Skip to main content

View Diary: WITNESS: The Brutal Asymmetry of the Israeli Occupation as Soldiers Pepper Spray Seated Villagers (180 comments)

Comment Preferences

    •  This will end badly (31+ / 0-)

      for Israelis.

      You can't protect an cultural island in the middle of world opinion, with "security fences" and and military might.  

      By continuing the idea that they are "right" because of military superiority, they are creating a situation where they will eventually "lose" militarily, as more and more friends become disgusted, and the world arrayed against their outmoded ideas becomes larger and larger.  They will eventually wake up and find themselves in an indefensible fantasyland of their own making.  

      The only way a small state like Israel can survive long term, is to have world opinion on their side.  They need to  remove the threat of perpetual war and the cycle of violence, by admitting, finally, that the Palestinians have a right to live as a civilized nation.  

      •  I'll bet they can survive solely (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        hnichols, nextstep, AoT

        through military might.

        •  Hopefully someone can post the figures. (10+ / 0-)

          That is, the many billions of dollars in high-tech military equipment and training the U.S. provides to Israel each year.

          The Palestinians fight back with rocks, bottles, Soviet-era mortars, and sometimes explosives strapped to their own bodies. They are in a war. I don't understand how anyone could expect them to not fight back.

          Reaganomics noun pl: belief that government (of, by, and for the people) is the problem and that we can increase revenue by decreasing revenue.

          by FrY10cK on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 08:21:35 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Ridiculous. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Laconic Lib

          "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

          by elwior on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 09:12:11 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Certainly ridiculous. (5+ / 0-)

            Israel's military and social programs rely on foreign governments and contributions from foreign Jews. While it may look sustainable in the short term, can Israel survive in the middle and long terms on outside "charity"? Say 50 years from now and beyond? I say it's foolhardy to rely on foreign largess to prop up a nation's apartheid society, and to field the military to enforce it? I

            Sorta reminds me of the Crusader Kingdoms in ancient Palestine, established through military might in the midst of Arabs. They flourished for a century or two through the beneficence of the Church and European monarchs. It was only a matter of time, however, before this support dried up and the Christian enclaves were reclaimed.

            “I’m able to fly, do what I want, essentially. I guess that’s what freedom is — no limits.” Marybeth Onyeukwu -- Brooklyn DREAMer.

            by chuco35 on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 11:56:04 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Not ridiculous, Israel has a nuclear arsenal (0+ / 0-)

              and as such military might is of little use against them.

              Sure, they may have sanctions put against them, but they do not actually rely on other countries for their military might, US aid programs account for about 3 billion in mostly military aid, although Israel doesn't rely on it.  At this points it's primarilly welfare for weapons manufacturers.

              •  Fat lot of good that does them (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                elwior, Laconic Lib

                against the West Bank and Gaza. I mean...really?

                Even if you conceded that Israel were willing to use its nukes in response to anything other than a nuclear attack (I don't think they least I certainly hope not), nuking Gaza would be stupid. It's like if England nuked Wales.

                "Let’s just move on, treat everybody with firmness, fairness, dignity, compassion and respect. Let’s be Marines." - Sgt. Maj Michael Barrett on DADT repeal

                by kyril on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 02:05:06 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  Israel faces economic problems, but not those... (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              AoT, elwior, snowwoman

              They support a large very conservative religious population that basically does nothing but study the Torah, and this population grows faster than the group that actually participates in the first world economy.  This is a problem.  They also have a few families that own a LOT of the land, driving housing prices up for young people.  Just looking at a city like Tel Aviv, with a fine university and a tech industry, you've got to consider those as sustainable as any other first world city, like London or New York.  In the long run they won't be able to afford the rent-seeking behavior you see among the ownership class, and they probably won't be able to afford the welfare-state class of the far right wing ultra-orthodox community.  But those are fixable problems.

              And, yes, the country has a nuclear arsenal.  They're capable of exerting a proportional military response at varying levels, and mutually assured destruction with any groups that want to go all-out.  They get along just fine with many governments in the area.  Those countries' populations may hate Israel, but the governments themselves are mostly concerned with maintaining the peace in their own highly impoverished ethnically diverse countries.  Look at Syria for god's sake.  And if you think the west is going to sit by and watch any sort of genocidal invasion you're out of your mind.  Not as long as we're growing up along-side our Jewish friends and neighbors, and not as long as we remember the European genocide of the 1930s and 40s.  We let other populations get slaughtered by the millions, (and occasionally smile about a million dead, as in Indonesia in the mid 1960s) but not this one.

              If you want to look at a reasonable model for a transition away from the apartheid regime, look at South Africa.  It's another example of a European colony (vs Euro-American for Israel, but same difference) run under an apartheid regime.  It transitioned to a republic where there's still plenty of racism and corruption and violence, but when I say that I might as well be describing the US.  

              The only wild-card is the world's food supply & global warming.

              •  But an attack on Israel is not "genocide" (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                elwior, Anorish

                despite people proclaiming that it would be on "the homeland of the Jewish people."  The attack would be to "liberate" the confiscated property of thousands of people who had it taken from them.

                It would be an attack on the last European established colony, that refused to acknowledge the rights of the people who were there when they established the colony.  

                If the UN had "given" the same space in the former Palestine to Kurds, and they had acted in the same way, would Arabs trying to liberate "Kurdistan" be committing "genocide?"

                Genocide is routinely described as the systematic murder of a race or ethnicity.  Racial and ethnic (and even religious) discrimination in the modern world is abhorrent.  And yet that is what is  being advocated every day by most of the supporters of Israel.  

                They propose that an entire state should be created based on a "special race" of people.

                The bankruptcy of that idea itself is what is dogging Israel.   It is apartheid.

                •  When you kill a LOT of civs from one culture, (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  volleyboy1, VClib, Captain C

                  it's genocide.  Doesn't matter why you do it.  People are liberated.  Land is not.  Land is just dirt.  I did not say 'an attack' on Israel would be genocide.  I said a genocidal invasion.  Israel has a population of 8 million.  When you talk about liberating land, you're talking about removing 8 million people from a small piece of land through a military campaign.  Where's the evacuation going to be to?  How's it going to be carried out in the time (about a day?) it'd take to roll over the country once its military is crippled?  The logical result, especially in this region, is a lot of dead children.  Mothers fathers.  People born there just trying to live their lives.  That's genocide.  If you give even half a shit about people, about human life, you don't go for a solution built on revenge.  Land can't be liberated.  Only people can be liberated.  What you SHOULD care about is the political empowerment and the economic protection and compensation of the area's non-Jewish residents, Muslims, Christians, Bedowin, Zoroastrian....I could go on.  And yes, if they were Kurds, and you went in and killed all the kurds to 'liberate' the land, that'd be genocide.  It was genocide when the Indonesians killed a million communists and leftists in the mid sixties.  Genocide's got a pretty simple definition.  I think it's pretty disgusting to think about an orgy of death and think "liberty".

        •  Indeed, sad but true (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Fences and bombs can do a lot.  Nuclear weapons even more so.  No one is going to invade Israel, just like no one is going to invade any country with nuclear weapons.  It simply won't happen.

        •  As long as we keep them on life support... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Apartheid South Africa would probably still be here too if the U.S. had given them aid instead of joining an economic embargo against them.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site