What a settler says to a Palestinian woman - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank.

Moderator: PoFo Middle-East Mods

Forum rules: No one-line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum moderated in English, so please post in English only. Thank you.
#15173042
Red_Army wrote:To be fair to @Istanbuller F35s can't fly if it rains out and are completely a product of weapons contractor corruption. That being said Israel and Turkey are on the same side most of the time and I doubt the Israelis or Palestinians want to be controlled by the Turks.


Oh I don't know, @Red_Army . Recall that the Palestinians where ENTIRELY happy to live under Jordanian (and Egyptian) rule when those two countries occupied - AND ANNEXED - Judea and Samaria, and Gaza, respectively. (changing the name of Judea and Samaria to 'The West Bank'). In the case of Jordan, all Palestinians where immediately converted to Jordanians.
The Palestinians didn't bat an eyelash !

I'm sure they'd be entirely happy to be Turks. They'd be happy to be almost ANY nationality except Jewish. (which is odd, because the average Israeli Arab has the highest standard of living in the Arab world).

In regards a conflict between Turkey and Israel; that is highly unlikely. Turkey is a LONG way from Israel. It's incursions into Syria where in NORTHERN Syria, again many hundreds of kilometers away from Israel. This is out of range for their S400/S300 anti aircraft missiles, and at the limit for their F16 fighters. So they couldn't 'close down Israeli air space'. They would have to move both missiles systems and aircraft (with all the associated support facilities) into Syria, and build an airbase, to threaten Israel. And such a base would be bombed by Israel before it could become operational.

Turkey DOES have a much larger navy than Israel, so I guess they COULD set up a blockade of Israel's coasts, and ferry weapons to HAMAS in Gaza. However, they risk running the gauntlet of Israeli land-based anti-ship missiles (Gabriel), to say nothing of the Israeli air force ! .
#15173290
Red_Army wrote:To be fair to @Istanbuller F35s can't fly if it rains out and are completely a product of weapons contractor corruption.


You have no idea what F35 is capable off. Nobody knows, as it is a highly classified project.

It would suffice to say that US Air Force has not certified a plane in the past 100 years that was not capable to fly in any weather.
I do not know if F35 can lay eggs, but I do know that a report that it has problems flying during the rain or lighting storm is totally bogus.

So far, all we know that F35 is good enough aircraft to be accepted by the best Armies in the world and it is preferred to any 4th generation plane in existence.

I would take an expert (Israeli Airforce for example) opinion over any armchair general's opinion.

Red_Army wrote: I doubt the Israelis or Palestinians want to be controlled by the Turks.


No they don't. Turks are not Arabs, and that is one of the problems. Palestinian Arabs would be fine with Jordanians though, as they were for years back from 1948 antill 1967. But then again Jordanians are not Turks, LOL.

Fundamentally, Palestinian Arabs will not be happy untill the Jews simply disappear into the thin air, nothing less will suffice for them.

Anyway, do not expect any compromises here. Eventually the force will have to be used to settle this conflict and even more force will have to be used to maintain the resulting status.

The good news is that Israel is capable to do that, however, at present Israel is not willing to use force. It's ok, we will wait for more agreeable times.
#15173291
I'm glad you have confidence in the F35, but using the fact that one of our client states bought it as definitive proof of its value and effectiveness is pretty bogus. Not to mention Israel lost a war to Hezbollah. Are you going to use the military prowess of Saudi Arabia to justify the extravagant cost of the F35 next? :lol:
#15173299
Red_Army wrote:I'm glad you have confidence in the F35, but using the fact that one of our client states bought it as definitive proof of its value and effectiveness is pretty bogus. Not to mention Israel lost a war to Hezbollah. Are you going to use the military prowess of Saudi Arabia to justify the extravagant cost of the F35 next? :lol:


You are subsribing to falacies and propoganda.

Talk is, as you know, cheap.

I say prove it! Prove that Israel is a 'client state' . Look up a definition of 'client state' and show that Israel fits that definition. I dare you!

Prove that Israel was defeated by Hesbolah. State the goals of the military campaign and show that those goals have not been accomplished by Israel, which will constitute a defeat, - still I dare you.

Finally, F35 has been accepted by nearly a dozen countries, not a single country, - by many countries.

Are you implying that ALL of them are less then intelligent? Are you saying that ALL of them have been duped by US? Look here, - the Japanese, the Italians, the Brits, and , yes, the Israelis, ets. All of them must be gambling with their collective security, right?

Tell that to the Japanese with China breathing down their necks. Or the Israelis with Iran talking the 'big' talk.

Very few people are in the know of performance envilope of F35. Nothing of substance is published.

I do, however, remember many articles staying that F35 is not an agile plane, - it was said that F35 was a pig in the air! Only to see a later report staying that it's manuvreability is better then F16. I hope you see what I am saying here...

As for the extravagant cost, I say to you, - do not count other people's money. US and the company can afford many things that most countries can't.

I say kudos to US to be able to pay for F35 without blinking aye.

You need to reflect on the fact the US has no peer in World and theofore cannot be compared to any country.
What is outrageously expensive for most, is a packet change for US. Not bad for a 300 year old country.

In its neighborhood, Israel has the same characteristics. Not bad for a country that started from scratch 75 years ago.
Last edited by Metoo on 20 May 2021 00:00, edited 1 time in total.
#15173302
@Metoo

With regard to Israel I'm being flippant, but Israel exists at our convenience and as our president said, "If Israel did not exist we would have to invent it." Is Israeli policy directly controlled by the US government? No. Does it nearly perfectly serve US interests in the region and receive more support than some of our own citizens? Yes.

Hezbollah became stronger and more powerful after the Israeli invasion. The pretense of the Lebanese government serving the interests of the people of Lebanon collapsed after Hezbollah was the power that fed, housed, and rebuilt after Israeli's destruction of civilian infrastructure. Whatever Israel's stated goals were, they left with a more entrenched and more powerful Hezbollah than when they invaded.

Again - our allies - who we coordinate with and provide plenty of resources and war material have an incentive to buy our newest gadget whether they are worth the price or not. International arms deals are just as corrupt and plagued by special interests and lobbying groups as our domestic contractors are. The F35 is projected to cost about as much as the annual military spending of every military in the world and continues to be plagued with "must-fix" problems that continue to raise that cost. Maybe the F35 will function to some purpose eventually, but there is no way it's worth that price. There are other planes that serve the purposes for which the F35 was designed better and cost far less. The only people who make out on the project are Lockheed Martin.

edit: I don't know why I'm arguing with you dude. We aren't being graded on this :lol: I just wanted to laugh about a dumb plane.
#15173914
... I am having difficulties with logging in. So I cannot respond in timely manner. I contacted admin but they are silent. Anyway here it goes...

Red_Army wrote:@Metoo

With regard to Israel I'm being flippant, but Israel exists at our convenience and as our president said, "If Israel did not exist we would have to invent it." Is Israeli policy directly controlled by the US government? No. Does it nearly perfectly serve US interests in the region and receive more support than some of our own citizens? Yes.


Well,- yes....and no.

No, Israel no longer exists at US convenience. It did however existed at US convenience before, give or take 1975.

Let's not worry too much about this point, as it deserves a thread of its own. Suffice to say that there is absolutely no scenario that one can envision, whereby United States will hang Israel out to dry, regardless of the nature of US administration.

The utility of Israel, as it relates to United States, is so intertwined with US interests, that it cannot be separated at this point.

Short of USA going totally communist or totally fascist, Israel and United States will continue to swim in the same direction. Therefore, it is totally illogical too say that Israel exists at US convenience. It is, at this point, it's symbiotic relationship.

Finally, the financial support that Israel gets from United States is a function of United States interests in the region. It has absolutely nothing to do with economic needs or requirements of Israel.

One, of course, never says no to a free money, but, at this time, this free money no longer matters. There are other reasons for Israel to get this money, and those reasons have nothing to do with Israel. Again it's a topic for another thread.

You quoted a US president. Indeed it supports what I'm saying. United States needs a country like Israel in the Middle East. However, if this country is simply a client State, then US interests will never be served as United States requires. Anything stronger than the Client State, and the country in question, Israel in this case, is no longer a client state.

Red_Army wrote:@Metoo

Hezbollah became stronger and more powerful after the Israeli invasion. The pretense of the Lebanese government serving the interests of the people of Lebanon collapsed after Hezbollah was the power that fed, housed, and rebuilt after Israeli's destruction of civilian infrastructure. Whatever Israel's stated goals were, they left with a more entrenched and more powerful Hezbollah than when they invaded.


You are completely wrong here. You are referring to a conflict of 2006. A strategic decision was made at the time to use Air Force as a primary offensive weapon against Hesbolah. Air Force general was put in charge. It is a common knowledge that Air Force alone can never accomplish the goals of the campaign. Yet, the decision was made in that direction. Very limited ground offensive took place. Don't you think there was a reason for it?

Indeed there was a reason, but it was never stated, and not a single information agency ever talked about it as far as I remember.

Everybody only focused on the failure of of Israel to dislodge Hesbolah.

Let me tell you this, - if decision was made to indeed get rid of Hesbolah, that tasks would be accomplished within 3 to 6 hours from the beginning of the campaign. We are talking 2006, not 1982 here.

Hesbolah knows this, which is why, if you assess it's strategic disposition, Hesbolah behaves the way it does - talking a lot and doing little.

Hesbolah serves several Israeli interests, much like Hamas does. Their collective end will come when those interests are no longer relevant. This is, as Mr. Kissinger uptly coined,- 'realpolitic'.

Finally, it is extremely short-sighted to assess the campaign that Israel fought against Hesbolah back in 2006 as a failure of Israel.
On the surface, Israel did not accomplish the campaign goals, but then again, nobody ever stated what those goals really were. You are simply repeating what you heard on CNN from armchair generals.

Much the same logic can be and must be applied when one looks at wars with Hamas. Those are targeted, I would even say measured actions. Again, Hamas knows that they will be defeated within 3 to 6 hours if need ever arises.

The consequences of the serious military actions against Hesbolah or Hamas would be nothing less than catastrophic.

Today in 2021, there is absolutely no doubt about this, and there is no argument that can exists to contravene it.

Red_Army wrote:@Metoo

Again - our allies - who we coordinate with and provide plenty of resources and war material have an incentive to buy our newest gadget whether they are worth the price or not. International arms deals are just as corrupt and plagued by special interests and lobbying groups as our domestic contractors are. The F35 is projected to cost about as much as the annual military spending of every military in the world and continues to be plagued with "must-fix" problems that continue to raise that cost. Maybe the F35 will function to some purpose eventually, but there is no way it's worth that price. There are other planes that serve the purposes for which the F35 was designed better and cost far less. The only people who make out on the project are Lockheed Martin.


I understand what you're saying, believe me I do. I can sympathize with your sentiments that F35 is outrageously expensive and there is a smell of conspiracy behind its creation.

It is quite possible that there are those elements at play. But in the end, it turned out to be a remarkable aircraft, which is, in many experts opinions, is worth the price and the effort. It is definitely a plane that Israel needs.

Once it's armaments and tactics are finalized, Israel will get an unstoppable weapon, with a recall option. Much of those tactics and weapons are uniquely Israeli. This weapon will serve political goals of Israel for the next 20 years.

Rumor has it that this aircraft operates all over the Middle East today and nobody sees enough of it to get a missile track. Absolute truth of course is not known.

Is it worth the money or the conspiracy? For Israel it is inequivocally yes. For United States it may be another matter.

Red_Army wrote:@Metoo

edit: I don't know why I'm arguing with you dude. We aren't being graded on this :lol: I just wanted to laugh about a dumb plane.


I am not really arguing with you, - we are having a conversation. I actually do agree with a lot of what you're saying. All I'm doing is providing a slightly different focus.
All the best.
#15173924
@Metoo I was also being a bit flippant about Israel "losing" to Hezbollah. Israel has a decent military and good hardware, but my main point is that they aren't the bad ass fighting force from the 6-day war. Victory is a bad teacher and Israel is no longer the plucky hard ass army they once were. Hezbollah showed that Israel doesn't have the stomach for taking casualties. That's why they just carpet bomb Gaza. I am definitely not repeating anything I heard on CNN as I don't watch CNN and they parrot the same bullshit about Israel being invincible anyway.

I appreciate your willingness to keep talking about these 3 things in a chill way, but I feel like you're the one just toeing the party line here. A million F35s aren't going to help Israel ethnic cleanse Gaza. Neither Hamas or Hezbollah have an air force.
#15193503
Red_Army wrote:That's why they just carpet bomb Gaza.

When has Israel carpet bombed Gaza?
#15194206
Metoo wrote:


Short of USA going totally communist or totally fascist, Israel and United States will continue to swim in the same direction.


This is, as Mr. Kissinger uptly coined,- 'realpolitic'.



Actually, the two countries are drifting in different directions. Worse, the end of the era of oil will reduce our interest in the entire region, no exceptions. But that's down the road a ways.

"The term Realpolitik was coined by Ludwig von Rochau, a German writer and politician in the 19th century. Rochau wrote that "to bring down the walls of Jericho, the Realpolitiker knows the simple pickaxe is more useful than the mightiest trumpet". Rochau's concept was seized upon by German thinkers in the mid and late 19th century and became associated with Otto von Bismarck's statecraft in unifying Germany in the mid 19th century. By 1890, usage of the word Realpolitik was widespread, yet increasingly detached from its original meaning.

In the United States, the term is often analogous to power politics while in Germany Realpolitik has a somewhat less negative connotation...

Henry Kissinger has been credited with formally introducing the policy of Realpolitik to the White House as Secretary of State to Richard Nixon.[7] In that context, the policy meant dealing with other powerful nations in a practical manner, rather than on the basis of political doctrine or ethics such as Nixon's diplomacy with the People's Republic of China despite American opposition to communism and the previous doctrine of containment. Another example is Kissinger's use of shuttle diplomacy after the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, when he persuaded the Israelis to withdraw partially from the Sinai in deference to the political realities created by the oil crisis.

Kissinger himself said that he had never used the term Realpolitik and stated that it is used by both liberal and realist foreign policy thinkers to label, criticize and facilitate a choosing of sides.[8] Kissinger had looked at what he implemented while he served as Secretary of State and National Security Advisor not in the confines of making Realpolitik a standard policy, but within the terms of being a statesman."

When you bring up Realpolitik in America, Kissinger is impossible to avoid. But while he was the architect of realpolitik, he was very, very careful about protecting his image.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik

The beast you feed, bro. x D

wrong term, the right one is Bolshevik barbarian […]

Even our shoes are racist.

I pointed out that your argument about the CEO’s […]

Colin Powell....

The Ends does not justify the Means. The respons[…]