Official Cyrus vs. MMMMMM Israel/Arabs Thread
 

Since the subject of this thread is off topic to another one where it is getting a lot of play, I thought the topic deserved its own thread. Although of course history is the background of the mid-east situation, nonetheless, the reality of the political situation today is what is important.

I would like to propose the following questions to be debated by the 2 parties:

1) Cyrus has stated that Israel has nothing to fear from its neighbors as it is militarily stronger. But how much risk of a certain level of harm or even total destruction not from the sum of its neighbors, but from its most militarily capable and hostile foe, should Israel have to endure before it is justified in launching a pre-emptive strike to reduce that threat? A related question is does any Arab state need nuclear weapons?

2) To what area of land is Israel entitled as a state? Some of the West Bank and the Golan, or none of it? Should Israel be entitled to keep more than the original boundaries of 1948 simply because they have been attacked in the past (the spoils of war)?

3) Should Israel be given more aid and support by the US according to the level of Islamic extremist violence against not just Israel but also throughout the entire world? And should the degree of democracy/totalitarianism of Arab governments also factor in this?

If Cyrus & MMMMMM would like to debate these questions, then they should of course feel entitled to add more points of discussion.

Re: Official Cyrus vs. MMMMMM Israel/Arabs Thread
 

I'll give my opinion on number 2:

"2) To what area of land is Israel entitled as a state? "

It is entitled to its internationally recognised boundaries and any territory it acquires under mutually satisfactory negotiations with otehr parties. This equates more or less, with potential slight revisions, to its pre-1967 boundaries.

"Some of the West Bank and the Golan, or none of it? Should Israel be entitled to keep more than the original boundaries of 1948 simply because they have been attacked in the past (the spoils of war)?"

If the Palestinians or the Syrians are willing to cede it some in negotiation, which in the case of the Palestinians would be the likely outcome of any final status talks (in return for land elsewhere), it would be entitled to those. It is not entitled to any land on the basis that it was attacked or as the spoils of war. International law condemns the acquisition of land through war of any kind, and Israel is no more entitled to it than Egypt would have been entitled to chunks of Israel if it had have managed to take some following the Suez invasion. Even if there were some law (which there isn't) saying countries were allowed to hold on to territory gained after having been attacked, Israel would not be entitled to any of the West Bank or Golan Heights, given that in the war in which it seized them, it attacked first, and in the case of the Golan seized the territory after its rightful owner (Syria, which never attempted to launch an invasion of Isreal during the way) had agreed to a ceasefire.

Re: Official Cyrus vs. MMMMMM Israel/Arabs Thread
 

i think this begs the questions of how all states arise, and what exactly the international community is.

Who is a state? what "right" does a state have to land?

(I honestly don't know, other then i think the most important unit of analysis is the individual rather then the state)

Re: Official Cyrus vs. MMMMMM Israel/Arabs Thread
 

Good points, my argument only makes sense in a state-centred approach. I agree the individual is more important, and would be quite happy with a solution that gives all individuals equal rights in a one state solution for instance. However I think while states exist and claim rights over territory, there are still going to be arguments about bits of territory (eg Golan) that don't much relate to individuals but still need resolving somehow.

Israeline
 

[ QUOTE ]
Official Cyrus vs. MMMMMM Israel/Arabs Thread

[/ QUOTE ] Actually, it is not. MMMMMM claimed that Islam is inherently closer to the intolerant philosophies that plagued Western Europe than Judaism. I am still waiting form MMMMMM to bring that nonsense up in a new thread.

[ QUOTE ]
Cyrus has stated that Israel has nothing to fear [in military terms] from its neighbours as it is militarily stronger.

[/ QUOTE ]Yes. Is this even debatable ?

[ QUOTE ]
But how much risk of a certain level of harm or even total destruction not from the sum of its neighbours, but from its most militarily capable and hostile foe, should Israel have to endure before it is justified in launching a pre-emptive strike to reduce that threat?

[/ QUOTE ]I have no hard and fast answer (or a "figure") for you. Pre-emptive, defensive, military action is something quite legitimate.

But, if you are referring to the Six Day War, well, since the numerous and serious revelations of the research undertaken by modern revisionist historians * (including a significant number of honest, honourable Israelis or simply Jewish), Israel had much, much less to fear at the time than it claimed. But the Six Day War is worthy of an entire, its own thread !

[ QUOTE ]
A related question is does any Arab state need nuclear weapons?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, there is not, absolutely not. Not any longer. . The reason Arab states sought nuclear weapons in the past was NOT to face off or threaten America. They were not that stupid!

The reason they wanted nukes was to get on a somewhat closer pedestal to nuclear-armed Israel -- which still is the only country in the region, let's not forget, which possesses Weapons of Mass Destruction, i.e. nukes. (And this is not even debatable.)

[ QUOTE ]
To what area of land is Israel entitled as a state?

[/ QUOTE ]Funny you should ask !

I am not aware of Israel declaring finally and resolutely that XYZ should be its rightful frontiers and nothing more. Israel, if you were to look up any maps of the region, keeps expanding its territory. some of the acquired territory is kept for good, some of it has an unknown future, while some of it is used for bargains. In any case, Israel has no official frontiers declared!

[ QUOTE ]
Should Israel be entitled to keep more than the original boundaries of 1948 simply because they have been attacked in the past (the spoils of war)?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, Israel should be allowed to keep more than the 1948 boundaries. The Arabs, no matter what the cause or the villain(s) in this movie, lost four or five wars. This should count for something. The Arabs and especially the Palestinians, must seek accommodation with Israel, co-existence with an independent Palestinian state, or --better yet-- live inside one, democratic state which is ruled western-style, a s a republic, and with its security guaranteed by both the UN and America.

...Hey, guess what? The Palestinian leadership has gone the extra mile for all the declarations and denouncements and agreements that were required by Israel. But, guess what, Israel claims it's all hypocritical! I have no idea what can be realistically expected in such a situation.

[ QUOTE ]
Should Israel be given more aid and support by the US according to the level of Islamic extremist violence against not just Israel but also throughout the entire world?

[/ QUOTE ] The degree of American assistance to Israel should be tied to the effort Israel shows towards a just and peaceful solution to the conflict. Let's go for the Bush Roadmap! I'd be all for it, personally.

However, Israel shows no signs of moving towards genuine peace. The leadership obviously reserves a future of pure second-class citizenry for the Palestinians, keep 'em as modern helots. The Palestinians see the writing in the wall. And start blowing themselves up. Desperation has set in, deeply and obviously.

[ QUOTE ]
Should the degree of democracy/totalitarianism of Arab governments also factor in this?

[/ QUOTE ]All attempts towards democratisation of the Arab regimes were drowned repeatedly in blood by the local "anti-communist, nationalist, religious" leaderships, with the enthusiastic support of the United States.

The United States should not be acting like an agent of justice in punishing the totalitarian Arab regimes, but rather like someone who needs atonement. The blood of the hundreds of thousands of those pro-democracy agitators of the 50s, 60s and 70s is, at least partly, on Washington, too.



--Cyrus

* The term “revisionist historians” does not imply the ignoble bunch of Holocaust deniers.

Re: Official Cyrus vs. MMMMMM Israel/Arabs Thread
 

completely agreed, but i don't think we can resolve these arguements by going back in history and saying well, state A used to have this so they should have it now. Otherwise American's should be giving back their land to the few native americans left.

I'm not saying Israel deserves the land it has (it, not being a person, certainly doesn't), but the solution should stem from what would make the people on the ground most happy, as opposed to what may or may not have been in the past.

Re: Israeline
 

i disagree that israel isn't making any strides for peace, Sharon leaving Likud is a big step. I think there is a great deal of inierta and entrenched power struggles, but i legitimately believe that Sharon is willing to work for peace.

This is certainly not a blanket endorsement of isreali pliticians only an acknowledgement that there are people on both sides struggling for a true peace (who know what the end result might be?)

One state
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think this begs the questions of how all states arise, and what exactly the international community is.
Who is a state? what "right" does a state have to land?


[/ QUOTE ]

Nation-states have mostly been created through the most extreme violence and bloodshed, and under ideologies of exclusion, intolerance and irredentism. This much is true.

But we (are supposed to) have moved on!

This is no longer the 19th century, nor the worst part of the 20th century. It is true that there are no "rules" as to the "creation of new states". There are general rules however, now, which lead to more respect of minorities' rights (incl. language, religion, etc), the effective weakening of the significance of borders, the retreat of the supremacist ideologies (after WWII the notion of supreme races or nations went bankrupt), etc etc.

Which is why I claim (and the pro-Zionists get all upset) that Israel remains an anachronism.

Re: Official Cyrus vs. MMMMMM Israel/Arabs Thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
completely agreed, but i don't think we can resolve these arguements by going back in history and saying well, state A used to have this so they should have it now. Otherwise American's should be giving back their land to the few native americans left.

I'm not saying Israel deserves the land it has (it, not being a person, certainly doesn't), but the solution should stem from what would make the people on the ground most happy, as opposed to what may or may not have been in the past.

[/ QUOTE ]

I largely agree but there are still problems. What about for example a sparsely populated area that is of significant strategic importance, such as the Golan? What also about deliberately changing the facts on the ground; once this has been accomplished, should everything be forgotten about? Such a situation would basically encourage and legitimise ethnic cleansing, settlement etc. And while simply going back to the past is impossible as you can never reach a point where you should stop, many of these things have happened within the current international legal framework, which should be the basis for their resolution. You can't just go back but I think you also can't/shouldn't implement a might is right policy regarding territorial concerns.

Re: One state
 

i kind of agree.

Isreal however is not really much different then most states NOW. Regardless of how a state is founded we today deal with....today. I personally don't think we're past violence. I think it's something to strive for, but i also think it's naive to ignore that we're not there yet.

Given that:

What do you mean by this

[ QUOTE ]
Which is why I claim (and the pro-Zionists get all upset) that Israel remains an anachronism.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know whether to agree or not, what are the pracical applications of this statement?

Re: Official Cyrus vs. MMMMMM Israel/Arabs Thread
 

no i don't think so either, but that's not what i meant to say either. When i said "would make the people on the ground the happiest" i implied but did not explictly state, for now and in the future.

This would neccissarily encourage a resoultion that would result in people having the incentive to act "correctly" in the future.

If a certain resolution of the israel dispute led to some unhappiness for israels now, but encouraged a better net social outcome in the future, i would consider this a soulution that would make "the people on the ground" happiest.

The fundamentalists of both sides will never agree
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Israel remains an anachronism.

[/ QUOTE ]


I don't know whether to agree or not. What are the pracical applications of this statement ?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not implying, of course, that Israel should cease to exist!

Bu the tenets underlying the very creation of the state of Israel, which also determine Israel's policies ever since its creation, have become absurdly anachronistic!

Israel was created as a state by Jews for the Jews, with exclusivity all over it. (Herzl's principles were "improved" by the Reformed Zionists of Zabotinsky.) This seemed absolutely legitimate, if not vital, in the 19th century. It was the era of nationalism. It was also the time when anti-semitism reared its ugly head quite forcibly on the world stage, once again, as witnessed, among other events, by the Czarist pogroms in Russia and the Dreyfuss affair in France.

But not anymore! Creating and running a state now by the Ruritanians for Ruritanians under stricty Ruritanian customs and laws is silly, if not criminal! (Which is why, incidentally, the Balkans remain, too, an anachronism. Witness the Kosovo mess.) The modern model for nation-states should be the United States of America, which is our most advanced model -- end of story!

This is why I'm saying that the solution to the problem (although it is quite a romantic one, by now) is the one-state solution. A country that encompasses ALL the disputed land, perhaps even including the damn Golan heights, from Gaza to the Jordan river. With the same rules, laws and regulations that apply in every western democracy, explicitly forbidding one nation or religion runnign roughshod over another. With its external security firmly guaranteed by UN and America.

Now THAT would propel the whole of the Middle East towards modernisation, democratization and secularization, you betcha!...

Re: The fundamentalists of both sides will never agree
 

i actually think that'd be a fantasitc solution, but only if the people involved were willing to play within the parameters you've set out.

America works because even people who don't like the end of government policy like it better then they'd like rebelling.

Iraq (currently) doesn't because insurgents who don't like the end government policy don't like it better then they like rebelling.

I think the solution you propose would lead to large elements (though not all parts) of the citizenery choosing the second option.

Re: The fundamentalists of both sides will never agree
 

[ QUOTE ]
With its external security firmly guaranteed by UN and America

[/ QUOTE ]

So it's OK now for the US to be the world cop as part of your political solutions, right?

What part
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
With its external security firmly guaranteed by UN and America

[/ QUOTE ]

So it's OK now for the US to be the world cop as part of your political solutions, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

What part do you need explained about the difference between regime change and guaranteeing a nation's frontiers ?

Re: Israeline
 

>> Quote:
Cyrus has stated that Israel has nothing to fear [in military terms] from its neighbours as it is militarily stronger.

Yes. Is this even debatable ?<<

If you honestly don't believe Iran is a significant and credible military threat to Israel, then you have a *lot* of work to do to get up to speed.

Do that before commenting further, and perhaps we can have an intelligent, informed discussion.

Re: Official Cyrus vs. MMMMMM Israel/Arabs Thread
 

The key doctrine that governs Israeli military policy is the notion that should any given Arab state lose a war, the citizens will still be part of an ethnic and religious majority in any other Arab country, while if Israel were to lose a war they would be dispersed back to Europe (or worse) and be once again living under the policies of a different ethical standard.

Re: Official Cyrus vs. MMMMMM Israel/Arabs Thread
 

>>while if Israel were to lose a war they would be dispersed back to Europe (or worse)<<

Given the Iranian president's recent publicly proclaimed vow to "wipe Israel off the map", I'd say that they're looking at "or worse".

How much money did you make on Rosh Hashana?
 

Which is why I claim (and the pro-Zionists get all upset) that Israel remains an anachronism.

Israel is only an anachronism to the united states in which all forms of group identity are lost.

Yet, even in that united states, the statutory holidays are christian holidays and observant jews are still required to miss work on saturdays and holidays, costing millions in lost business.

In Israel, jewish holidays are statutory holidays and jews don't miss work for religious observances.

this is the most clear cut example.

Re: What part
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
With its external security firmly guaranteed by UN and America

[/ QUOTE ]

So it's OK now for the US to be the world cop as part of your political solutions, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

What part do you need explained about the difference between regime change and guaranteeing a nation's frontiers ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Regime change in Iraq guaranteed the frontiers of its neighbors. Just ask Kuwait.

Commercial break
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Cyrus has stated that Israel has nothing to fear [in military terms] from its neighbours as it is militarily stronger.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Is this even debatable ?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you honestly don't believe Iran is a significant and credible military threat to Israel, then you have a *lot* of work to do to get up to speed.
<font color="white"> . </font>
Do that before commenting further, and perhaps we can have an intelligent, informed discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you honestly believe Iran is a neighbor to Israel, then you have a *lot* of work to do in your Geography to get up to speed.

Do that before commenting further, and perhaps we can have an intelligent, informed discussion.

Re: Commercial break
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you honestly believe Iran is a neighbor to Israel, then you have a *lot* of work to do in your Geography to get up to speed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Missiles expand the size of the neighborhood considerably.

It\'s very complicated
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So it's OK now for the US to be the world cop as part of your political solutions, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

What part do you need explained about the difference between regime change and guaranteeing a nation's frontiers ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Regime change in Iraq guaranteed the frontiers of its neighbors. Just ask Kuwait.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are still confused.

Regime changes have nothing to do with guaranteeing a nation's security.

If the U.S. had guaranteed Kuwait's security, yes, it would atttack any nation that attacked Kuwait. But it would NOT change the attacking nation's regime!

...Read that again. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

hoc est verum et nihili nisi verum
 

Guaranteeing to take action after the fact and significant harm is done is not always a deterrent, especially to pscyopathic dictators. Preventive care is always best, same as in medicine.

Re: Commercial break
 

&gt;&gt;If you honestly believe Iran is a neighbor to Israel, then you have a *lot* of work to do in your Geography to get up to speed.&lt;&lt;

Perhaps your native language is not English, in which case you should avail yourself of a dictionary to inform yourself of the difference between a "bordering" country and a "neighboring" country.

In any case, it is painfully obvious that you deliberately ignored the salient point of my comment, which was to contest your ludicrous assertion that Israel has no enemies that pose a significant military threat.

Of course, your position is rationally indefensible, which I'm sure is why you chose to avoid further discussion of this issue.

Clouds of dandruff
 

[ QUOTE ]
Guaranteeing to take action after ... significant harm is done is not always a deterrent, especially to pscyopathic dictators. Preventive care is always best, same as in medicine.

[/ QUOTE ]

I posited the hypothetical case of a future Israel whose security would be guaranteed by the UN and America. You jumped to the conclusion that I want America to play world cop. Nothing of the sort was implied.

Your subsequent "clarifications" (minus the Latin) are exercises in irrelevancy : This was not about Iraq, Kuwait or Mongolia. You have simply missed the point.

And you are still missing it.

Station break
 

[ QUOTE ]
You should avail yourself of a dictionary to inform yourself of the difference between a "bordering" country and a "neighboring" country.

[/ QUOTE ]
What part of "Arab states" and "front-line states" do you find hard to understand? Ask and I shall explain -- once again.

I challenge you to point out a post of mine where I mention the term "bordering nation".

[ QUOTE ]
You deliberately ignored the salient point of my comment, which was to contest your ludicrous assertion that Israel has no enemies that pose a significant military threat.

[/ QUOTE ]
Tsk tsk tsk. "Salient"; "ludicrous"! All that verbiage to refute a non-existent point!

I never claimed that Israel is not threatened. One or two of countries would surely like to harm Israel, if they could. I never claimed that Israel has no enemies. You simply dreamed this. (Can you find it in yourself to acknowledge your error and apologize?)

I will repeat, for the umpteenth time, what I wrote : " Israel has nothing to fear in military terms from its neighbours as it is militarily stronger." I went on to also posit that Israel is stronger militarily than at least all the front-line states combined!.

And I will now submit that this has practically always been the case.

...You know, we have not yet started to discuss this, in earnest. You seem stuck in the starting line of Pedantry. Let's hope you figure out the simple point I'm making, in order for us to discuss how the lack of military threat from the outside should have shaped Israeli foreign policy and America's policy towards the Middle East.

--Cyrus

Re: Station break
 

&gt;&gt;" Israel has nothing to fear in military terms from its neighbours as it is militarily stronger." &lt;&lt;

Ah. There's the relevant quote.

Note you didn't say "bordering states" or "arab states" - you clearly said "neighbors". By any acceptable English usage, Iran is certainly a neighbor state.

Now that that's settled, let's see if we can home in a little further.

Are you seriously claiming that Israel has "nothing to fear" from Iran in "military terms"?

Thanks in advance for clarifying this point.

The \'hood
 

[ QUOTE ]
You didn't say "bordering states" or "arab states" - you clearly said "neighbors". By any acceptable English usage, Iran is certainly a neighbor state.

[/ QUOTE ]
The implication should have been clear: I'm referring to the front-line states. They are called front-line states because they are the ones (allegedly) threatening and (supposedly) attacking Israel ever since its creation. Every serious text about the Middle East conflict, from both sides of the argument, uses the term "front-line states" in collective reference to Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt. That's it.

However, if you want to expand this term to include "all countries in the general area" (i.e. the "neighborhood"), feel free to explain, please, the demarcation of the "neighborhood" of Israel.

Where does it end?? Let's take the East. In Iran? India? Vietnam?

[ QUOTE ]
Are you seriously claiming that Israel has "nothing to fear" from Iran in "military terms"?

[/ QUOTE ]
Unless Iran is ever armed with nuclear weapons, no. Certainly not. I submit that Iran presents no serious military threat to Israel. And I would challenge you or anyone else to claim otherwise.

Of course, if Iran gets nukes, then a lot of countries, and not just Israel, will be de facto threatened, on account of the nature of the Iranian regime itself. (In any case, it is my personal speculative opinion that Iran will not be allowed to acquire nukes. But that's beside the point.)

Re: The \'hood
 

&gt;&gt; I submit that Iran presents no serious military threat to Israel. And I would challenge you or anyone else to claim otherwise.&lt;&lt;

Well, we simply have to agree to disagree here.

Iran clearly is well on the way to developing nuclear weapons. Iran already has significant ballistic missile technology. Iran has a well developed military infrastructure, and is significantly developing its conventional and non-conventional military capabilities.

And, the new President of Iran has publicly announced Iran's intention to "wipe Israel off the map".

So, you don't believe Iran poses a significant military threat to Israel. I'm not sure how you can seriously put forth this assertion given the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Simply put, we will have to evaluate all of your other assertions on this topic in the light of this one.

Iran vs Israel
 

There are two scenarios:

1. Iran does NOT have Nukes.

Then, as I said, <font color="blue"> Iran does not pose any significant military threat to Israel. </font>

What could Iran do?? Let's see:

1.A Send ground troops to attack Israel.
Then Iran would have to move armies across (check yer map!) Iraq, then Syria, then get to Israel. Or after Iraq, turn south to Saudi Arabia, then north to Jordan and then Israel. Third option: attack Turkey first, then Syria, then Lebanon, and finally reach (gasp gasp) Israel.

Now, that's a lot of ground to cover, brother! And through some un-friendly countries as well. I'd say that would be one gigantically doomed operation. But let's see you say different.

1.B Wage air war against Israel.
Need I point out the total superiority in material (quantity- and quality-wise), in technical support and in personnel enjoyed by the Israeli Air Force?

I'd say that anyone who would be foolish enough to attack Israel by air, would soon get to know the full wrath of the Israeli Air Force. Dare you say different?

1.C Wage a combination of air and ground war against Israel.
See above.

2. Iran HAS nukes.

Then Iran would be posing a de facto serious threat not just to Israel but to the whole region, on account of the nature of its regime -- which is politically autocratic and unstable, and ideologically extreme and obsessive. (But wait! I already wrote this!)

...Are we getting there, yet?

Re: Iran vs Israel
 

&gt;&gt;What could Iran do?? Let's see:&lt;&lt;

You forgot 1.d - Finance and provide personnel, logistical support, and materiel including fissile, chemical, and biological weapons for deployment by terrorists on a large scale, perhaps by leveraging, say, existing terror networks such as hizbollah in Lebanon (oh wait - hizbollah is already working for Tehran)...

Given the events of the last few years, I'm shocked that asymmetrical and/or nonconventional tactics didn't appear on your list of "threats".

The president of Iran recently proclaimed - loudly and publicly - his vow to "wipe Israel off the map".

Connect the dots.

\"Wipe Israel Off the Map\"
 

And, as well, "Death to America." Both statements were roundly condemmed by many countries. The Iranian reaction, though, may be telling. They reacted with surprise that anyone actually believed the rhetoric. It makes me wonder, sometimes, for whom these sorts of statements are really intended.

Re: \"Wipe Israel Off the Map\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
They reacted with surprise that anyone actually believed the rhetoric. It makes me wonder, sometimes, for whom these sorts of statements are really intended.

[/ QUOTE ]

[censored] that. They are totally responsible for their rhetoric and should assume it will be taken seriously and acted upon by those threatened.



I can't joke to my neighbors that I am dangerous and want to kill them, without expecting some type of reaction.

Re: \"Wipe Israel Off the Map\"
 

&gt;&gt;The Iranian reaction, though, may be telling. They reacted with surprise that anyone actually believed the rhetoric.&lt;&lt;

This of course was a pathetic attempt at spin control by those in the Iranian government who were alarmed that their President tipped the Iranian's hand.

Imagine if George Bush publicly proclaimed that he was going to "wipe Iran off the map".

The argument that the Iranian president's remarks can't be taken seriously can't be taken seriously.

Re: Iran vs Israel
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm shocked that asymmetrical and/or nonconventional tactics didn't appear on your list of "threats".

[/ QUOTE ]
Why are you confusing the terrorist threat with the military threat? Is it all a jumble of confusion in your mind?

It should not be, because it is really quite simple : Terrorists inflict serious harm on individuals and sometimes whole neighborhoods, but the state of Israel itself is in no danger of finding itself, from their activities, militarily defeated or under some foreign occupation.

A military threat, on the other hand, comes almost always on a much grander scale, from another country, and is backed up by a plentiful military capability.

It should be abundantly clear to any one with half a mind to be accurate in what one says, that Israelis are suffering from terrorism but Israel has practially nothing to fear from outside military threats.

[ QUOTE ]
You forgot 1.d - Finance and provide personnel, logistical support, and materiel including fissile, chemical, and biological weapons for deployment by terrorists on a large scale, perhaps by leveraging, say, existing terror networks such as hizbollah in Lebanon.

[/ QUOTE ]
Hezbollah will continue to stage sporadic suicide bombings, guerilla incusrions (followed by suicide missions) and clumsy rocket launches -- but that's it. Hezbollah will not resort to using biological or other such mass destruction weapons, if not for any other reason because this will kill indiscriminately and on a large scale Palestinians as well.

And what's a fissile ? [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

Re: Iran vs Israel
 

&gt;&gt;Why are you confusing the terrorist threat with the military threat? Is it all a jumble of confusion in your mind? &lt;&lt;

There are several possible explanations for this comment of yours - the most charitable of which is that you are being deliberately obtuse, having found yourself desperately clinging to an illogical, unrealistic, and untenable argument. Unfortunately, if this reply is an attempt on your part to save 'face', it failed miserably.

State sponsored terrorism is a military threat. Any attempts to spin, twist, wriggle, or evade this simple fact is laughable.

And any claim that Iran is not willing and capable to use terrorism and other forms of asymmetrical warfare to achieve it's foreign policy objectives (for example, it's publicly stated goal of "wiping Israel off the map") is equally laughable.

Re: Iran vs Israel
 

Why are you confusing the terrorist threat with the military threat? Is it all a jumble of confusion in your mind?

A terrorist threat is a military threat if you consider the result of both is a big pile of dead Israelis.

With reference to your one-state solution, you ignore the most obvious reason why it would never work - neither party wants it.

Arabs want a state where the state holidays and institutions are Islamic (even if the state is secular in principle), and jews want a state where the institutions are Jewish (even if the state is secular in principle).

Your romantic version of the United States of the Middle East is nice, but even the United States is difficult on obsevant jews. I suppose its better live as a visitor in comfort than a host in squalor.

Zipo wet
 

[ QUOTE ]
State sponsored terrorism is a military threat. Any attempts to spin, twist, wriggle, or evade this simple fact is laughable.

[/ QUOTE ]
What is laughable is your total lack of concern for any pretense at accuracy. You will happily bundle together all threats big and small, serious or light, imminent of future, all for the sake of satisfying your paranoia.

Or it may be all due to ignorance.

In any case, and for your (possible) edification, a military threat is NOT the same as a terrorist threat. But you can, of course, carry on abusing those notions. It's a free country.

[ QUOTE ]
Any claim that Iran is not willing and capable to use terrorism and other forms of asymmetrical warfare to achieve its foreign policy objectives (for example, it's publicly stated goal of "wiping Israel off the map") is equally laughable.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are extremely confused.

Iran's foreign policy objective is to wipe Israel off the map! Right. (He said it! Its president said something like it. It must be true.)

Iran can hit Israel with asymmetrical warfare (?! -- the moment I heard the phrase on TV, I lamented the millions of gullible who would adopt it without knowing what it means).

Oh it's a veritable theatre of the absurd. QUICKLY! Hide in the basement! The Iranians are coming -- asymetrically! [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Re: Zipo wet
 

When O when is MMMMMM going to weigh in?