posted
I don't think it's that different from any of the other assassinations Israel has carried out. There are a few differences, though.
The victim was a relatively prominent figure.
The actual assassination hitting him with a rocket as he came out of a mosque was pretty in-your-face.
I certainly don't think of it as being significantly different from any of the other assassinations Israel has been carrying out.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
My personal take on this, and it won't be a popular one, is that it was about time.
I believe that on the Arab side of the equation (rather than the Palestinian side, I'll get to that in a bit) is that this has been a war against Israel by proxy since Egypt backed out of fighting Israel in the late 1970s.
Since then, only Syria has ever tangled with Israel full on, and then it was in the area of Lebanon, with much of the fighting being handled by Hamas and the various Lebanese militias.
In the meantime, many Arabic countries have funneled weapons and money into the Palestinian organizations and some are no more than shadow groups proclaiming Palestinian status but with foreign leadership. The do use, however, Palestinian youths as their footsoldiers and bomb-wearers.
Throughout this entire mess, and it is truly a mess, the leadership of the groups, and their foreign backers have sat in seeming impunity right under Israel's nose. They've thumbed their noses at peace iniatives, funneled in more money and kept a sore well picked. It is not them, nor their own sons, who have died in the homicide bombings or the raids... it is the sons and daughters of the old refugee camps that are now cities that have paid the blood price.
It's about danged time someone lowered the hammer on these creeps. They've kept either side from holding any sort of peace or pursuing a better life for any of the Palestinians.
So yes, I think Israel finally laid it on the line for them by saying: If you direct the homicide bombings and the terrorist acts, we will reign unholy Hell down not upon the Palestinian people but on you.
Blow him up at a mosque? I'm sure that sounds tacky to some and sacreligious to others. Guess what? If most of the planning for the violence, most of the recruiting of soldiers goes on at the mosque, then by God or Allah, it is a military target and it might very well be the root of the evil that has festered for too long there... an Evil that has claimed the lives of too many Palestinian and Israeli children.
Perhaps this will show some of the Palestinians how far these Hamas and Hezbollah leaders have perverted their religion... so much so that no one outside of the religion, even a country founded on theology, will view their holy places as sacrosanct sanctuary.
Without Hamas, Hezbollah, the PLO and other organizations, the Palestinians would probably have a better life now and be a part of a nation making something of itself in the Middle East, rather than a group of terrorists without a true home.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
John on that last bit, that was directed at me damn straight. The Europeans totally screwed up the Middle East.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
That the "assasination" was "in your face" and that Yassin was prominent doesn't provide reason as to why the attack wasn't justified.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
>> That the "assasination" was "in your face" and that Yassin was prominent doesn't provide reason as to why the attack wasn't justified. <<
That's not the question you asked. I answered the question you asked.
It's not even a matter of it being unjustified. I simply don't see it accomplishing anything for Israel in terms of even its own goals.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
"Hamas in not a legitimate political organization!!!"
Neither is the RepublicanParty. But if illegitimate folk wanna get together...
"Its a terrorist group"
So is Likud. Admittedly Likud kills a LOT more innocent bystanders, and provides better security for the murderers heading it.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
How is this act any different from the U.S. hitting Osama bin Laden with a missile when he is leaving a Mosque?
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But we're talking about the leadership of Hamas, not Palestine. Palestine has its own leaders already.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
WestBank&Gaza is an occupied territory, and thus is covered by GenevaConvention protections against harming innocent civilians, and against targetting religious buildings.
Whatever one may feel about the intended target, seven other people were killed for attending mosque services. And five more were killed in the protests which followed. Undoubtedly, there were even more wounded&injured.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It’s not so much the assassination that’s the problem. It’s more that, even after more than half a century of trying, Israel is still fighting terrorism with the barrel of a gun. You can’t kill ideas that abstract. Can you point to a person or a group of persons that, once removed, will end the terrorist threat? Short of full-scale genocide that is. So you’ve killed one key person, now there’s a power void and plenty of people clamoring to fill it. You don’t even have to be particularly charismatic to convince someone who already feels they have no hope to kill themselves for a cause.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a PARENT, when my kids are fighting I may try to find out who instigated the fight, but both kids should know better than to hurt each other. I think both sides need a time out. The United States is the only power that could moderate such a cooling off period. Murder is a criminal activity. If the criminals were put away through judicial process, most of the people could live peacefully as neighbors. Both sides need to surrender their power positions in the interest of peace. Let a higher authority such as the UN make decisions for a while. When the population has turned to peaceful business pursuits, a representative government can be tried - with UN oversight. History is Histrionics - for both sides. As a planet, we need to quiet this problem and control it until individuals from both sides see each other as people with similar needs, wants, ambitions - and not as objects (obstacles, vehicles, or irrelevant).
This opinion comes from a man who has served as an Arabic linguist for the US Air Force during the first Gulf War and who has graduated with a degree in Arabic. I also studied Hebrew for 2 years before enlisting. I have heard about a lot of topics 2nd hand through my wife who has a post count of about 3,000. This is my first post.
Posts: 1 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, welcome Buzz! Awesome first post. I'm really interested in the Arabic language thing. The best I've been able to find for Iraqi Arabic is a dvd course in Egyptian Arabic, yet I understand there are significant differences in vocabulary. Do you know any way I can try to learn actual Iraqi Arabic? I'm planning on going over there as soon as possible.
Posts: 5509 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
My computer is fuxored, in such a way that I haven't been able to get my new DVD player to work. My CD-RW won't write, either. That's always been true. The experts are baffled. In the meantime I've been sort of up to the neck in this California job, without too much time to spend on it, so the short answer is.... not yet.
I know I'm going to be very sorry I didn't work harder the first time someone with a Kalashnikov screams at me and I can't understand what he says. Posts: 5509 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is it the NMELRC DVD with Mahmoud Al-Batal, or something else? It's a shame you can't get it to work.
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Dog is OSC's grown son, by the way. Just in case the name reminds you strongly of my brother like it does me.
I have to apologize, there are about double the number of new threads. Must be spring. Most folks when they start out stick with the snail's pace of the "Discussions on OSC" folder.
P.S. aka, it's probably best to learn MSA. Everyone can understand it. The differences in dialects tend to be stuff that don't show up in writing. If I recall correctly, Iraqi and Egyptian have different epenthesis patterns. That is, they insert vowels into consonant clusters differently.
The points you made reminded me that there are many, many issues on which I don't much like defending Israeli actions, and in fact admit they frequently screw up and deliberately mistreat Palestinians.
Just wanted that part clear before I continue, and sorry it's taken so long for a response.
quote:I'd say that it was seriously pursued in 1948, but the UN's partition proposal was ridiculous (there were more Palestinians in the state designated as "Jewish" than there were Jews, by a significant margin). When the partition plan failed, the Zionists conquered by force of arms, declaring their independence and then fending off Arab attacks until their position was consolidated on the Green Line.
I also don't believe that Israel always negotiates in good faith. Ehud Barak's proposal, for instance, was even more absurd than the 1948 partition plan, notwithstanding that settlement construction continued unabated while the negotiations were taking place.
The settlements are an issue on which I think Israel has done much more to wreck any possibility of peace than any Palestinian-supporting group. You're entirely correct they do more harm than good. However, as to the larger issue of all 'occupied' territory, I think Israel would do well to give most-not necessarily all-of it back, but I think this has to be said: it was occupied only after aggressive war was launched against Israel, with the goal of utterly destroying Israel.
I have a really hard time taking agreeing with anyone who thinks Israel did something wrong when they seized land from the enemies who tried, in war, to do so. Given that those enemies would've done and were aiming to do exactly that, but they weren't as good at the game as Israel.
quote:The only reasonable proposal I've ever seen is the Geneva proposal, but of course it was made by people outside of the leadership on both sides.
I'll agree to that, but it seems to me that Palestinians-and Israelis, to a lesser extent-want negotiations to give them everything they want, right now. If it doesn't happen that way, then the negotiations are declared treachery against the Palestinian people or somesuch, and suicide bombings and deliberate, targetted attacks against Israeli civilians begins anew.
quote:Sure, but neither of us has already taken unilateral action. That is a crucial difference. Too much has already happened between Israel and the Palestinians to just start negotiating with a clean slate as though the last 56 years just didn't happen.
I'll admit it poses an enormous problem...but frankly, I think both sides need to just suck it up and get over it. It seems to me that that kind of thinking is the only way serious negotiations will ever be completed, if they ever will.
quote:But you're right about the clauses. The PA keeps saying they're going to change the charter but the measures keep getting frozen or stayed or who-knows-what-else, which is just absurd and reveals the influence of extremist elements of Palestinian society at even these high levels.
True enough, but at least there's been some vacillation (sp?) on the Israeli side. But throughoug the entire conflict, there has loomed the undeniable ultimate goal of Palestinian-supporting suicide bombers: utterly eradicate Israel from the region. This is part of a much larger problem, that Israel has no one to negotiate with that can be trusted. Not just trusted to stick to an agreement, but trusted to have the means to force compliance from others.
Now, Israel bears some responsibility for this. You're right, they've destroyed Palestinian governing infrastructure, police stations, etc. But I must point out that Israel's reason for doing so bears scrutiny: that the 'leaders' of the Palestinian people, those who used the infrastructure, were utterly dedicated to destroying Israel, or supporting actively those who did.
-----
Once again, broadly, the reason I tend to side with Israelis over Palestinians-while admitting that the Palestinians have really been shafted-is that those claiming to fight for Palestinians have embraced the most murderous and evil style of conflict which is at once the least effective. You correctly point out, "What else have they tried that's worked?" and I have to admit that from a Palestinian perspective, negotiations with Israel might be a joke. But other oppressed peoples have suffered more and done less evil than those supporting Palestinians, and such tactics are obviously more effective.
One other thing that needs to be addressed: another major problem Palestinians face, aside from Israel, is the Arab nations in the region. For all the talk of Arabic brotherhood and standing up to the Zionist tyrant, the Arabic nations in the region seem remarkably willing to let a great number of Palestinians rot and suffer in refugee camps.
This is another way in which Palestinians are screwed. Their 'friends' are willing to ruthlessly exploit them, even pay them, to keep fighting Israel, with the ideal of making life better for Palestinians. But citizenship, living space, welfare, money for actual amenties, etc.? That's not really on the table, is it? Not that I've heard, anyway.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with a fair amount of what you said, so I'll only address the points with which I take issue...
>> I have a really hard time taking agreeing with anyone who thinks Israel did something wrong when they seized land from the enemies who tried, in war, to do so. Given that those enemies would've done and were aiming to do exactly that, but they weren't as good at the game as Israel. <<
We seem to be talking about different wars you about 1967, me about 1948. In 1967, both sides were wrong. The Arab states massed their troops and Israel shot first. A perfect example of preemptive war, actually.
But that's beside the point I want to make, which is that the reason, in my mind, that the Occupied Territories shouldn't have been occupied is not that they were conquered in war, regaradless of who did what to whom, is what happened in 1948. For me that's always what it comes back to. Israel owes the Palestinians the Occupied Territories for taking the rest of what the Palestinians thought they had been promised as their country (of course, as John points out, a similar promise was also made to the Jews).
__________________________
>> I'll agree to that, but it seems to me that Palestinians-and Israelis, to a lesser extent-want negotiations to give them everything they want, right now. If it doesn't happen that way, then the negotiations are declared treachery against the Palestinian people or somesuch, and suicide bombings and deliberate, targetted attacks against Israeli civilians begins anew. <<
First, the groups carrying out the suicide bombings are not beholden to the folks at the negotiation table. Keep in mind that Palestinian society is not and cannot be, so long as it has no infrastructure to speak of a monolithic entity. It's not as though the PA could somehow shut down Hamas and the Islamic Jihad, when it has extremists even in its own ranks, but this is what Israel continually demands that they do.
I have to say that I honestly believe that for any progress to happen, Israel is going to have to "be the bigger man" here, for the simple reason that Israel is a state. When its government decides to do something, that thing generally happens. This is not the way it is with the Palestinians and it won't happen for them until their quality of life improves dramatically. If their quality of life improves, the suicide bombings will slow and ultimately stop.
Yes, I realize that this means Israel has to stop retaliating, but look at what they're doing right now their current tactics do nothing more than inflame the situation such that extremist Palestinian groups have no trouble finding new recruits. So long as Israel continues to keep the Palestinians on what amounts to a big reservation, with controls on where they can go and what they can do even within their own territory, Hamas' ranks will continue to swell.
__________________________
>> I'll admit it poses an enormous problem...but frankly, I think both sides need to just suck it up and get over it. It seems to me that that kind of thinking is the only way serious negotiations will ever be completed, if they ever will. <<
It's hard for Palestinians to do that. Since my mother's family left Jaffa in 1948, she has been back twice. The first time in 1967 or 68, with her brother, they went back to Jaffa and found, unsurprisingly, an Israeli family living in their house, to which they no longer had any right. The second time was in the late eighties with my father and I, and we stayed in the Occupied Territories, in a small village where we have some family. The village is mostly olive farmers, or rather, was mostly olive farmers until Israel bulldozed the entire olive orchard a couple of years ago. Not that any suicide bombers came from this small hamlet, it was just there.
Israel basically has what it wants a Jewish state, which is strong and prosperous compared to the other countries in the region. The Palestinians have... well, pretty much nothing.
Now, I agree with the thrust of your point, but I hope you understand that that won't be easy maybe even not possible for the Palestinians to do.
________________________
>> Once again, broadly, the reason I tend to side with Israelis over Palestinians-while admitting that the Palestinians have really been shafted-is that those claiming to fight for Palestinians have embraced the most murderous and evil style of conflict which is at once the least effective. You correctly point out, "What else have they tried that's worked?" and I have to admit that from a Palestinian perspective, negotiations with Israel might be a joke. But other oppressed peoples have suffered more and done less evil than those supporting Palestinians, and such tactics are obviously more effective. <<
Absolutely. You're right about the Palestinian view of negotations, and you're right that the suicide bombers only perpetuate the conflict. I completely agree. But what 18-year-old Palestinian boy has heard of Ghandi? Or Nelson Mandela? The one who joins Hamas almost certainly hasn't.
__________________
>> This is another way in which Palestinians are screwed. Their 'friends' are willing to ruthlessly exploit them, even pay them, to keep fighting Israel, with the ideal of making life better for Palestinians. But citizenship, living space, welfare, money for actual amenties, etc.? That's not really on the table, is it? Not that I've heard, anyway. <<
Yes, the Arab countries have been the second-worst thing to happen to the Palestinians. Of course, the problems in the Arab countries go well beyond the Palestinians, and the whole region is in desperate need of some sort of progress though as an aside, I completely disagree with the American approach to fostering such progress. A large part of the problem, as John pointed out, is how thoroughly the entire region has been screwed up by outside meddling the colonial powers after WW1, for example, who just drew arbitrary lines on the map so they could divide up the territory amongst themselves. The whole problem of the Kurds in Iraq would not be extant today if Europe had drawn Iraq along ethnic lines...
A reason that the Arab countries don't offer the Palestinians anything permanent is that Israel will simply say "why do you want the Occupied Territories, then? Just go to Jordan or Syria, they'll take you!" I don't think that's valid justification especially given that plenty of Israel's supporters already make that argument but that's a part of the mentality.
________________
Again, I'm pretty firm in my belief that for there to be progress, Israel has to take positive unilateral steps in good faith. After doing that, they'll have to be willing to tolerate more of the same without retaliating until the Palestinian infrastructure is built and their quality of life improves.
I know that isn't easy, and believe me I wish I could see another solution that didn't require Israel to just sit around while its citizens are murdered until the extremist Palestinian groups lose their support. But I don't see any other way for it to happen.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"We seem to be talking about different wars ? you about 1967, me about 1948. In 1967, both sides were wrong. The Arab states massed their troops and Israel shot first. A perfect example of preemptive war, actually."
Israel shot first, but egypt had already carried out Acts of War, which, had they been perpetrated against any nation but Israel, would be recognized by the world community as actually starting the war.
I don't want to get into this debate again, so I'm not going to discuss other matters, but technically speaking, the first acts of war were Egyptian.
And, the first shots between Israeli's and Jordanians were heavy artillery shots fired into civilian population centers.
[ March 25, 2004, 05:18 PM: Message edited by: Paul Goldner ]
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
>> Israel shot first, but egypt had already carried out Acts of War, which, had they been perpetrated against any nation but Israel, would be recognized by the world community as actually starting the war. <<
Didn't the UN, after the fact, classify the war as defensive? I thought that was part of resolution 242.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, they did, but you are stating that Israel was wrong for firing the first shot. *shrug* They had the choice either to fire first, be economically strangled, or let the arab armies invade. The implication of your statement is that Israel should have let itself die, rather then fire first... Israel was already at war, however, when they fired the first bullet, and so stating they were "Wrong" for firing the first shot seems to be an interesting choice of words
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
"We seem to be talking about different wars ? you about 1967, me about 1948. In 1967, both sides were wrong. The Arab states massed their troops and Israel shot first. A perfect example of preemptive war, actually."
To me, its clear you are talking about moral culpability for the initiation of war.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Except that I go on to specifically explain what I thought Israel did that was wrong, namely, occupying the West Bank and Gaza:
>> But that's beside the point I want to make, which is that the reason, in my mind, that the Occupied Territories shouldn't have been occupied is not that they were conquered in war, regaradless of who did what to whom, is what happened in 1948. For me that's always what it comes back to. <<Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
How are both sides wrong in 1967? The Egyptians are about to launch a suprise attack on Israel, the Mossad finds out about it, and Israel launches a preemptive strike. What's wrong with Israeli actions?
In 1948 the Palestinians were promised land but instead of agreeing to the UN resolution creating two states they attacked Israel first. Then, the land now known as "Palestine" was occupied not by Israel, but by Egypt and Jordan.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry for this totally fluffy and probably inappropriate observation, but when I first saw a photo of Yassin I noticed a striking resemblance to this guy. Hmm...
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:We seem to be talking about different wars you about 1967, me about 1948. In 1967, both sides were wrong. The Arab states massed their troops and Israel shot first. A perfect example of preemptive war, actually.
But that's beside the point I want to make, which is that the reason, in my mind, that the Occupied Territories shouldn't have been occupied is not that they were conquered in war, regaradless of who did what to whom, is what happened in 1948. For me that's always what it comes back to. Israel owes the Palestinians the Occupied Territories for taking the rest of what the Palestinians thought they had been promised as their country (of course, as John points out, a similar promise was also made to the Jews).
I can't say I think the Israelis were wrong in 1967, for starting the war. It's even been pointed out, I think, that the UN declared it a defensive war after the fact-rather unusual for the UN, actually. It wasn't wrong because there was no doubt at all what was going on: Israel was about to be attacked in a conventional war. I don't even think they needed the Mossad's help to figure that out as much as they needed a pair of binoculars or a telescope-Egypt in particular had been saber-rattling and was then massing troops and armor along the border. So Israel's air force attacked enemy air first, and kicked the stuffing out of them.
I'll admit that whether Israel was wrong before 1967 is a different issue entirely, but you asked me to consider what an average Palestinian would think, so I must ask you what you would do in the same circumstances as an Israeli?
Another question: If Israel owes Occupied Territory back to the Palestinians (and it should be noted there was no such group until this whole throwdown started) because of promises made, what do Palestinians owe Israelis because of promises made?
quote:First, the groups carrying out the suicide bombings are not beholden to the folks at the negotiation table. Keep in mind that Palestinian society is not and cannot be, so long as it has no infrastructure to speak of a monolithic entity. It's not as though the PA could somehow shut down Hamas and the Islamic Jihad, when it has extremists even in its own ranks, but this is what Israel continually demands that they do.
Yes, you're right. I've tried to include that anywhere I mentioned suicide bombers, that they're a) their own bosses, beholden only to their leadership, and b) they only say they're fighting on behalf of Palestinian people.
But the Palestinians were a monolothic entity for a while. What do you think their singular cause was? I think that explains a great deal of why Palestinians have no infrastructure to speak of right now-because when they did, that infrastructure was as cozy as could be with suicide bombers.
I believe that from the Israeli point of view, there are three benefits from targetting extremists for assassination. One, they get to prevent, in the short-term, further civilian deaths. Two, they get to eliminate their hated, deadly enemies. And three, they get to weed out some of that extreme leadership.
Now points one and two I think, inarguably, are effective as the Israelis see it (note: I said short-term). Point three, I don't claim it's highest on their list or even third on their list at all, but I expect that's on Israeli minds.
Because obviously the people Israel is assassinating aren't going to step down from power peacefully.
quote:Yes, I realize that this means Israel has to stop retaliating, but look at what they're doing right now their current tactics do nothing more than inflame the situation such that extremist Palestinian groups have no trouble finding new recruits. So long as Israel continues to keep the Palestinians on what amounts to a big reservation, with controls on where they can go and what they can do even within their own territory, Hamas' ranks will continue to swell.
I mostly agree. But that's long-term. Short-term, 'being the bigger man' means lots more dead Israelis.
And there's a larger problem, one I think Israelis are rightly concerned about: What happens when Israelis give Palestinians what they want? When it would obviously be a result of exhaustion from suicide bombings? It's not necessarily the 'average' (is there ever such a thing when discussing large groups?) Palestinian I'm worried about on that. It's the Palestinian-and those who fight for them-who hates Israelis and Jews now, and always will.
Look at America, for instance. Civil War ended in 1865, that was about 139 years ago. When was the Civil Rights Amendmant made law? For how long did blacks and other minorities everywhere suffer under hate-filled and determined whites, simply unwilling to give up the ghost? It took-is taking-five, six generations.
quote:Israel basically has what it wants a Jewish state, which is strong and prosperous compared to the other countries in the region. The Palestinians have... well, pretty much nothing.
Now, I agree with the thrust of your point, but I hope you understand that that won't be easy maybe even not possible for the Palestinians to do.
I've got to take issue with the 'Israel basically has what it wants', but I understand what you mean. And I am sorry about your mother as well I will say that I don't think right of return should necessarily be denied for all Palestinians-just the ones who fled when Arab nations promised them, "You'll get it all back after we're done destroying Israel."
I get angry at the Israeli government and Sharon when I hear stories about expanded settlements and bulldozed villages, etc. Not just because it's cruel and (I think) unnecessary, but because he's sticking with his own extremists and it serves no real long-term good but exacerbating the hatreds.
quote:But what 18-year-old Palestinian boy has heard of Ghandi? Or Nelson Mandela? The one who joins Hamas almost certainly hasn't.
Who knows? I'll admit that by the time an 18-year-old Palestinian man joins Hamas, he's pretty much a lost-cause when it comes to winning him over to the side of peaceful noncooperation...but where in Palestinian culture do you see those figures revered and 'advertised', for lack of a better word? Whose pictures are held up, for whose work do we occassionally on the news see crowds of cheering Palestinians?
quote:Yes, the Arab countries have been the second-worst thing to happen to the Palestinians. Of course, the problems in the Arab countries go well beyond the Palestinians, and the whole region is in desperate need of some sort of progress though as an aside, I completely disagree with the American approach to fostering such progress. A large part of the problem, as John pointed out, is how thoroughly the entire region has been screwed up by outside meddling the colonial powers after WW1, for example, who just drew arbitrary lines on the map so they could divide up the territory amongst themselves. The whole problem of the Kurds in Iraq would not be extant today if Europe had drawn Iraq along ethnic lines...
I agree completely, even with the part about America up until the invasion of Iraq . Talking about our previous methods of fostering democracy. Being buddy-buddy with monarchies ain't the way to do that, no matter how much oil they have.
One reason I tend to get a little irritated with Europeans complaining about America is because America is so involved in fixing problems created by Colonial powers meddling. Asia, Africa, Middle-East, all of their current troubles owe a great deal to European inept meddling and redrawing of boundaries.
I hadn't thought of what Israel would say if Jordan or Syria offered true haven to Palestinians, but you're right.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't forget that Kuwait did offer a relatively generous haven but what did the Palestinians do with that haven? They cheered when it was taken over by Saddam. On top of that, the other Arab countries aren't the second worst thing to happen to the Palestinians, they're the worst period. Its the Arab nations who have rejected their own kin. Its the Arab nations who have participated in whole sale slaughter of Palestinians to a far higher degree than it could be even be argued the Israelis have committed, its the other Arab nations who forced the rejection of the UN compromise in 1948. If it weren't for the other Arab nations' meddling we wouldn't be having this discussion because there would be two states, one Arab, one Jewish with Jerusalem as an international city.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
Buzz![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
. Talking about our previous methods of fostering democracy. Being buddy-buddy with monarchies ain't the way to do that, no matter how much oil they have.
