http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1145961233866&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull An airforce drill is going to be held in Italy on the 8th of May. The participants include Belgium, Britian, France, Germany, Italy, Holland, Israel, Norway, and Sweden. Or at least, Sweden was in that list until yesterday. The purpose of the drill, as was that of many others before it, is to consolidate future cooperation for peacekeeping operations. Sweden withdrew its participation due to the participation of Israel, claiming that Israel wasn't participating in any such operations, and was unlikely to do so in the future, at least according to Christian Karlsson, spokesman of the Swedish Foreign Ministry and Defense Minister Leni Bjorklund. It would have all been fine and dandy if not for the fact that the above claims are bollocks, at least in the second part. http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=2215102005 Now, Israel participated in many such joint drills, airforce and otherwise. When it comes to simulations and not live training, we even house several. Israel is a small country, so we can't do much for live training here, but we have very good electronic ranges. The Israeli navy also participates in many international drills, mostly to do with lifesaving operations. In the last one, Israel was even there along with Algeria. Algerian observers were even stations on Israeli navy ships. And Israeli relations with Algeria are not exactly friendly. Not close, even. Ah, Hostile Neutrality. And here I thought that France was the true expert of that.
[quote:86340e5109="Roman_K"]Sweden withdrew its participation due to the participation of Israel, claiming that Israel wasn't participating in any such operations, and was unlikely to do so in the future, at least according to Christian Karlsson, spokesman of the Swedish Foreign Ministry and Defense Minister Leni Bjorklund.[/quote:86340e5109] According to the article in The Jerusalem Post she said "that does not participate in international peacekeeping missions". It's possible she mentioned "was unlikely to do so in the future", but the article didn't say anything about this. [quote:86340e5109="Roman_K"]It would have all been fine and dandy if not for the fact that the above claims are bollocks, at least in the second part. http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=2215102005 [/quote:86340e5109] In Scotsman.com's article it says "Israel is not among 117 nations to field peacekeepers in foreign conflict zones". [quote:86340e5109="Roman_K"]Now, Israel participated in many such joint drills, airforce and otherwise. When it comes to simulations and not live training, we even house several. Israel is a small country, so we can't do much for live training here, but we have very good electronic ranges. The Israeli navy also participates in many international drills, mostly to do with lifesaving operations. In the last one, Israel was even there along with Algeria. Algerian observers were even stations on Israeli navy ships. And Israeli relations with Algeria are not exactly friendly. Not close, even.[/quote:86340e5109] Yes, international drills, but Leni Björklund wasn't talking about international drills, she was talking about participating in UN peace keeping forces. [quote:86340e5109="Roman_K"]Ah, Hostile Neutrality. And here I thought that France was the true expert of that.[/quote:86340e5109] Could you please explain what you mean by this? Edit: I found some information about Leni Björklund's and Christian Karlsson's statements. [quote:86340e5109="Leni Björklund"]I ett sent skede fick Försvarsmakten besked om att en stat som inte tillhör PfP-kretsen, som Sverige inte sedan tidigare har ett bilateralt militärt samarbete med och som inte deltar i internationella fredsbevarande insatser skulle delta i flygövningen. Försvarsmakten anmälde denna förändring till Regeringskansliet och fick underhandsbesked av Regeringskansliet att utgångspunkten för övningen därmed förändrats och att ett svenskt deltagande inte längre sågs som lämpligt.[/quote:86340e5109] [quote:86340e5109="Quick translation by me"]At a late hour, the Swedish Armed Forces were informed that a state not belonging to the Partnership for Peace circle, that Sweden has not previously had a bilateral military cooperation with and that doesn't participate in international peace keeping forces were participating in the drill. The Swedish Armed Forces reported this change to the government office and recieved the answer from the government office that the starting point for the drill had changed and that a swedish participation no longer was considered appropriate.[/quote:86340e5109] [quote:86340e5109="Christian Karlsson"]Målet med den här övningen är ju att samöva för att samverka vid internationella fredsbevarande operationer. Och vår analys av situationen i dagsläget är att ett israeliskt deltagande i denna typ av fredsbevarande insatser inte ter sig sannolikt, givet det politiska läget i Mellanöstern.[/quote:86340e5109] [quote:86340e5109="Quick translation by me"]The purpose of this drill is to practise for cooperating during international peace keeping operations. And our analysis of the situation in the current time is that an Israelic participation in this kind of peace keeping operations does not seem likely, considering the political situation in the Middle East.[/quote:86340e5109]
[quote:32e5ff5a53="KaptenKaries"] According to the article in The Jerusalem Post she said "that does not participate in international peacekeeping missions". It's possible she mentioned "was unlikely to do so in the future", but the article didn't say anything about this.[/quote:32e5ff5a53] Ah, yes, my mistake. I forgot to mention the second source of this information. This story was in Hebrew, but I should have still made mention of it. This one was on the Yedioth Aharonoth website, one of the three large newspapers. It mentioned an interview Karlson gave to a Swedish radio station, quoting him as follows: "According to our assessment at this hour, Israeli participation in this kind of peacekeeping effort is unlikely, considering the political situation in the middle-east." This is a translation of a translation, so apologies if it looks odd. The point is, said participation by Israel is under serious consideration. That was the point of the article I brought from The Scotsman. Sure, Sweden is right that we're not currently participating in peacekeeping efforts, but the point of the exercise and of others like it is to make future cooperation easier. It's not the first time Israel participates in such drills. [quote:32e5ff5a53="KaptenKaries"] Yes, international drills, but Leni Björklund wasn't talking about international drills, she was talking about participating in UN peace keeping forces. [/quote:32e5ff5a53] No, she was talking about participating in drills that have to do with UN peacekeeping forces. This isn't the first time we attended such drills, either, as I tried to say. Also, Sweden has on previous occasions commented against holding joint drills with Israel so that it could "Remain neutral in struggles between nations". Switzerland has done the same, as well. But this is the first time that they actually accepted the invitation to attend and then canceled it. I think it's the first time for any nation, for that matter. It's a serious enough matter so that it's given plenty of previous consideration. So, the thing is, if Israel and Algeria can participate in such drills together without creating a diplomatic ruckus for either one, why can't Sweden bite its pride and stay in the drill? Which brings us to the Hostile Neutrality business. De Galle was the first to truly master that when it comes to Israel, back in 1967. Hostile Neutrality towards a country means that while you keep your neutrality for everyone else, you make a special effort not to help, and even pointedly insult, the country you are hostile to. Now, saying "We won't participate in the drill because Israel is in it" is a bit... insulting. A diplomatic incident in the making, so to speak. Would it really damage Swedish neutrality if they participated? Somehow I doubt it.
Hostile neutrality - the first couple of paragraphs of this show an example - I know nothing about the rest of the discussion - I was refreshing my memory with a Yahoo search (Israel "torpedo boats" France) and this was the first one up, which confirmed my recollection.
[quote:71e7958ebf="KaptenKaries"][quote:71e7958ebf="Quick translation by me"]The purpose of this drill is to practise for cooperating during international peace keeping operations. And our analysis of the situation in the current time is that an Israelic participation in this kind of peace keeping operations does not seem likely, considering the political situation in the Middle East.[/quote:71e7958ebf][/quote:71e7958ebf] [quote:71e7958ebf="Roman_K"]"According to our assessment at this hour, Israeli participation in this kind of peacekeeping effort is unlikely, considering the political situation in the middle-east." This is a translation of a translation, so apologies if it looks odd.[/quote:71e7958ebf] Our translations ended up fairly close to eachother, wouldn't you say? Thanks for clearing up what Hostile Neutrality means. I would agree Sweden has held a hostile neutrality against Israel. Olof Palme, prime minister from 1969 to 1976 and from 1982 to 1986, (when he was assinated, but that's another story) supported PLO both political and financial. I do not know his motives for this. Perhaps he thought he'd balance USA supporting Israel. Perhaps it was out of socialist ideology. I don't know why. Personally I for once agree with the Defence Department. My interpretation is that they do not believe Israel is suitable for peace keeping operations, and they display this disbelief by not supporting a peace keeping drill with Israel. I like this, I think it's in the context a suitable way to show one's disagreement. But I agree with you Roman, it does seem to qualify as Hostile Neutrality. Interesting to note is that almost all Swedish news agencies didn't think this was a news important enough to even write a small notice about.
[quote:0096b41056="Roman_K"]Now, saying "We won't participate in the drill because Israel is in it" is a bit... insulting. A diplomatic incident in the making, so to speak. Would it really damage Swedish neutrality if they participated? Somehow I doubt it.[/quote:0096b41056] I don't think Sweden's neutrality is the issue here. It's a way of saying "we don't agree with you", even in an insulting way. Sweden's been moving farther away from neutrality ever since Soviet fell. One example of this is the production of the Saab JAS Gripen attack fighter. The decision to produce these was taken just before Soviet fell. At the time, it was unthinkable for Sweden to purchase American or British fighters, as well as Russian fighters. So the decision was made to produce our own. It all turned out to be a very costly affair. Had this been today, Sweden would not have hesitated to purchase American or British fighters, which would have been much more cheaper, and probably have gotten us better fighters too. And of course, my personal standpoint is that we should refrain from fighters alltogether. Personally, I think the whole issue with the WWII neutrality was embarrassing, but I like that Sweden is not a part of NATO. UN should be sufficient. I also like that the defence ministry makes a point if they feel they do not support the Israeli government's military politics.
[quote:11157874a8="KaptenKaries"]Personally I for once agree with the Defence Department. My interpretation is that they do not believe Israel is suitable for peace keeping operations, and they display this disbelief by not supporting a peace keeping drill with Israel. I like this, I think it's in the context a suitable way to show one's disagreement. But I agree with you Roman, it does seem to qualify as Hostile Neutrality. Interesting to note is that almost all Swedish news agencies didn't think this was a news important enough to even write a small notice about.[/quote:11157874a8] As far as the hostile neutrality, it feels like a deliberate insult to consolidate Sweden's relations with countries that don't like Israel. I somehow find the possibility that they didn't know about Israel's participation beforehand doubtful. As such, instead of politely refusing the invitation beforehand, as they did on other occasions, they canceled it after accepting it. As for the news agencies, they only report what the public finds interesting. How many people in Sweden would find this interesting? One could also look at it as a deliberately trying to ignore an action that isn't exactly *nice*, so as to pretend that if people didn't hear about it, it didn't happen.
[quote:11e9e56a7b="Roman_K"]As far as the hostile neutrality, it feels like a deliberate insult to consolidate Sweden's relations with countries that don't like Israel. I somehow find the possibility that they didn't know about Israel's participation beforehand doubtful. As such, instead of politely refusing the invitation beforehand, as they did on other occasions, they canceled it after accepting it.[/quote:11e9e56a7b] This is a possibility I haven't thought about. If the motives are indeed to improve relations with countries that don't like Israel, I believe there are better ways of doing this. I hope this is not the case. To my knowledge Sweden does not drill with the arabic countries surrounding Israel, which I assume are the primary "countries that don't like Israel", either. Then again, I've never really been that engaged in Sweden's military politics, so it might have happened. [quote:11e9e56a7b="Roman_K"]As for the news agencies, they only report what the public finds interesting. How many people in Sweden would find this interesting? One could also look at it as a deliberately trying to ignore an action that isn't exactly *nice*, so as to pretend that if people didn't hear about it, it didn't happen.[/quote:11e9e56a7b] Yes, news agencies chooses stories most likely to give good sales. But the absence of this information both on the Defence Department's website and the Swedish Armed Forces' website might suggest your second option.
[quote:c2874b8893="KaptenKaries"] To my knowledge Sweden does not drill with the arabic countries surrounding Israel, which I assume are the primary "countries that don't like Israel", either. Then again, I've never really been that engaged in Sweden's military politics, so it might have happened. [/quote:c2874b8893] Look at it as any standard political move, not as a military one. Strictly nation-wise. From that point of view, it's more than a little likely.
[quote:a3f28df4cc="Roman_K"][quote:a3f28df4cc="KaptenKaries"]To my knowledge Sweden does not drill with the arabic countries surrounding Israel, which I assume are the primary "countries that don't like Israel", either. Then again, I've never really been that engaged in Sweden's military politics, so it might have happened.[/quote:a3f28df4cc]Look at it as any standard political move, not as a military one. Strictly nation-wise. From that point of view, it's more than a little likely. [/quote:a3f28df4cc] I didn't really understand you there, what is more than a little likely? Also, this is getting more publicity here in Sweden now, as Israel's ambassador in Stockholm has made a statement. According to Major Kent Löwing at F17 (a Swedish air regiment), Israel's participation in the drill has been known since February. The more articles I read about this, the more I'm leaning to agreeing with you Roman.
I meant that it's very likely. I think that I made incorrect use of the English language up there. From a national, and not just military point of view, this whole business reeks of being nicey-nicey to the oil barons. [quote:94ec1f166d="Kaptenkaries"]Also, this is getting more publicity here in Sweden now, as Israel's ambassador in Stockholm has made a statement. According to Major Kent Löwing at F17 (a Swedish air regiment), Israel's participation in the drill has been known since February. The more articles I read about this, the more I'm leaning to agreeing with you Roman.[/quote:94ec1f166d] Ah, so the lid didn't stay on the pot, eh? Only to be expected. Now, if no other country will agree that this move is a boo-boo on Sweden's side, then Sweden will most likely get away with it with nothing more than far colder relations between Sweden and Israel, which aren't all that good in the first place. But if just one country agrees that this was all a bit nasty, Sweden won't get away with it so easily. For the first time in what may be ages, public opinion of Israel is high enough so that metaphorically slapping it in the face is not a nice thing to do. By the way, I just read about Sweden planning to give visas to Hamas officials. Even France refused to do that.
[quote:210e6bf017="Roman_K"]I meant that it's very likely. I think that I made incorrect use of the English language up there. From a national, and not just military point of view, this whole business reeks of being nicey-nicey to the oil barons. [/quote:210e6bf017] If you're in a conspiratorical mood. At the moment, without further evidence, I choose to see it as a somewhat hasted late decision by our Foreign and Defence ministries. It's strange, since it's been known since February, that this decision comes now, but I doubt the motives are to please oil barons. Since I don't know I refrain from speculation. [quote:210e6bf017="Roman_K"] Ah, so the lid didn't stay on the pot, eh? Only to be expected. Now, if no other country will agree that this move is a boo-boo on Sweden's side, then Sweden will most likely get away with it with nothing more than far colder relations between Sweden and Israel, which aren't all that good in the first place. [/quote:210e6bf017] I agree the case seems to have been clumsily handled by Sweden's Foreign and Defence ministries. I agree the relations could be better. I'm not sure what you're implying other countries should do though, and if that would result in any better relations between Israel and Sweden. Is it vengeance you're speaking of? [quote:210e6bf017="Roman_K"] But if just one country agrees that this was all a bit nasty, Sweden won't get away with it so easily. For the first time in what may be ages, public opinion of Israel is high enough so that metaphorically slapping it in the face is not a nice thing to do.[/quote:210e6bf017] I think Israel can manage on her own to express her protests. You seem to be doing it quite well, Roman. [quote:210e6bf017="Roman_K"]By the way, I just read about Sweden planning to give visas to Hamas officials. Even France refused to do that.[/quote:210e6bf017] In my eyes, Israel and Palestine are two equal states, both deserving the same respect. I understand this viewpoint may be offensive to those who actually have chosen a side in the conflict. To me, it's a war between two states, going on for too long to actually get away with "Hey, they started it!", and as such, no side of the conflict deserves less respect than the other. Hamas won the latest election. I believe refusing to talk to people will only further the barriers. So now if Palestines have choosen to elect a terrorist organisation to govern them, I believe it's better to try and influence that organisation into disbanding it's terrorist wing by meeting and talking about this than isolating them. I hope this is the intention of those who invited them here.
Here's some statements from Prime Minister Göran Persson. [quote:ecd9c8c90b="Dagens Nyheter"] Varför har Sverige ställt in deltagandet i övningen med så kort varsel? - Vi borde kanske ha haft längre framförhållning, säger Göran Persson. Principen är att Sverige övar tillsammans med de länder som man sedan ska samarbeta med i internationella uppdrag under EU- eller FN-mandat, enligt Göran Persson. Bland dem ingår inte Israel. - Vi har haft en neutralitetspolitik i hundratals år. Det är vår historia, israelerna har en annan och mer krigisk vilket jag i och för sig kan beklaga, säger Göran Persson. - Jag tror att staten Israel kan känna sig säker på att vi fullt ut respekterar den. Göran Persson tar kraftigt avstånd från den koppling som görs i uttalandet mellan den inställda flygövningen och Hamasmedlemmars besök Sverige. - Det är helt ogrundat. Hamas är en organisation som har terroriststämpel och det är inte aktuellt för oss att erkänna den. Från regeringen sida möter vi icke företrädare för Hamas. Däremot har människor rätt att resa och att söka visum även om de tillhör en organisation som vi har terroriststämplat. Den borgerliga alliansen kritiserar beslutet om att stoppa svenskt deltagande i flygövningen. Det skadar vårt internationella anseende, anser allianspartierna. - Vi är starkt kritiska till hur regeringen låter miljöpartiet och vänsterpartiet diktera villkoren för det svenska försvaret, skriver allianspartierna i ett gemensamt pressmeddelande. [/quote:ecd9c8c90b] [quote:ecd9c8c90b="Translated by me"] Why have Sweden cancelled the participation in the drill with such a short notice? - We should perhaps have had better advance planning, says Göran Persson. The idea is that Sweden practises together with the countries that they will cooperate with in future international operations under EU or FN commission, according to Göran Persson. Israel is not amongst these. - We have had a neutrality policy in hundreds of years. It is our history, the Israelis have another and more warry (couldn't really find a good word here - KK) which I on one hand regret, says Göran Persson. - I believe the state Israel can feel confident we fully respect them. Göran Persson strongly oppose the connection claimed between the announcement of the cancelled drill and members of Hamas' visit in Sweden. - It is completely unfounded. Hamas is an organisation that has terrorist classification and we will not acknowledge it. From the government's side, we meet non Hamas representatives. However people are free to travel and seek visas even if they are part of an organisation that we have terrorist classified. The right wing coalition critizises the decision to stop Swedish participation in the drill. It hurts our international reputation, claims the alliance parties. - We are strongly critical regarding how the government lets the green party and the left party dictate the conditions of the Swedish defence, writes the alliance parties in a joint statement. [/quote:ecd9c8c90b] Sweden's government is formed by the socialist party, with the left party and green party as support to get majority. The right wing alliance consists of the center party, the liberal party, the conservative party and the christian party.
[quote:cb4cd8c181="KaptenKaries"]I didn't really understand you there, what is more than a little likely?[/quote:cb4cd8c181] [quote:cb4cd8c181="Roman_K"]I meant that it's very likely. I think that I made incorrect use of the English language up there. From a national, and not just military point of view, this whole business reeks of being nicey-nicey to the oil barons.[/quote:cb4cd8c181] Silly misunderstandings from both of us. What I meant to ask "What aspect do you claim to be more than a little likely?". But I managed to understand what you meant from the context anyway.
[quote:854d86fcda="Garner"]Um, before I read through this, how much of it is unfounded persecution complex?[/quote:854d86fcda] I got this impression too. Roman are you just miffed because another country has said it won't play with your country? Hell, Australia is surrounded by countries that won't play with us, we personally don't get our knickers in a knot over it . Its all to do with history and politics. So if Sweden won't play with Israel, Israel can just go find someone else to play with, its not the end of the world (yet). Although I guess neither country can dob the other into the teacher to get them in trouble... Although this is all a representation of some pretty big issues, the circumstances all seem a bit petty.
I think Roman is miffed because a country [i:581fb68b9c]which claims to be neutral[/i:581fb68b9c] won't play with his country.
i mean no offense to roman, he's my friend and I like the guy a lot, but he DOES have a very very very strong track record of flying into persecution complexes on matters like this. now, i only read the first two or so posts in the thread, so i don't feel safe to comment on anything else, but if i jumped to a wrong conclusion i offer a complete and humble apology.
I can understand how you could easily become sensitive to actions that could be interpreted as hostile, if you're in the middle of a conflict as complex as the one Roman's living in. War and murder bring up strong emotions, which makes perfect sense. And while fighting with the knife against his throat, claws and teeth, the man's friends tells him they will not respect him if he doesn't stop the fight. The man's frustration builds up. So the man with the knife against his throat have a fit at his friends. And the man's friends can't understand why he's so angry, as they clearly see he has the upper hand, with a gun against his foe's temple. And the man's greatest wish is to remove the gun from his foe's temple, to win the respect of his friends again. But that would mean his own death, from his foe's knife, so he keeps the gun steadily cocked. And the reason of the fight is since long forgotten by both men.
[quote:8174832f32="KaptenKaries"][quote:8174832f32="Roman_K"]I meant that it's very likely. I think that I made incorrect use of the English language up there. From a national, and not just military point of view, this whole business reeks of being nicey-nicey to the oil barons. [/quote:8174832f32] If you're in a conspiratorical mood. At the moment, without further evidence, I choose to see it as a somewhat hasted late decision by our Foreign and Defence ministries. It's strange, since it's been known since February, that this decision comes now, but I doubt the motives are to please oil barons. Since I don't know I refrain from speculation. [/quote:8174832f32] True. As there's no actual evidence of this, speculating on what's mostly unfounded is best avoided. Still, I think that Sweden has far more trade with the Arab countries than it does with Israel, if at all? As such, keeping said trade agreements stable would be at a far higher priority than normalizing relations with Israel, at least in my opinion. Still, speculations aside for now. [quote:8174832f32="KaptenKaries"]I agree the case seems to have been clumsily handled by Sweden's Foreign and Defence ministries. I agree the relations could be better. I'm not sure what you're implying other countries should do though, and if that would result in any better relations between Israel and Sweden. Is it vengeance you're speaking of? [/quote:8174832f32] No, no. See, if it's just a matter between Sweden and Israel, without anyone else getting involved, then it will continue remaining a matter between Sweden and Israel, and I don't believe that Sweden cares enough about how Israel thinks of it to even send an apology. It [i:8174832f32]would[/i:8174832f32] care if, say, another European country agreed with the Israeli view on this particular matter, a country that Sweden [i:8174832f32]does[/i:8174832f32] care about, opinion-wise, then Sweden would have to send an apology, if only to save face with that second country. [quote:8174832f32="KaptenKaries"]I think Israel can manage on her own to express her protests. You seem to be doing it quite well, Roman. [/quote:8174832f32] Heh, but I'm just one rather loudmouthed Israeli. As far as the bigger picture is concerned, who cares? [quote:8174832f32="KaptenKaries"]In my eyes, Israel and Palestine are two equal states, both deserving the same respect. I understand this viewpoint may be offensive to those who actually have chosen a side in the conflict. To me, it's a war between two states, going on for too long to actually get away with "Hey, they started it!", and as such, no side of the conflict deserves less respect than the other. [/quote:8174832f32] I judge by the actions of today, not by the actions of fifty years ago. We were getting somewhere with the Fatah goverments. Granted, we didn't get too far beyond the "You exist, me exist" of the Oslo Accords, but as the Palestinian nation didn't officially exist until then, that's a big step. The Palestinians deserve a nation, and they deserve the respect a nation should have. But I just feel that they lack the maturity. [quote:8174832f32="KaptenKaries"]Hamas won the latest election. I believe refusing to talk to people will only further the barriers. So now if Palestines have choosen to elect a terrorist organisation to govern them, I believe it's better to try and influence that organisation into disbanding it's terrorist wing by meeting and talking about this than isolating them. I hope this is the intention of those who invited them here.[/quote:8174832f32] We did that with the Fatah. We got somewhere there. Would it surprise you if I told you that Israel is more than willing to enter talks with the Hamas goverment? But the thing is, they decided that the old agreements don't bind them. The Oslo Accords, for example, which was the agreement of mutual recognition. I exist, you exist. So now, they decided that the 'you exist' part doesn't concern them. We're back to square one, and they're at square two. We officially don't exist, nor do we have a right to exist, according to the Hamas charter. They call for our destruction. Yet we still keep our part. All we ask is that they honour the old agreements and stop killing us as a prequisite for further talks. Is that too truly too much to ask? Now, about the statements from Prime Minister Göran Persson... First, Sweden had an unofficial policy for fifteen years now, if not more, is not to enter international training drills that have Israel in them. This was done to not look like they're picking sides, I guess. So claims of not having a policy for this sort of thing are a bit... meh. And how can people belonging to a organization that Sweden classifies as a Terrorist group ask for visas and travel freely? I mean, if they're considered as armed and dangerous criminals then isn't that absurd? What's Sweden's policy towards groups it classifies as terrorist? [quote:8174832f32="Marcia"]I think Roman is miffed because a country [i:8174832f32]which claims to be neutral[/i:8174832f32] won't play with his country.[/quote:8174832f32] Indeed. It's not even the act of not playing, but the public way of saying it, citing Israel as the reason. [quote:8174832f32="Garner"]i mean no offense to roman, he's my friend and I like the guy a lot, but he DOES have a very very very strong track record of flying into persecution complexes on matters like this. now, i only read the first two or so posts in the thread, so i don't feel safe to comment on anything else, but if i jumped to a wrong conclusion i offer a complete and humble apology.[/quote:8174832f32] No worries. I mostly kept it to a very cynical and pragmatic interpetation of matters, which is something I tend to do in most cases as it is. Maybe not the best way to do things, agreed, but I'm a very cynical individual. [quote:8174832f32="KaptenKaries"] And while fighting with the knife against his throat, claws and teeth, the man's friends tells him they will not respect him if he doesn't stop the fight. The man's frustration builds up. So the man with the knife against his throat have a fit at his friends. And the man's friends can't understand why he's so angry, as they clearly see he has the upper hand, with a gun against his foe's temple. And the man's greatest wish is to remove the gun from his foe's temple, to win the respect of his friends again. But that would mean his own death, from his foe's knife, so he keeps the gun steadily cocked. And the reason of the fight is since long forgotten by both men.[/quote:8174832f32] A very accurate analogy.
