I have thought for some time that the state(s) of Israel-palestine will eventually have to exist as one instead of two. It would have to be a secular government not dominated by Islam, Judaism, Christianity or any other religion.
I have not mentioned this before for fear of being acused of anti-semitism or just plain starry-eyed stupidity. But I just read a very interesting letter to the editor in the The Guardian Weekly signed by 38 Jewish British citizens, seven of whom have listed their names after the letter, stating "We are Jews, born and raised outside Israel, who, under Israel's "law of return", have a legal right to Israeli residence and citizenship. We wish to renounce this unsought "right" because:"
1) Palestinians were "...forced or terrorised into fleeing..." the land the state of Israel currently occupies,
"2) Israel's policies toward the Palestinians are barbaric...",
"3) We disagree with the notion that Zionist emigration to Israel is any kind of "solution" for diaspora Jews..." and
"4) We wish to express our solidarity with all those who are working for a time when Israel, the West Bank and Gaza Strip can be lived in by people without any restrictions."
[I have extracted for brevity, the issue is Thursday August 15 to Wednesday August 21 2002 Vol 167/No 8, the letter is on page 13]
For editorial balance, a following letter from the Director General, Board of Deputies of British Jews, derisively assumes that the Guardian seems "almost disappointed that the United Nations could find no evidence that Israel had perpetrated a "massacre" in Jenin", and refers to an August 8 Editorial by the Guardian.
I personally believe that the combination of Palestinian and Jewish peoples would form a nation that could lead the middle east away from the current quagmire of religious fundamentalist extremism, as well as becoming the economic and political leader of the region.
Until I read that first letter to the editor, I was not sure there was anyone of importance who might agree. Granted these may be Jews who never had any intention of "returning" to Israel.
But it is a relief to think that maybe I am not crazy after all, and maybe there is hope.
[ August 22, 2002: Message edited by: sportinlife ]
Full Version: Eventual Solution to the Middle East Crisis?
Sounds great, sportinlife. Is probably the only viable method for peace. And at the earliest, I could see it happening, oh, one hundred years from now. It's one thing for us to tell them what to do, but another to get them to agree with us, being "outsiders" and all.
Sportinlife, I usually am with you, but I strongly disagree about one state. There is no guarantee that a non-Jewish state in Palestine would provide adequate protections to its Jewish citizens, given that all of the surrounding nations have at one point or another pledged to destroy Israel and the Jewish population there; have done little to protect the Jewish populations in their own countries; and have mainly restrained their venom under the threat of Israeli military retaliation.
Israel, people should never forget, basically fought the 1967 War almost solely by itself, after years of fending of combined attacks pretty much BY ITSELF. The U.S., Israel's great friend, was not particularly supportive, while Russia was backing Egypt. Israel defeated the combined forces of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, the Palestinians, and Jordan. Pretty much BY ITSELF. This is why Israel is in the West Bank--it didn't just march in there without cause. Moreover, there are members of Fatah, Hamas and other groups who are still aiming to drive the Jews into the sea. Al Qaeda, among its other aims, may just do anything it can to foster this--mainly by attacking Israel's main current friend, the U.S.
These British citizens, whatever their religion, can airily project their aims and plans on Israel because they don't live there. I do believe that Israel deserves to be criticized for some of its policies, like the continuation of settlements in Palestinian territory, its occupation of Palestinian lands and its assassination policy. But Israel should have every right to defend itself, and moreover, the Jewish people should have the right to live in a state in the Middle East in which they are not forced to fight daily for their very lives. A combined state would be an utter disaster.
[ August 21, 2002: Message edited by: fantomas ]
Israel, people should never forget, basically fought the 1967 War almost solely by itself, after years of fending of combined attacks pretty much BY ITSELF. The U.S., Israel's great friend, was not particularly supportive, while Russia was backing Egypt. Israel defeated the combined forces of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, the Palestinians, and Jordan. Pretty much BY ITSELF. This is why Israel is in the West Bank--it didn't just march in there without cause. Moreover, there are members of Fatah, Hamas and other groups who are still aiming to drive the Jews into the sea. Al Qaeda, among its other aims, may just do anything it can to foster this--mainly by attacking Israel's main current friend, the U.S.
These British citizens, whatever their religion, can airily project their aims and plans on Israel because they don't live there. I do believe that Israel deserves to be criticized for some of its policies, like the continuation of settlements in Palestinian territory, its occupation of Palestinian lands and its assassination policy. But Israel should have every right to defend itself, and moreover, the Jewish people should have the right to live in a state in the Middle East in which they are not forced to fight daily for their very lives. A combined state would be an utter disaster.
[ August 21, 2002: Message edited by: fantomas ]
I'm certainly not expecting this thing to be resolved in my lifetime.
Neither side wants to budge. Without compromise, there can be no peace.
Neither side wants to budge. Without compromise, there can be no peace.
Good post, Fantomas. I think we should remember, though, that the Palestinians were the ones stripped of their land (albeit British-controlled land) initially to create the State of Israel. Certainly the Israelis have a right to a homeland in the Middle East. But so do the Palestinians.
Also Fantomas, the fact that Israel is by far the strongest state in the region is all the more reason for it to support progress toward the one-state solution now. The cards may not always be in their hands.
No effort on their part or ours will prevent the eventual nuclearization (or development of other weapon of mass destruction) by some Muslim nation in the area. Most of the arab world now seems ready to come to some sort of peaceful arrangement with Israel out of their own interest in local stability.
Morroco and other Muslim-arab states have had relatively peaceful Jewish minorities before Israel dsplaced Palestinians to form a state.
There are examples of secular states in the region. Turkey, though not perfect, has a secular democracy.
I believe, Israel, perhaps alone for now, has the potential to be the leader in the region, economically and morally.
As to Jews outside Israel "projecting" onto Israel, they already "project" a great deal of money and support through influence on the economic and political workings of their chosen homes.
I still believe that, until something better is proposed, the one-state solution is ultimately best. It's not just in Israel's and the Palestinians' interest, but in our interest and the interest of world peace.
No effort on their part or ours will prevent the eventual nuclearization (or development of other weapon of mass destruction) by some Muslim nation in the area. Most of the arab world now seems ready to come to some sort of peaceful arrangement with Israel out of their own interest in local stability.
Morroco and other Muslim-arab states have had relatively peaceful Jewish minorities before Israel dsplaced Palestinians to form a state.
There are examples of secular states in the region. Turkey, though not perfect, has a secular democracy.
I believe, Israel, perhaps alone for now, has the potential to be the leader in the region, economically and morally.
As to Jews outside Israel "projecting" onto Israel, they already "project" a great deal of money and support through influence on the economic and political workings of their chosen homes.
I still believe that, until something better is proposed, the one-state solution is ultimately best. It's not just in Israel's and the Palestinians' interest, but in our interest and the interest of world peace.
Gotta disagree about the one-state solution. One compelling reason is that the birthrate among Arabs is much higher than among Israeli Jews. A combined state would eventually (in a couple of decades at most, I think) become majority Arab. Then the Jews would have to rely on the kindness of a group with whom relations have been terrible historically.
The region needs peace with justice. This means a two state solution with tradeoffs by both sides.
1. Israel should forfeit all settlements in the occupied territories. Those settlements should be handed over to the descendents of Palestinian refugees who were displaced in 1948.
2. The exiled Palestinians should give up their "right of return" in exchange for monetary compensation from Israel (Israel could deduct the cost of the forfeited settlements).
3. The IDF should leave the West Bank and Gaza and the borders should return to pre-1967 unless both sides agree to a one-for-one land swap.
4. Palestine should become a weapons-free demilitarized zone, with the exception of Palestinian police.
5. East Jerusalem should be controlled by Palestinians and be their new capital. West Jerusalem should continue under Israeli control as the Israeli capital.
6. Oil-rich Arab nations should fund a Marshall Plan to build up Palestinian societal and economic infrastructure.
7. I should inherit a million dollars from an obscure dying relative I've never heard of.
Sadly, #7 is more likely to come true before 1 thru 6.
The region needs peace with justice. This means a two state solution with tradeoffs by both sides.
1. Israel should forfeit all settlements in the occupied territories. Those settlements should be handed over to the descendents of Palestinian refugees who were displaced in 1948.
2. The exiled Palestinians should give up their "right of return" in exchange for monetary compensation from Israel (Israel could deduct the cost of the forfeited settlements).
3. The IDF should leave the West Bank and Gaza and the borders should return to pre-1967 unless both sides agree to a one-for-one land swap.
4. Palestine should become a weapons-free demilitarized zone, with the exception of Palestinian police.
5. East Jerusalem should be controlled by Palestinians and be their new capital. West Jerusalem should continue under Israeli control as the Israeli capital.
6. Oil-rich Arab nations should fund a Marshall Plan to build up Palestinian societal and economic infrastructure.
7. I should inherit a million dollars from an obscure dying relative I've never heard of.
Sadly, #7 is more likely to come true before 1 thru 6.
Unfortunately Lots-of-us if all six propositions did happen the situation could still degenerate to it's current state because religious extremism, poverty and corruption would still be prevalent in much of the Middle East, including the Palestinian territories.
A peaceful and prosperous Palestinian:Israeli state would calm the area, difuse hatreds and serve as an impetus for moderation in the region. An arab majority is not a death nell for Jewish religion and culture.
A peaceful and prosperous Palestinian:Israeli state would calm the area, difuse hatreds and serve as an impetus for moderation in the region. An arab majority is not a death nell for Jewish religion and culture.
Excellent points, Lots-of-us.
Sportinlife, in the Middle East Israel is militarily the strongest nation, with the best political, research and industrial infrastructure, but it is a resource-poor nation with few means of naturally generating the level of wealth of many of its neighbors, which have oil and in some cases other mineral deposits. It HAS to be the strongest, or it would not exist. Israel's strength has assured its survival.
Many of the Muslim nations surrounding Israel remain hostile in their relations to the Jewish state. They have held this stance since Israel appeared. Even Egypt, which has signed several treaties with Israel, is led by a man who refuses to set foot in Israel and makes every attempt to keep relations as chilly as possible--not solely because of the Palestinian issues, either.
Jews in several nearby Muslim states--such as Algeria, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Egypt itself--have periodically come under attack or persecution over the last 30 years, even before the current or the previous Intifadas. A number of these Jews, like those in some of the predominantly Arab former-Soviet Republics, have left for Israel or other non-Arab countries. I had a good friend who married a woman whose family had left Morocco, in part because of worries about their financial situation, jobs, etc., during the time of the previous king.
Given the current fanaticism in parts of the Arab world, much of it funded by Saudi Arabia, Israel is one of the few places in that region where Jews can feel some semblance of safety--even despite the current war.
One state would mean a Jewish minority, certain persecution, and no possibility of a "Jewish state." Two states is, I think, a better idea.
Sportinlife, in the Middle East Israel is militarily the strongest nation, with the best political, research and industrial infrastructure, but it is a resource-poor nation with few means of naturally generating the level of wealth of many of its neighbors, which have oil and in some cases other mineral deposits. It HAS to be the strongest, or it would not exist. Israel's strength has assured its survival.
Many of the Muslim nations surrounding Israel remain hostile in their relations to the Jewish state. They have held this stance since Israel appeared. Even Egypt, which has signed several treaties with Israel, is led by a man who refuses to set foot in Israel and makes every attempt to keep relations as chilly as possible--not solely because of the Palestinian issues, either.
Jews in several nearby Muslim states--such as Algeria, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Egypt itself--have periodically come under attack or persecution over the last 30 years, even before the current or the previous Intifadas. A number of these Jews, like those in some of the predominantly Arab former-Soviet Republics, have left for Israel or other non-Arab countries. I had a good friend who married a woman whose family had left Morocco, in part because of worries about their financial situation, jobs, etc., during the time of the previous king.
Given the current fanaticism in parts of the Arab world, much of it funded by Saudi Arabia, Israel is one of the few places in that region where Jews can feel some semblance of safety--even despite the current war.
One state would mean a Jewish minority, certain persecution, and no possibility of a "Jewish state." Two states is, I think, a better idea.
Absorption of a Palestinian minority or eventual development of a Palestinian majority does not seem to me to conflict with the founding principles of the modern state of Israel as described in this Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel.
Those founding principles which parallel our Declaration of Independence have been overtaken by unfortunate interpretations of the Ancient History of the Jewish People.
If every religious or political minority insisted on a narrow interpretation of their religious or historic writing such that it overruled modern humanitarian outcomes, we are all in for a long and bloody future.
If pursued with conviction, a peaceful, prosperous Palestinian:Israel state is IMO achieveable.
Those founding principles which parallel our Declaration of Independence have been overtaken by unfortunate interpretations of the Ancient History of the Jewish People.
If every religious or political minority insisted on a narrow interpretation of their religious or historic writing such that it overruled modern humanitarian outcomes, we are all in for a long and bloody future.
If pursued with conviction, a peaceful, prosperous Palestinian:Israel state is IMO achieveable.
[quote]Originally posted by sportinlife:
Absorption of a Palestinian minority or eventual development of a Palestinian majority does not seem to me to conflict with the founding principles of the modern state of Israel as described in this Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel.
Those founding principles which parallel our Declaration of Independence have been overtaken by unfortunate interpretations of the Ancient History of the Jewish People.
If every religious or political minority insisted on a narrow interpretation of their religious or historic writing such that it overruled modern humanitarian outcomes, we are all in for a long and bloody future.
If pursued with conviction, a peaceful, prosperous Palestinian:Israel state is IMO achieveable.
Sportinlife, I hear you, but I don't understand why you're not taking into account the history of Palestinian-Israel relations in the 20th century. ISRAEL enshrined rights for non-Jews in its constitution, and in fact even now, while it is under attack by the PLO, Al Fatah, Hamas, and others, its Arab citizens still maintain a range of rights. The same is NOT true of Jewish citizens of more than a few Arab states, and there is little to indicate that a majority Arab Israeli nation, ruled by the thugs who run the various Palestinian extremist groups, would not try to wipe out the Jews. But I understand your larger point, and I do hope that something better than what exists can be hammered out--SOON.
Absorption of a Palestinian minority or eventual development of a Palestinian majority does not seem to me to conflict with the founding principles of the modern state of Israel as described in this Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel.
Those founding principles which parallel our Declaration of Independence have been overtaken by unfortunate interpretations of the Ancient History of the Jewish People.
If every religious or political minority insisted on a narrow interpretation of their religious or historic writing such that it overruled modern humanitarian outcomes, we are all in for a long and bloody future.
If pursued with conviction, a peaceful, prosperous Palestinian:Israel state is IMO achieveable.
Sportinlife, I hear you, but I don't understand why you're not taking into account the history of Palestinian-Israel relations in the 20th century. ISRAEL enshrined rights for non-Jews in its constitution, and in fact even now, while it is under attack by the PLO, Al Fatah, Hamas, and others, its Arab citizens still maintain a range of rights. The same is NOT true of Jewish citizens of more than a few Arab states, and there is little to indicate that a majority Arab Israeli nation, ruled by the thugs who run the various Palestinian extremist groups, would not try to wipe out the Jews. But I understand your larger point, and I do hope that something better than what exists can be hammered out--SOON.
A resonable reading of a brief history of Jews in Iran suggests a more nuanced relationship between a Jewish minority and non-jewish majority in a middle eastern country.
Though Iran is not arabic, they are one-quarter of the so-called "axis of evil".
The source of the oppression of Jews, and other non-muslims, appears to be the result of extremism within the Islamic community.
Religious extremism and fundamentalism often lead to discrimination in any setting.
Numerical domination by one group does not necessarily equal persecution of all others.
I also would not make the assumption that a Palestinian:Israeli state would have an arab majority. Several circumstances might mitigate against that if such a state were considered.
Though Iran is not arabic, they are one-quarter of the so-called "axis of evil".
The source of the oppression of Jews, and other non-muslims, appears to be the result of extremism within the Islamic community.
Religious extremism and fundamentalism often lead to discrimination in any setting.
Numerical domination by one group does not necessarily equal persecution of all others.
I also would not make the assumption that a Palestinian:Israeli state would have an arab majority. Several circumstances might mitigate against that if such a state were considered.
Iran is a majority Shi'ite Muslim nation. Shi'ite Islam, as you know, is different from the versions of Sunni Islam that are practiced in most parts of the Middle East. It is, in fact, the largest Shi'ite Muslim nation in the world. Shi'ites have been oppressed in more than one Arab nation, including most prominently in Iraq. One of the most extreme versions of Sunni Islam, Wahhabianism, is being exported by Saudi Arabia and are flourishing in places like the Palestinian territories, Pakistan, Yemen, Egypt, etc.
The "axis of evil" comment by Bush was idiotic. And weren't there only 3 nations: Iran, Iraq and North Korea? Cuba and Libya were left off the list, for whatever reason.
Iran's current leader, Mohammad Khatami, has attempted, though perhaps far too timorously, a liberalization of the country, which has a majorit of younger citizens who are seeking a more liberal, open society.
(And you're right that Iranians are not Arabs, nor do they speak Arabic. They are Persians, Indo-European people whose language is related to Hindi and Urdu, Greek, Latin, Armenian, Celtic, etc. Old Avestan and Persian and the oldest IU languages have many cognates.)
Since the Islamic Revolution in Iran, Jews have had a much tougher time than before. The number and visibility of Jewish Iranians has dropped considerably, and only a few years ago, a group of Jewish men were being charged with spying for Israel, and were forced to confess to doing so. The penalty there, as in many countries, was death.
Numerical majority does not mean oppression. In fact, in some countries--South Africa, Brazil--the majority has been oppressed or socially marginalized. As I have said from the beginning, the specifics of this situation, this history, this context, require that the Jews and Palestinians have separate states. And both capitals cannot be in Jerusalem either, which is yet another prescription for disaster. Finally, unless the Palestinians find better leadership--and I don't mean just more accommodating to Israel--but less two-faced and double-dealing, the thought of Arafat or those Hamas leaders at the controls of Israel's nuclear arsenal ought to send chills up all our spines.
If demographic trends continue as they are and Palestinians from throughout the Arab world returned to a joint Jewish:Arab Israel/Palestine state (which probably would no longer be called Israel as that name is Hebrew and has religious significance), Muslims would be a majority.
Not only religious, but political and nationalistic extremisms, are sure bets for persecution. There are strong elements in the Palestinian society that espouse one or all three of these elements. The best thing that could happen for the Palestinians would be their own state, with settlement land returned to them, a vibrant and nurtured civil and political culture, and considerable funding not only from the EU and USA, but from their Arab supporters and "champions." Let those countries put their money where their hearts supposedly are.
[ August 26, 2002: Message edited by: fantomas ]
The "axis of evil" comment by Bush was idiotic. And weren't there only 3 nations: Iran, Iraq and North Korea? Cuba and Libya were left off the list, for whatever reason.
Iran's current leader, Mohammad Khatami, has attempted, though perhaps far too timorously, a liberalization of the country, which has a majorit of younger citizens who are seeking a more liberal, open society.
(And you're right that Iranians are not Arabs, nor do they speak Arabic. They are Persians, Indo-European people whose language is related to Hindi and Urdu, Greek, Latin, Armenian, Celtic, etc. Old Avestan and Persian and the oldest IU languages have many cognates.)
Since the Islamic Revolution in Iran, Jews have had a much tougher time than before. The number and visibility of Jewish Iranians has dropped considerably, and only a few years ago, a group of Jewish men were being charged with spying for Israel, and were forced to confess to doing so. The penalty there, as in many countries, was death.
Numerical majority does not mean oppression. In fact, in some countries--South Africa, Brazil--the majority has been oppressed or socially marginalized. As I have said from the beginning, the specifics of this situation, this history, this context, require that the Jews and Palestinians have separate states. And both capitals cannot be in Jerusalem either, which is yet another prescription for disaster. Finally, unless the Palestinians find better leadership--and I don't mean just more accommodating to Israel--but less two-faced and double-dealing, the thought of Arafat or those Hamas leaders at the controls of Israel's nuclear arsenal ought to send chills up all our spines.
If demographic trends continue as they are and Palestinians from throughout the Arab world returned to a joint Jewish:Arab Israel/Palestine state (which probably would no longer be called Israel as that name is Hebrew and has religious significance), Muslims would be a majority.
Not only religious, but political and nationalistic extremisms, are sure bets for persecution. There are strong elements in the Palestinian society that espouse one or all three of these elements. The best thing that could happen for the Palestinians would be their own state, with settlement land returned to them, a vibrant and nurtured civil and political culture, and considerable funding not only from the EU and USA, but from their Arab supporters and "champions." Let those countries put their money where their hearts supposedly are.
[ August 26, 2002: Message edited by: fantomas ]
There's a really great article on this topic in this month's Vanity Fair, by Christopher Hitchens. It gives some good information about the history of the Zionist movement, including how many prominent Jews were anti-Zionist in the beginning, and some still are. One point he makes is that even if the "settlers" were Dutch or British or whatever, the Palestinians and other Arabs would still begrudge them the loss of their land. Hitchens' solution, it appears, is a secular, multi-ethnic society - in a sense, having it become the "America" of the Middle East, a promised land for all who need a home.
[quote]Originally posted by sportinlife:
Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel.
The Vanity Fair article seems interesting conor500. I think the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel that I quote from my post above, was in the same general spirit of inclusiveness. Somewhere along the line that spirit was lost. I don't think it can be blamed on arab persecution of the jews.
If we absorb hurt then hurt someone back, the cycle is endless. The more powerful party has to make a first, and determined, move to break that cycle; while they still have the power to do so.
Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel.
The Vanity Fair article seems interesting conor500. I think the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel that I quote from my post above, was in the same general spirit of inclusiveness. Somewhere along the line that spirit was lost. I don't think it can be blamed on arab persecution of the jews.
If we absorb hurt then hurt someone back, the cycle is endless. The more powerful party has to make a first, and determined, move to break that cycle; while they still have the power to do so.
QUOTE
The \"axis of evil\" comment by Bush was idiotic. And weren't there only 3 nations: Iran, Iraq and North Korea? Cuba and Libya were left off the list, for whatever reason.
Thanks for the correction fantomas, and for the comment about the nations left off the list. That highlights the arbitrariness of the list and suggests some motives other than those stated by the president when making it.You also touch on another issue that would become paramount should the notion of a single state ever be taken seriously: that of who will be the majority. Assuming the state will be a democracy, and it is unlikely the world's only superpower would support anything else in it's official policy, many Jews will not support a single state under those terms at any price.
As I said before, there may be ways to avoid that legitimately. A peaceful transition period might see a large influx to Israel and the surrounding countries of not only Jews, but many others of moderate political persuasion.
Islam also has a long tradition of peaceful and tolerant evolution that contrasts with the violent extremism that so colors our vision of the culture currently. A small step such as teaching about the total history of the people who practice Islam may help tp bring about a better understanding between islamic and non-islamic cultures.
[ March 26, 2005, 11:16 PM: Message edited by: sportinlife ]
I realize that the Jews wanted a place to call home. But to proceed for the resulting 50+ years of war, never acknowledging that they TOOK the land that is now Israel is unacceptable.
Israeli Jews may be one of the strongest military forces in the area, but why do you think that is? The U.S. ALONE sends them over $3 billion per year, and most of these monies are devoted directly to ammunition.
Never will I be able to blame the Palestinian forces for acting on the knowledge that the land was first theirs. They cannot forcefully take it back without perpetual bloodshed; and without foreign aid (in the millions of dollars), they will never surmount Israeli warfare.
Nevertheless, this set of liabilities does not make them wrong. The might of Israeli forces does not make them right.
Hey, the Native Americans are in the same position. I am sure that if they had the military power to take back their stolen lands, they sure wouldn't be managing casinos.
The reality of the situation, however, is that the Israeli people/Jews need a place to call home. This is respectable and understandable. But taking all this money from around the world and not getting down to the facts of their situation towards a livable solution, in my personal opinion, borders on the racist. For years, I have toyed with this feeling, but thought that I just didn't understnd the history deeply enough. Well, that is no longer the case.
And, for all the money that we are sending to Israel, do we ultimately care if they blow themselves up to smithereens? I gather that if we wanted their intelligence, academicians, and the return of whatever money and ammunition were left on Israeli land, we could just go over there and get it. My point: do we, for all the money we're sending over there (that could be used to
solve our American problems - education, the mentally-ill homeless, and transition housing for LGBTs kicked out of their homes, to name a few) care what happens to Israel and their people?
And lastly, if we left that area's people to their own devices and instructed them to work things out on their own, what independent successes might they accomplish together? Could we handle a savvy, peaceful region?
[ August 30, 2002: Message edited by: bluebird48234 ]
[ August 30, 2002: Message edited by: bluebird48234 ]
Israeli Jews may be one of the strongest military forces in the area, but why do you think that is? The U.S. ALONE sends them over $3 billion per year, and most of these monies are devoted directly to ammunition.
Never will I be able to blame the Palestinian forces for acting on the knowledge that the land was first theirs. They cannot forcefully take it back without perpetual bloodshed; and without foreign aid (in the millions of dollars), they will never surmount Israeli warfare.
Nevertheless, this set of liabilities does not make them wrong. The might of Israeli forces does not make them right.
Hey, the Native Americans are in the same position. I am sure that if they had the military power to take back their stolen lands, they sure wouldn't be managing casinos.
The reality of the situation, however, is that the Israeli people/Jews need a place to call home. This is respectable and understandable. But taking all this money from around the world and not getting down to the facts of their situation towards a livable solution, in my personal opinion, borders on the racist. For years, I have toyed with this feeling, but thought that I just didn't understnd the history deeply enough. Well, that is no longer the case.
And, for all the money that we are sending to Israel, do we ultimately care if they blow themselves up to smithereens? I gather that if we wanted their intelligence, academicians, and the return of whatever money and ammunition were left on Israeli land, we could just go over there and get it. My point: do we, for all the money we're sending over there (that could be used to
solve our American problems - education, the mentally-ill homeless, and transition housing for LGBTs kicked out of their homes, to name a few) care what happens to Israel and their people?
And lastly, if we left that area's people to their own devices and instructed them to work things out on their own, what independent successes might they accomplish together? Could we handle a savvy, peaceful region?
[ August 30, 2002: Message edited by: bluebird48234 ]
[ August 30, 2002: Message edited by: bluebird48234 ]
[quote]Originally posted by fantomas:
the specifics of this situation, this history, this context, require that the Jews and Palestinians have separate states.
Can someone help me out :Why are the Israeli's so opposed to a Palestinian Homeland since the Jews have one now - how can they oppose one for the Palestinians? Is it because they fear the strength of these people on their doorstep? (Sorry we never covered this in school)
the specifics of this situation, this history, this context, require that the Jews and Palestinians have separate states.
Can someone help me out :Why are the Israeli's so opposed to a Palestinian Homeland since the Jews have one now - how can they oppose one for the Palestinians? Is it because they fear the strength of these people on their doorstep? (Sorry we never covered this in school)
Most Israeli supporters that I've talked to believe that if they give the Palestinians an inch, they'll demand a yard. Of course, if you look at the progression of the Israeli borders through history, they're the ones taking more than they were given. They also believe granting statehood to Yassir Arafat is no different than the appeasement lands given to Hitler before WWII.
[quote]Originally posted by copman:
Can someone help me out :Why are the Israeli's so opposed to a Palestinian Homeland since the Jews have one now - how can they oppose one for the Palestinians? Is it because they fear the strength of these people on their doorstep? (Sorry we never covered this in school)
I don't think the Israelis are opposed to a Palestinian homeland, but they are opposed to any state that refuses to acknowledge Israel's right to exist. Other ARAB nations also have paid lip service to a Palestinian homeland--Jordan doesn't want the Palestinians, nor does Egypt, nor does Lebanon--in fact, Palestinians comprise a sizable percentage of the population of Jordan. The fact is that until Israel knows that 1) its Arab neighbors (and not just Egypt by treaty) are going to acknowledge its right to exist; 2) they will not contribute to stability by not funding Palestinian terrorism or attempts to destroy Israel by proxy; 3) they will not band together as in 1947-49, 1967, 1973, etc. against Israel only to meet defeat; and 4) the Palestinians will not have a duplicitous, self-serving leader like Arafat in power, they are not going to agree to any agreements that put them in danger of extermination.
People on here keep talking as though the U.S. and Israel have been the best of friends, but this is hardly true. U.S. support for Israel dates from the 1970s--during the 1967 War, which Israel fought against a combined force of about 6 Arab nations (plus the Palestinians), Israel had VERY LITTLE EXTERNAL support. The Jews, whose ancient homeland lies where the Israel now stands, had to fight for the land they own--it wasn't just given to them; and in fact the land that Jordan occupies came about as a result of the process through which Israel appears. The Hashemite kingdom could easily be in Iraq, etc.
I say all of this not to excuse Israel for some horrific policies against the Palestinians, including the continued building of settlements, the occupation, and the assassination policy. But let's not forget, the U.S.A., our beloved country, doesn't hesitate to attack ANY country--even preemptively--that threatens us. We have gone to war against allies and neighbors like Britain, France, Canada, Mexico, Japan, Spain, Vietnam, Iraq, and have occupied the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Afghanistan, and much of Europe, etc., for reasons of national interest. So Israel cannot be expected to allow its adversaries utter leeway if it cannot be assured that they are willing to truly work towards peace.
Can someone help me out :Why are the Israeli's so opposed to a Palestinian Homeland since the Jews have one now - how can they oppose one for the Palestinians? Is it because they fear the strength of these people on their doorstep? (Sorry we never covered this in school)
I don't think the Israelis are opposed to a Palestinian homeland, but they are opposed to any state that refuses to acknowledge Israel's right to exist. Other ARAB nations also have paid lip service to a Palestinian homeland--Jordan doesn't want the Palestinians, nor does Egypt, nor does Lebanon--in fact, Palestinians comprise a sizable percentage of the population of Jordan. The fact is that until Israel knows that 1) its Arab neighbors (and not just Egypt by treaty) are going to acknowledge its right to exist; 2) they will not contribute to stability by not funding Palestinian terrorism or attempts to destroy Israel by proxy; 3) they will not band together as in 1947-49, 1967, 1973, etc. against Israel only to meet defeat; and 4) the Palestinians will not have a duplicitous, self-serving leader like Arafat in power, they are not going to agree to any agreements that put them in danger of extermination.
People on here keep talking as though the U.S. and Israel have been the best of friends, but this is hardly true. U.S. support for Israel dates from the 1970s--during the 1967 War, which Israel fought against a combined force of about 6 Arab nations (plus the Palestinians), Israel had VERY LITTLE EXTERNAL support. The Jews, whose ancient homeland lies where the Israel now stands, had to fight for the land they own--it wasn't just given to them; and in fact the land that Jordan occupies came about as a result of the process through which Israel appears. The Hashemite kingdom could easily be in Iraq, etc.
I say all of this not to excuse Israel for some horrific policies against the Palestinians, including the continued building of settlements, the occupation, and the assassination policy. But let's not forget, the U.S.A., our beloved country, doesn't hesitate to attack ANY country--even preemptively--that threatens us. We have gone to war against allies and neighbors like Britain, France, Canada, Mexico, Japan, Spain, Vietnam, Iraq, and have occupied the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Afghanistan, and much of Europe, etc., for reasons of national interest. So Israel cannot be expected to allow its adversaries utter leeway if it cannot be assured that they are willing to truly work towards peace.
[quote]Originally posted by fantomas:
So Israel cannot be expected to allow its adversaries utter leeway if it cannot be assured that they are willing to truly work towards peace.
Thanx for the information - Fantomas!
So Israel cannot be expected to allow its adversaries utter leeway if it cannot be assured that they are willing to truly work towards peace.
Thanx for the information - Fantomas!
We're seeing yet another aspect of this conflict between Isreal and its neighbors come to light in the form of a debate about whether, or now perhaps when, the US will attack Iraq.
Preemption has long been an option for Israel against any hostile neighbor, justified by the potentially fatal consequences of absorbing a first attack by a weapon of mass destruction.
It is possible - and of course I, like most of us, am not privy to any classified insider information - that Israeli leaders have made it clear to US counterparts that Iraq's capabilities in their eyes, have reached an intolerable level of threat to Israel's existence; and that given the lack of an apropriate action on the part of the US and/or rest of the world, they will undertake the elimination of that threat.
Such an action on Israel's part would inevitably throw the entire region into a chaotic mess. Given such a situation US authorities may find themselves cornered into a preemptive attack on Iraq.
At some point, whether this is the result of a nebulous accumulation of bad policy in the mideast or selfish behavior on the part of all parties concerned, may be neither here nor there.
Still we USA citizens must at some point make a decision about some complex issues through our elected officials. Most polls seem to show at least a plurality in favor of a strike against Iraq.
A long-term policy uniting Israel and Palestine is, I still think, the best solution to the situation.
[ March 26, 2005, 11:29 PM: Message edited by: sportinlife ]
Preemption has long been an option for Israel against any hostile neighbor, justified by the potentially fatal consequences of absorbing a first attack by a weapon of mass destruction.
It is possible - and of course I, like most of us, am not privy to any classified insider information - that Israeli leaders have made it clear to US counterparts that Iraq's capabilities in their eyes, have reached an intolerable level of threat to Israel's existence; and that given the lack of an apropriate action on the part of the US and/or rest of the world, they will undertake the elimination of that threat.
Such an action on Israel's part would inevitably throw the entire region into a chaotic mess. Given such a situation US authorities may find themselves cornered into a preemptive attack on Iraq.
At some point, whether this is the result of a nebulous accumulation of bad policy in the mideast or selfish behavior on the part of all parties concerned, may be neither here nor there.
Still we USA citizens must at some point make a decision about some complex issues through our elected officials. Most polls seem to show at least a plurality in favor of a strike against Iraq.
A long-term policy uniting Israel and Palestine is, I still think, the best solution to the situation.
[ March 26, 2005, 11:29 PM: Message edited by: sportinlife ]
A couple of books I've read illustrate the difficulties in resolving the conflict in the Middle East.
Both concern gays in Israel. One, Independence Park (1999) focuses on gays in general while the other Brothers and Others in Arms (2003), is primarily concerned with gays in the military. Because of near universal conscription in Israel the subjects naturally overlap, however the feel of the two books is miles apart: The first almost romanticizes its subjects wereas the second is coldly analytical.
One excerpt from the second brutally illustrates the potentially agonizing consequences of placing normal people on the frontlines of a military confrontation, as opposed to running a war by remote control, as has largely been the case for the USA since Vietnam:
A gay soldier tells of a situation in which a fellow soldier points out, through the scope of his rifle, two mehablim (literally saboteurs, but used to designate most enemy combatants) having anal intercourse. He then shoots the one on the bottom through the head, killing him.
Neither of the Israeli soldiers can allow himself to think of the enemy as entirely human - not even the gay soldier who, in this relating at least, expresses no regret or apprehension about the act.
It is something we might all consider during the upcoming conflict, especially since some are advocating reinstating conscription here.
The books are informative, revealing and cautionary. Though I doubt they exist, I'm sure that similarly engrossing and useful books could be written by authors on the other side of the conflict.
Both concern gays in Israel. One, Independence Park (1999) focuses on gays in general while the other Brothers and Others in Arms (2003), is primarily concerned with gays in the military. Because of near universal conscription in Israel the subjects naturally overlap, however the feel of the two books is miles apart: The first almost romanticizes its subjects wereas the second is coldly analytical.
One excerpt from the second brutally illustrates the potentially agonizing consequences of placing normal people on the frontlines of a military confrontation, as opposed to running a war by remote control, as has largely been the case for the USA since Vietnam:
A gay soldier tells of a situation in which a fellow soldier points out, through the scope of his rifle, two mehablim (literally saboteurs, but used to designate most enemy combatants) having anal intercourse. He then shoots the one on the bottom through the head, killing him.
Neither of the Israeli soldiers can allow himself to think of the enemy as entirely human - not even the gay soldier who, in this relating at least, expresses no regret or apprehension about the act.
It is something we might all consider during the upcoming conflict, especially since some are advocating reinstating conscription here.
The books are informative, revealing and cautionary. Though I doubt they exist, I'm sure that similarly engrossing and useful books could be written by authors on the other side of the conflict.
With the rhetoric concerning the war in Iraq heating up it is unfortunate though inevitable that the following sort of controversial situation should arise.
Representative Moran is wrong to single out Jews as having special responsibility to speak out against this war or to hold any special responsibility because of their ethnicity. Blacks, asians, gays or whoever else supports the war might just as easily have been singled out.
[ March 12, 2003, 09:49 AM: Message edited by: sportinlife ]
Representative Moran is wrong to single out Jews as having special responsibility to speak out against this war or to hold any special responsibility because of their ethnicity. Blacks, asians, gays or whoever else supports the war might just as easily have been singled out.
[ March 12, 2003, 09:49 AM: Message edited by: sportinlife ]
QUOTE
sportinlife:
With the rhetoric concerning the war in Iraq heating up it is unfortunate though inevitable that the following sort of controversial situation should arise.
A little coy, sportinlife. Maybe this should be its own thread, but I strongly CONDEMN James Moran's comments, not only because they are offensive, but also because he is a member of the Democratic Party and should not be engaging in this kind of idiotic commentary, in a church no less!With the rhetoric concerning the war in Iraq heating up it is unfortunate though inevitable that the following sort of controversial situation should arise.
Criticizing or questioning the motives of Israel is not the same as anti-Semitism, just as questioning the motives of someone like Perle or Wolfowitz also isn't anti-Semitism, but to make blanket statements about Jewish people (or Black people or Latinos or any ethnic, racial, religious, national and so forth group) is really quite offensive. But the Democratic top guns have swiftly come out against him, which is more than can be said for the Republicans after Dick Armey's anti-Semitic outburst,which many laughed off, or Trent Lott's Confederophilia....
[ March 12, 2003, 10:32 AM: Message edited by: fantomas ]
Trent Lott giving up his post is not deemed as punishment?
[quote]fantomas:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by sportinlife:
[qb] A little coy, sportinlife.[/quote]Somewhat facetious? Maybe. But coy? No. Coy suggests I play hard to get, which I'm not. wink :cool:
Would it be coy to also link the following story about the peculiar alliance between Jewish Conservatives and Christian Evangelicals.
Go figure.
[ May 18, 2003, 03:35 PM: Message edited by: sportinlife ]
[QUOTE]Originally posted by sportinlife:
[qb] A little coy, sportinlife.[/quote]Somewhat facetious? Maybe. But coy? No. Coy suggests I play hard to get, which I'm not. wink :cool:
Would it be coy to also link the following story about the peculiar alliance between Jewish Conservatives and Christian Evangelicals.
Go figure.
[ May 18, 2003, 03:35 PM: Message edited by: sportinlife ]
Just thought I'd bump this thread up out of curiosity. We seem to be moving in the direction now of the two state sytem under the worst circumstances: One state completely dominating the other but not completely destroying it, leading to interminable future conflict.
It is unfortunate that both left and right are in denial about the centrality of this issue and, in my opinion, the eventual solution to it.
It is unfortunate that both left and right are in denial about the centrality of this issue and, in my opinion, the eventual solution to it.
The conflict in Palestine has had the attention of the World for far too long - and I for one am tired of all the mindless killing over this patch of dirt and the attention it receives.
A two state solution, backed by American money on one side, and Arab oil money on the other should bribe this into reality - the fact that it hasn't yet is an intriguing question.
And again, every death in Israel and the West Bank/Gaza since the failure of Clinton's Camp David effort should be laid squarely at the feet of Yasser Eekarat - for saying “no” to peace, “no” to the best deal that will ever be offered by an Israeli government.
A two state solution, backed by American money on one side, and Arab oil money on the other should bribe this into reality - the fact that it hasn't yet is an intriguing question.
And again, every death in Israel and the West Bank/Gaza since the failure of Clinton's Camp David effort should be laid squarely at the feet of Yasser Eekarat - for saying “no” to peace, “no” to the best deal that will ever be offered by an Israeli government.
This is a matter of semantics, but I do not view the ongoing carnage in Gaza, the West Bank, and throughout Israel as a crisis but rather--sadly--as the status quo. Raids, retaliations, and retributions are par of the region's long-standing rhythm and ritual. This doesn't mean they must continue, but the violent, tragic status quo won't change until leadership--in Isreal's government and among the Palestinians--change, probably generationally. Arafat has become more & more marginalized internationally andwithin the Palestinian heirarchy. As he ages and his health continues to decline, the marginalization will only increase. The Palestinians will become even more balkanized than they are now, but eventually some younger leader will emerge. Within Israel's government, much the same is occurring. The generation that survived WWII to help found/build the modern state and those who built their fame in the Sinai Campaign is dieing off and the younger Sabras and more recent immigrants are starting to move into positions of power & are far more willing to negotiate "land for peace." There will be a an independent Palestine surrounded by a highly-armed Israel & a truly international "open city" Jerusalem--who controls Temple Mount could take years to thrash out all by itself. The independent Palestine will be closely watched by an extremely wary Jordan, which already has fears about those living in Jordan but with stronger allegiances to a free, expansive Palestine. Any current talks have to include Jordan.
But it won't happen soon. For the nonce, the rhythm and ritual will continue.
~Adam
But it won't happen soon. For the nonce, the rhythm and ritual will continue.
~Adam
Another concern is that as long as the US is dependent on the oil in the Middle East we will continue to support the "democratization" of the region. But what happens when we are finally forced to wean ourselves from it, or realize that other alternatives however expensive and slow to develop, are better than becoming involved in an area with millenia-old conflicts? The region could quickly (in a few decades) spiral out of control. A firmer, more just paradigm has to evolve. Equality of treatment for all people in the region is needed.
Bumped this up because I think we continue to miss opportunities to make real change in the Middle East. Iran's young frustrated voting majority is discouraged by the lack of effective outreach from the west and in fact the active military billigerence of the USA of late. Israel continues to have carte blanche to arrange the region according to its wim, and with disregard for any other opinion including that of the USA and gradually liberalizing media in the Arab countries is demonized by our leader.
With the Israeli government and the Palestinians on the verge of a cold war that seems intended to politically starve the Palestinians into submission, it may be appropriate that the rest of the world remember the role of Irgun and the tactics used in the establishment of the current Israeli state.
The parallels between Hamas and Irgun are more striking than the many differences, yet the outcome of a continuing conflict may be more dangerous in today's world.
If Hamas' policy of destruction of the Jewish state is to be defeated it will most likely be done by ideas rather than economic or military pressure.
I think the ideal is still a Palestinian/Israeli state however long and slowly that has to come about. For better or worse Israel now has, in Hamas, the potential to deal with a government that better represents the views of a majority of Palestinians. Still only Israel has the power to make peace or conflict unilaterally.
The parallels between Hamas and Irgun are more striking than the many differences, yet the outcome of a continuing conflict may be more dangerous in today's world.
If Hamas' policy of destruction of the Jewish state is to be defeated it will most likely be done by ideas rather than economic or military pressure.
I think the ideal is still a Palestinian/Israeli state however long and slowly that has to come about. For better or worse Israel now has, in Hamas, the potential to deal with a government that better represents the views of a majority of Palestinians. Still only Israel has the power to make peace or conflict unilaterally.
Okay, it is time for a history lesson... in 1947 when the United Nations voted to create the nation of Israel from land being held and governed by Britain, UN voted to create two countries - one that was to be Israel, and one to be run by native Arabs. There was not a country there when the UN vote took place... the UN surveyed the populations of the area and decided the predominantly Jewish areas would be part of Israel, the other areas would be part of the other country... Jerusalem would be an international city controled by Britain. Thus the Jews DID NOT TAKE the land involved. When Israel accepted the vote and declared independence in 1948, all the surrounding countries declared war on Israel because they would not accept Israel. Israel of course was able to hold them off, and actually grew a bit. Jordan took the land now known as the left bank, and Egypt took the land now known as the Gaza Strip. From 1948 to 1967 these areas were under Jordanian and Egyptian rule, yet the "Palestinian" were not allowed their own country, there was not even the term "Palestinian" at the time, nor a refugee problem... not until Israel defended themselves in 1967 from another all out attack against them, did they gain the lands now known as the Left Bank and Gaza Strip... and all of a sudden, the "Palestinian" problem arose... They were always all or nothing, and they still want all of it...
Once again, Israel did NOT take the land, Britain ruled that area, and before them, the Ottoman Empire controled that area and lost it to Britain in World War I. The area that became Israel had a majority Jewish population in 1947.
Once again, Israel did NOT take the land, Britain ruled that area, and before them, the Ottoman Empire controled that area and lost it to Britain in World War I. The area that became Israel had a majority Jewish population in 1947.
Another note - and I guess I must say that I have lived in Israel -
The issue between Israel and the Palestinian government is odd. The Palestinian want full independence and control over their own borders. Israel would love to give them this, the problem is that "Palestine" also needs to be able to cross over into Israel because they need to jobs they have there. And then they need Israel to give the withheld taxes back to the Palestinian authority. The people of Gaza have spent so much time fighting Israel, they have never developed an economy, and thus they hate Israel, but use Israel for jobs and government taxes... they want their cake and they want to eat to too.
The issue between Israel and the Palestinian government is odd. The Palestinian want full independence and control over their own borders. Israel would love to give them this, the problem is that "Palestine" also needs to be able to cross over into Israel because they need to jobs they have there. And then they need Israel to give the withheld taxes back to the Palestinian authority. The people of Gaza have spent so much time fighting Israel, they have never developed an economy, and thus they hate Israel, but use Israel for jobs and government taxes... they want their cake and they want to eat to too.
The history of the territory is well-documented, and it is clear that everyone on the planet is an immigrant to the place where he or she lives if you go back far enough. The question of whether the Palestinians constituted a "nation" is as arguable as whether the "tribes including Semitic peoples, Hittites, and later Philistines" constituted one. This could go on forever. Where does one draw a line?
Original sin is not a concept that I believe can be applied to individuals or groups of individuals.
But the gist of Hirst's article is valid: there is no parity in the middle east. And there will be no stability until some sort of parity is established. The less powerful seek that equivalence by pompous extremism and militarization while the nuclear power threatens.
But the gist of Hirst's article is valid: there is no parity in the middle east. And there will be no stability until some sort of parity is established. The less powerful seek that equivalence by pompous extremism and militarization while the nuclear power threatens.
The current conflict in the Middle East could become more than a simple reoccupation by israel of a part of Lebanon to form a buffer zone again.
Much has change since then, Israel's leadership being the least of these. The isolation of Iran on the nuclear issue has made Iran paranoid. And if one thinks that Israel is overreacting now, wait until they decide to do something about the real source of support for terrorism against Israel: Syria and Iran - along with powerful minority factions in several other Arab countries - could be targeted and it would be back to the Six-Day war, but on steroids.
No power in the region can hold a candle to Israel in an open battle, but Iran has made it clear that it will take the terrorism route against the US if it's nuclear facilities are attacked and now they seem to be confirming that with a proxy terrorist attack on Israel which they believe should not have been formed on land occupied by Arabs (however sparsely or unincorporated).
In my opinion Iran's escalation of support for anti-Israel forces is a direct result of, and parallel to, the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war; yet another reason that I see Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the Muslim mirror image of George W. Bush. Those who felt that two and half years were not enough for Bush to do serious damage to the USA and the world may be about to learn very differently.
Another corollary is the reemergence of the issue of militant extremist groups using the US military as a training ground. In the 60's it was the Black Panthers, today it is more and more becoming extreme right-wing racist skinhead groups who will not have the problems of the Panthers in slinking back into "normal" society just as militiamen in Iraq do in fighting some of those same skinhead-militants-in-training as US soldiers.
The violence we promote abroad will eventually come around to haunt us. We should never have conflated true self-defense with our "interests" in oil and power.
Much has change since then, Israel's leadership being the least of these. The isolation of Iran on the nuclear issue has made Iran paranoid. And if one thinks that Israel is overreacting now, wait until they decide to do something about the real source of support for terrorism against Israel: Syria and Iran - along with powerful minority factions in several other Arab countries - could be targeted and it would be back to the Six-Day war, but on steroids.
No power in the region can hold a candle to Israel in an open battle, but Iran has made it clear that it will take the terrorism route against the US if it's nuclear facilities are attacked and now they seem to be confirming that with a proxy terrorist attack on Israel which they believe should not have been formed on land occupied by Arabs (however sparsely or unincorporated).
In my opinion Iran's escalation of support for anti-Israel forces is a direct result of, and parallel to, the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war; yet another reason that I see Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the Muslim mirror image of George W. Bush. Those who felt that two and half years were not enough for Bush to do serious damage to the USA and the world may be about to learn very differently.
Another corollary is the reemergence of the issue of militant extremist groups using the US military as a training ground. In the 60's it was the Black Panthers, today it is more and more becoming extreme right-wing racist skinhead groups who will not have the problems of the Panthers in slinking back into "normal" society just as militiamen in Iraq do in fighting some of those same skinhead-militants-in-training as US soldiers.
The violence we promote abroad will eventually come around to haunt us. We should never have conflated true self-defense with our "interests" in oil and power.
QUOTE
sportinlife:
In my opinion Iran's escalation of support for anti-Israel forces is a direct result of, and parallel to, the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war; yet another reason that I see Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the Muslim mirror image of George W. Bush. Those who felt that two and half years were not enough for Bush to do serious damage to the USA and the world may be about to learn very differently.
Oh, dear Lord! You just hit the nail directly on the head about Ahmadinejad and Bush. They are simply opposite sides of the same coin. Yes, we are learning just how much danger each regime poses not merely to each other but to all of us.
In my opinion Iran's escalation of support for anti-Israel forces is a direct result of, and parallel to, the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war; yet another reason that I see Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the Muslim mirror image of George W. Bush. Those who felt that two and half years were not enough for Bush to do serious damage to the USA and the world may be about to learn very differently.
An interesting article proposing the potential solutions to the problems in Iraq from Chris Floyd of the Atlantic Free Press.
The options are not new but his solution - which appears at the end, and is one he claims to have suggested early on during the invasion - is one that most are not willing to consider.
And, IMO, it is the only one that will begin a healing process in Iraq and lower our risk of another terrorist attack.
I place the post in this thread because it is only after we leave Iraq that we can begin to deal with the Israel/Palestine issue.
The greatest impediment to leaving Iraq immediately is the pride of President Bush and those who supported him in the invasion.
Our military should not be used as a posse in a Hatfield and McCoy fued between the Husseins and the Bushes. Nor should they be mercenaries for large corporations or hitmen for a people who want oil cheaply.
The options are not new but his solution - which appears at the end, and is one he claims to have suggested early on during the invasion - is one that most are not willing to consider.
And, IMO, it is the only one that will begin a healing process in Iraq and lower our risk of another terrorist attack.
I place the post in this thread because it is only after we leave Iraq that we can begin to deal with the Israel/Palestine issue.
The greatest impediment to leaving Iraq immediately is the pride of President Bush and those who supported him in the invasion.
Our military should not be used as a posse in a Hatfield and McCoy fued between the Husseins and the Bushes. Nor should they be mercenaries for large corporations or hitmen for a people who want oil cheaply.
Of all the unintended consequences of our invasion of Iraq this certainly must be the most disturbing IMO. That the Sunni Arab nations should be uniting in their desire to pursue nuclear power can only mean ill for the Israel - Palestine situation.
The proliferation of this technology would seem to inevitably embolden Arab populaces who still are extremely jealous and envious of Israel's widely acknowledged nuclear weapons capability. Not to mention making such totalitarian states more likely targets of internal extremists' attempts to overthrow them and acquire their own nuclear weapon capability.
It takes little imagination to suspect that the entrenched authoritarian religious-based regimes of bickering Arab nations will at some point fall back on conflict with Israel to distract from internal problems.
It also seems unlikely that other current nuclear powers will be hard-pressed to avoid entering into such a conflict on one side or another to avoid both serious disruptions to the world economic addiction to oil and massive lose of life, unfortunately considered in that order in the morality of most of today's world leaders.
It is never too late to step back from such insanity. As I have implied before I believe that the implementation of just policies toward the weakest are a barometer of morality in a world of mostly canaries.
The proliferation of this technology would seem to inevitably embolden Arab populaces who still are extremely jealous and envious of Israel's widely acknowledged nuclear weapons capability. Not to mention making such totalitarian states more likely targets of internal extremists' attempts to overthrow them and acquire their own nuclear weapon capability.
It takes little imagination to suspect that the entrenched authoritarian religious-based regimes of bickering Arab nations will at some point fall back on conflict with Israel to distract from internal problems.
It also seems unlikely that other current nuclear powers will be hard-pressed to avoid entering into such a conflict on one side or another to avoid both serious disruptions to the world economic addiction to oil and massive lose of life, unfortunately considered in that order in the morality of most of today's world leaders.
It is never too late to step back from such insanity. As I have implied before I believe that the implementation of just policies toward the weakest are a barometer of morality in a world of mostly canaries.
Anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr ordered six cabinet ministers from his political bloc to leave Iraq's government on Monday.
Al-Sadr's movement controls the ministries of Health, Agriculture, Province Affairs, Transportation, Tourism and Civil Society Organizations.
The move weakens the current government - perhaps fatally. Prior to Al-Sadr joining the gov't they were in disarray, and unable to come up with a majority government
Now maybe we will see what Civil War really looks like.
R
Al-Sadr's movement controls the ministries of Health, Agriculture, Province Affairs, Transportation, Tourism and Civil Society Organizations.
The move weakens the current government - perhaps fatally. Prior to Al-Sadr joining the gov't they were in disarray, and unable to come up with a majority government
Now maybe we will see what Civil War really looks like.
R
It is not so much civil war in Iraq that the average USA citizen has to fear as the possibility that the situation may eventually inspire sufficient hatred of us around the world that it does us economic or military harm.
Generally business is business, and it marches on without much regard to peace or war - in the eyes of some economists at least - able to profit equally from either depending on the sector of business.
Terrorism is a wildcard. We have been able to control it thusfar by making a common bond: very few in this country contemplate mass killing of innocent people, within its borders at least. though we seem fairly tolerant of it elsewhere. And those few have obviously been easy to either identify or disuade so far.
I don't think that can be sustained if we continue to make enemies at the rate that the current administration has. Nor will we be able to win enough real friends in the Middle East, to convince them we are a fair intermediary in the central conflict still in that region: that between Israel and the Palestinians.
We currently have not even been able to distinguish between Jews and Israel in our political sphere. Though we generally do so between other ethnic minorities and countries they may identify with or support.
This excerpt of a book suggests one lobby has prevented it.
Generally business is business, and it marches on without much regard to peace or war - in the eyes of some economists at least - able to profit equally from either depending on the sector of business.
Terrorism is a wildcard. We have been able to control it thusfar by making a common bond: very few in this country contemplate mass killing of innocent people, within its borders at least. though we seem fairly tolerant of it elsewhere. And those few have obviously been easy to either identify or disuade so far.
I don't think that can be sustained if we continue to make enemies at the rate that the current administration has. Nor will we be able to win enough real friends in the Middle East, to convince them we are a fair intermediary in the central conflict still in that region: that between Israel and the Palestinians.
We currently have not even been able to distinguish between Jews and Israel in our political sphere. Though we generally do so between other ethnic minorities and countries they may identify with or support.
This excerpt of a book suggests one lobby has prevented it.
Does the House of Saud really need to fly to London to shop at Harrods? Can't they build their own - or better - in the dessert?
And why take a fleet of jets to warn Gordon Brown that a US attack on Iran may not be a good idea? They do have telephones, don't they?
Talk about your signs of the Apocalypse
I don't think we will see anything scarier than this for Halloween:
BOO!
And why take a fleet of jets to warn Gordon Brown that a US attack on Iran may not be a good idea? They do have telephones, don't they?
Talk about your signs of the Apocalypse
I don't think we will see anything scarier than this for Halloween:
BOO!
If one combines the information from google searches for Antarctic claims and peak oil it is not difficult to imagine that the US did not go into Iraq to protect Israel and that George Bush could not have managed to take us there solely for personal petty reasons of family ego.
This war it appears may be only the beginning of many skirmishes over fossil fuel energy supplies which will eventually dwindle in comparison to demand. Religious pawns will not be able to stop such wars just as they have not been able to prevent their various scriptures from being used to start wars, unless they pay honest heed to the fundamentals of all true faiths: treat others justly, as you want to be treated.
Where justice lies will be a matter of critical debate in coming years.
Can the West and developing economies continue their consumption increase at the current rates?
Is the debate over placing US missle defense systems in eastern Europe about defending against terrorist rogue nations or preparing for an inevitable confrontation with Russia and or China over oil and other fossil fuels? And where do all the ethnic conflicts bubbling away in the middle east, central Asia, the Pacific and even the countries of South America play a part in this? The Middle East conflicts may only be the beginning.
This war it appears may be only the beginning of many skirmishes over fossil fuel energy supplies which will eventually dwindle in comparison to demand. Religious pawns will not be able to stop such wars just as they have not been able to prevent their various scriptures from being used to start wars, unless they pay honest heed to the fundamentals of all true faiths: treat others justly, as you want to be treated.
Where justice lies will be a matter of critical debate in coming years.
Can the West and developing economies continue their consumption increase at the current rates?
Is the debate over placing US missle defense systems in eastern Europe about defending against terrorist rogue nations or preparing for an inevitable confrontation with Russia and or China over oil and other fossil fuels? And where do all the ethnic conflicts bubbling away in the middle east, central Asia, the Pacific and even the countries of South America play a part in this? The Middle East conflicts may only be the beginning.
It is rare that any major journalist who has worked for a major publication has the temerity to write publicly about the issue that has formed the dark core of the Palestine-Israel middle east crisis since its development about the time of the formation of the state of Israel (or as far as anyone knows or will admit in public). I am not surprised that the author of this very important article is George Monbiot whose writing and opinions I have read and admired for years in the Guardian. This excerpt sums it up:
QUOTE
Officially, the Israeli government maintains a position of "nuclear ambiguity": neither confirming nor denying its possession of nuclear weapons. But everyone who has studied the issue knows that this is a formula with a simple purpose: to give the United States an excuse to keep breaking its own laws, which forbid it to grant aid to a country with unauthorised weapons of mass destruction. The fiction of ambiguity is fiercely guarded. In 1986, when the nuclear technician Mordechai Vanunu handed photographs of Israel's bomb factory to the Sunday Times, he was lured from Britain to Rome, drugged and kidnapped by Mossad agents, tried in secret, and sentenced to 18 years in prison. He served 12 of them in solitary confinement and was banged up again - for six months - soon after he was released.
However, in December last year, the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, accidentally let slip that Israel, like "America, France and Russia", had nuclear weapons. Opposition politicians were furious. They attacked Olmert for "a lack of caution bordering on irresponsibility". But US aid continues to flow without impediment.
As the fascinating papers released last year by the National Security Archive show, the US government was aware in 1968 that Israel was developing a nuclear device (what it didn't know is that the first one had already been built by then). The contrast to the efforts now being made to prevent Iran from acquiring the bomb could scarcely be starker.
The long silence about these weapons, maintained by a long-time effort of intimidation (of many inside and outside Israel) and self-censorship inspired by that intimidation, may now be building toward an explosion among nations that is analogous to the same darkening in the soul of the individual that can occur when hypocrisy is practiced. It would "be" another holocaust not avenge one.However, in December last year, the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, accidentally let slip that Israel, like "America, France and Russia", had nuclear weapons. Opposition politicians were furious. They attacked Olmert for "a lack of caution bordering on irresponsibility". But US aid continues to flow without impediment.
As the fascinating papers released last year by the National Security Archive show, the US government was aware in 1968 that Israel was developing a nuclear device (what it didn't know is that the first one had already been built by then). The contrast to the efforts now being made to prevent Iran from acquiring the bomb could scarcely be starker.
Um, hello? Does anyone really not know Israel doesn't have nuclear weapons? In fact, Israel was working with South Africa to help that country get nukes. Olmert only uttered what everyone knew, and realized that given the state of things in Washington, there was absolutely no way the US wasn't going to keep giving Israel billions of dollars in aid.
Hell, the US gives Pakistan billions, and not only does that country have nukes, but its dictator continues to make a mockery of the idea of "democracy" and has been coddling Al Qaeda and the Taliban since before 9/11.
Hell, the US gives Pakistan billions, and not only does that country have nukes, but its dictator continues to make a mockery of the idea of "democracy" and has been coddling Al Qaeda and the Taliban since before 9/11.
It is now becoming clearer where Barack Obama's greatest foreign policy challenge will lie: explosively so.
The parade of US politicians justifying Israel's bloody (and self-destructive) actions is as unanimous and nauseating as always.
Is it just me, or does it seem to anyone else, that there is practically a total news blackout on what is going on in Gaza? For the past three days, the only thing I have seen in the media are verbal bickerings. OK, some bloody ugliness, but that's it.
Comments?
Thanks,
TRL
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.