Israel seems to be relying too much on its victimization past

I can understand the hardship the descendants of Israel had to go through, but I always felt Israel used this victimization as a justification for its rather extreme policies towards its neighbors and even its allies. It's true that its closest neighbor, Pakistan, is the most aggressive in its hostilities towards the recently developed country, but using such measures such as forbidding mixed marriage between Israeli women and Arab men sanctioned by the Rabbis themselves seems like something out of a Not So Different Trope.

...we do have a thread on Israel.

However, I would argue that no, not necessarily. I imagine most of the Israeli population, judging by those I've met on this board and how they've come to challenge my evaluation of the nation's populace, do not live in the past, as it's not really their past, it's their people's past.

Their government, though? Oh, hell yes. They act like it's still the '40s and Hitler is lurking behind every corer—especially the Muslim corners.

I am now known as Flyboy.

I remember one very wise person remarking that nations that feel victimized are the most likely to become victimizers. That holds true for a good bunch of nations.

I think it's less an excuse, and more of a REASON. Every last one of their neighbors have tried to completely destroy them at least twice, and most three or more times. It's more Properly Paranoid Then Asshole Victim.

I'm baaaaaaack

They'd be properly paranoid if they simply had a large army.

They cross into jackass territory—or rather, their government does—when they airstrike other countries for having nuclear programs. Violations of UN decree can be handled by the UN. If not, you have no right to dictate who may and may not develop what weaponry. Nukes, though not good, are the right of any country to develop as they please.

I am now known as Flyboy.

Well, perhaps their neighbors would have been kinder if they weren't constantly agitating and trying to take more land, no?

And better than thy stroke; why swellest thou then?

Like they did for Korea? Or Saddam Hussein in the 1980s? Or Pakistan? Or Syria's program a few years ago? Or Qaddafi?

Real bang up job the UN did there keeping nukes out of their hands and shutting their programs down.

The UN is worthless, it hasn't had worth in 60 years and likely never will again.

I feel like someone's boner for Israel just hit me in the face.

Vigilantism isn't a proper response when the international community decides that inaction is the best policy.

edited 3rd Dec '11 5:55:55 PM by kashchei

And better than thy stroke; why swellest thou then?

The UN did exactly what it originally set out to do in both Korea and Desert Storm.

I am now known as Flyboy.

And it failed both times. Saddam should have been removed the first time and the war in Korea is still technically on and the situation is much worse today than it was in 1953.

Kuwait was freed and South Korean independence maintained.

That's mission accomplished. It's not ideal, but it's what they set out to do, and therefore a success.

I am now known as Flyboy.

They are our enemies by their choice alone, and we will deny them whatever advantage we see fit. Whether or not they violate UN decrees is not exactly one of our top concerns.

edited 3rd Dec '11 6:09:31 PM by ManInGray

The international community dosn't decide. Everyone agrees and one country with Veto fucks it up. Korea didn't have that happen because the Soviets had quit the U.N. for a few years. Desert Storm was approved by the UN but done by NATO. If Israel didn't raid the iraqi Nuke plants, the Iraq war could have ended like Modern Warfare.

edited 3rd Dec '11 6:15:05 PM by Joesolo

I'm baaaaaaack

^^^ And yet Korea is now an inevitable nuclear war and Saddam dragged out the misery of the Iraqi people for another 12 years before we put his regime down like a rabid dog. (Something the UN should have done 12 years prior but we did it anyway.)

That's success for the UN? I'd hate to see your definition of failure.

edited 3rd Dec '11 6:09:35 PM by MajorTom

This isn't the 1850s. You don't get to make your own rules anymore.

If I were President Israel wouldn't have American support at the moment. You don't get to launch airstrikes into other countries—or, for that matter, do any kind of retarded preemptive garbage—just because you feel ornery.

~shrug~

Even Cheney said in '92 that if we'd kept going it would just be like it is now.

...funny how people forget...

And "winning" by your definition in Korea would require nuclear warfare.

I refuse to be the country remembered for killing hundreds of millions over a tiny little peninsula. Two nukes on Japan were two too many to stain American historical honor, and it's regrettable that we ever had to do such a thing.

edited 3rd Dec '11 6:12:11 PM by USAF713

I am now known as Flyboy.

Nothing has truly changed since the 1850s. Countries are free to make whatever rules they want. The UN is powerless to actually stop them.

Tom, do you know how apartheid ended?

And better than thy stroke; why swellest thou then?

The people of the country taking apart themselves. The U.N. never did anything but sanctions.

I'm baaaaaaack

At least in 1953 we couldn't kill off all of human civilization.

Today the only way Korea will be resolved is by full scale war and the (possible) deployment of nukes. Millions are gonna die either way in that. When Kim Jong Il ordered the test of that nuclear warhead several years ago under Bush the last possibility of ending the dispute diplomatically died underground in the blast. Since then it has gotten only more impossible what with the North sinking the Cheonan, shelling Yeonpyeong Island, and further nuclear belligerence and missile tests.

There is no "at least" with nuclear warfare. Unacceptable. Period.

You want to do it, you press the button. Then you'll rightfully and promptly be executed from crimes against humanity.

A United States willing to commit the atrocity of first-strike with strategic-level nuclear weapons is a United States no longer fit to exist.

Either way, the UN and Korea are off-topic.

---

I stand by my point: the Israelis need a more representative government if they have any hope of fixing this mess in a good and permanent manner.

I am now known as Flyboy.

As terrible as this may sound, the best realistic soulution would be civil war when kimmy dies so they South can take it over. Likely with support from some northerners. NATO will probably end up launching a Spec force raid to secure the few nukes.

U.S. would not launch first. Kim jon il likely would.

edited 3rd Dec '11 6:20:47 PM by Joesolo

I'm baaaaaaack

Truman wasn't and he ordered the vaporization of 700,000 Japanese civilians. "Executed for crimes against humanity" is impossible to enforce with those who have actual military strength. Who's gonna come in and stop me were I President in that scenario? The Russians? The Chinese? They won't do a damn thing.

"The people of the country taking apart themselves. The U.N. never did anything but sanctions."

Thanks for the laugh. It was the sanctions. The blacks had no bargaining power. It was only when the economy was on the brink of ruin that the whites decided to dismantle the regime and still they did so while insisting that they get amnesty for their crimes.

And better than thy stroke; why swellest thou then?

Eh, I'd support pulling support for both Israel and everybody in the region who won't play nice, and leaving them to their own damn problems. If they won't be constructive, I can't be bothered to help them.

Edit: fucking tab button.

edited 3rd Dec '11 6:32:41 PM by USAF713

I am now known as Flyboy.

It's the other way around.