• This is a stand-to for an incoming competition, one of our most expensive yet.
    Later this week we're going to be offering the opportunity to Win £270 Rab Neutrino Pro military down jacket
    Visit the thread at that link above and Watch it to be notified as soon as the competition goes live

Israeli actions: a catalyst for jihād?

#21
Mora

Here's one the the Egyptian British-made Stuart tanks they managed to stop

That is a genuine British Light Tank circa 1937 left to the Egyptians by the Brits, not a Stuart.
 
#22
mora said:
......In the early days it was the Czechs who supplied the Israeli's with arms, and the British who armed the Arabs, including General Glubb Pasha and about 200 British Officers who led the Jordanian Arab Legion who organised the siege of Jerusalem and forced the Jewish evacuation of the Jewish Quarter of the Old City in East Jerusalem. In the first air dogfights of that War the Israeli's piloted captured Messersmidt against British supplied Egyptian spitfires.
Who would have thought that 8 years later Israel & Britain (together with France) would connive together for the 1956 war?
 
#23
castlereagh said:
fas_et_gloria said:
castlereagh said:
fas_et_gloria said:
Bearing in mind that it was the Frankfurt School who came up with the concept of reification to try to explain the Nazi's anti-Semitism, your reference to the Jews as "the other'" alone would appear to justify the foundation of an Israel. (Can't work out how to put in a 'prime' which doesn't look like a typo...)
When I referred to the Other I meant the Arabs - or did you miss the work of Said, Rodison et al because it happened to look at western prejudices against the Arabs? :roll:
Actually, I thought that I was agreeing with you here. The Arabic states of the region were, if you go back to the right point in time, looked to as potential allies - your very point below - what I was saying was that 70 years ago, the actions which led into the Shoa and eventually the formation of Israel, was the very reification (though of the Jews) which now you attribute to the contemporary Arabs. If the Jews are no longer the other, and thus have protected status, then this justifies the creation of Iarael in the first place.:
I understand what you mean but you did say 'your reference to the Jews as the 'others'.
That's what my parenthetical reference to notation is about at the end - if you look closely there is a prime mark after "the others" in my response - that is "dialectically NOT the others" - "the others'" is the opposite of "the others".


I need to get out more.
 
#25
Sartorius said:
Despite what the West might want, Hamas is not going to go away and will certainly not fold anytime soon. The movement is using some of its meagre resources to subsidise medical treatment with the going rate currently 5 Shekels (less than a pound). This is not only helping the ordinary Palestinian but fulfilling an election pledge. Hamas are big on social programmes and anti-corruption so the rubbish is being collected and ministers cycle to work. To a population fed up of corrupt, inactive Fatah ministers this is a welcome change. There is also a general feeling of 'The West wanted us to hold democratis elections yet they withdraw their support because they didn't like who we voted for'.

Despite what our Governments might want, the average Palestinian is actually more behind his underdog government than he was before the election. Perhaps it's time we woke up to this and re-think - because starving Hamas out of office is not working.
Questions here to be addressed about the US' commitment to 'Democracy' as opposed to 'a free vote which leads to an elected government who are not openly hostile to the interests of the US$'. How much shouting is going on at the minute about the denial of democratic elections (which were heading for an Islamist victory) in Algeria? The Palestinians elected Hamas with a popular mandate, as Sartorius points out. Coming back to my original question: ought we to be addressing the cause of a democratic mandate for an openly pro-terror regime in The PA, rather than continuing to support the status quo and effecting sanctions against the Palestinian electorate?
 
#26
fas_et_gloria said:
...ought we to say – this is not the way in which the British Army would respond to the intifada …
fas_et_gloria, what do you mean by "this is not the way in which the British Army would respond to the intifada? The British Army dealt with an Intifada ( now called the first intifada , 1936-39), not in a hypothetic way but in real. Could you elaborate?

For further reading in History and Militria board:

http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=37408/postdays=0/postorder=asc/start=15.html
 
#27
Nice attempt to thread hijack Mora, this thread relates to Israel today. FAS made the comment on how the British Army would conduct it's operations today

Stick to the topic please.

PTP
 
#28
mora said:
fas_et_gloria said:
...ought we to say – this is not the way in which the British Army would respond to the intifada …
fas_et_gloria, what do you mean by "this is not the way in which the British Army would respond to the intifada? The British Army dealt with an Intifada ( now called the first intifada , 1936-39), not in a hypothetic way but in real. Could you elaborate?

For further reading in History and Militria board:

http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=37408/postdays=0/postorder=asc/start=15.html
Okay, self-justification time. Since the thread is predicated on contemporary events and policies (I know since I started it...), my comments were written within this context. The British Army, through engagement in NI in a increasingly media open environment, has developed a doctrine of highly restrictive RoE. Consider the outcome of the events Bloody Sunday - recrimination continues three and a half decades later, and that took place at the very beginning of the growing ubiquity of the tele-visual media. As the media (and popular access) have come to dominate the democratic process, the restrictions of RoE allow a measure of political oversight, which in turn allows for the development of the 'Strategic Corporal'. The up shot was that many frustrated soldiers came home from NI without the psychological release of firing into the crowd of stone throwing youths. On the other hand the Republicans ended up being handed far fewer 'martyrs' as the troubles progressed and we developed a more democratically appropriate, and politically acceptable, level of response.

The death of al-Durrah is unlikely to have happened under contemporary British RoE. [Historical examples abound no doubt, and not geographically limited to the ME - Amritsar springs to mind as a cracking example of how not to win hearts and minds...] The Israeli soldiers shooting, at an un-armed man and his 12 year old son, were reacting personally, and not professionally. That they managed to do so in front of a live TV feed was catastrophic, that they then managed to shoot dead the driver of the ambulance which tried to recover them as casualties is verging on the farcical. It almost doesn't matter how much some parts of the international community try to re-engineer the events of the third day of the al-Aqsa intifada, the horse has bolted; it was already out of the stable before the boy died, arguably before he and his father were even hit. The global media lapped up the 'democracy kills small boy on shopping trip' story and the jihādis were handed the propaganda material which they were able to spin into justification for escalation - and not only in the PA and Israel. That's why this is so important an issue for the international community - the migrant jihādis in Iraq are responding as much to the face of one 12 year-old in Netzarim as to the infant mortality resulting from a decade of UN Iraqi sanctions, aren't they?

The British RoE in Iraq now are explicitly designed to mitigate against a recurrence of the al-Durrah saga. Arguably this might well cost British lives in the short term, but in an attempt to reduce 'soft-power' repercussions. My suspicion is that the most damaging thing which Hamas could do to Israel would be to bow to international pressure and give up the bomb: if they follow the Indian example in the aftermath of Amritsar, and go for the Ahimsa-Satyagraha option. If Imperial democracy couldn't deal with a violent British response to Indian pacific-disobedience in the early 20th Century, what outlook for international support for Zionism in the media environment of the Twenty First? What outlook for the future of a beleaguered Israel in the face of reduced international economic/military support? Bring on the cats and pigeons, I say.

PTP said:
Nice attempt to thread hijack Mora, this thread relates to Israel today. FAS made the comment on how the British Army would conduct it's operations today

Stick to the topic please.

PTP
Just seen this, as I went to press. Hopefully this is closer to theme. :glomp:
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top