 |
| |
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
Chris,
thank you for taking the time to reply. I appreciate it. The thread was written in a jocking fashion but it had concerns behind the jokes.
I understand your position.
Seriously though, could you tell me why the US support towards Israel is so adamant? What does USA gain from doing that?
I cannot accept that it is because of a sense of duty and justice towards Israel. Maybe in part, but there has to be a concrete interest in play?
Natan,
In my book having the support of a super power makes you automatically an extention of imperialistic policies. Otherwise you wouldn't have it.
BTW, the time of the greek revolution the whole Europe was shocked by the Napoleontian wars. All big powers saught to cruch rebellions and even the Vatican had labeled revolutions "demonic insurections   .
After greek freedom was inevitable Britain started selling arms to us thinking that a new regional power would be born to stabilize the region as the Ottoman empire approached its collapse.
So your argument echos void. If you were talking about the british Lord Byron I would have accepted it without question.
Only one power helped concretely. (words are cheap). And that is good ole Russia in the naval battles of Navarino. It helped for its own reasons of course (to weaken the Ottoman empire) but its help was the only real one. The only thing Britain and France ever did was to accept Greek independence when it was already established.. Good for them...
In the second phase it was Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria, as organised states now, against the crumbling remains of the Ottoman Empire.
In 1922 when Turkey had sided with the Axis and Greece with the Allies it was Britain who sold Greece cheap in its efforts to push the Turks back to Asia and reclaim Asia Minor. (using greek soldiers as cannon fodder and then stopped supplying them with extra amunition, living them for dead in the clutches of the incoming turkish hoardes from far Anatolia - you should read about the Devastation of Smyrna - a small scale holocaust).
The bones of the 1821 fighters would rattle in the graves if I did not correct such falseties...
Coming back on topic,
maybe you can answer me for the constant support of the US towards Israel?
I have no illusions about what Jews suffered. Read about the Jews of the "Second Jerusalem" (Thessaloniki) during WW2 and you'd understand that I fully comprehend their past turmoils.
But today's constant support is uncoprehensible. Do you use Israel as a far away barometer of muslim feelings towards the US? Do you use it to limit the power middle eastern countries have to dectate oil prices?
There has to be a reason, sorry but I'm not conveinced by an all out wilsonian attitude towards another state.
Furthermore,
there is a breach in consciousness. Some say that this course of action has yielded no results what so ever.
Some say that the fact that Israel still exists is enough proof of the success of such policies.
I find it hard to believe that of all the places and countries in the whole world this situation is the only one who persists in its intensity.
Clearly it has to be serving some people of power or else it wouldn't go on.
One more thing. Terrorism works. It was terrorism that caused the upheavals in the Balkans and resulted, one way or another, in the detachment of Kosovo from Serbia. (with some... help).
Terrorism gain the Albanians of FYROM a powerful influence in the Skopjie parliement.
Terrorism added leverage to the people of Ireland.
And it was terrorism that made the US at least think about creating a palestinian state.
If nothing else, even Arafat was once thought of as a terrorist only to be proclaimed the acknowledged leader of Palestinians.
What can be wrong in creating a palestine with closed borders with israel where the palestinians can breed for as much as they please as long as they are o not migrate to Israel.
Why hasn't that solution been sought for before?
Israel is surrounded by hostile nations, one more, a weak one that would also remove the threat of terrorism would be a blessing.
Or do you also think that some Palestinians, due to their religion or what have you, are incapable of sitting quiet in their side of the map?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Natan
|
 |
New York State
Sep 2000
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by paiktis22
Natan,
In my book having the support of a super power makes you automatically an extention of imperialistic policies. Otherwise you wouldn't have it. |
No, it's just means that the super power in question sees a benefit in helping you and that you do not refuse the help.
quote:
BTW, the time of the greek revolution the whole Europe was shocked by the Napoleontian wars. All big powers saught to cruch rebellions and even the Vatican had labeled revolutions "demonic insurections . |
Which was mighty important at a time when the only even vaguely Catholic super power at the time was France.
quote:
After greek freedom was inevitable Britain started selling arms to us thinking that a new regional power would be born to stabilize the region as the Ottoman empire approached its collapse.
So your argument echos void. If you were talking about the british Lord Byron I would have accepted it without question. |
Sounds just like America and Israel. The British tried to help the Arabs to gain support from the Arab states (they hoped to maintain hegemony over them) but when this failed, the west started backing Israel.
quote:
Only one power helped concretely. (words are cheap). And that is good ole Russia in the naval battles of Navarino. It helped for its own reasons of course (to weaken the Ottoman empire) but its help was the only real one. The only thing Britain and France ever did was to accept Greek independence when it was already established.. Good for them... |
So you had Russian support, and then you had British trooped stationed on your territory in WWI, and had Britain's support against Turkey in the 20s.
quote:
In 1922 when Turkey had sided with the Axis and Greece with the Allies it was Britain who sold Greece cheap in its efforts to push the Turks back to Asia and reclaim Asia Minor. (using greek soldiers as cannon fodder and then stopped supplying them with extra amunition, living them for dead in the clutches of the incoming turkish hoardes from far Anatolia - you should read about the Devastation of Smyrna - a small scale holocaust). |
You're preaching to the choir, but nonetheless, the British saw an advantage to be gained by helping you and did so to a certain extent - you were "an extension of imperialist policy." And let's not pretend that no turks suffered in that war either.
quote:
maybe you can answer me for the constant support of the US towards Israel?
I have no illusions about what Jews suffered. Read about the Jews of the "Second Jerusalem" (Thessaloniki) during WW2 and you'd understand that I fully comprehend their past turmoils.
But today's constant support is uncoprehensible. Do you use Israel as a far away barometer of muslim feelings towards the US? Do you use it to limit the power middle eastern countries have to dectate oil prices? |
There are a number of reasons. One is tradition; most Americans can remember when Arafat was personally blowing up planes. There's also lobbying and political pressure, by Jews, Christian fundamentalists, and other conservatives who seem to have rallied around the issue. There's also cold political/military logic, in that Israel is a more reliable ally than any of its neighbors. This is what the Soviets painfully discovered in the 70s and 80s, and it led them to abandon their Arab allies. Basically, Israel provides America with an in-region military force, a counterweight to our enemies in the region, and a source of intelligence. This is not to even mention the number of people with dual-citizenship, or the
quote:
there is a breach in consciousness. Some say that this course of action has yielded no results what so ever.
Some say that the fact that Israel still exists is enough proof of the success of such policies.
I find it hard to believe that of all the places and countries in the whole world this situation is the only one who persists in its intensity. |
Not sure what you mean here.
quote:
Clearly it has to be serving some people of power or else it wouldn't go on. |
Sure, and I'm not sure what it shows. Israel does serve the goals of the west, but that's largely because it is part of the west.
quote:
One more thing. Terrorism works. It was terrorism that caused the upheavals in the Balkans and resulted, one way or another, in the detachment of Kosovo from Serbia. (with some... help).
Terrorism gain the Albanians of FYROM a powerful influence in the Skopjie parliement.
Terrorism added leverage to the people of Ireland.
And it was terrorism that made the US at least think about creating a palestinian state. |
Yes, it works, like other forms of warfare.
quote:
If nothing else, even Arafat was once thought of as a terrorist only to be proclaimed the acknowledged leader of Palestinians.
What can be wrong in creating a palestine with closed borders with israel where the palestinians can breed for as much as they please as long as they are o not migrate to Israel. |
Firstly, such a border could not be policed and would do nothing to protect Israel from mortar and rocket attacks. Secondly, I believe such a "palestine" would be labelled a bantustan, and would in fact be condemned to a permanent existance of squalor, conflict, and general badness. Thirdly, the first experiment in such a state, the PA, has been a failure so far.
quote:
Why hasn't that solution been sought for before? |
It has, it was called Oslo.
quote:
Israel is surrounded by hostile nations, one more, a weak one that would also remove the threat of terrorism would be a blessing.
Or do you also think that some Palestinians, due to their religion or what have you, are incapable of sitting quiet in their side of the map? |
I don't think they are "incapable" of it but I think the political and social realities of the area make it unlikely, and I don't think it would end terrorism because they can easily develop new demands just as Hezbollah agitated about Shabaa farms after Israel withdrew from Lebanon.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Natan
No, it's just means that the super power in question sees a benefit in helping you and that you do not refuse the help. |
Fair enough. In other words its imperialist policy
quote:
Which was mighty important at a time when the only even vaguely Catholic super power at the time was France. |
So you can understand how negative the environment was for any kind of revolution.
quote:
So you had Russian support, and then you had British trooped stationed on your territory in WWI, and had Britain's support against Turkey in the 20s. |
Russian ships sinking the whole turkish fleet in Navarino along with the Greeks, yes. The only concrete help we ever received in our struggle for freedom.
British troops in WWI were there (and specifically in Piraeus) for a completely different reason Natan  To stop us from attacking Turkey in a moment of history where it was certain that we would have demolished it completely.
That would destroy the leverage Britain would have in "playing around" and swifting balances between two regional powers. And it would weaken the Allied front somewhat (greek forces in Turkey instead of Europe). But what matters is what is more important to each one...
In the '20s, if you call using greek soldiers as cannon fodder against turkish hoards "help" then you are correct... Not to say anything about what was promised and never delivered.
quote:
You're preaching to the choir, but nonetheless, the British saw an advantage to be gained by helping you and did so to a certain extent - you were "an extension of imperialist policy." And let's not pretend that no turks suffered in that war either. |
Agreed. Turks suffering sure. In comparison wih 400 years of slavery, it's nothing though. And Smyrna burning was a new legacy. But this is the past, I guess. In the present, Turks not violating air space would be a nice sign of willingness to change, we lifted our veto for their admission to the EU, what do we get in return? More air space violations. Thank you very much. It is a bad thing to confuse courtesy and willigness to negotiate with weakness.
quote:
There are a number of reasons. One is tradition; most Americans can remember when Arafat was personally blowing up planes. There's also lobbying and political pressure, by Jews, Christian fundamentalists, and other conservatives who seem to have rallied around the issue. There's also cold political/military logic, in that Israel is a more reliable ally than any of its neighbors. This is what the Soviets painfully discovered in the 70s and 80s, and it led them to abandon their Arab allies. Basically, Israel provides America with an in-region military force, a counterweight to our enemies in the region, and a source of intelligence. This is not to even mention the number of people with dual-citizenship, |
ENFIN! An honest answer. Yes I can understand what you are saying and it makes sense.
quote:
Not sure what you mean here. |
I'm surprised by the amount of bloodshed and the seemingly never ending turmoil of that region.
quote:
Firstly, such a border could not be policed and would do nothing to protect Israel from mortar and rocket attacks. Secondly, I believe such a "palestine" would be labelled a bantustan, and would in fact be condemned to a permanent existance of squalor, conflict, and general badness. Thirdly, the first experiment in such a state, the PA, has been a failure so far. |
Was it a test or an inevitability because of Palestinian unrest?
quote:
I don't think they are "incapable" of it but I think the political and social realities of the area make it unlikely, and I don't think it would end terrorism because they can easily develop new demands just as Hezbollah agitated about Shabaa farms after Israel withdrew from Lebanon. |
But when all you do is bomb, the minority that will only be satisfied if Israel is destroyed becames the majority... And the circle is vicious...
But since your interests are those you described I guess you are prepared to keep it up indefinately... The only light I see is the Israelis themselves trying something new.
BTW I don't think the palestinians will never give up untill they have a country of their own. Untill then, they are destined to have the support of a large fraction of europeans. If they get it and still indulge in terrorism, then I don't think anyone would object anymore
Last edited by Bereta_Eder on 07-12-2001 at 06:14
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Natan
|
|
New York State
Sep 2000
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
Fair enough. In other words its imperialist policy |
Sure, but Arafat was supported by the USSR and then by the US and EU for several years.
quote:
So you can understand how negative the environment was for any kind of revolution. |
That was sarcasm on my part.
quote:
In the '20s, if you call using greek soldiers as cannon fodder against turkish hoards "help" then you are correct... Not to say anything about what was promised and never delivered. |
Look, they wanted to use you to defeat turkey and you were used, hence, you were a tool of their policy.
quote:
Agreed. Turks suffering sure. In comparison wih 400 years of slavery, it's nothing though. And Smyrna burning was a new legacy. But this is the past, I guess. In the present, Turks not violating air space would be a nice sign of willingness to change, we lifted our veto for their admission to the EU, what do we get in return? More air space violations. Thank you very much. It is a bad thing to confuse courtesy and willigness to negotiate with weakness. |
You related to Eli, by any chance?
quote:
I'm surprised by the amount of bloodshed and the seemingly never ending turmoil of that region.
|
It's been around since the days of Sennacherib.
quote:
Was it a test or an inevitability because of Palestinian unrest? |
I'd say the former, but I don't see why the two are mutually exclusive.
quote:
But when all you do is bomb, the minority that will only be satisfied if Israel is destroyed becames the majority... And the circle is vicious...
But since your interests are those you described I guess you are prepared to keep it up indefinately... The only light I see is the Israelis themselves trying something new. |
I think that we may see this conflict finally treated as the proper insurgency and counter-insurgency it is. There are previous examples. Basically, Israel has to make it clear that accepting Israel's terms is better than the alternative through the combination of positive and negative incentives. Sure, there will be new elements, new offers, etc. (well, there would be if I were in charge, ) but basically it's what we've seen quite a few times throughout history.
quote:
BTW I don't think the palestinians will never give up untill they have a country of their own. Untill then, they are destined to have the support of a large fraction of europeans. If they get it and still indulge in terrorism, then I don't think anyone would object anymore |
Anyone would object to what?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Natan
But either way, it tests the effectiveness of the strategy you suggest.
I don't rule out a state as one of the encouragements for good behavior.
I think that's a bit of a naive view of human nature. |
But people shouldn't have to stand in line and be told what to do by foreigners. It gets them mad, they revolt. Human nature (for most people).
A half - solution (like the autonomous palestinian territories) doesn't really help you determine the effectiveness of anything.
Peopel well fed living in their independent place (what hell hole might that be) are not prone to terrorism.
If you think that a free Palestine would instantly adopt a rivarly with Israel (because that's what I get here) then at least they would both be on an even moral ground.
If this discontent continues (in the arab world and Europe in favor of Palestinians' plight of not having a home and being mistreated - in USA in favor of Israelis' plight of suffering terrorist attacks) the hatred just keeps on building.
Can it go on for ever like that?
I wouldn't imagine a single european feeling disconent at Israel if Palestine had a state. And if the Palestinian state ill behaves against Israel then the legitimacy of action by Israel is a given. Where it is not a given now under current circumstances.
Can it be possible that people are used to it or regard it 100% as a lesser evil? To continue in this fashion as things are now I mean.
Would Israel be more inclined to negotiate if it didn't feel like an american protegee? (for reasons you layed out and I agree they exist).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Natan
|
|
New York State
Sep 2000
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
A half - solution (like the autonomous palestinian territories) doesn't really help you determine the effectiveness of anything. |
Why not? Surely it should have at least reduced the level of terrorism, but instead it increased it. Besides, the borders of a Palestinian state are arbitrary - as many have pointed out, Israel's (and therefore the Palestinians') claim to the area inside the '49 cease fire line is only as good as its claim to the land beyond it. As one Palestinian negotiator told his Israeli counterpart "it is like Solomon's trial with the baby: You are willing to cut the baby in half, you are not the true mother."
quote:
Peopel well fed living in their independent place (what hell hole might that be) are not prone to terrorism. |
Firstly, I would point out that this is not neccessarily true. For example, the now late Al-Qaeda murderers were rich Saudis led by the son of a well-off Egyptian lawyer. Hamas has the same motivation.
quote:
If you think that a free Palestine would instantly adopt a rivarly with Israel (because that's what I get here) then at least they would both be on an even moral ground. |
I doubt it, because they'll just find a new excuse and the world will do what it always does, which is to push whoever looks easiest to bend. The "international community" couldn't care less about justice and right, it just wants the area quiet.
quote:
If this discontent continues (in the arab world and Europe in favor of Palestinians' plight of not having a home and being mistreated - in USA in favor of Israelis' plight of suffering terrorist attacks) the hatred just keeps on building. |
I think pragmatism
quote:
Can it go on for ever like that?
I wouldn't imagine a single european feeling disconent at Israel if Palestine had a state. And if the Palestinian state ill behaves against Israel then the legitimacy of action by Israel is a given. Where it is not a given now under current circumstances. |
Look, Israel offered the Palestinians a good deal, they wouldn't take it. More importantly, they wouldn't make a counter-offer. If Israel pulls out of 90% of the West Bank, the Palestinians will demand the other ten percent. If Israel pulls out of 97%, they'll want the other 3% and the Arab parts of East Jerusalem. If they get that it will be the Jewish parts of Jerusalem as well, and the return of refugees, and if they get that, they'll demand the galillee, etc. and each time, it will be explained that if Israel will just give in, and so on. It will be just like appeasement in the 1930s. By the way, I should note that to do this, Arafat won't really need to declare war on Israel, he'll just keep pretending he can't control his own lips from telling his people to do it. No one notices now, no one will notice in the future.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
So why do you think this happens? Why Palestinians are so unwilling to compromise If Israel has been so generous in your opinion ?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Frodo
|
|
of Asteroid B-612
May 1999
time: 00:16
|
|
I would like to know how prevalent religious fundamentalism is in Palestine. As always, the most extreme persons are the most vocal, and this can lead to a skewed image of what the people in general are really like. Muslim fundies may want to control the world, but so do all fundies. The only reason that Hamas has garnered any support is because the Palestinians are apathetic toward Arafat and see Hamas as more effective in getting the Palestinian point across, but only marginally. Palestinians aren't happy with either; all they want is a decent livelihood. The problem is that if they are to obtain such a thing, Israel will have to make sacrifices, and then there's the whole possession is nine-tenths of the law thing.
I don't believe in the success of a two-state solution because Palestinians will always believe that Israelis got the better deal, and since the Israelis will be better off regardless of the deal, it wouldn't be easy to dispel such a notion. Having one shared state with laws and policies that do not take into account religious differences or ethnicity pulls the rug out from under any Palestinian who would claim that Islam is being discriminated against. And can you really say that the average Palestinian wants to take over the world? Why are all Palestinians megalomaniacs? It sounds to me like all they want is their own share of the world, a proportionate share.
Here's a question: If the Palestinians are given such a share and religious fundamentalists continue to antagonize the situation by demanding more, why would they recieve any support from the Palestinian people at all? They would only be bringing strife down on the people, who would be satisfied with what they already had. Right now the Palestinians have nothing to lose; why wouldn't they support suicide bombers?
If there is a problem re the growth of the muslim population, have the government impose a limit on how many kids both israelis and palestinians can have. This would keep the balance relatively equal. Of course, if the palestinians feel that the average israeli has more power than they do, their response will be to try and increase their own numbers. To avoid this problem the government must practice equality and provide equal representation.
I think my view of human nature is actually extremely negative. In my post I pointed out how the natural human reaction to a situation like this was an act of violence. I suggest that the palestinians and israelis need to look past this automatic response and find a more well thought out solution. Violence only leads to more violence, and so forth.
I don't remember Hitler ever attacking America. But Osama Bin Laden's perception of America shows that yes, there are flaws in our democracy. If we inspire such responses, however illegitimate, then perhaps we need to alter the message that we send out to other nations. I do not believe in a dynamic of evil people and good people. People can be evil some of the time and good some of the time, but they can never be ultimately defined as such. People change, mature, and regress. Any label attached to them will ultimately become inappropriate. The rhetoric used by the Bush administration perpetrates this primitive notion of a black and white world where it is easy to see who is good and who is bad. But there is neither evil nor good in this situation, only humanity.
I have no sympathy for those who say that they don't want to live next to a person of a different religious/ethnic group, regardless of the identity of the person. To try and be xenophobic and isolationist in this day and age is a sure recipe for disaster. You can't hide from people who aren't like you, especially if you're both trying to occupy the same space. This does not mean that I don't share these tendencies myself. I don't want to live in Harlem. But we have seen that both sides in this conflict often fail to grasp the concept of a compromise, and are thus spelling doom for a two-state situation.
Extremists and terrorists will never go away, but their support can easily fade, and subsequently their power. I do not accept that the two sides are in some kind of eternal power struggle that only one can survive. The notion of such a fated conflict gives rise to the conflict itself; it does not spring from it. Sharon is not some kind of modern-day Maccabeus; he has more in common with Joab, if anyone. Amos 9:14 doesn't exclude the presence of other peoples, you know...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Goingonit
|
 |
Toronto, Canada - AECCP member
Apr 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Frodo
I don't believe in the success of a two-state solution because Palestinians will always believe that Israelis got the better deal, and since the Israelis will be better off regardless of the deal, it wouldn't be easy to dispel such a notion. Having one shared state with laws and policies that do not take into account religious differences or ethnicity pulls the rug out from under any Palestinian who would claim that Islam is being discriminated against. And can you really say that the average Palestinian wants to take over the world? Why are all Palestinians megalomaniacs? It sounds to me like all they want is their own share of the world, a proportionate share.
|
What an Israeli would say is, "Great idea! Let's bring all the terrorists into our country!"
That's not wholly right, but not wholly wrong, either.
quote:
Here's a question: If the Palestinians are given such a share and religious fundamentalists continue to antagonize the situation by demanding more, why would they recieve any support from the Palestinian people at all? They would only be bringing strife down on the people, who would be satisfied with what they already had. Right now the Palestinians have nothing to lose; why wouldn't they support suicide bombers?
|
b/c there are some Palestinians who DO want the Jews to go back from where they came from. This is a significant percentage, and they, as you said, are the most vocal
quote:
If there is a problem re the growth of the muslim population, have the government impose a limit on how many kids both israelis and palestinians can have. This would keep the balance relatively equal. Of course, if the palestinians feel that the average israeli has more power than they do, their response will be to try and increase their own numbers. To avoid this problem the government must practice equality and provide equal representation. |
You think any Muslim would stand for that?
quote:
I have no sympathy for those who say that they don't want to live next to a person of a different religious/ethnic group, regardless of the identity of the person. To try and be xenophobic and isolationist in this day and age is a sure recipe for disaster. You can't hide from people who aren't like you, especially if you're both trying to occupy the same space. This does not mean that I don't share these tendencies myself. I don't want to live in Harlem. But we have seen that both sides in this conflict often fail to grasp the concept of a compromise, and are thus spelling doom for a two-state situation.
Extremists and terrorists will never go away, but their support can easily fade, and subsequently their power. I do not accept that the two sides are in some kind of eternal power struggle that only one can survive. The notion of such a fated conflict gives rise to the conflict itself; it does not spring from it. Sharon is not some kind of modern-day Maccabeus; he has more in common with Joab, if anyone. Amos 9:14 doesn't exclude the presence of other peoples, you know... |
I have to say that you probably wouldn't have much sympaythy for the Pals, then. As to the "fated conflict", the conflict is not fated, but it takes a long time to change morals. Israelis and Palestinians won't be able to live in peace for another 20 yrs, at least.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Natan
|
|
New York State
Sep 2000
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Frodo
I would like to know how prevalent religious fundamentalism is in Palestine. As always, the most extreme persons are the most vocal, and this can lead to a skewed image of what the people in general are really like. Muslim fundies may want to control the world, but so do all fundies. The only reason that Hamas has garnered any support is because the Palestinians are apathetic toward Arafat and see Hamas as more effective in getting the Palestinian point across, but only marginally. Palestinians aren't happy with either; all they want is a decent livelihood. The problem is that if they are to obtain such a thing, Israel will have to make sacrifices, and then there's the whole possession is nine-tenths of the law thing. |
About 25% of Palestinians, according to Bir Zeit university polls, say that the 9/11 attacks were in accordance with Islamic law. Those are probably the hard core Hamas base of support.
quote:
I don't believe in the success of a two-state solution because Palestinians will always believe that Israelis got the better deal, and since the Israelis will be better off regardless of the deal, it wouldn't be easy to dispel such a notion. Having one shared state with laws and policies that do not take into account religious differences or ethnicity pulls the rug out from under any Palestinian who would claim that Islam is being discriminated against. |
Not really. Just look at Islamists in other countries. Besides, neither country has a tradition of secular government nor does either want one. The whole concept looks like a western-Zionist plot to most Muslims and a secular plot to any Ultra-Orthodox Jew.
quote:
And can you really say that the average Palestinian wants to take over the world? Why are all Palestinians megalomaniacs? It sounds to me like all they want is their own share of the world, a proportionate share. |
But you just said they will never be satisfied with any share given to them. This sounds like a bad idea - if the Palestinians can be jealous of another group's state, they can be jealous of another group's position in a state. And I don't claim that "the average Palestinian wants to take over the world," he just wants "all of Palestine, from the river to the sea." It's perfectly understandable.
quote:
Here's a question: If the Palestinians are given such a share and religious fundamentalists continue to antagonize the situation by demanding more, why would they recieve any support from the Palestinian people at all? They would only be bringing strife down on the people, who would be satisfied with what they already had. Right now the Palestinians have nothing to lose; why wouldn't they support suicide bombers? |
If this worked, than then the FIS wouldn't have won the elections in Algeria. Fundamentalists have power all over the middle east, and it's not because of ethnic violence.
quote:
If there is a problem re the growth of the muslim population, have the government impose a limit on how many kids both israelis and palestinians can have. |
That would be a totalitarian move which might finally unite muslim and Jew together in the spirit of killing Stalinist oppressors. Besides, such a move would be interperted as Israeli apartheid, genocide, or what have you by the Palestinians, and more or less the same by Orthodox Jews.
quote:
This would keep the balance relatively equal. Of course, if the palestinians feel that the average israeli has more power than they do, their response will be to try and increase their own numbers. To avoid this problem the government must practice equality and provide equal representation.
|
Those are very subjective notions.
quote:
I think my view of human nature is actually extremely negative. In my post I pointed out how the natural human reaction to a situation like this was an act of violence. I suggest that the palestinians and israelis need to look past this automatic response and find a more well thought out solution. Violence only leads to more violence, and so forth. |
To make it simple, people who want something aren't stupid enough to fooled by smoke and mirrors. Trying to set up a formula to get rid of the issues won't work. They will remain. Islam and Judaism are much stronger than "the melting pot," "diversity," "power sharing," etc. The issues of how to divy up the pie will remain and be much worse. Your solution is like saying that the solution to a couple arguing about the divorce settlement is to force them to live together again and share all their possessions. Sharing doesn't work if either or both parties don't want to.
quote:
I don't remember Hitler ever attacking America. But Osama Bin Laden's perception of America shows that yes, there are flaws in our democracy. If we inspire such responses, however illegitimate, then perhaps we need to alter the message that we send out to other nations. |
This is just blaming the victim, and is a bad way to go. It's just blaming the woman for her own rape on a national scale.
quote:
I do not believe in a dynamic of evil people and good people. People can be evil some of the time and good some of the time, but they can never be ultimately defined as such. People change, mature, and regress. Any label attached to them will ultimately become inappropriate. The rhetoric used by the Bush administration perpetrates this primitive notion of a black and white world where it is easy to see who is good and who is bad. But there is neither evil nor good in this situation, only humanity. |
Right, and some people are more good than they are bad, and vice versa.
quote:
I have no sympathy for those who say that they don't want to live next to a person of a different religious/ethnic group, regardless of the identity of the person. To try and be xenophobic and isolationist in this day and age is a sure recipe for disaster. You can't hide from people who aren't like you, especially if you're both trying to occupy the same space. This does not mean that I don't share these tendencies myself. I don't want to live in Harlem. But we have seen that both sides in this conflict often fail to grasp the concept of a compromise, and are thus spelling doom for a two-state situation. |
Well then I guess you can stop having sympathy for either side right now. Neither wants the solution you're proposing.
quote:
Extremists and terrorists will never go away, but their support can easily fade, and subsequently their power. I do not accept that the two sides are in some kind of eternal power struggle that only one can survive. The notion of such a fated conflict gives rise to the conflict itself; it does not spring from it. Sharon is not some kind of modern-day Maccabeus; he has more in common with Joab, if anyone. Amos 9:14 doesn't exclude the presence of other peoples, you know... |
I don't know where this comes from. I've never suggested any of the things you seem to be responding to.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chris 62
|
 |
But I'm feeling MUCH better now
Jan 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
Paikis, to answer why the USA is so steadfast in it's support of Israel, I think there are several reasons.
When Israel was born, Jews were not popular in the USA, there were places that were "restricted", meaning Jews were banned, but it couldn't be said out loud, it was a gentalman's agreement, so it's not completely from a love of the people.
I think for one, we see them as ourselves were 200+ years ago, bravely fighting for their freedom against mighty hosts of enemies. This has strong appeal to many of us, the USA has always admired courage of this sort.
Another factor is they are winners, they have yet to lose a war, and Americans love a winner.
Still more is the deep ties, as many US citizens are also Israeli citizens.
Also, Israel is a valiant and reliable ally, unaffraid to support the USA in places like the heavily biased and racist UN.
At first, our support was because our enemy Russia supported the other side, but in Israel the USA found a grateful ally, that appreciated American help, and embraced the American way of life.
Also, I feel many Americans find the Childlike behaviour of Islamic states disgusting, with their lack of freedoms, religious intolerence, intense racism, dishonest practices, mistreatment of women (who are second class citizens under medievil Islamic laws), blatent disregaurd for harming innocents, perchant for killing children, intense manipulation of the media (See children throwing rocks at soldiers), sickening disregaurd for human life, and hypocracy in the face of their own teachings, to name just a few.
I cannot understand, no matter what the economic or tactical advantages, why we continue to support the evil that is the Saudis, the Eygpytians, and many other states.
Add to it that the Islamics are cronic aggressors (The land Israel holds that is disputed came in defensive wars. I know that tecnically Israel struck first in 67, but the fact is, and it's undisputed, that the Islamics were going to attack in 24 hours, so the Jews did what was neccesary) who cannot be trusted to uphold agreements, and it paints an ugly picture.
They are all big talk, but all they are really good at is killing unarmed innocents. When the Jews come, they come as clearly identified soldiers, not as non-combatants trying to kill children.
I believe the Brits dislike Israel because the Jews were quite the terrorists themselves when the British had a mandate in Palestine (The Brits reneged on their promise of a Jewish homeland, promise given in WWI), and a combination of the others are i think, unfamilar with history, and do indeed hate the Jews, seeing only Jewish attrocities, never addmitting that the Islamics bring it on themselves with their murderous ways, which force Jewish retaliation. I also believe a large number of them are anti-semeyic, but try to cloak themselves in respectabilty, claiming they only want the best for the poor pals.
Paikis my friend, you know I always say exactly what I think, without pulling punches or sparing feelings. These are my true beliefs on this subject.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chris 62
I believe the Brits dislike Israel because the Jews were quite the terrorists themselves when the British had a mandate in Palestine (The Brits reneged on their promise of a Jewish homeland, promise given in WWI), and a combination of the others are i think, unfamilar with history, and do indeed hate the Jews, seeing only Jewish attrocities, never addmitting that the Islamics bring it on themselves with their murderous ways, which force Jewish retaliation. I also believe a large number of them are anti-semeyic, but try to cloak themselves in respectabilty, claiming they only want the best for the poor pals.
|
Apart from the very first portion of this sentence, this is complete nonsense! 'Israeli' is not the same thing as 'Jewish' and 'Palestinian' is not the same thing as 'Islamic'. If someone does not like the US, does that make them anti-anglosaxon? Of course not. Have you ever even been to Israel? Have you been to Palestine?
Most 'Brits' condemn the violence from both sides. Any terrorist, anywhere in the world should be hunted down and punished. Terrorism should not be allowed to win ever!
But that also includes Israeli terrorists - they should not be given special treatment, and I think it is disgusting how some people on these boards support or make excuses for their terrorist atrocities.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Goingonit
|
|
Toronto, Canada - AECCP member
Apr 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Apart from the very first portion of this sentence, this is complete nonsense! 'Israeli' is not the same thing as 'Jewish' and 'Palestinian' is not the same thing as 'Islamic'. If someone does not like the US, does that make them anti-anglosaxon? Of course not. Have you ever even been to Israel? Have you been to Palestine?
Most 'Brits' condemn the violence from both sides. Any terrorist, anywhere in the world should be hunted down and punished. Terrorism should not be allowed to win ever!
But that also includes Israeli terrorists - they should not be given special treatment, and I think it is disgusting how some people on these boards support or make excuses for their terrorist atrocities. |
I totally agree. Terrorism, i.e. the delibrate attack against civilian targets when not in a declared state of war, is always bad. This is different from sabotage (which is against military targets).
Although there was terrorism in Israel by Jews before the founding of the state, and it was bad, much of the attacks the Jews get blamed for did not occur against civilians - after all, a large proportion of the British in Israel at the time were either military or government personnel. This does not make it alright, but it deserves mention.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sirotnikov
|
 |
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000
time: 07:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Felch X
I'd say the Soviets had the baddest ass special forces (Spetznatz?). I'm not so sure if they still exist as an effective fighting force, but from what I heard, they were the roughest there ever was. |
Oh yeah, they still exist.
Spetznaz (Short for Spetzialnoye Naznochenye = Special Assignment) are probably indeed the toughest bastards on earth.
However, Israel beats any EU country in Intelligence and Counter Intelligence.
If we managed to get KGB documents in the heat of the Cold War, we can anticipate and prevent this too.
And don't forget, with the ZOG power we can just buy you all
Btw, Paiktis, have you ever wondered what are children doing around palestinian military installations?
This night we bombed a police station which houses a mortar bomb factory. This is after the palestinians claimed they shut them down, and after yesterday 14 mortars hit Israeli settlements.
Back to topic.
France would give up as soon as Israeli airplanes will be in the air and will condemn all military actions.
Brittain is not part of the EU.
Northern european countries will decide that War in any form is immoral and their pilots will head back home.
Germany and Poland can't go to war on us for moral reasons (being Nazi and all - and yes, polans were mostly almost as bad as Nazis.)
As for eastern europe, even if poland jumps in, Israeli firms are almost monopolies in their economy. One step and their economy trashes.
Finally, back to paiktis, I suggest you don't use numbers alone to set your mind. By numbers alone, it would appear as if the USA was brutally massacaring Germans during WWII.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Natan
I think it's disgusting that you use the word terrorist in an arbitrary and meaningless manner as a label for people you don't like. Again: The King David Hotel was a military HQ. |
I think this is part of the problem. How do you define terrorist?
Is it the killing of civilians in order to cause terror when war has not been declared? Then the King David Hotel falls under this category - lots of civilians were killed, and the bombing was obviously intented to cause terror.
But what if the perpetrator is an army of a country? Does that make it any different? Are the atrocities committed by the Israeli army under the command of Sharon terrorism too? If not, why not? The IRA are the Irish Republican Army but they are most definitely terrorists. Why should it matter which other countries recognise the existence of the state?
A short while ago, I watched a BBC news report which was showing a block of flats in Palestine which was being deliberately shelled by an Israeli tank (I saw the tanks doing the shelling on TV!). There were many women and children in the flats and we were shown pictures of traumatised children (although none were injured). Is this not terrorism but your own definition?
Or what about the pictures from a couple of days ago of children running from the bombs of Israeli F-16s?
Unfortunately it seems that some people only want to use the word 'terrorist' if it is their enemy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Back to topic.
France would give up as soon as Israeli airplanes will be in the air and will condemn all military actions.
Brittain is not part of the EU.
Northern european countries will decide that War in any form is immoral and their pilots will head back home.
Germany and Poland can't go to war on us for moral reasons (being Nazi and all - and yes, polans were mostly almost as bad as Nazis.)
As for eastern europe, even if poland jumps in, Israeli firms are almost monopolies in their economy. One step and their economy trashes.
|
This is just silly. Do you honestly think that the US would back Israel in a EU-Israeli war?
And Britain is in the EU of course. No other country would be needed.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sirotnikov
When was the last time in history when a nationality was destroyed just for being of that nationality?
Not for rebelling - not for political or territorial conflict. For reasons of race.
3 Groups:
Jews
Armenians
Gypsies |
The Jews were originally dispersed because they rebelled against the Romans. It was not because of race. The Romans didn't give a toss about race - as long as you did what you were told you were fine. If you didn't you were crushed. The Jews didn't do what they were told and were crushed.
And this is 2000 years ago! Should the picts or the Iceni (who had very distinct cultures) be given their lands in Britain back because they were crushed by the Romans? Should the American indians be given the NA continent back and all whites expelled? Of course not.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-12-2001 03:17
The Portugese? 
|