[URL]https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/10/28/why-israel-is-providing-thousands-of-syrians-with-humanitarian-aid-215754[/URL]
[QUOTE]In the middle of the night in early 2013, seven injured Syrians dragged themselves to the border fence separating Syria from Israel, pleading for help. Israel, after deliberations that reached the highest levels of the military and government, decided to take in and treat the Syrians; they wouldn’t have survived otherwise. What started with this one isolated event has, over four years later, expanded into a massive Israel Defense Forces operation providing thousands of Syrians across the border medical assistance, humanitarian aid, food and basic infrastructure. Israeli military officers are clear about the purpose of this largesse, dubbed the “Good Neighbor” policy: to assist desperate Syrians ravaged by years of civil war, and in the process stabilize the border region by showing this heretofore enemy population that Israel is not, in fact, the devil.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Israel also responded in more subtle ways: with the Good Neighbor policy, a “hearts and minds” campaign meant to dissuade the local population from cooperating with such unsavory elements. In addition to the residue of the Syrian regime and its allies, Israel also faces a complicated array of other armed groups on this front – “fifty shades of black,” as one IDF officer described it last year, ranging from a local Islamic State franchise to al Qaeda-affiliated militants to more moderate Syrian rebels. “I’m not so noble or righteous,” E said matter-of-factly. “There is a clear operational interest for Israel” to be doing all of this.[/QUOTE]
Long piece, but worth it.
Read the article, but what exactly IS Israel doing? They're just guarding their borders and clinics. The clinics are operated by Americans. A bit weird how the article is praising Israel for this, while the American volunteers should instead be praised.
[QUOTE=joost1120;52836569]Read the article, but what exactly IS Israel doing? They're just guarding their borders and clinics. The clinics are operated by Americans. A bit weird how the article is praising Israel for this, while the American volunteers should instead be praised.[/QUOTE]
You didn't read it through.
Israel is letting thousands of Syrians into Israel to be treated in Israeli hospitals.
It is also transporting huge amounts of aid into Syria.
And this all in addition to running a field hospital inside Syria proper using American aid workers while providing them with security, supplies and support.
[QUOTE]More than 4,000 have been admitted into Israeli hospitals. The vast majority of these, said Col. Noam Fink, a cardiologist and chief doctor in the IDF’s Northern Command, have been male and relatively young, suffering from “multi-trauma injuries” consistent with warfighting. Israeli officers make clear they “do not check IDs” to see if these injured are rebel fighters; after a patdown at the border, everyone is admitted and given medical care (despite the fact that Sunni jihadists have also reportedly been among the injured).
E and his small team coordinate these evacuations to Israeli hospitals, as well as more routine day-long checkups, especially for children in need of specialists: eyes, ears, epilepsy, emotional care and the like. According to the IDF, two dozen children and their adult chaperones are bused in at a time, sometimes daily.
[/QUOTE]
And neither the article nor the Israeli official interviewed in it are claiming Israel is doing it out of the kindness of its collective heart.
See my second quote above:
[QUOTE]“I’m not so noble or righteous,” E said matter-of-factly. “There is a clear operational interest for Israel” to be doing all of this.[/QUOTE]
If the Israelis were moustache twirling villains as many people seem to think they wouldn't be doing this
[QUOTE=ScumBunny;52836588]You didn't read it through.
Israel is letting in thousands of Syrians into Israel to be treated in Israeli hospitals.
It is also transporting huge amounts of aid into Syria.
In addition Israel runs a field hospital inside Syria proper using American aid workers while providing them with security, supplies and support.
And neither the article nor the Israeli official interviewed in it are claiming Israel is doing it out of the kindness of its collective heart.
See my second quote above:[/QUOTE]
I fully read the article. If a neighbouring country is at war, you'd be a devil not to let refugees be treated in your hospitals. But that clinic inside Syria is the real deal. Those people are risking it, and not even for a greater objective. They're voluntarily doing it.
If Israel really wanted to show Syria that it wasn't evil, then maybe it shouldn't have annexed a part of it's lands.
[QUOTE=joost1120;52836609]
If Israel really wanted to show Syria that it wasn't evil, then maybe it shouldn't have annexed a part of it's lands.[/QUOTE]
So israel should give Syria the capability to launch missiles into israel from an elevated position just to be 'not evil'? I've actually been to the Golan, on a clear day a few years ago, you could actually see fighting and artillery fire would occasionally fall into the Golan. If Syria controlled the Golan during the civil war, it's likely that the entire north of Israel would be at risk and I'm not even mentioning the danger of Syria allowing hezbollah/Iranian forces into the Golan
[QUOTE=joost1120;52836609]I fully read the article. If a neighbouring country is at war, you'd be a devil not to let refugees be treated in your hospitals. But that clinic inside Syria is the real deal. Those people are risking it, and not even for a greater objective. They're voluntarily doing it.
If Israel really wanted to show Syria that it wasn't evil, then maybe it shouldn't have annexed a part of it's lands.[/QUOTE]
I love that your mentality towarss Israel is so
blatantly damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-dont. Its so hypocritical its not even funny.
"Maybe if Israel wants to show its mot evil, it should go back in time and not annex militarily strategic land. Israel shouldn't try and defend itself from genocide."
So what tactical advantages would Hezbollah get in the Golans that they wouldn't have just attacking them normally? Is it just artillery range or are Jordan and Lebanon not suitable candidates for launching the attacking? I'm just asking the questions to the man on the ground level.
[QUOTE=Megadave;52836749]So what tactical advantages would Hezbollah get in the Golans that they wouldn't have just attacking them normally? Is it just artillery range or are Jordan and Lebanon not suitable candidates for launching the attacking? I'm just asking the questions to the man on the ground level.[/QUOTE]
Israel occupied the Golan Heights during the 1968 Six Day War, when a coalition of Arab nations including Egypt and Syria were preemptively attacked as they were about to invade Israel.
In the lead up to the war Syrian artillery in the Golan would regularly shelled Israeli farmers and towns.
In the 1973 Yom Kippur War Syrian forces actually did invade northern Israel and bloody battles were fought in the Golan to stop Syrian forces from reaching the more densely populated areas of Israel's north.
It's worth noting that the original inhabitants of the Syrian Golan, the Druze, were offered Israeli citizenship when the Golan was annexed. In fact (as was explained to me on a visit to a Druze coworker's village) they were offered their own autonomous enclave, which they rejected for religious reasons. Many of them also preferred not to receive Israeli citizenship, so while they live here as equal citizens they enjoy a special status where they don't have Israeli ID's and (up until the war started) could freely cross the border into Syria as well as trade with Syria.
As you can imagine, they're not keen on being returned to Syria right now.
As for your original question- the distances involved are insanely small. Where I am right now I'm about 30 minutes away from the Syrian border, and I'm already within rocket range from Lebanon.
A Syrian controlled Golan would not only put me within Syrian (and right now also Isis and Hezbollah) artillery range, but would also mean Syrian/Iranian/Hezbollah/Isis military forces could roll over the northern border and into major Israeli cities within minutes.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52836748]I love that your mentality towarss Israel is so
blatantly damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-dont. Its so hypocritical its not even funny.
"Maybe if Israel wants to show its mot evil, it should go back in time and not annex militarily strategic land. Israel shouldn't try and defend itself from genocide."[/QUOTE]
It's a country I trust only a bit more than North Korea. Neither wants to give up or show it's nuclear capabilities and facilities, both regularly mistreat civilians (NK mistreats it's own, Israel mistreats the people of Gaza). NK is a thousand times worse than Israel, of course, but Israel definitely isn't the good guy here. Israel has performed more assassinations and bombings on foreign lands (not in active wars) than any other country, as far as I know.
But enough about Israel being the devil or not, this thread is about the people helping Syrian refugees. I said the people working in the clinics are the actual heroes, not the IDF. They're just doing their job. The article states they're just doing it to look good. To me, it really looks like the IDF is attempting to take the credit for someone else's work.
[QUOTE=joost1120;52836609]
If Israel really wanted to show Syria that it wasn't evil, then maybe it shouldn't have annexed a part of it's lands.[/QUOTE]
If Syria still occupied the Golan heights, they (or whatever terrorist organization they chose to turn a blind eye to) could sit around its western edges and casually snipe me and my family to death. Thanks, but no thanks. I'd rather those evil Israelis held it.
[QUOTE=Mallow234;52836607]If the Israelis were moustache twirling villains as many people seem to think they wouldn't be doing this[/QUOTE]
That's an extremely naive point of view.
[QUOTE=joost1120;52836908]It's a country I trust only a bit more than North Korea. Neither wants to give up or show it's nuclear capabilities and facilities, both regularly mistreat civilians (NK mistreats it's own, Israel mistreats the people of Gaza). NK is a thousand times worse than Israel, of course, but Israel definitely isn't the good guy here. Israel has performed more assassinations and bombings on foreign lands (not in active wars) than any other country, as far as I know.
But enough about Israel being the devil or not, this thread is about the people helping Syrian refugees. I said the people working in the clinics are the actual heroes, not the IDF. They're just doing their job. The article states they're just doing it to look good. To me, it really looks like the IDF is attempting to take the credit for someone else's work.[/QUOTE]
Amazing how the people in the clinic managed to treat Syrian civilians while also transferring tons of aid to Syria and building basic infrastructure in Israel. These doctors must be exhausted
[QUOTE=Svinnik;52836990]Amazing how the people in the clinic managed to treat Syrian civilians while also transferring tons of aid to Syria and building basic infrastructure in Israel. These doctors must be exhausted[/QUOTE]
One right does not make a wrong. How many trucks with supplies for the Gaza strip have the IDF confiscated?
[QUOTE=joost1120;52837065]One right does not make a wrong. How many trucks with supplies for the Gaza strip have the IDF confiscated?[/QUOTE]
[URL="http://gisha.org/graph/2387"]Probably not as many as you think[/URL].
[QUOTE]Currently, Israel allows the entrance of all civilian goods into the Gaza Strip, with the exception of a list of materials defined as “dual-use”, which, according to Israel, can be used for military purposes.[/QUOTE]
Anyway, way to move the goalposts again. Can't fault Israel on Syria so it's right back to Gaza, right?
[QUOTE=ScumBunny;52837137][URL="http://gisha.org/graph/2387"]Probably not as many as you think[/URL].
Anyway, way to move the goalposts again. Can't fault Israel on Syria so it's right back to Gaza, right?[/QUOTE]
Oh all civilian goods are allowed, except for materials defined as dual-use? Interesting. What might those things be?
[QUOTE]Basic construction materials such as cement and steel are considered dual-use, and their entrance into Gaza is restricted and monitored. In March 2015, Israel began restricting the entrance of wood planks into Gaza as well.[/QUOTE]
And about moving goalposts, that has nothing to do with it. It's a terrible argument, but I wouldn't expect anything else from you. This article is about Israel supposedly being the good guy by allowing aid into Syria, while at the same time they're screwing over everyone else around them. You refuse to accept that, and that's fine. I won't talk about it any more. I told my story, you said nothing about it. Good.
[QUOTE=joost1120;52836609]I fully read the article. If a neighbouring country is at war, you'd be a devil not to let refugees be treated in your hospitals. But that clinic inside Syria is the real deal. Those people are risking it, and not even for a greater objective. They're voluntarily doing it.
If Israel really wanted to show Syria that it wasn't evil, then maybe it shouldn't have annexed a part of it's lands.[/QUOTE]
Maybe Syria and its buddies shouldn't of attacked Israel
[QUOTE=joost1120;52837185]Oh all civilian goods are allowed, except for materials defined as dual-use? Interesting. What might those things be? [/QUOTE]
Yes, cement and planks are used for building attack tunnels into Israel. Like [URL="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-41809105"]this one from today[/URL].
[QUOTE=joost1120;52837185]And about moving goalposts, that has nothing to do with it. It's a terrible argument, but I wouldn't expect anything else from you. This article is about Israel supposedly being the good guy by allowing aid into Syria, while at the same time they're screwing over everyone else around them. You refuse to accept that, and that's fine. I won't talk about it any more. I told my story, you said nothing about it. Good. [/QUOTE]
Your reading comprehension remains dubious at best.
The article isn't about Israel being "the good guy". It's about Israel serving it's own interests by helping Syrians. The article goes into a lot of detail explaining why that is. That's why it's called "[B]Why[/B] Israel Is Giving Syrians Free Spaghetti".
You fools! This isn't humanitarian aid, it's reeducation. They are attempting religious cleansing by converting Syrian refugees into Pastafarians!
[QUOTE=joost1120;52836908]It's a country I trust only a bit more than North Korea. Neither wants to give up or show it's nuclear capabilities and facilities, both regularly mistreat civilians (NK mistreats it's own, Israel mistreats the people of Gaza). NK is a thousand times worse than Israel, of course, but Israel definitely isn't the good guy here. Israel has performed more assassinations and bombings on foreign lands (not in active wars) than any other country, as far as I know.
But enough about Israel being the devil or not, this thread is about the people helping Syrian refugees. I said the people working in the clinics are the actual heroes, not the IDF. They're just doing their job. The article states they're just doing it to look good. To me, it really looks like the IDF is attempting to take the credit for someone else's work.[/QUOTE]
Excellent comparison, comparing 2 countries with very little in common. Want to compare Israel to Nazi Germany next?
The IDF doesnt have to do a damn thing about refugees and citizens of foreign nations. They are under no obligation to help the people that have wanted their demise since their inception. They are also not under obligation to support, fund, and supply a support base inside of Syria.
This is what I meant with the "damned if you do, damned if you dont" mentality you have. If Israel refused to help those people, you would be all over them for being inhuman devils. And now that they're helping them, youre not giving them any credit whatsoever for it and you're even going as far to say that because they're obligated to help them (theyre not) that they deserve no credit for doing so (they do).
I get it that you have a blatant bias against Israel, even after being proven wrong on most of your points multiple times, but give it a rest with the baseless condemnation.
[editline]30th October 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=joost1120;52837065]One right does not make a wrong. How many trucks with supplies for the Gaza strip have the IDF confiscated?[/QUOTE]
Nobody is claiming Israel to be the golden child of the world.
You didn't just move the goal posts, you're playing on a whole different field now.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52838559]Excellent comparison, comparing 2 countries with very little in common. Want to compare Israel to Nazi Germany next?
The IDF doesnt have to do a damn thing about refugees and citizens of foreign nations. They are under no obligation to help the people that have wanted their demise since their inception. They are also not under obligation to support, fund, and supply a support base inside of Syria.
This is what I meant with the "damned if you do, damned if you dont" mentality you have. If Israel refused to help those people, you would be all over them for being inhuman devils. And now that they're helping them, youre not giving them any credit whatsoever for it and you're even going as far to say that because they're obligated to help them (theyre not) that they deserve no credit for doing so (they do).
I get it that you have a blatant bias against Israel, even after being proven wrong on most of your points multiple times, but give it a rest with the baseless condemnation.
[editline]30th October 2017[/editline]
Nobody is claiming Israel to be the golden child of the world.
You didn't just move the goal posts, you're playing on a whole different field now.[/QUOTE]
Quit that accusing tone, it's really annoying. The article itself says "As tensions escalate across the border, the Israeli military is trying to win over old enemies." The entire article is about Israel trying to appeal to Syrians, not to actually help them because it's the right thing to do, but because "There is a clear operational interest for Israel". So who should be praised here? Israel, or the volunteers helping refugees in a war zone?
The entirety of Europe isn't obligated to help Syrian refugees, yet we provided millions with health care, housing, food, money, jobs and electricity. Israel taking on a few of Syria's refugees isn't really that worthy of praise, especially not considering they've literally said they are doing it for their own objectives.
[QUOTE=joost1120;52838671]Quit that accusing tone, it's really annoying. The article itself says "As tensions escalate across the border, the Israeli military is trying to win over old enemies." The entire article is about Israel trying to appeal to Syrians, not to actually help them because it's the right thing to do, but because "There is a clear operational interest for Israel". So who should be praised here? Israel, or the volunteers helping refugees in a war zone?
The entirety of Europe isn't obligated to help Syrian refugees, yet we provided millions with health care, housing, food, money, jobs and electricity. Israel taking on a few of Syria's refugees isn't really that worthy of praise, especially not considering they've literally said they are doing it for their own objectives.[/QUOTE]
Not accusing you of anything, just pointing out your backwards logic and deflections.
Many European countries took in refugees to fight dwindling birthrates so they can secure their population for the future. Does this nullify the good deed they did?
No, of course it doesn't, assuming so would be irrational.
Israel helping civilians has an ulterior motive, but not a bad motive. They want to win over a population that has had an irrational hatred for them simply because of their placement and religion. The bottom line is that they're helping people when they have no obligation to do so. You've claimed in the past that Israel is committing genocide on the people of Gaza (lol), so why wouldn't they be interested in denying care to Syrians if it ultimately meant citizens of an enemy nation would die?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.