Would Israel attack a non violent neighbour ?

The one thing that is for sure, if the violence totally ceases towards Israel , and i mean totally…the world would not tolerate Israel retaliating towards a peaceful people.

I ask you , would Israel attack a neighbour if they never launched any violence towards them for an extended period of time?

seriously, i don't think we have ever seen Israel not being attacked.


the poll should read resentful people i poll option ..

 

the poll should read resentful people i poll option 1

 

very few Jew haters in here…lol…
their absence speaks volumes…

i say if they vote yes they know it would be a lie.

they know better…and cannot end the hatred by admitting the Jews are the good guys and don;t attack their neighbours out of vicious resentment.

lol.lol.lol

 

someone voted but would not comment on why they chose their choice,, very cowardly..

 

well pretty much balanced poll right now…2 to 2..

i would like to see the reason for defining Israel as hateful and resentful and would attack peaceful neighbours that don;t attack them

 

funny how one on the side of killing Jews and destroying Israel will touch this thread.

 

well Israel attacked first in the six day war and 1956 suez invaision

 

Indeed. They attacked the armed to the teeth Arab militaries perched on their borders ready to attack.

Anyhow, the question was qualified with 'a non violent neighbor,' not ones who have a history of attacking them and had set up divisions of tanks, men and armor on her borders in a move that was anything but peaceful in nature.

 

sighs…study the times and see for real that Israel was provoked and threatened …only an ///// would///// otherwise….

- - - Updated - - -

Israel has only protected herself and has not been an aggressor…this is why the anti semites have not entered this thread for they look ridiculous.

 

Nonsense.. Nasser asked for a negotiation. There hadn't been an Israeli ship thru the Straits of Tiran for 14 months before it was "closed".. Israel wanted more land and water assets.. Read Sharret and Moshe Dayan. They planned the war from the early 1950s.

 

So the Arabs just went out for a walk with their divisions and quarter of a million troops all mobilized on Israel's border huh.

Ok Margot, when the gopher came out of his hole and saw his shadow did that mean there would be six more months of winter?

 

Sinai is not Israel................

Israel spent years provoking the Lebanese and all their neighbors.. They coveted more land and water. Read Moshe Dayan.

 

True and either is Jordan or Syria yet troops were massed there when there were not supposed to be.

Read a quarter million troops massed on Israel's borders. That is intent to attack or threaten not defend.

 

I have always thought it would be interesting if the Palestinians went all Gandhi on the Israelis.

 

I've tried to communicate this to my palestinian friends…and i do have a lot of arab friends…


I try to get them to demand of their leaders a more user friendly political stance..and more abject shunning of the terrorist palestinians…

some Palestinians do soften up once in Canada for awhile but all it takes is one angry jew to shout his anti arab crappolla and bang ….all that down the drain..

I see both sides..and what it has become…the hatred has to stop…


but alas i think the whole military economy behind America ,Britain and Russia and now china…is as much at fault for probably spending money on keeping the hatred alive and well..

huge money to be made from this conflict in the mid east…


the Ghandi thing should;d spread to the arab world…let them all wake up to the fact they are pawns in a deadly game…

this forum bleeds the truth when you see some of the views of some of the posters brainwashed to hell...

 

You really are a lightweight when it comes to discussions of the region

 

i abhor the the hatred being produced by the military economy…


and you from what i have gleamed from what you post are brainwashed…only dementia could be worse.

 

Well my dementia is not to far advanced that I forgot the reasonably positive and peaceful relationship Israel and Jordon have maintained

 

Israel is always painted the aggressor by the Arab leaders …without these lies there would be no hamas no Hizbollah…


it's all due to power struggles for the war mongers ruling the Arab populace…

posters here are just playing the cards they have been dealt with..blinded by the brainwashing…the inane demented views that Israel is anything other than a harbinger of Peace…Jews are the good guys always.. i love Jews…

they are clever entertaining , genius in what ever realm they enter into…and one of the best parts of our society..

they give so much to the world whilst being so hated…it's weird…but an abused people to this level for this long should be mean…but they are not...

 

Israel's foreign and military policy is mostly depends on "retaliation". If a country or group attacks to Israel that means they would organize a much more brutal counter attack.

I dont think they would organize a "sudden attack" to their ally or a coutnry which have good relations, lets say Jordan.

 

That probably would have resulted in their total demise.

 

In the past day, rockets have exploded in Israel's northern and southern regions.

A missile fired from Syria exploded this morning in the Golan Heights. It appears to be related to the dangerous civil war being fought close to Israel's borders in Syria. Earlier this month, a Syrian rocket landed in an Israeli town and a bomb exploded near Israeli troops patrolling the border.

In southern Israel, a rocket exploded last night in a small town near the city of Ashkelon. "Code Red" sirens forced residents of many of Israel's southern communities to run for cover. Last night, at least two rockets were fired from terrorists in Gaza, aimed at IsraeIi towns.

Unfortunately, the need for more portable bomb shelters is ongoing. Israel sits between enemies of terror in the north and south, both with a formidable array of missiles destined for Israeli communities.

 

Caroline Glick from the Jerusalem Post gives here her best reportage on US Secretary Kerry and the defense of Israel.
Her post unmask the quasi responsible Kerry representing the US and shows beyond any doubt the trickery of the PA.

Kerry’s oh-so-’90s security nonsense


http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/caroline-glick/kerrys-oh-so-90s-security-nonsense/

Like his supporters, US Secretary of State John Kerry has apparently been asleep for the past 20 years.


Kerry has proffered us security arrangements, which he claims will protect Israel from aggression for the long haul. They will do this, he argues, despite the fact that his plan denies the Jewish state physically defensible borders in the framework of a peace deal with the PLO.

There are several serious problems with Kerry’s arrangements. But in the context of Kerry’s repeated claims that his commitment to Israel’s security is unqualified, their most glaring flaws are rooted in their disregard for all the lessons we have learned over the past two decades.

Kerry’s security arrangements rest on three assumptions. First, they assume that the main threats Israel will face in an era of “peace” with the Palestinians will emanate from east of the Jordan River. The main two scenarios that have been raised are the threat of terrorists and advanced weaponry being smuggled across the border; and a land invasion or other type of major aggression against Israel, perpetrated by Iraqis moving across Jordan.

It is to fend off these threats, Kerry argues, that he would agree to a temporary deployment of Israeli forces in the Jordan Valley even after Israel expels all or most of the 650,000 Israeli civilians who live in Judea, Samaria and eastern, northern and southern Jerusalem.

We will consider the strategic wisdom of his plans for defending Israel from threats east of the Jordan River presently. But first we need to ask whether a threat from across the border would really be the only significant threat that Israel would face after surrendering Judea, Samaria and much of Jerusalem to the PLO.

The answer to this question is obvious to every Israeli who has been awake for the past 20 years, since Israel started down the “land for peace” road with the PLO.

The greatest threat Israel will face in an era of “peace” with the Palestinians will not come from east of the Jordan. It will come from west of the Jordan – from the Jew-free Palestinian state.

The Palestinians don’t give us peace for land. They give us war for land. Whether they support the PLO, Hamas or anything in between, the Palestinians have used every centimeter of land that Israel has given them as launching bases for terrorist and political attacks against Israel.

There is no peace camp in Palestinian society. There are only terrorist organizations that compete for power and turf. And to the extent there are moderates in Palestinian society, they are empowered when Israel is in control, and weakened when Israel transfers power to the PLO.

Back in halcyon 1990s, Israeli supporters of “land for peace” told us, “It’s better to be smart than right.”

By this they meant that for peace, we should be willing to give up our historical homeland, and even our eternal capital, despite the fact that they are ours by legal and historic right. That peace, they promised, would protect us, neutralize the threat of terrorism and make the entire Arab world love us.

Over the past 20 years, we learned that all these wise men were fools. Even as the likes of Tom Friedman and Jeremy Ben Ami continue to tell us that the choice is between ideology – that is, Jewish rights and honor – and peace, today we know that they are full of it.

Our most peaceful periods have been those in which we have been fully deployed in Judea and Samaria. The more fully we deploy, the more we exercise our legal and national rights to sovereign power in those areas, the safer and more peaceful Israeli and Palestinian societies alike have been.

The only way to be smart, we have learned, is by being right. The only way to secure peace is by insisting that our rights be respected. We won’t get peace for land. We will get war – not from the Iraqis or anyone else to our east, but from the Palestinians. And since the Palestinians are the people Kerry is intending to empower with his peace plan and his security arrangements, both his peace plan and his security arrangements are deeply dangerous and hostile.

As for the threat from east of the Jordan, here too, Kerry’s security arrangements are absurd.

Kerry and his supporters claim that by enabling Israel to maintain a limited force along border with Jordan for a period of 5-15 years, he will build, in the words of Jeffrey Goldberg, his biggest fan, “an impregnable security system.”

But this is ridiculous. When Israel withdrew from the international border between Gaza and Egypt, it wrongly assumed two things – first, that the regime of Hosni Mubarak would always be in power, and second, that Mubarak’s regime would secure the border.

In the event, Mubarak, Israel’s peace partner, did not secure the border. According to then Shin Bet director Yuval Diskin, in the three months after Israel withdrew from Gaza in August 2005, the Palestinians smuggled more weapons into the Gaza Strip from Egypt than they had in the previous 38 years, when Israel controlled the border.

And of course Mubarak did not remain in power. He was replaced by the Muslim Brotherhood.

While it is true that for now, the Egyptian military has wrested control over the country from the Muslim Brotherhood, and is reportedly cooperating with Israel in the Sinai, there is no reason to assume that the present conditions will prevail.

Kerry’s security arrangements along the Jordan Valley are predicated on two similarly dim-witted notions. First, that the Hashemite regime will remain in power forever. And second, that the Hashemites will want to protect the border forever.

Given the instability of the Arab world as a whole and the fact that the overwhelming majority of Jordanians are Palestinians, the most likely scenario is that the Hashemites will be overthrown at some point in the eminently foreseeable future. Moreover, even if King Abdullah II manages to remain in power, his children are half Palestinian. So even if the Hashemites remain in power, there is no reason to believe that their commitment to peace with Israel will be maintained over time. This is doubly true given the rise of jihadist forces aligned with Iran and al-Qaida battling for power in Syria and Iraq.

The third foundation of Kerry’s security arrangements is that Israel can trust America’s security guarantees.

This position of course was completely discredited by the nuclear deal that Kerry and President Barack Obama have concluded with Iran, which paves the way for the genocidal Islamic Republic to acquire nuclear weapons. After the Iran deal, only the most reckless and irresponsible Israeli leaders could take American security guarantees at face value.


Israelis frustrate the land-for-peace processors from Washington because we have actually been awake for the past 20 years. And we refuse forget what we know.

Land for peace was killed by Palestinian terrorists.

Jordan is not forever.

And US security guarantees are about as useful as a three dollar bill.

 

Would Israel attack a non violent neighbour?

I don't think so as to attack such a country would only be for the cause of expansion which is not realistic and would create more problems, not to mention would earn the condemnation of the international community.

 

my point i am trying to make is thus.

Israel is not some maniacal neighbour .

she has defended herself .
It was obvious from day 1 that people wanted , Egypt at first wanted her gone.

She would love to live in peace and could very well live as peaceful as Canada and the USA given the chance.

these people that threaten her are maniacal bastards who only know hatred handed down to them from generation to generation..