Another Courageous Step Forward in US Foreign Policy

CM · Post by CM » Fri Mar 29, 2002 4:12 pm

Frogus, i wouldn't go and say they are stealing the land.
I think the settlements are morally and legally wrong.
But the people of israel have a right to the land.
1 state for both would not be possible.
But the 1967 boundaries are good.
100% of the West Bank and Gaza go to the Palestinian the rest to the Jews.

Nightmare · Post by **Nightmare** » Fri Mar 29, 2002 5:01 pm

Originally posted by McBane
Are you kidding me??? I usually don't get involved in these discussions, but I am soo tired of Bush's stance. It's embarrassing. Can the current administration once, just once, act as if there are 2 sides?.

Bush is too much of a fool to do that. His foreign policies are laughable, and with his understanding of international economics, he will probably create an extremely bad ressession.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Fri Mar 29, 2002 6:28 pm

Re: Re: Another Courageous Step Forward in US Foreign Policy

Originally posted by Gaxx_Firkraag

Bush is too much of <snip>

Come on people - watch the language please

Tamerlane · Post by **Tamerlane** » Sat Mar 30, 2002 12:36 am

Originally posted by VoodooDali
Personally, I'm sick of this whole mess, and what I would do is immediately withdraw US financial aid to Israel until they do what we say. We support them to the tune of 6 billion dollars per year.

The sad thing with your statement is that if you remove the US financial aid, ie military equipment etc. Israel would simply find another market. Just look at Russia, cash strapped and desperate to improve their military reputation abroad. They have already begun funding the Indian government with tanks etc, last time I heard. They also have a healthy Jewish population, and would love to get into the Middle-East market. Different supplier same problems basically.

I would say the US is in there for the long run, a direct result of being the most powerful country in the world.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sat Mar 30, 2002 1:03 am

The US will never remove that Israeli aid, because no national politician has the audacity to challenge the Israeli lobby and the potentially huge number of voters and money they control. This completely nullifies all attempts at US mediation--not that Dubyah hasn't further hurt matters but buying into whatever rhetoric Sharon throws out.

The other problem, the real, underlying problem in the MidEast, is one of a large, underprivleged class that lacks education, health resources, jobs, and any kind of dialog with the ruling class. The MidEast feudal system is far more blatant than our own, and the poverty generally much worse; as a result, it fuels fundamentalism, which is simply despair looking backwards to a non-existent ideal time. (Similarities to Christian and Judaic fundamentalism are not coincidental.) There's no good way to change these conditions without completely breaking up the societies themselves.

Tamerlane · Post by **Tamerlane** » Sat Mar 30, 2002 1:07 am

Originally posted by fable
The US will never remove that Israeli aid, because no national politician has the audacity to challenge the Israeli lobby and the potentially huge number of voters and money they control. This completely nullifies all attempts at US mediation--not that Dubyah hasn't further hurt matters but buying into whatever rhetoric Sharon throws out.

It makes you wonder what Gore would of done, had he gotten into office.

CM · Post by CM » Sat Mar 30, 2002 2:36 am

A lot worse in my opinion, Gore is one man i would not have voted for if i was an american.

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Sat Mar 30, 2002 2:39 am

Originally posted by fable

The other problem, the real, underlying problem in the MidEast, is one of a large, underprivleged class that lacks education, health resources, jobs, and any kind of dialog with the ruling class.

(1.)ruling class

To make one's self look better and hold power..blame someone else for the problems)

"The mighty Americans force us to sell them oil"

(Money which the poor of said country will never see, plus it gives them a nice scape goat to blame....what could be better!)

What to do about it? Send in American troops? Can you imagine the uproar this would cause!

"The Imperalist Americans are invading!!" "They are going to set up puppet governments"

Stop buying oil them? And do what for oil then? Find an alternative? Can it be produced tomorrow? Can the studies showing what effect it will have on the planet be done within the next 24 hours? If not the US has now come to a stand still...while other countries around the world can still buy oil...because.

(1.) They are not a super power and the Oil Bandits will just ignore their threats.

(2.) If they stopped it would have little effect on the Oil Bandits, because they get very little oil from them anyway.

"We get very little from them, so they will not listen to us. Why make them mad at us...why even bother."

Drill in Alaska? And run the animals off?? What kind of human would you be to do something like this?

Now as for Arafat....IMHO it's time someone else in Palestinian to step forward and lead their country. As HLD said..90% wasn't good enough (This was with Barak) and you can bet your last dollar Sharon will not offer it or anything close to it. He knows in his mind he has beat them before. You will never convince him of anything else.

The only way out I see..hope Sharon loses the next election (And another Barak appears) and that someone on the Palestinian side will be brave enough to take 90% (And chance being assassinated by his own people)

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Sat Mar 30, 2002 2:45 am

LMAO

Originally posted by CM
A lot worse in my opinion, Gore is one man i would not have voted for if i was an american.

I can just imagine this...

Gore on the phone.."Hello Bill...is Hillary there? Can I speak to her? "

CM · Post by CM » Sat Mar 30, 2002 2:46 am

Weasel, the Arab leaders all deserve to be killed, and let the people vote for their own leaders, however that will never be the case as long as oil is important to the US.
It is all in the name of "Stability".

But if Arafat goes the peace prospects look worse.
The two looked at to take in the reigns are Marwan Baghwati - he heads up the Fatah movement.
He is active in all aspects of the PLO and heck the hamas and Islamic Jihad have been rumored to listen to him at points.
The other is that woman Hanan Ashwary, again she as well as Marwan are more harder and support the Intifada and unlike Arafat they will not be willing to call for their own people to stop the attacks.
Marwan lost his dad, to a Mossad agent back in the 80's.
I doubt he would be an easy person to deal with.

CM · Post by CM » Sat Mar 30, 2002 2:49 am

Re: LMAO

Originally posted by Weasel

I can just imagine this...

Gore on the phone.."Hello Bill...is Hillary there? Can I speak to her? "

Ouch Ouch Ouch!! But Funny!

Actually most muslims in the US and around the world saw Gore as being too close to the Jewish lobby to do anything effective in the White House for the Palestinian people, that is why a majority for Bush.

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Sat Mar 30, 2002 3:01 am

Originally posted by CM
Weasel, the Arab leaders all deserve to be killed, and let the people vote for their own leaders, however that will never be the case as long as oil is important to the US.
It is all in the name of "Stability".

But if Arafat goes the peace prospects look worse.

Stability. (The reason Iraq still has Saddam) (The reason Saudi will still rule the way they do) And your right...as long as Middle-East oil is important to the US, stability will be number one on the list.

(Arafat)

If this be the case..I see only more bloodshed.

CM · Post by CM » Sat Mar 30, 2002 3:06 am

Originally posted by Weasel

Stability. (The reason Iraq still has Saddam) (The reason Saudi will still rule the way they do) And your right...as long as Middle-East oil is important to the US, stability will be number one on the list.

(Arafat)

If this be the case..I see only more bloodshed.

In both cases the weak and poor suffer the most.
The Saudi royal family can still drive around in 7 mercs, or Saddam can still feed his men till they throw up or the real top echelon of the PLO can live in absolute security.

It is the poor comman on the street that has to deal with all this bloody ****.

Gruntboy · Post by **Gruntboy** » Sat Mar 30, 2002 5:20 am

Now Al-Qaeda will be seen as the only thing that will go toe to toe with the US and it has the capabilities of doing so.

Hmm. I seem to remember the US accomplishing in Afganistan in 2 months what the USSR failed to do in 10 years, with a minimum of casualties.

Go toe-to-toe with the US and you get annihilated. Not going toe-to-toe seems emminently more sensible to me.

Yes, the average joe man (and woman and child) in the street had to deal with being rammed into a skyscraper and having flaming jet fuel poured on them.

Aren't there better ways of expressing ones sick fantasies?

fable · Post by **fable** » Sat Mar 30, 2002 9:30 am

(1.)ruling classTo make one's self look better and hold power..blame someone else for the problems)

Yeah, but @Weasel, we're talking grinding-into-the-dirt poverty. No hospitals. No sanitation. No schools. Therefore, no jobs. No income. Frequently, no food. Two dozen or more people living in two rooms. Where do you think these people turn for help, if the ruling/upper class elite takes all the revenues from the oil fields for themselves?

They go to the makeshift hospitals, shelters, and food banks set up by the fundamentalists, using international charity funds. Charity is one of the basics of Islamic religious law.

This is the power of the fundamentalists. If a kid with 6 younger sisters and brothers and one dead parent discovers that a religious mission will provide food and education for them, who do you think that child will turn to, believe in, accept as a second father? It's exactly the same technique used by Christian missionaries to target and convert people in impoverished nations.

This isn't a case of a people who don't apply themselves and then blame their rulers for their own failings. This is historical stasis: it's a culture that has never escaped from medieval feudalism. No, it's not all that bad. Many people have entered the middle class in those countries. But there's a large under class whose conditions would make street people in the US look like wealthy bankers. There's no social infrastructure in place, and what the government won't supply, the fundamentalists supply.

Quark · Post by **Quark** » Sat Mar 30, 2002 9:50 am

The US support for Israel and condemnation of Arafat is bad, from a moral standpoint.

However, if you take a step back, I think that the US support of Israel is quite necessary. The Palestines have almost the entire Middle East supporting them, including the likes of Saddam Hussein and Iran.

Who does Israel have? Only the US. Everyone else in the world refuses to be anything but neutral. So, if the US takes the 'right' standpoint, and becomes a totally neutral mediator, Israel would have a tough time just surviving.

Come to think of it, this is kind of like a Druid stance I'm taking.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sat Mar 30, 2002 10:00 am

Originally posted by Quark
Who does Israel have? Only the US. Everyone else in the world efuses to be anything but neutral.

Far from it. In its early, formative years, Israel received enormous grants from many European nations. Currently, it has favored nation trading status with much of the world. It is politically supported, again, by most of the world. I don't know where you're getting that "everybody is neutral to poor Israel" stance, but when Israel was attacked in the 1960s by several Arab states, many European nations offered immediate financial and military support. Most of the world is solidly in Israel's camp, except when the Israeli's repeatedly flout the the right to self-determination of the Palestinians, and various statutes of the UN.

Morlock · Post by **Morlock** » Sun Mar 31, 2002 6:06 am

As (AFAIK) the only Israeli and pure jew in these forums, I must speak up.
Please read the whole post before responding.

1. The World Book Encyclopedia says:
"On Nov. 29, 1947, the UN general assembly agreed to divide Palestine into an Arab state and a Jewish state and to place Jeusalem under international control. The Jews in Palestine accepted this plan, but the Arabs rejected it. Fighting broke ou immediatly.
"Israel officially came into existence on May 14, 1948, under the leadership of David Ben-Gurion. On May 15, Arab armies, chiefly from Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Jordan, attacked Israel, aiming to destroy the new nation. By early 1949, Israel had defeated the Arabs and gained control of about half th land planned for the new Arab state."
(In my own words)
In May 1967- the UN removed its peace- keeping mission from Gaza and Sinai Because of demands made by Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser. Nasser then sent a large number of troops into the Sinai peninsula. He then announced the closing of the Strait of Tiran, thus blocking the Israeli port of Eilat.
Seeing this as an act of war- Israel launched an air strike on Egypt- which led to Seria and Jordan attacking Israel. Israel, in one day,almost completely destroyed the air forces of these countries,in addition to damaging an Iraqi Nuclear plant. The UN then arranged a cease fire.
Israel captured, in six days, the Golan hights from Seria, the west bank and east Jerusalem from Jordan, the Sinai peninsula and the Gaza strip from Egypt. Israel captured this in a war forced upon her- by three countries WHO WANTED TO END ITS EXISTANCE .

If you want to blame someone for starting the situation- blame Egypt, Seria and Jordan for attacking in both situations- if they hadn't- Israel wouldn't be an ocupying force, and Palestine would be a state.

I have a lot more to say, but now I'm going to watch TV- another suicide bomber just blew up a resturaunt in Haifa.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sun Mar 31, 2002 9:32 am

@Morlock--first, do you know for a fact that you're the only "pure Jew" (whatever that means; I was under the impression that Judaism, like Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, etc, was a religion) in this forum? Others may simply not have mentioned that fact.

As for the 1947 partition plan: it was not adopted by the UN Security Council, only the General Assembly. Unless I'm much mistaken, where the UN is concerned mandate resolutions adopted only by the GA have the force of recommendations. This was the case when the GA went with the UNSCOP idea.

One of the reasons the partition plan was not accepted by the Security Council was its division: 55% of Palestine going to the Jews, who (at that particular moment in history) only had 30% of the population, and a much lower percentage of the land owned in title. Nor did the UN mandate covering Palestine (which extended from the League of Nations) deal with matters of statehood or sovreignty. It's been a long while since I read the thing, but as I recall, those issues were under domestic jurisdication...for whatever that's worth.

As for the Six Days War: you're absolutely right, the Arab group of nations that attacked were not just idiots for doing so; they were also 100% in the wrong. I was glad when they got their butts kicked back then, and I'm still glad, today.

Now if we leave the claims of Palestinians and Israelis to occupy the same parcel of land to one side, we're still left with two groups of intelligent, hardworking human beings, both of whom have aspirations; are born, birth and raise their children, and die; and want the best for their own. Where does "blame" attach when dealing with three million Palestinian refugees who aren't allowed back inside the state to their homes? Who cares that the Palestinians may have had right on their side where the mandate was concerned, when an Israeli mother cradles her dead child? This isn't about the who did what in the past. This is about dealing with the now of it, IMO.

Unless I much miss my guess, when all the fighting has ceased, the side with the bigger force is still going to have to sit down and speak to the representatives of the side with the lesser arms. Either that, or the bigger guy is going to have a leaderless faction of hundreds of thousands of people to deal with, both sides living for many more years in a kind of fraternal hatred pact of endless attacks. The larger and more powerful will be able to successfully grind the smaller into a brutalized underground existence; it's been done before. It works. The smaller will linve only for the destruction of their enemies, and the removal of any sense of security from the region.

This is a lose/lose scenario, as I see it. Do you agree? Do you see any other, mutually beneficial results as being possible?

Morlock · Post by **Morlock** » Sun Mar 31, 2002 12:18 pm

Originally posted by fable
@Morlock--first, do you know for a fact that you're the only "pure Jew" (whatever that means; I was under the impression that Judaism, like Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, etc, was a religion) in this forum? Others may simply not have mentioned that fact.

First- I said AFAIK, second no one here wants to be recognized as one.

As I said, I wasn't finished.
Although I still stand by my clame that this is not Israel's creation, I certainly agree that BOTH sides are to blame for the current situation. I personaly think that you should take what you can get, not fight for what you can't- and then leave a window for the future.
I definetly agree that we should deal with the present, not the past.
I believe that this situation will not be solved in the near future.
From my understanding- the Palastinians want all of the west Bank and Gaza under their control, in addition to the right of return. I have no problem with that- except for the old city in Jerusalem. The old city is the whole point of the jewish homeland- if that is given to the Palastinians(which they have no claim to- it was not theirs before 67' and was not only theirs in the partition plan) There would literaly be civil war in Israel.
I believe a big issue in this conflict is the huge amount of former military personel on both side's governments. All of Israel's prime ministers, except for Shimon Peres, who is hated and who was never elected to anything, were army men, and also on the Palastinian side- all of the top men were leaders of groups who partakes in terrorist movements. (this is a fact- even Arafat is still the leader of the Phatah movement, which is currently the most active terrorist group) Both leaders feel violence is the way to go.

My big moral issue, is the fact that, if I was a palastinian, I would want the exact same things thar are happening now- I would dance when there was another terror attack.

About the settlements: I think creating the settlements in the Palastinian authority is a stupid move. These are selfish people, who believe they should take the bible literaly and be able to live in all the land god promised to Abraham.

I never the less think that Arafat is a terrorist swine who's only interest is to stay in power as long as possible.

Israel has not done anything unless in retaliation- it may be over reacting, but it is REacting, not acting. Arafat was confined to Ramala after the assasination of Israeli tourism minister Rehavam Ze'evi. The electricity was cut off after a suicide bombing in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. The army entered Bait Jala after Months of shooting from the vilage. There has not been a day without a shooting, suicide bomber or a car bomb. They are even getting less particular- the bombing today was of a place owned and run by an arab and his family.

This is an unending cyclewith both sides being right and wrong at the same time. There is no solution- both sides want 51%.

Please rememeber- I have a biased opinion- five of my friends have been killed, and I myself have been a witness to 2 shootings and one bombing.