[Typhoon]

^
Other than the terrorism, nuclear weapons and risk of spreading discord around a strategically important region your right its a non-starter. Continuing to push the two sides to a resolution while not acting to incite the conflict is an involvement that can only be in the European interest, instability being no good for anyone.

Humanitarianism may be a problem for that minority still trying to apply a Dungeon Keeper-esque philosophy to the world, for the rest of us it recieves much acclaim and thankfully I dont see it disappearing anytime soon...

20th Land

* Before: "United Kingdom". The ultimate in cute, a frown in the UK brings all the townspeople to the sufferer’s door with gifts of love, fine cheer and eternal friendship. A place where nothing can ever go wrong, or so they fondly believe."

* After: "Long Terror. The world of the UK is nothing more than a charred wreck of a nightmare. We have won a furious vital victory, and you are ruler supreme over the whole world. What next, Master?"

[Dave]

Terrorism directed at Israelis, atomic weapons the Israelis have as a deterrent. The region is strategically important because of its oil and gas reserves, none of them located in Israel or any of Israel's neighboring countries.

So we return to humanitarianism, a cancer rotting out the brains of the West. Thank God the rising non-Western powers don't share this PATHETIC affliction.

God I hate the modern world.

[eugenekop]

What do you hate much about Humanitarianism Dave?

[peterm1988]

Thank God the rising non-Western powers don't share this PATHETIC affliction.

Give them 100 years.

We didn't either until 60 years ago

[Oleh Hadash]

Even beyond a certain recognition of common humanity and even ignoring the significance of the politics on our very sizeable trade relationship, I think you also fail to understand quite how symbolic the conflict has become for broader trends across the world. To say something which really deserves an entire book, Israel signifies a great deal of different things for a great number of people. Whether you appreciate this or not, the policy of the British state towards Israel/Palestine is a very important battleground for various groups. Whether this is justified or not (I think it is) it still is no reason for me to participate in my side's surrender in a key area.

You're overcomplicating things. One of the main reasons the Israel-Arab conflict gets so much focus is because of the MASSIVE Muslim population, and this populations virtually monolithic approach to the issue: maximum hostility towards Jewish natonal rights in Israel and the perception that it is an illegitimate occupier of Arab/Muslim land and was born in sin. Period. The massive Muslim population around the world forces this issue into the mainstream. Period.

Yes, there are interesting philosophical questions and a battle of ideologies associated with this conflict that has drawn in Goys like you who need to add purpose to their hollow lives, but people like yourself don't represent the mainstream.

On a pragmatic level, the level of trade between Israel and the UK isn't really that significant. For example, when I did a search in Google for "Israel UK trade", I got this website: http://www.ukti.gov.uk/export/countries ... srael.html. Looks like trade between Israel and the UK is around 3.25 billion US dollars per year, with a projection of it being around 5 billion US dollars in 2015. Considering that the UK's GDP is over two trillion US dollars, that means this trade account for less than two hundredths of a percent. At least at a broad level, it's not that important. I don't even want to look at the amount of trade done with certain Arab states, considering how essential oil is. This further forces the agenda, as the UK, at least economically, is far more beholden to Arab interests than it is to Jewish/Israeli interests. It's really not that complicated, it's a game of numbers. If Arabs/Muslims didn't form such a massive group of people with control over the economic lifeblood known as fossil fuels, the wouldn't be able to force this agenda into mainstream political discourse in the dishonest manner in which they do so (oppressed Palestinian being denied justice!).

Keep it simple.

[Dave]

What do you hate much about Humanitarianism Dave?

It grossly exaggerates the value of human life and prevents the pursuit of rational policies that increase power, security, wealth, and prestige in favor of harebrained attempts to guard the lives of trivial people we have no particular connection to. For instance, Palestinians...

Give them 100 years.

We didn't either until 60 years ago

Rubbish, Western humanitarianism is much older than that. The international campaign against slavery was probably the first modern humanitarian movement, and it emerged in the 18th century. It had devastating consequences, particularly in the United States where it so poisoned the political discourse that North and South slowly grew to hate each other in part because humanitarian lunatics decided it was "wrong" to keep slaves.

An example relevant to your own society would be the problems in the West Indies which arose directly from abolition. Carlyle wrote about this at length at the time and blasted classical economics (which supported abolition) as "the dismal science" over it.

Forgive me for being skeptical about non-Western powers choosing to embrace an ideology which directly weakens their power.

I don't even want to look at the amount of trade done with certain Arab states, considering how essential oil is. This further forces the agenda, as the UK, at least economically, is far more beholden to Arab interests than it is to Jewish/Israeli interests. It's really not that complicated, it's a game of numbers. If Arabs/Muslims didn't form such a massive group of people with control over the economic lifeblood known as fossil fuels, the wouldn't be able to force this agenda into mainstream political discourse in the dishonest manner in which they do so (oppressed Palestinian being denied justice!).

The UK was a net oil exporter until 2006 if memory serves. Most of the oil imported by the UK today is sourced in Norway, and the country imports less than 200,000 barrels per day as it is.

On the other hand, UK oil services and exploration firms do a lot of business in the Persian Gulf and the UK defense industry enjoys enormous revenues from the region.

[Oleh Hadash]

The UK was a net oil exporter until 2006 if memory serves. Most of the oil imported by the UK today is sourced in Norway, and the country imports less than 200,000 barrels per day as it is.

On the other hand, UK oil services and exploration firms do a lot of business in the Persian Gulf and the UK defense industry enjoys enormous revenues from the region.

So? Oil is a global commodity. What happens in the Middle East place affects global pricing. Without exclusive agreements, things that occur that in the Middle East that affect oil prices will also affect oil prices for the UK, even if most of its oil comes from non-Middle Eastern sources. This is one of the reasons why countries like the UK are beholden to the anti-Israel Arab agenda, because the Arabs control most of the world's oil and have the influence to force this item onto the political agenda. The massive global Arab/Muslim population is a big part of this.

.

[Dave]

Indeed, but the Gulf's ability to affect global oil prices is somewhat limited. They account for a much smaller fraction of global oil production than they did in the 1970s, and attempts by them to curtail production usually fail. Geopolitical crises in the region do affect the price of oil, of course. That global conventional liquids production peaked in 2005 will of course make major exporters more important in the future, of course.

Countries which are self-sufficient (or close to it) in oil also have the option of decoupling their domestic oil prices from the world market. The domestic price of oil in Russia for instance is quite low. This is not pursued in OECD net oil exporters due to a slavish devotion to neoliberal policies.

I am not so sure that the Persian Gulf states really care about Israel all that much, but rather pay lip service in order to appease their own populations. Saudi Arabia and the UAE both seem to have decent under-the-table relations with Israel.

I would also like to note that I was specifically noting eugenekop's talk of the UK's foreign trade and not the importance of petrostates in general. Saudi Arabia for instance does not export much to the UK, but 4% of its imports are from Britain.

[Eran]

Norway is a net oil exporter, and thus stands to economically benefit from oil price rising. It is a direct competitor to the Arab oil producers, and has, to my knowledge, a negligible domestic Muslim population.

Does that explain its radically pro-Israel stance?

It grossly exaggerates the value of human life and prevents the pursuit of rational policies that increase power, security, wealth, and prestige in favor of harebrained attempts to guard the lives of trivial people we have no particular connection to. For instance, Palestinians...

I am confused. Why do you suggest pursuing policies that "increase power, wealth and prestige"? Who should pursue those policies? Whose wealth is to be increased?

I assume you are thinking about the wealth, power and prestige of your country. But why should the citizens of the country worry about the wealth of their country, rather than only about their individual wealth? There is, to be sure, positive correlation between the overall wealth of a country, and that of its citizens, but the correlation is not perfect.

It only makes sense for citizens to work together if they care about each other's well-being. But the human sentiments that make us care about our fellow citizens do not artificially stop at the border. True - people care more about their fellow citizens than about foreigners and strangers, but they do care about the latter too.

How do you justify an attitude that sees value in your countrymen, but not in any other human being? More to the point, how do you justify imposing your attitude on others who do not share it?

[Dave]

Norway has a Moslem population that is problematic, but it is small compared to neighboring Sweden or some countries on the continent.

Norway's anti-Israel stance is explained by the progressive ideology and humanitarianism currently poisoning the entire world. Norway also provided funding to the African National Congress, the terrorist group attempting to undermine European rule in South Africa. The ANC succeeded, and now Norway pats itself on the back for having destroyed a once thriving European nation-state.

Israel is the new South Africa, or the new Serbia if you will. Progressives cannot tolerate the existence of an assertive ethnic nationalist state which boldly defends the interests of its own people.

[eugenekop]

Israel is no more nationalistic or assertive than any other European state, it just currently faces problems that European states do not face. If they did face those problems, they would have reacted in the same way that Israel reacts.

[Dave]

Israel is no more nationalistic or assertive than any other European state, it just currently faces problems that European states do not face. If they did face those problems, they would have reacted in the same way that Israel reacts.

Please. European states are presently allowing their indigenous populations to be replaced. It is hard to imagine a more pathetic policy than allowing your own people to slowly disappear from this Earth.

I do agree that if European states faced the kind of security issues that Israel does then they would grow much more assertive, however.

[eugenekop]

^
Israel does the same. We allow Israeli Arabs to unify with their familes, which brought about 150,000 new Arabs into Israel in the last decade, for Israel these are huge numbers. There are also hundreds of thousands of illegal workers and refugees from Africa which the government can't transport back because of the so called humanitarian concerns.

[Eran]

Dave, do you advocate a pro-Israel or an isolationist policy?

If people shouldn't care about Palestinians, why should they care about Israelis? Americans seem to care enough about them to send them $3bn a year, not to mention a huge amount of good-will in the Muslim world.

[Oleh Hadash]

I am not so sure that the Persian Gulf states really care about Israel all that much, but rather pay lip service in order to appease their own populations. Saudi Arabia and the UAE both seem to have decent under-the-table relations with Israel.

I would also like to note that I was specifically noting eugenekop's talk of the UK's foreign trade and not the importance of petrostates in general. Saudi Arabia for instance does not export much to the UK, but 4% of its imports are from Britain.

Perhaps, but the Persian Gulf states have placed significant pressure on the USA because of its support for Israel. There was a a row between King Saud and Truman as early as 1947 because of America's vote in favour of the Partition Plan. Another prominent example was the Yom Kippur war of 1973, where Israel asked for American resupplies - and America made the difficult choice to provide Israel with supplies. This caused another row. King Faisal stopped oil production and prices quadrupled, causing global impact. I think Kissinger pretty much mentioned military action against Saudi Arabia as a result of King Faisal's stunt. It was a pretty tense time. There are many other examples of Arab states forcing the agenda by leveraging their control of oil, but these are the ones that are the easiest for me to remember without taking time to refresh my memory. Don't play down the degree to which Arabs of all levels hate Israel. It's from the top down and back up again. It's a part of their DNA. It's important not to forget that ideology can be a great motivator of people at all levels, and not just pragmatic considerations.

Norway is a net oil exporter, and thus stands to economically benefit from oil price rising. It is a direct competitor to the Arab oil producers, and has, to my knowledge, a negligible domestic Muslim population.

Does that explain its radically pro-Israel stance?

I'm not really sure and I honestly don't really care. Norway is completely irrelevant with respect to the Israel/Arab conflict, and pretty much all other issues. Even aside from oil, however, the Arab world is still much more for important for Norway than Israel, economically. The market for Norway's products (isn't Norway the home of Nokia?) in the Arab and Muslim world is many hundredfold larger than the Jewish population, so it makes sense in that respect to pander to the larger crowd. Money talks. If the worldwide Jewish population was one and a half billion strong and perceived this issue monolithically in support of Israel, then we'd se a very different "international consensus" towards the Israel-Arab conflict.

It's numbers, much more so than values, that mobilizes European governmental approaches. Perhaps the European masses have swallowed the lies about supporting Palestinian national rights as a moral issue, but that's not what's informing European governments, and certainly not what forcing this issue to the forefront of foreign policy agendas, while ignoring real human rights problems and injustices around the world.

Israel is no more nationalistic or assertive than any other European state, it just currently faces problems that European states do not face. If they did face those problems, they would have reacted in the same way that Israel reacts.

While Israel certainly faces a unique set of threats that Europeans generally refuse to appreciate, I'm not certain that we're not more nationalistic that European states. At the very least, I hope you're wrong, because if our nationalism is as weak as that in most European countries, we won't last long. Most European nations committed towards a path of national suicide a long time ago. As Dave said, European states are being overrun. Like I said, I hope you're wrong.

Dave, do you advocate a pro-Israel or an isolationist policy?

If people shouldn't care about Palestinians, why should they care about Israelis? Americans seem to care enough about them to send them $3bn a year, not to mention a huge amount of good-will in the Muslim world.

Thanks for ignoring the many more billions of dollars given to Arab and Muslim states. Israel is much less dependent on American foreign aid (less than 1% of our GDP) than Arab recipients of foreign aid. And if the USA stops giving the support, other nations will seize the opportunity to buy influence, such as China or Russia. You live in a fantasy world where only American involvement in the region exists, and that involvement begins and ends with Israel. If you close your eyes, you think the world disappears!

[Dave]

^
Israel does the same. We allow Israeli Arabs to unify with their familes, which brought about 150,000 new Arabs into Israel in the last decade, for Israel these are huge numbers. There are also hundreds of thousands of illegal workers and refugees from Africa which the government can't transport back because of the so called humanitarian concerns.

Your country has Avigdor Lieberman, and hard right tendencies are strongly on the rise among the youth populations. While Europe does have a rapidly growing far right political scene, their sentiments are much milder than those in Israel and typically are careful to keep their nationalism civic rather than ethnic or racial. Even Vlaams Belang claims to welcome non-European immigrants so long as they embrace "Flemish values" (whatever these are).

Dave, do you advocate a pro-Israel or an isolationist policy?

If people shouldn't care about Palestinians, why should they care about Israelis? Americans seem to care enough about them to send them $3bn a year, not to mention a huge amount of good-will in the Muslim world.

I advocate an isolationist policy, though if the existence of Israel were in danger (unlikely) I would be supportive of emergency assistance to Israel, as the likely outcome of Israeli collapse would be mass migration of Jews to America which would be highly undesirable. I also have no issue with arms sales to Israel--or anyone else who wants to buy our weapons.

Perhaps, but the Persian Gulf states have placed significant pressure on the USA because of its support for Israel. There was a a row between King Saud and Truman as early as 1947 because of America's vote in favour of the Partition Plan. Another prominent example was the Yom Kippur war of 1973, where Israel asked for American resupplies - and America made the difficult choice to provide Israel with supplies. This caused another row. King Faisal stopped oil production and prices quadrupled, causing global impact. I think Kissinger pretty much mentioned military action against Saudi Arabia as a result of King Faisal's stunt. It was a pretty tense time. There are many other examples of Arab states forcing the agenda by leveraging their control of oil, but these are the ones that are the easiest for me to remember without taking time to refresh my memory. Don't play down the degree to which Arabs of all levels hate Israel. It's from the top down and back up again. It's a part of their DNA. It's important not to forget that ideology can be a great motivator of people at all levels, and not just pragmatic considerations.

No disagreements here, but surely you recognize the picture today is very different from the 1970s. The Persian Gulf states have all become American protectorates for starters, and most of these regimes are now primarily concerned with the acquisition of money--an objective which is hindered by anti-Israeli stances. Saudi Arabia for instance would very much like to bring in Israeli expertise in desert agriculture, but this is difficult thanks to the ideology to which you refer.

[Oleh Hadash]

Your country has Avigdor Lieberman, and hard right tendencies are strongly on the rise among the youth populations. While Europe does have a rapidly growing far right political scene, their sentiments are much milder than those in Israel and typically are careful to keep their nationalism civic rather than ethnic or racial. Even Vlaams Belang claims to welcome non-European immigrants so long as they embrace "Flemish values" (whatever these are).

Sadly, I don't view Lieberman as "hard right". It very telling that mainstream political discourse has moved so far to the left that people like him are labelled regularly as extremists. I also think it's fantastic that there is reason to be optimistic about a less deferential future Jewish Israeli generation. I love the fact that we have a strong future generation that we can likely anticipate that will no longer allow our interests to be compromised to benefit our enemies.

No disagreements here, but surely you recognize the picture today is very different from the 1970s. The Persian Gulf states have all become American protectorates for starters, and most of these regimes are now primarily concerned with the acquisition of money--an objective which is hindered by anti-Israeli stances. Saudi Arabia for instance would very much like to bring in Israeli expertise in desert agriculture, but this is difficult thanks to the ideology to which you refer.

I think it's been that way for a long time. America moved troops in Saudi Arabia in the late forties, I think, although I could be wrong about that. It's a difficult balancing act America plays here, while protecting its oil-producing allies who hate Israel, and supporting Israel with military aid.

I remember watching this documentary which stated that Saudi Arabians, being as hate-filled against Khaffirs as they are due to their backward and highly-religious culture, hate Americans for simply having their troops stationed in the "holy land". Despite the fact that America is doing them and the entire world a favour by securing oil resources (the world freeloads on this energy security while attacking America for being "imperialistic"), they perceive it as an affront that the infidels are on their turf. That's how fucked up they are, they're so filled with hate that merely seeing the infidels drives them into a rage. Literally. That's the ideology we're up against. And that's the ideology of a whole lot of people who control a whole lot of oil. It's a fucked up world we live in.

Remember, doing these folks and the broader world a favour by protecting Saudi Arabia makes Saudi Arabians hate America. They hate America for protecting them. They hate America for helping them develop their one-trick pony economy. Don't forget that Saudi Arabia is the biggest supplier of foreign Jihadis in Afghanistan (and maybe also Iraq). These are your "allies". Yet people like Eran criticize American support for Israel!

[Dave]

Sadly, I don't view Lieberman as "hard right". It very telling that mainstream political discourse has moved so far to the left that people like him are labelled regularly as extremists. I also think it's fantastic that there is reason to be optimistic about a less deferential future Jewish Israeli generation. I love the fact that we have a strong future generation that we can likely anticipate that will no longer allow our interests to be compromised to benefit our enemies.

Lieberman is certainly hard right viewed within European or American lenses, but I do agree that it is sad that someone like him is now labeled an extremist.

In Europe and North America the young (white) generation is more liberal than ever, a very depressing sign for our future. On the other hand the growth of the far right parties in Europe, which have a fair amount of youth support, is a great cause for optimism.

I think it's been that way for a long time. America moved troops in Saudi Arabia in the late forties, I think, although I could be wrong about that. It's a difficult balancing act America plays here, while protecting its oil-producing allies who hate Israel, and supporting Israel with military aid.

I remember watching this documentary which stated that Saudi Arabians, being as hate-filled against Khaffirs as they are due to their backward and highly-religious culture, hate Americans for simply having their troops stationed in the "holy land". Despite the fact that America is doing them and the entire world a favour by securing oil resources (the world freeloads on this energy security while attacking America for being "imperialistic"), they perceive it as an affront that the infidels are on their turf. That's how fucked up they are, they're so filled with hate that merely seeing the infidels drives them into a rage. Literally. That's the ideology we're up against. And that's the ideology of a whole lot of people who control a whole lot of oil. It's a fucked up world we live in.

Remember, doing these folks and the broader world a favour by protecting Saudi Arabia makes Saudi Arabians hate America. They hate America for protecting them. They hate America for helping them develop their one-trick pony economy. Don't forget that Saudi Arabia is the biggest supplier of foreign Jihadis in Afghanistan (and maybe also Iraq). These are your "allies". Yet people like Eran criticize American support for Israel!

American troops were not stationed in Saudi Arabia until the Gulf War, and them remaining there was a key reason for Osama bin Laden's declaration of war on America. As a result of the second Iraq War American troops have left the country, unless you count American mercenaries that train the Saudi National Guard (elite force loyal to regime to guard against coups, typical of Arab countries).

We did however develop our relationship with Saudi Arabia going all the way back to the 1930s, and FDR outmaneuvered the British in 1945 to bring it within the American sphere.

It's certainly true that Saudi exports of Wahhabism are very damaging to our interests, but in fairness they have been pretty good on the oil issue since 1979. They also import our defense goods from us at absurdly inflated prices which is nice. In general I think we should develop energy independence and then use our newfound leverage to force them to stop exporting jihad.

Israel doesn't spread Wahhabism, but I would not characterize Israel as a useful ally either. Aside from glaring issues like the USS Liberty incident, Israeli influence within our government (enabled by fifth columnist American Jews) undermines our foreign policy. Israel also has a military-technology relationship with China that is of concern to us. In general there is no reason for hostility, but I am not sure why we would want to support Israel either.

[Typhoon]

In response to Dave:

Terrorism directed at Israelis, atomic weapons the Israelis have as a deterrent. The region is strategically important because of its oil and gas reserves, none of them located in Israel or any of Israel's neighboring countries.

These are all very weak arguments as to why one should not take an interest in Isreal and its issue with the Palestinians. The idea that the Isreal-Palestine situation has resulted in terrorism purely directed at Isreal is fanciful. That Isreal itself has atomic weapons as a deterrant is irrelevant and a huge oversimplification of that issue in itself (as with all points here). As to the final point its not only factually incorrect but ignores the point that the strategic importance of the Middle East is not limited to oil...

I don't even want to look at the amount of trade done with certain Arab states, considering how essential oil is.

Well you should because Isreal is a significant export destination for UK good and services, not disssimilar from even Saudi Arabia in this respect.

Back to Dave:

It grossly exaggerates the value of human life and prevents the pursuit of rational policies that increase power, security, wealth, and prestige in favor of harebrained attempts to guard the lives of trivial people we have no particular connection to.

The problem of devaluing others with there being no real distinction between yourself and the others you inevitably devalue yourself. People have tried to invent a whole range of reasons as to why it is ok to devalue those sub-humans over there but it always falls flat because the distinction is false. In the end its better to overvalue everyone than have someone else devalue you. The Wests humanitarianism has hardly endangered its global domination but greatly enriched it.

It is hard to imagine a more pathetic policy than allowing your own people to slowly disappear from this Earth.

Now theres an irrational and unhealthy concern if ever there was one!

[Dave]

These are all very weak arguments as to why one should not take an interest in Isreal and its issue with the Palestinians. The idea that the Isreal-Palestine situation has resulted in terrorism purely directed at Isreal is fanciful. That Isreal itself has atomic weapons as a deterrant is irrelevant and a huge oversimplification of that issue in itself (as with all points here). As to the final point its not only factually incorrect but ignores the point that the strategic importance of the Middle East is not limited to oil...

The following unqualified adjectives are used here to subtly defame my post. Weak, fanciful, irrelevant, oversimplification, factually incorrect. You may be right, but you certainly aren't giving us any reasons why you are. The only substantive point you have is that the region is important for reasons other than oil, in which case I agree. The region also has gas.

But seriously, it is adjacent to strategically important shipping lanes which needs to be taken into account. The importance of Suez mean that both Israel and Egypt need to be at least neutral to the West.

The problem of devaluing others with there being no real distinction between yourself and the others you inevitably devalue yourself. People have tried to invent a whole range of reasons as to why it is ok to devalue those sub-humans over there but it always falls flat because the distinction is false. In the end its better to overvalue everyone than have someone else devalue you. The Wests humanitarianism has hardly endangered its global domination but greatly enriched it.

What are you talking about? Are you seriously unable to conceptualize of why such distinctions are useful and meaningful, or how they can be justified in practice? Basic ingroup/outgroup dynamics, Typhoon. Prioritize the interests of the ingroup. Any justification you like is appropriate. Talk about the disease of Western man.

I fail to see how our humanitarianism has increased our global dominance. Certainly there are some advantages, but in general what does it get us? I feel like we are damned if we do, damned if we don't. Most people we help seem to be ingrates, which makes sense since charity is pretty insulting. It also sustains population levels far beyond what is reasonable in many countries (e.g. Haiti, Ethiopia) which would suffer famines otherwise until they reached sustainable population levels for their primitive levels of agricultural technology. Presumably states with smaller populations would be easier for us to dominate, though that is speculative.

Perhaps the worst is how it leads us to do stupid things (e.g. current attack on Libya) and prevents us from pursuing our interests. We can't deal with Burma because we whine about their junta, so now it's in China's sphere of influence (probably inevitable given geography, admittedly). We couldn't deal with Sudan because of our incessant whining about Darfur, so now the Chinese get the oil there. We are losing out all over Africa because of our schoolmarmish insistence on democracy, transparency, and human "rights" whereas the Chinese simply do business.

Now theres an irrational and unhealthy concern if ever there was one!

Ignoring my personal feelings on the issue which are sadly in the minority among the intelligent, most of whom have chosen suicide (hence why I call it pathetic), strategically a policy of population replacement increases internal instability by generating ethnic conflict and reducing loyalty to the central state. I realize that there is the flip side of increased numbers increasing economic output (despite the lower productivity and employment rates of most immigrants and their descendants) so it isn't one-sided.