Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Corso.Verne]

Yes. But when was the last time the IDF fought a national army with any chance of inflicting damage on them? And how much are they being used for controlling civilians or blowing up crowds of folk in the hope of killing the target who is amongst them? I doubt any of this is helping to make good soldiers.

1948 Arab–Israeli War

Six Day War

Yom Kippur War

1982 Lebanon War

2006 Lebanon War

Gaza War

Granted some of those later examples don't feature armies with chances of inflict damages on them, but I would argue that this is primarily because of the early examples. Israel is in an extremely unfortunate situation in that they were basically forced to become like the modern United States in their foreign policy from the moment they settled there because they are surrounded by people who want to kill them.

The unfortunate reality (and I'm not calling you out, I know this isn't what you're saying), is that most conversations about conflicts involving Israel aren't really about the specific conflict, they are about whether or not the state of Israel should even exist. Depending on which side you fall on, you have access to all sorts of propaganda that sounds extremely reasonable and tricks you into believing one side or the other is the devil.

We tend to disparage Israel in the western world because pretty much all of their wars have ended with massive loss on the opposing side and nearly negligible loss of Israeli life, but that's exactly the way America fights its wars. Israel isn't particularly vicious (although they definitely can be, but if my homeland was continuously shelled basically since its founding, I'd be a little pissed too), they are just extremely well trained.

The reality is that both sides are right and, more importantly, both are very wrong. You have to bear in mind that, in almost all ways, this conflict is really about a sibling rivalry that began 3000 years ago (Isaac v. Ishmael) and has torn the world apart ever since.

[Saede Riordan]

As far as I see it, both the Palestinians and the Israelis have blood on their hands, and its a problem going back not thousands of years, but to the founding of the Israeli state. The British didn't handle the power transfer very well and consequently, instead of accepting the original proposed two state solution, the Palestinians ganged up with the rest of the arab world and tried to just remove Israel. The situation now in Palestine is really a result of that failed land grab.

That doesn't mean the Israeli are innocent either, because the fact is that for refusing now to recognize a Palestinian state, while at the same time not giving the people living in the West Bank and Gaza the rights of Israeli citizens, is creating a really untenable situation. All of the Gaza Strip is basically living under 'regional house arrest' and Israel is happily settling the West Bank despite there being Palestinians living there. Its going to come to a head one of three ways as I see it:

1) The international community forces Israel to recognize Palestine as an independent state, and lift the blockades they are currently held under (moderately likely, really depends on what the United States does as we're Israel's biggest backer)

2) Israel doesn't accept a Palestinian state, but extends the full rights as citizens to all of the Palestinian people. (Fairly unlikely, there's a lot of racial prejudice to overcome for this to be at all viable)

3) Israel does neither of those things, and slowly grinds the Palestinian people under their heel, and basically wipes them all out. (Somewhat disturbingly possible)

[Corso.Verne]

Granted, a lot of the specific problems are specific to the events that have taken place since the end of WWII, but I would argue that the reason the situation is as fucked as it is also has a lot to do with underlying racial tensions that have been around a lot longer than the modern Middle Eastern power blocs.

[Nmaro Makari]

In short, Switzerland has never been put to the test.

Err... the battle at Morgarten (1315) and Sempach (1385) at which the Swiss fought for their independence from the Holy Roman Empire, the famous swiss mercenaries, which had a monopoly on pike military service until 1490, the Swiss peasant war of 1653,  the Battles of Villmergen 1655 and 1712 and then the Sonderbundskrieg of 1847.

Never had to bear the deep, deep scars of war⸮ Right.
And how about the Israeli citizen's army? They never had to bear the scars of war either?

Most of those happened centuries ago, though some have a more political significance. And letting your citizens go off to be mercenaries is another thing entirely to declaring a war or being declared war upon.

You seem to have misunderstood. Switzerland, while certainly has it's own defining marks and stories, has been rather marginal when it comes to many influential events, revolutions and movements of the past few centuries, a policy which has evidently served them well. My point was, particularly in the modern context, Switzerland should not be used as the cut-out example when talking of militias or gun-ownership related citizen responsibility.

I'm not quite sure what you meant to do by bringing up Israel, not really relevant to my point. I suppose it's worth pointing out that Israel and Switzerland face radically different challenges in radically different fields.

But as subsequent posts have proved, an interesting point all on it's own.

[Nmaro Makari]

Regarding Israel and Palestine, let's not sugarcoat anything.

There's a section of Palestinian fighters, people like Hamas, who are viciously anti-semitic and are not above the worst methods. A good many would wipe Israel and it's people clean off the map if they could. They dance to the tune of creating an dictatorship with Islamist ideology on Israel's grave, and they do more than just hate Israel but more than that, they hate the people of Israel.

However, Israel on the flipside, is a quasi-totalitarian regime that that is living under apartheid in all but name, and has demonstrated many times it's will to steamroller over the ethics and beat the Palestinians into a bloody submission. Most Israelis simply want to make a life for themselves in their ancestral homeland. But there's a small but vocal minority touting a supremacist attitude that puts "white man's burden" to shame.

Like most conflicts of hatred, the extremists rule, while the moderates are marginalised, even if they are in the majority.

[Nicoletta Mithra]

My point was, particularly in the modern context, Switzerland should not be used as the cut-out example when talking of militias or gun-ownership related citizen responsibility.

And why shouldn't they? Because they are a well regulated peaceful society? First you say because they didn't see war, now they didn't see war recently enough.

I'm not quite sure what you meant to do by bringing up Israel, not really relevant to my point.

Well, I then remind you of your generally denigrating view of "citizen militias" - by the way, again, there's a difference between a militia and an army, even if the latter is mainly made up of citizens rather than "professionals". Israel has, to remind you, a general draft. So if you say Switzerland doesn't count because it hasn't recently enough played a role in armed conflict you deem worthwhile, how about Israel? Never had to bear the deep, deep scars of war, just as Switzerland, because the conflicts aren't the right conflicts?

[Lyn Farel]

Isn't a citizen militia the door to all sorts of abuses ?

Anyway the only thing that stopped Egypt to get into the same situation than Syria/Lybia/Tunisia is the army's coup. Otherwise, it always starts with very idealistic and peaceful revolutions, that get taken by extremist currents and they eventually end up voting/supporting an extremist power. Examples are countless in that world. Already happened in Iran, etc.

Granted, a lot of the specific problems are specific to the events that have taken place since the end of WWII, but I would argue that the reason the situation is as fucked as it is also has a lot to do with underlying racial tensions that have been around a lot longer than the modern Middle Eastern power blocs.

Not only about racial tensions. Other underlying conflicts here are much less spoken of and yet as much as, if even more, "important" than the usual ideological ones.

I am refering to the water war as well as territorial control. The main threat and enemy to the Palestinian state is not Israel, but the HAMAS, for the simple reason that the main war is happening between those two groups that fight for the political control.

[Saede Riordan]

Granted, a lot of the specific problems are specific to the events that have taken place since the end of WWII, but I would argue that the reason the situation is as fucked as it is also has a lot to do with underlying racial tensions that have been around a lot longer than the modern Middle Eastern power blocs.

I disagree. I think that while the racial tensions were present, they were only really brought into the forefront by putting Israel where it ended up.

Maybe this is just me, but I think the attachment of people to any particular strip of land is kind of stupid in this age of globalisation. At the end of the day we all live on the Earth and are citizens of the planet. I think the situation would have honestly probably been much better served by putting the Jewish state the British were putting together somewhere else. There's plenty of other places a Jewish state could have ended up, that didn't require evicting the locals, and didn't create a massive spike in racial tension. The attachment to those particular areas, areas that hadn't had a Jewish State in them in almost 2000 years, seems pretty dumb to me.

[Esna Pitoojee]

The pogroms and other attacks on Jews prior to the 1948 Mandate heavily disagree with that theory, unfortunately. It was pretty bad long before the British started actually planning the creation of Israel.

[Lyn Farel]

Granted, a lot of the specific problems are specific to the events that have taken place since the end of WWII, but I would argue that the reason the situation is as fucked as it is also has a lot to do with underlying racial tensions that have been around a lot longer than the modern Middle Eastern power blocs.

I disagree. I think that while the racial tensions were present, they were only really brought into the forefront by putting Israel where it ended up.

Maybe this is just me, but I think the attachment of people to any particular strip of land is kind of stupid in this age of globalisation. At the end of the day we all live on the Earth and are citizens of the planet. I think the situation would have honestly probably been much better served by putting the Jewish state the British were putting together somewhere else. There's plenty of other places a Jewish state could have ended up, that didn't require evicting the locals, and didn't create a massive spike in racial tension. The attachment to those particular areas, areas that hadn't had a Jewish State in them in almost 2000 years, seems pretty dumb to me.

Like, in Madagascar ? Okay okay, sorry, couldn't resist. 

More seriously, it is more complicated than that. While I will be the last to disagree with your way of seeing things here, Israel was not done like that in one day. Prior to that they were part of a british mandate, with 20-30% of palestinian jews vs the rest of arabic origin. They eventually obtained the creation of a jewish state, and then got their independence (to be immediately declared war upon by 4 neighbors). The Partition plan initially proposed by the UN was accepted by all but the Arab Union, so, it failed, and war ensued.

Saying that it shouldn't exist is like saying that Kosovo shouldn't, or Kurdistan, or similar cases of whole differing nations within bigger states. That's a point of view of course.

Also, it is worth pointing out that initially the Society of Nations in 1919 decided to act in favor of the brits to create a fair partition of Palestine between Jews and Arabs. All of this actually came out of a well intentionned plan that eventually ended up in the screwed up situation we have now.

[Safai]

plenty of other places a Jewish state could have ended up

Mandatory reading for you.

[Saede Riordan]

plenty of other places a Jewish state could have ended up

Mandatory reading for you.

I'm aware.

At this point, its really too late. Israel exists, and isn't going to stop existing. That is the world we live in today, and its the one we have to work with. Moving Israel is not going to work.

[Corso.Verne]

I disagree. I think that while the racial tensions were present, they were only really brought into the forefront by putting Israel where it ended up.

Maybe this is just me, but I think the attachment of people to any particular strip of land is kind of stupid in this age of globalisation. At the end of the day we all live on the Earth and are citizens of the planet. I think the situation would have honestly probably been much better served by putting the Jewish state the British were putting together somewhere else. There's plenty of other places a Jewish state could have ended up, that didn't require evicting the locals, and didn't create a massive spike in racial tension. The attachment to those particular areas, areas that hadn't had a Jewish State in them in almost 2000 years, seems pretty dumb to me.

I'm not saying that there wouldn't be conflict in that region over Israel's founding if it weren't for the cultural history surrounding it, obviously the situation was fucked from the moment they declared independence on a strictly logical geopolitical level. But I hope that you will at least agree that so many people wouldn't feel so fanatically passionate about the issue if there wasn't an associated religious significance to the land on both sides.

Obviously the people of Palestine will always feel an innate sense of injustice over the issue because from their perception, the founding of Israel carved up their state, but the reason the surrounding regions are so vehemently anti-Israel isn't just because of their fear toward the new power bloc, its because some of the holiest sites in the Islamic religion are located within Israeli territory. And if Jerusalem wasn't so important to the Jews, I am sure they would at least be more amenable to recognizing the fucked nature of their situation.

Regarding the attachment to culturally significant pieces of land...I mean, these are people who preach one man/one woman monogamy while at the same time revering Kings who had thousands of concubines and a man who had sex with both of his daughters in a cave. They are not exactly the most rational people in the world. That being said, its always easy to adopt that perception when on the outside looking in. If the Native Americans had a sudden population boom and demanded New York back, do you think that would be entirely ridiculous and unjustified? Its a trick question, I know you wouldn't because you're a hippie. I turn your strengths to weaknesses mwahahahaha!

Regarding Israel and Palestine, let's not sugarcoat anything.

There's a section of Palestinian fighters, people like Hamas, who are viciously anti-semitic and are not above the worst methods. A good many would wipe Israel and it's people clean off the map if they could. They dance to the tune of creating an dictatorship with Islamist ideology on Israel's grave, and they do more than just hate Israel but more than that, they hate the people of Israel.

However, Israel on the flipside, is a quasi-totalitarian regime that that is living under apartheid in all but name, and has demonstrated many times it's will to steamroller over the ethics and beat the Palestinians into a bloody submission. Most Israelis simply want to make a life for themselves in their ancestral homeland. But there's a small but vocal minority touting a supremacist attitude that puts "white man's burden" to shame.

Like most conflicts of hatred, the extremists rule, while the moderates are marginalised, even if they are in the majority.

Agree 100%. Its uncanny how similar the situation in Israel politically is to the situation in the United States. Both governments are, to one extent or another, being held at gunpoint by their religious fundamentalist minority. Just as the Tea Party and other like minded groups within Congress are attempting to end the practice of political compromise and disparage all members of their party who reach across the aisle, the Orthodox minority in Israel makes their government look barbaric and imperialistic because without the State, they have no power, and they are willing to go to any lengths to preserve and strengthen it.

[Natalcya Katla]

The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution was not written as a guarantee of the individual US citizen's right to arm him- or herself. It was written as a guarantee that the Federal government would not prohibit any state government from allowing their citizens to arm themselves. Like the rest of the Bill of Rights, it was written to guarantee the rights of states, not the rights of individuals.

[Aria Jenneth]

The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution was not written as a guarantee of the individual US citizen's right to arm him- or herself. It was written as a guarantee that the Federal government would not prohibit any state government from allowing their citizens to arm themselves. Like the rest of the Bill of Rights, it was written to guarantee the rights of states, not the rights of individuals.

While I'm not 2nd Amendment fundamentalist, Natalcya, and while the text of the 2nd Amendment can be read as supporting your claim, there's a lot more to the Bill of Rights than that.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I: Religion, Speech, and Assembly - private, State only by a stretch.

II: Right to bear arms, admittedly to protect a "free State."

III: Right not to be stuck housing soldiers in your home. Private.

IV: Right against unreasonable search + seizure. Private.

V: Due process, etc.. Private.

VI: Speedy & public trial, etc.. Private.

VII: Trial by jury. Private.

VIII: No excessive bail. Definitely private (how exactly would you bail a state?)

IX: Naming some rights does not disparage others held by the people. Private.

X: Powers not named for the federal gov't in the Constitution are reserved to the States, or to the people. State + private.