Another Courageous Step Forward in US Foreign Policy

der Moench · Post by **der Moench** » Sun Mar 31, 2002 7:07 pm

A pause from the topic

@Morlock; I have no opinion on the subject of Isreal, but I would offer you and yours my sincerest condolences.

VoodooDali · Post by **VoodooDali** » Mon Apr 01, 2002 1:18 am

@Morlock:
Knowing the history of Ariel Sharon's past actions, I knew that the **** was going to hit the fan when he was elected. If I were Palestinian, I would be completely outraged to see him in power. There was no justification for the Sabra-Shatila massacre, and IMO he has no right to hold political office.
I also think that all the hatred directed at Arafat is a bluff, in a way. He is not generally respected by any Palestinian I know, and is and has been pretty powerless. Sharon's death squads have been slowly eliminating the other Palestinians in positions of power, like the leader of Hamas. Just as the USA proclaims to hate Saddam Hussein yet left him in power, I think that Israel does the same thing with Arafat. They would much rather have a weak figurehead in charge of the Palestinians than someone with more political clout.
The maddening thing about the Palestinians is that they simply don't *get* how Americans think. If they wanted to garner a great deal of support here, they would find a Gandhi or Martin Luther King or Nelson Mandela amongst themselves and do sit-down demonstrations and the like. If that happened, Americans would immediately rally around them. I don't think that's likely to happen though. I also think that it's going to take more time for the Palestinians to accept the fact that Israel is there, and is going to stay there--50 years is a relatively short period of time to deal with that.
The other option is all-out war. When I lived in Central America, that happened in El Salvador and was actually helpful. The more powerful elite of El Salvador could not beat the FMLN and were forced to the bargaining table. It's a dangerous path for the Palestinians and the world, but I don't see them being left with many other choices.
The current situation is horrible, but leads nowhere for either side. Unless each side relishes the idea of becoming another Northern Ireland--which has undergone 400 years of terrorism on both sides.

Another part of the issue--I guess the moral part--that bothers me a lot is that knowing what the Jews who settled Israel went through during the Holocaust, I sort of expect them to be the more magnanimous group--to demonstrate a whole lot more sympathy for the Palestinians' plight. They've been there--they know what it is to be the underdog, to not be wanted in the country they live in, to feel homeless. I fear that in fighting a monster, they've become one.

Regarding Jerusalem, I wonder if any of the 3 religions have a complete *right* to it. It's as important to Christians as it is to Jews and Moslems. Maybe it should be a separate entity altogether, completely neutral. (Not the best analogy--but sort of like Vatican City is a separate entity within Italy.)

Ideally, I would like to see Israel become a complete democracy, not a Jewish state, where anyone could be a free and equal citizen, regardless of religion. (Being an American, freedom of religion is a big deal to me.) It is probably too late for that--but it was an option during the formation of Israel--that's why Martin Buber wrote "I wept" when they decided to make it a Jewish state.

Sojourner · Post by **Sojourner** » Mon Apr 01, 2002 1:33 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".

You forget that the U.S. is not the only one involved in this equation - the Europeans also buy a great deal of oil. The "stability" is an illusion, I fear. So long as the Mid-East in general continues to live in quasi-feudal conditions, while seeing the Western world does not, violence will continue to erupt. How to change this? The answer is simple, but difficult to implement; it begins with "We the people..."

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Mon Apr 01, 2002 2:18 am

I think it would be much easier for me to understand the Israeli view on this matter if they would not employ a apartheid-like policy against arabs.

CM · Post by CM » Mon Apr 01, 2002 3:09 am

Originally posted by Gruntboy

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.

Yeah but remember the Al-Qaeda is not just situated in Afghanistan, but all around the world. They are in Europe, the US, the middle east, the far east etc.
And a minimum of casualities for who Grunt?
The american army, so be it.
But the Afghani people had a couple of 1000's casualities due to US bombing.

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

That is the image people have in the middle east, frankly i see that as a fact.
The US was attacked at home, by Al-Qaeda.
People see that as going toe to toe with the US.
Also the US has not met any of the military objectives it established for Afghanistan yet.

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?

So you are saying this is something you believe I agree with?

Sojourner, the We the people aspect will never work as the Saudi and other Arab govts keep eliminating any dissidents.
The whole world buys oil Soj. but it is the US who actively interferes within the region with military and political will.

Quark · Post by **Quark** » Mon Apr 01, 2002 7:02 am

Don't forget - Sharon would have never been elected into office if the current troubles hadn't already started.

http://www.ucomics.com/tonyauth/viewta. ... c_comic=ta

CM · Post by CM » Mon Apr 01, 2002 8:00 am

Quark, i do agree that the intifada had a hand in electing Sharon.
But it is not only due to the Intifada, 50% of the population (i think) did not vote for sharon out of sheer frustration of the peace process.
Also what system does Israel use to elect leaders?
Majority?
First past the post?

Morlock · Post by **Morlock** » Mon Apr 01, 2002 10:41 am

The past three prime ministers were elected only because their predeceser was bad and people thought that anything would be better than the current guy.

CM · Post by CM » Mon Apr 01, 2002 10:55 am

Hey anybody know how many voted for Sharon -as in a percentage of the population.
Thanks.

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Mon Apr 01, 2002 11:43 am

Originally posted by CM
Hey anybody know how many voted for Sharon -as in a percentage of the population.
Thanks.

I read somewhere that Barak got 33%. I believe it was the smallest turn out of voters as well..(67%)

CM · Post by CM » Mon Apr 01, 2002 11:49 am

Ok Thanks.

Morlock · Post by **Morlock** » Mon Apr 01, 2002 11:55 am

I could probably find a less vague answer for you.

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Mon Apr 01, 2002 12:00 pm

Originally posted by Morlock
I could probably find a less vague answer for you.

Do it then!

Count your self lucky I don't flame for your smart ass remark.

CM · Post by CM » Mon Apr 01, 2002 12:02 pm

Originally posted by Morlock
I could probably find a less vague answer for you.

Yeah but then you wouldn't be weasel, or be trying to highlight the positive aspect to the question.
I would be guessing that 40% or more voted for Sharon from Weasels figure, and that is alarming.

Gruntboy · Post by **Gruntboy** » Mon Apr 01, 2002 12:03 pm

I don't see anything vague about Weasel's response. 33% of 67% seems like a farily concrete response.

Source: Weasel. Is that better?

CM · Post by CM » Mon Apr 01, 2002 12:06 pm

And before this gets out ofhand.
I found the figure.
Here it is:

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/israeli.elections/

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Mon Apr 01, 2002 12:16 pm

Originally posted by CM
And before this gets out ofhand.
I found the figure.
Here it is:

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/israeli.elections/

Since I was off by 4 whole % last time and this is too vague for some people..

Barak also failed to mobilize large numbers of his core voters -- Arab Israelis and Russian immigrants -- a fact reflected in the 62 percent turnout nationally.

Link to story