Out of curiousity, what do you think would be Israel's incentive
to settle problems and compromise with its neighbours in a more
diplomatic manner when it knows it has the world's biggest
military backing it ?
When you carry a big stick and cannot use it - due to
moral reasons that will make your position
politically weak - is there any point in having the big
stick ?
Why would i want to compromise with people who don't like me
when i have the biggest stick around and i know the neighbourhood
policeman is going to back me up when i get in trouble?
Is there no cost to Israel at the present moment - even
with the neighborhood policeman around the corner to back it when
it get into trouble ?
In any case, will the neighborhood policeman get
itself embroiled, or will they step in after the situation has
sort itself out - especially when as long as Israel can manage
the fight to its advantage ?
What is the cost in lives lost, equipment destroyed, logistics
expended and require replenishments ?
As matters stand, from the recent fight with Hamas, Israel will
soon have to face internation pressure for the prosecution of its
troops that committed war crimes in their Gaza invasion.
Is the cost worth paying in terms of lives lost and the loss of
the moral high ground ?
Yes Israel has a valid concern about its safety when its
neighbour do not officially accept its existence. But by engaging
in pro active strikes and aggressive moves against its neighbours
the stituation would never be
resolved.
Exactly, you have reinforced the reply in a clearer
manner then my attempt in the preceding reply.
Is this not incentive enough to resolve the matter ?
What is the purpose of carrying a big stick or having the
policemen around ?
The populace already have alot of reasons to hate the Israelis
and it would be very difficult for any of chauvinistic Muslim
leaders to initiate compromise without looking weak and inept to
their own people.
Under such circumstances, it takes real men with vision and
a big heart to transcend the narrowness of human
emotions and prejudices, and take big steps for the sake of Peace
for future generations.
Egypt's President Sadat and Israel's Begin, Jordan's King
Hussein and Israel's PM Rabin - were all real men, with vision and
big hearts that transcended the narrow vision and emotions of
ordinary men.
The sacrifices that they made had cost the lives of President
Sadat and PM Rabin - both of whom were assassinated by narrow
minded chauvinists from their respective communities who were
against the Peace Process.
Still from their collective actions, their communities have
enjoyed the peace with their respective counter parts, and Israel
had two less shared borders to worry if there were to be any
future confrontation with the Arab World.
I do not think it can be blamed on the religion itself.
Politicians do what they have already done for thousands of years
they are more interested in making decisions that would allow them
to stay longer in power, not neccessarily for the welfare of the
people they are responsible for.
While the politicians maybe interested in building their
own visions, the religious fanatics will capitalize on the
situation to build on their visions too.
The politicians have been overthrown before by the
religious fanatics, who were able to propagate their vision
to the larger community, and were more successful than the
politicians to mobilise the population to their cause.
Would you not consider the religious fanatics with
political power to be more dangerous than the regular
politicians ?
Instead, it would furthur encourage them to seek nuclear weapons
in order to protect themselves. They're not stupid and they've
already seen what happened to Iraq, none of them have any doubt it
could happen to them especially Iran.
Would it not depend on how you play your cards and at
the moment in time ?
With the benefit of the Iraqi experience, do you think that the
Iranians will feel threatened by the USA in any way ?
If the USA cannot hold their position in Iraq and have lost so
many lives in Iraq, do you seriously think that the Iranians will
not apply the lessons learnt and inflict a bigger price on the USA
- if it decide to launch a conventional attack
on Iran ?
Even if the USA was to launch a pre-emptive strike to eliminate
the nuclear facilities, how much of the facilities can the US
destroy - considering that the facilities are now dispersed and
buried deep into the ground ?
What will be the price that the USA must pay in the event that
the unprovoked attack on Iranian nuclear faclilities did
not achieve the desired results ?
Will that not legitimise any Iranian retaliation in any form
against the USA ?
Can the USA tolerate another disaster on the scale of 9/11 or
worst ?
I don't think using Singapore is a good example. Our existence
came about as a natural process in the region while Israel were
forced upon the Middle East, a decision made without the consensus
of the surrounding region. The majority of Singaporeans then were
already living here long before independence and though our
existence is disliked we are more tolerated than hated. .
Are you certain that Singapore cannot be a good example ?
How sure are you that Singapore's existence had come
about as a natural process in the region ?
Do you seriously believe that Singapore existence is not forced
on ourselves ?
Even Indonesia had refused the creation of Malaysia as it had
its own plans for a greater Kalimantan - in the same manner that it
took over East Timor and Papua New Guinea when Portugal pulled out
its Colonial authority over these territories.
Until this day, the Philippines has not given up their claims
over Sabah even when relationship between Malaysia and the
Philippines remain superficially cool.
Singapore existence as an independent nation nearly did not
happen except for the failed bid by the UMNO ULTRAS in causing
racial riots that were supposed to have justified the "invasion" of
the Royal Malay Regiments to impose martial law on this island, and
to arrest the Singapore Cabinet.
It was Britain's PM Harold Wilson that "advised" Tunku Abdul
Rahman of the negative consequences if the authority of
the Singapore State Government is "dismissed".
If you do not believe that Singapore is not a good example,
why do you think that Singapore insist on frantically building a
strong SAF from Day ONE after being kicked out of Malaysia on 9
August 1965 ?
Why will Singapore insist on being the Number 1 Military Power
in this region - if we are not living in the same
circumstances as Israel ?
Why will Singapore spend 6 per cent of GDP on defense ?
Why have Singaporeans make all the sacrifices at 18 years
of age, and until 40 to 50 years old - disrupting our careers and
productive time - like the Israelis ?
