What should have israel done instead?


So I’m arguing for NATO weakening, eh? You’re absolutely mental, Starlight. I don’t think these forums have ever seen a poster so disconnected from reality as yourself.

Basically, you’re now trying to change your view, when you’ve previously admitted that you’d not accept anything but free movement of people without monitoring over the border, free movement for terrorists.

Nope, never said anything of the kind. Yet another delusion.


Ah yes, I’m “mental” when YOU are talking about reducing NATO to the sort of “guarantee” the Ukraine had - that you’d abandon them. It’s also 100% consistent with your position championing Putin here, of course.

So, you are a liar. You are calling reading your words a “delusion”, apparently you think that reading your posts causes madness. Oh, and my religion is highly pertinent here, of course, you’re not behaving like this to anyone else even when they also disagree with you.

So, again, how many million refugees you would accept from Israel, under your plan. That’s the only relevant question, really.
Or is the number zero? Like, er, Chamberlain?


More invented idiocy. I’ve never said that anywhere except in your deluded mind.

Let’s put my whole quote in context, that context being a reply to a previous stupid post you made.

Anyone else reading the whole post knows that I’m referring to the walls in the West Bank. Only you would interpret things otherwise and snip out one sentence fragment as “proof” of your idiocy. Israel can do whatever it wants on its own land, but not on that which belongs to Palestine.


You never said what you said, it must be the Jew is deluded. Right.

What does the NATO treaty actually say;

"such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. "

That does not REQUIRE any military action. And by your legalistic reading of the treaty with Ukraine, it virtually guarantees none would occur. In fact, the invocation by Article 5 by America did NOT lead to every NATO member joining in military action. But no, deluded Jew. Right.

And ah, now you try “context”. It’s a statement of views, which absolutely can be read alone. And this is your view;

The “context” is you lied about what those organisations actually said (which is far more nuanced), and you used walls without any qualification, twice. It’s not “reasonable” to read your mind and know your super-sektit meaning. As you quote your justification for terrorism.

Moreover, there is no nation called Palestine - in fact, if you want to argue it that way, that area legally belongs to Jordan. Do try and make them take it back. But you’ll not accept consistency in your views there either.

(But you’ll lash out over that as well, just as you did when you suggested Israel take back Gaza by force - there’s no other way to read your absolutist demand for the pre-1967 Green Line, which is not a “border” because the Arab Nations and the Palestinian representative refused to have it written into the peace accords as such! The modified border excludes Gaza, but you’ve rejected that!)


Standard Starlight. Bolding mine. Anyone who disagrees with him must be an anti-Semite. It couldn’t possibly be because he’s wrong.

And there are no Jewish refugees from Israel. Those who settled the West Bank will return when the settlements are turned over to their rightful owners, the Palestinians.


Actually, the area where I live is pretty lacking in divesity, so I would love to have more people of faith heRe. Actually, I lost track of what is going on here. I wish Timex would jump in. I dont agree with him, but at least I would understand his arguments, and he would have a good chance to convince me my views are wrong.


Standard Dave Markell, lying about what I said. You are being a PC bigot, accusing me of a generalisation I did not make, and a word I didn’t use. I am talking about you, personally, and your expressed views. In fact, I referred repeatedly to Chamberlain, I’m calling you an appeaser for Arab violence.

But maybe I was wrong, because you are highlighting what you specifically are objecting to, my referring to my religion. You evidently DO have a problem with it.

Israel taking measures to defend it’s peiople is not wrong, and I will not change my views on it. There are certainly limits on that, like pushing the Barrier east of the modified Green Line, which I unconditionally condemn. But the barrier itself? No, I can’t and won’t condemn it.

This is your stated view;

You refuse to admit that your policy would create refugees out the entire current population. You’re VERY happy, it seems, with “drive them into the sea”.

(Reasonable people, i.e. not you (and only you) in this thread, can realise that I’ve repeatedly said I am anti-settler and would not compensate them, but you evidently refuse to accept that, you try and link it to something else entirely - your views on freedom of movement!)

Moreover, no, the legitimate owners under the law are the people who own the land. In many cases, that’s rich Jordanians, and the Palestinians were tenants. But facts.


I have exactly one view on freedom of movement, which is that Palestinians should be free to move about the West Bank. They aren’t. The end.

You refuse to admit that your policy would create refugees out the entire current population.

Amazing! You got one right! My policy would create zero refugees because Israel could defeat the combined forces of every Arab nation without US help, but I’d be happy to throw in a few carrier battle groups and hundreds of cruise missiles for good measure if they tried.


To be clear, for the record, I agree strongly with you.


You’re now trying to back down from what you very, very clearly said. In quotes, no less, to make it plain it was a single statement.

And you claim that free access for terrorists would produce zero refugees, I see. Only way that works is if you seal the borders to stop them fleeing, as you make ridiculous claims that Israelis can fight massively more forces using what, Zionist Magic? Moreover, you’re deliberately ignoring unconventional warfare, and how America has had major troubles fighting it with massively better funded forces.

You can’t get round the fact that America hasn’t been able to crush the irregular insurgencies it’s faced. Technology isn’t and hasn’t been a magic bullet there.

Oh, and by the time “carriers” (plural) could get anywhere near the region, it would of course be long over.

edit: My bad, old data, rechecking.

Ah, the only carrier in the area (or remotely near) is CVN-70 Vinson, in the Red Sea. Which would have to send it’s aircraft across multiple hostile states to help.


No, I couldn’t care less about your religion. What I have a problem with is your contention that those who oppose you are anti-Semites, which you base on nothing but your own persecution complex.


Palestinians being free to move about the West Bank would indeed produce zero refugees.

Oh, and by the time a carrier could get anywhere near the region, it would of course be long over. The only one even remotely near the middle east is CVN-77 in the Persian Gulf, meaning a full overflight of an Iraq and via either Syria, Jordan or Saudi, all of which in your scenario of all-Arab hostilities can reasonably be presumed to be hostile.

The US almost always has one CBG in the Persian Gulf and another in the Med, both of which could respond instantly. Most military aircraft and missiles based in Europe would also be in range. They only way they wouldn’t make it to the fightng in time would be if Israel had already shot down every Arab jet, something it’s quite capable of doing without US help.


This thread got crazy pretty quickly.


Not a bit. I stand by every word. Here’s the full exchange:

Only someone living in Starlight land, a place afflicted with serious delusions, thinks that tearing down the walls in the West Bank would give free access to Israel by terrorists. Those walls have been declared to be a violation of the Geneva Convention by both human rights organizations and the International Court of Justice in the Hague. They’re destroying families, economies, and communities. Eliminating them wouldn’t damage Israel’s ability to defend itself at all. It could still guard its legitimate borders however it chose.


It was bound to happen the second someone invoked Godwin.


You have a problem with a contention you make up, about how YOUR PC bigotry and claims that I have a “problem” with more than a few people here. In this thread, only one person, you. You also keep screeching the far right, social darwinist, totalitarian line that disagreeing with your views is mental illness.

And you’re backpeddling frantically - trying for scope limits you never before mentioned. Limits which cannot be “assumed”, they simply were not there before.

There is no carrier currently in the Med. And there’s no way that other European countries are going to get involved - simply getting overflight rights will be a nightmare, especially since Turkey is almost certain to refuse such. And once more, you invoke magical Zionist Magic, able to shoot down Jets. Israel’s defences simply are not that good, and you’re again utterly ignoring the fact that the problem is unconventional warfare and not conventional.

PS, rough force comparison;


F-15s; 58
F-15Es; 25
F-16s; 343


Arab Nations;

MiG-29; 181
Su-30; 44
F-15E; 152
F-15C; 90
F-16; 434
Rafale; 24
Eurofighter; 42
Tornado; 80
Mirage F1; 14
Mirage 2000 (mostly upgraded); ~150
F/A-18 (upgraded); 18


There’s also hundreds more less-capable 60-70’s aircraft, but many can carry modern missiles…

Oh, it’s utterly ridiculous that ALL of those would be involved (although the modern, bigger Arab air forces are among those realistically involved), but your premise is also ridiculous. The area’s so small in aviation terms there’s no room for defence in depth, and little protection against modern anti-air systems.


So, right. In that case, I will take those words, and respond to them. You’ll throw more insults, but the FACT is I’m responding to your quote. Without mind reading.

So - All walls, unqualified. You admit that only the walls in the West Bank wouldn’t affect security (which is arguable, but keeping them IS a bad idea), but you didn’t limit it to that. You said, and clearly meant, every wall. But to accept what you wrote, and stand by, is “serious delusions”. YOU are in your “Starlight Land”, not me - there are very clearly no legitimate borders to Israel in your world. (And in it, too, you cant get away from the fact that the West Bank legally belongs to Jordan)

And I remind people of the money shot;

Moreover, you have again referred to the Green line, which is not BY THE PALESTINIANS OWN DEMAND was not recognised as a border. Moreover, neither side agrees on the Green Line in the hardline way you are, that hardline demand is 100% an excuse against peace, and against the settlements being torn down.


Well yes, that happens when you get a hardliner slinging hate at someone like me who is pro-peace and anti-settlement.
But no, I’m apparently “deluded” to hold those views. Incorrect. Therefore…in Dave logic…

(Yea, I will at some point of course leave him yelling at himself, as he has been all along)

I reiterate that I basically agree with you Timex. The Isralie government are shitheads for doing what they do, settlements are bad…and there’s no justification for Palestinian terrorism. In fact, mass peaceful protest would screw the Israeli right good and hard.

(And I’ll cry no tears for them)


I think Starlight is stuck in a time warp. To him, it’s 1967 all the time (and of course today many scholars are casting doubt on the Israeli narrative of that war, suggesting that the clear and present danger perhaps wasn’t nearly as clear or present). But whatever.

More interesting are the ludicrous statements coming out of the GOP in Washington, where for instance Rep. King is asking how Jews can be Democrats first and Jews second, implying that one, all Jews are pro-Israel and even more so pro-Netanyahu and his policies, and two, that American Jews should somehow be more Israeli than American–at least when being so undercuts the GOPs opponents I guess. It’s truly whacko.


TheWombat, which scholars are those? The Jewish revisionist historians (not a slur, their own term) like Benny Morris (their leader) who among others notably backed down from that claim when more archives - both Jewish and Arab - have come to light? Or the stuff from Iran two years ago? Which is, bluntly, propaganda.

So I argue, rather, you’re stuck in the 1980’s on scholarship.

And you’re completely incorrect on being “stuck” - it’s Dave who is obsessing over external issues and other Arab states.
The issues Israel have are internal, not external. Unconventional, not conventional. It’s very different to 1967 - while the Arab states are theoretically in a better position to overrun Israel*, there’s no serious intention of any Arab state to actually do so**. But sponsor terrorism? Absolutely. Even some non-Arab states like, oh, Iran.

(*Shit, the Israeli army got it’s ass pretty much handed to it by Hezbollah in Lebanon in 2006)
(**Shebaa Farms excepted, but that’s bluntly minor. The Golani was an issue, but then Assad kicked off a civil war.)

And I don’t only mean “Israel has problems with the Palestinians” (which is of course true), I also mean “Israel has internal structural issues and a terrible voting system which gives extremists a disproportionate amount of influence”.

I also agree with you on the GOP, incidentally.