Picture of the Day - "Progress" in Iraq / Update

Stephen, first let me clarify that I never say that. Actually I have some preference for Israel because their political system is closer to mine than the Palestinians, and an Oasis of modernity in the middle of a rather backward Arab world. However choosing an ally purely on military ground is nonsense. You do not select allies on the sole ground that they are strong. However, my natural pro-Israel leaning is severly tested by the policies of Mr Sharon. There is only so much that you can swallow before feeling really uneasy.

This post has been edited by Chandernagore on October 17, 2004 10:56 pm

Well, nobody threatened Nazi Germany with extermination.

There is this thing however that I can fathom with Arabs : you can whine a long time about Israel carving a country in the middle east by not so acceptable rules. Man, the end of WWI left the Arabs in possession of territories which were dwarfing the ridiculous surface the Israeli state would later seek. What the hell are they focusing so pathologically on that comparatively insignificant space that escaped them ? Can't they live in the 99.9999% remaining territory ?

Nooooo. In 48 they thought they were stronger and they would listen to none. Well, they got it in the arse. When you loose a war (or a serie of war) you should not be surprised that there is a price to pay. Only the Palestinians are surprised.

This is not so simple.
The Arabs lost the war of 1973 because the United States, under Nixon administration, offered immediately to Israel a wide range of support, from brand new modern military equipment to photos from satellite of the Arab positions.
Then, to revenge, the Arabs stopped the export of petroleum in 1973, which created havoc in the economies of Western Europe, Japan, and to a lesser extent, in the United States.
And so on, and so on... Like a snowball, a series of events started, and we are still in their whirlwind today. And here we are, fighting in the same time in Iraq and Afghanistan, after September 11. As far as I perceive these things, we (i.e. America) are also paying a hard price, right now. As long we are paying a hard price (in money and blood), the fact that the other side also pays a heavy toll doesn't comfort too much.

This post has been edited by Florin on October 18, 2004 06:18 am

Chandanagore, I find your logic highly debatable. Jews originally settled in a Palestine filled with palestinians, not the other way around. By your own logic, you should accept me taking London from you, which makes about 0.1% of the territory of Great Britain. Just because...

Before 48, there was 47 and the United Nations managed in that year to arrive to a compromise in the Israeli problem. Of course, the land taken over by the jews was the better one, but the ones that actually proved more rebellious over this settlement were of course still the jewish terrorists. They wanted it all and they were determined to get it through war (even killing a high-UN official in the process).

Unfortunately, I give your whole post a bullshit award....

Well. From time to time I deserve one

However...

1) I told nowhere that, from a Palestinian p.o.v. the creation of the Israeli state was just. It was not. But the Europeans pushed for a solution that conveniently made up for the little morale attitude problem they had with the Jews all the while escaping the consequences for thelmselves. Pretty shitty work.

2) It's the Jewish homeland as well as the Palestinians. Actually it was Jewish homeland before you ever heard about a word like "Palestine". You know the story. The Israeli invited themselves in the area, but then so did the Arabs. We are not any longer interested in who has more right than the other. We are interested in peace. Neither Sharon nor Arafat wants that strong enough.

This post has been edited by Chandernagore on October 18, 2004 09:35 pm

Even following the word of the Bible, when Moise and his followers arrived to the promised land, it was already inhabited by people who previously settled it.
But as the first settlers of the promised land were not the chosen one by God, it was righteous and honorable to hack them, enslave them, wipe them out etc.
So nothing new under the sun...

But returning to our days, it would be interesting to somebody like me if I would be explained what was the maximum of concessions tried by both parts in the last 20 years of negotiations, regardless the leader of Israel (and Arafat, as we know, is the same, one and only ...).
So what was the maximum of concessions ever accepted by Israel, and by whoever represented the Palestinians, their counterpart in negotiations? Just to have an idea if it was ever a real chance for peace.
Thank you in advance.

This post has been edited by Florin on October 18, 2004 11:10 pm

Of course you're right Florin. The old testament is not a peacenik paradise.

I think the best offer was made in june 2000 by Ehud Barak, a great man and soldier for whom I have great respect. 90%+ of the West bank, for a start. I was stunned when Arafat just spit on it. It may take 100 years before Israel makes such an offer again. Fools... That was the event that convinced me that Arafat wasn't interested in peace in the Middle East.

This post has been edited by Chandernagore on October 18, 2004 11:40 pm

What is the position of European Union towards this problem?

I remember Benjamin Netanyahu's (Israel's former prime minister) discours in the American Senate:

"That today a Europe which sixty years ago refused to lift a finger to save millions of Jews has turned its collective back on the Jewish State is downright shameful.
But my friends, I must admit. I expected no better from them. Yet the America I know has always been different."

An other interesting link:
http://www.netanyahu.org/netanyahu/unprobinwitb.html

Why is this distance between European and American position towards this problem?

This post has been edited by johnny_bi on October 19, 2004 01:47 am

You guys are wandering away from the Irak issue.

I dare to say that the political problems of the states of Middle East are interconnected. And now the American politics are mixed with those of the area.
If we would discuss about Japan or China, that would be, indeed, a "wandering away from the Irak issue".

Otherwise...

Yes, you can't pull on a finger without stretching the feet

Ok, Bush got reelected. Let's offer some opinions regarding the future of Iraq with Cousin Bush at his side.

My prediction: accepting a "moderate dictatorship" then pulling out, no federal state, to please the sunni elites...

Frankly who cares about the future of Irak? We are all only interested in it's oil !

Right now the Americans control the ressource by force of arms. I think they uttered some lame excuses about fighting terrorism that only Bush voters can swallow. And it's a good think for the US as religious fundamentalism will soon hurt their ability to fund research on alternate energies, or any research at all. So they need to drop 5 divisions on any target they badly want and they have to do it now, before the technological gap prevents them from winning a war against any country bigger than Luxemburg.

So, I see no progress in Irak for the next 4 years. Check out 2008 for my next post.

This post has been edited by Chandernagore on November 04, 2004 05:52 pm

is that a promise?

is that a promise?

Naah. I could never hold my big mouth so long