Author Topic: And we're supposed to "talk" to these folks  (Read 116055 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Henny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1075
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Palestinians under Arab pressure to meet demands
« Reply #150 on: February 24, 2007, 02:42:48 PM »
More Arab actions... for Sirs.  :)

Don't you mean more Jordan action?  More "Arab action" from the same country that's been providing some Arab actions?      8)

No, Jordan's King was just doing the talking. LOL. He is talking about other regional expectations:

"It's not just ... the international players, but also the Arab countries are also expecting the new Palestinian government to adhere to the policies that we have set out in the Quartet, and in the Arab Quartet also," King Abdullah said, referring to Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates.

The unity deal contains a vague promise to "respect" Israeli-Palestinian pacts. But it does not commit the incoming government to abiding by those pacts, nor to recognizing Israel and renouncing violence as the Quartet demanded.

King Abdullah said Abbas should be given "the mandate to start negotiations with the Israelis," and the new government should be in "full compliance with the Arab Accord as well as international commitments".

Henny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1075
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: And we're supposed to "talk" to these folks
« Reply #151 on: February 24, 2007, 02:46:54 PM »
Have Catholic attitudes changed, Henny? Perhaps superficially. In a top-down organization like the Church, where reform so often starts at the pinnacle, a new edict may be heard, dimly understood and dumbly embraced without any genuine let alone profound change of heart occurring in what is otherwise a rote reaction to an edict, not a heartfelt epiphany of the soul. True individual changes of heart, let alone massive organizational changes of ethos, may take eons to accomplish, if ever accomplished at all. For example, the Emancipation Proclamation was signed in 1863. Yet now even, has racism been banished? My overall point (and I have to go) is that virulent anti-Semitism, now most famously harbored by some Arabs, is insidious and corrosive and cannot be trusted. My advice to Israel would be, despite any welcome change in government, to proceed very cautiously, putting security first, and on the path to peace don't even bother trusting, but instead verify, verify, verify.

Domer, I do feel that things have changed, but that's the problem - on my part it's just a "feeling," and who am I to speak for the majority of Catholics (let alone just American Catholics)?

But my "feeling" is based on what I knew growing up. Like you, I spent years in Catholic school, and I distinctly remember being taught that the Jews are our friends and brothers - not that they were the enemy or evil. I always felt that this meant that what started at the top in the Vatican had made it down to the lower echelons.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Palestinians under Arab pressure to meet demands
« Reply #152 on: February 24, 2007, 03:10:59 PM »
No, Jordan's King was just doing the talking. LOL. He is talking about other regional expectations:

...The unity deal contains a vague promise to "respect" Israeli-Palestinian pacts. But it does not commit the incoming government to abiding by those pacts, nor to recognizing Israel and renouncing violence as the Quartet demanded....[/
color]


Gotta start somewhere, I guess
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Henny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1075
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Palestinians under Arab pressure to meet demands
« Reply #153 on: February 24, 2007, 03:26:50 PM »
No, Jordan's King was just doing the talking. LOL. He is talking about other regional expectations:

...The unity deal contains a vague promise to "respect" Israeli-Palestinian pacts. But it does not commit the incoming government to abiding by those pacts, nor to recognizing Israel and renouncing violence as the Quartet demanded....[/
color]


Gotta start somewhere, I guess

Sirs! Have you read the whole thing? Have you had your coffee yet this morning?????

The point is that the King of Jordan, speaking also for other Arab nations, is saying that the Unity Deal is too vague... you know, not enough.

Here, let me separate out the pertinent quotes for you from those 3 small paragraphs:

...but also the Arab countries are also expecting the new Palestinian government to adhere to the policies that we have set out in the Quartet, and in the Arab Quartet also," King Abdullah said, referring to Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates.

King Abdullah said Abbas should be given "the mandate to start negotiations with the Israelis," and the new government should be in "full compliance with the Arab Accord as well as international commitments".

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: And we're supposed to "talk" to these folks
« Reply #154 on: February 24, 2007, 04:15:14 PM »
Ball in their court.  It's unfortunate it's a court the size of the superdome, but I'll remain optimistic
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

_JS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3500
  • Salaires legers. Chars lourds.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: And we're supposed to "talk" to these folks
« Reply #155 on: February 27, 2007, 02:37:22 PM »
Just a few points I'd like to make.

Quote
The RESPONDING of Israel's military to ongoing attacks, since '48 (read; nothing preemptive or offensive outside of a strike against Iraq's nuclear facility)

The 1956 Suez War was an offensive attack by Israel, United Kingdom, and France on Egypt (and one that President Eisenhower vehemetly opposed).

The 1967 war was an attack by Israel on her neighbors. And considered one of the greatest examples of a preemptive strike in modern military history.

The Arabs invaded Israel in 1948 and 1973, Israel invaded Egypt in 1956, and attacked all her neighbors in 1967.

Two invasions by the Arabs and two by Israel. That doesn't seem as one-sided as you probably thought it was, does it?

Quote
This conversation has degenerated from the laughable to the absurd. Israel is being castigated in vile terms without any nod by JS and Henny, our stewards of Catholic sentiment, to the context in which that beleagured nation's perhaps necessary policies of control are played out. What is the rhetoric on the Palestinian side? Far worse, what are the repeated terrorist acts on the Palestinian side? In league with these refugees, how often have contiguous and otherwise surrounding Arab (read now: Muslim, including the bete noir Iran) nations actually waged war to eradicate the State of Israel? Short of an eternal kumbaya moment, perhaps only conceivable to whacked-out, righteous Catholics, this history virtually compels Israel to take a strong defensive posture toward these proven threats. And for good measure, the conceit used by the Palestinian's ("once our land") dissipates almost entirely when the facts are brought to the fore that their connection to the land was incidental, not essential (in that they could have developed the exact same culture in another place), and that the surest method of defusing the roiling conflict is to have the concerned Arab/Muslim states absorb the mass of refugees as their own, as their citizens. Viewed in that light, the Palestinians are homeless only because, figuratively, they refuse to walk down the block to their sister's capacious home, were she to offer them temporary or permanent quarter so they could once and for all relinquish victimhood and embrace productive personhood.

Well, I've answered the question on how many times there have been wars waged by the Arabs on Israel. I think that is one of the reasons I have pressed so hard in this thread Domer. Americans seem to have this false sense that Israel is a permanent victim state barely existing on the shores of the Mediteranean. Americans seem to believe that at any moment the fledgling state of Israel could be toppled by the slightest wind of Arab aggression. The Noble Israeli Defense Force therefore must defend all of Judaism against these evil, fascist, dirty, disgusting, slovenly Palestinians who might bring the entire Arab world down in a crushing blow to destroy the delicate flower of Israel.

But it isn't so. And it is apparent in your very words, which paraphrased are the equivalent of: "why don't they just move to Syria, Jordan, or Eqypt." Did you stop and think that not all Palestinians are Muslim? Did you know that many of them are Christians, Druze, and will it surprise you to learn that some of them are Jews?

Are you still going to tell them to move to Syria and "embrace productive personhood?"

I may be a "whacked-out, righteous Catholic" but in my mind the use of racism and bigotry in institutionalised forms through the Government will never breed the trust necessary to establish the peace that many claim to want both inside and outside of Israel.

It should also be noted that not all Israelis support the methods of the Israeli Government in dealing with the Palestinians.

As I've told you before Domer, I love the Jewish and Muslims as my brothers and sisters. Yet, I have no reason to support any Government that acts in such an inhumane and undemocratic way. I thoroughly dislike the actions of Robert Mugabe's government in Zimbabwe, but surely that doesn't make me a racist, does it?


I smell something burning, hope it's just my brains.
They're only dropping peppermints and daisy-chains
   So stuff my nose with garlic
   Coat my eyes with butter
   Fill my ears with silver
   Stick my legs in plaster
   Tell me lies about Vietnam.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: And we're supposed to "talk" to these folks
« Reply #156 on: February 28, 2007, 03:14:54 AM »
Just a few points I'd like to make.
Quote
The RESPONDING of Israel's military to ongoing attacks, since '48 (read; nothing preemptive or offensive outside of a strike against Iraq's nuclear facility)

The 1956 Suez War was an offensive attack by Israel, United Kingdom, and France on Egypt (and one that President Eisenhower vehemetly opposed).

Egypt closed the Suez, no?  That wasn't a provocation, in and of itself?  If I'm reading right, it was considered an illegal act by the UN.  This also led to a blocking of the Tiran Straights, Israel's primary shipping lane.  And according to wikipedia, their involvement was also again an apparent response to attacks by the Fedayeen upon their citizens.   There were apparent other economical reasons, but those were predominantly the reasons the UK & France were involved


The 1967 war was an attack by Israel on her neighbors. And considered one of the greatest examples of a preemptive strike in modern military history.

Ok, let's give you 1 for that.  Though again from the historical readings, it appears much like our action in Iraq were, minus the taking out of any Government.  It seems the escalating rhetoric and terrorist attacks grew in both '66 & into '67, and this doesn't even include Syria's attacks from the Golan heights in '67.  Egypt began massing troops near the Israeli border, while Syria was doing the same in the Golan Heights, apparently in May '67, and followed that with the closing of the Tiran Straits yet again.  King Hussein of Jordan signed a defense pact with Egypt on May 30, with Egyptian President Nasser then announcing; "The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel...to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not declarations"

Now, you tell me, what was Israel supposed to do??


The Arabs invaded Israel in 1948 and 1973, Israel invaded Egypt in 1956, and attacked all her neighbors in 1967.  Two invasions by the Arabs and two by Israel. That doesn't seem as one-sided as you probably thought it was, does it?

Actually, yes, even more so, when one actually reads up on the historical events/acts of the Arab neighbors at the time, prior to those Israeli "invasions".  Which includes Jordan    :-\

"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

_JS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3500
  • Salaires legers. Chars lourds.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: And we're supposed to "talk" to these folks
« Reply #157 on: February 28, 2007, 09:45:39 AM »
Quote
Egypt closed the Suez, no?  That wasn't a provocation, in and of itself?

Nasser nationalised the canal because he considered it to have belonged to Egypt. Was it a provocation for war with Israel? That's up to you to rationalize a foreign policy response, but you said specifically "preemptive war" and therefore I responded with the 1956 Suez Crisis. Yes, Egypt sponsored the Fedayeen who did some damage, though were mainly contained by the Israelis.

For Nasser, he considered the canal to be Egypt's property and Egypt's territorial waters. By the way, if you dislike Nasser's idea, you may be surprised to know that it worked. The Canal is still operated to this day by the Suez Canal Authority.

Quote
Now, you tell me, what was Israel supposed to do??

You asked for preemptive wars and I gave you two. I am not making judgements on who was right or who was wrong. You are making the mistake of assuming that I am some kind of apologist for the Arab states. I am not.

What I dislike is that Americans know so little of the history of the Arab-Israeli conflicts yet they so often neatly compartmentalize it into Israel = Good and Arabs = Evil. I don't know how we got to be such Manichean people, but the truth is not so neatly arranged.
I smell something burning, hope it's just my brains.
They're only dropping peppermints and daisy-chains
   So stuff my nose with garlic
   Coat my eyes with butter
   Fill my ears with silver
   Stick my legs in plaster
   Tell me lies about Vietnam.

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: And we're supposed to "talk" to these folks
« Reply #158 on: February 28, 2007, 11:56:49 AM »
By the way, if you dislike Nasser's idea, you may be surprised to know that it worked. The Canal is still operated to this day by the Suez Canal Authority.

Well, the current Suez Canal Authority is a replacement for the one that Nasser nationalized.
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

The_Professor

  • Guest
Re: And we're supposed to "talk" to these folks
« Reply #159 on: February 28, 2007, 12:16:48 PM »
Just a few points I'd like to make.

Quote
The RESPONDING of Israel's military to ongoing attacks, since '48 (read; nothing preemptive or offensive outside of a strike against Iraq's nuclear facility)

The 1956 Suez War was an offensive attack by Israel, United Kingdom, and France on Egypt (and one that President Eisenhower vehemently opposed).

The 1967 war was an attack by Israel on her neighbors. And considered one of the greatest examples of a preemptive strike in modern military history.

The Arabs invaded Israel in 1948 and 1973, Israel invaded Egypt in 1956, and attacked all her neighbors in 1967.

Two invasions by the Arabs and two by Israel. That doesn't seem as one-sided as you probably thought it was, does it?

Quote
This conversation has degenerated from the laughable to the absurd. Israel is being castigated in vile terms without any nod by JS and Henny, our stewards of Catholic sentiment, to the context in which that beleaguered nation's perhaps necessary policies of control are played out. What is the rhetoric on the Palestinian side? Far worse, what are the repeated terrorist acts on the Palestinian side? In league with these refugees, how often have contiguous and otherwise surrounding Arab (read now: Muslim, including the bete noir Iran) nations actually waged war to eradicate the State of Israel? Short of an eternal kumbaya moment, perhaps only conceivable to whacked-out, righteous Catholics, this history virtually compels Israel to take a strong defensive posture toward these proven threats. And for good measure, the conceit used by the Palestinian's ("once our land") dissipates almost entirely when the facts are brought to the fore that their connection to the land was incidental, not essential (in that they could have developed the exact same culture in another place), and that the surest method of defusing the roiling conflict is to have the concerned Arab/Muslim states absorb the mass of refugees as their own, as their citizens. Viewed in that light, the Palestinians are homeless only because, figuratively, they refuse to walk down the block to their sister's capacious home, were she to offer them temporary or permanent quarter so they could once and for all relinquish victimhood and embrace productive personhood.

Well, I've answered the question on how many times there have been wars waged by the Arabs on Israel. I think that is one of the reasons I have pressed so hard in this thread Domer. Americans seem to have this false sense that Israel is a permanent victim state barely existing on the shores of the Mediterranean. Americans seem to believe that at any moment the fledgling state of Israel could be toppled by the slightest wind of Arab aggression. The Noble Israeli Defense Force therefore must defend all of Judaism against these evil, fascist, dirty, disgusting, slovenly Palestinians who might bring the entire Arab world down in a crushing blow to destroy the delicate flower of Israel.

But it isn't so. And it is apparent in your very words, which paraphrased are the equivalent of: "why don't they just move to Syria, Jordan, or Egypt." Did you stop and think that not all Palestinians are Muslim? Did you know that many of them are Christians, Druze, and will it surprise you to learn that some of them are Jews?

Are you still going to tell them to move to Syria and "embrace productive personhood?"

I may be a "whacked-out, righteous Catholic" but in my mind the use of racism and bigotry in institutionalized forms through the Government will never breed the trust necessary to establish the peace that many claim to want both inside and outside of Israel.

It should also be noted that not all Israelis support the methods of the Israeli Government in dealing with the Palestinians.

As I've told you before Domer, I love the Jewish and Muslims as my brothers and sisters. Yet, I have no reason to support any Government that acts in such an inhumane and undemocratic way. I thoroughly dislike the actions of Robert Mugabe's government in Zimbabwe, but surely that doesn't make me a racist, does it?




Well, as one of this ill-informed Americans, I will support the establishment of Israel and the existence thereof for Scriptural reasons. None other are really necessary. That doesn't mean I support all their actions, but it is clear to me at least that God might not look favorably upon people trying to annihilate Israel. I agree with Sirs, as I usually so, give the opportunity, Israel would be erased off the map by surrounding Arab states. No way to prove this assertion, obviously. Therefore, given I believe this tenet to be valid, I support their defensive actions. In fact, you could argue they are giving neighboring Arab nations a break, since, Scripturally, they are owed territory extending into Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Jordan and so on (their greatest extent of their expansion). Their flaw is that they are growing soft as is indicated by their latest debacle in Lebanon and this will lead to Armageddon, as was foretold. So, in a way, all is cool.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: And we're supposed to "talk" to these folks
« Reply #160 on: February 28, 2007, 12:42:06 PM »
Nasser nationalised the canal because he considered it to have belonged to Egypt. Was it a provocation for war with Israel? That's up to you to rationalize a foreign policy response, but you said specifically "preemptive war" and therefore I responded with the 1956 Suez Crisis. Yes, Egypt sponsored the Fedayeen who did some damage, though were mainly contained by the Israelis.

If you note, it seems he took that actions, specifically to prevent Israel from using it.  If you noted, my reference to Isreal's attacks were largely in RESPONSE to action taken upon them.  You also don't consider the Egyptian sponsored Fedayeen attacks which preceded Israeil's "pre-emption" a reponse??
 

For Nasser, he considered the canal to be Egypt's property and Egypt's territorial waters. By the way, if you dislike Nasser's idea, you may be surprised to know that it worked. The Canal is still operated to this day by the Suez Canal Authority.

Which means it belongs solely to Egypt, and they alone can determine who can and can't go through?  In any case, UN 17 concluded that they were illegally blocking Israeli transit


You asked for preemptive wars and I gave you two. I am not making judgements on who was right or who was wrong. You are making the mistake of assuming that I am some kind of apologist for the Arab states. I am not.

Not quite.  I referenced that Isreal largely RESPONDS to attacks, & that outside of the one attack on Iraq's Nuclear facility was the only really pre-emptive action taken.  You have demonstrated 1 other, yet when you read the history, you understand precisely why they did it.  Had they not, it's likely to have been castastrophic to the tiny Israel nation, just trying to exist


What I dislike is that Americans know so little of the history of the Arab-Israeli conflicts yet they so often neatly compartmentalize it into Israel = Good and Arabs = Evil. I don't know how we got to be such Manichean people, but the truth is not so neatly arranged.

And what I dislilke are those who have concluded that those who believe in Israel's right to exist equates to Israel bad, Arabs evil.  You've prompted me to read up more on the history, and helps to reinforce my position even more.  In reality, Israel is not so good, and Arabs are not so bad.  That said, they are not South Africa, this is not some equvilant apartheid, with sourrounding armies massing on their borders pledging to rid the region of them, nor were they rounded up and exterminated in the millions.  Israel has a right to exist right where it is, and I support it's efforts to DEFEND itself, given the overt and frequent efforts to exterminate them.  Yes, it is that simple
« Last Edit: February 28, 2007, 01:08:59 PM by sirs »
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

domer

  • Guest
Re: And we're supposed to "talk" to these folks
« Reply #161 on: February 28, 2007, 01:35:14 PM »
JS pronounces with the arrogance of righteousness on the goodness and badness of the Israeli-Palestinian situation, plucking details (not always correctly served) to illustrate oppression while ignoring the larger themes such as Israel's right to exist AND its right to construct and execute a sound, if often harsh, security program to dissuade, deter and punish attacks on its territory and its citizens. The danger emanates from sworn-enemy terrorists and surrounding (not necessarily contiguous) Muslim nations either in a formal state of war against Israel or subject to strong internal or pan-Arabic (pan-Muslim) pressures to take a belligerent stance short of war but on its verge against a reviled people cast as wanton intruders. Thus balanced, we are now free to examine the questions with only a COMPREHENSIVE, OMNIBUS justice as our guide.

Incidentally, the Professor's vote for a rule of decision in this matter based exclusively on alleged Scriptural dictates is not only antithetical to what I've just said but also a poison to be drained from the process, which should relegate such a consideration to a category called "cultural impact," or something akin, but definitely not deified if for no other reason than that it is a formula for worse strife and suffering. The art to this situation for the religious, as with religious ideas in American life, is to transform them into common principles upon which men and women of drastically different views might have the chance to agree on a higher plane. (And I might add, avoiding armed conflict at least according to the root teachings of most religions, is definitely "a higher good.")
« Last Edit: February 28, 2007, 01:41:13 PM by domer »

_JS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3500
  • Salaires legers. Chars lourds.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: And we're supposed to "talk" to these folks
« Reply #162 on: February 28, 2007, 01:55:34 PM »
Quote
Their flaw is that they are growing soft as is indicated by their latest debacle in Lebanon and this will lead to Armageddon, as was foretold.

Only if you believe in one interpretation of Revelations. Hardly a sound basis of foreign policy.

Quote
If you note, it seems he took that actions, specifically to prevent Israel from using it.

You mean using an Egyptian canal and waterway? Perish the thought. Besides that was hardly the only reason, it gave Nasser a great deal of power as can be seen by France and Britain's response as nearly two-thirds of the western world's oil travelled through the canal. It was as much a battle over the last vestiges of colonialism as it was an Arab-Israeli conflict.

Quote
In any case, UN 17 concluded that they were illegally blocking Israeli transit

You do not want to get into United Nations resolutions and who broke what and when, Sirs. Besides, Nasser put his nation before the United Nations, I thought you right-wingers ate that stuff up ;)

Quote
I referenced that Isreal largely RESPONDS to attacks, & that outside of the one attack on Iraq's Nuclear facility was the only really pre-emptive action taken.

And I demonstrated that there have been four major wars between 1948 and 1973. Israel used preemptive action in two of them. The Arabs used preemptive action in two of them. Justifications and rationalizations abound and are the tools of apologists, of which I'm not one for either side.

Quote
That said, they are not South Africa, this is not some equvilant apartheid

This is apartheid. There are towns within Israel where race and religion determine who may live there. There are roads in Israel and in Palestinian territories where Palestinians are not allowed to drive. There are neighborhoods and homes destroyed all the time by Israeli armored bulldozers. There have been peaceful protesters killed, including Americans, by the Israelis.

Henrik Verwoerd, the architect of South African apartheid, once admiringly stated that: "The Jews took Israel from the Arabs after the Arabs had lived there for a thousand years. Israel, like South Africa, is an apartheid state."

Michael Ben-Yair, Attorney General of Israel from 1993 to 1996 wrote that Israel was to establish, "an apartheid regime in the occupied territories." This is the Attorney General of Israel, Sirs.

Uri Davis, a Jewish member of the PLO and a Doctor of Anthropology wrote a book titled Israel: An Apartheid State in 1987.

Quote
Israel has a right to exist right where it is, and I support it's efforts to DEFEND itself, given the overt and frequent efforts to exterminate them.  Yes, it is that simple

Defend racism and apartheid all you wish Sirs. I cannot.

In 2003 a Palestinian couple was denied the right to enter at a checkpoint east of Nablus. The husband argued vehemently with the Israeli guard as he was trying to get his pregnant wife to a hospital as the tiny impoverished village of Kafr Salem had no such medical facility. Apparently it was rare to let any vehicles through, even ambulances. The woman hunched over and was forced to give birth right there on the ground. The baby girl breathed a few times and then died. Rula and Daoud Ashtiya lost their child.

An investigation conducted by the IDF says that the couple were immediately allowed access to the ambulance and transported to the hospital. Interestingly, that version of the story was not supported by the ambulance driver, hospital midwife, or the doctor at the hospital.

Yeah. Such "investigations" and "official reports" often took place in South Africa as well.

I have no problem with Israel existing. I have a lot of problems with apartheid and treating your fellow man like dirt. This is systematic and anti-democratic action on the part of the Government of Israel. It isn't about "existing" it is about doing what is right.
I smell something burning, hope it's just my brains.
They're only dropping peppermints and daisy-chains
   So stuff my nose with garlic
   Coat my eyes with butter
   Fill my ears with silver
   Stick my legs in plaster
   Tell me lies about Vietnam.

_JS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3500
  • Salaires legers. Chars lourds.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: And we're supposed to "talk" to these folks
« Reply #163 on: February 28, 2007, 02:13:31 PM »
Quote
JS pronounces with the arrogance of righteousness on the goodness and badness of the Israeli-Palestinian situation, plucking details (not always correctly served) to illustrate oppression while ignoring the larger themes such as Israel's right to exist AND its right to construct and execute a sound, if often harsh, security program to dissuade, deter and punish attacks on its territory and its citizens. The danger emanates from sworn-enemy terrorists and surrounding (not necessarily contiguous) Muslim nations either in a formal state of war against Israel or subject to strong internal or pan-Arabic (pan-Muslim) pressures to take a belligerent stance short of war but on its verge against a reviled people cast as wanton intruders. Thus balanced, we are now free to examine the questions with only a COMPREHENSIVE, OMNIBUS justice as our guide.

I think the problem is that Israel has an identity crisis. It works very hard to present itself as a liberal western democracy, but it also defines itself as a very militaristic Jewish theocracy.

I'll quote Zbigniew Brzezinski, since you seem not to trust my thoughts on the matter Domer. I think he sums it up well: Israel is "two communities living side by side but repressively separated, with one enjoying prosperity and seizing the lands of the other, and the other living in poverty and deprivation."

Now, if this were a liberal western democracy the issue of seizing land and allowing this other community to live in poverty and deprivation would not be an issue. Purely from a economics standpoint as a Socialist or a Capitalist there would be no reason to want so many people to live such an impoverished life. It is bad economics.

From a democratic view these individuals would have property rights, elections, a strong voice. They could use the tools of Martin Luther King and make a real difference and an impact on Israeli society. Yet, they have no such recourse. As you and I both know, Israel is not such a democratic state.

So what do we have? A state based on citizen classification with all the repression that Brzezinski points out. The recriminations of removing all political and economic potential from the bottom tier of exiled citizenry can only be violence or submission to deprivation.

Have the Arab states played off of that? Sure. Is that right? Of course not. I don't apologise for Pan-Arabism (though that has been out of fashion for some time!). I certainly don't apologise for any violence made against anyone based on race, religion, or any other ridiculous notion.

On the other hand, Israeli politicians have played off of Israeli citizens fears as well. In that sense they are similar once again to the Nationalists of South Africa who often played on the fears of the white citizenry.

I think Israel can exist without apartheid policies. I don't think any nation has an excuse for apartheid. If they are necessary to exist, then one needs to examine why you are a nation at all.
I smell something burning, hope it's just my brains.
They're only dropping peppermints and daisy-chains
   So stuff my nose with garlic
   Coat my eyes with butter
   Fill my ears with silver
   Stick my legs in plaster
   Tell me lies about Vietnam.

The_Professor

  • Guest
Re: And we're supposed to "talk" to these folks
« Reply #164 on: February 28, 2007, 04:33:36 PM »
So, JS, let me see if I have your position clear, please. You believe that if they were to try to live in peace with thier neighbors while also allowing Arabs living within thier borders equal treatement in all respects ,then all would be well, namely they would not be attacked from in or out?