You are right, that losing our relationship with Europe would hurt.
But it is they who are threatening to cut off that relationship, not us.
And we need to have the attitude: "Do what you have to do."
Home | 
You are right, that losing our relationship with Europe would hurt.
But it is they who are threatening to cut off that relationship, not us.
And we need to have the attitude: "Do what you have to do."
Sure, but a cost/benefit analysis must be performed, as accurately as possible, to develop the course of action.Originally posted by MGB8
You are right, that losing our relationship with Europe would hurt.
But it is they who are threatening to cut off that relationship, not us.
And we need to have the attitude: "Do what you have to do."
ok, but if europe is threatening to cut of the bonds, why is that?
Is it solely because all europeans hate jews? Try to look for the reasons as jorge said. Its not because israel is defending itself.
This is wrong all through.First, Israel would not exist without europe. USA did not control the UN by itself when israel was created. It was european support all along for that too. So I guess you could say that is sort of a favor. France and britain fought against Egypt when they closed the canal. For its own interests too but it helpt Israel as well. At the same time as Iraq launched scuds at israel, european soldiers fought and died in iraq. Europe has sold weapons to israel too. We buy from israel even now. That helps the weapons industry and therefore the israeli defence. Europe has not sold more arms to the arab countries than USA or Russia. As you probably know both Iraq and Iran was armed not only by Britain but USA too. Britain is more connected too USA than europe anyway. Britain helped Iraq with the development of chemical weapons and they led the development of anthrax in west working closely with the US. I dont belive one second that france is arming Iran and Iraq with nukes now. They might have done during the eighties when everybody else did but not now. Its just one of your fantasies about france. One of many I might add.It has done Israel no favors, did not come to Israel's aid in any wars (nor offer), has sold a ton of arms to the Arab nations, especially the French who were (and probably are) actively helping Iraq and Iran gain nuclear power.
Look for the reason why you lose support in EU instead of going on in the same way. Whats to say that for example s.americans or asians will act differently if things goes on like this?
You might not like us much but its naive to think europe are unimportant to israel.
Northlander, it doesn't really matter at this point why EU wants to cut the bonds. Obviously, Israelis do not agree with their reasons. Who is correct, only time will tell; but the fact of the matter is that Israel does not believe that EU demands are valid.
The only question remaining is whether or not it is worthwhile for Israel to give in to these demands. It's like a scale: the bowl on one side has the benefits Israel draws from EU, and on the other - the dangers of paying the price for these benefits. Whichever sides overweighs the other, that's the optimal course of action. In business terms, a "cost/benefit analysis" is performed.
If Israel perceives that giving in to the EU demands will threaten the safety of Israelis, it will have no choice but to say "Screw you" and proceed with whatever action they believe necessary to assure such safety. At that point, any leverage EU ever had on Israel's policies, short of military actions, disappears entirely. Since the region is vital to the EU, it is doubtful that they would go that far. The most likely scenario is that some sort of compromise on the demands will be made, and Israel and EU will happily resume their trade, scientific, cultural, and other cooperation.
I agree to what you say. But its not for europes sake I would like to see Israel thinking about the fact that it is losing support from people that has earlier supported them.
Im sad to say that that the european demands are not negociable. All countries in europe has its own reasons and interests and EU is founded on a few things that had to unite us to prevent future wars and clashes in europe. Economical interests of course and then the democratic values and the regards for human rights that connects most western countries.
Those most fundamental values are what makes it possible to work smoothly together.
The demands on israel are to follow international laws, stop crimes against human rights etc. I dont think any sort of compromise will be made because Israel has no will to compromise. Not this government anyway. Not to the palestinians, not to EU. Not to anything. I dont think EU should compromise either in this question. Maybe they will but I hope they are not. Israel must act as other democratic states before it should be allowed to take part in the cooperation.
It is as you say a "cost/benefit analysis" situation for Israel.
Im just afraid it is about to make the wrong decision.
Continue to make the wrong decision i should say.
Israel cant obtain safety by itself. That has been proven over and over again. Things have become worse than ever lately and when Israel decides to go on the same way. Thing will continue the same way. What EU and even US is asking for is a change in policy. Why beliving in a defence against terrorism that obviously is not working. Exactly how has the occupied zones helped Israels security? That was the reason for keeping them, right?
Its useless talking about israeli security right now because there is none. Whatever Sharon is doing is not working. He has failed and the israeli public deserve someone that can solve the conflict with the palestinians AND neighbouring countries once and for all.
Sharon will probably have the time to ruin the relations with europe and maybe even the US before he is gone. He is halfway there you could say.
I don't understand this preoccupation with Sharon. Sharon is an elected Prime Minister of a Democratic state. As Israel has demonstrated numerous times in the past, as soon as he stops representing the will of the majority, he will be gone from that spot as fast as you can say "election".
If the European demands are non-negotiable, then I reiterate: Israel is going to have to make a cost/benefit analysis. European demands, for what they are worth, have little to do with human rights or other such nebulous issues. They have to do, pure and simple, with the interests of the European Union and non-member European states. That's fine, nothing wrong with that; but it is wise of the Europeans to also make such cost/benefit analysis for their relations with Israel, and see which side of the scale is heavier: the benefits of dealing with Israel, or the costs of doing so.
As far as an average Israeli's safety is concerned, while it is worse than it has been over the 1967-2000 period, it's better than it was between 1948 and 1967. We can play the statistics game, if you like, to prove this point.
I too think that it would be a bad idea to completely disregard the relations with Europe. Actually, Jorge convinced me. I ashamedly confess that I haven't thought about it in that light before. When he mentioned the cultural and scientific cooperation, I had a "Eureka moment". However, I still think that the only party who has the authority to decide how it's going to ensure the safety of its citizens, is the democratically elected government of the State of Israel. If Europe disagrees with their decision, and proceeds to protect its interests by boycotting Israeli products and other means, so be it.
None of us: not you, not me, not the European, US, or other governments, have the gift of seeing the future. We simply cannot guarantee that Israel would be safe if only it took the path that we think is right. Therefore, it is not up to us to decide whether the course of action they choose is "right" or "wrong".
Quote from MGB8 (#89)
As for Jorge's other points (economic), that's litered with false analogies.
No. Europe, while it has an impact, it is not in a position to even threaten israel.
When it does threaten Israel, it shows its true colours.
Of course my comments are littered with false analogies. Analogies are by nature false , otherwise they wouldn't be analogies but something else.
A refined form of analogies are the models used in science; sometimes we try to describe reality in terms of concepts which are more familiar to us, like the earlier atomic models that depicted atoms in terms of electrons revolving around the nucleus "as planets around the Sun". Models and analogies are useful for understanding reality, but they are not and they don't pretend to be the real thing. Models and analogies may be good or bad, or even cute or absurd, but never " true ".
The other day I read a rather cute analogy of our government's obsession with Arafat and the PA: it's like a man who is angry with his wife; he cannot kick is wife so, to release his tension,
he kicks his dog. Sorry, I'm disgressing…
Thailand and other south asian countries are not Timbuktu, by a long shot.
That wasn't an analogy I was just trying to be sarcastic ( unsuccessfully it seems).
As for the Ghetto "analogy," that's ablatantly false analogy in of itself
Again with this (false) analogy I was trying to depict an hypothetical situation in more familiar terms. Everyone knows that ghettos were enclaves of a culture foreign to that of the surrounding environment; ghettos had few interactions with the outside world, except for the occasional pogrom. On the other hand we are not familiar with a situation where a whole country is similarly isolated mainly because it is an unusual condition in contemporary history. The only example (or analogy if you prefer) in our times that comes to my mind is that of Cuba. For a number of years Cuba has been isolated from its neighbors and from North and South America at large; no diplomatic relations, no cultural exchanges, no trade, nothing. I wouldn't say that
this isolation has been beneficial for the cubans , in spite of which Cuba and its ideology have managed to survive for quite a number of years.
In a similar fashion also Israel may survive if we cut our ties with Europe, but, this is not the sort of future anyone could gladly contemplate. You may counter argue by saying that we would still have ties with the USA so that we wouldn't be alone in the world. Cuba for a time had close ties with the former USSR but nevertheless was isolated, because the country belonged to Latin America and was foreign to the Urals or the Caucasus.
Israel belongs or rather, wants to think it belongs, to Europe; we are foreign to the Middle East, we are either hated or
scarcely tolerated by the countries in the region, if we are cut off from Europe we will be in a similar position as Cuba: An anachronistic ghetto in a world who's traveling fast to integration and globalization. In terms of foreign relations, by ignoring Europe we would be pursuing a policy not only short-
sighted but irresponsible.
.
Originally posted by Northlander
ok, but if europe is threatening to cut of the bonds, why is that?
Is it solely because all europeans hate jews? Try to look for the reasons as jorge said. Its not because israel is defending itself.
This is wrong all through.First, Israel would not exist without europe. USA did not control the UN by itself when israel was created. It was european support all along for that too. So I guess you could say that is sort of a favor. France and britain fought against Egypt when they closed the canal. For its own interests too but it helpt Israel as well. At the same time as Iraq launched scuds at israel, european soldiers fought and died in iraq. Europe has sold weapons to israel too. We buy from israel even now. That helps the weapons industry and therefore the israeli defence. Europe has not sold more arms to the arab countries than USA or Russia. As you probably know both Iraq and Iran was armed not only by Britain but USA too. Britain is more connected too USA than europe anyway. Britain helped Iraq with the development of chemical weapons and they led the development of anthrax in west working closely with the US. I dont belive one second that france is arming Iran and Iraq with nukes now. They might have done during the eighties when everybody else did but not now. Its just one of your fantasies about france. One of many I might add.
Look for the reason why you lose support in EU instead of going on in the same way. Whats to say that for example s.americans or asians will act differently if things goes on like this?
You might not like us much but its naive to think europe are unimportant to israel.
I will give you the creation of Israel, and even help arming the original army (although where was the help in 48?). Britain did help in 56 and has had relatively good ties with Israel.
Until recently Germany had very solid ties to Israel also.
As for the Iraq war - sure Europeans died in that war, but it was a war that Europe and the US (the new world order) started (sort of). Israel was told not to defende itsled (as it is being told to now.)
As for why Europe is threatening Israel (which it has no moral right to do) It is EXACTLY because Israel is defending itself, which pisses of the oil dealers. What else would you have Israel do? Waive the white flag and surrender? Die? Show that violence indeed works? Give the Hamas and Fatah and the PFLP and Hezbollah a nice, unsepervised platform to develop and launch more attacks against Israel?
You are deluded if you think that Israel has done anything more than protect itself. Even possession of the west bank at all is in self-defense, to protect a very thin country from being cut into two in a war.
analogies are not false by nature. They are comparisons. Fallacies are false.
If Israel cut of ties with Europe (or European contries that threatened them) they wouldn't "just" have the US, but the US, Russia, Japan, India, China, Australia, Taiwan, Singapore, Mexico, Canada, Venezuala, South Africa, Brazil, Argentina, Thailand, South Korea, North Korea etc.
Moreover, as some European contries came to their sense (Germany or Britain would likely be first) trade could be accomplished with those countries.
So forget the treats...while it would be uncomfortable, it wouldn't be that bad.
Originally posted by Jorge
Quote from MGB8 (#89)
As for Jorge's other points (economic), that's litered with false analogies.
No. Europe, while it has an impact, it is not in a position to even threaten israel.
When it does threaten Israel, it shows its true colours.
Of course my comments are littered with false analogies. Analogies are by nature false , otherwise they wouldn't be analogies but something else.
A refined form of analogies are the models used in science; sometimes we try to describe reality in terms of concepts which are more familiar to us, like the earlier atomic models that depicted atoms in terms of electrons revolving around the nucleus "as planets around the Sun". Models and analogies are useful for understanding reality, but they are not and they don't pretend to be the real thing. Models and analogies may be good or bad, or even cute or absurd, but never " true ".
The other day I read a rather cute analogy of our government's obsession with Arafat and the PA: it's like a man who is angry with his wife; he cannot kick is wife so, to release his tension,
he kicks his dog. Sorry, I'm disgressing…
Thailand and other south asian countries are not Timbuktu, by a long shot.
That wasn't an analogy I was just trying to be sarcastic ( unsuccessfully it seems).
As for the Ghetto "analogy," that's ablatantly false analogy in of itself
Again with this (false) analogy I was trying to depict an hypothetical situation in more familiar terms. Everyone knows that ghettos were enclaves of a culture foreign to that of the surrounding environment; ghettos had few interactions with the outside world, except for the occasional pogrom. On the other hand we are not familiar with a situation where a whole country is similarly isolated mainly because it is an unusual condition in contemporary history. The only example (or analogy if you prefer) in our times that comes to my mind is that of Cuba. For a number of years Cuba has been isolated from its neighbors and from North and South America at large; no diplomatic relations, no cultural exchanges, no trade, nothing. I wouldn't say that
this isolation has been beneficial for the cubans , in spite of which Cuba and its ideology have managed to survive for quite a number of years.
In a similar fashion also Israel may survive if we cut our ties with Europe, but, this is not the sort of future anyone could gladly contemplate. You may counter argue by saying that we would still have ties with the USA so that we wouldn't be alone in the world. Cuba for a time had close ties with the former USSR but nevertheless was isolated, because the country belonged to Latin America and was foreign to the Urals or the Caucasus.
Israel belongs or rather, wants to think it belongs, to Europe; we are foreign to the Middle East, we are either hated or
scarcely tolerated by the countries in the region, if we are cut off from Europe we will be in a similar position as Cuba: An anachronistic ghetto in a world who's traveling fast to integration and globalization. In terms of foreign relations, by ignoring Europe we would be pursuing a policy not only short-
sighted but irresponsible.
.
Originally posted by Northlander
I agree to what you say. But its not for europes sake I would like to see Israel thinking about the fact that it is losing support from people that has earlier supported them.
Im sad to say that that the european demands are not negociable. All countries in europe has its own reasons and interests and EU is founded on a few things that had to unite us to prevent future wars and clashes in europe. Economical interests of course and then the democratic values and the regards for human rights that connects most western countries.
Those most fundamental values are what makes it possible to work smoothly together.
The demands on israel are to follow international laws, stop crimes against human rights etc. I dont think any sort of compromise will be made because Israel has no will to compromise. Not this government anyway. Not to the palestinians, not to EU. Not to anything. I dont think EU should compromise either in this question. Maybe they will but I hope they are not. Israel must act as other democratic states before it should be allowed to take part in the cooperation.
It is as you say a "cost/benefit analysis" situation for Israel.
Im just afraid it is about to make the wrong decision.
Continue to make the wrong decision i should say.
Israel cant obtain safety by itself. That has been proven over and over again. Things have become worse than ever lately and when Israel decides to go on the same way. Thing will continue the same way. .
"Crimes against humanity?" What crimes? Checkpoints to stop potential terrorists? Fences? Buldozing boobytrapped buildings? Checking ambulances because they have been used to smuggle explosives and weapons? Targetted killings of Terrorist leaders (by definition NOT assasination since that term applies only to diplomatic, not military, leadership).
International Law? That's a matter of interpretation, and by many interpretations, Israel is CLEARLY within the bounds of international law in terms of its possession of the West Bank (disputed is the real term, "occupied" assumes the result).
What the EU is doing is blatantly in its own political self interest, and has NOTHING to do with Humanitarian concern. Puh-lease.
I don't hear anything from the EU about the Kurds in Iraq or Jordan. No pressure to for a Jurdistan? Not much pressure on India to let the Kashmiri's have a referendum, either.
Why is that?
POLITICS. OIL. OIL. OIL.
Oh, and Israel can perfectly handle its saftey by itself. IT did in 67, 73, 48, 81... Europe, with some exclusion of Britain, has never really helped Israel defend itself.
Please, the French or Swiss or Spanish being needed? Not even the Brits or Germans are needed, not even the US, directly.
This disccussion is taking a good turn as I see it. How can all the needs of all the factions be met and satisfied if satisfaction of anyone of them deprives another?
I must do some research along a "certain" line before I make any further contributions; but, I have a feeling that, ultimately, hatred and differences in ethnic/political/religeous standards will be the
ongoing buggaboo for a long time.
I concur that Israel surely has the right to defend itself in every manner possible against terrorism and the threat of terrorism.
Since 9/11 the USA has made that globally obvious and it is well
that we have done so.
The INS, as I have said before, is the agency at fault in terms of neglegence in intelligence. Not the CIA and not the FBI, etc.
Anyone of us in this Nation who has taken the Military oath to defend the Nation and the Constitution against all enemies, domestic and foreign is duty bound through solemn oath to take
deadly action against anyone who demonstrates terroristic threats or actions against the USA.
My personal point of view is this: Kill 'em! Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out!
platypus
Northlander sounds like someone trying to be thought of as relevant. There is no EU foreign policy other than resorting to threats of embargo and sanction and threats of dragging politicians into the dock if they don't play. Its the justice of the town bully who's afraid everyone will find out he's a bedwetter.
Sure the EU can sanction this or international law that. They couldn't even keep Pinochet around long enough to try him. They're losing to Milosevic and he's an untrained lawyer defendig himself and who is beating them. They are crossing guards in Afghanistan and they can't do anything about any of the other hot spots in the world. They don't know what to do with Russia other than granting them some vague powers over who knows what while refusing most of their requests for economic aid to develop infrastructure that could benefit the Europeans anyway. They can't even agree among themselves what to do with the Bethlehem murderers and wish they would all just sneak back to the mid east. They generate 1500 page standards on the dimensions of the steering wheel on a bus and can't get the UK to go along with the Euro. Their progressive socialist bedrocks are threatened by the same kind of right wing neocon libertarianism as in the states. Statism and centrism is failing and you don't know how or if you're going to dig yourselves out.
Awaiting Morocco's response, Spain sends war vessels to protect possessions after island takeoverOriginally posted by Northlander
----------------------------------------
quote:
Riddle me this - if Morocco took over Gibraltar and if you threatened a response, the OPEC cartle raised the price of oil by 50% what would you do?
----------------------------------------
With or without US cooperation Im sad to say that Morocco would be flattened. They could of course not keep an operation like that secret so I guess a few navies would make it impossible for them to move but IF they somehow succeded to take gibraltar by force the retaliation would be horrible. It would be absolutely impossible for EU to accept an attack. It would quicken the process to really unite europe. Some other oil producing countries like russia and norway and others would give europe fair deals to strengthen their own position. Then EU would act quickly before they lost to much face and money and I wouldnt even conclude the threat of nuclear arms. Even some of the Opec countries would have difficulties sleeping at nights. There are EU carriers and airforces too you know. It would be like an attack on florida. No one would even think the thought.
Sat Jul 13, 9:18 AM ET
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...land_invaded_1MADRID, Spain - Spain has sent three war vessels to protect its possessions near Morocco as its southern Mediterranean neighbor continued a military occupation of a tiny uninhabited Spanish islet for a third day Saturday.
Defense Minister Federico Trillo told Spanish National Radio that a frigate had arrived in Ceuta and two corvettes in Melilla, referring to Spain's two city enclaves along Morocco's northern coast. News reports said a further a corvette and a submarine were on their way to the zone.
The ships were sent after 12 Moroccan soldiers landed Thursday on Perejil island, a barren rock just off Morocco's coast which Spain says it has controlled since the 17th century.
[...]
No one would even think the thought.
But its a barren rock and not the more important gibraltar so I guess the response will be somewhat weaker. Not comparable.
But it will nevertheless be interesting to see how this will be solved. I dont think it will become a EU/Opec struggle.
Only some minerals and fishing waters are at stake and both sides should be able to solve it.
Still belive that morocco will have to back of. They have nothing to come with against spain. Gibraltar would have been a declaration of war and especially the british navy would have intervened forcefully right away.
Last edited by Northlander; 07-15-2002 at 12:40 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks