Geo-Politics

[horns666]

Marco Polo invented sherbert!

[SeventhSon]

If traitor's not the right word for the Arabs who fled expecting Israel's imminent destruction way back in 1948, then enemy is certainly the right word. They left, depriving the new state of their support, and hoping they'd go back soon over the bodies of dead Jews to claim the lands of the dead as well as their own.

In the hawaii example would you think it's reasonable for hawaiians to come to the defense of a japanese government declared by the un? as much skepticism as you harbor against the un, why is it reasonable for the arabs to have accepted a un resolution on the creation of an israeli state, especially in the face of universal arab objection at the time? you try to paint this situation into an overly simplistic one of an established country and its citizens. and define the fleeing arabs relative to that simplistic context, but the situation was anything but. but i understand that it's convenient to consider arab non-loyalty to a 1 day old country as a black and white issue with no political subtleties or nuances.

i agree that the arabs can be considered enemies. just like during the us civil war, decorated officers of the united states military--who left the country to which they swore allegiance to depriving their motherland of their support against the confederacy--could be considered the enemy.

but remember what allowed the u.s. to prosper after the civil war was the treatment of the south and all that took up arms against the union after they were defeated.

It's legitimate to make war on your enemy, whether your country is one day or 5,000 years old, especially if he started, participated in, or supports war against your nation. International law even recognizes the right of conquest - or did until recent years. Who knows what the UN has decreed in its recent money-making schemes?

Good. let's recognize the rise of the israeli state as an example of the more powerful/influential conquering a weaker foe. No argument from me. Just don't try to sanctify the act by myopically treating this one un decision (out of many more that you decry) as sacrosanct. Or justify it in arrears by expressing subjective opinions on the jews being culturally more worthy than the arabs. Which is basically a veiled form of racism if you ask me.

Don't get me wrong. I don't judge the jews negatively for fulfilling their manifest destiny any more than i judge our forefathers for fulfulling their manifest destiny here in america. but i would probably not agree with any argument that the tragedy that befell the conquered (in our case the native americans) were somehow made morally/ethically more justified because of subjective notions of cultural superiority. and that it's somehow beyond the pale for these disenfrachised cultures to harbor anger at their conquerers. or that they would continue to harbor anger given their continued disenfranchised status.

[lerxstcat]

My belief is that the UN of 1948, being new, was probably more honorable and less corrupt and venal than the UN of today that was in bed with Saddam to circumvent its own sanctions. Israel of the Bible was the homeland of the Jews thousands of years ago and it was fair to give them a chance to restore their ancestral and holy land to them. They were willing to share; the Arabs were not, and attacked them. The Israelis kicked their asses and took their land - but gave it back.

Both sides have at times committed violence that seemed excessive, but the preponderance of such violence is by the Arabs and Muslims. If they'd stop their violence, there would be peace. Israel may not be innocent, but it is in the right.

[jjw]

Marco Polo invented sherbert!

i thought he invented polos!the mint with a hole in it

[fett]

i thought he invented polos!the mint with a hole in it

That was Ralph Lauren. By, the way, why is Israel blowing up a lot of Lebanon? It's like: " My neighbor has termites!!! I know what I will do, I'll burn down his house. That way they won't dare come to my house." Where's the Orkin Man went you need him?

[lerxstcat]

More like "my neighbor has termites and HE won't call Orkin, so I'm going medievally Orkin on his ass!"

[SeventhSon]

My belief is that the UN of 1948, being new, was probably more honorable and less corrupt and venal than the UN of today that was in bed with Saddam to circumvent its own sanctions. Israel of the Bible was the homeland of the Jews thousands of years ago and it was fair to give them a chance to restore their ancestral and holy land to them. They were willing to share; the Arabs were not, and attacked them. The Israelis kicked their asses and took their land - but gave it back.

"fair" is really dependent on whose point of view you take, no?

what you say about israel of the bible is equally true to christians and muslims who share the same old testament. in fact christians and muslims have used similar reasoning to attempt to displace each other during the crusades.

probably what's closer to the truth is what mbreinin said, that the israeli state was created by the un as appeasement of european guilt over the holocaust. a worthy gesture no doubt. but nonetheless a wholly unpopular gesture from the arabs point of view. nonetheless israel was able to enforce this decision with its military superiority.

Both sides have at times committed violence that seemed excessive, but the preponderance of such violence is by the Arabs and Muslims.

interesting. would this be since 1948? what statistics would you use to support that assertion? non-combatant casualties? i'm all ears.

If they'd stop their violence, there would be peace.

yea, i'm sure it's just that simple.

Israel may not be innocent, but it is in the right.

unfortunately this sounds like an excuse to maintain the status quo than an earnest attempt to solve the current problem, no?

[lerxstcat]

Rather than parse it all out, the simple fact is that Israel DOES have the military might to solve the problem, and DOES have the US behind it. Frankly, at this point I favor Israel annihilating the opposition to the point that the Palestinians get the idea that further resistance means extinction. The way of the world always has been, and always will be, that the strong rule. It's stupid to try and deny this; it's human nature.

This could be for the "Palestinians" and Hezbollah what the Third Punic War was for Carthage. I hope this will be the case. It's time to crush them, and Iran.

[MBreinin]

Rather than parse it all out, the simple fact is that Israel DOES have the military might to solve the problem, and DOES have the US behind it. Frankly, at this point I favor Israel annihilating the opposition to the point that the Palestinians get the idea that further resistance means extinction. The way of the world always has been, and always will be, that the strong rule. It's stupid to try and deny this; it's human nature.

This could be for the "Palestinians" and Hezbollah what the Third Punic War was for Carthage. I hope this will be the case. It's time to crush them, and Iran.

I have always maintained a similar position. I truly think that Israel would annihilate their opponents but for two very glaring obstacles:

1. Israel was created in the wake of the Holocaust. It would be beyond the pale for Israel to conduct their own version of the Holocaust and purge their lands of all arab opposition;

2. Information just travels too quickly and too freely for Israel to eradicate the Palestinians.

I also feel that if Israel had the luxury of a crystal ball, they would have followed this path in the 1950s, they would have exterminated the Palestinians. However, I also feel that if our founding fathers had possessed the same crystal ball we would have a very different country today as well.

There will be no dipliomatic solution to this problem, ever. Eventually it will come to total war...and one side's ability to wage future war will be removed permanently.

Mike

[charvelguy]

"I also feel that if Israel had the luxury of a crystal ball, they would have followed this path in the 1950s, they would have exterminated the Palestinians. However, I also feel that if our founding fathers had possessed the same crystal ball we would have a very different country today as well."

Does this not contradict itself with #1? (not to mention the Torah?)
A certain Austrian tried to have a crystal ball...he also tried extermination.. didn't work out so well.

..and Rich.. if the strong are more fit to survive and that is the rule of life, human nature and the world.. let's take away the heart meds and replace it with a lifetime supply of White Castle.

..now about this UN outpost thing.. I cannot believe Israel freaking did this.

[jjw]

That was Ralph Lauren. By, the way, why is Israel blowing up a lot of Lebanon? It's like: " My neighbor has termites!!! I know what I will do, I'll burn down his house. That way they won't dare come to my house." Where's the Orkin Man went you need him?

because there been allowed too?myself i would beat the shit out of the bullys,enough is enough

i love how Iran is being spun into this by one right wing(scum-spit)paper here (The Sun)they say Iran is a warmonger!!lol

nether mind(group hug allround)

[MBreinin]

"I also feel that if Israel had the luxury of a crystal ball, they would have followed this path in the 1950s, they would have exterminated the Palestinians. However, I also feel that if our founding fathers had possessed the same crystal ball we would have a very different country today as well."

Does this not contradict itself with #1? (not to mention the Torah?)
A certain Austrian tried to have a crystal ball...he also tried extermination.. didn't work out so well.

..and Rich.. if the strong are more fit to survive and that is the rule of life, human nature and the world.. let's take away the heart meds and replace it with a lifetime supply of White Castle.

..now about this UN outpost thing.. I cannot believe Israel freaking did this.

Well, yes..of course it is a contradiction. My point was really more that in the 1950s' the political climate and the "larger" aspect of the world would have been more conducive to this type of behavior...I am not supporting it, per se.

The Hitler analogy is specious at best. Unlike the Palestinians and the larger Arab world, the Jews were not the enemies of Germany and Europe..they were citizens who contributed much to society..but Hitler needed a scapegoat, like so many have used the Jews for over history.

Mike

[SeventhSon]

finally, the irony bell rings (mbreinin's valid points notwithstanding).

[fett]

The big confab in Italy was a bust. The Prime Minister of Iraq addressed Congress and some didn't attend. A UN Observation site was blown to bits. The rockets now have longer ranges. Israel is blowing up banks. The US is sitting on their hands. There will be no diplomatic solution as long as there are two sides so far apart that they are dealing with their hearts instead of their minds. It doesn't matter anymore who crossed the line or why. There is a fundamental breakdown of governments all the way around. Can the UN do anything? The real downside of all this is that the US has lost all credibility in the Middle-East. If there ever was a time for them to throw off the yoke of the west, this is it. And that's what's the real danger.

[MBreinin]

Can the UN do anything?

Apprently all they are good at is getting their nose bloodied. Talk about a paper tiger.

Mike