The ever shifting goal posts of Israel.

The whole nuclear weapons thing is not overly clear. Nixon was said to be pretty gung-ho about it, before any threat of nuclear use was made.
What was "not clear" about the Israelis assembling 13 tactical nukes "in an easily detectable way"? And Nixon was in the middle of Watergate. His own days were numbered. But the point is that the US did essentially nothing until they were informed of this.

During the night of October 8–9, an alarmed Dayan told Meir that "this is the end of the third temple."[264] He was warning of Israel's impending total defeat, but "Temple" was also the code word for nuclear weapons.[265] Dayan again raised the nuclear topic in a cabinet meeting, warning that the country was approaching a point of "last resort."[267] That night Meir authorized the assembly of thirteen 20-kiloton-of-TNT (84 TJ) tactical atomic weapons for Jericho missiles at Sdot Micha Airbase, and F-4 aircraft at Tel Nof Airbase, for use against Syrian and Egyptian targets.[265] They would be used if absolutely necessary to prevent total defeat, but the preparation was done in an easily detectable way, likely as a signal to the United States.[267] Kissinger learned of the nuclear alert on the morning of October 9. That day, President Nixon ordered the commencement of Operation Nickel Grass, an American airlift to replace all of Israel's material losses.[268] Anecdotal evidence suggests that Kissinger told Sadat that the reason for the U.S. airlift was that the Israelis were close to "going nuclear."[265] European countries refused to allow US airplanes carrying supplies for Israel to refuel at their bases, fearing an Arab oil embargo, with the exception of Portugal and the Netherlands. Portugal permitted the United States to use a leased base in Azores,[269] and the defence minister of the Netherlands, apparently acting without consulting his cabinet colleagues, secretly authorised the use of Dutch airfields.[270]

And replacing destroyed ordnance is pretty key. Without it, the Israelis wold literally not have been able to fight back. The Soviet Union was doing the same for the Arab states of course, but there's no reason to assume that would stop.
You can call it "pretty key" which it very likely was, but it is a far cry from getting directly involved.
 
I think "racist" is the wrong word here. There's a point to make (and it has been made) that Arab Israelis (i.e. Palestinians) are the people that lived there since before the Arab conquest. There are no records of Arab immigration accompanying the conquest in any sugnificant numbers. Conversions, yes. But even if ignoring all that, religious discrimination would be more appropriate a term.
I don't follow; on the one hand, you claim that the relationship between Palestinians and Jews cannot be racial, because they are both derived from the same original population, while implies a conception of race that is strictly biological or physiological. On the other, you claim that the genetically and physiologically near-identical population of the Arabian Peninsula do constitute a different race, which implies a cultural conception of race. So which is it?
 
The Israelis are now refusing to give the PA the taxes they collected on behalf of the PA in punishment for their UN vote

Spoiler :
RAMALLAH // Israel yesterday stopped payment of US$120 million in tax revenue to the Palestinians, as the government of prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu punished them further for their successful UN statehood bid.

Hours later, Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority, returned to Ramallah and was greeted by thousands of supporters after last week's vote by the UN general assembly.

Israel's finance minister Yuval Steinitz said last month's revenue would be used to pay the PA's debt to the Israeli electricity company.

"We said from the beginning that the raising of the status of Palestine at the UN would not produce no reaction from Israel," Mr Steinitz said.

"I have no intention of transferring the taxes due to the Palestinian Authority this month."

Israel's Haaretz newspaper reported that meant a total of $120m (Dh450m).

That could worsen a PA economy already crippled by donor countries that have failed to pay promised aid money - including Arab statesand the US, which withheld $200m after the Palestinian UN bid last year - and the impediments of Israeli occupation.

In recent months, the West Bank administration has repeatedly failed to pay its workforce of about 150,000 their salaries.

The UN vote recognised Palestine - the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, areas still occupied by Israel - as the 194th state in the general assembly.

Calling this clear evidence of world support for the Palestinian statehood, Mr Abbas said the measure's success was a, "Yes to the State of Palestine. Yes to our freedom. No to Israeli settlements and occupation".

"The world is with us! History is with us! The future is ours!" he told crowds of PA employees and schoolchildren in Ramallah yesterday.

Israel's right-wing government has sought to dampen such enthusiasm with a series of measures that began on Friday with an announcement to build 3,000 more houses in the West Bank.

Israel has suspended revenue payments in the past for months at a time. Such actions breach the 1994 Paris Protocol, an economic accord that was signed as a temporary measure by Israeli and Palestinian negotiators as part of the Oslo peace process.

In addition to forming a customs union and similar tax rates, the protocol obliges Israel to transfer the monthly tax revenues it collects on behalf of the PA.

Israel and the US were two of only nine countries that voted against last week's UN measure. Both demand the Palestinians return to direct peace talks that broke down two years ago because Mr Netanyahu refused to stop building settlements.

He yesterday rejected the Palestinians' UN move as a "one-sided step at the UN" that "constitutes a gross violation of the agreements that have been signed with the state of Israel".

But some Israelis have attacked Mr Netanyahu's response to the Palestinian UN move.

In a speech to academics and US officials in Washington, DC on Saturday, Ehud Olmert, a former Israeli prime minister, criticised Mr Netanyahu's announcement on Friday of more settlements as a "slap in the face" to the administration of the US president, Barack Obama.

That announcement included 3,000 new settler homes and sped up plans for building a settlement in an area vital for a viable Palestinian state, connecting the West Bank with East Jerusalem, known as E-1.

Despite the Israeli measures, crowds in Ramallah expressed enthusiasm.

"Israel always threatens us no matter what we do," said Ayyoub Fuqaha, 28, a history student at Jerusalem's Al Quds University.

"We are proud of our state and what our president, Abu Mazen, has achieved," he added, referring to Mr Abbas's nickname.


Its almost like Israel have lots of belief in their own defences, have lots of belief in Uncley Sam or they just dont care.
Again, retaliation isn't the same as shifting goal posts without provocation.
Israel goes to the table time and again, offering more and more... every time they do give the P negotiators the farm in negotiations, the Ps then ask for more.3
 
Again, retaliation isn't the same as shifting goal posts without provocation.
Israel goes to the table time and again, offering more and more... every time they do give the P negotiators the farm in negotiations, the Ps then ask for more.3

Thats quite a bold statement,

Do you have anything to back that up?
 
Yes. They simply refuse to lie down, don't they? Those pesky people!
 
Both sides are being ridiculous A-holes, Borachio's clear bias aside... it's frustrating... there are no easy answers, or it wouldn't be going on for decades.

I don't see it ending, because I don't see either side stopping with unrealistic demands per the other party.
 
But it's interesting to note that you are willing to comment on Palestinian action specifically (see your thread), while avoiding commenting on those of Israel.

Is it that hard for you to say: in this instance Israel is acting like an a-hole?
 
Both sides are being ridiculous A-holes, Borachio's clear bias aside... it's frustrating... there are no easy answers, or it wouldn't be going on for decades.
.

Excuse me? If you think I'm biased in favour of Palestinians, you're truly mistaken. And if this is true, it's undoubtedly my fault. But it's never been my intention to give that impression.

I just want everyone to live peacefully together. The actions of neither the Israelis nor Palestinians lead me to suppose that either of them want this.

Why this is so, I really don't know. But perhaps each of them hopes to profit at the expense of the other.

As for those on CFC who are biased themselves, it's hard to judge for sure. But I have my suspicions.
 
My bias is against those who place the burden of blame of this conflict on one side using an oversimplified representation of the conflict. My bias is against those who engage on schoolyard logic to determine blame (the infamous: "they started it").

In essence those kind of sympathies assure that this conflict will never be solved. And since those sentiments are abundant in this forum and both sides of the conflict, yeah, I don't see this ending very soon. People need to grow up in one of the areas most difficult to grow up in. It would take a very courageous step from both the governments, an act of maturity if you will. They'd need to put the well-being of the region over their own desire for power. They'd need to be able to withstand provocations which are sure to come, since too many are all too happy with the status-quo as an easy means to power.
 
But it's interesting to note that you are willing to comment on Palestinian action specifically (see your thread), while avoiding commenting on those of Israel.

Is it that hard for you to say: in this instance Israel is acting like an a-hole?
Au contraire, mon frair (spelling?)...
I said that Israel's reaction to the UN Vote was stupid and counterproductive... just to name the most recent time I've called them out.

I do tend to side with Israel, because they aren't resorting to terrorism. However, since the WB has been also not resorting to terrorism, I've become way more sympathetic to them... and think Israel may have to settle for not a 2 state solution, but a 3 state solution (Gaza being separate). Final peace with WB seems attainable. The problem is, with this stupid idea of mine, that the WB will always be sympathetic to their brothers in Gaza and a 3 state solution won't lead to a lasting peace either. I'll stop thinking via the internet screen now.
 
What was "not clear" about the Israelis assembling 13 tactical nukes "in an easily detectable way"? And Nixon was in the middle of Watergate. His own days were numbered. But the point is that the US did essentially nothing until they were informed of this.

Nixon had already authorized arms transfers to Israel on the 7th. The nuclear threat may have been what inspired him to drive it into the massive effort it was. It may also have been coincidental: it was already clear that Israel was on the losing end of the war thus far, and Nixon might well have upped the supply effort as a response to that.

Kissinger has offhanded stated that the nuclear threat did it, but I don't have a particularly high opinion of that guy at the best of times. And the accounts from all Israeli ministers suggest that they were not expecting the sort of aid that came with Nickel Grass; the only place they were expecting so much aid from was Europe (read: France).

You can call it "pretty key" which it very likely was, but it is a far cry from getting directly involved.

They needn't get directly involved. Staying out of it altogether would typically mean not mobilizing a massive portion of your military airlift capability to deliver materiel to a belligerent.
 
So the breakdown of Camp David gives the Israelis the right to withhold tax and build all over PA land?
Talk about shifting the goal posts!
I made a statement, you asked me to back it up...
I did, 100% correctly.
You then try to change it and apply it to a different situation, presumably to try to make me wrong when I was right.

Doesn't work like that.
 
Talk about shifting the goal posts!
I made a statement, you asked me to back it up...
I did, 100% correctly.
You then try to change it and apply it to a different situation, presumably to try to make me wrong when I was right.

Doesn't work like that.

I did not apply it to a different situation, you said that the breakdown of the Camp David Peace Accords was due to the PA "shifting the goalposts and demanding more".

I said does the breakdown of the Camp David Peace Accords justify what Israel is doing since the breakdown of the Camp David Peace Accords is the reason why we're in this mess.
 
Top Bottom