War in the middle east, why oh why?

...Well, it is good you reminded us about Hitler.
Any time when I see the over-confidence of U.S. and Israel that high tech weaponry and disciplined strong military forces are the panacea for everything, and that a good propaganda machine can transform s...t into lavender, I remember Hitler, Goebbles and Nazi Germany.

This post has been edited by Florin on August 04, 2006 12:18 pm

Starnge comp.

Let see...
"The force of the fist" and "The stronger prevails" are applied in the everyday politics of U.S. and Israel. And, in the case of Israel, there is also another one: "The vital space" - which, of course, must include West Bank, Golan Heights etc.

This post has been edited by Florin on August 04, 2006 01:16 pm

Hi Imp,

Yup. The second most fundamental problem is the existence of Israel. It was really the last major colonisation organised by Europeans.

Personally, I can see no reason why anyone should expect the Palestinians and Arabs generally to peacably accept the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of their fellows to help create a consolidated state of Israel, into which several million Jewish immigrants have since poured. Nor can I see any reason why the UK and USA should expect to escape some of the consequences of this anger, given our roles in creating the conditions under which Israel was founded and consolidated.

However, there is one problem more fundamental than Israel, and that is that there are elements in Islam that have always been extremely militant and incompatible with any non-Islamic neighbour. The imposition of Israel on their region has just given them a contemporary peg on which to hang their existing hatred of unbelievers and raised their once limited influence.

Personally, I think it was a major mistake for the UK and USA to allow the state of Israel to come into existence, because it has created massive problems for them amongst several hundred million Moslems who occupy the strategic centre of the earth's land mass.

However, I also think that it is now too late to reverse this. Israel is a legitimate state and to undo it would be to create some 7 million refugees - even more than there are exiled Palestinians, very few of whom are old enough to actually have been born in the territory of what is now Israel.

Israel is a created fact. My objection to Israel is that it continues to "create facts" by building settlements and walls on the West Bank in order to expand its borders. In my opinion the "creation of facts" should stop on the 1948-1967 border.

Cheers,

Sid.

Hi Florin,

This is not my area of expertise.

Hitler certainly toyed with the idea of sending the Jews to Madagascar. Given that Britain had an enormous empire on the Afrcan continent at the time, it is possible that some British officials might have considered offering Jews territory there. (Indeed, there were a good number of Jews in its Southern African colonies).

However, as Britain didn't have a "Jewish problem" - remember, we had already had a very successful pro-Imperialist Jewish prme minister by the name of Disraeli - and there was no single Jewish body to negotiate with, I doubt that it ever came close to being official policy to make such an offer.

There is a tendency to confuse policy propositions (of which there are always many generated, most of which come nowhere near serious consideration) and official policy (of which there is only one at any given time). A good example of the former is the so-called Moregenthau Plan.

Cheers,

Sid.

Because I reminded sometimes about the world as it would be in 20...30 years from now, I should say that while the U.S. will not be as strong as today among the other players, also the Middle East will not be as today regarding energy concerns and oil production.
Most oil and natural gas fields of Middle East were already put into production, with the notable exception that Saudi Arabia has by far the biggest spare production availability in the world.
The biggest discoveries in oil, these last years, were off-shore Angola, Brazil, Nigeria and China, and last but not least, in Russia and around the Caspian Sea. The U.S. still have some non-used oil deposits in Alaska and in the Gulf of Mexico. Canada is pushing hard with her "sand oil", which can offer equivalent oil more than Saudi Arabia, while in American Midwest there are deposits of "shale rock", which when converted into oil will be much bigger than the oil of Saudi Arabia!
In 30 years from now, the Middle East may lose the "oil weapon".

This post has been edited by Florin on August 04, 2006 02:12 pm

I disagree with any return of any land by Israel. If the muslims can take it back fine, but it shouldnt be returned, because you dont attack a country, lose territory to it in the war then put as condition the return of that territory in order for you to.... accept the existence of that country. It's like Romania asking for the return of Bassarabia in 1945 or else continue a state of war with the USSR!
Besides, if you put the problem that way to a member of Hamas, Hezbollah, or any other splinter groups, or to Ahmadinejad, they would most likely tell you "no problem, we'd rather wait 20 more years than accept anything".

I disagree with any return of any land by Israel. If the muslims can take it back fine, but it shouldnt be returned, because you dont attack a country, lose territory to it in the war then put as condition the return of that territory in order for you to.... accept the existence of that country. It's like Romania asking for the return of Bassarabia in 1945 or else continue a state of war with the USSR!
...........................................

I am thinking like you, up to a point.
The following is what I think like you:
If every Jew from diaspora, including the U.S. citizens, wants to enroll in the army of Israel, that is easy to accept, and this is OK with me. If every Jew from diaspora wants to support Israel with money or with his/her skills, that is easy to accept, and this is OK with me. If Israel is able to withstand alone, for ever, against the whole Muslim world, that would be great, and I will say: Congratulations!
Where I do not agree: Why America has to be dragged in all this mess? America, my adoptive country, should be neutral, and "admire" the conflict from sidelines.
P.S: In the part where I wrote "I do not agree" I may be wrong, because I do not know what do you think about Israel caring about itself alone - without America.

This post has been edited by Florin on August 04, 2006 05:55 pm

That reminded me that Japan still did not sign a peace treaty with U.S.S.R/Russia, because of the Kurile Archipelago - 61 years after the end of WWII.
That is strange, in a way, considering the economic exchanges occuring since the days of Soviet Union.

This post has been edited by Florin on August 04, 2006 06:29 pm

The question of American neutrality was settled in WWII when the decision taken followed this principle - the support offered to a fellow democracy against the forces of tyranny is in the interest of the US, albeit the seemingly indirect interest. The same principle or policy however you want to call it was adopted in the Cold War. The support for Israel is not the only contemporary example of an apparently weird policy - I would say Taiwan fits in too. Why should America place its eggs in the Taiwan basket, wouldnt it be better for it to make up with the much bigger and powerful China?

This post has been edited by Imperialist on August 04, 2006 07:30 pm

Let see...
"The force of the fist" and "The stronger prevails" are applied in the everyday politics of U.S. and Israel. And, in the case of Israel, there is also another one: "The vital space" - which, of course, must include West Bank, Golan Heights etc.

I'll tell you the dif.;
If today the arabs let down their arms,there will be no more terorism.
If the Israelies let down their arms,there will be no more Israel.

Let see...
"The force of the fist" and "The stronger prevails" are applied in the everyday politics of U.S. and Israel. And, in the case of Israel, there is also another one: "The vital space" - which, of course, must include West Bank, Golan Heights etc.

I'll tell you the dif.;
If today the arabs let down their arms,there will be no more terorism.
If the Israelies let down their arms,there will be no more Israel.

"The Forever War"...
This was the title of 2 completely different novels, by 2 different authors, one of them being Gabriel Garcia Marques. Well, the novels are not about Middle East, but the title fits so well...

The Forever War keeps going:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060805/ap_on_...llah_s_missiles

With such victories, who fears defeat?

Dr. Ibrahim al-Khair wrote on one Arab Web site: "Hassan Nasrallah is no different from [former Egyptian president] Gamal Abdul Nasser, who remained in power despite his country's defeat in 1967; Saddam Hussein, who 'defeated' Israel by destroying Iran, Kuwait and Iraq; and Osama bin Laden, who 'defeated' the US by destroying Afghanistan and distorting the image of Islam. Nasrallah, who last week announced his victory in the war with Israel, is just like the others. He remained steadfast in his bunker until he destroyed Lebanon and killed hundreds of its citizens. Now he wants to present his victory as a gift to the Lebanese people and no one is supposed to challenge this victory, which has cost Lebanon billions of dollars."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid...icle%2FShowFull

true. arab leaders and propaganda tend to overemphasize everything theu do. a minor skirmish becomes a collosal victory...

but it is no different from westen declarations like the one made by the british embassador to irak a few days ago - that irak is unified and on it's way of becoming a democracy..

bla bla bla is characteristic for people that have no vision or imagination. what can you expect?