.

And I don't think the UN would approve a mission to go after Palestinian militants that was drafted by Netanyahu.  They routinely refuse to approve resolutions even condemning Hamas, and you think they'd go after Hamas militarily?  No way. 

Then he could ask for the US military to keep the peace.  Do you trust our soldiers?

Edited July 26, 2018 by FondrenRoad

[Orca of Peace 109]

the UN peacekeepers would be hugging the Gaza fence on the Pal side, not deep inside Gaza itself where the hobby lobby rockets are fired. The UN would basically protect Gaza protestors from being murdered, that would be their sole purpose. 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

4 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Then he could ask for the US military to keep the peace.  Do you trust our soldiers?

Why would he need to ask the US military to come in?  Israel has its own military that is already responding.   Has the US even been asking to go in?   As an American, I don't want the US getting militarily involved in that mess. 

[Orca of Peace 109]

US military has been in Israel for decades, even sometimes operating the Patriot anti missile system

[FondrenRoad 4378]

8 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Why would he need to ask the US military to come in?  Israel has its own military that is already responding.   Has the US even been asking to go in?   As an American, I don't want the US getting militarily involved in that mess. 

Because the IDF response is part of the problem and is the reason the UN is drafting resolutions in the first place. They are not a disinterested party and fire on civilians and protesters. The US military would not do that. 

The US wouldn't ask because we are a bitch when it comes to Israel. We acquiesce to all of Israel's demands and actions. We could easily be told to go in though, and we would. And in spite of us being in Israel's pocket, we wouldn't murder protesters. 

It is a mess, but it's a geographically small one. It wouldn't be a quagmire for US forces. It would be a policing mission. 

Edited July 26, 2018 by FondrenRoad

[Mojo Hand 4580]

Just now, FondrenRoad said:

Because the IDF response is part of the problem and is the reason the UN is drafting resolutions in the first place. They are not a disinterested party and fire on civilians and protesters. The US military would not do that. 

The US wouldn't ask because we are a bitch when it comes to Israel. We acquiesce to all of Israel's demands and actions. We could easily be told to go in though, and we would. And in spite of us being in Israel's pocket, we wouldn't murder protesters. 

It just sounds like you're throwing out unrealistic hypotheticals.  I suppose if Trump offered to send US troops to provide security in the territories to both sides, dealing with Palestinian militant attacks on Israel so it doesn't have to, I could see Israel agreeing to that.   I would oppose that as an American, though.  

[Orca of Peace 109]

US General says American soldiers are ready to die for Israel 

 

 

-----------

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-03-19/top-us-general-says-american-troops-should-be-ready-die-israel

US Third Air Force Commander Lt. Gen. Richard Clark spelled out just such a scenario wherein US troops could be asked to fight and to die for defense of America Israel - even to the point of being placed under Israeli commanders responsible for battlefield decision making. 

And those US troops who would be deployed to Israel, are prepared to die for the Jewish state, Clark said."We are ready to commit to the defense of Israel anytime we get involved in a kinetic fight there is always the risk that there will be casualties. But we accept that - as every conflict we train for and enter, there is always that possibility," he said.

 

 

Edited July 26, 2018 by Orca of Peace

[FondrenRoad 4378]

17 minutes ago, Orca of Peace said:

US General says American soldiers are ready to die for Israel 

 

 

-----------

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-03-19/top-us-general-says-american-troops-should-be-ready-die-israel

US Third Air Force Commander Lt. Gen. Richard Clark spelled out just such a scenario wherein US troops could be asked to fight and to die for defense of America Israel - even to the point of being placed under Israeli commanders responsible for battlefield decision making. 

And those US troops who would be deployed to Israel, are prepared to die for the Jewish state, Clark said."We are ready to commit to the defense of Israel anytime we get involved in a kinetic fight there is always the risk that there will be casualties. But we accept that - as every conflict we train for and enter, there is always that possibility," he said.

 

 

That's all fine because it presupposes the idea that the Arab world will be attempting to wipe Israel off the map. We would absolutely defend Israel in that case, but that isnt anything that is happening right now. Instead, much of the Arab world is doing nothing. 3 of 5 countries next to Israel are at peace with them and also wouldnt shed a tear if the Palestinians were wiped out. Of the other 2 countries, one is in complete disarray, and the other is tiny and weak Lebanon. 

The more pressing question is what we would do if Israel began population control operations against Palestinians. 

 

[WhatTheBuck 28931]

Zerohedge? C'mon, Orca. 

[Orca of Peace 109]

29 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Zerohedge? C'mon, Orca. 

Jerusalem Post was quoted by zerohedge. 

Here is the Jerusalem Post link , Clark says US troops are ready to die for Israel (as if the ultra dominant IDF needs any help)

https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Juniper-Cobra-begins-with-US-and-IDF-troops-simulating-missile-attacks-544598

Washington and Israel have signed an agreement which would see the US come to assist Israel with missile defense in times of war and, according to Haimovitch, “I am sure once the order comes we will find here US troops on the ground to be part of our deployment and team to defend the State of Israel.”

And those US troops who would be deployed to Israel, are prepared to die for the Jewish state, Clark said.

“We are ready to commit to the defense of Israel and anytime we get involved in a kinetic fight there is always the risk that there will be casualties. But we accept that – as every conflict we train for and enter, there is always that possibility,” he said.

 

US and IDF train for casualties here :

Edited July 26, 2018 by Orca of Peace

[Orca of Peace 109]

36 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

That's all fine because it presupposes the idea that the Arab world will be attempting to wipe Israel off the map. We would absolutely defend Israel in that case, but that isnt anything that is happening right now. Instead, much of the Arab world is doing nothing. 3 of 5 countries next to Israel are at peace with them and also wouldnt shed a tear if the Palestinians were wiped out. Of the other 2 countries, one is in complete disarray, and the other is tiny and weak Lebanon. 

The more pressing question is what we would do if Israel began population control operations against Palestinians. 

 

the IDF Is ultra dominant, so there is zero need for US troop involvement. 

[kopp0e 1135]

20 hours ago, Orca of Peace said:

ethnic cleansing isn't always extermination, more commonly it's expulsion. I was watching a WW2 doc last week where many Germans were expelled from other nations back to Germany in 1946, thousands were murdered but the vast majority were simply made to walk or railwayed back. 

Or, in some cases, just to eradicate enough people so that others will be submissive to whatever the demands are by the imposing party...