Obviously, except that doesn't really contradict my argument at all. I didn't make any claims about quality of those armies, just about their age (directed to "just as newly-independent" statement).
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
By the same token the Yishuv was effectively a state-in-waiting during the period of the British mandate, operating its own army (the Haganah) numbering in the tens of thousands of men. It's not like the IDF sprang out of the ground fully-formed either.
This.
Many Israeli opponents faile to understand had Israel lost a single war there would have been another exodus or a genocide. Arabs even today are fanatical on their hatred against Israel and reason for 1948 war was not greedy Jewish land grab but total Arab opposition on any land agreedment. This is the reason why conflict is still on today.
Not all of them are fanatic about it actually. Israel is just sich a useful scapegoat to blame everything on, and those who are angry always get angry first about Israel.
Not with their neighbors today. Egypt has a peace treaty with Israel with a multinational force to make sure there is no military build up in the Sinai, Syria will be wrecked long after their civil war is over (they also are not the most oil rich nation in the area), and Jordan is really a solid friend (maybe not publicly, but in practical terms very much so).
With most of their neighbors, indeed. However Lebanon is effectively owned by Hezbollah (an anti-semitic terrorist organization) and Iran hates Israel and wants partly nukes to destroy Israel and funds Hezbollah, Hamas, among other terorist organizations. And multinational forces don't help too much. They didn't help Israel much in 1973. So the threat is weakened, but not all countries like Israel either still and Lebanon and Iran want to still destroy it.
The organization in 1973 isn't the one there today. I was part of the new in 2005 on deployment. Though calling it multinational is a bit funny, it's like 90% US Military with a few others in purely support roles. We were not there to fight anyone, but you couldn't exactly build up a military without us knowing. Not that satellites wouldn't do that job better today, or drones for that matter. The key difference is attacking through the Sinai means you risk killing US Military personnel, meaning whoever does that is in a world of %$@.
Hezbollah is a problem but it is not an actual threat to the existence of Israel. Of which when Israel has a enough of their crap does the occasional beat down on them. Iran I doubt has enough suicidal people to nuke Israel, I mean even if they didn't get nuked back they will receive literal fallout and they would nuke Jerusalem, which would be heresy second only to nuking Mecca.
oh no! Lebanon! the terror of their arms should bring fear into the hearts of all!
please.
hezbollah is a lebanese political movement. it's not an army.
every so often they shoot rockets at the israelis. it's done for a domestic audience and to remind the israelis that they can shoot back, particularly after israel murders hezbollah leaders.
if you really think that Iran wants nukes in order to destroy Israel, you don't know much about Iran or Iranian foreign policy. That's a popular thing for Israelis to say, but Iran doesn't want to get turned into glass. the reason for the nukes is to prevent the usa from toppling their government. oh, and for the horrific reason that iranians also get cancer and would like chemotherapy.
I think you mixed up Hamas with Hezbollah.
Im not aware of Hezbollah firing any missiles into Israel in a while,Hamas has however made that a national sport.
I do find it somewhat interesting why Iran even cares,its far from Israel,and the bulk of people who got their behinds whooped by Israel were Sunni,one would assume Israel and Iran would be the best of friends given their mutual enemies.
Israel and Iran should make common cause because they hate their enemies more than they hate each other?
Yes, under Reza Pahlavi. But there was this little problem called Savak. You know the Ustase, SAVAK and the Ustase fell out of the same tree.
Google: The Ayatollah Khomeini. Read his doctrines. He spent a lot of time living in luxury in Paris writing them before he returned to overthrow Reza Pahlavi and SAVAK. According to Khomeini's mythology of the enemies of Islam, the USA is the Great Satan, and Israel is the Little Satan.
You don't make peace with Satan.
Salman Rhusdie would know.
(Speaking of which; 'FATWA! The Musical', coming soon to Broadway. )
Last edited:
It just seemed easier.
Iran doesnt gain much from antagonizing Israel,it certainly doesnt make its Sunni rivals anymore friendly.
And given Israel's close ties to the USA maybe Iran could get Israel to convince the USA to chill a bit with Iran in return for Iran offering its support against the Sunni's.
What exactly is Israel doing to make Iran so angry?
My post was edited after this cut, I invite you to reread it.
You cannot study history in a vacuum. You don't take out independent pieces and study them as separate and apart from one another.
It's exactly like studying one lion living alone in a cage at a bad zoo that is fed twice a day; the biology is correct, but it give you zero perspective of how they exist in the wild.
I gues it was a bit naive to expect a theocracy to have any sense of pragmatism,i gues im just use to European religious institutions which are not so uncompromising.
I knew the Sunni's didnt like them so i figured they would have some common ground with Israel that way,but i gues they are just crazy.
The Catholics,Protestants and Orthodox seem to be getting along reasonably well,they even have fairly ok cooperation with Muslims and Jews.
Those are individuals, they aren't governents. There is a Persian ex-pat who run a restaurant I truly enjoy near me, the manager at my grocery store is a Persian. We get along great. Even when I bring my Jewish friend in for dinner.
You aren't discussing individuals, you are discussing governments. Find me a European Theocracy Nation State, and get back to me; then we'll discuss how compromising they are.
The Vatican is a theocracy and it isnt calling for anyones destruction.
As for Orthodox theocracies,i cant think of any,but Orthodoxy isnt very conductive to waging xenophobic wars.
And i gues Britain is technically a theocracy since the monarch is the head of the state church but even then they dont really make comments concerning destroying other nations.
Oh, I forgot, you're pro-Ustase. And have trouble with time shifts. And haven't figured out the term's 'cat's paw' yet.
From that perspective, sure.
Do me a favor. Google: 'Plausible Deniability'.
Im most certainly not pro-Ustaše.
And this isnt a matter of any theocracy being nice,its a matter of a theocracy being capable of compromise.
And the Vatican is certainly pragmatic when it needs to be.
Pragmatism being something that Iran seems utterly incapable of.