View Full Version : An Israel/Zionism thread
Yekhefah
04-08-2008, 03:13 PM
That's just Princess Jefflina for you. (S)he does that sort of thing. It's okay, no one ever understands; you're not really supposed to!
G-Real
04-09-2008, 02:27 AM
Like I said earlier, Jews were around LONG before Palestinians, and we left, came back and BOOM! You see the result.
We were given that land by G-d.
Ok,
the analogy does not hold water with that logic, then the British should show up on the east-coast and take back the land, the French in Mid-American, and well Mexico and illegal immigration is already doing that in the west.
god, when used in poitics, is something that man does to make it seem as their action or actions have a divine inspiration. Just ask the Native Americans and what Manifest Destiny did to them. Sure Americans though that it was their right, their god given right to move west; I'm sure that not how that native americans felt.
jester214
04-09-2008, 10:09 AM
Ok,
the analogy does not hold water with that logic, then the British should show up on the east-coast and take back the land, the French in Mid-American, and well Mexico and illegal immigration is already doing that in the west.
god, when used in poitics, is something that man does to make it seem as their action or actions have a divine inspiration. Just ask the Native Americans and what Manifest Destiny did to them. Sure Americans though that it was their right, their god given right to move west; I'm sure that not how that native americans felt.
Well, while I'm not sure the analogy holds water, it is a slightly different issue.
Nothing in Christianity (as far as I know) ever told the Brits or French, or Mexicans that they had a Holy right to the land. The Manifest Destiny was what you said, God being used to justify. This issue isn't quite the same, atleast in my opinion.
Again, I think the whole thing could have been worked out before it ever had any problems, even after the problems it could have been worked out. Yet certain people aren't willing to let it work out.
Yekhefah
04-09-2008, 10:25 AM
There's not a WAY to "work it out." The Arab population and surrounding Arab/Persian nations are committed to the destruction of Israel and the Jews. You simply can't have peace with an enemy that is sworn to your annihilation. The ONLY choices you have are to fight or to die! All this "negotiation" and trying to "work it out" are just leading to more death and suffering.
RandomUser
04-09-2008, 11:46 AM
The quickest solution would be for the UN and the Arab league to withdraw all support for Palestine. Put a block on the Iranians. The Palestinians will get a country then.
jester214
04-09-2008, 04:27 PM
There's not a WAY to "work it out." The Arab population and surrounding Arab/Persian nations are committed to the destruction of Israel and the Jews. You simply can't have peace with an enemy that is sworn to your annihilation. The ONLY choices you have are to fight or to die! All this "negotiation" and trying to "work it out" are just leading to more death and suffering.
I respectfully disagree, if you're right then it will go own until one side is either...
A. Is wiped out
B. Leaves entirely
I don't think either of those is likely, so I respectfully hope you're wrong.
Yekhefah
04-09-2008, 04:41 PM
Nope, neither of them is likely. So there can't be peace.
I wish it wasn't that way too, but I don't see the Arab world suddenly deciding to reform their own countries rather than blaming Israel for all their problems, and I don't see Israel suddenly agreeing to just lie down and die for the sake of Islam. And that's really the ONLY way there would ever be peace.
All this negotiation and "land for peace" bullshit just rewards terrorists and encourages them to keep up the slaughter. It's like a child in a shop, screaming and breaking things and kicking people, and then you give the kid a lollipop and expect that to end the tantrum. Obviously it's just going to feed the tantrum and encourage more tantrums in the future. You just can't negotiate or bribe in this situation.
Lunarobverse
04-09-2008, 04:53 PM
So, setting aside the possibility of sudden change, which I agree is unlikely to impossible... Would you think that gradual change is possible? On either side, though I admit I'm more interested in Yekhefah' views on change for the Arab, Persian or Islamic sides.
Yekhefah
04-09-2008, 04:57 PM
What do you mean, my views on change? I think if the Arabs got their shit together it would completely gut their culture and they know it. They've built an entire global economy on playing the victim and murdering innocent people so that left-wing Europeans will give them money. Their governments keep them under control by drumming up hatred for Israel, America, and the Jews. They are not interested in democracy, freedom, self-sufficiency, peace, or any of the hallmarks of a stable society. And no, I do not see any possibility of such fundamental cultural traits changing within my lifetime.
Lunarobverse
04-09-2008, 05:37 PM
Thank you, Yekhefah. I did not mean to put you on the spot; but your views on this topic are so different from my own that I only wanted to find out more from you.
I'm fairly ignorant on the topic myself so I'm still learning and reading before I respond any further.
jester214
04-09-2008, 06:06 PM
Nope, neither of them is likely. So there can't be peace.
I wish it wasn't that way too, but I don't see the Arab world suddenly deciding to reform their own countries rather than blaming Israel for all their problems, and I don't see Israel suddenly agreeing to just lie down and die for the sake of Islam. And that's really the ONLY way there would ever be peace.
All this negotiation and "land for peace" bullshit just rewards terrorists and encourages them to keep up the slaughter. It's like a child in a shop, screaming and breaking things and kicking people, and then you give the kid a lollipop and expect that to end the tantrum. Obviously it's just going to feed the tantrum and encourage more tantrums in the future. You just can't negotiate or bribe in this situation.
Like I said I think either is unlikely.
Well call me crazy, but I say try and give the kid the lollipop, or use the lollipop as a reward, or offer half a lollipop, something atleast try and hope it works, because the "alternative" is for the owner (Israel) to shoot the child.
Please though, keep in mind I'm talking in broad strokes, I usually agree with Israeli responses in the short term, but in truth they don't stop, and some would argue they don't even discourage.
I disagree with you on some points, the Middle East will continue to change, especially with increased Western Influence (look at Egypt, there not going to be attacking or massing troops or any of that stuff anymore). So I hold out hope that eventually certain leaders will die off and some kind of agreement can be reached. I also think that Israel will have to make some real concession to the Palestineans in that agreement. Because while you say "blame Israel for their problems" as if it's ludicrous, in some regard the placement of Israel, if not Israel itself, is to blame for some of Palestine's problems.
There is blame on both sides, and to pretend there isn't is ignorant.
Jay Zeno
04-09-2008, 07:39 PM
Land for peace worked for Israel and Egypt. They don't like each other, but Israel gave them back the Sinai, and they haven't fought.
jester214
04-09-2008, 08:10 PM
Didn't Egypt lose it fighting Israel? I think Egypt realized that fighting Israel was a bad idea, and also they wanted more of the "West".
princessjefflina
04-09-2008, 09:39 PM
keep rereading it
:(
scarlett_vancouver
04-09-2008, 09:45 PM
^ your post does make sense, don't worry. I understood it as much as I understand anyone elses' in this thread ;)
So the main justification for the existence of the Israeli state is that god decreed that the land belonged to the jewish people, is this correct?
jester214
04-09-2008, 10:10 PM
^^^ I would call that a main point, but not the main reason
jester214
04-09-2008, 10:11 PM
The main Justification is because the West said so, in my opinion.
Yekhefah
04-09-2008, 10:12 PM
No, it's that Jews fought and died for that land, bled for it and built it up from nothing, and it's ours. There have been Jews living there for as long as there have been Jews (which is a damn sight longer than there have been Muslims) and during the brief period that we were a minority, it was a depressing, useless wasteland (just read what Mark Twain had to say about it). Jews returned and put in the work, the suffering, and the effort to create gardens and farms and communities, and then fought to keep it. Jews have as much a right to Israel as any citizens have a right to their countries.
Jay Zeno
04-09-2008, 10:51 PM
In the end, those who successfully conquer (whether against evil or innocents) keep the real estate. Until someone more successful comes along. And they always do.
jester214
04-09-2008, 10:58 PM
No, it's that Jews fought and died for that land, bled for it and built it up from nothing, and it's ours. There have been Jews living there for as long as there have been Jews (which is a damn sight longer than there have been Muslims) and during the brief period that we were a minority, it was a depressing, useless wasteland (just read what Mark Twain had to say about it). Jews returned and put in the work, the suffering, and the effort to create gardens and farms and communities, and then fought to keep it. Jews have as much a right to Israel as any citizens have a right to their countries.
I'm sorry but you're being so onesided on this. According to the "we made it" then everything we did to the Native Americans is justified... Not to mention, why did you ever leave it in the first place? The "oh that was ours for thousands of years, we left for a few hundred, we'd like it back now" it not total justification.
scarlett_vancouver
04-09-2008, 11:15 PM
Jews have as much a right to Israel as any citizens have a right to their countries.
Sooo...as much right as Palestinians to the Palestine?
Jay, you're right. Justifications and arguments are meaningless- it's war.
:(
Yekhefah
04-09-2008, 11:17 PM
Jews were driven out by the Romans and others who wanted the occupation. It's part of being a Jew, we aren't truly welcome anywhere but our home and our home was taken from us for a few hundred years. Then when Jews show up to reclaim it, a bunch of thieves and murderers who wrecked the place claim squatters' rights? Eff that noise. They can get the fuck out and go to one of the many other countries in the region that they already have.
scarlett_vancouver
04-09-2008, 11:23 PM
Why...are you calling Palestinians (as a people) thieves and murderers- was there basis for this assertion prior to 1948? And why are you equating Palestinians with any and/or all other middle eastern arabic groups?
I don't get it. Why the hate?
BrodieLux
04-09-2008, 11:35 PM
Trying to decide who is historically entitled to the land is absolutely pointless. Folks on both sides are vehemently sure they're right. The only way forward is to stop looking backward, and just recognize that there are two groups of *people* here who need a home and need peace.
Jay Zeno
04-10-2008, 12:01 AM
Here's the deal:
The Israelites who were Jews took the land from the Palestinians who were already living there.
The Assyrians and Babylonian then conquered the land.
The Persians (now called Iranians) then swept through and allowed the Israelites to return and set up their culture. (Irony, anyone?)
Then the Greeks came through, conquered, and brought the populace under Hellenistic rule. (There we see the Greek influence on what the Christians came to know as parts of the "Old Testament.")
Then, hello Romans! A new set of rulers. They were not as supportive of the native culture/religion as the Persians(!) or Greeks.
Then Christianity, starting more or less with Constantine, took over the area. There were many terroritorial squabbles ("squabbles" being a euphemism for "many people died violently and boundares were shifted.")
Muslims took over. They allowed Christians, Jews, and Muslims to pay homage to their icons. Wow.
Crusades. The Christians didn't fare well, really, against the Islamics, but they did get to pilgrim to Palestine, off and on.
Then the Ottomans! Those darned Turks.
After that, the Egyptians and Brits fought over this real estate. The Egyptians fell back, as so often happens against the White Europeans (no irony, just the way it is). But the Brits gave it back to.....
The Ottomans!
Then we get to the 20th Century, and the fun really begins.
The Ottomans until World War I. Then we get into this whole last century of the Turks, the Brits, Allenby, Lawrence of Arabia, the division by the Brits, Transjordan, the French, the Brit control, Zionism and massacres and land grabs of Palestinians, to bring about the 1947 partitions, and the UN peace (hah!) that comes from that.
Look, none of this is very nice. I'm sorry. Terrorism works. Land grabs work. The kiling off of the population, whether Jews or Muslims or Christians, works. I go back to...
"In the end, those who successfully conquer (whether against evil or innocents) keep the real estate. Until someone more successful comes along. And they always do."
Let's see what the history is 200 years from now.
jester214
04-10-2008, 07:34 AM
Why...are you calling Palestinians (as a people) thieves and murderers- was there basis for this assertion prior to 1948? And why are you equating Palestinians with any and/or all other middle eastern arabic groups?
I don't get it. Why the hate?
She's not, she's equating Palestineans with Arabs/Muslims, which is total shit. The Jews are so unwelcomed they just control huge pieces of American Business, Politics, and Society... Bullshit, Onesided, Superior, Mentality.
Still Israel exists because the West let it.
Also, a lot of thanks to Jay Zeno for posting what I wanted to post but was to lazy to actually go and do.;D
Yekhefah
04-10-2008, 10:10 AM
There was no such thing as a "Palestinian" before the 1960's. To claim that the Israelites took Israel from some pre-existing "Palestinian" group is goofy. And there were no "Palestinians" in 1948 either. Yasser Arafat coined the term in the sixties because it would help his agenda, and it worked. Before he coined the term they identified with their tribes, as Arabs, or as Lebanese/Syrian/Whatever.
It's the terrorists who are thieves and murderers, AND those in their community who support them. This seems to be a majority of the community, especially when Hamas became a democratically-elected government. Any "land for peace" deals are rewards for thieves and murderers, and will serve as an incentive for them to commit future murders the next time they want something.
I'm using the term "Arabs" because I refuse to engage the political fiction behind the term "Palestinian," and because the Arab street has the same agenda whether they're in the West Bank, Jordan, or Syria.
As for why the hate... well, it's not really hate so much as a mistrust, and an anger. They have sworn to kill as many of my people as possible, and presumably me as well. I'm tired of watching my people suffer and die for the very people who are killing them. Israel could end this in a heartbeat with massive force, but her consideration for the lives of these useless killers prevents it, and still she's made out to be the bad guy.
If the Arabs really wanted peace, all they'd have to do would be to stop killing. The fact that they aren't willing to do that should show you their agenda. If the Arabs stop fighting, there will be peace; if Israel stops fighting, she'll be completely destroyed. Israel is 100% on the defensive.
BTW, I really don't understand why the global left wing backs the misogynist, theocratic, murderous culture against the progressive, democratic, egalitarian one. That seems so backwards to me and I just don't understand that at all. If anyone cared to explain it, I'd love to hear an explanation.
jester214
04-10-2008, 10:20 AM
They need something to be called, and Palestineans is as good as anything else. I think you make several good points and many I agree with. But I still think you're being very onesided and I really don't think you can call retribution attacks purely defensive.
Yekhefah
04-10-2008, 10:33 AM
Of course I'm being one-sided. I don't really give a rat's ass about people's feelings when they've sworn to kill me, and when they devote their entire lives to slaughtering my people.
As for "retribution attacks," I see no problem whatsoever with actions having consequences. Force is all these people understand. Israel is being a lot more generous than I would be, when they tear down a building where terrorists plan attacks to discourage future attacks. If they REALLY wanted to discourage future attacks, they would raze a village for every terrorist bombing and bring in pigs to live in the remains.
jester214
04-10-2008, 10:38 AM
Ouch, remind me not to ever plot anything against you :)
Plenty of "Palestineans" haven't sworn to kill you, and would never harm anyone and if it was up to them wouldn't see anyone harmed.
Just out of curiousity, have you been to Israel?
Yekhefah
04-10-2008, 10:56 AM
Not yet. I know a lot of people who have, obviously, but when I was married my ex refused to go and since my divorce I haven't had the money for overseas travel. I know there are probably some peaceful Arabs but I haven't seen them, and honestly the quiet "moderate" Muslims are a greater threat to civilization than the wackos, in my opinion.
There's not really any maliciousness in my call for retribution. It really is the fastest way to peace. They don't have to like us, I just want them to stop killing us, and they will only do that when the consequences are dire. There was a terrorist attack somewhere, I think it was the Phillipines, and they caught the perpetrators and shot them with bullets steeped in pig fat, then buried the bodies under pig blood and pig shit. The terrorists who aren't afraid of dying for their 72 virgins don't get to go to heaven and enjoy those virgins if their bodies are impure at death and they're buried in an impure fashion, so that sent a strong message. Hasn't been a terrorist attack there since. Sometimes you just have to be harsh.
jester214
04-10-2008, 11:09 AM
Yeah, it's a very interesting place and I enjoyed the trip a lot. I can only imagine you would enjoy it even more than I did. It is also not nearly as dangerous as some people would think, especially for a single tourist.
In Israel, you can find peaceful Arabs and peaceful Muslims, there living right alongside the Jewish Israeli's and consider themselves Israeli, some of the ones I talked to even said openly that the violence must end on the Arab side first, but they also said they beleive in land redistribution and other things, afterwards.
Yekhefah
04-10-2008, 11:12 AM
Oh, I know that. That's why all this "apartheid" nonsense is total bullshit. Arab Israelis have no problem in Israeli society as long as they're not starting violence. The problems are coming from outside Israel.
I didn't mean to imply that there were no peaceful Arabs, of course there are. But they need to put the brakes on their murderous cousins before there can ever be peace.
Jay Zeno
04-10-2008, 11:25 AM
The Israelites who were Jews took the land from the Palestinians who were already living there.
The native Semites, then.
Paris
04-10-2008, 12:11 PM
BTW, I really don't understand why the global left wing backs the misogynist, theocratic, murderous culture against the progressive, democratic, egalitarian one. That seems so backwards to me and I just don't understand that at all. If anyone cared to explain it, I'd love to hear an explanation.
I'm not sure who this global "left wing" is you are referring to. China? Russia? Not what I think of as left wing governments. America? Again, not left at all.
If you belong to a culture that abhors murder, misogyny and theocratic rule, it would be difficult to justify murdering the murderers. That would be stooping to their level. Left leaning cultures have an attitude of "lead by example, not by force."
If people could see past the end of their own noses, even for the briefest moment, and see the bigger picture, they will see that this is all insanity. Will all the Jews spontaneously combust because they don't hold deed to a piece of dirt? No. Why anyone believes this is lunacy. This also works the other way, will the Arab nations suddenly experience joy and peace the moment the last Jew dies? No. One does not live in hate for generations and suddenly stop hating because the object of that hate is gone. They merely start looking for a new object to hate.
Perhaps getting the haters to step outside their own heads for just a second to see the larger picture is going to be the only way to bring peace to the middle east. If they can see the insanity for what it is, and not "us against them", only then can peace be achieved.
Paris
04-10-2008, 12:14 PM
Of course I'm being one-sided. I don't really give a rat's ass about people's feelings when they've sworn to kill me, and when they devote their entire lives to slaughtering my people.
There in lies the root of the problem.
LuvlyDancer
04-10-2008, 09:12 PM
Basically, what Israel is doing, is like going into a house built by a Palestinian, where a Palestinian family was living for hundreds of years.
At that point, the Israelis tell them, "We're taking your house because God said we can. Go live down in the cellar."
Then, after the original occupants get mad, and start fighting, then the Israelis can say "Ok, Ok, you left us no choice. Now we have to put bars on the cellar so you can never get out."
And when the big family in the cellar starts to fight among themselves, from the bad conditions and stress, the Israeli family upstairs says "See, these people didn't know how to live among themselves, they are like animals, better to keep them down there where they can't break anything".
And then the CNN camera come, and the Israelis say "Go look at those crazy people in a cage", and sure enough, by the time the cameras come, the Palestinians are angry and talking all kinds of crazy mess. And everyone watching at home says "God Damn those arabs are crazy!"
And maybe they are, because meanwhile, the jews are upstairs sitting on their furniture and putting their religious items all over the house, and telling people, "Look, we are HOME! Finally, we are HOME!"
jester214
04-11-2008, 08:05 AM
^^^That is a terrible analogy, and so wrong. The media is more likely to show pictures of a starving Palestiniean family and say "look at what happens when you are displaced from your home"
Yekhefah
04-11-2008, 09:29 AM
LuvlyDancer, that's about the biggest load of bullshit I've ever read on this forum. Kudos.
Paris - So it's just idealism? Hoping that hugs and tolerance will make all the problems go away?
Melonie
04-11-2008, 02:22 PM
BTW, I really don't understand why the global left wing backs the misogynist, theocratic, murderous culture against the progressive, democratic, egalitarian one. That seems so backwards to me and I just don't understand that at all. If anyone cared to explain it, I'd love to hear an explanation.
Follow the money !
from
(snip)"Allow me to introduce you to Nadhmi Auchi. He was charged in the 1950s with being an accomplice of Saddam Hussein, when the future tyrant was acquiring his taste for blood. He was investigated in the 1980s for his part in alleged bribes to the fabulously corrupt leaders of post-war Italy. In the 1990s, the Belgium Ambassador to Luxembourg claimed that Auchi's bank held money Saddam and Colonel Gadaffi had stolen from their luckless peoples. In 2002, officers from the Serious Fraud Squad raided the offices of one of Auchi's drug companies as part of an investigation of what is alleged to be the biggest swindle ever of the NHS. With allegations, albeit unproven, like these hanging over him, wouldn't you think that British MPs would have the sense to stay away?
Perhaps you would, but I forgot to add a final fact about Mr Auchi: he is the thirteenth-richest man in Britain, and he has been able to collect British politicians the way other people collect stamps. After wrecking the economy, Norman Lamont retired from government to a seat on the board of the financial arm of General Mediterranean Holding, which runs Auchi's many businesses. Lord Steel, the former leader of the Liberal Democrats and the current presiding officer of the Scottish Parliament, is also on the board. Lady Falkender, Harold Wilson's former secretary, has worked for Auchi, as has Gerald Malone, a former Tory Minister you've probably forgotten about. Keith Vaz, the former New Labour Foreign Office Minister once accepted a directorship from Auchi.
Auchi's political friendships extended far beyond the boardroom. There were indirect links to MI6, and he made a donation to a political party. (We don't know which one.) Many of the threads in his web of influence were on show when a touching scene was enacted on the evening of 23 April 1999. Lord Sainsbury joined 600 guests in the Grand Ballroom of the Park Lane Hotel. The Science Minister announced that he was deputising for the Prime Minister. To show the goodwill that politicians from all parties felt towards Auchi, he presented him with a print of the Houses of Parliament signed by Tony Blair, William Hague, Charles Kennedy and 132 other Ministers and backbenchers.
My colleagues Martin Bright and Antony Barnett have been pursuing the Auchi story for two years now. They have asked politicians why they take jobs from him or applaud his contribution to the business world. The answer from David Steel and others is always the same. A man is innocent until proved guilty. The allegations about his dealings in Italy and Luxembourg and with the NHS haven't been substantiated. Auchi has stoutly declared his innocence. Nothing has been proved against him. Until last week, that is, when Auchi was convicted of illicit profiteering by the Paris Criminal Court and received a 15-month suspended sentence.
You may be surprised that you haven't heard about this. After Ecclestone, the Hindujas and Mittal, the Auchi case confirms that the political class is attracted to the sleaziest characters in capitalism. Auchi's conviction was a part of the gigantic investigation into the corruption of the Elf oil company, the biggest fraud inquiry in Europe since the Second World War. Elf became a private bank for its executives who spent £200 million on political favours, mistresses, jewellery, fine art, villas and apartments. By any definition, this was news."(snip)
Of course the very same Nadhmi Auchi's name has been raised in conjunction with the trial of Barack Obama's confidant and neighbor Tony Rezko ...
(snip)"The Times of London, more interested in uncovering unsavory details about Obama than our own media, has found a new connection between Obama, indicted land developer Tony Rezko, and British-Iraqi billionaire Nadhmi Auchi.
A British-Iraqi billionaire lent millions of dollars to Barack Obama’s fundraiser just weeks before an imprudent land deal that has returned to haunt the presidential contender, an investigation by The Times discloses.
The money transfer raises the question of whether funds from Nadhmi Auchi, one of Britain’s wealthiest men, helped Mr Obama buy his mock Georgian mansion in Chicago.
A company related to Mr Auchi, who has a conviction for corruption in France, registered the loan to Mr Obama’s bagman Antoin “Tony” Rezko on May 23 2005. Mr Auchi says the loan, through the Panamanian company Fintrade Services SA, was for $3.5 million.
Three weeks later, Mr Obama bought a house on the city’s South Side while Mr Rezko’s wife bought the garden plot next door from the same seller on the same day, June 15."(snip)
from
Zinaida
04-11-2008, 03:08 PM
Oh, I know that. That's why all this "apartheid" nonsense is total bullshit..
I could never call it anything other than apartheid.
Zinaida
04-11-2008, 03:11 PM
There in lies the root of the problem.
Exactly. It's the same generalizations and ignorance.
Paris
04-11-2008, 08:38 PM
Paris - So it's just idealism? Hoping that hugs and tolerance will make all the problems go away?
It ended the cold war. (yes, I know about the collapse of the Soviet economy, I was meaning the peaceful end to the cold war) I believe that is how Ghandi lead India to independence from the British, as well.
A little empathy with your enemies can go a long way to a peaceful resolution. When in a fight with another person, incessant screaming over one another resolves nothing. No real communication can take place if neither side is even willing to consider the other's frustrations in the situation.
Kosovo peacefully ceded from Serbia recently. Twenty years ago that was unthinkable. Open mindedness has to start somewhere. I feel that our society is getting to a point where we can embrace peaceful negotiations and understanding of the circumstances of the people we disagree with.
If we could just step away from the situation and remove our emotional attachment to our beliefs, it is obvious how insane all this is. Suicide bombings? Genocides? And for what? Because of something that happened thousands of years ago? That is insanity.
Westboro Baptist Church believes "God hates Fags". They protest the funerals of fallen soldiers because all fallen soldiers are "fags". That is insanity. I see the fighting in the middle east as equally insane. Some might say that the Westboro people are insane, but are they really anymore insane than the Muslim extremist that cries "Death to Jews!" or "Death to America!"?
Will we see peace in the middle east in our lifetime? Gosh, I hope so, but I don't think it is likely. I do believe that it is possible to bring peace into our own minds, individually. That is how it begins, with the individual. Just one person recognizing the insanity of a situation and by that very recognition recognizes his own insane thinking on the subject. He then can point out to his family, friends and neighbors the insanity. Slowly (very slowly) sanity will prevail, and the insanity will be recognized for what it is.
In 1988 if you asked anyone how long until the cold war will end, the answer would have been "Decades" and that was optimistic. It was peacefully over in 1989. Why did it end so suddenly and peacefully? Many can say it was because of the collapse of the Soviet Union's economy. In a way, that is correct. But, and this is HUGE, the economy had pushed the people to see the insanity for exactly what it was. The genocides in Africa keep raging, and no one can say that it is because of the strength of their economies that are allowing the insanity there to continue. The cold war ended because sanity on a mass scale saw that it was futile to continue. Everything else is just details.
hockeybobby
04-11-2008, 09:33 PM
Will we see peace in the middle east in our lifetime? Gosh, I hope so, but I don't think it is likely. I do believe that it is possible to bring peace into our own minds, individually. That is how it begins, with the individual. Just one person recognizing the insanity of a situation and by that very recognition recognizes his own insane thinking on the subject. He then can point out to his family, friends and neighbors the insanity. Slowly (very slowly) sanity will prevail, and the insanity will be recognized for what it is.
YES
Be the example.
Lunarobverse
04-11-2008, 09:41 PM
Paris - So it's just idealism? Hoping that hugs and tolerance will make all the problems go away?
You say that like idealism, hugs and tolerance are bad things. :)
Peaceful resistance is what we honor in people like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Ghandi. No, they were not perfect men, but they led by example. And peaceful resistance is idealistic.
hockeybobby
04-11-2008, 09:44 PM
oh no, another Ghandi quote:
Be the change you want to see in the world.
Paul in Saudi
04-11-2008, 09:45 PM
The problems in this region are perfectly solvable. A couple of reasonable people could work it out over coffee in an afternoon. That being the case, we must come to the conclusion that the people of the region (or the people who claim to represent the population) don't really want a peaceful solution.
When they want some help living in peace, I am all for helping them. Until then, let them continue to hit each other over their heads until some common sense sinks in.
Nobody can make them make peace.
Melonie
04-11-2008, 09:56 PM
Kosovo peacefully ceded from Serbia recently. Twenty years ago that was unthinkable. Open mindedness has to start somewhere.
This didn't happen because of heads wearing open minds ... it happened because of heads wearing blue helmets ! Those same blue helmets are on the Israeli / Lebanese border doing nothing as Hesbollah lobs rockets into Israel and stockpiles weapons !
space_Cadet_28
04-11-2008, 10:11 PM
The problems in this region are perfectly solvable. A couple of reasonable people could work it out over coffee in an afternoon.
I have to disagree. At the turn of the last century 2 peoples thought they had a right to the "holy lands." War was inevitable.
Paris
04-11-2008, 10:14 PM
This didn't happen because of heads wearing open minds ... it happened because of heads wearing blue helmets ! Those same blue helmets are on the Israeli / Lebanese border doing nothing as Hesbollah lobs rockets into Israel and stockpiles weapons !
Aren't those blue helmets referred to as...Peace keeping forces?:)