[JJ]

Zipperfish wrote:

Most of my wrath is aimed at the UN, who somehow thought it was a bright idea to carve out a state in the middle of Arab land. I used think of the UN as somewhat well-meaning but feckless. Now I see them as a destabilizing force almost everywhere they go.

I used to be much more pro-Israel than I am now. I used to be a member of the pro-Israel club at school, and I heard and memorized all the various pre-packaged talking points that pro-Israel people are supposed to use to defend everything Israel has ever done, ever.

And I still think Israel is morally superior to those countries and groups that attack it, and the Israeli military and leadership exercise a great deal of ethical restraint in what they do, at least by the standards of their enemies.

However, like Zipperfish said, it's very hard to escape the idea that at the end of the day Israel was simply a bad idea, in a unemotional, practical, utilitarian sense. Israel is not a safe country for Jews to live in, let alone the safest, as it was intended to be. And that now, a great deal of people are suffering, especially the Israelis themselves, for this bad idea which they find themselves trapped in.

As I was trying to illustrate in my cartoon, I think part of the problem with modern Israel is that the politicians in that country have more or less resigned themselves to the idea of a perpetual war, which they now manage and exploit for political purposes. There is no real way to avoid more war, as I see it, since apparently anything Israel does, or can do, simply leads to more violence.

If Israel was trying to seriously honour Zionism, it would have never surrendered the Gaza territory in the first place, nor recognized the authority of the Palestinians in any form. It would have just continued to crush and drive them out by any means necessary, until Israel could truly be said to be the pure, idealized Jewish utopia it was intended to be. Of course this goal is impossible, as the early Israeli leaders quickly figured out. The more aggressive Israel is in building itself up, the more aggressively Palestinians and other Arab countries are in resisting. There is no returning to hardcore Zionism, it would just turn the whole region into an even more vicious bloodbath than it is now.

So the alternative becomes concessions, and the goal of the two-state solution. But this doesn't seem to be working either, because clearly the Palestinian leadership is so divided and chaotic that they cannot even effectively manage their own interim government, let alone an actual state. Plus, as the Gaza coup shows, the moderate forces are hardly in firm control, which of course leads people to ask the question as to whether or not the proposed Palestinian state would just wind up run by a bunch of uncompromising anti-Semites like Hamas, which would really solve absolutely nothing if the goal is supposed to be "two nations peacefully living side-by-side."

So you can chase either phantom, or you can just muddle through the status quo, in which people are constantly dying and nothing of substance ever gets accomplished.

Time does not appear to be on Israel's side, however. With the low Jewish birthrate compared to the high Palestinian one, it seems possible that the two state solution will fizzle, and Israel will eventually just become an Arab-majority state and the Jews will resign themselves to this fate, and accept that the dream of Israel is gone.

It's an ugly metaphor to make, and I don't like to imply a moral equivalency, but I often see Israel as a bit like the white government of South Africa. The whites had established a very prosperous, dynamic, modern society that they were very eager to show off and defend. And they declared that they simply wanted to survive, and protect what they had made, and live in a nation for themselves, which their founders had fought hard for. But the underlying premise of their country was so fundamentally unworkable at a base level, the whole episode could only end in failure. And it did, first by concession from the white leadership to the blacks, then by an effective abandonment of the entire project.

I don't know what advice I'd give.

[Psudo]

Zipperfish wrote:

Let's be clear: if the US wants Alberta, it merely has to come up here and take it. I doubt that Canada would be able to amount much in the way of a resistance.

I was thinking of treaties rather than full-on military force. Sure, wars tend to lead to treaties (unless one side is utterly obliterated), but there are other reasons to form treaties as well. Imagine if Washington wanted to move to Canada and Alberta wanted to come to the USA. Canada and the USA might be willing to form some kind of treaty to that effect if the public support was strong enough, and that public support could reasonably be swayed by lots of one nation's nationals living in the other's offered areas. People might even move to one place or the other in anticipation of the negotiations to sway them one way or the other.

Exchange of sovereignty is not exclusively the domain of military conquest.

Zipperfish wrote:

Psudo wrote:

Buying up land is a perfectly legal and reasonable way to influence that exchange of sovereignty. It's certainly a better option than continuing violence.

A better option than continuing violence? It didn't really turn out that way, did it? Since we've had more or less continuing violence ever since.

They're not mutually exclusive, but certainly the one is preferable to the other. Imagine if neither side had resorted to violence. The situation may have been resolved by two competing efforts to buy up all the land. Inflating real estate prices are certainly a preferable consequence than bodies in the streets.


I don't think it's ever going to happen, but the closest thing to a happy ending that I can imagine for the area is mutual possession of one nation. If the Israelis and the Palestinians both looked at a nation with approximately those borders as their own national homeland in which they held real, de joure and de facto political power over their own lives, they would be nothing more than partisan political parties operating in the same system instead of the opposing armies of an endless war. I don't understand why that is undesirable to either side, but I do see that it is undesirable to both.

[Zipperfish]

Psudo wrote:

I don't think it's ever going to happen, but the closest thing to a happy ending that I can imagine for the area is mutual possession of one nation. If the Israelis and the Palestinians both looked at a nation with approximately those borders as their own national homeland in which they held real, de joure and de facto political power over their own lives, they would be nothing more than partisan political parties operating in the same system instead of the opposing armies of an endless war. I don't understand why that is undesirable to either side, but I do see that it is undesirable to both.

Well, the IRA managed to sort their business out, and folks told me that one went back 800 years or something. On the other hand, it would suit certain Biblical revelations if this little tiff around Bethlehem drew the world to Armageddon.

[Psudo]

Heh, as much as I like the gospel, I think I prefer Peace on Earth parts to Armageddon and Judgment Day.

[Chautauquan]

Well, JJ, I think that the two state solution is actually a more viable (though, in my opinion, more dangerous) than my personal opinion, which has as much chance of success as the economic "stimulus" packages presented before the American Congress. I think that the best option, which ends up with the fewest dead bodies and refugees, is the integration option. It will never happen, but I think that enfranchising the Palestinian Arabs would do much to stabilize and encourage growth in the area. Imagine them on the same side, without a war? That much energy? It would be an economic and political Juggernaut. But, again, it's pretty much a pipe dream. *sigh*

[DerbyX]

Psudo wrote:

If that fact doesn't change New York's borders, why should it's symbolic parallel change Israel's?

US opinion doesn't change the fact that Castro nationalized US interests so why does the US still dispute that fact?

If it hadn't happened over 380 years ago there would very likely be a class action suit. As it is the case can and has been made that simply land purchase does not imply ownership to the point of declaring the land a separate nation. If that were true any number of rich guys could simply declare their estates a sovereign nation, every survival group, and every religious cult. Some of them have indeed tried to do just that along with declaring themselves their own religion to boot. The US does not recognize even land properly bought and paid for under private ownership to not be US territory.

Psudo wrote:

a whole bunch of Americans bought land in Alberta, it gives more validity to the exchange of national sovereignty over Alberta in any dispute between the USA and Canada. There's no such exchange of sovereignty going on between our countries, but it would be a valid point of debate if there were. In the case of Israel/Palestine, we are inherently talking about a change of sovereignty. Britain gave it's sovereignty over the area to Israel, and war over sovereignty has continued ever since. Buying up land is a perfectly legal and reasonable way to influence that exchange of sovereignty. It's certainly a better option than continuing violence.

Actually it wouldn't no more then Canadians can buy up US land and declare it part of Canada. We got enough snowbirds down in Florida. Are you implying that we could bit by bit take ownership of enough land to declare it part of Canada?

Britain. There's a large part of the problem right there. They had no real sovereignty to begin with.

Sorry but buying up land for the purpose of changing sovereignty is not only wrong its not legal. All you would need to pull off a coup is a few corrupt officials and bankers and boom you can buy countries out from under people. Its bad enough our laws shamefully allow people to legally be swindled out of their homes when somebody else sells it pretending to be the owner.

If what you think is true and can happen then all the rich nations can simply "buy" poor nations. Thats a horrible precedent and thought.

This point alone deserves a thread because the implications on a global scale are quite enormous. Suppose China or Russia "covertly" purchased large swashes of cheap land in the desert or some rocky island off the coast. Could they then simply declare it part of their country and oh btw decided to build a military base or nuclear dump site?

Psudo wrote:

reason I'm asking is that your reasoning was unclear to me. Is it the disproportional response? Because the term "response" inherently carries with it an argument that they were not the aggressors. Is it the "Zionist" immigration and purchases themselves? Because I fail to see the crime in immigration or the purchase of real estate. If it is Britain's decision to give them the British province, you're going to have to explain how a legal decision makes criminals of those who benefit. If Israel initiated violence, you're going to have to demonstrate that.

You fail to see the crime? The point is that the people living on the land do.

I fail to see what right the US has to complain about what Castro did regarding US assets when the US itself has its own "Emminent domain" laws which do essentially that.

Like I said, my yardstick is measured by the fact I dispute a whole bevy of the actions of settlers past and present in what is now Israel. Even after the fact Israel still ended up invading and taking more territory which is the much larger of the flashpoint.

Some people make the argument that the Palestinians can/should move but those people would likely be the first taking up arms if somebody tried to kick them off their land and out of their country. Let the Israelis move. They are such good friends with the US, America can make, say, Rhode Island a sovereign Jewish state.

That would end the violence. The Jews would live in peace with no Arabs within 1000 KMs to lob rockets at them. The Palestinians get their land back and nobody has to hear from either side ever again.

Would the people living in Rhode Island be miffed at being tossed out? Why should they? They can easily move to another state.

Psudo wrote:

US has a history of taking or ceding land via treaty, though. We respect the exchange of sovereignty via treaty, and the decision to cede land or not has a lot to do with how many US citizens live there and the treatment they receive. Britain's decision to give sovereignty of their province to the Israelis is a similar contract. We, the USA, cannot disregard that treaty's validity without establishing a precedent against much of our own diplomatic history. We won't be so suicidal.

The US like Canada also has a history of disregarding treaties when they became inconvenient. They also have a history of dealing with troublesome inhabitants in such ways as giving them small pox invested blankets so referring to history in this manner is loaded with peril as you open yourself up to every past deed done as supporting evidence for either side of the argument.

Britain and the US disregard their own laws when they find them inconvenient so your statement is not proper grounds for support of Israel being able to acquire land via deals with the US and/or Britain especially since they had no true ownership.

[HyperionTheEvil]

DerbyX wrote:

The US like Canada also has a history of disregarding treaties when they became inconvenient. They also have a history of dealing with troublesome inhabitants in such ways as giving them small pox invested blankets so referring to history in this manner is loaded with peril as you open yourself up to every past deed done as supporting evidence for either side of the argument.

Britain and the US disregard their own laws when they find them inconvenient so your statement is not proper grounds for support of Israel being able to acquire land via deals with the US and/or Britain especially since they had no true ownership.

You lost me here, which is why i really cant stand either Indians, or Palestinians or Israelis crying about thier lost land. The Israel/Palestnian is probably the worst example. both sides claim it is thier land because of some mythical expreicne a few millennia ago and happliy go on killing each other because of it. That whole area is an abosolute minefield for anyone looking to get a solution. You think you have come to a solution then some other splinter group on one side or the other gains some plotical power and then charges in making the claim that the original deal was wrong because it didnt take thier concerns into account.


This kind of thing can go on forever, and the motivations behind them can be suspect.Frankly at this point i think it's going to take something catastrophic for both parties to actually come to thier senses. Another middle east war likely, and probably Iran will get involved. Israelis and Palestinians are completely joking themselves if they think were going to get involved if the rest of the Arab nations get tired of both the Israele and Palestinians and move to solve the problem themselves.


Once Iran gets nuclear weapons and demomnstrates the fact with a test the whole dynamic will likely change. Iran is a dangerously religious unstable nation with a history of accepting massive damge for their 'beliefs' and have a well know n history of wanting to destroy Israel. If they do decide to use Nukes the next problem is that nuclear weapons don't just kill Israelis but Palestinians too. The Israelis and Palestinians have a extra added special bonus to stop acting like idiots because Iran might solve all of their problems by simply turning the entire area into a smoking hole in the ground.


The whole ongoing process of them bickering like children is just that. Which is fine but I don't want the west being drawn into another middle east war because of some blind obedient support of either Israel or Palestine.

[DerbyX]

commanderkai wrote:

DerbyX wrote:

No, you just think that.

Wikipedia? Yummy. Why not look at the causes of them, instead of what probably is the more biased version that you posted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_ ... 9_analysis

Doesn't that seem more rational than having the Jews evict a population much higher and more concentrated than their own?

I'm going to make this short because some days it feels like I'm going blind staring at computer screens all day.

From your own wiki link is a lot of info showing that while Arab forces did "evacuate" people, mostly women and children, they did so under the intent to get them away from the fighting and not to settle them elsewhere.

On the other hand Jewish groups did this: (remember this is your link)

Quote:

Massacres

In his memoirs the Palestinian physician Elias Srouji wrote:
Tactics became even more brutal when the Zionists were ready to complete their occupation of the Galilee in October. By that time the Arab villagers, having seen what had happened elsewhere, had become adamant about staying put in their homes and on their lands. To frighten them away, the occupying forces started a strategy of planned massacres, which were carried out in Eilabun, Faradiyya, Safsaf, Sa'sa', and other villages. In places where this was not to their advantage for one reason or another, the army would resort to forceful expulsion. I was to wittnes some of these tactics in Rameh a month or so later.[202]
Massacres were also exploited by Jewish propaganda. For instance Nathan Krystall writes:
News of the attack on and massacre in Deir Yassin spread quickly throughout Palestine. De Reynier argued that the 'general terror' was 'astutely fostered by the Jews, with Haganah radio incessantly repeating 'Remember Deir Yassin' and loudspeaker vans broadcasting messages in Arabic such as: 'Unless you leave your homes, the fate of Deir Yassin will be your fate. [203]
According to Flapan, "from another perspective, [the Deir Yassin massacre] made perfect sense. More panic was sown among the Arab population by this operation than by anything that had happened up to then. […] While Ben-Gurion condemned the massacre in no uncertain terms, he did nothing to curb the independent actions of the Jewish underground armies."[204]

Now, sure you can go on about how both sides committed massacres but it is quite evident that Israeli forces used all conflicts to carry out an organized campaign to carve out its own nation at the expense of the people living there.

Events like this in itself are a good reason why hatred towards Israel lingers to the point where every year another boy grows up with ample reason to want to kill Israeli civilians as his own brother and sister were killed.

[DerbyX]

HyperionTheEvil wrote:

Britain and the US disregard their own laws when they find them inconvenient so your statement is not proper grounds for support of Israel being able to acquire land via deals with the US and/or Britain especially since they had no true ownership.

1) You lost me here, which is why i really cant stand either Indians, or Palestinians or Israelis crying about thier lost land. The Israel/Palestnian is probably the worst example. both sides claim it is thier land because of some mythical expreicne a few millennia ago and happliy go on killing each other because of it. That whole area is an abosolute minefield for anyone looking to get a solution. You think you have come to a solution then some other splinter group on one side or the other gains some plotical power and then charges in making the claim that the original deal was wrong because it didnt take thier concerns into account.


2) This kind of thing can go on forever, and the motivations behind them can be suspect.Frankly at this point i think it's going to take something catastrophic for both parties to actually come to thier senses. Another middle east war likely, and probably Iran will get involved. Israelis and Palestinians are completely joking themselves if they think were going to get involved if the rest of the Arab nations get tired of both the Israele and Palestinians and move to solve the problem themselves.


3) Once Iran gets nuclear weapons and demomnstrates the fact with a test the whole dynamic will likely change. Iran is a dangerously religious unstable nation with a history of accepting massive damge for their 'beliefs' and have a well know n history of wanting to destroy Israel. If they do decide to use Nukes the next problem is that nuclear weapons don't just kill Israelis but Palestinians too. The Israelis and Palestinians have a extra added special bonus to stop acting like idiots because Iran might solve all of their problems by simply turning the entire area into a smoking hole in the ground.


4) The whole ongoing process of them bickering like children is just that. Which is fine but I don't want the west being drawn into another middle east war because of some blind obedient support of either Israel or Palestine.[/quote]

I'll make this short for the same reasons as above.

1) Our Natives have a point and their land claims go back hundreds of years while the Palestinian ones are as recent as the 50s.

2) I agree. I've already posted my own thoughts to a solution.

3) Everybody thinks Iran is like that but the truth is far from it. We all thought eventually their would be nuclear war with russia too. Remember all those great post apocalypse films of the late 70s early 80s? That never happened.

I work with an Iranian and he hates his govt more then ridenrain hates the Liberals and even he says that Iran needs nuclear weapons for its own defence. He says that despite what he sees in our news, his prez actually holds less power then we think and is beholden to many groups including the hard-liners which is why he has to talk tough on Israel. He doesn't have the support of the people so unless he does talk the talk on Israel he will lose enough support that he cannot keep power. The average citizen of Iran cares little for either side in the conflict. In fact they cared little for the Afghans as well until we started accusing them of smuggling weapons to the Taliban.

He represents about as modern an Iranian as you can get though culturally muslim he is (arranged marriage, etc). Never fired a gun before in his life yet he says they need nukes for self-defence and says its a commonly held belief which is why their prez can keep pushing and pushing for it. He has the support to do it. He doesn't have the support to attack Israel unless we do something stupid like attack them.

4) I think that unless we are brokering a peace deal from people that requested our help or agreed to it we should stay the hell out of their affairs. The vast majority of the problems in that region can be traced directly to US involvement in the last 60 years or so in British colonialism the previous 100 or so.

Time to bug out and look to our own affairs.

[HyperionTheEvil]

DerbyX wrote:

I'll make this short for the same reasons as above.

1) Our Natives have a point and their land claims go back hundreds of years while the Palestinian ones are as recent as the 50s.

2) I agree. I've already posted my own thoughts to a solution.

3) Everybody thinks Iran is like that but the truth is far from it. We all thought eventually their would be nuclear war with russia too. Remember all those great post apocalypse films of the late 70s early 80s? That never happened.

I work with an Iranian and he hates his govt more then ridenrain hates the Liberals and even he says that Iran needs nuclear weapons for its own defence. He says that despite what he sees in our news, his prez actually holds less power then we think and is beholden to many groups including the hard-liners which is why he has to talk tough on Israel. He doesn't have the support of the people so unless he does talk the talk on Israel he will lose enough support that he cannot keep power. The average citizen of Iran cares little for either side in the conflict. In fact they cared little for the Afghans as well until we started accusing them of smuggling weapons to the Taliban.

He represents about as modern an Iranian as you can get though culturally muslim he is (arranged marriage, etc). Never fired a gun before in his life yet he says they need nukes for self-defence and says its a commonly held belief which is why their prez can keep pushing and pushing for it. He has the support to do it. He doesn't have the support to attack Israel unless we do something stupid like attack them.

4) I think that unless we are brokering a peace deal from people that requested our help or agreed to it we should stay the hell out of their affairs. The vast majority of the problems in that region can be traced directly to US involvement in the last 60 years or so in British colonialism the previous 100 or so.

Time to bug out and look to our own affairs.

Ill try to keep it short as well.


1.) I disagree, simply occupying a piece of ground does not imply ownership. This is the problem that the Israeli/Palestnians have in spades. They both claim the same peice of ground and have been fighting over it for ages.With the specious reasonong that because some dusty arab or jewish person might have occuiped a cave or a tent 4,000 years ago that this somehow justifies blowing the shit out of each other today

2.) An outside reality check from another middle eastern nation on both Israel and Palestinians is inevtiable unless they both smarten up.

3.) I agree that perhaps that average Iranian can be a moderate, but they don't have a moderate government. And since rational thought is in short supply when it comes to religion i think it's far more likely that the Iranian goverment will go as they usually have and take an extreme option if it makes sense to them in their worldview ( a religously narrow minded one)

4.) Staying out of the middle east is fine to me in theory. that being said Nations are nations and they will still spy , try to influence and monitor each other, asking for this to stop is akin to wishing it would never snow again, it just won't happen.I and disagree that the majority of the blame of the inflamed feeling across the entire Middle east can be laid at the hands of the US. Much as with the mess of Israel/Palestine the actors in the middle east can often use the US and the West as stalking horse for a whole variety of self interests.

Frankly the west is better dealing one to one with some of these nations, like them or not they are there and we have to deal with them. We'd like them to be more open to equal rights and perhaps that in time will change. Sadly many of them still have a skewed belief in Islam (and make no mistake all religion is bad). The problem is that Israel and Palestinians like to present themsvles as 'victims' because of some ancient claim to a land that they said 'god' gave them.

I'm not interestd in the West getting involved in the Israel/Palestine mess because esetianlly there is no value in us solving a problem that neither side in this mess actually wants solved, at least not bad enough to use a rational response to solve it. No matter what we did it woud be bad for us, we support Israel, other Arab nations get pissed at us even more, we support the Palestinians we would be accused of anti-semtisim. It's a lose-lose situation

[DerbyX]

HyperionTheEvil wrote:

1.) I disagree, simply occupying a piece of ground does not imply ownership. This is the problem that the Israeli/Palestnians have in spades. They both claim the same peice of ground and have been fighting over it for ages.With the specious reasonong that because some dusty arab or jewish person might have occuiped a cave or a tent 4,000 years ago that this somehow justifies blowing the shit out of each other today

Actually occupation by itself is enough sometimes.

Regardless we aren't talking about ancient claims even if Jews claim ancient ownership. We are talking very recent claims in the 20th century. Put it this way. Did the UK simply sit back and accept Argentinian ownership of the Falklands which they took by force and have at least a reasonable claim of ownership?

HyperionTheEvil wrote:

2.) An outside reality check from another middle eastern nation on both Israel and Palestinians is inevtiable unless they both smarten up.

Like what though? Condemnation from the outside world means little.

HyperionTheEvil wrote:

3.) I agree that perhaps that average Iranian can be a moderate, but they don't have a moderate government. And since rational thought is in short supply when it comes to religion i think it's far more likely that the Iranian goverment will go as they usually have and take an extreme option if it makes sense to them in their worldview ( a religously narrow minded one)

Hell, the same is true about the US (or at least it was) Like I said, my co-worker says that most of what old Mahmoud says only gets reported over here when its the "wipe Israel off the earth" variety and that gets said to appease the hardliners much like our politicians (well in the US anyway) pay creed to the Christian god as a lip service.

He simply doesn't have the support or willingness to launch a nuclear strike that they know would result in their destruction and destroy areas they consider sacred as well.

HyperionTheEvil wrote:

4.) Staying out of the middle east is fine to me in theory. that being said Nations are nations and they will still spy , try to influence and monitor each other, asking for this to stop is akin to wishing it would never snow again, it just won't happen.I and disagree that the majority of the blame of the inflamed feeling across the entire Middle east can be laid at the hands of the US. Much as with the mess of Israel/Palestine the actors in the middle east can often use the US and the West as stalking horse for a whole variety of self interests.

Frankly the west is better dealing one to one with some of these nations, like them or not they are there and we have to deal with them. We'd like them to be more open to equal rights and perhaps that in time will change. Sadly many of them still have a skewed belief in Islam (and make no mistake all religion is bad). The problem is that Israel and Palestinians like to present themsvles as 'victims' because of some ancient claim to a land that they said 'god' gave them.

I'm not interestd in the West getting involved in the Israel/Palestine mess because esetianlly there is no value in us solving a problem that neither side in this mess actually wants solved, at least not bad enough to use a rational response to solve it. No matter what we did it woud be bad for us, we support Israel, other Arab nations get pissed at us even more, we support the Palestinians we would be accused of anti-semtisim. It's a lose-lose situation

Experts have been saying for decades that US foreign policy is cloaked in blood. They have been the architects of their own problems be it supporting Saddam when he fought the Iranians or supporting the Afghans against the Soviets.

If it weren't for the US I doubt any of them would spare even a thought about the US and instead would likely be fighting each other in usual shiite/sunni fashion.

[Psudo]

DerbyX, you seem to have misunderstood my view. In it, the lawful purchase of land does not change the national sovereignty of that land. But if there is a change of sovereignty occurring anyway, the possession of land alters how that change occurs. It alters the fulcrum but cannot be the lever, metaphorically speaking.

I also don't understand your view. You have disputed every precedent I know of regarding national sovereignty. What, then, is the right way to determine who should have sovereignty over a given piece of land?

[HyperionTheEvil]

DerbyX wrote:

Actually occupation by itself is enough sometimes.

Regardless we aren't talking about ancient claims even if Jews claim ancient ownership. We are talking very recent claims in the 20th century. Put it this way. Did the UK simply sit back and accept Argentinian ownership of the Falklands which they took by force [i]and have at least a reasonable claim of ownership

It depends on who you talk to, much of the problem is that extremists use the claims of 'ownership' in the mythical biblical sense to make a claim of that same ownership. It boils down to what can be considered reasonable. Is it reasonable that indians can claim hundreds of thousands square kilometers of territory because of questionable oral histories, the Palestinians and Israelis do the same thing with their competing versions of who derseves what

Quote:

Like what though? Condemnation from the outside world means little.

You're correct 'condemnation' means little. The UN has condemned Israel multiple times and the Palestinians less so. The kind of reality check I'm talking about is basically an overwhelming attack upon Israel, not based upon a rational response , but because many of the countries in the middle east still cling to an irrational religious belief. Israel has been attacked before of course and they have managed to survive, they stakes with nuclear and biological weapons are much higher

Quote:

Hell, the same is true about the US (or at least it was) Like I said, my co-worker says that most of what old Mahmoud says only gets reported over here when its the "wipe Israel off the earth" variety and that gets said to appease the hardliners much like our politicians (well in the US anyway) pay creed to the Christian god as a lip service.

Granted, the largest issue at hand with the west in general is that we have a system of checks and balances and a more or less free press. The very fact that for the first time a Black man was voted in for president show that the west has the ability to change. While change can happen in the middle east it is retarded in it's growth be a mistaken devotion to a myth presented as a religion, The same problem was with GB in that he honestly believed that his god spoke to him. Fortunately there were enough people in enough positions of power to restrain what might have been a disaster.

The same cannot be said of some of the Theocracies in the middle east (and i include Israel in this). The progress to power in I would say the overwhelming majority of countries in the Middle East is one's ability to show that you have the correct 'ideology'. For Saudia Arabia it's a given that of you want access to power you must support the Royal Family and the idea of a Royalty, in Iraq you had to support Saddam, in Iran one must at least openly support the Ayatola (whoever it is now). Dissent is not only not encouraged, but in some cases actually illegal

However one may feel about the west's system of check and balances, I think it's fair to say that in the middle east that the idea is for all intents and purposes in a political/religious definition non-existent.

Quote:

Experts have been saying for decades that US foreign policy is cloaked in blood. They have been the architects of their own problems be it supporting Saddam when he fought the Iranians or supporting the Afghans against the Soviets.

If it weren't for the US I doubt any of them would spare even a thought about the US and instead would likely be fighting each other in usual shiite/sunni fashion.

Some have. other haven't. Much of it depends on what one might feel as emotion in the first place. That being said i wont deny that the west has associated with some of Humanities vilest creations. It becomes not quite so simple when looked at from a perspective of the where we want our attention and energy spent. The west initially supported Sihanouk when he was prince of Cambodia, after Cambodia became Kampuchea we supported no one really until Pol Pot was finally driven out of power by Vietnam, mainly because Vietnam is the one who threw him out. After that we supported the Khmer Rouge. And yet although we knew that Genocide was going on in then Kampuchea the world did nothing, and i do mean the world. It was accepted by the UN as a whole that even after the Khmer Rouge were driven out of Phnom Penh it was recognized the Khmer rouge as the legitimate govern of Kampuchea.



What was the solution to Kampuchea before the Vietnamese invasion, a totally repressive regime that cared not a whit about world opinion? Invasion from the west, the UN? What would be the military, Financial and social cost to those countries- presumably the west - would pay for the ending of Pol Pot's regime? And how would it have been portrayed if the west did intervene, especially just after the Vietnam war had ended?


If that is the case then the world today presents multiple cases of human suffering that could be ended by direct intervention. Arguably if some military 'force' intervened we might be able to solve these problems in the short term. It's not confined to the Israeli/Palestinian mess. Sudan, Chechnya, Zimbabwe are only a few of the places that seem to cry out for intervention. We don't because of the same reason that we should remove ourselves from the ongoing problem of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. No matter what we do, whose side we support, and if we support one side what do we stand to lose or gain from doing so. If the west have moral ambiguity both now and in the past that the countries that bordered those countries in the past and present share an equal amount the responsibility for actions they witnessed and did not take action against.


Whether we like it or not the world does have good or evil and a whole heaping dose of ambiguity and we - the west have to survive in it. There is very little real altruism in the world as of yet, and certainly not within international politics. People are like that, it's just they way we are. While it may be easy to say we should do 'better' the question becomes who are we doing better for, are these people that we are going to help in the long run help us, and if so exactly how.

Getting involved in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is the Tar-Baby of all time. Whether we acknowledge it or not we do have interests in the middle east, would it would be great if we could simply be in a reactive mood to the Religious/political landscape of that area, yes. The hard reality is that we can't, we have to decide what suits our own interests best. And our interests in this case are to stay as far away from the Israeli / Palestinian mess as possible. Until both sides actually want to come to peace, whether that is from external or internal forces in the middle east is irrelevant.


Spaulding Grey once said that Roland Joffe told him that Morality was not a movable feast. He said later that no only was it movable, it made him dizzy to watch it. While he decried that it was so, it didn't change the fact that he was right then , as it is today.

[DerbyX]

Psudo wrote:

DerbyX, you seem to have misunderstood my view. In it, the lawful purchase of land does not change the national sovereignty of that land. But if there is a change of sovereignty occurring anyway, the possession of land alters how that change occurs. It alters the fulcrum but cannot be the lever, metaphorically speaking.

I also don't understand your view. You have disputed every precedent I know of regarding national sovereignty. What, then, is the right way to determine who should have sovereignty over a given piece of land?

I did understand you weren't saying that lawful purchase of land doesn't mean a change of sovereignty but that it provided a legal precedent for it. I disagree. Simple legal purchase of land cannot be a precursor to change of sovereignty. If it was then what is to stop this from happening anywhere in the world? Whats to stop some freak like Jim Jones getting a whole bunch of religious nuts together, pooling their money and buying up cheap land somewhere then declaring themselves a sovereign nation?

Truthfully the only real precedent for change of sovereignty has been through conquest.

Its only been since our 2 countries finished "acquiring" our land that we started to take the opinion "hey, you just can't take someones land".

By what precedent did Israel come to get its land and come into being? As a matter of history that can easily be laid at the feet of the UN and/or British empire both of whom helped establish a Jewish homeland out of guilt and out of a desire to have a place that would encourage Jews to emigrate away from their lands to another. There weren't any muslim nations involved in this planning nor were the people living there consulted and the kicker is that they knew well in advance it would lead to conflict.

H-T-E is posting that occupancy doesn't equate with ownership and you seem to be posting that the legal purchase of land (and for the moment we will consider that the purchases themselves were all legal which is disputed also) can facilitate a precedent for a change or establishment of sovereignty.

What then were the legal rights of the people living there? Where and how exactly did Jews get the right or legality to establish a nation entitled to make laws that affect the native people living there.

In addition if they were right in doing that then what is wrong about others doing the same to the?

[DerbyX]

HyperionTheEvil wrote:

It depends on who you talk to, much of the problem is that extremists use the claims of 'ownership' in the mythical biblical sense to make a claim of that same ownership. It boils down to what can be considered reasonable. Is it reasonable that indians can claim hundreds of thousands square kilometers of territory because of questionable oral histories, the Palestinians and Israelis do the same thing with their competing versions of who derseves what

In regards to Israel, I think that they use that ancient religious claim BS to shore up their claim so to speak. The Palestinians involved have both an ancient claim and the reality that they have been living there for a long time. They aren't displaced Europeans who turned up after their ancestors left the region what could be 1000 years ago. The more I know about the conflict the less sympathy I have for Israel and the Europeans who turned up there regardless of whether they were fleeing the holocaust. They should have gone to Britain or America or even Canada as so many others did. They should never have helped establish Israel over the people living there.

BTW, I do think that our natives should be given some sort of accommodation in establishing their own homeland or at least given a vote on it. Making them decide to go it on their own or become part of the country would let everybody know where they sit.

HyperionTheEvil wrote:

You're correct 'condemnation' means little. The UN has condemned Israel multiple times and the Palestinians less so. The kind of reality check I'm talking about is basically an overwhelming attack upon Israel, not based upon a rational response , but because many of the countries in the middle east still cling to an irrational religious belief. Israel has been attacked before of course and they have managed to survive, they stakes with nuclear and biological weapons are much higher

I'm not sure what that would accomplish. An all out war might mean the destruction of one or both sides (if WMDs are used). Israel may have nukes but with such a small landmass and population even 1 nuke would have dire consequences as would a biological attack. The same can be said in reverse. Not to smart of Arab/Persian nations to risk a nuclear reprisal considering they put so much importance on actual geographical places like Mecca. Unlike any previous war they ever fought one nuke strike on their holy grounds means never ever being able to go there again except in full on NBC suits.

HyperionTheEvil wrote:

Granted, the largest issue at hand with the west in general is that we have a system of checks and balances and a more or less free press. The very fact that for the first time a Black man was voted in for president show that the west has the ability to change. While change can happen in the middle east it is retarded in it's growth be a mistaken devotion to a myth presented as a religion, The same problem was with GB in that he honestly believed that his god spoke to him. Fortunately there were enough people in enough positions of power to restrain what might have been a disaster.

Actually in retrospect change is happening along the same ways and time frame. We took generations to adjust to things like womens rights. Racism was (or still is) a large problem especially in the south. Black-white racism is no different the religious racism. Places like Saudi Arabia are progressing and bowing to world pressure. They just aren't moving fast enough for us but I think its like growing up and the difference of perspective from a child to an adult. Children grow up so fast to our parents but do you think you grew up too fast or were you chomping at the bit always trying to get more freedom and do the things that adults did?

They aren't going to become as modern as us in a generation. It took us more then a few to do that and even then we waged catastrophic wars that killed 10s of millions.

HyperionTheEvil wrote:

The same cannot be said of some of the Theocracies in the middle east (and i include Israel in this). The progress to power in I would say the overwhelming majority of countries in the Middle East is one's ability to show that you have the correct 'ideology'. For Saudia Arabia it's a given that of you want access to power you must support the Royal Family and the idea of a Royalty, in Iraq you had to support Saddam, in Iran one must at least openly support the Ayatola (whoever it is now). Dissent is not only not encouraged, but in some cases actually illegal

As above. Sure but the again we aren't to tolerate ourselves. We simply use a military invasion when we decide we aren't going to tolerate something. Its up to the people in these nations to decide how they want to live and if living under a religious totalitarian govt isn't so bad its worth armed insurrection or civil disobedience (ala Ghandi) then who are we to argue?

HyperionTheEvil wrote:

However one may feel about the west's system of check and balances, I think it's fair to say that in the middle east that the idea is for all intents and purposes in a political/religious definition non-existent.

Sure, but that our system and we grew up in it. They grew up in theirs and likely feel different. We are all children of our culture afteral.

HyperionTheEvil wrote:

Some have. other haven't. Much of it depends on what one might feel as emotion in the first place. That being said i wont deny that the west has associated with some of Humanities vilest creations. It becomes not quite so simple when looked at from a perspective of the where we want our attention and energy spent. The west initially supported Sihanouk when he was prince of Cambodia, after Cambodia became Kampuchea we supported no one really until Pol Pot was finally driven out of power by Vietnam, mainly because Vietnam is the one who threw him out. After that we supported the Khmer Rouge. And yet although we knew that Genocide was going on in then Kampuchea the world did nothing, and i do mean the world. It was accepted by the UN as a whole that even after the Khmer Rouge were driven out of Phnom Penh it was recognized the Khmer rouge as the legitimate govern of Kampuchea.

What was the solution to Kampuchea before the Vietnamese invasion, a totally repressive regime that cared not a whit about world opinion? Invasion from the west, the UN? What would be the military, Financial and social cost to those countries- presumably the west - would pay for the ending of Pol Pot's regime? And how would it have been portrayed if the west did intervene, especially just after the Vietnam war had ended?

What ere you trying to say with this? I said that US ME policy was soaked in blood and they were the architects of their own problems in that region and you post about them supporting one of the worst regimes in modern history? I know. I use the point that we side with bad guys all the time so its hypocritical of us to take exception to people like the Taliban.

HyperionTheEvil wrote:

If that is the case then the world today presents multiple cases of human suffering that could be ended by direct intervention. Arguably if some military 'force' intervened we might be able to solve these problems in the short term. It's not confined to the Israeli/Palestinian mess. Sudan, Chechnya, Zimbabwe are only a few of the places that seem to cry out for intervention. We don't because of the same reason that we should remove ourselves from the ongoing problem of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. No matter what we do, whose side we support, and if we support one side what do we stand to lose or gain from doing so. If the west have moral ambiguity both now and in the past that the countries that bordered those countries in the past and present share an equal amount the responsibility for actions they witnessed and did not take action against.

As always though that simply assuming a quick victory followed by ample support. So far history has shown the opposite. It certainly did in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan where the only way support was/is maintained is by turning a blind eye to all the bad things our allies are doing while condemning the same actions in our enemy.

HyperionTheEvil wrote:

Whether we like it or not the world does have good or evil and a whole heaping dose of ambiguity and we - the west have to survive in it. There is very little real altruism in the world as of yet, and certainly not within international politics. People are like that, it's just they way we are. While it may be easy to say we should do 'better' the question becomes who are we doing better for, are these people that we are going to help in the long run help us, and if so exactly how.

Are we still talking about Israel/Palestine or did I change the channel? Seriously though I agree with the whole idea that we are helping others as long as we are getting something in return.

HyperionTheEvil wrote:

Getting involved in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is the Tar-Baby of all time. Whether we acknowledge it or not we do have interests in the middle east, would it would be great if we could simply be in a reactive mood to the Religious/political landscape of that area, yes. The hard reality is that we can't, we have to decide what suits our own interests best. And our interests in this case are to stay as far away from the Israeli / Palestinian mess as possible. Until both sides actually want to come to peace, whether that is from external or internal forces in the middle east is irrelevant.


Spaulding Grey once said that Roland Joffe told him that Morality was not a movable feast. He said later that no only was it movable, it made him dizzy to watch it. While he decried that it was so, it didn't change the fact that he was right then , as it is today.

Never heard the term tar-baby before in that context so I'll assume it means "cluster fuck".

It might be. Personally I see it as a perfect example of an area Canada can put its money where its mouth is and become a true world player on our own. Negotiate with both sides to get them to agree to a peacekeeping force of, say our entire troop complement in the Stan. Use Canadian nationals of both Palestinian and Israeli/Jewish heritage to act as reps with the local populace. Provide security and training and help build infrastructure.

A golden opportunity to do something on our own without flying under the shadow of the US.