|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jul 17, 2006 14:56:49 GMT -5
Doesn't doing what they've done in the past - negotiating a prisoner exchange as an example - do nothing but maintain the status quo? That's fine provided they're okay with the status quo. But I think it's reasonable that they're not okay with things continuing as they have been - hence the reason for a new strategy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jul 17, 2006 15:14:37 GMT -5
Doesn't doing what they've done in the past - negotiating a prisoner exchange as an example - do nothing but maintain the status quo? That's fine provided they're okay with the status quo. But I think it's reasonable that they're not okay with things continuing as they have been - hence the reason for a new strategy. Overwhelming military force is not a "new" strategy - it also has a lengthy history in Israel and has probably been their defining fallback option for 40 years. It typically has the same predictable effects: strengthening Arab and Middle Eastern support for Hamas, Hezbollah, and other militant anti-Israel and Islamist movements, and weakening and rendering irrelevant relatively moderate Arab governments. Negotiating a prisoner exchange is a solution only to the present escalation of force. I'm not offering it as a long-term solution to Israel's problems, obviously. That was my point regarding the difference between short-term and long-term solutions. |
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jul 17, 2006 15:15:05 GMT -5
On that note, I have to run a few errands.... i'll drop in later...
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jul 17, 2006 15:42:55 GMT -5
Doesn't doing what they've done in the past - negotiating a prisoner exchange as an example - do nothing but maintain the status quo? That's fine provided they're okay with the status quo. But I think it's reasonable that they're not okay with things continuing as they have been - hence the reason for a new strategy. Overwhelming military force is not a "new" strategy - it also has a lengthy history in Israel and has probably been their defining fallback option for 40 years. It typically has the same predictable effects: strengthening Arab and Middle Eastern support for Hamas, Hezbollah, and other militant anti-Israel and Islamist movements, and weakening and rendering irrelevant relatively moderate Arab governments. Negotiating a prisoner exchange is a solution only to the present escalation of force. I'm not offering it as a long-term solution to Israel's problems, obviously. That was my point regarding the difference between short-term and long-term solutions. Understood. But I think that we've reached a point, well, Israel has at least, where they're no longer going to be satisfied with the short term fix. Honestly, I can't say I blame them. As to whether or not the military approach will work ... you're right that it's been done before. It's also been stopped before at the urging of the international community. There aren't many wars where the victor is pressured to not take the spoils of victory, but this is most certainly one of them. If, rather than Israel being smacked down yet again for taking action to protect themselves, the Arab nations were forced to recognize that when you lose a war you pay the consequences, it'd be a different story. Right now we have a pattern going where some Arab group or nation picks a fight with Israel, Israel fights back and punishes them, Israel is condemned for the punishment, and the Arab group or nation shakes it off. If we treated this like a traditional war - if you lose, you're on your own - the circumstances would chance considerably. |
|
|
|
Post by skvorisdeadsorta on Jul 17, 2006 15:51:38 GMT -5
So, Chrisfan, what you are saying is that the UN (which isn't elected, but appointed) had the right to take away a sovereign nation's land so that they could add a nation of people that Europe didn't want. This sounds good to you? Israel ignoring the 47 border agreement by encroaching on land that is not theirs as a "settlement" is alright too. Look, I'm not Anti-Israel, I think they should exist, but it wouldn't be that hard to let Palestine exist either and not have a Nation put in there as a babysitter for American corporate interests.
And I will not apologize for what I believe are your heartfelt conservative views on this issue. If it is, that's fine, I just disagree with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by skvorisdeadsorta on Jul 17, 2006 15:56:45 GMT -5
One thing that I tire of in this debate is that if you are Anti-Zionist, then you are some how anti-semetic. I find that horribly wrong and the tactics by idiots such as Rush Limbaugh. Here's the deal as well: Yeah, Israel's tough, especially when you are using American War Technology against a faction of people who are somewhat uneducated, don't even have standard weapons, and no place to live. Woohoo. Told them.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jul 17, 2006 16:06:55 GMT -5
So, Chrisfan, what you are saying is that the UN (which isn't elected, but appointed) had the right to take away a sovereign nation's land so that they could add a nation of people that Europe didn't want. This sounds good to you? Israel ignoring the 47 border agreement by encroaching on land that is not theirs as a "settlement" is alright too. Look, I'm not Anti-Israel, I think they should exist, but it wouldn't be that hard to let Palestine exist either and not have a Nation put in there as a babysitter for American corporate interests. And I will not apologize for what I believe are your heartfelt conservative views on this issue. If it is, that's fine, I just disagree with it. I have not asked you to apologize for anything. I simply giggled at your use of words like "Conservative" and "sounding like Newt Gingrich" in a way that cameacross as being intended to be an insult. I don't consider it an insult to call me what I am, fully acknowledge I am, and am proud to be. As for the UN establishment of Israel ... I'm not a big fan. But I don't have the ability to take that issue in a vacuum, and deal with the issues of the region for that fact alone. AGree with the move or not, it was done. That region was used, as opposed to some uninhabited island (which would have been done if it wre for no reason other than "They weren't wanted anywhere else) because the Isrealis also have a legitimate claim to that land. Again, it is just not as simple as saying "The UN was wrong, the land goes back to Palestine". So you go ahead living in your little vacuum of a world, but I'm not joining you there, and insisting on defining the terms of the discussion on that alone just does not work ... no matter how manytimes you repeat it. |
|
|
|
Post by skvorisdeadsorta on Jul 17, 2006 17:09:49 GMT -5
It is a justification. You are living in a world of illusion and quite frankly the rest of us don't want to meet YOU there and are not comfortable living in YOUR world. It is also the kind of rhetoric I would expect from someone that supports with blindly following the doctrine of an unelected body. The deal is not they were not wanted by anywhere else, but that Britain certainly didn't even try as they used the leverage of WWII to give them the land. I believe that the Holocaust was wrong, but it doesn't give you the reason to kick someone out because your entire race was almost decimated. I'm sorry, one holocaust happening does not excuse the victim of the holocaust to now be the performer of the holocaust. What I don't understand is Israel's refusal to help Palestine as a state. They should be able to split the land and it not be a big deal.
I'm glad that you are proud to be a part of a community that has done nothing but mire in the effects of Arab nations for oil and to say that they don't is a lie. Zionism = death to Arab Nationalism=more oil and corporate supported interest for us. We were not democratically elected to make policy in that area, let the Arabs govern their own way whether it is American style democracy or not. If we believe in freedom, then we should practice what we preach and let them have to the freedom to make their own decisions without meddling from us.
|
|
|
|
Post by skvorisdeadsorta on Jul 17, 2006 17:27:12 GMT -5
Don't you love how Republicans talk all this shit on the UN and now, Chrisfan says it's okay.
|
|
|
|
Post by RocDoc on Jul 17, 2006 18:37:57 GMT -5
The intervening (2006-1947=) 59 years haven't diluted the UN's usefulness (ie authority) to you one bit then, Skv?
And no-one should therefore think that it has?
mmm....smells like someone besides CF is into doublespeak here...
|
|
|
|
Post by skvorisdeadsorta on Jul 17, 2006 19:22:57 GMT -5
Um, I am not a fan of the UN, but for different reasons than Republicans such as yourself or Chrisfan. Not a doublespeak at all, but I commend your effort.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jul 17, 2006 21:16:36 GMT -5
Goodnight Skvor.
|
|
|
|
Post by skvorisdeadsorta on Jul 17, 2006 21:26:28 GMT -5
Better yet, say goodnight to your argument.
|
|
|
|
Post by Matheus on Jul 18, 2006 5:12:38 GMT -5
Is it just me...
When Israel was first created, I was under the assumption that they were attacked... am I wrong on this? Was the state of Israel created and the Jews decided they were going to blow the fuck out of everyone? Goddamn angry Jews.
And Skvor, you talk about holocaust?
I haven't recently heard anyone talking about killing all the Palestinians, but I've heard quite a few times "Death to Israel." I think the Iranian Leader Douche guy recently say something about destroying Israel. Weird.
Am I wrong on that fact, too?
The fact of the matter is that Israel would have been destroyed a long time ago if they didn't defend themselves. I find it to be a ridiculous notion that they shouldn't have defended themselves whether you think they should be there or not. The fact of the matter is that they are, and it's time for some of these radical "destory Israel" peeps to wake up and realize... Israel isn't going anywhere... so let's figure out a way to broker a deal. And yes, I don't think Israel has to make all of the concessions.
Not to say I'm some huge Israel supporter. I feel for the Palestinian people, and I want them to have their own state, but for fuck's sake, let's be realistic about it. Shit has happened, and not all of it, or even most of it, is Israel's fault.
As a matter of fact, and you can disagree if you want, Israel has been more willing to broker peace than the Palestinians. I also believe there was a deal on the table, agreed on and ready to sign, and Arafat pulled out. And seriously, don't tell me that the Clinton Administration was in it just for oil. Stability would have helped the world, and not just the United States.
And I'm sorry, but these states that don't want to join the rest of the world can fuck off. Is it just me or is it blatantly obvious that the countries that aren't joining the rest of the world more likely to have rogue leaders, war, poverty, human rights violations and the such? Hmmm...
Let's let these countries just go on the way they choose... and maybe tomorrow we'll get a nice shipment of heroin, hear how people are being stoned to death for some stupid reason or another, see women being held down like they're pieces of shit, or, I know, and this is my favorite... make a man marry a goat. Also, it's so cool for people to be killed for dissenting against their government.
|
|
|
|
Post by Matheus on Jul 18, 2006 5:13:26 GMT -5
Oh, my final question...
Would the whole Israel/Palestine, Muslim-dominated countries hating Israel be so rampant if Israel were a state of Muslims???
|
|
