Originally posted by: lozina
I don't think anyone will buy the USSR influenced everyone to oppose Israel argument, because the fact is Europeans, South Americans, South East Asians and Africans alike have voted to criticize Israel. USSR, as powerful as they may have been at one point, were not powerful enough to influence the enitre world in such a way. Otherwise, we'd be speaking Russian and sipping Vodka right now.
The UN was incapable to stop incursions based on what, analysis from an Israeli official? If the UN peacekeepers have stopped one suicide bomber from entering Israel and saved a dozen lives, the UN has fullfilled it's goal. With their limited funding and support from the world they couldn't possibly stop everything. And besides, like you already stated (I believe it was you) the crisis with Lebanon was more of a war, much more active resistance, the situation here is occupation with very limited resistance- much easier to control.
I agree, Israel has a right to defend itself, however I question when someone is claiming self defense while holding another person in a head-lock. If they were not occupying territory, there would be no question about their defensive position. Furthermore, you say they should be allowed to defend their borders- exactly, I agree. So why build a wall beyond your borders?
Edit: let me also add that I appreciate you're more civilized discussion, most people on here are very jumpy when it comes to this topic (I myself sometimes). Although we don't have to agree, we can still be respectful of one another's point of view. Thanks
with age comes wisdom - thanks for the compliment.
Niceties are now over
Now back to the discussion.
1) The USSR had a lot of influence over the third world countries. They were not interested in controlling the countries, just influencing the political leanings. They did not want the countries for land (problem controlling the population and expendature of resources), they just wanted the equivalent of a colony and thumb their nose at the US.
Possible sidetrack - The Soviet influence in Eastern Europe was out of fear and to protect their borders. They wanted a buffer zone after WWII. Influence in Africa was due to an anti-west. They supported a lot of the rebellions against the western europian colonial powers.
South America influence by the Soviets was negligible. Cuba was the only strong area. However, previous US bumbles in South/Central America as well as the Hispanic pride of not being under the US thumb did not help the US positions.
South East Asia was recovering from the colonial powers just as Africa was. Red China had a lot of influence - again the problem was not so much of anti Israel, but
anti US - Israel was just a way of attacking the big boy on the block. Again Soviet influence had some effects paired with China.
In hindsight the Soviets may not have been as powerful as they seemed, however, a policy of appeasment was the order of the day at the time.
2) The UN may have helped stop a bomber. However, they were put in place to not protect Israel and to provide a buffer zone as to reduce tensions. Many areas
controlled by the UN were more of a sieve and the terrorists learned to manipulate the UN troops for their own methods. The UN was also not allowed to take pro-active action.
Lebadon was incurred after Syria refused to shut down the PLO attacks. They had defacto control over the country and were repeatedly warned that the invasion would occur if they did not control their proxies. Israel made a mistake in hindsite to go all the way in, however, at the time they thought that they could clean out the PLO by running all the way into Beruit.
3) The terriority that they now control is a result of what they had before; that was proven to be to vulnerable (multiple times). It was less than 16km to the coast to cut the country in half.
Trans-Jordan tried it.
4) The wall is Israel's result of trying to prevent the incursions. All their other options (from their viewpoint) are not working, They are going into a self-containment and building a Berlin style wall to seperate themselves from the enemy.
It worked for 40+ years
They are defining the wall location based on economic (minimal), political (medium) and strategic needs.
When the Palestian population is cut off economically, they will start causing demands on the terrorist sponsors.
Their is no USSR, Egypt will not support them, Jordan is weak, Syria is under the gun for assisting Iraq and they still have to deal with the Israel on the Golan Heights. Iraq under Saddam does not exist. Libya is trying to behave. That leaves Iran, Saudi Ariaba (who are now trying to look like they can play nice after 9/11), and other small oil states. Lebadon does not exist. There will be sponsor to assist the trouble makers, but the more the terrorist supply lines have to expand and the demands put on them, the more exposed the lines become and able to be interdicted.
The wall will hurt the Israel economy - labor reduction, however, the amount of expenditures that go into the existing situation will allow them to direct the resources inward.
When the refugee cities can no longer be supported by an economical critical mass, what should have happened 50 years ago will occur. The Palestinian population will migrate into the Arab world unless their (Palestinian) leadership chooses to live within the guidelines of Israel.
The golden rule
The Palestians have been dreaming of the Garden of Eden and in the process let their political leadership promises of Paradise lead them to the gates of Carthage.
They (Palestinian leadership / governemnt / population) are going to have to
accept reality and work with what is handed/granted to them. When they show responsiblity (essentiantlythey will be on probation) then they will have the right to ask for additional items. It may not be fair, but the consequences are becoming visible - writing on the wall
(pun intended).