The politics thread

[Gorth]

It's getting pretty hard here to ignore a discussion in Isreal.

 

Suicide bombers kill civilians. Isreal responds by attacking military targets and the UN goes up in arms.

 

How about the UN go after the terrorists rather those who try to protect themselves?

Ok, lets discuss Israel then. Since I brought it up, I'll play the devils advocate (I have no relations to the middleeast whatsoever) and speak the Palestinian point of view.

 

Let me guess, you live in the US (I sort of remember you mentioning that in another thread B) )

 

Hypothetical situation: Canada decides that that the US is for some obscure reason rightfully part of the British crown.

 

Canadian troops invades your home country. Canadian troops "cleanses" the countryside, burning villages and towns, razing down buildings, killing villagers wholesale if they don't "relocate" fast enough (we are talking 1948 now, I know an old geezer who was there as a soldier then). Karadzic would have been envious.

 

The people, you, your (surviving) family members etc. are now living in koncentration like camps. Your home is gone, no job, no future, constant humiliations by the occupation forces.

 

Do you A) Congratulaty the Canadians for their tactical masterstrokes and offers to lie down and die peacefully here and now ? B) Fight back against a superior military power with whatever means you have available ?

 

(No insult intended against Canadians )

[Nartwak]

Fight back against a superior military power with whatever means you have available ?

Like blowing up public buses.

 

Can we hear your rendition of the Israeli side?

[Gorth]

Can we hear your rendition of the Israeli side?

Sure...

 

Having been a nomadic people, spread all over the western world for millenia (spelling), despised by the host nations, persecuted for economical, superstitious and sometimes just convenient (for the people in power) reasons, you have always lived in the hope and knowledge, that someday you will get a place to call your own and finally get a sense of being "home".

 

That opportunity came after WWII, when the British grip on their Palestine mandate was loosening (being under British control since the dismantling of the Ottoman empire).

 

People need some kind of identity, and after the horrors of WWII there was a willingness (and not to mention availability of arms) to fight for a land of your own. Of a long guerilla war against the British and the locals, you finally get what you have dreamed of for millennia, a national identity and a "home".

 

Problem is, all your neighbours disagrees with your very existance and will stop at nothing to eradicate you from the map. Since war is inevitable, the only logical conclusion is to strike first against your neighbours (which you know would attack you sooner or later) and use the element of surprise and almost as importantly, the will to survive as a nation to beat the crap out of your neighbours. So severely, that they won't pose a serious military threat to you again in a foreseeable future. The conquered lands become spoils of war to the victor.

 

Problem is, that although your neighbours are no longer a military threat, they are still very active in supporting insurgents, guerilla fighters, partisans, suicide actions etc. put shortly, the wage low profile war against you. Since you don't have the resources for further full scale wars on all fronts to stomp out all support for the destablising elements, all you can do now is trying to isolate hot spots, prominent leaders, etc. and remove those from the equation in the hope, that eventually those who opposes your right to exist will lose heart and give up.

[Judge Hades]

Maybe the terrorists would stop when the US and Britain gives back the land they took to make Israel in the first place. It was Arab land after WW2 and Israel had no right to exist.

[Nartwak]

Fair summation Gorth. To what degree did the creation of Israel abrogate international bigotry?

[Gorth]

Fair summation Gorth. To what degree did the creation of Israel abrogate international bigotry?

Ehhh, explain abrogate ? (English is not my first, only my third language )

[Nartwak]

It's a more formal tense of "remove, get rid of".

[Gorth]

It's a more formal tense of "remove".

Thats pretty much what my dictionary said

 

I guess I just didn't quite understand the question then. I just like a good discussion and think that people should investigate all aspects of a conflict before jumping to (often simple or convenient) conclusions.

 

The creation of the State Isreal solved an age old problem with a homeless people. It created a new problem because their new home was somebody elses old home.

 

It has happened all over the world for millennia, it's just that in these "modern" times, it gets more media exposeure than say a 1000 years ago.

 

When people call the Palestinians "Terrorists" and say they attack busses and homes, it's a result of something. I ask the question then, why do they do that ?

 

The answer is hate. They can't fight on equal footing so that leads to frustration. If you add hate, frustration and no hope for a future, you get pure unrelentless hatred.

 

Terrorism is the symptom of a disease. You need to remove the disease (the original cause of the conflict), then the symptoms will go away eventually.

 

What I think personally ? If the will had been there on both sides, there could have been peace and prosperity in the middle east a decade ago...

 

Apparantly, some interests on both sides aren't interested in peace, hence the constant provocations and needless killings of civilians (goes for both sides in the conflict).

[Judge Hades]

There will be no peace till the genocide of one side or the other is complete.

[Nartwak]

Good stuff.

Yeah, there's always someone spoiling the stew alright.

 

The line of thought I was trying to follow was: if international bigotry was so great as to motivate the Jews to seize a homeland as you say, what influence does that bigotry have on international resolutions against Israel?

 

(As an aside, I appreciate your discussion of this with me. Thank you.)

[Gorth]

Good stuff.

Yeah, there's always someone spoiling the stew alright.

 

The line of thought I was trying to follow was: if international bigotry was so great as to motivate the Jews to seize a homeland as you say, what influence does that bigotry have on international resolutions against Israel?

 

(As an aside, I appreciate your discussion of this with me. Thank you.)

I'm not sure that it was international "pressure" that caused the existance of the state of Israel.

 

Having shipload after shipload of military trained people (lots of the "new" jewish partisans who fought for the creation of Israel were ex-soldiers from WWII), coordinated by people with lots of skill, probably did more to overtrhow the british rule of Palestine than any international intentions.

 

The climate after WWII might have helped on the logistics side of things because people "felt sorry" for the jews after the horrors of WWII became public knowledge.

 

But as always, once initial enthusiasm wears off, the internationl community reverts to its old ways, that is politics, the cold war (back then), general anti-semitism which has been there for millennia, doesn't just go away overnight, etc.

 

That pretty much leave a people who are capable fighters, but lousy politicans, to fend for themselves with what ever support they can get from countries with strong jewish lobbies (we are still talking late 40's, early 50's).

 

In the shadow of the cold war, the middle east conflict was always page 3 stuff.

 

That leaves pretty much the period after the end of the cold war, where people again gained a growing awareness of these "forgotten conflicts" (tabloids needs something)

 

Since the US has linked its interests with the interests of Israel as an unconditional ally, that pretty much makes the enemies of Israel the enemies of the US (like Bin Laden :ph34r:).

 

The rest of the world probably couldn't care less about Israel and the Palestinians if it wasn't for the constant media coverage, and some obscure parts of human nature always make you sympathetic of the "underdogs", in this case the palestinians.

 

So the "bigotry" is probably that once the western powers had satisfied their need for "absolution" after holocaust, they discovered that perhaps they had let the fox loose in the chickencoop, for the new jewish nation was not only able to take care of itself, but to elevate itself to a major power in the region, gone was any sympathy people might have had before that.

 

Does it make sense ?

[EnderAndrew]

Both Palestine and Isreal can make a claim to that land.

 

Kudos to you for very adequately playing Devil's Advocate on both sides.

 

Here's the deciding factor for me. The UN says share the land. Isreal comes in, spends money and manpower cultivating desert, building structures, etc.

 

Palestine never really makes an effort to share. Many go on the record of saying they'll never be happy until every Jew on the planet is dead.

 

Isreal makes an attempt to share the land, and even goes as far to put money into fixing up land, and handing it to Palestine.

 

Palestinians don't have the military might to fight Isreal head-on, but murdering civilians is never acceptable, period. Undermaned troops have used hit-and-run tactics successfully on military tactics time and time again. The US Revolutionary War is a fine example of farmers fighting off trained, better equipped soldiers. With rag-tag ships we sank what was then the finest fleet in the world.

 

(Canada in turn kicked the our butt in the War of 1812, but Americans pretend it never happened)

 

They could make pipe bombs and attack tanks. Instead they murder civilians. Palestine crossed a line. Isreal has a right to defend themselves. The UN said that the country would be shared, and one side just isn't willing to do that.

[EnderAndrew]

And while the Jews like to play the victim card quite a bit, they did have a right to play the card after WWII. And frankly, they are a people that had been repeatedly enslaved and forcibly moved many times in their history.

 

I think the Isreal compromise wasn't ridiculously unfair.

[Nartwak]

Having been a nomadic people, spread all over the western world for millenia (spelling), despised by the host nations, persecuted for economical, superstitious and sometimes just convenient (for the people in power) reasons, you have always lived in the hope and knowledge, that someday you will get a place to call your own and finally get a sense of being "home".

 

But as always, once initial enthusiasm wears off, the internationl community reverts to its old ways, that is politics, the cold war (back then), general anti-semitism which has been there for millennia, doesn't just go away overnight, etc.

 

I belive these are the crux of my question. To what regard does "general anti-semitism" and history of persecution factor into the creation of resolutions condemning Israel?

 

Informative post, yes it makes enough sense.

[EnderAndrew]

I think the UN gets nervous anytime tanks roll, for any purpose.

 

Isreal gets slapped down for resoultions when they use their military.

 

Yes, we like to see matters resolved peacefully. However, the UN Security Council was created for a purpose. I think the UN is afraid of utilizing it.

 

Why does the United States demand the right to use whatever force necessary to protect itself against terrorism and then tell Isreal to back off on Palestine? It seems quite hypocritcal.

[Nartwak]

Keep in mind that the UNs purpose is to be an international forum; it's more or less devoted to stopping wars. A revamp of the League of Nations, which failed.

[EnderAndrew]

The League of Nations was a bad idea on many levels, and thusly it failed.

 

The UN needs to either be involved, or not be involved. If the UN was respected, then perhaps they would have a better chance of preventing wars.

 

People should do things because it is the right thing to do. However, humans seem to respond to fear of punishment. If the Security Council is going to pass resolutions, then they are accepting the mantle of "parent" to the world. However, they aren't acting in that capacity.

 

Punishments should start at "groundings" (read: sanctions), however eventually a spanking may be necessary.

[Gorth]

I belive these are the crux of my question. To what regard does "general anti-semitism" and history of persecution factor into the creation of resolutions condemning Israel?

Perhaps less than people would think ? At least in the case of UN resolutions. If put into context, lets take whatever atrocities and aggressions have been committed since the inception of the UN.

 

Most of the worlds military powers were allied to either Nato or the WP during the cold war years, that meant they were pretty "safe" from resolutions, as there was always a permanent member to veto a resolution.

 

The middle east was more of a proxy battle ground, that meant what happened there would get less attention, and more likely to get resolutions passed as long as it didn't involve anything that shifted the military balance in the area. Israel is an ally of the US and Turkey was/is a Nato member. Syria and others were supported (logistically and morally) by the Soviet Union as a counterweight to US and Nato interests.

 

Nobody was interested in any conflicts that could threaten oil supplies to the western countries, therefore nobody was interested in any new full scale, prolonged wars.

 

The underlying general (historical) anti-semitism is probably more widespread in Europe than in the US, but Europe being all focused on the millions of WP troops camped at their doorsteps might have put a dampener on any interests outside their own continent. That pretty much leaves it a conflict between the henchmen of the soviets (quite a handful of arab nations actually, this was before fundamentalism became widespread) and the US/Israeli alliance.

 

Pretty much all (not all, but close) world politics was dominated by Nato, WP and China from WWII up to recent history.

 

@Enderwiggin: Their motivations are different. Bin Laden and Co. are foreigners striking from foreign territory against the US, the Isreali/Palenstine conflict is way more complex. The germans also called French, Dutch, Scandinavian whatever partisans for terrorists for bombing trains, killing soldiers, buildings, factories, train stations. These "terrorist" attacks also killed women, children, old and infirm.

 

But since those former occupied territories were on the victorious side, they are no longer labeled "terrorists" but "freedom fighters"

 

But history and oppinion is written by the victors and those who have the media to convey their own points of view.

[EnderAndrew]

If you use terror as a weapon to further your cause, you are a terrorist IMO. The purpose of your cause is irrelevant in said definition.

 

I'm not saving that motivation and intention is irrelevant in general, but rather that I feel comfortable using the term terrorist to define someone who uses the tactics of terror as a weapon.

 

Europe to this day seems rather anti-Isreal. I don't quite understand it, and I wonder how much anti-semitism plays in that.

 

NATO and the WP seem to be old formalties today. Maybe that's my naivety speaking, but I do get that impression. I find it odd that the USSR is very content to rely on the US for economic support year in and year out, and then publicly blast the hand that feeds it.

 

The USSR questions our motivations in liberating a country, when intel suggests that USSR once discussed selling nuclear equipment to Iraq, and the USSR is in desperate need of fossil fuels due to their constant heating problems. Whose motives are really in question here?

 

Maybe I'm a hardliner, but I stand by my take on Isreal. If Palestine came to the table and asked the UN for peacekeepers to protect their cities against a superior Isreal military, I think people would listen. Instead, they practice terrorist strategies and spouting genocidal rhetoric while making themselves out to be the victim. You can't do that.

 

People can question the targets that Isreal hits, but for the most part they all do seem to be military/government targets for the most part. They've displayed a civility not seen on the other side. Yet, the UN and US both are telling Isreal that they need to make concessions. The concessions are one-sided. Palestine has done nothing to curb terrorism. Concessions need to come from both sides of the table.

[Nartwak]

Lots of good stuff.

Okay I think I see what you're saying. That helped clarify my thinking. Thank you.

 

Europe to this day seems rather anti-Isreal. I don't quite understand it, and I wonder how much anti-semitism plays in that.

This was basicly the same impetus for my question.

[EnderAndrew]

The odd-thing is, the US gets blasted for being too much in support of Isreal.

 

Yet, they sign off on resolutions, and keep demanding that Isreal acquiese to Palestine at the bargaining table. We give relief money to both countries.

 

We just happen to supply military technology to Isreal as well. Not that it matters, because Isreal is quite advanced in technology. Their Air Force is equal, if not superior to ours. Isreal has tactical nukes as well. Their training program is excellent.

 

I don't know that Isreal's military really needs our help. When I was in the military, we did NATO cross-training. The ROK Marines (Republic of Korea - Southern flavor) and Isreali troops are really top-notch.

 

And I suppose, the Royal British Marines are not too shabby.

[Gorth]

If you use terror as a weapon to further your cause, you are a terrorist IMO. The purpose of your cause is irrelevant in said definition.

 

I'm not saving that motivation and intention is irrelevant in general, but rather that I feel comfortable using the term terrorist to define someone who uses the tactics of terror as a weapon.

 

Europe to this day seems rather anti-Isreal. I don't quite understand it, and I wonder how much anti-semitism plays in that.

 

NATO and the WP seem to be old formalties today. Maybe that's my naivety speaking, but I do get that impression. I find it odd that the USSR is very content to rely on the US for economic support year in and year out, and then publicly blast the hand that feeds it.

 

The USSR questions our motivations in liberating a country, when intel suggests that USSR once discussed selling nuclear equipment to Iraq, and the USSR is in desperate need of fossil fuels due to their constant heating problems. Whose motives are really in question here?

 

Maybe I'm a hardliner, but I stand by my take on Isreal. If Palestine came to the table and asked the UN for peacekeepers to protect their cities against a superior Isreal military, I think people would listen. Instead, they practice terrorist strategies and spouting genocidal rhetoric while making themselves out to be the victim. You can't do that.

 

People can question the targets that Isreal hits, but for the most part they all do seem to be military/government targets for the most part. They've displayed a civility not seen on the other side. Yet, the UN and US both are telling Isreal that they need to make concessions. The concessions are one-sided. Palestine has done nothing to curb terrorism. Concessions need to come from both sides of the table.

Terror is never a solution, like I said, its a sympton. You have to remove the cause. The tricky bit is that, if you were to remove the cause in this case, you had to kill off all the jews (being the agressors) or all the palestinians (the reactors).

 

Since genocide in the western world is increasingly frowned upon, it's unlikely to happen.

 

As for Europe being "Anti-Israel", it would be more correct to say "less pro-Israel" than the US. Like I said, if the media didn't keep bringing it up, nobody in Europe would probably give a damn about the middle-east conflict.

 

Being the occupying force, the initiative currently lies with the Israeli's, therefore they are expected to take first steps.

 

You have to be pretty naive if you think any palestinian leader has a chance of stopping "terrorists", when there is nothing to gain from it. It would be political suicide for him to preach that/ Thats why I mentioned in a previous post, that both sides have to have the will at the same time for it to happen. There was a chance a decade ago, before the then prime minister was murdered. That was probably the greatest chance for peace the middle east ever had.

 

If only one part looks to gain something from peace, there will be no peace. And yes, the palestinians have frequently asked for internatial observers and military presence. Israel refuses the observers and a foreign military presence has a snowballs chance in hell with Sharon in power. Not to mention that the US would veto it on sheer reflex in a UN vote.

 

So currently, its a Gordian knot

 

Ah well, Sharon doesn't live forever, heck, even Eire got peace eventually. They even play sports against the English again... Unthinkable in 1916

[Oerwinde]

And thats not counting those after 1992...

 

Also doesn't count all the ones vetoed by the US.

[EnderAndrew]

England and Ireland had a simpler situation.

 

And I believe both parties were capable of being civil. They just lacked objectivity.

 

I don't think Palestine has showed either the capability, not desire to be civil. That worries me.

[Nartwak]

So currently, its a Gordian knot

 

A very good description.