Hamas has taken Gaza, and Abbas has kicked them out of the Palestinian government. Who's to blame for lack of progress towards a Palestinian state?
Posted by Fareed Zakaria & Natalie Ahn on June 18, 2007 7:52 AM
Readers’ Responses to Our Question (108)
Historian :
Ignatius is perplexed this morning (see column) because the White House doesn't see any problems with the war, with congress, etc. Let me help him:
The WHITE HOUSE IS COMPLETELY DOMINATED BY JEWISH NEOCONS AND ISRAEL FIRST AIDES.
Israel is getting what it wants, war and choas, 40% of the West Bank and working today on Gaza....still working hard to bomb Iran. Has AIPAC in control of congress and doesn't give a damn what Americans want or are feeling.
And Bloomberg's aides working secretly (for the last TWO years) on a presidential run.
Nobody notices, apparently.
One way to answer this question is be to bring up Samuel P. Huntington's clash of civilization theory. That's what most Neo-cons, Bush policy makers and Washington Post editorialists seem to favor. They imply that the West is engaged in a titanic struggle against the Dark Age forces, today represented in the Middle East by Islam. They imply that Islam has become fundamentally a violent and hateful religion that oppresses people and hates the freedoms that people enjoy in the West. Thus Islam represents a threat for the West, and Islamic movements, unless subservient to western interests, are an endemic threat to the West and to everything the West stands for. Well, what do we stand for? If we stand for oppression, double standards, corruption and neocolonial rule, we will face opposition by many, including ruthless extremist terrorist groups that may be Islamic in nature or not, and that will constantly provoke us into collective punishment, just so they can increase support among the people. If we truly try to abide by the principles we hold dear, and enforce some sort of international rule of law, without double standards, and that we are willing to apply to ourselves and to our friends, we will take the wind out of these violent groups, and isolate them within their people.
In the specific case of Hamas the Neo-con approach fosters a "no-negotiation" stance, for the belief is that Hamas, who won democratically held elections, while also pursuing military/terrorist operations against Israel cannot and will not change its ultimate goal of destroying Israel. But weren’t the terrorists Begin and Shamir, the ones who implemented the Camp David accords with Egypt? Didn’t they prove to the world that terrorists, who fight for a national cause, can change?
The flaw of the Neo-con approach is that it fails to put in perspective why Hamas is popular among Palestinians. Palestinians have obtained very little from Palestinian leaders popular with the West, and have witnessed how these have been subjected to bribes, threats and destruction whenever they did not abide by what was imposed upon them by Clinton, Bush, Barak and Sharon. They have witnessed that when UN Security Council resolutions are concerned, there is a double standard imposed upon Arab countries and Israel. In other words, Hamas would still be a marginal fringe terrorist organization, with little or no support among Palestinians, if a serious honest effort had been made a long time ago to put an end to the 1967 occupation, abide by the UN security council resolutions and the principles included in the 1977-79 Camp David accords, and prevent Israeli illegal settlements in the occupied territories.
The Neo-con/Bush/Washington Post approach identifies Israel with the West and glosses over 40 years of ruthless occupation and isolation of the occupied territories. It also glosses over the colonial and neo colonial role the West has played in that area since the 19th century, since Napoleon, and the failure of many western influenced organizations such as the Baath, the corrupt westernized governments of Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia and the new Iraqi government (how ironic is that) to come up with a solutions and a positive vision for a new Middle East. In other words, Islam is being used as a last resource tool to fight an old conflict, a conflict opposing the wealthy West hoarding resources, land and riches for its own ends and the poor nations looking for identity, empowerment, respect and control over their own destiny and the destiny of their resources. Beware; I am not saying that the West should just roll over. I think that Israel has the right to live in security, and that should obviously be worked into any negotiation. I also think that the West must come to terms with immigration. I think that immigrants should be required to fully integrate and abide by our laws, even when these clash with their religion, period. But if we do not address the roots of that conflict, we will be our own self fulfilling prophets. One thing is sure. We cannot keep our cake and eat it too. We cannot pretend that our values and principles are superior, and then when we operate in the Middle east either we fail to put enough effort and resources in nurturing them, or we willingly fail to apply them, because it's more convenient to oppress those People. That's double talk that only strengthens groups like Hamas.
Ignatius is perplexed this morning (see column) because the White House doesn't see any problems with the war, with congress, etc. Let me help him:
The WHITE HOUSE IS COMPLETELY DOMINATED BY JEWISH NEOCONS AND ISRAEL FIRST AIDES.
Israel is getting what it wants, war and choas, 40% of the West Bank and working today on Gaza....still working hard to bomb Iran. Has AIPAC in control of congress and doesn't give a damn what Americans want or are feeling.
And Bloomberg's aides working secretly (for the last TWO years) on a presidential run.
Nobody notices, apparently.
Ignatius is perplexed this morning (see column) because the White House doesn't see any problems with the war, with congress, etc. Let me help him:
The WHITE HOUSE IS COMPLETELY DOMINATED BY JEWISH NEOCONS AND ISRALI FIRST AIDES.
Israel is getting what it wants, war and choas, 40% of the West Bank and working today on Gaza....still working hard to bomb Iran. Has AIPAC in control of congress and doesn't give a damn what Americans want or or feeling.
And Bloomberg's aides working secretly (for the last TWO years) on a presidential run.
Nobody notices, apparently.
Ignatius is perplexed this morning (see column) because the White House doesn't see any problems with the war, with congress, etc. Let me help him:
The WHITE HOUSE IS COMPLETELY DOMINATED BY JEWISH NEOCONS AND ISRALI FIRST AIDES.
Israel is getting what it wants, war and choas, 40% of the West Bank and working today on Gaza....still working hard to bomb Iran. Has AIPAC in control of congress and doesn't give a damn what Americans want or or feeling.
And Bloomberg's aides working secretly (for the last TWO years) on a presidential run.
Nobody notices, apparently.
"... the assumptions that the "community of nations" is a credible entity..."
The community of nations IS a credible entity. It is the only credible entity there is, of its kind.
However loudly one or two nations in this world have called repeatedly for it to be "disbanded", that does not change anything to that fact; quite the contrary, after years of lies and deception from those who consider themselves above international law and the rule of said community. After years of shameless lies and deception in the precincts of that community, even in front of all the nations gathered to watch and to listen.
No nation is above international law. No nation stands creditably above the community of nations. Only genuine rogue nations and non-viable, failed states constantly claim to be and to do so. Theirs is the path of no future. Time will tell; always has.
History spreads over thousands of years. What is 60 years in the history of mankind?
Sorry to be a cynic but in answer to "How long will it take for the monkey to realize that by letting go of the cherries and removing his hand he will be able to pour all the cherries out of the jar?", it really does not matter because a suicide bomber has blown up the monkey, the jar, the cherries and the monkey's friends and family.
Fleur de Lys, Canada
You said "Those are only prerequisites to being a respectable member of said community" in reference to what Israel needs to do. This suggestion appears to be put forth under the assumptions that the "community of nations" is a credible entity. When that assumption actually exists, perhaps you will be on to something. The major problem with this is that back in the 1940's, the "community of nations" created Israel and lit the fuse on the current set of issues. The community has spent the better part of 55+ years trying to "fix" the very problems it caused. Since the community has caused many the problems that exist today, i'm not sure this community is part of the answer to anything.
"How long will it take for the monkey to realize that by letting go of the cherries and removing his hand he will be able to pour all the cherries out of the jar?" (Mary)
I love that story, Mary. There is so much wisdom in it, expressed in such simple terms, in the true asiatic tradition.
Unfortunately, it may be too late for that.
As I see it, the monkey has long ago smashed the jar against the wall of the nearest Palestinian home, has freed his hand, spilled some cherries, yet has eaten most of them, loved their taste, has therefore been on a rampage ever since... with a free hand.
Chuang Tzu writes: "It is only whomever is not interested in ruling it that we may entrust with the mission of leading the world." (my rendering)
Monkeys are not amongst the best candidates, I'm afraid.
Venkat writes: "Perhaps many on the board exhibit their Nazi mind of blaming Israel."
Oh! THAT is a most impressive argument! You should write a whole book on "Debating: How to Prevail on the Cheap".
It is the duty of the world Jewish community to be the FIRST to demand: 1. That Israelis, acting in the name of Israel, respect international law. 2. That Israelis guilty of war crimes and of crimes against humanity (among them the murder of Canadian members of the El Akras family and of Canadian UN observer Major Hess-von Kruedener, in Lebanon, last summer) be judged for their crimes by an International Tribunal on war crimes and crimes against humanity. 3. That Israel respect all the resolutions adopted overwhelmingly by the community of nations.
Those are only prerequisites to being a respectable member of said community.
I'm for a single state, democratic, equal rights for all. Here is a little story, written by
Henry Reed, Ph.D.
There was once a monkey who discovered a jar of cherries. He stuck his hand in the jar and grabbed a handful of fruit. But when he went to withdraw his fistful of cherries, his engorged fist wouldn't fit through the opening of the jar. The monkey was stuck. The only way out of this trap was for him to release the cherries and then remove his opened hand-but he wanted the cherries and didn't want to let go.
What a paradoxical situation for the monkey! His wanting the cherries so much that he couldn't let go of them was the very thing that made it impossible for him to have them. How long will it take for the monkey to realize that by letting go of the cherries and removing his hand he will be able to pour all the cherries out of the jar?
This fable presents a predicament that often confronts us when we seek by force something that, in fact, will come to us only when we are willing to let go and receive it. The predicament arises from many different sources. Sometimes it is our need to be in control, to feel secure that by our own efforts we can guarantee certain results. Other times it comes about because our consciousness is caught in an ego trap, when we so desire something that we separate ourselves from that which we desire. It then appears to us that we must go after it, when all along it is already within us if we could only accept it.
What is the way out of the predicament of this ego trap? One useful principle-itself a paradox-is: "If you want something, then give it away-you can only really possess that which you can give away."
Perhaps many on the board exhibit their Nazi mind of blaming Israel. Perhaps they are afraid that if land is returned to the Israelis after centuries of occupation what would happen if the world decides to return the occupied lands in Americas, Australia and New Zealand? The Christians blame the mythical crucification of a mythical Jesus on the Jews forgetting the fact that the myth himself claimed he came for the resurrection of the Jews. Strictly christianity should be called Paulianity or maybe Churchianity!
Perhaps many on the board exhibit their Nazi mind of blaming Israel. Perhaps they are afraid that if land is returned to the Israelis after centuries of occupation what would happen if the world decides to return the occupied lands in Americas, Australia and New Zealand? The Christians blame the mythical crucification of a mythical Jesus on the Jews forgetting the fact that the myth himself claimed he came for the resurrection of the Jews. Strictly christianity should be called Paulianity or maybe Churchianity!
Perhaps many on the board exhibit their Nazi mind of blaming Israel. Perhaps they are afraid that if land is returned to the Israelis after centuries of occupation what would happen if the world decides to return the occupied lands in Americas, Australia and New Zealand? Could it be suppressed Nazi instincts too? The Christians blame the mythical crucification of a mythical Jesus on the Jews forgetting the fact that the myth himself claimed he came for the resurrection of the Jews. Strictly christianity should be called Paulianity or maybe Churchianity!
Perhaps many on the board exhibit their Nazi mind of blaming Israel. Perhaps they are afraid that if land is returned to the Israelis after centuries of occupation what would happen if the world decides to return the occupied lands in Americas, Australia and New Zealand? Could it be suppressed Nazi instincts too? The Christians conveniently for the mythical crucification of a mythical Jesus on the Jews forgetting the fact that the myth himself claimed he came for the resurrection of the Jews. Strictly christianity should be called Paulianity or maybe Churchianity!
The question of who is to blame, is ridiculous. It only
invites hiistorical blame. It has nothing whatever to do
with what the future may hold. It is an excuse for
refusing responsibility for what is happening right now, in
tbe present.
There is not one single leader on any side of the
conflict who is willing, or able, to think ahead. They
all think backwards. They use their backward thinking
as an excuse to murder their friends, their families, their
countrymen. All men, on all sides, are doing this.
This, in the end, is not about politics, or territory, or
who's God is "right" -it is about the male perogative to
kill, period. Men love to kill. It fills them with a feeling of
satisfaction that can only be dupicated with ejaculation
and that is why they ultimately go to war - because
ejaculation is such a passing expecience -war goes on
and on. Men actually love war. Odd, but true.
The question of who is to blame, is ridiculous. It only
invites hiistorical blame. It has nothing whatever to do
with what the future may hold. It is an excuse for
refusing responsibility for what is happening right now, in
tbe present.
There is not one single leader on any side of the
conflict who is willing, or able, to think ahead. They
all think backwards. They use their backward thinking
as an excuse to murder their friends, their families, their
countrymen. All men, on all sides, are doing this.
This, in the end, is not about politics, or territory, or
who's God is "right" -it is about the male perogative to
kill, period. Men love to kill. It fills them with a feeling of
satisfaction that can only be dupicated with ejaculation
and that is why they ultimately go to war - because
ejaculation is such a passing expecience -war goes on
and on. Men actually love war. Odd, but true.
Perhaps many on the board exhibit their Nazi mind of blaming Israel. Perhaps they are afraid that if land is returned to the Israelis after centuries of occupation what would happen if the world decides to return the occupied lands in Americas, Australia and New Zealand? Could it be suppressed Nazi instincts too? The Christians conveniently like to blame the mythical Jesus so called crucification on the Jews forgetting the fact that the mythical Jesus himself claimed he came for the resurrection of the Jews. Strictly christianity should be called Paulianity or maybe Churchianity!
The question of who is to blame, is ridiculous. It only
invites hiistorical blame. It has nothing whatever to do
with what the future may hold. It is an excuse for
refusing responsibility for what is happening right now, in
tbe present.
There is not one single leader on any side of the
conflict who is willing, or able, to think ahead. They
all think backwards. They use their backward thinking
as an excuse to murder their friends, their families, their
countrymen. All men, on all sides, are doing this.
This, in the end, is not about politics, or territory, or
who's God is "right" -it is about the male perogative to
kill, period. Men love to kill. It fills them with a feeling of
satisfaction that can only be dupicated with ejaculation
and that is why they ultimately go to war - because
ejaculation is such a passing expecience -war goes on
and on. Men actually love war. Odd, but true.
The question of who is to blame, is ridiculous. It only
invites hiistorical blame. It has nothing whatever to do
with what the future may hold. It is an excuse for
refusing responsibility for what is happening right now, in
tbe present.
There is not one single leader on any side of the
conflict who is willing, or able, to think ahead. They
all think backwards. They use their backward thinking
as an excuse to murder their friends, their families, their
countrymen. All men, on all sides, are doing this.
This, in the end, is not about politics, or territory, or
who's God is "right" -it is about the male perogative to
kill, period. Men love to kill. It fills them with a feeling of
satisfaction that can only be dupicated with ejaculation
and that is why they ultimately go to war - because
ejaculation is such a passing expecience -war goes on
and on. Men actually love war. Odd, but true.
"Who is to blame?" is perhaps the right question to ask if you want to see continued violence since it stokes the passions of recrimination and polarizes the people.
If you want to see the violence abate or end, then
you ask "How does one fix it?" which is essentially an engineering question. And the answer has already been posted here - the community of nations, the UN, has to do it's job with support of member nations.
Elisabeth Ham,
I don't think that your comments were distorted. I was responding to and commenting on your post. Perhaps my method of doing so by quoting you and then adding my two cents right afterwards might be the cause of this confusion. Sorry. For the record, I (and NOT Elisabeth Ham) did refer to Carter as "terrorist loving" as he has spoken of his admiration of and bonding with Yasser Arafat, who was a terrorist.
Britain partitioned the Middle East by giving oil rich territory to families they owed favors to (now you have a handful of filthy rich and the messes are extremely poor) and Zionists (movement formed in the late 1800s) pressed for a state of Israel on territories that were inhabited. When Jews got there, they forced the locals out and the so-called 'civilized-west' ignored this inhumanity. Then US (and europe) helped the 'rulers' oppress their citizens in return for favorable oil contracts. As they say, the rest is history.
If you want to know who is to blame, ask yourself if you would sit idle if your home was forcefully taken from you.
Who is to blame? US and Israel against the entire world.
"One was a Syrian-sponsored resolution at the Security Council — whose resolutions are binding — to force Israel to stop building its West Bank security fence.
That resolution was vetoed by the United States. It later passed in the General Assembly — whose resolutions are not binding — by a 144-4 vote.
The second was a Russian resolution circulated last week pressing for implementation of the "road map" peace plan. Pro-Israel activists say that would usurp American influence and empower the United Nations, which is seen as biased toward the Palestinians.
Has anybody noticed?
Discussions or arguments formerly between Republicans/Democrats, Liberals/Conservatives a etc., are now primarily between those who defend israel's ugly history and present vicious actions (in Gaza today and those sick of it.
The defenses given are fictions, excuses, repeated, over and over. Where do they come from? Who provides those lies? Is it a central source? What else do they do?
The Palestinian only have themselves to blame. They have championed violence as a solution ever since I can recall. Is it really a suprise that such values lead to a broken and violent state?
Since Israel won the West Bank from Jordan and Gaza from Egypt why can't they negotiate with those countries. Once in place those countries have histories on how to deal with militant Islam.
Just a suggestion.
This is a caution to all those wishing to comment in this forum. My comments were distorted and included really awful comments that I would never have made. I DO NOT CONSIDER PRESIDENT CARTER TO BE A TERROIST LOVER. If I wanted to write something which might have been written on Rush's or Bill O'Riely's blog, I wouldn't have bothered to respond on the Washington Post webb.
This is a caution to all those wishing to comment in this forum. My comments were distorted and included really awful comments that I would never have made. I DO NOT CONSIDER PRESIDENT CARTER TO BE A TERROIST LOVER. If I wanted to write something which might have been written on Rush's or Bill O'Riely's blog, I wouldn't have bothered to respond on the Washington Post webb.
Hamas and Fatah now are showing to the world who they are. Those two terrorist factions that clame to be political parties are just using antisemitism to control palestinian people.
Blame the former soviet union and the KGB. The russias gave weapons and trained terrorists. Who trained Abbas? KGB! Who trained Arafat? KGB!
Now they want to blame America and Israel? No way!
This is a caution to all those wishing to comment in this forum. My comments were distorted and included really awful comments that I would never have made. I DO NOT CONSIDER PRESIDENT CARTER TO BE A TERROIST LOVER. If I wanted to write something which might have been written on Rush's or Bill O'Riely's blog, I wouldn't have bothered to respond on the Washington Post webb.
If they had been seeking a nation, instead of revenge, they would have recognized Israel, callingthe bluff of the occupiers in the court of world opinion, recognition of Israel as a State would have freed up all the money they are owed by Israel, and they would have gained instant international recognition, and been hailed as a model for peaceful islamic govbernments around the world.
Instead they killed their countrymen.
HOW CAN ANYONE SAY IT IS ISRAELS FAULT THAT HAMAS WENT ON A KILLING RAMPAGE AGAINST PALESTINIANS?
As a palestinian living in Gaza, I would say that Fatah is to be blamed for all what we reached now and the lack in progress in reaching a palestinian state by losing public confidence. Hamas won the elections not by those who support Hamas, but those who wanted to punich Fatah for all the mistakes they made for the past 12 years of authority. I would also blame president Abbad too who did not make any positive move to stop Hamas empowering, only a stupid blind wouldn't notice that they were moving twards making their own state in Gaza through terrorising the people and president Abbas just didn't care, his troops were very enough to end all that fight like they did once when Hamas troops were surrounding one of Fatah memebers' house intending to kill him, they ran away like mise when they learned that Abbas's troops were on the way to save that guy.
The good thing is that despite all this, we still believe in a palestinian state, after we heal our deep wounds.
THIS MORNING we hear from the Washington Times, hardly
a liberal basion, that Israel occupies 40% of the West Bank...through settlements and roads on which Ppalestinians are not allowed to travel!
So in effect, Israel has won. The US, rather than promote a two state solution, has helped Israel capture the Palestine territories...and now Isral plans to "retake' gaza, according to the poster above?
And the NY Jewish mayor Bloomberg proposes to buy the American presidency, following the Bush administration effectively controleed by Jewish neocons.
America will be taken over by Jews as surely as Palestine. There you go.
THIS MORNING we hear from the Washington Times, hardly
a liberal basion, that Israel occupies 40% of the West Bank...through settlements and roads on which Ppalestinians are not allowed to travel!
So in effect, Israel has won. The US, rather than promote a two state solution, has helped Israel capture the Palestine territories...and now Isral plans to "retake' gaza, according to the poster above?
And the NY Jewish mayor Bloomberg proposes to buy the American presidency, following the Bush administration effectively controleed by Jewish neocons.
America will be taken over by Jews as surely as Palestine. There you go.
Personally, I would like to blame the people who are paying the Palestinians to be terrorists and killers instead of farmers, merchants and manufacturers. In truth, those to blame are the Palestinians whose pride in their sect or race or political affiliation has so deluded them that they believe causing and experiencing death are preferable to working in peace for peace.
This predicament demonstrates how difficult it can be to correct an initial mistake. It's hard to believe this began just 90 years ago.
Beginning with the Balfour Declaration of 1917: "His Majesty would view with favor the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Said homeland not to interfere with the rights of the Palestinian people....". Right.
Then in 1947, Truman was forced to go along with the partition of Palestine by the pressure of an election. He was being killed in the polls by Dewey and public opinion, which did not want to go along with Harry's preferred approach of accepting 500,000 Jewish immigrants into the U.S.
In hindsight, would that he had stuck to his guns. The buck should have stopped there.
The same old song, over and over again. I'm a scientist, I need proof. Where does this "right" come from ? How does it apply to Israel, Yugoslavia, Cyprus, Iraq, Corsica ?
1. Start with Britain. They took the mandate and obiterated the obvious natural dividing line for Jews and Muslims/Arabs by creating Jordan to reward their buddies, the Hashemites, with a state.
2. Next, blame the people who empowered Hamas. They knew what they'd get for governance and deserve to reap the reward. In fact, they continue to support it and even enlarge its popularity despite their obvious suffering. Perhaps there is something to self-affliction after all to get sympathy for your cause and martyrdom is a way of life for Muslims.
3. How about Hamas? Several of your writers seem to blame US policy/"W" for not talking to them, but in fact, the then-sane policy did leave it open to talk to Hamas (the allegedly duly elected legislative body, NOT the elected Executive!). One small price, give up terror and accept Israel's right to exist. They said "NO" emphatically to talking by their actions. Election of a governing body does not entitle it to legitimization of its anihilation policy of another sovereign state and its people as Hamas has avowed, merely recognition for the beastly policy it supports for being outside the scope of acceptable bounds.
You say "The Carters, Begins, Clintons, etc., of the world may have been instrumental in slowing down the violence for short periods of time, but they stood no chance of making a meaningful difference."
Maybe I'm wrong, but it is my understanding that Israel and Egypt have been in peace for several decades now, following the Begin-Sadat treaty. Jimmy Carter believed in peace, and worked tirelessly until acceptable terms were reached to secure a lasting peace.
Just a few years ago, Bill Clinton tried -and failed- to broker a similar accord between Israel and Palestine.
George W Bush does not believe in peace but in war. He defined himself as a "war president". For the last six years, he has thrown fuel to the flames of the ME.
At least, Jimmy Carter is still alive, and has the guts to call Bush's behavior by the right name: CRIMINAL.
E.Ham, Tulsa, OK,
"Take a look at the policy put in place in 2001. We chose our friend (Israel) and thumbed our nose at the Palestinians." Other than during the terrorist-loving Carter administration, we have always chosen Israel. Especially since the method of Palestinian protest became a suicide bomber.
"Later threw our support behind one faction which let the world know... the other must be evil." Only because the other is evil. Again, this is not new. Other than terrorist-loving Carter, nobody has been willing to deal with Hamas because they believe that blowing up innocent people in cafes is good policy. For the record, the US was waiting on Arafat to die. When he finally did, the US waited on someone to rise to the top. Abbas did and the US began working with him. He was not a suicide bomber enthusiast. He believed in a 2 state solution to the problem. Even the Israelis showed signs of being willing to deal with him. Bush has had many wrong moves, this was not one of them.
..."when the vote didn't turn out as we anticipated, we just ignored it--we're really good at denial, actually about the only thing we're good at..." We did not ignore it. We just did not like it. It was the Palestinians right to elect whoever they wanted. It was a fair and democratic election. Because it was, it was an election where results mattered. The Palestinians elected the wrong group if peace with Israel and a 2 state solution is what they truly wanted. Again, it matters that the Palestinians elected Hamas. It's certainly their perogative to have done so. But they then have to live with the results. Just because a group is democratically elected does not mean that we have to like it or work with them.
ANDY--
Having watched chat rooms on THE two major papers in the US these many months I can assure you that the really disgusted and angry sentiments voiced on this post are
not only wide spread, they are the consensus.
Why did anyone think Americans would approve of the treatment of Palestinians and Israeli wars and plottings any more than the rest of the world?
And today Bloomberg makes noises about running for president. Ignoring the rules, and the primaries and buying the PRESIDENCY, apparently.
I did not indicate that I agreed with the commentary by the 3 USA brains. They still think that the USA can do its thing all over the world for they are a superpower [has lower GDP than the EU, and fewer people, but more internatinal debt].
These 3 politicians are unaware of or do not care to contmeplate the near future with respect to Global warming and or shortage of many rare-earth metals in the near future [esp pertinent to solar cells and new communication gadgets see NEW SCIENTIST May 26pp 35-41].
Yes thermodynamics and basic chemistry are both beyond the competence ot these 3, as is international balance of payments, various cultures and various histories, etc
I feel great insecurity for the well being of my grandchildren when the "leading lights" of the "SOLE SUPERPOWER" are so ignorant of most topics and keep dreaming that the USA is the answer to all.
There's an awful lot of hate on this board. I really hope the posters here represent the fringe, rather than the mainstream, or else we're all screwed.
But hey, if blaming "the West" or "America" or the "Zionist lobby" gets you through the day, then I guess that's better than strapping on an explosive belt and murdering some people. Because that wouldn't be a very productive way to try to get what you wanted, would it?
"Euro-Atlantic community" : over here, in Europe, not many people would bet on that in the long term. So Russia wanting to join...
"We cannot give Russia veto over deployment of forces on NATO territory" : actually, it's European territory that's discussed.
"We want to work with friends, with allies, with people of good will, to make this a better world." : I talk such things late at the bar after 5 beers. What about people who are not allies ? Who decides what makes the world a better place ?
"in France [...] the candidate who has the most demanding program, won" : Sarkozy promised something to everybody, he had the easiest program, one that will ruin France even more. And that my generation is asked to pay for.
But I agree with the opening:
"HENRY KISSINGER: We're at a moment when the international system is in a period of change like we haven't seen for several hundred years."
I'd say 2 hundred years, with the beginning of the industrial and parliamentary revolutions. Fossil energy is running out - the Hubert's peak oil - and that is what changes the world. All the political turmoil is, I think, the consequence of that. You cannot cheat with thermodynamics.
Take a look at the policy put in place in 2001. We chose our friend (Israel) and thumbed our nose at the Palestinians. Later threw our support behind one faction which let the world know, since we only deal in good and evil and if we support one the other must be evil. Then, we (I'm using the term we to avoid pointing out the obvious--NeoCons) pushed for early elections to show how much we valued democracy. Of course when the vote didn't turn out as we anticipated, we just ignored it--we're really good at denial, actually about the only thing we're good at. So when Hamas made their move to take over, there was huge outcry in Washington--those terrorists! Really, these people running the show claim to be so bright, but a high school drop out could see the hypocracy in all this.
One NEVER sees anywhere anymore, anyone who likes the Israelis. How they suppose they can not only keep their stolen place...and grab more, is strange.
Using American arms and blood, probably.
But Americans won't stand for it much longer...after Bush, and in any case the rest of the world has had enough.
The land grab of l948 will be reversed. Golan Heights given back.etc etc etc. The refugees returned to their rightful homes, etc.
If there's been any land mprovement, it can be called RENT. Forced rent. Justice.
One NEVER sees anywhere anymore, anyone who likes the Israelis. How they suppose they can not only keep their stolen place...and grab more, is strange.
Using American arms and blood, probably.
But Americans won't stand for it much longer...after Bush, and in any case the rest of the world has had enough.
The land grab of l948 will be reversed. Golan Heights given back.etc etc etc. The refugees returned to their rightful homes, etc.
If there's been any land mprovement, it can be called RENT. Forced rent.
Albert: Let's be serious. Something along the lines you proposed (actually my preference would be Western Austria and Southern Germany) should have been tried in 1948. It would at least be poetic justice!
However, it would NOW be just as unjust to the Israelis born since 1948 as what was done to the Palestinians back then.
For what it's worth, you can make an omelette out of eggs, but you cannot make eggs out of an omelette.
What did Hamas do after they entered Gaza? They looted. Inspiratiopn their cult leader who ordained that once Muslims capture a place everything is allowed as the victors please, plunder, rape, kill. What else can you expect Hamas to do if they are "divinely" ordained to do this. Please don't blame them. Jurispendence dictates that people who are insane cannot be blamed for their actions.
Why is the survival of the Jewish state in the ME sacrosant? The roots of the current hostilities go back to 1948 when a group of western states, intoxicated with victory over Nazi Germany, moved to forcefully insert an alien people amidst tarditionally arab lands. They then proceeded to finance the otherwise incapable Israeli state to survive. I propose that those who so love the Israelis set aside a piece of land in central Australia, conditioned on Australian agreement, for the Israelis. Leave the ME to its long established population groups. Israel has a right to exist if its people want it to, but not in the ME at other peoples' expense. If they insist on occupying part of the ME, they are doomed. It is just a matter of time.
I'd venture that Americans are to blame for most of this because of the sheer irrationality we foist upon the debate: What self-respecting people would cooperate in the conquest of their own land? You won't hear President Bush arguing that we should reach a negotiated settlement with al Qaeda. Likewise, the Palestinian people will never support Fatah in the numbers required, as we seem to want them to; negotiating with Israel is the equivalent of accepting Israeli occupation and resettlement of Palestinian territories as the Palestinians' own policy. I could an imagine a mentality that would choose suicide over that (and choosing Hamas is choosing suicide). If the precondition for a Palestinian state is that the Palestinians give up any semblance of military power vis-a-vis Israel and accept a moth-eaten sovereignty, it's not a Palestinian state that will last very long. That's the choice we're giving them. Either that or Hamas.
Let's we--Americans--be pragmatic about this. This, like many other world conflicts, is not our war to fight. Additionally, the benefits that accrue to us from our unqualified support of Israel are increasingly hard to discern, besides making some Americans with dual allegiances happy, and it leads us to seem irrational in how we use our power. The reasonable thing to do would be to decrease military assistance to Israel and increase governmental assistance to Hamas, which is, however you look at it, the elected government of the Palestinian territories. Then, in future, we condemn all acts of aggression by either side, commit to end all funding that supports the Israeli occupation or that could be used to fund terrorism, and let the whole thing work itself out. We're sacrificing our power so Israel can live sound. I'm not an Israeli, and neither are the vast majority of the rest of US citizens, and on top of it all, a state based upon religious supremacy seems very un-American; why is this our mission?
And who's to blame for the lack of a Palestinian state? God, God is to blame. He's the one who granted Israel a right to exist that precludes any Palestinian right to self-determination, and as it goes right now, if the US has to re-write the law of nations to validate that, by God we'll do it. Let's we Americans rethink this strategy.
I'd venture that Americans are to blame for most of this because of the sheer irrationality we foist upon the debate: What self-respecting people would cooperate in the conquest of their own land? You won't hear President Bush arguing that we should reach a negotiated settlement with al Qaeda. Likewise, the Palestinian people will never support Fatah in the numbers required, as we seem to want them to; negotiating with Israel is the equivalent of accepting Israeli occupation and resettlement of Palestinian territories as the Palestinians' own policy. I could an imagine a mentality that would choose suicide over that (and choosing Hamas is choosing suicide). If the precondition for a Palestinian state is that the Palestinians give up any semblance of military power vis-a-vis Israel and accept a moth-eaten sovereignty, it's not a Palestinian state that will last very long. That's the choice we're giving them. Either that or Hamas.
Let's we--Americans--be pragmatic about this. This, like many other world conflicts, is not our war to fight. Additionally, the benefits that accrue to us from our unqualified support of Israel are increasingly hard to discern, besides making some Americans with dual allegiances happy, and it leads us to seem irrational in how we use our power. The reasonable thing to do would be to decrease military assistance to Israel and increase governmental assistance to Hamas, which is, however you look at it, the elected government of the Palestinian territories. Then, in future, we condemn all acts of aggression by either side, commit to end all funding that supports the Israeli occupation or that could be used to fund terrorism, and let the whole thing work itself out. We're sacrificing our power so Israel can live sound. I'm not an Israeli, and neither are the vast majority of the rest of US citizens, and on top of it all, a state based upon religious supremacy seems very un-American; why is this our mission?
And who's to blame for the lack of a Palestinian state? God, God is to blame. He's the one who granted Israel a right to exist that precludes any Palestinian right to self-determination, and as it goes right now, if the US has to re-write the law of nations to validate that, by God we'll do it. Let's we Americans rethink this strategy.
Postscript to previous comment: Don't pressure the Palestinians or the Israelis. Pressure the diaspora bankers and arms suppliers from outside the region. Then watch what happens within the occupied territories when the funds from abroad and the arms purchases have stopped.
Isn't this a silly debate? By now it ought to be clear that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the Middle East issues from deep within the diaspora communities, both Jewish and Palestinian Arab, living far away from the occupied territories. The communities directing and funding the conflict in Palestine live in the Americas, Europe, the former Soviet Union, and Africa, as well as in other Arab and Asian countries. Until someone has the imagination to get the diaspora communities in the conflict to make peace, the hope for getting the combatants, either Israeli or Palestinian faction in Palestine, or if you prefer, Israeli occupied territory, to come to terms, a lasting peace will remain elusive. Shuttle diplomacy to the Middle East to bring the factions there together has been like getting the players of a football team to end the game, without first establishing agreements between the respective owners of the teams. Who encourages and funds Israeli bellicosity towards the Palestinians? Don't look in Israeli for the source of Israel's military might or its aggressive policies. Who encourages and funds Hamas and Fatah? Don't look in Gaza or the West Bank for the bankers of the arms purchases there? Peace in the Middle East begins with a dialogue between the respective financiers and civilian warriors directing the fighting on the ground. Talking to the soldier-politicians or fronts (and anyone in the Middle East conflict on location there is a soldier) rather than the generals and financiers, who live outside the Middle East, is futile. Those sources of the conflict are not in the Middle East, so shuttle diplomacy between Washington or London to Tel Aviv or Gaza City has been and will continue to amount to very wild goose chases. The people that the U.S. and the U.K. need to reach are, some of them, in Washington and London, but others are beyond the geographic spheres and reach of either Western powers, which makes perfect sense. Charles de Gaulle during WW II led the resistance from England. Get smart, if you want peace; get rid of Condi Rice and the other mis-educated incompetents in the State Department on the Middle East now just playing for time until the next Presidential election.
What self-respecting people would cooperate in the conquest of their own land? You won't hear President Bush arguing that we should reach a negotiated settlement with al Qaeda. Likewise, the Palestinian people will never support Fatah in the numbers required; negotiating with Israel is the equivalent of accepting Israeli occupation and resettlement of Palestinian territories as the Palestinians' own policy. I could an imagine a mentality that would choose suicide over that. If the precondition for a Palestinian state is that the Palestinians give up any semblance of military power vis-a-vis Israel and accept a moth-eaten sovereignty, it's not a Palestinian state that will last very long. That's the choice we're giving them. Either that or Hamas.
Who's to blame for the lack of a Palestinian state? God, God is to blame. He's the one who granted Israel a right to exist that precludes any Palestinian right to self-determination, and if the US has to re-write the law of nations to validate that, by God we'll do it.
First the west demands that Palestinians embrace democracy, then those silly Palestinians vote for the wrong people. So the west decides to boycott the democratically elected government of Palestinian people and continues to support the corrupt and discredited Mahmood Abbas.
When things turn to a mess, the smart westerners shake their head and ask questions like the one on this website. Tisk tisk those silly Arabs and Muslims - “ they just can’t understand those wonderful western ideals. Eh! When will they learn”.
To you westerners with your lofty western ideals, I have this to say – “Take your western democracy and shove it where the sun don’t shine”
The ultimate solutions no one has the guts ro bring to bear
1. In no uncertain trems get the Israelis the hell out of Gaza and the West Bank.
2. Get the Palestinian refugees the hell out of Lebanon and back to their homeland.
3. Partition Jerusalem into 3 separate religious entities in the fashion of the Vatican City. have each religious group take care of its own sites.
4. On the part of the US treat everyone in the region equally and with the same respect as well as the same assistance dollar wise per haed. AND STOP PLAYING ONE SIDE AGAINST THE OTHER SO THAT THE CITISEN VOTER CAN AFFORD TO OWN A HOME; PROVIDE FOR A GOOD EDUCATION OF THEIR CHILDREN;
AND NOT SPEND 30% OF THEIR INCOME HUST TO GET TO WORK AND BACK.
5. PEACE BASED ON THE ABOVE MUST BE ENDORSED/APPROVED BY THE FUNDAMENTALISTS ERGO; ZIONISTS, RAPTURISTS AND JIHADISTS.
6. AND THAT WOULD REALLY PROVE THAT THERE IS A....
The ultimate solutions no one has the guts ro bring to bear
1. In no uncertain trems get the Israelis the hell out of Gaza and the West Bank.
2. Get the Palestinian refugess the hell out of Lebanon and back to their homeland.
3. Partition Jerusalem into 3 separate religious entities in the fashion of the Vatican City. have each religious group take care of its own sites.
4. On the part of the US treat everyone in the region equally and with the same respect as well as the same assitance dollar wise per head. AND STOP PLAYING ONE SIDE AGAINST THE OTHER SO THAT THE CITISEN VOTER CAN AFFORD TO OWN A HOME; PROVIDE FOR A GOOD EDUCATION OF THEIR CHILDREN;
AND NOT SPEND 30% OF THEIR INCOME JUST TO GET TO WORK AND BACK.
5. PEACE BASED ON THE ABOVE MUST BE ENDORSED/APPROVED BY THE FUNDAMENTALISTS ERGO; ZIONISTS, RAPTURISTS AND JIHADISTS.
6. AND THAT WOULD REALLY PROVE THAT THERE IS A....
When I was in my late teens I was in the Navy and in Vietnam. I was talking to an older Vietnamese gentlemen about the war and he said something that has stuck with me for almost 40 years. He told me Vietnam had been invaded and occupied numerous times in it's history and they always drove out the invaders. Once the Chinese occupied Vietnam for 300 years until the people were able to drive them out. The lesson I learned here was people are very territorial. If you steal their land and try to impose your will on them they will take whatever time is necessary to get their land back. Even if it takes 300 years. Sadly, about the only way to avert the conflicts over land is for one side to basically wipe out the other. An example of this would be what the US did to the Native Americans. There simply weren't enough of them left to fight any longer.
I bring this up because the same thing is going on in the ME today. Israel firmly believes they have a God given right to the land. (Sorry, I'm dubious of any claim human beings make about a divine entity giving them anything) The Muslims/Arabs feel they lived on the land for over 2,000 years and it belongs to them. Add to this land issue the religous differences that exist and you have a very nasty conflict.
The West wants the Arab world to accept Israel and live in peace with them. The Arab world doesn't want to accept Israel and has no desire to live in peace with them. This isn't a complicated issue. For 60 years the west has pushed for peace in the ME and it hasn't happened. They can push for another 60 years and it still won't happen. The Muslim world is not now nor will it ever accept the State of Israel in the ME.
To the posters who blame Bush for the ills in the ME. As much as I detest Bush the ME was a mess before he became president and it will be a mess after he leaves office. I agree he hasn't done anything to make it any better. I agree he has done a lot to make it worse, but he isn't responsible for the problem. He's only contributed to it.
To Berry in Ecuador:
I think you missed most of my point. The Carters, Begins, Clintons, etc., of the world may have been instrumental in slowing down the violence for short periods of time, but they stood no chance of making a meaningful difference. There will be a horrific war in the ME between the Arabs and Israel at some point in the future. My guess it will be sooner then later. Israel has fought off the Arabs because they were militarily superior. That can and will change enough in the future as ME countries build themselves up through petrodollars that their superiority will diminish and the sheer numbers of Arabs will be a formidable force. The longer Israel goes without another war the greater their probability of losing. Not a pleasant thought.
Readers’ Responses to Our Question (108)
Ignatius is perplexed this morning (see column) because the White House doesn't see any problems with the war, with congress, etc. Let me help him:
The WHITE HOUSE IS COMPLETELY DOMINATED BY JEWISH NEOCONS AND ISRAEL FIRST AIDES.
Israel is getting what it wants, war and choas, 40% of the West Bank and working today on Gaza....still working hard to bomb Iran. Has AIPAC in control of congress and doesn't give a damn what Americans want or are feeling.
And Bloomberg's aides working secretly (for the last TWO years) on a presidential run.
Nobody notices, apparently.
June 21, 2007 11:25 AM | Report Offensive Comments
One way to answer this question is be to bring up Samuel P. Huntington's clash of civilization theory. That's what most Neo-cons, Bush policy makers and Washington Post editorialists seem to favor. They imply that the West is engaged in a titanic struggle against the Dark Age forces, today represented in the Middle East by Islam. They imply that Islam has become fundamentally a violent and hateful religion that oppresses people and hates the freedoms that people enjoy in the West. Thus Islam represents a threat for the West, and Islamic movements, unless subservient to western interests, are an endemic threat to the West and to everything the West stands for. Well, what do we stand for? If we stand for oppression, double standards, corruption and neocolonial rule, we will face opposition by many, including ruthless extremist terrorist groups that may be Islamic in nature or not, and that will constantly provoke us into collective punishment, just so they can increase support among the people. If we truly try to abide by the principles we hold dear, and enforce some sort of international rule of law, without double standards, and that we are willing to apply to ourselves and to our friends, we will take the wind out of these violent groups, and isolate them within their people.
In the specific case of Hamas the Neo-con approach fosters a "no-negotiation" stance, for the belief is that Hamas, who won democratically held elections, while also pursuing military/terrorist operations against Israel cannot and will not change its ultimate goal of destroying Israel. But weren’t the terrorists Begin and Shamir, the ones who implemented the Camp David accords with Egypt? Didn’t they prove to the world that terrorists, who fight for a national cause, can change?
The flaw of the Neo-con approach is that it fails to put in perspective why Hamas is popular among Palestinians. Palestinians have obtained very little from Palestinian leaders popular with the West, and have witnessed how these have been subjected to bribes, threats and destruction whenever they did not abide by what was imposed upon them by Clinton, Bush, Barak and Sharon. They have witnessed that when UN Security Council resolutions are concerned, there is a double standard imposed upon Arab countries and Israel. In other words, Hamas would still be a marginal fringe terrorist organization, with little or no support among Palestinians, if a serious honest effort had been made a long time ago to put an end to the 1967 occupation, abide by the UN security council resolutions and the principles included in the 1977-79 Camp David accords, and prevent Israeli illegal settlements in the occupied territories.
The Neo-con/Bush/Washington Post approach identifies Israel with the West and glosses over 40 years of ruthless occupation and isolation of the occupied territories. It also glosses over the colonial and neo colonial role the West has played in that area since the 19th century, since Napoleon, and the failure of many western influenced organizations such as the Baath, the corrupt westernized governments of Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia and the new Iraqi government (how ironic is that) to come up with a solutions and a positive vision for a new Middle East. In other words, Islam is being used as a last resource tool to fight an old conflict, a conflict opposing the wealthy West hoarding resources, land and riches for its own ends and the poor nations looking for identity, empowerment, respect and control over their own destiny and the destiny of their resources. Beware; I am not saying that the West should just roll over. I think that Israel has the right to live in security, and that should obviously be worked into any negotiation. I also think that the West must come to terms with immigration. I think that immigrants should be required to fully integrate and abide by our laws, even when these clash with their religion, period. But if we do not address the roots of that conflict, we will be our own self fulfilling prophets. One thing is sure. We cannot keep our cake and eat it too. We cannot pretend that our values and principles are superior, and then when we operate in the Middle east either we fail to put enough effort and resources in nurturing them, or we willingly fail to apply them, because it's more convenient to oppress those People. That's double talk that only strengthens groups like Hamas.
June 21, 2007 11:22 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Ignatius is perplexed this morning (see column) because the White House doesn't see any problems with the war, with congress, etc. Let me help him:
The WHITE HOUSE IS COMPLETELY DOMINATED BY JEWISH NEOCONS AND ISRAEL FIRST AIDES.
Israel is getting what it wants, war and choas, 40% of the West Bank and working today on Gaza....still working hard to bomb Iran. Has AIPAC in control of congress and doesn't give a damn what Americans want or are feeling.
And Bloomberg's aides working secretly (for the last TWO years) on a presidential run.
Nobody notices, apparently.
June 21, 2007 11:21 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Ignatius is perplexed this morning (see column) because the White House doesn't see any problems with the war, with congress, etc. Let me help him:
The WHITE HOUSE IS COMPLETELY DOMINATED BY JEWISH NEOCONS AND ISRALI FIRST AIDES.
Israel is getting what it wants, war and choas, 40% of the West Bank and working today on Gaza....still working hard to bomb Iran. Has AIPAC in control of congress and doesn't give a damn what Americans want or or feeling.
And Bloomberg's aides working secretly (for the last TWO years) on a presidential run.
Nobody notices, apparently.
June 21, 2007 11:21 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Ignatius is perplexed this morning (see column) because the White House doesn't see any problems with the war, with congress, etc. Let me help him:
The WHITE HOUSE IS COMPLETELY DOMINATED BY JEWISH NEOCONS AND ISRALI FIRST AIDES.
Israel is getting what it wants, war and choas, 40% of the West Bank and working today on Gaza....still working hard to bomb Iran. Has AIPAC in control of congress and doesn't give a damn what Americans want or or feeling.
And Bloomberg's aides working secretly (for the last TWO years) on a presidential run.
Nobody notices, apparently.
June 21, 2007 11:20 AM | Report Offensive Comments
"... the assumptions that the "community of nations" is a credible entity..."
The community of nations IS a credible entity. It is the only credible entity there is, of its kind.
However loudly one or two nations in this world have called repeatedly for it to be "disbanded", that does not change anything to that fact; quite the contrary, after years of lies and deception from those who consider themselves above international law and the rule of said community. After years of shameless lies and deception in the precincts of that community, even in front of all the nations gathered to watch and to listen.
No nation is above international law. No nation stands creditably above the community of nations. Only genuine rogue nations and non-viable, failed states constantly claim to be and to do so. Theirs is the path of no future. Time will tell; always has.
History spreads over thousands of years. What is 60 years in the history of mankind?
June 21, 2007 10:08 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Mary,
Sorry to be a cynic but in answer to "How long will it take for the monkey to realize that by letting go of the cherries and removing his hand he will be able to pour all the cherries out of the jar?", it really does not matter because a suicide bomber has blown up the monkey, the jar, the cherries and the monkey's friends and family.
June 21, 2007 9:37 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Fleur de Lys, Canada
You said "Those are only prerequisites to being a respectable member of said community" in reference to what Israel needs to do. This suggestion appears to be put forth under the assumptions that the "community of nations" is a credible entity. When that assumption actually exists, perhaps you will be on to something. The major problem with this is that back in the 1940's, the "community of nations" created Israel and lit the fuse on the current set of issues. The community has spent the better part of 55+ years trying to "fix" the very problems it caused. Since the community has caused many the problems that exist today, i'm not sure this community is part of the answer to anything.
June 21, 2007 9:32 AM | Report Offensive Comments
"How long will it take for the monkey to realize that by letting go of the cherries and removing his hand he will be able to pour all the cherries out of the jar?" (Mary)
I love that story, Mary. There is so much wisdom in it, expressed in such simple terms, in the true asiatic tradition.
Unfortunately, it may be too late for that.
As I see it, the monkey has long ago smashed the jar against the wall of the nearest Palestinian home, has freed his hand, spilled some cherries, yet has eaten most of them, loved their taste, has therefore been on a rampage ever since... with a free hand.
Chuang Tzu writes: "It is only whomever is not interested in ruling it that we may entrust with the mission of leading the world." (my rendering)
Monkeys are not amongst the best candidates, I'm afraid.
June 21, 2007 9:29 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Venkat writes: "Perhaps many on the board exhibit their Nazi mind of blaming Israel."
Oh! THAT is a most impressive argument! You should write a whole book on "Debating: How to Prevail on the Cheap".
It is the duty of the world Jewish community to be the FIRST to demand: 1. That Israelis, acting in the name of Israel, respect international law. 2. That Israelis guilty of war crimes and of crimes against humanity (among them the murder of Canadian members of the El Akras family and of Canadian UN observer Major Hess-von Kruedener, in Lebanon, last summer) be judged for their crimes by an International Tribunal on war crimes and crimes against humanity. 3. That Israel respect all the resolutions adopted overwhelmingly by the community of nations.
Those are only prerequisites to being a respectable member of said community.
June 21, 2007 8:58 AM | Report Offensive Comments
I'm for a single state, democratic, equal rights for all. Here is a little story, written by
Henry Reed, Ph.D.
There was once a monkey who discovered a jar of cherries. He stuck his hand in the jar and grabbed a handful of fruit. But when he went to withdraw his fistful of cherries, his engorged fist wouldn't fit through the opening of the jar. The monkey was stuck. The only way out of this trap was for him to release the cherries and then remove his opened hand-but he wanted the cherries and didn't want to let go.
What a paradoxical situation for the monkey! His wanting the cherries so much that he couldn't let go of them was the very thing that made it impossible for him to have them. How long will it take for the monkey to realize that by letting go of the cherries and removing his hand he will be able to pour all the cherries out of the jar?
This fable presents a predicament that often confronts us when we seek by force something that, in fact, will come to us only when we are willing to let go and receive it. The predicament arises from many different sources. Sometimes it is our need to be in control, to feel secure that by our own efforts we can guarantee certain results. Other times it comes about because our consciousness is caught in an ego trap, when we so desire something that we separate ourselves from that which we desire. It then appears to us that we must go after it, when all along it is already within us if we could only accept it.
What is the way out of the predicament of this ego trap? One useful principle-itself a paradox-is: "If you want something, then give it away-you can only really possess that which you can give away."
June 21, 2007 8:41 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Perhaps many on the board exhibit their Nazi mind of blaming Israel. Perhaps they are afraid that if land is returned to the Israelis after centuries of occupation what would happen if the world decides to return the occupied lands in Americas, Australia and New Zealand? The Christians blame the mythical crucification of a mythical Jesus on the Jews forgetting the fact that the myth himself claimed he came for the resurrection of the Jews. Strictly christianity should be called Paulianity or maybe Churchianity!
June 20, 2007 11:11 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Perhaps many on the board exhibit their Nazi mind of blaming Israel. Perhaps they are afraid that if land is returned to the Israelis after centuries of occupation what would happen if the world decides to return the occupied lands in Americas, Australia and New Zealand? The Christians blame the mythical crucification of a mythical Jesus on the Jews forgetting the fact that the myth himself claimed he came for the resurrection of the Jews. Strictly christianity should be called Paulianity or maybe Churchianity!
June 20, 2007 11:11 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Perhaps many on the board exhibit their Nazi mind of blaming Israel. Perhaps they are afraid that if land is returned to the Israelis after centuries of occupation what would happen if the world decides to return the occupied lands in Americas, Australia and New Zealand? Could it be suppressed Nazi instincts too? The Christians blame the mythical crucification of a mythical Jesus on the Jews forgetting the fact that the myth himself claimed he came for the resurrection of the Jews. Strictly christianity should be called Paulianity or maybe Churchianity!
June 20, 2007 11:11 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Perhaps many on the board exhibit their Nazi mind of blaming Israel. Perhaps they are afraid that if land is returned to the Israelis after centuries of occupation what would happen if the world decides to return the occupied lands in Americas, Australia and New Zealand? Could it be suppressed Nazi instincts too? The Christians conveniently for the mythical crucification of a mythical Jesus on the Jews forgetting the fact that the myth himself claimed he came for the resurrection of the Jews. Strictly christianity should be called Paulianity or maybe Churchianity!
June 20, 2007 11:10 PM | Report Offensive Comments
The question of who is to blame, is ridiculous. It only
invites hiistorical blame. It has nothing whatever to do
with what the future may hold. It is an excuse for
refusing responsibility for what is happening right now, in
tbe present.
There is not one single leader on any side of the
conflict who is willing, or able, to think ahead. They
all think backwards. They use their backward thinking
as an excuse to murder their friends, their families, their
countrymen. All men, on all sides, are doing this.
This, in the end, is not about politics, or territory, or
who's God is "right" -it is about the male perogative to
kill, period. Men love to kill. It fills them with a feeling of
satisfaction that can only be dupicated with ejaculation
and that is why they ultimately go to war - because
ejaculation is such a passing expecience -war goes on
and on. Men actually love war. Odd, but true.
June 20, 2007 11:08 PM | Report Offensive Comments
The question of who is to blame, is ridiculous. It only
invites hiistorical blame. It has nothing whatever to do
with what the future may hold. It is an excuse for
refusing responsibility for what is happening right now, in
tbe present.
There is not one single leader on any side of the
conflict who is willing, or able, to think ahead. They
all think backwards. They use their backward thinking
as an excuse to murder their friends, their families, their
countrymen. All men, on all sides, are doing this.
This, in the end, is not about politics, or territory, or
who's God is "right" -it is about the male perogative to
kill, period. Men love to kill. It fills them with a feeling of
satisfaction that can only be dupicated with ejaculation
and that is why they ultimately go to war - because
ejaculation is such a passing expecience -war goes on
and on. Men actually love war. Odd, but true.
June 20, 2007 11:08 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Perhaps many on the board exhibit their Nazi mind of blaming Israel. Perhaps they are afraid that if land is returned to the Israelis after centuries of occupation what would happen if the world decides to return the occupied lands in Americas, Australia and New Zealand? Could it be suppressed Nazi instincts too? The Christians conveniently like to blame the mythical Jesus so called crucification on the Jews forgetting the fact that the mythical Jesus himself claimed he came for the resurrection of the Jews. Strictly christianity should be called Paulianity or maybe Churchianity!
June 20, 2007 11:08 PM | Report Offensive Comments
The question of who is to blame, is ridiculous. It only
invites hiistorical blame. It has nothing whatever to do
with what the future may hold. It is an excuse for
refusing responsibility for what is happening right now, in
tbe present.
There is not one single leader on any side of the
conflict who is willing, or able, to think ahead. They
all think backwards. They use their backward thinking
as an excuse to murder their friends, their families, their
countrymen. All men, on all sides, are doing this.
This, in the end, is not about politics, or territory, or
who's God is "right" -it is about the male perogative to
kill, period. Men love to kill. It fills them with a feeling of
satisfaction that can only be dupicated with ejaculation
and that is why they ultimately go to war - because
ejaculation is such a passing expecience -war goes on
and on. Men actually love war. Odd, but true.
June 20, 2007 11:07 PM | Report Offensive Comments
The question of who is to blame, is ridiculous. It only
invites hiistorical blame. It has nothing whatever to do
with what the future may hold. It is an excuse for
refusing responsibility for what is happening right now, in
tbe present.
There is not one single leader on any side of the
conflict who is willing, or able, to think ahead. They
all think backwards. They use their backward thinking
as an excuse to murder their friends, their families, their
countrymen. All men, on all sides, are doing this.
This, in the end, is not about politics, or territory, or
who's God is "right" -it is about the male perogative to
kill, period. Men love to kill. It fills them with a feeling of
satisfaction that can only be dupicated with ejaculation
and that is why they ultimately go to war - because
ejaculation is such a passing expecience -war goes on
and on. Men actually love war. Odd, but true.
June 20, 2007 11:07 PM | Report Offensive Comments
"Who is to blame?" is perhaps the right question to ask if you want to see continued violence since it stokes the passions of recrimination and polarizes the people.
If you want to see the violence abate or end, then
you ask "How does one fix it?" which is essentially an engineering question. And the answer has already been posted here - the community of nations, the UN, has to do it's job with support of member nations.
June 20, 2007 10:54 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Elisabeth Ham,
I don't think that your comments were distorted. I was responding to and commenting on your post. Perhaps my method of doing so by quoting you and then adding my two cents right afterwards might be the cause of this confusion. Sorry. For the record, I (and NOT Elisabeth Ham) did refer to Carter as "terrorist loving" as he has spoken of his admiration of and bonding with Yasser Arafat, who was a terrorist.
June 20, 2007 10:45 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Who is to blame for the mess in Middle East?
Historically Britain and now US and Israel.
Britain partitioned the Middle East by giving oil rich territory to families they owed favors to (now you have a handful of filthy rich and the messes are extremely poor) and Zionists (movement formed in the late 1800s) pressed for a state of Israel on territories that were inhabited. When Jews got there, they forced the locals out and the so-called 'civilized-west' ignored this inhumanity. Then US (and europe) helped the 'rulers' oppress their citizens in return for favorable oil contracts. As they say, the rest is history.
If you want to know who is to blame, ask yourself if you would sit idle if your home was forcefully taken from you.
June 20, 2007 10:12 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Who is to blame? US and Israel against the entire world.
"One was a Syrian-sponsored resolution at the Security Council — whose resolutions are binding — to force Israel to stop building its West Bank security fence.
That resolution was vetoed by the United States. It later passed in the General Assembly — whose resolutions are not binding — by a 144-4 vote.
The second was a Russian resolution circulated last week pressing for implementation of the "road map" peace plan. Pro-Israel activists say that would usurp American influence and empower the United Nations, which is seen as biased toward the Palestinians.
www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/news/article/20031104Israelgoesontheo.html
June 20, 2007 9:56 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Clinton-Bush
June 20, 2007 8:13 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Has anybody noticed?
Discussions or arguments formerly between Republicans/Democrats, Liberals/Conservatives a etc., are now primarily between those who defend israel's ugly history and present vicious actions (in Gaza today and those sick of it.
The defenses given are fictions, excuses, repeated, over and over. Where do they come from? Who provides those lies? Is it a central source? What else do they do?
June 20, 2007 8:03 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Felix Drost, Amsterdam NL, Bravo!!!!THANK YOU!!!!!!
June 20, 2007 7:38 PM | Report Offensive Comments
The Palestinian only have themselves to blame. They have championed violence as a solution ever since I can recall. Is it really a suprise that such values lead to a broken and violent state?
June 20, 2007 7:37 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Since Israel won the West Bank from Jordan and Gaza from Egypt why can't they negotiate with those countries. Once in place those countries have histories on how to deal with militant Islam.
Just a suggestion.
June 20, 2007 6:33 PM | Report Offensive Comments
This is a caution to all those wishing to comment in this forum. My comments were distorted and included really awful comments that I would never have made. I DO NOT CONSIDER PRESIDENT CARTER TO BE A TERROIST LOVER. If I wanted to write something which might have been written on Rush's or Bill O'Riely's blog, I wouldn't have bothered to respond on the Washington Post webb.
June 20, 2007 5:33 PM | Report Offensive Comments
This is a caution to all those wishing to comment in this forum. My comments were distorted and included really awful comments that I would never have made. I DO NOT CONSIDER PRESIDENT CARTER TO BE A TERROIST LOVER. If I wanted to write something which might have been written on Rush's or Bill O'Riely's blog, I wouldn't have bothered to respond on the Washington Post webb.
June 20, 2007 5:32 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Hamas and Fatah now are showing to the world who they are. Those two terrorist factions that clame to be political parties are just using antisemitism to control palestinian people.
Blame the former soviet union and the KGB. The russias gave weapons and trained terrorists. Who trained Abbas? KGB! Who trained Arafat? KGB!
Now they want to blame America and Israel? No way!
June 20, 2007 5:32 PM | Report Offensive Comments
This is a caution to all those wishing to comment in this forum. My comments were distorted and included really awful comments that I would never have made. I DO NOT CONSIDER PRESIDENT CARTER TO BE A TERROIST LOVER. If I wanted to write something which might have been written on Rush's or Bill O'Riely's blog, I wouldn't have bothered to respond on the Washington Post webb.
June 20, 2007 5:31 PM | Report Offensive Comments
HAMA IS COMPLETELY TO BLAME.
If they had been seeking a nation, instead of revenge, they would have recognized Israel, callingthe bluff of the occupiers in the court of world opinion, recognition of Israel as a State would have freed up all the money they are owed by Israel, and they would have gained instant international recognition, and been hailed as a model for peaceful islamic govbernments around the world.
Instead they killed their countrymen.
HOW CAN ANYONE SAY IT IS ISRAELS FAULT THAT HAMAS WENT ON A KILLING RAMPAGE AGAINST PALESTINIANS?
June 20, 2007 5:18 PM | Report Offensive Comments
As a palestinian living in Gaza, I would say that Fatah is to be blamed for all what we reached now and the lack in progress in reaching a palestinian state by losing public confidence. Hamas won the elections not by those who support Hamas, but those who wanted to punich Fatah for all the mistakes they made for the past 12 years of authority. I would also blame president Abbad too who did not make any positive move to stop Hamas empowering, only a stupid blind wouldn't notice that they were moving twards making their own state in Gaza through terrorising the people and president Abbas just didn't care, his troops were very enough to end all that fight like they did once when Hamas troops were surrounding one of Fatah memebers' house intending to kill him, they ran away like mise when they learned that Abbas's troops were on the way to save that guy.
The good thing is that despite all this, we still believe in a palestinian state, after we heal our deep wounds.
June 20, 2007 4:43 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Who is to blame? Simple question deserves a simple and correct answer: Israel and the USA.
June 20, 2007 4:41 PM | Report Offensive Comments
THIS MORNING we hear from the Washington Times, hardly
a liberal basion, that Israel occupies 40% of the West Bank...through settlements and roads on which Ppalestinians are not allowed to travel!
So in effect, Israel has won. The US, rather than promote a two state solution, has helped Israel capture the Palestine territories...and now Isral plans to "retake' gaza, according to the poster above?
And the NY Jewish mayor Bloomberg proposes to buy the American presidency, following the Bush administration effectively controleed by Jewish neocons.
America will be taken over by Jews as surely as Palestine. There you go.
June 20, 2007 11:05 AM | Report Offensive Comments
THIS MORNING we hear from the Washington Times, hardly
a liberal basion, that Israel occupies 40% of the West Bank...through settlements and roads on which Ppalestinians are not allowed to travel!
So in effect, Israel has won. The US, rather than promote a two state solution, has helped Israel capture the Palestine territories...and now Isral plans to "retake' gaza, according to the poster above?
And the NY Jewish mayor Bloomberg proposes to buy the American presidency, following the Bush administration effectively controleed by Jewish neocons.
America will be taken over by Jews as surely as Palestine. There you go.
June 20, 2007 11:04 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Personally, I would like to blame the people who are paying the Palestinians to be terrorists and killers instead of farmers, merchants and manufacturers. In truth, those to blame are the Palestinians whose pride in their sect or race or political affiliation has so deluded them that they believe causing and experiencing death are preferable to working in peace for peace.
June 20, 2007 10:24 AM | Report Offensive Comments
We are to blame of course.
This predicament demonstrates how difficult it can be to correct an initial mistake. It's hard to believe this began just 90 years ago.
Beginning with the Balfour Declaration of 1917: "His Majesty would view with favor the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Said homeland not to interfere with the rights of the Palestinian people....". Right.
Then in 1947, Truman was forced to go along with the partition of Palestine by the pressure of an election. He was being killed in the polls by Dewey and public opinion, which did not want to go along with Harry's preferred approach of accepting 500,000 Jewish immigrants into the U.S.
In hindsight, would that he had stuck to his guns. The buck should have stopped there.
June 20, 2007 9:35 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Alan B: "Israel's right to exist"
The same old song, over and over again. I'm a scientist, I need proof. Where does this "right" come from ? How does it apply to Israel, Yugoslavia, Cyprus, Iraq, Corsica ?
June 20, 2007 9:01 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Who is to blame?
1. Start with Britain. They took the mandate and obiterated the obvious natural dividing line for Jews and Muslims/Arabs by creating Jordan to reward their buddies, the Hashemites, with a state.
2. Next, blame the people who empowered Hamas. They knew what they'd get for governance and deserve to reap the reward. In fact, they continue to support it and even enlarge its popularity despite their obvious suffering. Perhaps there is something to self-affliction after all to get sympathy for your cause and martyrdom is a way of life for Muslims.
3. How about Hamas? Several of your writers seem to blame US policy/"W" for not talking to them, but in fact, the then-sane policy did leave it open to talk to Hamas (the allegedly duly elected legislative body, NOT the elected Executive!). One small price, give up terror and accept Israel's right to exist. They said "NO" emphatically to talking by their actions. Election of a governing body does not entitle it to legitimization of its anihilation policy of another sovereign state and its people as Hamas has avowed, merely recognition for the beastly policy it supports for being outside the scope of acceptable bounds.
Alan B
Israel
June 20, 2007 4:39 AM | Report Offensive Comments
BOBL-VA,
You say "The Carters, Begins, Clintons, etc., of the world may have been instrumental in slowing down the violence for short periods of time, but they stood no chance of making a meaningful difference."
Maybe I'm wrong, but it is my understanding that Israel and Egypt have been in peace for several decades now, following the Begin-Sadat treaty. Jimmy Carter believed in peace, and worked tirelessly until acceptable terms were reached to secure a lasting peace.
Just a few years ago, Bill Clinton tried -and failed- to broker a similar accord between Israel and Palestine.
George W Bush does not believe in peace but in war. He defined himself as a "war president". For the last six years, he has thrown fuel to the flames of the ME.
At least, Jimmy Carter is still alive, and has the guts to call Bush's behavior by the right name: CRIMINAL.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070620/ap_on_re_eu/carter_us_palestinians;_ylt=Aj5UCmTz.vlDmp3uwiIPf.NvaA8F
June 20, 2007 12:37 AM | Report Offensive Comments
E.Ham, Tulsa, OK,
"Take a look at the policy put in place in 2001. We chose our friend (Israel) and thumbed our nose at the Palestinians." Other than during the terrorist-loving Carter administration, we have always chosen Israel. Especially since the method of Palestinian protest became a suicide bomber.
"Later threw our support behind one faction which let the world know... the other must be evil." Only because the other is evil. Again, this is not new. Other than terrorist-loving Carter, nobody has been willing to deal with Hamas because they believe that blowing up innocent people in cafes is good policy. For the record, the US was waiting on Arafat to die. When he finally did, the US waited on someone to rise to the top. Abbas did and the US began working with him. He was not a suicide bomber enthusiast. He believed in a 2 state solution to the problem. Even the Israelis showed signs of being willing to deal with him. Bush has had many wrong moves, this was not one of them.
..."when the vote didn't turn out as we anticipated, we just ignored it--we're really good at denial, actually about the only thing we're good at..." We did not ignore it. We just did not like it. It was the Palestinians right to elect whoever they wanted. It was a fair and democratic election. Because it was, it was an election where results mattered. The Palestinians elected the wrong group if peace with Israel and a 2 state solution is what they truly wanted. Again, it matters that the Palestinians elected Hamas. It's certainly their perogative to have done so. But they then have to live with the results. Just because a group is democratically elected does not mean that we have to like it or work with them.
June 19, 2007 11:44 PM | Report Offensive Comments
ANDY--
Having watched chat rooms on THE two major papers in the US these many months I can assure you that the really disgusted and angry sentiments voiced on this post are
not only wide spread, they are the consensus.
Why did anyone think Americans would approve of the treatment of Palestinians and Israeli wars and plottings any more than the rest of the world?
And today Bloomberg makes noises about running for president. Ignoring the rules, and the primaries and buying the PRESIDENCY, apparently.
June 19, 2007 7:10 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Zoltan:
I did not indicate that I agreed with the commentary by the 3 USA brains. They still think that the USA can do its thing all over the world for they are a superpower [has lower GDP than the EU, and fewer people, but more internatinal debt].
These 3 politicians are unaware of or do not care to contmeplate the near future with respect to Global warming and or shortage of many rare-earth metals in the near future [esp pertinent to solar cells and new communication gadgets see NEW SCIENTIST May 26pp 35-41].
Yes thermodynamics and basic chemistry are both beyond the competence ot these 3, as is international balance of payments, various cultures and various histories, etc
I feel great insecurity for the well being of my grandchildren when the "leading lights" of the "SOLE SUPERPOWER" are so ignorant of most topics and keep dreaming that the USA is the answer to all.
June 19, 2007 6:39 PM | Report Offensive Comments
There's an awful lot of hate on this board. I really hope the posters here represent the fringe, rather than the mainstream, or else we're all screwed.
But hey, if blaming "the West" or "America" or the "Zionist lobby" gets you through the day, then I guess that's better than strapping on an explosive belt and murdering some people. Because that wouldn't be a very productive way to try to get what you wanted, would it?
June 19, 2007 5:48 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Salamon: I disagree with the article you pointed out:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/18/america/web-rose.php
"Euro-Atlantic community" : over here, in Europe, not many people would bet on that in the long term. So Russia wanting to join...
"We cannot give Russia veto over deployment of forces on NATO territory" : actually, it's European territory that's discussed.
"We want to work with friends, with allies, with people of good will, to make this a better world." : I talk such things late at the bar after 5 beers. What about people who are not allies ? Who decides what makes the world a better place ?
"in France [...] the candidate who has the most demanding program, won" : Sarkozy promised something to everybody, he had the easiest program, one that will ruin France even more. And that my generation is asked to pay for.
But I agree with the opening:
"HENRY KISSINGER: We're at a moment when the international system is in a period of change like we haven't seen for several hundred years."
I'd say 2 hundred years, with the beginning of the industrial and parliamentary revolutions. Fossil energy is running out - the Hubert's peak oil - and that is what changes the world. All the political turmoil is, I think, the consequence of that. You cannot cheat with thermodynamics.
June 19, 2007 4:05 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Take a look at the policy put in place in 2001. We chose our friend (Israel) and thumbed our nose at the Palestinians. Later threw our support behind one faction which let the world know, since we only deal in good and evil and if we support one the other must be evil. Then, we (I'm using the term we to avoid pointing out the obvious--NeoCons) pushed for early elections to show how much we valued democracy. Of course when the vote didn't turn out as we anticipated, we just ignored it--we're really good at denial, actually about the only thing we're good at. So when Hamas made their move to take over, there was huge outcry in Washington--those terrorists! Really, these people running the show claim to be so bright, but a high school drop out could see the hypocracy in all this.
June 19, 2007 2:16 PM | Report Offensive Comments
One NEVER sees anywhere anymore, anyone who likes the Israelis. How they suppose they can not only keep their stolen place...and grab more, is strange.
Using American arms and blood, probably.
But Americans won't stand for it much longer...after Bush, and in any case the rest of the world has had enough.
The land grab of l948 will be reversed. Golan Heights given back.etc etc etc. The refugees returned to their rightful homes, etc.
If there's been any land mprovement, it can be called RENT. Forced rent. Justice.
June 19, 2007 1:51 PM | Report Offensive Comments
One NEVER sees anywhere anymore, anyone who likes the Israelis. How they suppose they can not only keep their stolen place...and grab more, is strange.
Using American arms and blood, probably.
But Americans won't stand for it much longer...after Bush, and in any case the rest of the world has had enough.
The land grab of l948 will be reversed. Golan Heights given back.etc etc etc. The refugees returned to their rightful homes, etc.
If there's been any land mprovement, it can be called RENT. Forced rent.
June 19, 2007 1:50 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Interesting take on this and other issues by Zbigniew Brzezinski, Henry Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/18/america/web-rose.php
enjoy 10 screen worth
June 19, 2007 1:46 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Albert: Let's be serious. Something along the lines you proposed (actually my preference would be Western Austria and Southern Germany) should have been tried in 1948. It would at least be poetic justice!
However, it would NOW be just as unjust to the Israelis born since 1948 as what was done to the Palestinians back then.
For what it's worth, you can make an omelette out of eggs, but you cannot make eggs out of an omelette.
June 19, 2007 1:27 PM | Report Offensive Comments
What did Hamas do after they entered Gaza? They looted. Inspiratiopn their cult leader who ordained that once Muslims capture a place everything is allowed as the victors please, plunder, rape, kill. What else can you expect Hamas to do if they are "divinely" ordained to do this. Please don't blame them. Jurispendence dictates that people who are insane cannot be blamed for their actions.
June 19, 2007 1:22 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Why is the survival of the Jewish state in the ME sacrosant? The roots of the current hostilities go back to 1948 when a group of western states, intoxicated with victory over Nazi Germany, moved to forcefully insert an alien people amidst tarditionally arab lands. They then proceeded to finance the otherwise incapable Israeli state to survive. I propose that those who so love the Israelis set aside a piece of land in central Australia, conditioned on Australian agreement, for the Israelis. Leave the ME to its long established population groups. Israel has a right to exist if its people want it to, but not in the ME at other peoples' expense. If they insist on occupying part of the ME, they are doomed. It is just a matter of time.
June 19, 2007 1:21 PM | Report Offensive Comments
I'd venture that Americans are to blame for most of this because of the sheer irrationality we foist upon the debate: What self-respecting people would cooperate in the conquest of their own land? You won't hear President Bush arguing that we should reach a negotiated settlement with al Qaeda. Likewise, the Palestinian people will never support Fatah in the numbers required, as we seem to want them to; negotiating with Israel is the equivalent of accepting Israeli occupation and resettlement of Palestinian territories as the Palestinians' own policy. I could an imagine a mentality that would choose suicide over that (and choosing Hamas is choosing suicide). If the precondition for a Palestinian state is that the Palestinians give up any semblance of military power vis-a-vis Israel and accept a moth-eaten sovereignty, it's not a Palestinian state that will last very long. That's the choice we're giving them. Either that or Hamas.
Let's we--Americans--be pragmatic about this. This, like many other world conflicts, is not our war to fight. Additionally, the benefits that accrue to us from our unqualified support of Israel are increasingly hard to discern, besides making some Americans with dual allegiances happy, and it leads us to seem irrational in how we use our power. The reasonable thing to do would be to decrease military assistance to Israel and increase governmental assistance to Hamas, which is, however you look at it, the elected government of the Palestinian territories. Then, in future, we condemn all acts of aggression by either side, commit to end all funding that supports the Israeli occupation or that could be used to fund terrorism, and let the whole thing work itself out. We're sacrificing our power so Israel can live sound. I'm not an Israeli, and neither are the vast majority of the rest of US citizens, and on top of it all, a state based upon religious supremacy seems very un-American; why is this our mission?
And who's to blame for the lack of a Palestinian state? God, God is to blame. He's the one who granted Israel a right to exist that precludes any Palestinian right to self-determination, and as it goes right now, if the US has to re-write the law of nations to validate that, by God we'll do it. Let's we Americans rethink this strategy.
June 19, 2007 12:08 PM | Report Offensive Comments
I'd venture that Americans are to blame for most of this because of the sheer irrationality we foist upon the debate: What self-respecting people would cooperate in the conquest of their own land? You won't hear President Bush arguing that we should reach a negotiated settlement with al Qaeda. Likewise, the Palestinian people will never support Fatah in the numbers required, as we seem to want them to; negotiating with Israel is the equivalent of accepting Israeli occupation and resettlement of Palestinian territories as the Palestinians' own policy. I could an imagine a mentality that would choose suicide over that (and choosing Hamas is choosing suicide). If the precondition for a Palestinian state is that the Palestinians give up any semblance of military power vis-a-vis Israel and accept a moth-eaten sovereignty, it's not a Palestinian state that will last very long. That's the choice we're giving them. Either that or Hamas.
Let's we--Americans--be pragmatic about this. This, like many other world conflicts, is not our war to fight. Additionally, the benefits that accrue to us from our unqualified support of Israel are increasingly hard to discern, besides making some Americans with dual allegiances happy, and it leads us to seem irrational in how we use our power. The reasonable thing to do would be to decrease military assistance to Israel and increase governmental assistance to Hamas, which is, however you look at it, the elected government of the Palestinian territories. Then, in future, we condemn all acts of aggression by either side, commit to end all funding that supports the Israeli occupation or that could be used to fund terrorism, and let the whole thing work itself out. We're sacrificing our power so Israel can live sound. I'm not an Israeli, and neither are the vast majority of the rest of US citizens, and on top of it all, a state based upon religious supremacy seems very un-American; why is this our mission?
And who's to blame for the lack of a Palestinian state? God, God is to blame. He's the one who granted Israel a right to exist that precludes any Palestinian right to self-determination, and as it goes right now, if the US has to re-write the law of nations to validate that, by God we'll do it. Let's we Americans rethink this strategy.
June 19, 2007 12:06 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Postscript to previous comment: Don't pressure the Palestinians or the Israelis. Pressure the diaspora bankers and arms suppliers from outside the region. Then watch what happens within the occupied territories when the funds from abroad and the arms purchases have stopped.
June 19, 2007 11:48 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Isn't this a silly debate? By now it ought to be clear that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the Middle East issues from deep within the diaspora communities, both Jewish and Palestinian Arab, living far away from the occupied territories. The communities directing and funding the conflict in Palestine live in the Americas, Europe, the former Soviet Union, and Africa, as well as in other Arab and Asian countries. Until someone has the imagination to get the diaspora communities in the conflict to make peace, the hope for getting the combatants, either Israeli or Palestinian faction in Palestine, or if you prefer, Israeli occupied territory, to come to terms, a lasting peace will remain elusive. Shuttle diplomacy to the Middle East to bring the factions there together has been like getting the players of a football team to end the game, without first establishing agreements between the respective owners of the teams. Who encourages and funds Israeli bellicosity towards the Palestinians? Don't look in Israeli for the source of Israel's military might or its aggressive policies. Who encourages and funds Hamas and Fatah? Don't look in Gaza or the West Bank for the bankers of the arms purchases there? Peace in the Middle East begins with a dialogue between the respective financiers and civilian warriors directing the fighting on the ground. Talking to the soldier-politicians or fronts (and anyone in the Middle East conflict on location there is a soldier) rather than the generals and financiers, who live outside the Middle East, is futile. Those sources of the conflict are not in the Middle East, so shuttle diplomacy between Washington or London to Tel Aviv or Gaza City has been and will continue to amount to very wild goose chases. The people that the U.S. and the U.K. need to reach are, some of them, in Washington and London, but others are beyond the geographic spheres and reach of either Western powers, which makes perfect sense. Charles de Gaulle during WW II led the resistance from England. Get smart, if you want peace; get rid of Condi Rice and the other mis-educated incompetents in the State Department on the Middle East now just playing for time until the next Presidential election.
June 19, 2007 11:37 AM | Report Offensive Comments
What self-respecting people would cooperate in the conquest of their own land? You won't hear President Bush arguing that we should reach a negotiated settlement with al Qaeda. Likewise, the Palestinian people will never support Fatah in the numbers required; negotiating with Israel is the equivalent of accepting Israeli occupation and resettlement of Palestinian territories as the Palestinians' own policy. I could an imagine a mentality that would choose suicide over that. If the precondition for a Palestinian state is that the Palestinians give up any semblance of military power vis-a-vis Israel and accept a moth-eaten sovereignty, it's not a Palestinian state that will last very long. That's the choice we're giving them. Either that or Hamas.
Who's to blame for the lack of a Palestinian state? God, God is to blame. He's the one who granted Israel a right to exist that precludes any Palestinian right to self-determination, and if the US has to re-write the law of nations to validate that, by God we'll do it.
June 19, 2007 11:23 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Who's to blame? The Jews, of course. Just ask the ny slimes or its boston globe.
June 19, 2007 11:12 AM | Report Offensive Comments
First the west demands that Palestinians embrace democracy, then those silly Palestinians vote for the wrong people. So the west decides to boycott the democratically elected government of Palestinian people and continues to support the corrupt and discredited Mahmood Abbas.
When things turn to a mess, the smart westerners shake their head and ask questions like the one on this website. Tisk tisk those silly Arabs and Muslims - “ they just can’t understand those wonderful western ideals. Eh! When will they learn”.
To you westerners with your lofty western ideals, I have this to say – “Take your western democracy and shove it where the sun don’t shine”
June 19, 2007 10:44 AM | Report Offensive Comments
The ultimate solutions no one has the guts ro bring to bear
1. In no uncertain trems get the Israelis the hell out of Gaza and the West Bank.
2. Get the Palestinian refugees the hell out of Lebanon and back to their homeland.
3. Partition Jerusalem into 3 separate religious entities in the fashion of the Vatican City. have each religious group take care of its own sites.
4. On the part of the US treat everyone in the region equally and with the same respect as well as the same assistance dollar wise per haed. AND STOP PLAYING ONE SIDE AGAINST THE OTHER SO THAT THE CITISEN VOTER CAN AFFORD TO OWN A HOME; PROVIDE FOR A GOOD EDUCATION OF THEIR CHILDREN;
AND NOT SPEND 30% OF THEIR INCOME HUST TO GET TO WORK AND BACK.
5. PEACE BASED ON THE ABOVE MUST BE ENDORSED/APPROVED BY THE FUNDAMENTALISTS ERGO; ZIONISTS, RAPTURISTS AND JIHADISTS.
6. AND THAT WOULD REALLY PROVE THAT THERE IS A....
LOVING GOD.
June 19, 2007 10:19 AM | Report Offensive Comments
The ultimate solutions no one has the guts ro bring to bear
1. In no uncertain trems get the Israelis the hell out of Gaza and the West Bank.
2. Get the Palestinian refugess the hell out of Lebanon and back to their homeland.
3. Partition Jerusalem into 3 separate religious entities in the fashion of the Vatican City. have each religious group take care of its own sites.
4. On the part of the US treat everyone in the region equally and with the same respect as well as the same assitance dollar wise per head. AND STOP PLAYING ONE SIDE AGAINST THE OTHER SO THAT THE CITISEN VOTER CAN AFFORD TO OWN A HOME; PROVIDE FOR A GOOD EDUCATION OF THEIR CHILDREN;
AND NOT SPEND 30% OF THEIR INCOME JUST TO GET TO WORK AND BACK.
5. PEACE BASED ON THE ABOVE MUST BE ENDORSED/APPROVED BY THE FUNDAMENTALISTS ERGO; ZIONISTS, RAPTURISTS AND JIHADISTS.
6. AND THAT WOULD REALLY PROVE THAT THERE IS A....
LOVING GOD.
June 19, 2007 10:16 AM | Report Offensive Comments
When I was in my late teens I was in the Navy and in Vietnam. I was talking to an older Vietnamese gentlemen about the war and he said something that has stuck with me for almost 40 years. He told me Vietnam had been invaded and occupied numerous times in it's history and they always drove out the invaders. Once the Chinese occupied Vietnam for 300 years until the people were able to drive them out. The lesson I learned here was people are very territorial. If you steal their land and try to impose your will on them they will take whatever time is necessary to get their land back. Even if it takes 300 years. Sadly, about the only way to avert the conflicts over land is for one side to basically wipe out the other. An example of this would be what the US did to the Native Americans. There simply weren't enough of them left to fight any longer.
I bring this up because the same thing is going on in the ME today. Israel firmly believes they have a God given right to the land. (Sorry, I'm dubious of any claim human beings make about a divine entity giving them anything) The Muslims/Arabs feel they lived on the land for over 2,000 years and it belongs to them. Add to this land issue the religous differences that exist and you have a very nasty conflict.
The West wants the Arab world to accept Israel and live in peace with them. The Arab world doesn't want to accept Israel and has no desire to live in peace with them. This isn't a complicated issue. For 60 years the west has pushed for peace in the ME and it hasn't happened. They can push for another 60 years and it still won't happen. The Muslim world is not now nor will it ever accept the State of Israel in the ME.
To the posters who blame Bush for the ills in the ME. As much as I detest Bush the ME was a mess before he became president and it will be a mess after he leaves office. I agree he hasn't done anything to make it any better. I agree he has done a lot to make it worse, but he isn't responsible for the problem. He's only contributed to it.
To Berry in Ecuador:
I think you missed most of my point. The Carters, Begins, Clintons, etc., of the world may have been instrumental in slowing down the violence for short periods of time, but they stood no chance of making a meaningful difference. There will be a horrific war in the ME between the Arabs and Israel at some point in the future. My guess it will be sooner then later. Israel has fought off the Arabs because they were militarily superior. That can and will change enough in the future as ME countries build themselves up through petrodollars that their superiority will diminish and the sheer numbers of Arabs will be a formidable force. The longer Israel goes without another war the greater their probability of losing. Not a pleasant thought.
June 19, 2007 10:12 AM | Report Offensive Comments