The primary rifle of the IDF is now the M-16/M-4 Carbine as opposed to IMI’s products. Israel has signed on to receive the overly expensive F-35. That plane is a barely functional boondoogle for the US, let alone for our allies. Sometimes its like Israel is just taking US junk just to make us happy.
I misspoke there. I meant Israeli arguments against peace with the Palestinians. Not arguments against the existence of Israel.
I’ve been trying to find out if the Tavor is increasing locally or as an export.
I can’t help but think there’s a parallel here to inner city gangs of African Americans who have stockpiled the firepower to shoot not only each other but also bystanders in large numbers, which is a long term result of the legacy of prejudice and inequality that has given the community a very different historical and political trajectory than they would have had if their families had not been so torn apart, brutalized, and killed for centuries.
Yes, lashing out and harming others (or ramping up security to an extreme level) is not the best choice. It is, however, a very common one for human populations which have been traumatized. Recognize and respect the symptom for what it is, or it’s not possible to move forward constructively.
Okay, but how many decades should the abused population be expected to wait?
Also, I’d rather not see Jewish people in such monolithic terms. And actually, many Jewish people agree. Indeed, many draw a distinction between an understandable response of the abused being that of lashing out at others, and a collective human responsibility to restrain such impulses. Especially when one’s collective has attained such an exponentially greater amount of power with which to abuse their victims.
According to Wikipedia, the Tavor is slated to be the IDF’s primary battle rifle in 2018. It has been exported to a number of countries already.
Do you honestly want Iran or Saudi Arabia to have nukes? Imagine if Syria or Iraq was able to meet its nuclear ambitions in the late 80’s. ISIS would be running around with radiological weapons (most likely dirty bombs). The only time Israel even considered using its nuclear arsenal was in 1973 when the nation was hanging by a thread.
Americans I know who’ve used them dislike the NATO ammo size but Israelis prefer its ergonomics. I half suspect the Americans complaints are a cover for not holding it right 
This entire thread has been an education for me. I’m still working my way through, as I’ve had to read some posts twice to absorb just some of the details. Excellent, excellent contributions from both you and @anon61221983. Thank you both.
Where did I say that? My answer is no. What I’d much prefer is broader recognition of Israel’s, and thus of its tremendous strength in the region (and thus a lessening of unwarranted claims that its under constant existential threat, claims that help to justify its horrific and grotesquely ironic abuse of Palestinians).
And thanks largely to its having them, in addition to such huge additional US-supplied military powers, as well as the unquestioned backing of the world’s leading aggressor and hegemon (again, the US), it hasn’t had cause to even consider using its nuclear arsenal.
Well if you are moaning about Israel being the only one in the region with nukes, that is a logical path to the discussion.
Unlike Israel, the US has not only provided support for Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states but intervened militarily directly on their behalf in a conflict. Gulf War I. The US has bases in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia but not in Israel.
Maybe, but it’s also ignoring violence on the other side and holding one side to a higher standard.
I don’t totally disagree here… but as you point out, there is a lack of choice in the process at this point. So, what’s to be done? Should the Palestinian people turn on their leaders? [quote=“Mangochin, post:78, topic:80170”]
One bright spot is that both of them are losing interest in the Palestinians, choosing to focus on the Syrian Civil War.
[/quote]
I don’t think that you want to call that a bright spot, given the death toll and displacement! 
The Israelis and the US are spending far more in this equation though.[quote=“Mangochin, post:78, topic:80170”]
Nobody thinks Palestinian leaders would propose or abide by one right now.
[/quote]
I think that has much more to do with the current hawkish Israeli leadership though. The guy before this one was not exactly dovish (given his previously role as a military leader), but he looked positively peaceful compared to the current administration.
I honestly think you are ascribing far too much agency to the Palestinians and far too little to the Israeli government. I’m happy to accept that the current Palestinian leadership is moribund, and, especially in Gaza, putting it mildly, problematic. But to think that the Israelis have no options, given the fact that they hold nearly all the economic and military power in the equation is a bit misplaced.
Sure. But there are religious political factions backing West Bank settlements at the expense of the people living there, which is indeed a secular, not a religious problem. Plus not all the settlements are religious in nature… I have no intention of casting religious Jews in a villainous light, it’s the state that’s a problem. It seems to me that the desire to dwell in lands held by Palestinians, for whatever reason, is employed by the state to justify its settlement plans.[quote=“Israel_B, post:80, topic:80170”]
I’m sure there are those in Jordan who recall Black September less than fondly as well…
[/quote]
I don’t doubt it. Hence, Jordan wouldn’t want to take in more Palestinians, even with additional land, especially given the number of Syrians they’ve taken in.
Any ideas of how they need to go about this?
Do you honestly believe she actually said that or implied that in anyway? How about we head towards nuclear disarmament across the board? Shouldn’t that be the goal?
Thanks! I don’t agree with @Mangochin on much of anything, but they are making good contributions too… As is @Israel_B… But yeah, good talk everyone! Give yourselves a pat on the back for taking one of the most divisive and contentious issues of our day and not turning it into angry name calling! Yay us!
That would be a great start.
50 years of being cannon fodder for the Arab League and Iran is a good enough cause as any. What they need is a “Gerry Adams” a man with a terrorist background who is sincere about building a nation. I don’t see anyone from Hamas or Fatah who has ambitions beyond keeping the foreign aid gravy train going and keeping their population in lockdown.
The million dollar question is why don’t the Palestinian de facto states just declare independence on their own. Declare their current borders are now that of the new Palestinian State(s) and demand to be treated as a sovereign nations. Because it would ruin the plans of their benefactors. Nations who give money and arms to Palestinians but also quash aspirations of potential statehood.
Not for anyone involved. But if you haven’t noticed, neither Israel nor the Palestinian controlled areas are getting involved in it. In fact its actually very critical of Israel that they are not shouldering the burden of taking in refugees to the extent that Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon are.
Indiscriminately fired rockets and suicide belts are cheap. Protecting from them is not. [quote=“anon61221983, post:91, topic:80170”]
I think that has much more to do with the current hawkish Israeli leadership though
[/quote]
The current hawkish Israeli leadership is fairly recent in terms of the conflict. Corrupt Palestinian leadership and their role as proxy forces for Arabs and Iran dates back to the founding of Israel. The only thing the Israelis can do (and must do) is uproot the West Bank settlements. After that, there is nothing else that can be done on their end without a Palestinian leadership willing to talk statehood.
If they were dealing with reasonable people who have concern for the well being of those who are governed by them, it would make sense. But as long as Hamas and Fatah live high on the hog of foreign funds and arms, the level of concern is nil.
I think that this line of thinking smacks a little too much of the whole puppet masters controlling people, as opposed to people making choices (sometimes out of nothing but bad choices). When the last election brought Hamas to political power, that was a choice of bad choices. It’s turned out worse, but given how badly the situation in the West Bank is being handled, some are seeing Hamas as at least doing something (even if that’s only causing more violence). And of course, other, more radical groups have often been the ones to break the on-again-off-again truce, not Hamas.
You should also note that the Arab League isn’t exactly a unified organization. Given things like the war in Yemen, unrest in the Sinai, and the war in Syria, I don’t think it’s an effective organization for controlling, well anything really. And in recent years, the major players have more important things closer to home and are less concerned with the creation of a Palestinian state.
They have been trying to do that, but that’s not how nation-buildiing works. You need backing and recognition from international bodies or else an ability to define and maintain borders, which in this case is really impossible. You should read some Benedict Anderson on nationalism (Imagined Communities).
True. Although there were a few sorties into Syrian territories by Israel when it looked like the conflict was going to spill over. Again, not like the Palestinians can do much to get involved and the Israelis probably aren’t interested in getting involved.
This, once again, cuts both ways. The current Israeli government tends away from the reasonable (and they just made one of the most xenophobic politicians the defense minister). And although Israel certainly has a dynamic and healthy economy, US tax dollars still pour into their military coffers. How do you define “high on the hog”? I’m not sure living in Gaza really qualifies, no matter your political position. [quote=“Mangochin, post:93, topic:80170”]
The only thing the Israelis can do (and must do) is uproot the West Bank settlements.
[/quote]
I agree. They should also allow full access to water and help replant the lands they often destroyed in settlement building. This has been a major stumbling block to getting the Palestinians to come back to the table (not the only, but a major one). But each time the topic comes up, they Israeli government just opens up more land for settlements. And you can maybe forgive some Palestinians for thinking fighting back works, because there were settlements in Gaza which ended with the last Intifada, which led the Israelis to evacuate and shut down the borders.
But it falls in line with how they have behaved for the last 60 years up to the present day. The Palestinian Civil War was largely a theater of conflict for the Iran/Saudi cold war playing out since 1979. Much like the Syrian Civil War is now.
Israel was stuck in the middle between two forces trying to one up each other in atrocities.
Which is a good sign for the Palestinian Authority. As interest in their affairs is on the wane from Saudi Arabia and Gulf states. Much like how Libya’s disavowal of support of the IRA was instrumental towards bringing them towards peace accords in the early 1990’s.
Unless you are Israel, Eritrea or South Sudan. Then all it took was declaration of statehood followed by UN politiciking for recognition.
As discussed with IsraelB, it is not tax dollars pouring into coffers. Its exclusive sales and purchases of military equipment between Israel and the US. In many cases Israel is left with junk from the US it doesn’t really need.
YAY!! Common Ground!!!
But they have not behaved the same way for 60 years. It’s a long time and there is much nuance and actors your kind of glossing over here. The invasion after the founding caused a backlash against Palestinians, many of whom lost their homes. Do I think that both the Saudis and Iranians have attempted to exploit that or have done so, sure, I’ll buy that. What I won’t buy is that the Palestinians don’t have a grievance here or that they need to assume sole responsibility for this disaster.
I just don’t buy that this is the only animating factor. See above. Although Palestinians have a set of bad choices and no workable political leadership, that doesn’t mean people haven’t made choices or that they are lacking in agency and merely puppets of the Saudis or Iranians.
That’s the problem. In all three cases, they had some backing in the UN from one power broker or another. Not so in this case.
That junk is still pretty powerful. And we’re talking about decades of arms dealing as well as their own domestic arms manufactures. The weapons build up is pretty large at this point.
Peace in our time! If we can do it, so can the Israelis and Palestinians!
Do you think the US or any European power would not support a separate Palestinian State? Look who are the largest donors to the PA outside of the Middle East.
I don’t think the US would, no, not without Israeli buy in. And if we don’t we have the veto power to make sure it doesn’t come to pass. I think the French would support them, though, but Germany might not. Not sure about the Russians (but thinking not… but who knows with the antisemitism that’s still rather common there). I think for this to happen, you need Israeli buy in, given that you need to hammer out details like borders and Jerusalem before you can have an effective state.
Actually neither the Arab League nor the Iranians have ever been concerned with the creation of a “Palestinian” state but what they have always agreed on is objection to the Jewish state.
I think I can largely agree here. Both have used the Palestinians as a means to an end when it suits their needs.
