Madness

[Marko]

This war is directly linked to the war on terror , and the war on terror is a direct result of 9/11

9/11 - War on Terror - Possible WMD's in wrong hands - Iraq - Operation Iraqi Freedom.

So this war is about the deaths of 3,000 American civilians. So how many civilians world wide will die as a result of the War on Terror ? The count so far is between 2000 - 5000, due to allied bombing in Afghanistan. So I was just wondering how the total f**king hypocrisy of this 'War on Terror' will be realised by the few who want to keep killing to appease the people.

TO PUT IT SIMPLY HAVEN'T ENOUGH PEOPLE DIED ? Just make sure your Airport staff do their jobs and people remain vigilant and you should be okay. The people of my country did it for nearly 30 years and have had to start doing it again. Terror and terrorism cannot ever be stopped, nor can it be deterred. Live with it and work against it. If someone wants WMD's they will get them. just look at Israel - the most unstable countryin the middle east and the only one with WMD's.

Oh yes if you were wondering, Russia has so far destroyed 2000 tonnes of nerve agent left over from the cold war. Only 30,000 tonnes to go. Christ the Belgians are still getting rid of the stockpiles of mustard gas that were left over from WWI. It takes years. See my point ?

[jlbetin]

Hi will push on this,
UK was targeted by IRA during 30 years, I remember when I was trying to learn english in England, that when you enter a public place like museum or big stores they were looking at your bags searching for Bombs.

In France it was and is still GIA.
I have post the following sometime ago and got no answer read it again. Ask yourself how you will feel by looking regurlaly under your tube seats if there no strange packet.
What effect it made to ear in each stration and airport don't leave any luggage unatended.

Please read this again and see what could be your future

Dear US Friends,

I just want to explain you why me a just normal french citizen I'm affraid about this war

Terrorism we know what it is. In the 90's the GIA (Algerien muslim fundamentalist armed Group) has made a lot of attacks here.
The use of an Airplane against Paris was planned but hopefully stopped by the assaulting of the Plane on the Marseille airfield by french "swat" forces.

Our subburb have some gangs as yours, less armed but as so violent. This a good "compost" for terrorist groups. Recruiting team are working hard in those time. It is not a dream nor a phantasm. It si a sad reality.

They can rise a small army of human bombs. I don't know if US networks told you how many terrorist people has been arrested in Europe before they can commit attacks, but they are nummerous. Those are activated groups but how many are sleeping ?.

Look, there is in France more than 4 million of Muslim, most of them are peaceful people, but just imagine that during the next few weeks/month the hatred againt the western countires rise to a very high level, and just 1 percent decide to join Al keida like groups, it could give 40.000 possible martyr. Look at Israel what the Hamas was abble to do.

If France told NO to this war, it was not for the pleasure to say NO to the biggest and more powerful country of the WORLD, COCORICO , (French victory cheer).

No it is due to the fact that we know how fierce and proud could be Arabian people. Drive them slowly to the idea that Saddam must be removed and the hatred level will be low. Attack fiercely as Geoge did, even if it is a justified action, will drive muslim public opinion to a bigger hatred.
You were badly hurt on the 11th of September. Just imagine now that due to colateral damages, hundred of thousands volunteers joined terrorist group.

The worst could be a Coup in Pakistan, and Talibans take power !!!. Taliban were created in Pakistan an exported to Afganistan. Think about that.

You may told that we have interest in Irak, oil contract etc... that's true but 2 seas protect you partially. Me where I leave, these guys are just in front of my door, on the opposite side of the street, in the tube, in trains, airplanes, and they are not choir boys . Paranoia you say, hope you are right!!!!

[Deltapooh]

Well, you seem to be one of those people who believe what they hear from their politicians. I'm not. The war in Iraq benefited from 9/11, giving the US the political will to finally take action.

The cases you noted have nothing to do with Iraq. Had Saddam Hussein turned over the WMDs to the Weapons inspectors, it would have fulfilled it's obilgation to the UN under UNSC RESO 687. However, he refused to give them up.

The resolve of the British people is commendable (especially since we didn't help much). However, the United States is not Britian. We have greater concerns than just domestic defense. PIRA was more of a internal threat with global connections. Al-Qaeda is a global threat to the United States, with internal connections. It's intent is to drastically alter our foriegn policy, which is successful, would undermine the vital interest of our country.

It's easy to place a stamp on something and look at one way. Yet, the United States is a larger country, with greater interest than the UK. When Oklahoma City was bombed, did we go off the deep end? No. When the Unibomber was reeking havoc, did we invade? No.

It's simple for people to just assume the US is acting now because it's Muslims. However, we have shown a great deal of tolerance toward the Islamic Fundamentalists threat over the past twenty-five years. 9/11 changed that. If we want to take action against Al-Qaeda, the United States must hunt them down where they live. Unlike the UK, the enemy is not necessarily in our backyard.

As for the war in Iraq. Politicians tell people what they want to hear. The truth is more difficult to swallow. I know Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11. I support the war because I believe it's in the better interest of our wider strategic interest.

[Marko]

Originally posted by Deltapooh
Had Saddam Hussein turned over the WMDs to the Weapons inspectors, it would have fulfilled it's obilgation to the UN under UNSC RESO 687.

Whilst some of what you say in agreeable to me. This is not. Israel ignore all resolutions, and I don't care what chapter they are from.

[Cheetah772]

Originally posted by Marko


Whilst some of what you say in agreeable to me. This is not. Israel ignore all resolutions, and I don't care what chapter they are from.

Marko,

The Israel has WMDs because it needs them for its survival. Without nuclear weapons, Israel would be left vulernable to Arab offensives. It cannot defend itself from both internal (Palestinians) and external (Arabs) threats.

Israel has proven to have no ambitions other than simply surviving another day in violate Middle East.

Are you aware that Israel cannot be on UN Security Council even though each year, several countries take turns to seat on that powerful council? In fact, Israel is the only country in the entire world that cannot have a voice on UN Security Council other than being in General Assembly?

If Israel were to agree with ALL resolutions, it would cease to exist, trust me on this one.

Israel must have some leeway to survive terrorist bombings, hostile Arab intents, etc.

LET ME REPEAT ISRAEL IS THERE TO STAY THERE WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT.

Dan

[Deltapooh]

Originally posted by Marko


Whilst some of what you say in agreeable to me. This is not. Israel ignore all resolutions, and I don't care what chapter they are from.

Israel's weapons of mass destruction program is a bi-product of the failure of the UN. Nasser made a single threat to the UN, and it packed it's bags and ran. The world allowed Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia to gang-up on Israel in 1967, and did not lift a figure to protect what was a soveriegn nation under threat. Israel took matters into their own hands and justly kicked did the job the UN should have, eliminated the threat.

The Arabs called fowl, and world basically stood by and watched as Egypt and Syria mounted a offensive to not only recapture terrority lost in 1967, but also to eliminate Israel as a whole. On both occassions, Israel could have employed their nuclear arsenal, but didn't.

We choose what Resolutions to enforce. I would tell Israel to disarm if I thought it might lead to long term peace. However, I don't believe that. Israel will continue to be threatened by the misguided Arab world as long as ignorance, and mythology is accepted as fact in the Muslim world. So I strongly support Israel maintainin a nuclear arsenal until a day comes when we can say for certainity peace, and the survival of the Israeli state are secured.

[Cheetah772]

Originally posted by Deltapooh


Israel's weapons of mass destruction program is a bi-product of the failure of the UN. Nasser made a single threat to the UN, and it packed it's bags and ran. The world allowed Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia to gang-up on Israel in 1967, and did not lift a figure to protect what was a soveriegn nation under threat. Israel took matters into their own hands and justly kicked did the job the UN should have, eliminated the threat.

The Arabs called fowl, and world basically stood by and watched as Egypt and Syria mounted a offensive to not only recapture terrority lost in 1967, but also to eliminate Israel as a whole. On both occassions, Israel could have employed their nuclear arsenal, but didn't.

We choose what Resolutions to enforce. I would tell Israel to disarm if I thought it might lead to long term peace. However, I don't believe that. Israel will continue to be threatened by the misguided Arab world as long as ignorance, and mythology is accepted as fact in the Muslim world. So I strongly support Israel maintainin a nuclear arsenal until a day comes when we can say for certainity peace, and the survival of the Israeli state are secured.

It's interesting to mention on every map I have seen, nobody bothered to acknowledge that the West Bank and Gaza strip are essentially parts of Israel, and labelled both as occupied territories.

As I can best recall Israel annexed these territories, and only gave Palestinians limited lands for their little quasi-terrorist state.

As far I am concerned, I would prefer to have UN pay for refugees being transferred to Greenland or Antarcatia. Then Israel can at last use these land for much needed expansion.

Israel does not have much room to expand inside borders, so it needs to expand further to allow its population to grow and flourish freely throughout.

Dan

[tigersqn]

Originally posted by Cheetah772


It's interesting to mention on every map I have seen, nobody bothered to acknowledge that the West Bank and Gaza strip are essentially parts of Israel, and labelled both as occupied territories.

As I can best recall Israel annexed these territories, and only gave Palestinians limited lands for their little quasi-terrorist state.

As far I am concerned, I would prefer to have UN pay for refugees being transferred to Greenland or Antarcatia. Then Israel can at last use these land for much needed expansion.

Israel does not have much room to expand inside borders, so it needs to expand further to allow its population to grow and flourish freely throughout.

Dan

The same can be said for many nations. Do you propose the US attack Canada for Lebensraum ? :D

[Cheetah772]

Originally posted by tigersqn


The same can be said for many nations. Do you propose the US attack Canada for Lebensraum ? :D

Just what is Lebensraum? I don't read French or anything like that, every foreign language is akin to trying to communicate with a bunch of aliens...okay maybe you're aliens (foreign aliens, that is).

Dan

[Dan Neely]

Originally posted by Cheetah772


Just what is Lebensraum? I don't read French or anything like that, every foreign language is akin to trying to communicate with a bunch of aliens...okay maybe you're aliens (foreign aliens, that is).

Dan

It's German for LIving space. It was part of Hitlers justification for invading eastern Europe.

[Tzar]

Originally posted by Cheetah772


The Israel has WMDs because it needs them for its survival. Without nuclear weapons, Israel would be left vulernable to Arab offensives. It cannot defend itself from both internal (Palestinians) and external (Arabs) threats.

I beg to completely differ on this one. Israel does not need nuclear weapons at all for its survival. The Suez War of 1956, the Six Days War of 1967, and the Yom Kippour War of 1973 as well as Operation Galileo of 1982 have shown very well that Israel is one of the most efficient warfaring nation in the world, able to tackle many adversaries through superior equipment, tactics, training and determination.

Moreover, Israel enjoys the protection of the U.S. and it is obvious that if Israel's existence would ever become seriously threatened, the most powerful nation of Earth would side by them and do whatever is needed to support Israel.

And finally, nuclear weapons to protect Israel from internal threats is completely useless. You don't fight terrorism with nukes. In the case of Israel, nuking Gaza or West Bank would also mean radioactive death for Israel itself.


As far I am concerned, I would prefer to have UN pay for refugees being transferred to Greenland or Antarcatia. Then Israel can at last use these land for much needed expansion.

Israel does not have much room to expand inside borders, so it needs to expand further to allow its population to grow and flourish freely throughout.

Are you serious? Jeez, is there any way for those Palestinians and refugees to have some say on where they want to live? They way you speak of them is like you consider them as some kind of sub-race of animals that we can dispose at our pleasure.

For God's Sake, Antartica or Greenland ! Why not Mars, while we're at it :eek:

That reminds me that Himmler, head of the nazi SS used to have a plan to expell all Jews to the island of Madagascar (East of Africa in the Indian Ocean), so that Germany would then get more space and land to flourish. The process you are proposing is basically the same, except this time we are talking about the Palestinians and the final destination is Greenland.

You seem to ignore that the refugees you are talking about are actually human beings who used to live where Israel sits now. They did not come from the Moon. Before WWII, these people were quietly living in Palestine and today's Israel.

And then, just after WWII, waves of Jews came there and simply kick them out of their houses and expelled them by force under the pretext that this was Sacred Holy Land. These men, women and children lost everything they had, and they have been living in miserous refugee camps since that time (50 years). It is not very surprising that some of them have become fanatics. Pretty much everybody who would be taught by his grand-father and father how the Jews killed people and expelled them out of their lands would probably have its heart full of hatred, isn't it ?

And now you want to kick their butts over the ocean and send them to freezing Antartica and Greenland? You have suggested the best means to ensure many more generations of terrorists will be coming against Israel.

[Cheetah772]

Originally posted by Tzar


I beg to completely differ on this one. Israel does not need nuclear weapons at all for its survival. The Suez War of 1956, the Six Days War of 1967, and the Yom Kippour War of 1973 as well as Operation Galileo of 1982 have shown very well that Israel is one of the most efficient warfaring nation in the world, able to tackle many adversaries through superior equipment, tactics, training and determination.

Moreover, Israel enjoys the protection of the U.S. and it is obvious that if Israel's existence would ever become seriously threatened, the most powerful nation of Earth would side by them and do whatever is needed to support Israel.

And finally, nuclear weapons to protect Israel from internal threats is completely useless. You don't fight terrorism with nukes. In the case of Israel, nuking Gaza or West Bank would also mean radioactive death for Israel itself.



Are you serious? Jeez, is there any way for those Palestinians and refugees to have some say on where they want to live? They way you speak of them is like you consider them as some kind of sub-race of animals that we can dispose at our pleasure.

For God's Sake, Antartica or Greenland ! Why not Mars, while we're at it :eek:

That reminds me that Himmler, head of the nazi SS used to have a plan to expell all Jews to the island of Madagascar (East of Africa in the Indian Ocean), so that Germany would then get more space and land to flourish. The process you are proposing is basically the same, except this time we are talking about the Palestinians and the final destination is Greenland.

You seem to ignore that the refugees you are talking about are actually human beings who used to live where Israel sits now. They did not come from the Moon. Before WWII, these people were quietly living in Palestine and today's Israel.

And then, just after WWII, waves of Jews came there and simply kick them out of their houses and expelled them by force under the pretext that this was Sacred Holy Land. These men, women and children lost everything they had, and they have been living in miserous refugee camps since that time (50 years). It is not very surprising that some of them have become fanatics. Pretty much everybody who would be taught by his grand-father and father how the Jews killed people and expelled them out of their lands would probably have its heart full of hatred, isn't it ?

And now you want to kick their butts over the ocean and send them to freezing Antartica and Greenland? You have suggested the best means to ensure many more generations of terrorists will be coming against Israel.

Relax Tzar,

I meant it to be sascratic, though I admit I did it poorly.

I don't look at Palestinians as a sub-race of animals, I look at them as human beings, but remember this: Israel won the independence war fair and square.

Israel did capture West Bank and Gaza strip in an orderly manner and adhering to the internationally recognized war principles. In the other words, they won the 1967 war fair and square. At least Israelis didn't go out and start suicide bombings which is saying a lot comparing to these Palestinians.

Israel DOES need nuclear weapons for its defense. In 1973 war, Israel was down to a couple of critical last-ditch defenses, it was not only until America through Alexander Haig, the White House chief of staff, without Nixon or Kissenger's authorization ordered every TOW off Eastern coast and sent them to Israel.

As soon Israeli officers received them, that TOW was immediately valuable as it blew off more than a thousand tanks, the crucial defense of Israel was all but over. Israel then went on offense with its remaining army.

My point is that while America publicly supports Israel, in secret, many senior officials dislike Israel and would rather support the Arabs. The only reason America stood by Israel is because of Turman's recognition of Israel, the first one to do so, hours after Israel was born into existence on May 11, 1948. Next was Stalin, and Max Clement of Cezchnoslavia, he particularly sent a lot of Cezch equipment over to Israel.

If Israel didn't have nuclear weapons, then surely Arab countries will race ahead to build one and use it to wipe Israel off the map. They would rather irradiate their own country if it meant having Israel destroyed.

Tzar, I repeat Israel WON the independence war FAIR and SQUARE.

By the way, that land belongs to the Jews, there has always been a tiny minority of Jews living there since Jesus Christ's time even after Romans scattered them out in 69 AD. Therefore, to the Jews, it can be rightly viewed as sacred Holy Land. I support that view.

As for Palestinians, what would be realistic solution? I don't have one, and I do mean it. The way I see it, they can grudingly accept Israel's existence and come back as Arab-Israeli citizen and live under Israeli laws. Or they can simply stay there in these miserable refugee camps and fight Israel either through terrorist bombs or indocinating their future children the hatred of Israel. Either way, they're going to LOSE badly. Israel is there to STAY!

At what point do Israel stop expanding beyond its borders and into these so-called occupied lands? Israel is witnessing a growth of its population, surely, you cannot suggest that they be confined to Israel's borders, a tiny strip of land perhaps only a dozen or more miles wide, and maybe more than 100 miles in length. That's hardly enough room for more than a million people living there. Eventually, they will need to expand. They just can't stay there forever.

The way I see it, Israel has the right to settle on West Bank and Gaza strip because they did win these lands fair and square.

Dan

[tigersqn]

Originally posted by Tzar


I beg to completely differ on this one. Israel does not need nuclear weapons at all for its survival. The Suez War of 1956, the Six Days War of 1967, and the Yom Kippour War of 1973 as well as Operation Galileo of 1982 have shown very well that Israel is one of the most efficient warfaring nation in the world, able to tackle many adversaries through superior equipment, tactics, training and determination.

Moreover, Israel enjoys the protection of the U.S. and it is obvious that if Israel's existence would ever become seriously threatened, the most powerful nation of Earth would side by them and do whatever is needed to support Israel.


In '73, because of the pressure the US placed on Israel, she realized that she required a home grown defence industry to meet her needs. Israel knew she could not count on the US in difficult times. At that time it was decided to initiate a program to develop nuclear weapons as a means to ensure it's survival.

These weapons are meant to be used in the unlikely case that her enemies are on the verge of taking the heart of Israel. In other words they are a last ditch weapon used mainly as a deterent to for her enemies.

The Israelis know very well that the US is a fickle Ally. The US determination to protect Israel depends on the political climate at the time of danger.

[Martin Schenkel]

Originally posted by Cheetah772
I repeat Israel WON the independence war FAIR and SQUARE.


In Canada, we had a similar situation. In the 1700's, the British decisively defeated the French in the Canadian colonies. However, a sizeable (and quite hostile to the British, mind you) French population remained (modern day Quebec). Rather than trying to assimilate the conquered French populace, the British (for the most part) allowed the French to continue to keep their own religion, cultural traditions, language, a large degree of self-government, and generally accepted them as equals. Quebec is now a fully equal partner in the Canadian Confederacy.

I don't think a 'conquered' population should be oppressed, pushed off their land, forcefully assimilated, etc., nor should such a population be 'fair game' to such policies. The Native Indian societies in North America (and indeed throughout the entire world) have largely been conquered and pushed off their lands, and subjected to virtual genocides (in some cases, literal genocide). That these populations were conquered 'fairly and squarely' is irrelevant, and in fact in most cases it wasn't fairly and squarely. No human being should be subjected to the sorry state that most of the world's Native Indians are currently living in. 'Living room', or Lebensraum (a term used by the Nazis) is certainly no justification.



By the way, that land belongs to the Jews, there has always been a tiny minority of Jews living there since Jesus Christ's time even after Romans scattered them out in 69 AD. Therefore, to the Jews, it can be rightly viewed as sacred Holy Land. I support that view.

I'm not an expert on ancient mid-east history. But if you say a "...tiny minority of Jews..." have lived there since ancient times, does that justify displacing the large majority that were not Jewish?

[Cheetah772]

Originally posted by Martin Schenkel


In Canada, we had a similar situation. In the 1700's, the British decisively defeated the French in the Canadian colonies. However, a sizeable (and quite hostile to the British, mind you) French population remained (modern day Quebec). Rather than trying to assimilate the conquered French populace, the British (for the most part) allowed the French to continue to keep their own religion, cultural traditions, language, a large degree of self-government, and generally accepted them as equals. Quebec is now a fully equal partner in the Canadian Confederacy.

I don't think a 'conquered' population should be oppressed, pushed off their land, forcefully assimilated, etc., nor should such a population be 'fair game' to such policies. The Native Indian societies in North America (and indeed throughout the entire world) have largely been conquered and pushed off their lands, and subjected to virtual genocides (in some cases, literal genocide). That these populations were conquered 'fairly and squarely' is irrelevant, and in fact in most cases it wasn't fairly and squarely. No human being should be subjected to the sorry state that most of the world's Native Indians are currently living in. 'Living room', or Lebensraum (a term used by the Nazis) is certainly no justification.

[/B]

I'm not an expert on ancient mid-east history. But if you say a "...tiny minority of Jews..." have lived there since ancient times, does that justify displacing the large majority that were not Jewish? [/B]

Martin,

The Jew Disparia is well-known, the Romans scattered nearly all of the Jews throughout Roman Empire, so it was not about the non-Jewish people.

Remember Israel was once an ancient land of Jews, after they had successfully warred Canaanites, Amekites, Akkrites, Jebsunites, and many other smaller tribes after exodus from Egypt. God promised the Jews it would be their land, and He has kept that promise ever since.

The truth remains, Israel is the only country that has been "rebirthed" into existence of their own making other than a mere political convience (Poland comes to mind).

The Palestinians will never accept Israel's existence no matter how much you put effort into it. As far I am concerned, there's not an easy way to solve this. Either they accept Israel's existence and come back to live as Arab-Israeli citizens or continue fighting Israel which is a sort of no-win situation.

As for comparing Native-Indians to Palestinians, that's a silly one I've ever heard.

Native-Americans are not a part of sovereign nation, they are rather tribes under our protection. They've been living in poor conditions that partly their faults.

Do you know each year we donate millions of our taxpayers' money to such tribes only to have them building gambling establishments because that's the fastest way to get rich? In fact, recently, I discovered that if you're the only living tribe member, and has been certified as an Indian, you are automatically granted some money, an interesting thing to mention.

Unfortunately, for many native-Americans, the gambling establishments are the worst ways to revv up the local economy. Because if a tribe owns a gambling facility, it has to share the money among its members equally, it diminishes a tribe member's profits. So, it's an exclusive club, often a tribe will exclude any person, even though that person may have a right to be a member of such gambling establishments.

Since such gambling tribe members are greedy, that's why you never see any tribe with gambling establishments doing very well, and rebuilding schools, shops, and other smaller businesses in their own reservations. Such tribes only have themselves to blame for.

It's just the same with Palestinians. They have an opportunity to swallow their pride and come back to Israel as Arab-Israeli citizens and try to best of it under Israeli laws. Being second-class citizens in Israel is certainly better than being branded as a terrorist and having to spend the rest of their lives running away from Israeli authorities and constantly worrying whether they will live or not each day.

The Palestinians in my opinion blew away their chance of co-existing with Irsaeli citizens and carry a peaceful but powerful political voice in Israeli political elections.

Dan

[Tzar]

Originally posted by Martin Schenkel


In Canada, we had a similar situation. In the 1700's, the British decisively defeated the French in the Canadian colonies. However, a sizeable (and quite hostile to the British, mind you) French population remained (modern day Quebec). Rather than trying to assimilate the conquered French populace, the British (for the most part) allowed the French to continue to keep their own religion, cultural traditions, language, a large degree of self-government, and generally accepted them as equals. Quebec is now a fully equal partner in the Canadian Confederacy. [/B]

Good point. As a direct descendent of these French pioneers (who were only 60 000 people in 1760, year of Conquest, and are now more than 6 millions), I can certainly testify that the way Canada treated the French people of Quebec as been for the better good of both nations, the Anglo-Canadian one and the French-Canadian one.

In spite of the still unresolved constitutional question of the Quebec / Canada relationship, the Canadian experience is probably the best - or at least one of the best examples - on how to build a multinational federation. It would certainly be a good example for a future federation of Iraq, with its diversity of minorities and religions, and also on how to build a relationship between Palestine and Israel.

Cheetah: I agree that Israel won the Independence War. However, history has shown that to enjoy the benefits of the victory and to enjoy peace, the conquerors have to be magnanimous to the vanquished and consider them as equal citizens of their own (the Roman Empire is a good example). Also, history has shown that the conquerors bear the biggest part of the responsibility in shaping the future of both sides. We saw how, for example, the Allies after WWI screwed it up with Germany by imposing punitive and humiliating regulations and rules that fueled a resentment deviously exploited after by Hitler.

As a victor, Israel has also failed to learn the lessons of history. Israelis never considered Palestinians their equals. They just annexed the Palestinians territories and occupied them militarily and did not put the least effort in trying to show benevolence towards them, in developing Palestine as much as they were developing the rest of Israel. Every incident has been an excuse to violently crackdown on the Arab population of the occupied territories.

Imagine my friend an Israel which would have integrated the Palestinians as full Israeli citizens, recognized Islam, granted self-autonomy and provided them with a higher standard of living than the poor Jordanian, Egyptian or Syrian fellows of the Palestinians. Today we might have a peaceful and united Greater Israel state with an Arab component that would have turned its back on the past and on its old relations with the rest of the Arab world.

But Israel deliberately chose a different path, the path of building a State based on race, blood and religion that automatically excluded the Arabs and others as second-class citizens. That was a foolish path to follow in a land considered sacred by 3 religions and full of ethnic and religious minorities. By doing so, Israel ensured the conflict would perpetuate. 55 years after the end of the 1948 Independance War, Israel still can't provide peace and security to its own citizens as well as Palestinians. Israelis and Palestinians still mourn everyday, each one on their side, new deaths from this neverending conflict.

As the conquerors and victors who were unable to establish a peaceful and vibrant Israel and Palestine, Israelis bear a large part of responsibility.

[Cheetah772]

Originally posted by Tzar


Good point. As a direct descendent of these French pioneers (who were only 60 000 people in 1760, year of Conquest, and are now more than 6 millions), I can certainly testify that the way Canada treated the French people of Quebec as been for the better good of both nations, the Anglo-Canadian one and the French-Canadian one.

In spite of the still unresolved constitutional question of the Quebec / Canada relationship, the Canadian experience is probably the best - or at least one of the best examples - on how to build a multinational federation. It would certainly be a good example for a future federation of Iraq, with its diversity of minorities and religions, and also on how to build a relationship between Palestine and Israel.

Cheetah: I agree that Israel won the Independence War. However, history has shown that to enjoy the benefits of the victory and to enjoy peace, the conquerors have to be magnanimous to the vanquished and consider them as equal citizens of their own (the Roman Empire is a good example). Also, history has shown that the conquerors bear the biggest part of the responsibility in shaping the future of both sides.

As a victor, Israel failed . Israelis never considered Palestinians their equals. They just annexed the Palestinians territories and occupied them militarily and did not put the least effort in trying to show benevolence towards them, in developing Palestine as much as they were developing the rest of Israel. Every incident has been an excuse to violently crackdown on the Arab population of the occupied territories.

Imagine my friend an Israel which would have integrated the Palestinians as full Israeli citizens, recognized Islam, granted self-autonomy and provided them with a higher standard of living than the poor Jordanian, Egyptian or Syrian fellows of the Palestinians. Today we might have a peaceful and united Greater Israel state with an Arab component that would have turned its back on the past and on its old relations with the rest of the Arab world.

But Israel bears an important responsibility in choosing a different path, the path of building a State based on race, blood and religion that automatically excluded the Arabs and others as second-class citizens. By doing so, Israel ensured the conflict would perpetuate. 55 years after the end of the 1948 Independance War, Israel still can't provide peace and security to its own citizens as well as Palestinians. Israelis and Palestinians still mourn everyday, each one on their side, new deaths from this neverending conflict.

As the conquerors and victors who were unable to establish a peaceful and vibrant Israel and Palestine, Israelis bear a large part of responsibility.

Tzar,

I think I did mention that the Palestinians could come back to Israel as Arab-Israeli citizens. If they do, then they have to realize they have a long way to gain back the trust of many Israelis who have to live in fear of these people considering the history of theirs sending a bunch of suicide bombers.

I can't blame Israel for treating its Arabs like second-class, because they're unsure whether to trust a single Arab because he or she may be a next suicide bomber about to kill you.

The fact remains Israel is one of two only democratic states in Middle East (the other being Turkey, but that's debatable, considering Turkey's military largely controls the politics), and Israel need to be able to survive each day without worrying about Palestinians and hostile Arab countries circling about like vultures searching for weaknesses in Israel's armor.

Dan

[Martin Schenkel]

Originally posted by Cheetah772

Native-Americans are not a part of sovereign nation, they are rather tribes under our protection. They've been living in poor conditions that partly their faults.

Prior to being conquered, the North-American Indians were largely organized into what we would call nations. They considered themselves to be such, and conducted their own politics accordingly, forming alliances, conducting wars, etc. similar to the European nation states at the time. These weren't simply a bunch of 'savages' running wild. In fact, here in Canada some native groups have recieved virtual nation-state status.

Being subjected to genocide, forcefully assimilated, and forced onto reservations is hardly their own fault. While some tribes have mis-managed themselves, they were hardly given a fair chance from which to start.


Remember Israel was once an ancient land of Jews, after they had successfully warred Canaanites, Amekites, Akkrites, Jebsunites, and many other smaller tribes after exodus from Egypt. God promised the Jews it would be their land, and He has kept that promise ever since.

The truth remains, Israel is the only country that has been "rebirthed" into existence of their own making other than a mere political convience (Poland comes to mind).

How does that justify a tiny minority displacing a large majority?

[Cheetah772]

Originally posted by Martin Schenkel


Prior to being conquered, the North-American Indians were largely organized into what we would call nations. They considered themselves to be such, and conducted their own politics accordingly, forming alliances, conducting wars, etc. similar to the European nation states at the time. These weren't simply a bunch of 'savages' running wild. In fact, here in Canada some native groups have recieved virtual nation-state status.

Being subjected to genocide, forcefully assimilated, and forced onto reservations is hardly their own fault. While some tribes have mis-managed themselves, they were hardly given a fair chance from which to start.

[/B]

How does that justify a tiny minority displacing a large majority? [/B]

Martin,

You just can't blame America's past generations for the troubles which were brought upon the Indians.

If we were to give these Indian tribes virtual nation-status, then they would be cut off from our federal funding and left to their own devices. Guess what would happen? They would have become even more poorer than before.

If they weren't being given a fair chance, then they need to make best of it taking whatever chances they could have. The life isn't fair, nothing ever is. They had chances with the federal fundings to make their lives better instead of blowing them off on some gambling establishments. They could have used it to fund a small business that would turn a profit, then use that profit to invest some stocks or capital into businesses. They could have sent some best and brightest young Indians to different schools and have them come back to teach elders and younger generations on how to improve their lives.

But NO! They have to go out and build these filthy gambling establishments that take away people's money and put to filthy uses. The gambling does not profit anybody, not ever!

How does that justify a tiny minority displacing a large majority? Israelis did not displace the Palestinians, they fled Israelis as they were winning the Independence War. The Palestinians choose to live in the refugee camps instead of coming back to Israel and live as Arab-Israeli citizens. The Palestinians fought hard and lost the war, now, they have no choice but to accept Israel's existence.

But no, Palestinians refuse to accept Israel's existence and fought ever since by using filthy terrorist tactics which are nothing but a form of cowardiance.

It's all about choices, and in my opinion both Indians and Palestinians blew away their chances to make the best of miserable conditions they were in. It's not my fault or Israel's that they are in their present conditions.

Dan

[LaPalice]

I read somewhere that the French population of a Canadian region, maybe Acadia, was expelled from this region to Louisiana. The American francophones call that Le Grand Chambardement or La Grande Folie, something like that, I don’t remember exactly. Is it correct ?

Not sure if Quebec and Palestine can be compared. Canada, and North America, is a huge continent, there is a lot of place, for everybody. It’s not the case in Israel and Palestine.

La Palice.

[Martin Schenkel]

Originally posted by Cheetah772


Martin,

You just can't blame America's past generations for the troubles which were brought upon the Indians.

If we were to give these Indian tribes virtual nation-status, then they would be cut off from our federal funding and left to their own devices. Guess what would happen? They would have become even more poorer than before.

If they weren't being given a fair chance, then they need to make best of it taking whatever chances they could have. The life isn't fair, nothing ever is. They had chances with the federal fundings to make their lives better instead of blowing them off on some gambling establishments. They could have used it to fund a small business that would turn a profit, then use that profit to invest some stocks or capital into businesses. They could have sent some best and brightest young Indians to different schools and have them come back to teach elders and younger generations on how to improve their lives.

But NO! They have to go out and build these filthy gambling establishments that take away people's money and put to filthy uses. The gambling does not profit anybody, not ever!


Not all tribes have built 'filthy' gambling extablishments. Of course some have become successful without gambling, but the majority still live in horrible conditions. Not all gambling establishments are successful (Indian or not), and life isn't so easy and simple as to investing a bit of money into stocks, and sitting around waiting for the profits to roll in. If they invested their money in stocks, and the stocks did poorly, would you say the Indians squandered their money? They're still taking the same gamble as with gambling establishments. No, life isn't fair, but does that mean the Indians can't be given a bloody chance to live a worthy live!?

I don't blame all the Indian's problems on European settlers. However, we do need to take some responsability, and in particular learn the lessons as what NOT to do. Even today's generations mistreat the Native Indians.



It's all about choices, and in my opinion both Indians and Palestinians blew away their chances to make the best of miserable conditions they were in. It's not my fault or Israel's that they are in their present conditions.

I think everyone, whether individuals or groups, should be given a second chance. The Jewish were in the same position as Palestinians and Native Indians for centuries. They were oppressed, treated as second-class citizens, and subjected to genocide. They were given a second chance, and the state of Israel has succeeded.

[Martin Schenkel]

Originally posted by LaPalice
I read somewhere that the French population of a Canadian region, maybe Acadia, was expelled from this region to Louisiana. The American francophones call that Le Grand Chambardement or La Grande Folie, something like that, I don’t remember exactly. Is it correct?

I believe this was before the British defeated the French in the Canadian colonies. Some Acadien decendants and traditions still remain, mostly in the province of New Brunswick, I think.



Not sure if Quebec and Palestine can be compared. Canada, and North America, is a huge continent, there is a lot of place, for everybody. It’s not the case in Israel and Palestine.

A good point. However, the conflict between the British and French was similar. They had different languages, religions, traditions, etc., and their hatred for each other at that time was just as strong as it is with many Israelis and Palestinians. A minority of extremists on both sides would not accept the presence of the other, and to this day still don't.

[Cheetah772]

Originally posted by Martin Schenkel


Not all tribes have built 'filthy' gambling extablishments. Of course some have become successful without gambling, but the majority still live in horrible conditions. Not all gambling establishments are successful (Indian or not), and life isn't so easy and simple as to investing a bit of money into stocks, and sitting around waiting for the profits to roll in. If they invested their money in stocks, and the stocks did poorly, would you say the Indians squandered their money? They're still taking the same gamble as with gambling establishments. No, life isn't fair, but does that mean the Indians can't be given a bloody chance to live a worthy live!?

I don't blame all the Indian's problems on European settlers. However, we do need to take some responsability, and in particular learn the lessons as what NOT to do. Even today's generations mistreat the Native Indians.



I think everyone, whether individuals or groups, should be given a second chance. The Jewish were in the same position as Palestinians and Native Indians for centuries. They were oppressed, treated as second-class citizens, and subjected to genocide. They were given a second chance, and the state of Israel has succeeded. [/B]

I can see your points.

But I still believe that Native-Indians and Palestinians both have blown away their second chances as well.

I remember going to an Indian, I forget the tribe's name, reservation in North Carolina with a group of Christian college students on spring break. The Indians had this small musemum, and we all went there because we were curious about the Indian culture and how they really viewed us.

I received a real shock in reality. There was a short movie about Indian origins, and in the end, I came away with a real impression that there was a lot of anger and bitterness being felt in that reservation.

The Indians there continued to hold bitter and angry feelings, they still do blame us for many problems they've been facing for generations. Not all Indians do harbor such feelings toward us.

It seems like they want us to apologize for the past behaviors, when in fact, it's clearly not our generation's faults. It's like having blacks demanding an apology for the slavery before the Civil War erupted. It's just absurd to go around and blaming something on a past generation.

I just wanted to say to them, "It's over. You lost. Make best of second chances you've been receiving in the federal fundings, use them to invest in your future young generations. You can reclaim your dreams of independence through hard work and willingness to accept the loss, and move on with your lives."

For your information, this reservation I went to was a moderate success, though, I could tell many Indians do live in poor conditions, and there are probably some gambling establishments that I couldn't see. Even so, this was certainly better than some reservations in my homestate, Wisconsin, which is near Canada's borders.

It's the same with Palestinians. They continue to harbor bitterness and anger when they don't get anywhere. It's all pointless, it's over, they fought hard to keep their land from the Jews. They lost, it's over. The Jews are there to stay. If Palestinians don't want Israelis to kill any more of their children, then I strongly encourage them to do:

1.) Get over with bitterness and anger.

2.) Go back to Israel and live as Arab-Israeli citizens.

3.) Stop teaching children the hatred of Israel.

4.) Work hard, and stop loitering around in the refugee camps.

5.) Respect Israel for its survival and an acknowledged major power in Middle East.

6.) Stop fighting Israel and accept its existence.

7.) Respect all lives, and stop practicing terrorism.

8.) Teach them the order and law of land -- which is stop killing each other for no reasons other than being bitter and angry.

But, no, for many Palestinians, they choose to fight Israel rather than accept its existence. Thus, in my opinion, they blew that second chance themselves. Now, they have nobody except themselves to blame for many problems they're facing.

Dan

[Martin Schenkel]

I received a real shock in reality. There was a short movie about Indian origins, and in the end, I came away with a real impression that there was a lot of anger and bitterness being felt in that reservation.

How would you feel if you were in the Indian's position? Your culture and traditions have been maintained for thousands of years, and suddenly a bunch of people come and want to have your land. While some Indians gave up their land willingly, many (if not most) were cheated out of their land, killed and pushed off their land, and forced onto reservations. In Canada, some elements of the Clergy forcefully assimilated Indian children in 'Residential Schools', where physical and sexual abuse was common. After several generations of humiliation, abuse, and being treated as second-class, how would you feel? IMO, largely because of this humiliation and abuse, many tribes suffer from high un-employment, alcohol and drug abuse, violence, etc., at rates far higher than the rest of society. That dosen't mean our society, as ancestors of the European settlers, has to forever be burdened by guilt, but a little honest compassion (not money) will go a long ways. On the other hand, the post-war generation in Germany has had to pay, both financially and through guilt/shame for their treatment of the Jews, and I think fews Jews would still harbour much resentment against Germans.

As for the Palestinians, while there is an extremist element that unfourtunately will never recognize the state of Israel, I think the majority would rather accept Israel, and simply live in peaceful co-existence. Similarly, while there are Israeli extremists that want to see the Paletinians annihilated, I think the majority of Israeli people also want no more than peaceful co-existence.

You say the Palestinians should let go of the bitterness and anger. How? They largely live as a conquered and humiliated people. They often have heavy restrictions on travel and work. They are subjected to curfews, and have little or no representation in Israeli politics. I do understand that these measures are in large part an attempt to stop or slow down the Palestinian extremists. But for the large number of Palestinians who want peace, what are they supposed to do? I understand that it is difficult (even dangerous) for Israel to make concesions, but both sides will have to give something up if they want peace. It is unfourtunate that there is no dialogue between the two sides at this point in time. I think more openness and discussions by both Palestinians and Israelis would do wonders for peace.

[Marko]

Originally posted by Tzar


I beg to completely differ on this one. Israel does not need nuclear weapons at all for its survival. The Suez War of 1956, the Six Days War of 1967, and the Yom Kippour War of 1973 as well as Operation Galileo of 1982 have shown very well that Israel is one of the most efficient warfaring nation in the world, able to tackle many adversaries through superior equipment, tactics, training and determination.

Moreover, Israel enjoys the protection of the U.S. and it is obvious that if Israel's existence would ever become seriously threatened, the most powerful nation of Earth would side by them and do whatever is needed to support Israel.

And finally, nuclear weapons to protect Israel from internal threats is completely useless. You don't fight terrorism with nukes. In the case of Israel, nuking Gaza or West Bank would also mean radioactive death for Israel itself.



Are you serious? Jeez, is there any way for those Palestinians and refugees to have some say on where they want to live? They way you speak of them is like you consider them as some kind of sub-race of animals that we can dispose at our pleasure.

For God's Sake, Antartica or Greenland ! Why not Mars, while we're at it :eek:

That reminds me that Himmler, head of the nazi SS used to have a plan to expell all Jews to the island of Madagascar (East of Africa in the Indian Ocean), so that Germany would then get more space and land to flourish. The process you are proposing is basically the same, except this time we are talking about the Palestinians and the final destination is Greenland.

You seem to ignore that the refugees you are talking about are actually human beings who used to live where Israel sits now. They did not come from the Moon. Before WWII, these people were quietly living in Palestine and today's Israel.

And then, just after WWII, waves of Jews came there and simply kick them out of their houses and expelled them by force under the pretext that this was Sacred Holy Land. These men, women and children lost everything they had, and they have been living in miserous refugee camps since that time (50 years). It is not very surprising that some of them have become fanatics. Pretty much everybody who would be taught by his grand-father and father how the Jews killed people and expelled them out of their lands would probably have its heart full of hatred, isn't it ?

And now you want to kick their butts over the ocean and send them to freezing Antartica and Greenland? You have suggested the best means to ensure many more generations of terrorists will be coming against Israel.

Could not have said it better myself. Some excellent points.

[Marko]

Originally posted by Cheetah772


Tzar,

I think I did mention that the Palestinians could come back to Israel as Arab-Israeli citizens. If they do, then they have to realize they have a long way to gain back the trust of many Israelis who have to live in fear of these people considering the history of theirs sending a bunch of suicide bombers.

I can't blame Israel for treating its Arabs like second-class, because they're unsure whether to trust a single Arab because he or she may be a next suicide bomber about to kill you.

The fact remains Israel is one of two only democratic states in Middle East (the other being Turkey, but that's debatable, considering Turkey's military largely controls the politics), and Israel need to be able to survive each day without worrying about Palestinians and hostile Arab countries circling about like vultures searching for weaknesses in Israel's armor.

Dan

I have heard it all now. Two democratic countries ? The others may not be officially democratic, but they all have better human rights records (except Iraq) than Turkey and Israel.

[LaPalice]

Originally posted by Martin Schenkel
A good point. However, the conflict between the British and French was similar. They had different languages, religions, traditions, etc., and their hatred for each other at that time was just as strong as it is with many Israelis and Palestinians. A minority of extremists on both sides would not accept the presence of the other, and to this day still don't.

Yes, it’s true, the hatred was high. I’m not sure that the cultural differences between Anglophones and Francophones were as important as between Jews and Palestinians. More than that Palestine, Jerusalem, Israel are holy grounds, and nothing can exacerbate passions more than that. Struggles between French and British were more “geostrategic”, or even economic, than cultural. It’s the contrary between Israelis and Palestinians, it’s religious and cultural for the most part. Even if now the water is more and more important in this region.

La Palice.

[Martin Schenkel]

Originally posted by LaPalice


Yes, it’s true, the hatred was high. I’m not sure that the cultural differences between Anglophones and Francophones were as important as between Jews and Palestinians. More than that Palestine, Jerusalem, Israel are holy grounds, and nothing can exacerbate passions more than that. Struggles between French and British were more “geostrategic”, or even economic, than cultural. It’s the contrary between Israelis and Palestinians, it’s religious and cultural for the most part. Even if now the water is more and more important in this region.

La Palice.

Another good point. The British/French conflict was less over land. The North American colonies were hardly seen as 'Holy Land' by the monarchs in Europe. The Native Indians, on the other hand, DID see some of their lands as being holy.