The Giver revealed...

[Cliptin]

Jake, I hope you continue to participate.

i'll tell you what i think in any case. i think the US and it's citizens should look at why some Arab nations have such hatred fo the US and consider what it is that is causing it. if it's apparent that the policy is wrong, unfair, unrighteous, etc in someway to their culture, society or other, then yes, i beleive the US should adjust it's policy for two main reasons; 1) respect for rights to choose to live as they live and 2) self-defense.

To suggest that no one has an inkling of what any other nation thinks of the US is a little insulting. What is it exactly that you think diplomats do?

 

[Cliptin]

I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest that my reading of the thread is this:
Jake believes that no matter how "squashed" a country/people group might feel they are not justified in doing something on the scale of 9/11. But, that sort of incident or any incident really should be taken as a wake-up call that some people are upset with you and you should see if you can do something about it.

PS Just trying to help folks communicate.

 

[flagreen]

Yes Clipton but no wake up call was necessary. Where you unaware prior to 9-11 that the Muslim / Arab world hated us? What more evidence did we need other than to be at up on current events to know this? I was not unaware of this. And I know our government was not unaware of it. I have know this for 34 years!

What American over the age of seven alive in 1973 did not understand the cause of the Arab oil embargo? Or the Iranian hostage situation in 1979. Or the bombing of the Marine Barracks in Beirut in the 80's? Or all the plane hi-jackings, passenger jets blown up, Americans singled out to be executed, so on and so forth, these events were all pretty good tip offs that they were seriously unhappy with us.

No, we don't need a wake up call. And frankly it's insulting as you have said above to suggest that we do. These people who say such things have an agenda. It's as short and as sweet as that. Many times in this discussion with Jake I told him I understood the source of their anger, the motivation in doing the things they do. And I do, better than Jake does as a matter of fact. But I do not believe a change in our policy is the appropriate response to their rage. And he can't handle that.

I understand that the Muslim world feels they are justified in committing such acts as the WTC attack. I understand that they feel justified in intentionally targeting women and children. I understand why they feel this way and the source of their anger. And I have examined the possibility that our foreign policy is wrong. But I always come to the same conclusion. It is not wrong.

 

[flagreen]

Damn it I misspelled your name again Cliptin!

 

[Jake the Dog]

Here's is what I believe, I believe that you do in fact think the WTC attack was justified. And I believe Tony does as well. I also believe that because it is socially unacceptable, you deny to yourselves and others that you each feel this way. You each say the right words, but when you get into a discussion about the facts, or the cause of the attack, your true feelings betray you. And it comes out in the constant inconsistencies in both of your arguments regarding the subject. The problem is you just can't admit it to yourselves.

kindly get your head out of your arse and and take a deep breath for at the moment what you are saying surely stinks. you have once and for all proven yourself to be a paranoid wiseacre and an arrogant one at that. as i suspected before, regardless of what i have said, you choose to believe what you want to believe even though i plainly made it clear i think the 11/9 attacks were horrendous and unjustified. you may as well call me a liar, for that is what in effect you have done. i pity you as a person and sincerely hope IRL that you treat others with at least some more respect and face value than you have myself. your disregard of my words offends me and i no longer have any respect for you as flagreen, the giver or whoever you choose to hide behind as.

 

[Jake the Dog]

I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest that my reading of the thread is this:
Jake believes that no matter how "squashed" a country/people group might feel they are not justified in doing something on the scale of 9/11. But, that sort of incident or any incident really should be taken as a wake-up call that some people are upset with you and you should see if you can do something about it.

PS Just trying to help folks communicate.

yes that's the crux of it, thank you

 

[flagreen]

Here's is what I believe, I believe that you do in fact think the WTC attack was justified. And I believe Tony does as well. I also believe that because it is socially unacceptable, you deny to yourselves and others that you each feel this way. You each say the right words, but when you get into a discussion about the facts, or the cause of the attack, your true feelings betray you. And it comes out in the constant inconsistencies in both of your arguments regarding the subject. The problem is you just can't admit it to yourselves.

kindly get your head out of your arse and and take a deep breath for at the moment what you are saying surely stinks. you have once and for all proven yourself to be a paranoid wiseacre and an arrogant one at that. as i suspected before, regardless of what i have said, you choose to believe what you want to believe even though i plainly made it clear i think the 11/9 attacks were horrendous and unjustified. you may as well call me a liar, for that is what in effect you have done. i pity you as a person and sincerely hope IRL that you treat others with at least some more respect and face value than you have myself. your disregard of my words offends me and i no longer have any respect for you as flagreen, the giver or whoever you choose to hide behind as.

Well as you were in the process of posting this I was in the process of editing the post you quote from, though not the exact paragraph, to be far less "wise-acre".

Now Jake, let me ask you this - Care to revisit the following statement you made earlier today?

btw, is it not much easer to speak freely as you are as flagreen?

I didn't answer you then because I suspected this might turn out this way. But I think you'll agree that I was right when I explained my reasons for using a pseudonym to discuss this subject.

Despite all the animosity I have no hard feelings for you. In fact I still like you. I understand from what you have written in your post I quote above that you misunderstood me. No Jake, I am not saying that you are a liar. In fact, I'm sure that you are not. I am simply saying that we all harbor feelings which cannot admit to ourselves. Myself included. That's the long and short of it.

Now, take your own advise above and chill for a while. If you are going to get into playing games as you admittedly have, you've got expect a little bit of the shit you fling, to end up on yourself. Peace brother!

 

[Jake the Dog]

the game is lost because you chose not to play fair and without respect. it's pretty lame of you to claim i was incapable of honest self-examination, lacking in personal growth and "sad" when you are the one that went back and edited your post so it said something quite less then you intended.

unfortunately for you, you make the mistake of thinking everyone else is like you. you are so wrong. i say what i mean and i mean what i say. i don't harbor feelings i won't admit to others and certainly not myself. i am comfortable with my views and opinions and comfortable in expressing them (perhaps too much). others are like me too.

if you can't be honest with yourself how can you be honest with others?

 

[flagreen]

One last thing Jake,

For the record it was you who introduced the WTC attack into our discussion. And I quote -

the issue i had with some americans is that they could not at all accept that the arab anti-american rage might in part be a result of american foreign policy. i may or may not be correct in my belief but the point blank refusal by some americans to even consider that that could a possibilty is what got me involved in some of those discussion. i just find it frustrating to converse with people who won't consider all the possibilities of why such an event occurred. i have no personal issues with any of you and yes i can come across so i would understand if you have a problem with me.

Unless I am mistaken the event you refer to here is the WTC attack. Actually I know it is. When you get time go back and read all we have posted on this. If you still feel the same way about me so be it. But I do hope you have a change of heart.

Sincerely,
Bill

 

[flagreen]

the game is lost because you chose not to play fair and without respect. it's pretty lame of you to claim i was incapable of honest self-examination, lacking in personal growth and "sad" when you are the one that went back and edited your post so it said something quite less then you intended.

Fair enough and well said. However I removed that because It was a response to you based upon my misunderstanding of your motives in writing that which I was responding to. To correct an error on my part in other words.

unfortunately for you, you make the mistake of thinking everyone else is like you. you are so wrong. i say what i mean and i mean what i say. i don't harbor feelings i won't admit to others and certainly not myself. i am comfortable with my views and opinions and comfortable in expressing them (perhaps too much). others are like me too.

Well everyone else is human aren't they. They all have the same foibles and what not. And despite what you may think, I am indeed human as well. As for the rest, there is such a thing as the sub-conscience mind Jake. And it is in this in which we all harbor that which cannot admit to ourselves. That includes you and me and everyone else here. To not have this mean we are not human! I have no doubt that you say what you mean, and mean what you say. There is no question about that. But human beings often have conflicts between what they believe in their conscience minds and what they feel sub-conscientiously. It is not a question of whether a person is lying or not. One is not responsible for what one feels sub-conscientiously.

Note - Edited once for spelling and once for leaving a word out. It's too late in the day.

 

[Cliptin]

Yes Clipton but no wake up call was necessary. Where you unaware prior to 9-11 that the Muslim / Arab world hated us? What more evidence did we need other than to be at up on current events to know this? I was not unaware of this. And I know our government was not unaware of it. I have know this for 34 years!

What American over the age of seven alive in 1973 did not understand the cause of the Arab oil embargo? Or the Iranian hostage situation in 1979. Or the bombing of the Marine Barracks in Beirut in the 80's? Or all the plane hi-jackings, passenger jets blown up, Americans singled out to be executed, so on and so forth, these events were all pretty good tip offs that they were seriously unhappy with us.

No, we don't need a wake up call. And frankly it's insulting as you have said above to suggest that we do. These people who say such things have an agenda. It's as short and as sweet as that. Many times in this discussion with Jake I told him I understood the source of their anger, the motivation in doing the things they do. And I do, better than Jake does as a matter of fact. But I do not believe a change in our policy is the appropriate response to their rage. And he can't handle that.

I understand that the Muslim world feels they are justified in committing such acts as the WTC attack. I understand that they feel justified in intentionally targeting women and children. I understand why they feel this way and the source of their anger. And I have examined the possibility that our foreign policy is wrong. But I always come to the same conclusion. It is not wrong.

To be honest, the first terrorist incident I remember is Flight 800(?) over Scotland and I don't even remember what year it was.

I don't want to get involved in the micromanagement of foriegn diplomacy. I would never know whether I had good intel or even all available intel operating as a private citizen. I live in a republic. I elect people to do this for me.

I accept that at any point in time people/countries may be upset with the US for rational reasons and irrational reasons. Amercans in foriegn contries are kidnapped and sometimes killed on a regular basis just because they are Americans. That is par for the course. The easy targets are humanitarian workers/missionaries because they generally do not have armed escorts. And all for what? The medicine stops; and the food stops.

These kidnappers are not able to tell the difference between Americans and the US government? Perhaps the folks that are so incenced should take a moment to reflect on why the US policy is what it is, as Jake suggests.

Indeed it seems 9/11 was a wake up call. Al-Q has no avenue for diplomacy. Their demands are unreasonable and there is no available leadership to sway. To be sure, those involved would not be satisfied with peaceful resistance and diplomacy. Their objective is quite clear. Therefor they must be rooted out of the situation like the infested tooth they are.

 

[flagreen]

My understanding, though limited to news reports is that Al Qaeda has no demands at all, only a mission. Which is to remove all Western influence from Islam. And secondarily to kill Jews and Americans whenever and wherever they can. In recent times they have sought to align themselves more closely with the Palestinian cause in a similar way to that of Sadam whenever the going gets tough. It's just a way of trying to rally Arab / Muslim support. As you say, there is no way to reason with these folks. It is kill or be killed. You can't make peace with people who do not want it.

These kidnappers are not able to tell the difference between Americans and the US government? Perhaps the folks that are so incenced should take a moment to reflect on why the US policy is what it is, as Jake suggests.

That's a very good point. But the thought that they could ever be so rational as to do so seems bizarre doesn't it?

 

[jtr1962]

My understanding, though limited to news reports is that Al Qaeda has no demands at all, only a mission. Which is to remove all Western influence from Islam. And secondarily to kill Jews and Americans whenever and wherever they can.

I think their primary mission is to kill Americans and Jews. If they had some agenda beyond that, they would have made demands after they hijacked the planes. They didn't. If they had considered themselves at war with the United States they would have only chosen to hit military or government targets, not a pair of office buildings full of civilians. Again, they didn't. One can only conclude that their goal is to kill as many Americans as possible. Their current desire to acquire weapons of mass destruction only further supports that goal. These are dangerous, unreasonable fanatics who cannot be appeased. They must be terminated with extreme prejudice, and I have said as much many times.

I certainly understand the Arab rage against the United States, but nothing can justify the attacks on the WTC. On the Pentagon(or Capitol Building or The White House), yes, but on the WTC, no. This was not a military or government target by any stretch of the imagination. The only reasons they were chosen was to both maximize the damage and number of casualties, and to strike out symbolically against "evil capitalism".

As for whether a change in our foreign policy is in order, I would have to say yes, but not to appease those who attacked us, but rather to prevent others from joining their ranks. For starters, our financial support for Israel should end since their is no rationale for supporting it. If the money and weapons supply were to dry up, Israel would find out very fast that it would have to learn to live among its Arab neighbors, if for no other reason than to keep its economy going. Right now the supply of US money and arms means that it can exist in a perpetual state of martial law.

Next, we should phase out use of fossil fuels so that the US has no reason to meddle in the affairs of the Middle East. Probably the only reason we send money to Israel is to keep relative peace in the region in order to protect our oil supply. As I've mentioned numerous times, burning oil for power is bad in so many ways. It can and should be replaced with clean methods of generating power within a decade, regardless of the short term economic effect. Once that is done, any problems that arise in the region will be the fault of those who live there, and they will not be able to place blame on the United States any more. To be sure, there will still be some fanatics who will continue to do so, but their audience will grow smaller and smaller.

Third and last, I feel American businesses should not try to ram capitalism down the throats of every country in the region. This is often a greater source of problems for the locals than US foreign policy. Rightly or wrongly, many in the region do not want to see the Golden Arches among their mosques, and perhaps American businesses should only go in those places where they are welcome.

 

[Tea]

[quote="CliptinTherefor they must be rooted out of the situation like the infested tooth they are.[/quote]

Exactly. That is the first half of the solution. The second (and in the long-term more important) half, of course, is to stop eating all that sugar.

 

[flagreen]

As for whether a change in our foreign policy is in order, I would have to say yes, but not to appease those who attacked us, but rather to prevent others from joining their ranks. For starters, our financial support for Israel should end since their is no rationale for supporting it. If the money and weapons supply were to dry up, Israel would find out very fast that it would have to learn to live among its Arab neighbors, if for no other reason than to keep its economy going. Right now the supply of US money and arms means that it can exist in a perpetual state of martial law.

Although I agree with you about everything else you wrote I disagree with the above. A Majority of the Arab world still, 55 years after it's creation by UN sanction, want Israel pushed into the sea. I don't see how the Israeli's could ever "learn to live" with people who do want them to exist period. Further I am a supporter of US policy towards Israel. Including arms sales. Not for any personal reasons of my own but because I believe supporting Israel is the right thing to do.

Many folks believe that if Israel pulled out of the "occupied territories" that the violent attacks on Israel would end. But I could not disagree more with this assumption. The radical Palestinian groups in "Palestine" today are still very much committed to the total elimination of Israel. They have seized upon the "occupied territories" argument to garner world support. But they most definitely want more than Israel to pull out of the west bank. You only have to read the charters of these groups to see that they want Israel eliminated.

 

[jtr1962]

A Majority of the Arab world still, 55 years after it's creation by UN sanction, want Israel pushed into the sea. I don't see how the Israeli's could ever "learn to live" with people who do want them to exist period. Further I am a supporter of US policy towards Israel. Including arms sales. Not for any personal reasons of my own but because I believe supporting Israel is the right thing to do.

If what you are saying is true, then doesn't the continued US support of Israel create a source of instability in the region? Might not Israel be better off relocating somewhere else since it is not really wanted in that region?. Some parts of the desert in Nevada come to mind since this is similar in climate to where Israel currently exists, and there would not be masses of people right across the border ready to blow themselves up.

I personally feel that the UN had no justification for setting aside land for Israel in 1948 based solely on the ancient biblical location of Judea. This is tantamount to saying that if some group's distant ancestors lived in a region 2,000 years ago, their descendents have the right to kick the current occupants of that land out, and almost everyone can see that this is plainly wrong. The location of Israel should have been decided solely upon political and logistical factors, and I believe once those factors were taken into account, the location would have been one of the largely uninhabited areas of the United States or Canada. It was obvious following WWII that Jews would not be welcome in most of Europe, or in the USSR, or most of Africa. Therefore, the location of Israel would have had to have been in the Americas, and there would have been many suitable locations. To be sure, anti-Semitism doen exist in the United States, but it is not prevalent except among small groups, and I would rate Israel's chances for long term survival to be much better here than in it's current location.

 

[flagreen]

Well the "Nevada" idea is a very good one. But it's too late for that now. And I doubt that the Jews would have accepted this in 1948 either had it been offered. I think it's important to remember that were a sizable number of Jews already living in the Area in 1948. I am not sure that the sole reason the UN chose Palestine was for the reason you mention. I would have to research that a bit before I would agree with the statement. At any rate, the Palestinians use the same justification saying it is their ancestral homeland. So if neither's heritage is a valid reason for claiming the area as "theirs" and both peoples were in the area ( to be sure there more Arabs then Jews) prior to partitioning then what?

 

[CougTek]

Further I am a supporter of US policy towards Israel. Including arms sales. Not for any personal reasons of my own but because I believe supporting Israel is the right thing to do.

We don't often disagree Bill, but on this one, yes and radically.

The location of Israel should have been decided solely upon political and logistical factors, and I believe once those factors were taken into account, the location would have been one of the largely uninhabited areas of the United States or Canada.

Well, the Jews indeed chose a location in North America : it's called Outremont. This part of Montréal is full of it. The only thing that's missing is the suicidal terrorist Arab attack every now and then and you would swear you're in Israel when walking in Outremont.

I personally feel that the UN had no justification for setting aside land for Israel in 1948 based solely on the ancient biblical location of Judea. This is tantamount to saying that if some group's distant ancestors lived in a region 2,000 years ago, their descendents have the right to kick the current occupants of that land out, and almost everyone can see that this is plainly wrong. The location of Israel should have been decided solely upon political and logistical factors,...

I think it's important to remember that were a sizable number of Jews already living in the Area in 1948. I am not sure that the sole reason the UN chose Palestine was for the reason you mention. I would have to research that a bit before I would agree with the statement. At any rate, the Palestinians use the same justification saying it is their ancestral homeland.

A good amount of the Jews who were already in Palestine by 1948 have also been recent immigrants from the very end of the 19th century/beginning of the 20th. I don't remember the name of that movement, but it started in England around 1890. Some Jews wanted to reclaim their "God-given land" (what a mooseshit this entire belief is) and they started to organize population-move toward Palestine. UK supported them quite a bit for more or less the same reason U.S. supports them nowadays.

Now, why did UK, US and UN in general is backing the Jews in Israel? I see two reasons. First is to insure a friendly nation in the middle-East. It's a military reason. UN is principally led by US and occidental powers in general. Shortly after WWII, Occident needed a safe harbor, an access to the middle East and a spot close to USSR. What a golden opportunity for them the few millions of whining Jews left homeless by the Germans were. Give the Jews a spot the prized in exchange of a friendly access to the middle-East. And it was a politically correct decision too, as a good part of the world was full of pitty for the Jews after the horrors the Germans put them through. Two hits with one stone.

The second reason is that the UK of the early 20th century (end of industrial age) and United States of today have something in common : they are led by money. It is well known that money sticks to the Jews like flies sticks to shit. Any rich group of people can have a great deal of influence on a heavily capitalist country. Jews are one of the most powerful lobby in the United States (they were too in the UK of the early 20th century) so no wonder why they have the Americans on their way.

The biblical "rights" was, is and will always be a pretext to back up the Jews in Israel. The real motives are a lot more down-to-earth. The Americans in general wouldn't have a great deal of sympathy for the Jews if it wouldn't have been of the WWII masacre. They are not the same people, they don't share the same religion/customs/origins. The sympathy people like you (Bill) have for the Jews is mostly based on the pitty you have for what hapened to them about 50-60 years ago. IMO, it clouds your judgement on what they have become nowadays. I don't say they are an "evil nation", I simply say they are no better than any other group and they don't deserve all the attention and support your country give them.

 

[Tea]

In what way was the experience of the Jews in Europe 60 years ago different to that of the Palestinians today?

I wonder if your suggested "friendly nation in the Middle East" theory holds water, Coug. It's not a period of history I claim any expertise in (so far as I am concerned, anything post 1945 is not really "history" which is always of interest , but simply "current affairs" which is rather boring) so I don't know what the motivating factors were for the UK and its friends, but it seems unlikely - after all, the UK (and to a lesser extent the US) were on very good terms with most of the Arab world at that time: Iran (Persia) and Irak were client states barely above puppet status, the English had actual colonies of their own in Muscat and Oman, and the US had a virtual colony in Saudi Arabia. I don't think they could have had the faintest idea what their meddling was going to lead to.

(Ans: There are differernces. (a) the Palestinians fight back a lot harder, (b) the slaughter is at retail rather than wholesale level and not quite so official, (c) the Jews in 1944 had reason to hope: they had the world's most powerful nation as the enemy of their enemy (next best thing to a friend) and the world's second and fourth most powerful nations as their friends. The Palestinians of today have the world's most powerful nation as the friend of their enemy, quite possibly as their direct enemy, and no friend they can count on in the top ten most powerful nations.)

(And I bet two people out of three can't correctly identify those nations I just alluded to. I'll give a totaly worthless prize to the first correct answer.)

 

[flagreen]

My support for the Israelis is a primarily a result of the fact that following Partitioning in 1948 they have a firm legal basis for claiming the land as their own, and a legal right to exist as a nation. Yes, I know that they have expanded their borders into most of the land which was also offered to the Palestinians for their homeland, which the Palestinians rejected. But not to have done so following each of wars with the Arabs would have left Israel in a more vulnerable position among enemies who had already shown themselves to be committed to the destruction of Israel.

Secondarily it is because the Jews have been a persecuted people for most of the past 2000 years. No they are not without fault themselves when it comes to their treatment of the Palestinians. But it is hard to think of group of people who have been more ill treated throughout history than the Jews.

I'm not sure that Israel at this point would be doomed at all should the US withdraw her financial and military support from her. They are no doubt quite well aware that being dependant on the US puts them in a vulnerable position and have contingency plans should US support be withdrawn. They have also built quite an arms industry of their own now. And countries such as France and China seem willing to supply arms to anyone who can pay the price. Economically, I don't know how well they would fare. I suspect that should they lose official US financial aid, that private donations from here in the US would help to fill the void created.

Tannin I think you missed one key difference between the Jews of Europe in the 1940's and the Palestinian people of today. And that is that unlike Germany and the Jews, there is no "final solution" in place for the extermination of the Palestinian people. The motives of the "oppressor" in each case are quite different. Israel does not wish to exterminate the Palestinians, in fact a majority of the people of Israel would like to see the Palestinian problem settled so that they might live in peace with them. That's a far cry from what the Nazi's had in mind for the Jews of Europe.

 

[CougTek]

I disagree with the idea that the Jews have been the most abused people in the past 2000 years. Several small groups were just as badly ill-treated in Africa (many many years of slavery and genocides - like Hutu/Totsi stories) and in the south-east Asia (by the Khmer, who have been active well before Pol Pot). And if you think what happened to the Jews during WWIII was without comparison, you're wrong. Comparable large-scale masacres happened at least three times since (Pol Pot, Rwanda and Idi Amin Dada - I never remember how to write his name). Not to forget the inhabitants from Tibet and others shelterless like the Kurds. Jews aren't the worst, they are one among many others. Sure it's unfortunate what happened to them, but I'm tired of hearing people pity them more than others just because they are Jews.

What would have been right to say though was that the Jews have been the loudest oppressed people of the past 2000 years and probably the loudest whiners of the entire human history. We only see them in the news. I don't know how many million people died in Rwanda in 1993, but it was a lot more than the amount of people who died in Israel since 1948. But we don't hear about Rwanda anymore (or barely) and it's not even 10 years ago! But unless someone decides to live in exil in an unhabited area without a radio or T.V., there's no way you can miss the few deaths that happen in Israel. It's very sad for them, but there's no way they deserve that much attention when several other places of the world face worst situations.

We have the impression that the Jews have been so much oppressed because they are (and have always been) extremely good to put their miseries at the front page of the powerful nations. If your goal is to help the oppressed people, you should try to find a solution to the problem of the Kurds or start to give some attention to the few forgotten wars in Africa that are still going on and kill far more people than the fews puff! here and there in Israel. Alas, CNN coverage seems to determine the misery scale of a lot of people.

That said, I wouldn't change my life for the one of an average Jew in Israel, but I also know I could fall a lot lower if I would be in some other places of the world.

 

[jtr1962]

It is well known that money sticks to the Jews like flies sticks to shit. Any rich group of people can have a great deal of influence on a heavily capitalist country. Jews are one of the most powerful lobby in the United States (they were too in the UK of the early 20th century) so no wonder why they have the Americans on their way.

What would have been right to say though was that the Jews have been the loudest oppressed people of the past 2000 years and probably the loudest whiners of the entire human history.

As much as I hate to admit it in a public forum those two statements are both true in a general sense(of course they don't apply to every individual of Jewish heritage). Since my city has a very large(and vocal) Jewish population I feel that I'm an expert on this particular subject. In a nutshell, Cougtek gave the two primary reasons why Jews have been(and are) despised in much of the world, and I would say the latter reason is probably the primary cause. Other ethnic groups have prospered without rousing the ire of the general population, so I think that it is this propensity to complain about everything, no matter how minor, and to have laws passed which are self-serving, that has resulted in institutionalized anti-Semitism throughout history. Some local examples I can think of are Jews bringing up "separation of Church and state" every time someone displays a cross in a public area or a parade while at the same time Menorahs appear in similar situations. Other examples are the construction of temples smack in the middle of blocks full of private homes in my neighborhood(try to construct a church in the same location and see how far you'll get).

BTW, where I live was probably ~50% Jewish when I moved here 24 years ago, but I would say the percentage now is 20 to 25% thanks to the primarily Chinese and Korean influx. I don't really consider myself prejudiced against Jews but I breathe a sigh of relief every time a Chinese family moves in and a Jewish family moves out for the simple reason that I have had Jewish neighbors who mind my business and complain about every minor thing. I honestly can't say I've experienced the same thing with such regularity from any other group of people, and I have done my best to try to keep my negative experiences from coloring my feelings about a whole group of people. But it is difficult at times, and I find similar feelings in many others of various ethnicities that I have discussed the subject with.

I offer my apologies in advance if this post offends any Jewish members of this forum. I happen to like everyone here even if I don't always agree with them, and I hope they feel the same about me. (Thinks before hitting submit button)

 

[CougTek]

It is well known that money sticks to the Jews like flies sticks to shit. Any rich group of people can have a great deal of influence on a heavily capitalist country. Jews are one of the most powerful lobby in the United States (they were too in the UK of the early 20th century) so no wonder why they have the Americans on their way.
[...]
What would have been right to say though was that the Jews have been the loudest oppressed people of the past 2000 years and probably the loudest whiners of the entire human history.

Well, I admit I might have worded what I wanted to express in a way that is a bit crude. Oh well, I'm known for being crude anyway. Helldiver will probably find a hundred manners to call me an anti-semitist. Nevermind.

of course they don't apply to every individual of Jewish heritage

I just want to mention that I agree with the above. I don't like the way Jews act generally, but I wouldn't run after someone with a bat simply because he wears a round Kleenex on his head. I think I even heard on Discovery channel the other day that some researchers found evidence of the existence of a genuine good Jew somewhere in a remote part of the Middle-East. ;-) No seriously, I realize that no individual should be taken accountable of all the mistakes his "kind" has commited over the ages. I'll stop here before someone thinks I might be a good guy afterall.

 

[James]

so I don't know what the motivating factors were for the UK and its friends [to push for the formation of the state of Israel]

Primarily Jewish terrorism, as far as I can tell. Far be it for me to point out the irony.

 

[flagreen]

Well I would have to say that the loudest group of whiners in the last 2000 years would have to be the National Organization of Women.

I could be wrong, but I had thought the Jews were promised a homeland by the UK long before Jewish terrorism began in the late 1940's. And the terrorism they practised did not target women and children. Again, I haven't studied this so if I am mistaken please correct me.

At any rate, whining or being tight with their money certainly is not relevant as to the Palestinian / Israeli problem today. Nor is it relevant as to who has what legal claim upon the land.

 

[James]

I could be wrong, but I had thought the Jews were promised a homeland by the UK long before Jewish terrorism began in the late 1940's. And the terrorism they practised did not target women and children. Again, I haven't studied this so if I am mistaken please correct me.

You're correct that Balfour promised the Jews a homeland in 1917.

During World War I, the Zionist cause gained some degree of support from Great Britain. In a 1917 letter from British foreign secretary Lord Balfour to Jewish financier Lord Rothschild, the British government expressed a commitment to creating a Jewish homeland in Palestine. This letter is commonly known as the Balfour Declaration. Unfortunately, the British were speaking out of both sides of their mouth, simultaneously promising Arabs their freedom if they helped to defeat the Ottoman (Turkish) Empire, which at that time controlled most of the Middle East (including the modern states of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Iraq, as well as significant portions of Saudi Arabia and northern Africa). The British promised the Arabs that they would limit Jewish settlement in Palestine mere months after the Balfour Declaration expressed support for "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people."

After World War I, Palestine was assigned to the United Kingdom as a mandated territory by the League of Nations. The Palestinian Mandate initially included the lands that are now Israel and Jordan, but all lands east of the Jordan River were later placed into a separate mandate known as Transjordan (now the nation of Jordan). The document creating the Palestinian mandate incorporated the terms of the Balfour Declaration, promising the creation of a national Jewish homeland within the mandated territory. Although Arab leaders were initially willing to give Palestine to the Jews if the rest of the Arab lands in the Middle East were free, the Arabs living in Palestine vigorously opposed Jewish immigration into the territory and the idea of a Jewish homeland. It is around this time that the idea of Palestinian nationality (distinct from Arab nationality generally) first begins to appear. There were many riots in the territory, and the British came to believe that the conflicting claims were irreconcilable. In 1937, the British recommended partition of the territory.

The Holocaust brought the need for a Jewish homeland into sharp focus for both Jews and for the rest of the world. The Jews who tried to flee Nazi Germany were often turned back due to immigration limitations at the borders of every country, including the United States, Britain and Palestine. Many of those who were sent back to Germany ended up in death camps where they were systematically murdered.

The British were unable to come up with a solution that would satisfy either Arabs or Jews, so in 1947, they handed the problem to the newly-founded United Nations, which developed a partition plan dividing Palestine into Jewish and Arab portions. The plan was ratified in November 1947. The mandate expired on May 14, 1948 and British troops pulled out of Palestine. The Jews of Palestine promptly declared the creation of the State of Israel, which was recognized by several Western countries immediately.

Obviously given the source it's not terribly even-handed. Here's the story of someone's efforts to find out some more detail on what happened during this time :

http://www.mediamonitors.net/isaacmelton1.html

Chomsky has some interesting things to say too :

http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/ni/ni-contents.html

Or if you don't have time to read it all (although it's an interesting read) :

http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/ni/ni-c05-s04.html
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/ni/ni-c10-s10.html and onwards.

Here's a timeline and body count, although it is pro-Palestinian it seems correct as far as my memory of the books I have read goes.

http://www.mideastfacts.com/ziterror39_74.html

 

[flagreen]

Thanks for posting the links. I "reviewed" all of them. You know finding a source of unbiased factual information on this subject seems impossible. And there are so many facts, that to put forth all of them for review would take a very long time. I suspect though that if there were such a source, it would take an equally long time to evaluate them and it still would not be possible to arrive at a clear sense of who is right and who is wrong in this situation. In short, there does not seem to be any solution to the problem which both sides would accept as fair.

And of course what is done is done. The UN did partition Palestine and so de facto created a Jewish State. So it is too late to say "Let us reverse our decision and un-partition Palestine". I don't think there is going to be solution found in our lifetimes to solve this problem.

My problem with the Palestinians is they do not strike me as being reasonable, pragmatic people. They are seeking the impossible (the elimination of Israel) and are trying to achieve the impossible through violence.

 

[time]

My problem with the Israelis is they do not strike me as being reasonable, pragmatic people. They are seeking the impossible (the elimination of Palestine) and are trying to achieve the impossible through violence.

I agree with you Bill, although I note that the UN has now been trying to correct the error for most of the time since.

I think it boils down to: the Palestinians are 'right', but they are going about it the wrong way. Of course, that's from a detached observer's point of view. I'm certain I would think rather differently if I was either Israeli or Palestinian.

 

[Tea]

There is only one answer. The international community has to stop being such hopeless whimps. We tell Israel that it has two choices:

(a) get out of the occupied territories forever right now, and we will continue to provide financial and military support on the same scale that we do now for as long as neccessary. If they need even more military hardware to protect themselves against kids with rifles, we will give them that too. Though it's hard to see what else could possibly be needed. But if need be we will send in the US Marines, the British Navy, the French Foreign Leigon, the RCMP, the Australian F-111 fleet, and the New Zealand Prime Minister. (New Zealand doesn't have an Air Force anymore, but the sound of Ms Clarke's voice is sufficient to strip paint at 50 paces, so that's probably close enough.)

(b) don't get out of the occupied territories within a reasonable period - one week should be sufficient but we could give them a month - and we will no longer provide any aid: political, military, or financial. Further, we will use our influence with the former USSR and with China to see to it that no one else will sell them arms either. All Israeli off-shore bank accounts will be frozen, it will be illegal to send money or goods there (just as it is illegal to give money to the IRA), Israeli aircraft will not be allowed to land anywhere in the civilised world, and if the Arabs care to blow them off the face of the planet, we don't care. Indeed, if the Palestinians or their friends come to us and ask for the arms with which to recover their occupied homelands, we will consider the request sympathetically.

The entire package to be non-negotiable. Get out of the occupied territories and we help. Or stay and face oblivion at the hands of the people you oppress. No talks, no negotiations, no hand-wringing, no shuttle diplomacy - for none of these have ever worked - and no promises, for no-one will believe them. One non-negotiable offer.

Take it or leave it.

 

[flagreen]

Well that's a good idea, (a) above, and I would "vote" for that. But that would only solve the current crisis. I mean, we would only be back to where we were in '73 or '67.

We would still be left with this -

My problem with the Palestinians is they do not strike me as being reasonable, pragmatic people. They are seeking the impossible (the elimination of Israel) and are trying to achieve the impossible through violence.

Versus this -

My problem with the Israelis is they do not strike me as being reasonable, pragmatic people. They are seeking the impossible (the elimination of Palestine) and are trying to achieve the impossible through violence.

And that is a formula for further trouble if I ever saw one.

 

[Tea]

My feeling, Bill, is that the incredble intransigence and astonishing capacity for hate and violence both sides have demonstrated so far will slowly, ever so slowly, start to dissapate once it becomes absolutely clear that there is no room for manouvere; that, in terms of my proposal above, the Palestinians will never be able to push Israel into the sea, and that the Israelis will never be able to eliminate the Palestinians. Lack of tangible reward for effort will, if maintained resolutely enough, extinguish any known pattern of human behaviour. But we have to be absolutely firm.

And the real question, in this terroristic modern world, is not "can we afford to to be absolutely firm with the madmen in the Middle East for however long it takes?" - it is "can we afford not to be?"

 

[flagreen]

Well said Tea!

As time passes the peace agreement between Egypt and Israel appears more and more like a miracle. Here was Begin, the "Sharon" of his day in more ways then one, responding to Sadat's geniune desire for peace. Sadat in return for recognition of Israel's right to exist and willingness to seek peace got all the Sinai back, removal of the Isareli settlements in the Gaza, and a peace which has lasted 20 years thus far. I believe I have the facts right here but I don't please jump in and correct me.

If such a leader would come forth from the Palestinians who spoke for all the Palestinians including the PLO, Hamas, etc. and if Sharon would be as willing as Begin was who knows? But as I type that I can't help but keep thinking that the groups like Hamas would not be satisfied with this. And whatever Palestinian leader would come forth to do this would be signing his own death warrant much as Sadat did.

 

[Cliptin]

My problem with the Israelis is they do not strike me as being reasonable, pragmatic people. They are seeking the impossible (the elimination of Palestine) and are trying to achieve the impossible through violence.

#1: What evidence do you have that they seek to "eliminate" anyone?

#2: How do you "eliminate" dirt?

Other than in the standard medical sense.

 

[Mercutio]

Tannin states, above, that in the absence of any tangible reward, any human behavior can be extinguished. Firstly, I don't think that's the case - probably everyone here has heard of cases here a parent has refused medical treatment for an easily-curable disease for a dying child. Secondly, a tremendous number of persons in this world have some greater or lesser self-destructive habit (many would probably hold the "I need a drink" thread as an example); something that offers no reward. Ever seen a long-time heroin addict?

My personal feeling is that some extremist on one side or another will engage a nuclear-level solution. I'm not suggesting that one state or the other will be toppled, but given what I read and see from both sides, there is not a chance that any rational discussion of any of this will occur until there is absolutely nothing left worth fighting over and/or no one left to fight.

A few weeks ago, I watched a TV show in which a policaman locks a couple of feuding drug dealers inside a semi-trailer, then walks away, thinking that they would resolve their problems with words. When he returns a few hours later, only one of the dealers walks out. This is very, very similar to the opinion - and probably outcome - I've heard a great many people in my part of the world, espouse with regard to the middle east.

No strongarm tactic from another government will work. Peace talks clearly don't work (another thing, I'm not convinced that Arafat has any control over the agencies responsible for recent bombings; Arafat is a secularist; there's an idealogical difference between those seeking civil authority and those wishing to claim it on the basis of theological mandate). I don't see a solution to generations of hatred, there.

 

[jtr1962]

My personal feeling is that some extremist on one side or another will engage a nuclear-level solution. I'm not suggesting that one state or the other will be toppled, but given what I read and see from both sides, there is not a chance that any rational discussion of any of this will occur until there is absolutely nothing left worth fighting over and/or no one left to fight.

Those are my feelings regarding the matter as well. The truth is that there will never be peace between people who are bred to hate each other. There is also the little problem that both sides feel their respective faiths entitle them to the same land. Since such faith is based on unchanging scripture, one can see that the current situation is clearly hopeless since both sides will continue to point to passages in their respective holy books to defend their views(anyone here remember that disgusting OT:Israel thread in the old SR forums which beautifully illustrated this?)

Given the small size of the area, it won't take too many nuclear suicide bombers to completely decimate it, but maybe amid the ashes of Israel-Palestine the rest of the world will see how truly asinine it is fighting over petty differences. Then again, maybe not. Right now India-Pakistan has me more worried than Israel-Palestine.

 

[time]

I'm sorry if anyone is annoyed at my continuing this thread, but this quote seemed too good to ignore. It's from Cherie Booth, the wife of the UK prime minister:

"As long as young people feel they have got no hope but to blow themselves up, you are never going to make progress."

The Opposition says the Prime Minister's wife has used most unfortunate words which will cause massive offence, but a government spokesman says Ms Booth has simply made a statement of the obvious.

 

[James]

I think she's Cherie Blair, not Booth.

 

[time]

When she's not being the PM's fashion accessory, she goes under her maiden name, Booth. This includes all her legal work and any public statements or opinions.

 

[flagreen]

Here's surprise - Both sides are back at it again today.

I've had times in my life where I felt there was no hope. Fortunately I didn't explode.

 

[Tannin]

"As long as young people feel they have got no hope but to blow themselves up, you are never going to make progress."

The Opposition says the Prime Minister's wife has used most unfortunate words which will cause massive offence..

Sometimes, oppositions are just so efing stupid. WTF else is there to say about the situation? And have they managed to work out who wil be offended yet? The kids? The Israeli governmemt? Santa Claus? Or is that a minor detail that can be left till later? If that's the best they can manage, it's no wonder that Tony Blaiir looks set to remain in office for a long, long time.