Netanyahu is a chickenshit

[NobleSavage]

http://m.theatlantic.com/national/a...s-israel-relations-is-officially-here/382031/

Obama and Netanyahu governments have moved toward a full-blown crisis. The relationship between these two administrations— dual guarantors of the putatively “unbreakable” bond between the U.S. and Israel—is now the worst it's ever been, and it stands to get significantly worse after the November midterm elections. By next year, the Obama administration may actually withdraw diplomatic cover for Israel at the United Nations, but even before that, both sides are expecting a showdown over Iran, should an agreement be reached about the future of its nuclear program.

Another manifestation of his chicken-shittedness, in the view of Obama administration officials, is his near-pathological desire for career-preservation. Netanyahu’s government has in recent days gone out of its way to a) let the world know that it will quicken the pace of apartment-building in disputed areas of East Jerusalem; and b) let everyone know of its contempt for the Obama administration and its understanding of the Middle East. Settlement expansion, and the insertion of right-wing Jewish settlers into Arab areas of East Jerusalem, are clear signals by Netanyahu to his political base, in advance of possible elections next year, that he is still with them, despite his rhetorical commitment to a two-state solution. The public criticism of Obama policies is simultaneously heartfelt, and also designed to mobilize the base.

Netanyahu, and the even more hawkish ministers around him, seem to have decided that their short-term political futures rest on a platform that can be boiled down to this formula: “The whole world is against us. Only we can protect Israel from what’s coming.” For an Israeli public traumatized by Hamas violence and anti-Semitism, and by fear that the chaos and brutality of the Arab world will one day sweep over them, this formula has its charms.

But for Israel’s future as an ally of the United States, this formula is a disaster.

I really don't give a shit what Israel does. I just want the US to quit subsidizing their military. Any reason why we shouldn't?

 

[Harry Bosch]

http://m.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/10/the-crisis-in-us-israel-relations-is-officially-here/382031/ I really don't give a shit what Israel does. I just want the US to quit subsidizing their military. Any reason why we shouldn't?

Prevent nuclear war?

 

[Valjean]

How can one be both a chickenshit and a hawk?

 

[fromderinside]

How can one be both a chickenshit and a hawk?

Yeah. Its been misspoken before. Back in the day of Vietnam war the correct term was coined. Its chickenhawkshit.

 

[NobleSavage]

http://m.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/10/the-crisis-in-us-israel-relations-is-officially-here/382031/ I really don't give a shit what Israel does. I just want the US to quit subsidizing their military. Any reason why we shouldn't?

Prevent nuclear war?

Well, according to the article the strategic advantage the willingness of Israel to make a first strike. Now that is off the table. Anyhow, If Iran got a bomb, I'm not convinced that that would lead to nuclear war.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I really don't give a shit what Israel does. I just want the US to quit subsidizing their military. Any reason why we shouldn't?

Our military subsidies are far more a matter of pork than anything else. It also gives us a voice in encouraging them to be more careful of the human shields the terrorists use.

Unfortunately Obama seems to fallen for the Palestinian lies and thinks that the route to peace is to make Israel make concession after concession. Israel understands the folly of this route and isn't kowtowing to Obama's wishes.

 

[maxparrish]

Prevent nuclear war?

Well, according to the article the strategic advantage the willingness of Israel to make a first strike. Now that is off the table. Anyhow, If Iran got a bomb, I'm not convinced that that would lead to nuclear war.

Correct, there is only a 40 percent chance it would lead to nuclear war. So that is supposed to make us feel better?

 

[maxparrish]

How can one be both a chickenshit and a hawk?

Yeah. Its been misspoken before. Back in the day of Vietnam war the correct term was coined. Its chickenhawkshit.

I don't recall that being coined in the Vietnam war. The first time I heard something similar was during the Iraq war..."chickenhawk" a term often used by chicken-chicken's.

 

[NobleSavage]

Well, according to the article the strategic advantage the willingness of Israel to make a first strike. Now that is off the table. Anyhow, If Iran got a bomb, I'm not convinced that that would lead to nuclear war.

Correct, there is only a 40 percent chance it would lead to nuclear war. So that is supposed to make us feel better?

40%? They would just join the mutual destruction club. Iran seem seems like a rational actor to me. Do you think the US has a rational foreign policy?

 

[untermensche]

I really don't give a shit what Israel does.

So they can steal as much land as they want and oppress millions as severely as they want and you don't care?

It is one thing to say you don't have the power to end the Palestinian suffering at the hands of a brutal government.

It is another to say you don't care about human suffering.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I really don't give a shit what Israel does.

So they can steal as much land as they want and oppress millions as severely as they want and you don't care?

It is one thing to say you don't have the power to end the Palestinian suffering at the hands of a brutal government.

It is another to say you don't care about human suffering.

Hamas causes *FAR* more suffering than Israel does.

You're focusing on a molehill and ignoring the mountain.

 

[Axulus]

Correct, there is only a 40 percent chance it would lead to nuclear war. So that is supposed to make us feel better?

40%? They would just join the mutual destruction club. Iran seem seems like a rational actor to me. Do you think the US has a rational foreign policy?

Why wouldn't Israel strike Iran if the completion of Iran's bomb were imminent?

 

[Axulus]

I really don't give a shit what Israel does.

So they can steal as much land as they want and oppress millions as severely as they want and you don't care?

It is one thing to say you don't have the power to end the Palestinian suffering at the hands of a brutal government.

It is another to say you don't care about human suffering.

Wouldn't the rational move here be for the Palestinians to disarm completely to really get the world on their side and maybe allay the concerns of the Israeli public a bit, emulating the tactics of Ghandi? If Israel was going to wipe them out in a genocide they would've done so already, so the argument that they need to be armed for defense doesn't really seem to apply, since they couldn't defend themselves from a full on onslaught by the Israeli army anyway. Nor do I think there is much support in Israel for intentional slaughter of unarmed civilians (maybe 5% at most?). Such actions would also most likely unite the Middle East in a great war against Israel, with Europe maybe even joining in against Israel.

Or is it the cause that Palestinians are not rational actors due to Israels past actions? If this is the case, then how is a peace deal supposed to be reached with an irrational actor?

 

[untermensche]

So they can steal as much land as they want and oppress millions as severely as they want and you don't care?

It is one thing to say you don't have the power to end the Palestinian suffering at the hands of a brutal government.

It is another to say you don't care about human suffering.

Hamas causes *FAR* more suffering than Israel does.

You're focusing on a molehill and ignoring the mountain.

Hamas has not done a tiny fraction of what the Israeli government has done.

To even think so shows amazing ignorance of all that Israel has done in the last 50 years.

 

[Axulus]

Hamas causes *FAR* more suffering than Israel does.

You're focusing on a molehill and ignoring the mountain.

Hamas has not done a tiny fraction of what the Israeli government has done.

To even think so shows amazing ignorance of all that Israel has done in the last 50 years.

They've put far too many resources into trying to get revenge against Israel and are all to willing to use civilians as fodder instead of doing their best to build up the economy and help the poor (actions which would also allay Israeli public's concerns at least a bit and further unite the world against Israel). I think these are the actions he is referring to.

 

[untermensche]

So they can steal as much land as they want and oppress millions as severely as they want and you don't care?

It is one thing to say you don't have the power to end the Palestinian suffering at the hands of a brutal government.

It is another to say you don't care about human suffering.

Wouldn't the rational move here be for the Palestinians to disarm completely to really get the world on their side and maybe allay the concerns of the Israeli public a bit, emulating the tactics of Ghandi? If Israel was going to wipe them out in a genocide they would've done so already, so the argument that they need to be armed for defense doesn't really seem to apply, since they couldn't defend themselves from a full on onslaught by the Israeli army anyway. Nor do I think there is much support in Israel for intentional slaughter of unarmed civilians (maybe 5% at most?). Such actions would also most likely unite the Middle East in a great war against Israel, with Europe maybe even joining in against Israel.

Or is it the cause that Palestinians are not rational actors due to Israels past actions? If this is the case, then how is a peace deal supposed to be reached with an irrational actor?

No. This is not India.

England had economic ties in India and Gandhi's tactics hurt the British economically.

Israel has no such economic ties with the Palestinians and is able to block a lot of the media with it's overwhelming force and belligerence.

The Palestinians have for the most part been incredibly peaceful over the last 50 years. Nothing like the violence just unleashed on Gaza. Nothing even close.

Tiny scattered pin pricks here and there. Each blown up into the most vicious attack in human history and met with a disproportionate response as a reprisal.

The innocent were punished for the crimes of the guilty.

This is not India. The whole world is not colonial India.

 

[untermensche]

Hamas has not done a tiny fraction of what the Israeli government has done.

To even think so shows amazing ignorance of all that Israel has done in the last 50 years.

They've put far too many resources into trying to get revenge against Israel and are all to willing to use civilians as fodder instead of doing their best to build up the economy and help the poor (actions which would also allay Israeli public's concerns at least a bit and further unite the world against Israel). I think these are the actions he is referring to.

They are defending against Israeli oppression.

Oppression is violence. To say that violence can't be met with violence is to say the oppressed can't throw off oppressors.

 

[Axulus]

Wouldn't the rational move here be for the Palestinians to disarm completely to really get the world on their side and maybe allay the concerns of the Israeli public a bit, emulating the tactics of Ghandi? If Israel was going to wipe them out in a genocide they would've done so already, so the argument that they need to be armed for defense doesn't really seem to apply, since they couldn't defend themselves from a full on onslaught by the Israeli army anyway. Nor do I think there is much support in Israel for intentional slaughter of unarmed civilians (maybe 5% at most?). Such actions would also most likely unite the Middle East in a great war against Israel, with Europe maybe even joining in against Israel.

Or is it the cause that Palestinians are not rational actors due to Israels past actions? If this is the case, then how is a peace deal supposed to be reached with an irrational actor?

No. This is not India.

England had economic ties in India and Gandhi's tactics hurt the British economically.

Israel has no such economic ties with the Palestinians and is able to block a lot of the media with it's overwhelming force and belligerence.

The Palestinians have for the most part been incredibly peaceful over the last 50 years. Nothing like the violence just unleashed on Gaza. Nothing even close.

Tiny scattered pin pricks here and there. Each blown up into the most vicious attack in human history and met with a disproportionate response as a reprisal.

The innocent were punished for the crimes of the guilty.

This is not India. The whole world is not colonial India.

What's the downside here?

- - - Updated - - -

They've put far too many resources into trying to get revenge against Israel and are all to willing to use civilians as fodder instead of doing their best to build up the economy and help the poor (actions which would also allay Israeli public's concerns at least a bit and further unite the world against Israel). I think these are the actions he is referring to.

They are defending against Israeli oppression.

Oppression is violence. To say that violence can't be met with violence is to say the oppressed can't throw off oppressors.

How's that defense working out for them? Why waste resources on something so ineffective when those resources can be put to better use reducing the suffering?

 

[Juma]

No. This is not India.

England had economic ties in India and Gandhi's tactics hurt the British economically.

Israel has no such economic ties with the Palestinians and is able to block a lot of the media with it's overwhelming force and belligerence.

The Palestinians have for the most part been incredibly peaceful over the last 50 years. Nothing like the violence just unleashed on Gaza. Nothing even close.

Tiny scattered pin pricks here and there. Each blown up into the most vicious attack in human history and met with a disproportionate response as a reprisal.

The innocent were punished for the crimes of the guilty.

This is not India. The whole world is not colonial India.

What's the downside here?

- - - Updated - - -

They've put far too many resources into trying to get revenge against Israel and are all to willing to use civilians as fodder instead of doing their best to build up the economy and help the poor (actions which would also allay Israeli public's concerns at least a bit and further unite the world against Israel). I think these are the actions he is referring to.

They are defending against Israeli oppression.

Oppression is violence. To say that violence can't be met with violence is to say the oppressed can't throw off oppressors.

How's that defense working out for them? Why waste resources on something so ineffective when those resources can be put to better use reducing the suffering?

How? Dont forget what the isreali opression has done to the mindset of the palestinians.

How eager would you be to put down all defense if your country was invaded?

 

[untermensche]

No. This is not India.

England had economic ties in India and Gandhi's tactics hurt the British economically.

Israel has no such economic ties with the Palestinians and is able to block a lot of the media with it's overwhelming force and belligerence.

The Palestinians have for the most part been incredibly peaceful over the last 50 years. Nothing like the violence just unleashed on Gaza. Nothing even close.

Tiny scattered pin pricks here and there. Each blown up into the most vicious attack in human history and met with a disproportionate response as a reprisal.

The innocent were punished for the crimes of the guilty.

This is not India. The whole world is not colonial India.

What's the downside here?

Israel would invent pretexts whole to take land and continue oppression if the Palestinians stopped defending themselves.

That is what Israel wants, to take land and oppress the Palestinians. Actions speak a lot louder than apologetics.

They've put far too many resources into trying to get revenge against Israel and are all to willing to use civilians as fodder instead of doing their best to build up the economy and help the poor (actions which would also allay Israeli public's concerns at least a bit and further unite the world against Israel). I think these are the actions he is referring to.

They are defending against Israeli oppression.

Oppression is violence. To say that violence can't be met with violence is to say the oppressed can't throw off oppressors.

How's that defense working out for them? Why waste resources on something so ineffective when those resources can be put to better use reducing the suffering?

Saying the tactics are wrong from a comfy chair thousands of miles away is of course easy.

These are oppressed and desperate people.