America what is with your current stance between Israel and Palestine ?

[Kate]

Ok a heated topic.

It does feel that Israel has the US in its back pocket.
How can peace exist while Israel is allowed to build feverishly ?
Isn't this land grabbing while instability exists ?

Hillary allowing this is effectively saying Palestine just is a place for Israel to expand into.

Does anyone else think that peace would be impossible without suspension of that being a requirement ?

Only a finding of "any buildings passed this boarder that has been build by the israelis are now Palestines !" is the only thing i can think of which would solve this (giving Palestine a circle of its own buildings AROUND Israel.

[Jude]

I don't believe that the Middle East Crisis will be solved until the Israel situation is, and it doesn't seem like anyone is serious about solving that but Jimmy Carter.  What he has to say on the issue is pretty much the only intelligent, balanced viewpoint I've seen from anyone who has any mainstream appeal.

Sometimes it feels like practically everyone else in the U.S. short of Noam Chomsky is militantly pro-Israel to a fault.

[Kate]

yeah i belong to an ally of the US (I have my doubts when bush was in power)

but yeah i cant see things being good if everything that happens is pro-Israel.

I dont see nasty trade sanctions imposed when Israel uses military jets  to decimate a Palestinian suburb because one individual that may have been Palestinian (likely was) went on a spree.

That is like america shooting missiles into some place is south africa because one person from that country went loopy and shot two people ... if that doesn't get escalate the "receiving" country from being nasty back in whatever way it can (ie terrorism) what would ?

Building into it perhaps ?

Peace ?

No.

That is a receipy for a billionaire with contacts supplying Palestine with nasty options - not because they even are Palestinians, but just because they see the Palestine so worked over by the entire world effectively and feel like giving them some aces.

It is easy for me to picture some guy saying to a few who just lost their family to a isreali missle silo thing

"Well you know what ? Sure they had a hard time historically but so have you lot. I dont see anyone even considering anything that is pro palestine as releavent at all - seems the only expectation thrown in front of your table is they have more rights - might makes right rubbish.
Intersting thing is that everyone is so worried about nukes and viruses and stuff they forgot that a fuel-air bomb can be almost as nasty ... here have two ... actually have ten. Sure the boarders are being watched but hey the USA have their hands full worring about a hell of a lot more than you - you can get a few through. Im sick of the Palestinian cause not being treated seriously and that islreal is more important. Its not we are all people all equal and the moment you start favoring one side too much it always leads to war !

Hasn't the world learned from this yet ? I guess it hasn't ... oh well hear you go oh and just for the hell of it here are some dirty bombs and a fist full of depleted uranium to boot

- dont bother trying to claim your you are not acting for palestine. All know palestine doesnt want you do to this as they know the reprisals will be ten times what you do. But the world will just punish Palestine for doing it anyway and you know it. Ahh its sad it came to this, but how else can things end if not like this - now all things considered ? Really ? You know the longer you leave it the more will suffer so now is a good time - so good luck - "god" be with you."

I hate the idea of more war - I think that everyone is sick of it.

But really ? Building like that is effectively a declaration of war, having the americans effectively say "we dont see it as something that should be a requirement for peace so feel free to go nuts like palestine is really more your place than theres anyway .. "

... is insane, its only going to fortify the inclinations of a country or someone with a lot of power thinking like the above doing something as equally extreme.

God I hope it doesnt come to that I soooo hope hillary has something to offer palestine in return for these concessions - i just cant imagine any fruit sweet enough after this mess to placate Palestine other than another u-turn.

"world vs our country" created the climate in Germany for hitler.

America should know better than this, frankly Israel should know better than to build.
We need to learn from history not repeat it.

[RubySlippers]

http://www.biblicalheritage.org/BHR/BHR-43.pdf

These are two perspectives on the borders of Israel as decided by God, enough said the Palestinians have no claim there they are squatting on Jewish land. They should get out or submit and the United States should support the Biblical lands of Israel ,I suggest the latter one, as the legitimate territory they have a right to. And let God do the rest through His chosen people while we support them if attacked or act to secure their territory within those borders.

We can then be clear with one stance that is simple and assues the Jews of respect for their older and clear claim.

[Kate]

and of course the UN cant get involved as any motion would just be veto-d by the USA.

(anti-veto votes i think should be something countries could earn by helping out a third world country and raising their standard a notch on maslows hierachy of needs (it would make for a progressive world) - however such a motion would be likely be veto'd also but oh well ... )

I read the quote in that PDF about genesis stating that god's chosen people have these borders.

A religious perspective is "relevant" so i dont want any to not view it welcomed - (as you can imagine i am pro-Palestine for this issue)

Some like myself believe that EVERYONE is gods Chosen people.
( I do beleive in a God but I do not have faith that its views are accurately captured by religions explicitly stating particulars of it )

(Jews not being treated equally (ie german are the chosen people and everyone else are different layers of scum) in the past directed blind eyes from the allies as terrorism was used by the Jewish to possess "a" home land in the first place .. if i was jewish after WWII i would likely go to extremes to get some homeland also ... but they wouldnt have that need if such bias wasn't so blatant in the first place)

Some though beleive in other views of what is God's will, views not reflected by the book of Genesis.

Some beleive that the will and perspective of God (if it does exist) can not be fathomed by anyone let alone captured in a language.

In short some beleive in other Gods, with as much reason and devotion as you.

Ruby - forgive me for suggesting it but you do seem to be claiming your interpretation of those clauses is the stance of God.

Remember even if the original scriptures were indeed 100 percent true and sacred - it has been translated, history changes things people add what they want valued in them and remove what doesn't serve their intentions. The victor does write history.

Christians felt justified joining the crusades to spare their soul from hell - i think the middle east has had enough of war on its soil from others with religious stances umbrellaed by a "peaceful and a loving god" - it doesn't make sense.

I guess from your stance Ruby I can see how some American support whats happening.

I would be preferred to be thrown out of heaven than worship any god that is as wrathful and needy as the one the bible does depict.

No God of mine.

"Lucifer ? Now I understand why you had enough of all that "do this or else" crud and wanted to try something else ... hey have room for another  ?"

"Nope sorry ... hell is full"

"Oh come on can you squeeze me in plleassee I can't stand the idea of hearing others quote the bible all day justifying this and that."

"I feel for you I got sick of it too but nope ... hey why not become your own god huh ? give it a go ... choose your own values, helps you think within them - and well ... have faith in them, the moment you do you find others like you, I did it and hey i have a kingdom !"

"Hey thats the best advice ever ! Your damn good ! "

"Damned ? No. Dont beleive what those devils say about god and damnation ... its a lie trying to trick you into joining their evil plot to justify horrors... they know no better though so they beleive it. Pity they were exposed to such a thing before they choose their own values but hey it happens.  But Good ? Oh yes .. you have ... noooo idea just how good i really am"

[September]

Firstly because Israel is the only functioning democracy in the area, which makes them natural allies of the US and deserving of international support.

Secondly because they have nuclear weapons, and if they were invaded successfully (which is what all their neighbours want) there's a good chance they'd nuke the world's oil supplies.  That would suck.

[Kate]

They are not a functioning democracy if they are instigate war or not in peace themselves
(- partially functioning perhaps -)

by your second notion their power over the USA is due to the threat of terrorism ?
If so I thought the USA wanted to swash their hands of terrorists ?
(I doubt they would do such a thing - that does ensure that the world hates them)
and um natural allies of the US ?

Whoa .... historical allies perhaps

( some of america's allies were seriously reconsidering such strong affiliations (including the country i live in) after the recent mess in the middle east when america was principaled

- American's please don't assume previous allies will stay so when you take hard stances (you do grate more than you know) - the nuclear umbrella that America promised is getting less relevant now many have them, because America has not disarmed as they promised they would the nuclear agreement is less meaningful - meaning more seek their own. America has bullied about more countries than most American citizens know and many agreements other countries have made with USA ... the usa has not delivered their side of the agreements. Its thread of tarriffs and boycotting of trading goods (ie anti-free trade with 1/3 of the worlds gdp) ... unless you do so and so - has caused resentment in many of your traditional allies ( because to get your way you do it to your "allies" as well ! - not many in the USA know this.

the subsidies / tarriffs on wheat alone is a huge one that doesn't allow poor countries to compete. Frankly meaning the cities of america are paying in taxes to keep wheat farmers producing in america - subsidized - then priced on the world market below what needy countries that can make it cheaper can compete with - not only does this drive Australia nuts
- but also destroys the free trade model allowing very poor countries to get ahead

(ie the free trade model is where subsidies and tariffs don't exist or are very low)

In short America, your very mean to your allies also.

[September]

Sometimes a democracy doesn't get to choose whether it's in a war or not.  I'm sure that if the country you lived in was hit by 7,000 missiles fired from a neighbour, your government would feel it had to respond, wouldn't it?

[Kate]

Democracy or not "chosen people" from one book or "chosen people" from another - yes !

Thats why Palestinian individuals commit home made bombing "terrorist" attacks on Israel.
(and if they had something nastier ... like what the Israeli's use on them - guess which way would a fickle wind blow ? )

Principals and ethics with the desire to use force to back them work both ways, it drives any side of a conflict.

(who cared when Israel was being formed by Jewish forces being terrorists in Palestine to clear an area for Jewish settlement ? only after such terrorism "worked" were the tables turned for Palestine to be seen as terrorists towards Israel )

Like it or not Israel formed from acts of terrorism - success being viewed as legitimate by the US. These were acts of war against some "unchosen" by those with power which seems to be staying so ... until they are no longer deemed unchosen by one with power.

The history of WWII should be vividly clear within the mindset of Israelis of what happens
when the values of a populous is repressed beyond tolerance ....  they get militant they get fanatical.

That is why the Germans became so in the past
(Post WWI imposed cruel measures on germany)
That is why the Israelis are now ...
Do the same to Palestine... and expect what ?

Them to value quotes from genesis above what happens to their own family ?

[Doomsday]

I've always thought it was shitty that Palestinians had their country taken away.

[Kate]

Yeah its tough.

I just saw something on Hillary stating that she didn't mean to imply its not a requirement - just not a requirement before people should be around a negotiating table (from the jist of what i saw anyway). Less watered down than most think I feel as effectively
its not being deemed an act of war).

I really think america should be careful now - and not just for sake in the middle east, many other nations are hating america from how they feel it is treating others and how selfish it is. (make no mistake post WWII if any were to be a super power and dominate - america would be the best of them ... the world does know this) but more are armed with nasty
options and a list of "why america should pay" is growing. What a mess.

I really do hope Hillary pulls off these negotiations. One side is powered by religious views and a history of atrocious persecution when caught in anothers lands.

The others are very poor dealing with
a) well financed terrorists who have set up shop in their land who
b) don't hestitate to level their suburbs with high tech weaponry
c) AND is now a nuclear power
d) AND who is growing in their nation ...
e) AND has a vetoing country stopping anything the UN could propose against them.
f) AND is backed by the biggest super power in the world.
g) Have places deemed holy by your own population in that area
g) Who can not control each and every individual in their nation - any one of them doing a home made bomb thing that injures someone in Israel .. meaning X of your own suburbs leveled without warning... injuring many - your government cant do anything about it - some family members of which get angered enough to make their own home made bombs .. take matters into their own hands ... cycle repeats.

Ie Palestine government has 0 options to prevent fanatics appearing within its population while reasons for some being so are escalating.

If she resolves that (it IS possible - America / the UN CAN give Palestine SUPER plush options ( remember the Palestinians are poor ) ... then wow. I would salute her.

Oh Hillary Clinton, good luck, I wish you well.
For your efforts to find peace now, (my) God be with you always ... in all ways.

[Callie Del Noire]

The US is in a fix (with the possible exceptions of Egypt and Turkey) we have no long term STABLE allies in the region aside from Israel. That is the first problem, added in the MASSIVE amount of interaction and such between Israel and the US it's not going away.

Sorry, too many interested folks on both sides of the divide for that. Too many POLITICIANS owing favors to the other side.

However, I think Israel has long thought that they have had carte blanche to do what they wanted to do when they wanted to do it. They deserve to exist and they have a right to not have their neighbors shell, bomb and shoot their citizens. (Remember.. it wasn't the Israeli army that started this.. )

That being said, I think the Israeli government is letting their more conservative factions set policies that are going to sour a lot of international support in the long run. They need to realize that to ensure safety and security they are going to have to back off their expansion and work out something with the Palestinians.

That being said, the PLO, Hamas (sp?) and the rest of the folks that represent the Palestinians need to understand things WON'T be the same again. Can't be. And they need to stop being used by everyone else in the region as a way to spit on the Israelis (Syria, Iran, ect..)

Both sides need leadership that understand the word compromise and the term 'give &take'. Sadly I think those leaders are now dead and the leaders now aren't interested in really breaking the status qo at the moment.

BOTH sides need someone to figratively (and diplomatically) smack their heads together and sit them down to work things out. THEM. Not the other folks in the region. 

Sadly, that isn't going to happen.

[Kate]

Callie Del Noire,

bashing / sanctioning / punishing the palestinian head isnt going to help matters (others have tried - its not the head of the "beast" some think it is)

the palestinian government doesnt have control over what is causing the other side issues (ie individuals doing crazy stuff)

the israeli government does have control over what is causing the palestinians issues.

This "situation" wasn't caused by Palestine.

[Callie Del Noire]

Callie Del Noire,

bashing / sanctioning / punishing the palestinian head isnt going to help matters (others have tried - its not the head of the "beast" some think it is)

the palestinian government doesnt have control over what is causing the other side issues (ie individuals doing crazy stuff)

the israeli government does have control over what is causing the palestinians issues.

This "situation" wasn't caused by Palestine.

It takes 2 parties to negotiate. Neither is too up on it right now. Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't the Palestinians the ones who orginally tried to push the Israelis out of their land? (Granted at the instigation of other neighbors)

You want peace.. you sit down.. BOTH sides, take some lumps, eat some crow and compromise. The Israelis and the Palestinians. Truth be told, I think if they would work together they would find some common ground, but they'd both rather hate and kill each other.

[Zakharra]

 Palistine was never a nation. The areas of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Golian Heights were parts of the nations around Israel that were conquired in wars started against Israel.  I'm always wondering why people think the Palastinians ever had a nation to start with.  Their land was from 3 different nations, not one.

[Kotah]

The us' opinion and standing on all of the middle east is completely fucked. Seriously. No offense or anything. It's like if we sit around a say 'freedom', 'free trade', and 'ally' enough it's just kinnda gonna be that way.

It's ridiculousness.

[Serephino]

Personally, I don't think the US has any allies anymore, just other countries that play nice with us for the moment to keep the peace, or to gain something from it.

I think the Palestinians did get a raw deal.  If I remember my history right, the state of Israel was created after WWII.  Before that Jewish people lived in Europe, thought they weren't all that welcome.  Then the UN, with strong US encouragement I believe, decided the Jews should get their land back.  Nobody consulted the people already living there.  They just decided that the Bible said that area was the promised land of the chosen people and they needed to have it back.

Using the Bible for justification of anything like this really pisses me off.  This is a big world and not everyone follows the same religion.  I don't believe the Jews are entitled to shit.  If they lost the land that's their problem.  It's not anyone else's place to step in and do anything. 

All throughout history land was won and lost.  That's the way life is.  Empires rose and fell.  But hey, while we're all at it, why not give America back to the Native Americans?  After all, they were here first and they believed their gods led them here.  Then Europeans came over on ships and said 'this place looks nice, let's take it'.  Though somehow, I don't think that will ever happen, so what makes the Jews so special?  For the UN to say to the Palestinians that God said this piece of land belongs to the Israelites and they need to hand it over was wrong on so many levels. 

Though ranting aside, I do hope some sort of peace arrangement can be reached and kept.  What's done is done, and innocent people don't deserve to suffer for it.

[Oniya]

Well, prior to the Crusades, Jerusalem - which was considered holy by Christians, Muslims and Jews - actually saw a great deal of cooperation between the religious groups.  It wasn't until the big push to 'take back the Holy Land' that things went to hell there (pardon the expression).

You've got your history right, CA.  There even seems to have been a Palestinian state that Britain had some kind of jurisdiction over just prior to the creation of Israel, so the idea that there wasn't a Palestinian nation looks like a matter of semantics.

[Kate]

kotah it is very good you see that im glad some do

foreign policies that america holds does not encourage 'freedom' for others
America is the most anti-'free trade' agent that exists
America has not been an 'ally' in any traditional sense for a long time

not because Americans are bad people - but simply your government did what you voted them in for.. effectively you all voted for those that

"could make the nation rich and powerful" - it worked.

for Americans to be rich - you have to be comparatively rich (exhange rates etc)
if you want to be powerful - you had to be relatively powerful - and depriving those that may otherwise have influence for non-pro-American actions is part of the solution - in many regards a larger and more important part than self-growth.

Simple.

[Kotah]

Seriously.

We are just digging a big hole in the middle east.

Eventually the Gaza strip is just going to be a parking lot for American tourists.

"and here is where the atom bomb fell...."

It is impossible for me to believe, really, that with the way the US is going at this right now... We are ever going to be any help to any other country in the world. We pretty much bent over Latin America, and told them to take it. Now that some of the leaders are shutting us down, we get all offended. Oh! the anti-American rhetoric! Seriously? We pretty much destroyed any hope that most of Latin America has of having an economy. Much the same with the middle east.

[Callie Del Noire]

kotah it is very good you see that im glad some do

foreign policies that america holds does not encourage 'freedom' for others
America is the most anti-'free trade' agent that exists
America has not been an 'ally' in any traditional sense for a long time

not because Americans are bad people - but simply your government did what you voted them in for.. effectively you all voted for those that

"could make the nation rich and powerful" - it worked.

for Americans to be rich - you have to be comparatively rich (exhange rates etc)
if you want to be powerful - you had to be relatively powerful - and depriving those that may otherwise have influence for non-pro-American actions is part of the solution - in many regards a larger and more important part than self-growth.

Simple.

American's are rich? Not too sure about that. (The euro is what to the dollar? 1 to 2? Higher?)

And I don't think ANY first line nation should wave the free trade flag. Europe is a major subsidies hole for their companies (how many governments are supplementing/subsidizing Airbus?)

As for the Israel/Palastine thing.. I think a LOT of countries need to be involved in that (it's called the UN.. they should step up and do something)

[Serephino]

Sure, the Euro is stronger now, but it didn't used to be.  I remember going to Niagra Falls for my birthday one year and on the Canadian sighed my mom bought me a watch that back home would've cost like $40 at home for $15.  I have a 1996 Almanac that had conversion charts for every currency in the world and it was like 1 Frank equaled 19 cents.

But something happened.  We got too arrogant and greedy.  Now it's our economy that's in the toilet.  And we still think it's our job to police the world, which pisses me off to no end.  Basically, the US is the modern version of the Roman Empire, and it too will fall.

[Kate]

i mean america rich (america doesnt really care that much for equal dispersion of wealth- suggestions to are quickly called communism there - ironic though as denmark etc who are very wealthy and have a high standard of living - excellent health system and dispersed wealth are not communists - ( more socialists ))

I'm not saying other countries dont do the tarriff subsity protect their own industry thing / its just that america claims it stands for free trade

[kylie]

Palistine was never a nation. The areas of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Golian Heights were parts of the nations around Israel that were conquired in wars started against Israel.  I'm always wondering why people think the Palastinians ever had a nation to start with.  Their land was from 3 different nations, not one.

In political science, a nation means a group of people who are recognized as having enough commonalities to potentially form a state.  A state typically refers to a collection of people holding territory, sovereignty, and (less uniformly) some concept of defense.  With that...  In my limited understanding:

The Roma have not had a state, but they have been known for a distinctive identity as a people for centuries.  Likewise, most of the Jews that now live in Israel immigrated from groups that have spent centuries as minorities in other regions.

The Kurds are a recognized ethnic group (many would say "nation"), but they are parceled out among at least three modern states (Turkey, Syria and Iraq).  I don't know offhand what, if anything, they managed to hold as a state before that...  The US has been more or less happy to use them as a sort of counterweight to Bathists etc. in Iraq (if a historically quite expendable one), and more recently to leave their semi-autonomous status intact - so apparently they have provisional international standing...   

The Uighurs (Turkmens?) did have a recognized country, known as East Turkmenistan, in what is now more or less Xinjiang, China - but who else is complaining...  And the Tibetans are generally recognized as a nation, but now they don't have much of a state (unless perhaps you count the government in exile).

Palestine? There were some back and forth in the region up until colonial times, which I couldn't explain without looking it up...  The Palestinians did live on that land before modern Israel, give or take the influence of British colonialism sweeping through (were there others?).

USA...  Most of the land of the present United States originally was occupied, for quite some time, by Native American tribes.  If the Palestinians' land, according to this, belonged historically to others, well doesn't ours as well?

     So bluntly...  When you say "never a nation" (and I think you mean "never a state"), I don't see how that leads automatically to any conclusion.  I don't think the discussion should be all about reverting strictly to the 1940's or some other point, nor about only favoring those with the "right" sort of international recognition - or the right sort of weapons.  There must be some other ways of imagining how to go forward.

     I'm inclined to think that a nation (i.e. a distinctive people) being denied security, equality, infrastructure and land on top of it all, in the region where most of its recent history lies, is a non-starter.  So I thought Obama was onto something about pushing to freeze the settlements.  I do get the impression Israel has a strong lobby and it is kind of a convenient symbolic focus for American fundamentalists, as well...  Biblical references, plus a country that seems to act more stubborn than American rightists can get away with consistently?  It's also obviously a busy sink for defense contract money.  Perhaps a romantic and brave people (and there are many of those around) with some interesting cultural effects on the US -- but not a moral paragon.

[Zakharra]

 Nation = state. The terms are used interchangably (sp) in today's world.  Most people see no difference. Tibet was a seperate nation/state before the chinese conquered it. I think you are confusing culture with a soverign nation. The Roma are a culture, but not a nation. Jews have a culture, but only one nation. Palastine was a region. NOT a nation or state.

The UN is the United Nations. Not the United States.

[Kate]

Callie Del Noire - the United Nations CANT do things if a veto-power vetos it !
(and no america / china / etc dont just use veto options to stop others pushing something "bad" through - they use it when its in their "best" interest to)

( this isnt you callie I cant recall who stated this though )

No ethics exist with "well hey boarders change such is life- just accept it"
or "well I dont really see your previous government as anything i respect really anyway"
thats like  "attention france - we repelled the germans ... but hey since they took you over in WWII for a while technically your previous state or nation thing was destroyed so hey i think your place either split between the allies that didnt fall or um ... germany really - who has just surrendered - take your pick"

reserves for those wanting to live differently i think is VERY mature.

Also democracy doesnt suit everyone - there was an african "nation" that recently returned to having a king and dispenced of democracy because the PEOPLE voted for it to go - (too combersome ? To frustrating perhaps ?) ... it may suit larger societies but it isnt necessarily "better" for all.

[Callie Del Noire]

Sure, the Euro is stronger now, but it didn't used to be.  I remember going to Niagra Falls for my birthday one year and on the Canadian sighed my mom bought me a watch that back home would've cost like $40 at home for $15.  I have a 1996 Almanac that had conversion charts for every currency in the world and it was like 1 Frank equaled 19 cents.

But something happened.  We got too arrogant and greedy.  Now it's our economy that's in the toilet.  And we still think it's our job to police the world, which pisses me off to no end.  Basically, the US is the modern version of the Roman Empire, and it too will fall.

The first time I saw a foreign currency it was 1980. I think the pound sterling was something like 2.32 dollars to the pound at the time. That was back during the Thatcher years. Tell me again how a 'weak dollar' is a new thing?

[kylie]

Nation = state. The terms are used interchangably (sp) in today's world.  Most people see no difference. Tibet was a seperate nation/state before the chinese conquered it. I think you are confusing culture with a soverign nation. The Roma are a culture, but not a nation. Jews have a culture, but only one nation. Palastine was a region. NOT a nation or state.

The UN is the United Nations. Not the United States.

Yes, lots of people don't "see" (or perhaps, they just don't know a way to articulate) the difference.  Lots of people don't apparently "see" much of a difference between gender roles and sexual orientation either.  In both cases, one can stick with the lay confusion but to do so is surrendering some explanatory power.  North Korea can call itself the Democratic People's Republic too, but we don't typically focus on the name to explain everything. 

     The distinction has been blurred through slippages like "nation-state," thus terms like "United Nations" as you mention.  I think that's an attempt to line them up too neatly by "big" governments.  It sounds nice and democratic for states to actually represent nations.  In fact, you can have more than one national identity within a formal state.  A term like "nationalism" though isn't simply about holding territory or not; it's about the assumed abstract values and interests of a people.  So when we're trying to discuss something with a little precision, there are real conceptual differences between statehood and nation.  I think "culture" is used so haphazardly that one almost has to specify state or ethnic along with the word, but I don't see that we need to add that term in here just yet.

     If one is more consistent with the terms, then I think it is probably fair to argue that both Israel and Palestine have been around as national identities rather longer than either has been a state.  In particular, it's important to recognize that the key concept behind a state has been control of territory and with it, military control of labor and materials.  Thus the United States government, despite its own relatively short history, likes to go on speaking about others as "developing" or "weak" or "failed" states.  Particularly all around the Southern half of the globe and throughout the Middle East - although American nationalism is very new in contrast to many of the national groupings there.   

     When you ask about whether Palestine existed as a state before...  Well, no one really gets to be a state without a certain amount of recognition.  It's particularly hard to be treated as a state if various people keep pushing you on and off lands, or choking off your supplies.  It's easier to be "just" a nation - and not a state - if one lives under governments that don't speak for one's interests, while marking one as a separate group (minority, enclave, etc.).  So it's hardly surprising that the modern Palestinian state appears newer and more fragile than Israel.  I don't see how emphasizing that present imbalance necessarily leads to peace or distributive justice in the area, though.  More the contrary: Palestinian nationalism, as a group aspiration to plausible (more than "weak") statehood, will continue to seek to redress the present imbalance.

[Zakharra]

 You're seeing a difference  for something that others don't. State is literally = to nation. It's the same difference between a kettle and a pot.  That might not be by the dictionary definition, but for common place usage, state = nation. A nation and a state have governments, national identity and functions.

Different cultures exist within the nation/state, but they don't get to claim independent sovereign status.  The NA Indian nations are an exception, but even they surrendered certain 'rights' to the federal government. They're not independent nations. More like semi independent nation/states.  Cultures can and do exist within  a nation and sometimes many nations. The muslim culture is an excellent example. The nations often argue and fight each other, but the culture is quite similar. Even there thought there are differences. 

Is there a Palastinian culture? Not really. Are they trying toi make one? Yes. Out of the land that was taken from three different nations, Jordan, Syria and Egypt, in a sucession of wars. The process isn't helping by the fact 2 parties rule the Palastinian lands. both having terrorist ties, with one still considered a terrorist organization. 

  I'm not sure how the imbalance can be addressed. There will always be some tension since the three areas are physically seprated. Israel isn't helping either by building on the Palastinian lands. That should be stopped right away.   Unfortunately both sides have spilled blood. The terrorists by shooting rockets into Israel at random from near or in the homes of civilians. Thereby inviting military responses that cause civilian casualties.

Personally the leadership and command cadre of both sides should be lined up and shot. Nothing is going to be solved unless both sides step back and stop the violence.

[Kotah]

Also democracy doesnt suit everyone - there was an african "nation" that recently returned to having a king and dispenced of democracy because the PEOPLE voted for it to go - (too combersome ? To frustrating perhaps ?) ... it may suit larger societies but it isnt necessarily "better" for all.

I totally want to debate this, but perhaps we should take that elsewhere.


Not every nation has a state. Well, a state being described as violence perpetuated between one class and another to keep a division and power. Most nations have a state. We have a state.

Multiple nations can also exist within a government. Take for instance the Sioux Nation here in the US.

[Chea]

I'm absolutely pro-Palestinian, I hate Isreal (the government not the people) they're the true terrorist in the region and I think they should give the Palestinians independence. The USA needs to stop playing favorites and start looking for more neutral policy in the Middle East.

[Morven]

I'm afraid it's rather more complicated than that.  Unfortunately, I feel that people in all factions who prefer the current, fractious stare of affairs get the upper hand, all the time.  Whether they're Israelis who do not want peace, Palestinians who do not want peace, the leaders of neighboring states who do not want peace, or any of the world powers who like to poke in and support whichever side they find entertaining to support.

[Kotah]

Not to mention war is profitable if your the right people.

[kylie]

    Different cultures exist within the nation/state, but they don't get to claim independent sovereign status.  The NA Indian nations are an exception, but even they surrendered certain 'rights' to the federal government.

That sounds like a really statist, top-down point of view.  It's kind of like saying:  Well anyone who was a real nation would have been strong enough to have won themselves a state.  Everyone else simply deserves to be (and therefore only should be imagined as) a minority 'culture,' like those 50-odd groups scattered around the Han Empire, aka the PRC.  That might, in some regimented world where states all match nations, relieve you of concerning yourself with whatever common experiences, thick or thin, those peoples actually have - and how many of them would aspire to be a state.  And how many will struggle to get there, nicely or nastily.

Is there a Palastinian culture? Not really. Are they trying toi make one? Yes. Out of the land that was taken from three different nations, Jordan, Syria and Egypt, in a sucession of wars. The process isn't helping by the fact 2 parties rule the Palastinian lands. both having terrorist ties, with one still considered a terrorist organization.

It sounds like from your wording, you could say the Palestinians are a culture of terrorists or some such.  At the least, you're suggesting that they have formed some level of attachment through common struggles with Israel.  How they imagined themselves as a "they" apart from that, wherever they came from, you don't address - so apparently there was no earlier history to them at all?  Are they all failures and bandits dropped out of this and that "proper" society?  I'm skeptical.  But if you think their only claim to commonality - nationhood, or if you prefer ethnic "culture" - is terrorism, then I'm surprised you don't simply attempt to brand them terrorists.  I'm no specialist on Palestine.  I don't know where they all originated, except that some lived there before there was a state of Israel.  But I sense something missing in the way you've construed this.
   

Israel isn't helping either by building on the Palastinian lands. That should be stopped right away.   Unfortunately both sides have spilled blood.

To compare it to North America... The US wasn't helping by settling the vast majority of Native American lands plus relocating most of them (alongside encouraging disease and practically open warfare).  Both sides spilled blood there, too.  But you've given that to the US because the tribes signed off in the end.  Never mind what the US signed or tossed in the beginning And I'm not quite convinced most Native governments were much less solid than the US government.  Losing territory doesn't mean they never had a state, although you might call it a premodern state.  I know it seems pragmatic and up to date with the present to conclude, tough luck for the Natives and then adopt language to support that.  But under this reasoning, it's all might makes right as long as they put a document to it -- so it's kind of contradictory to express any sympathy for Palestine.  Especially if you don't think they have a legitimate nationalism.  You think they can actually be a state without any common culture holding it together; I find that curious.  Wouldn't nationalism (which implies a specific, historical form of cultural understanding) be a simpler explanation?

The terrorists by shooting rockets into Israel at random from near or in the homes of civilians. Thereby inviting military responses that cause civilian casualties.

Chicken and egg sort of point.  Who was there first, it can go back and back and back...  But...  How did we reach the current point where Israeli civilians are protected much more from abuse (economic as well as military) than Palestinian ones?

Personally the leadership and command cadre of both sides should be lined up and shot. Nothing is going to be solved unless both sides step back and stop the violence.

I agree both are caught up in it.  I wouldn't be quick to place the most blame on a community with more structural poverty and the fewest choices under generations of Israeli rule, though.  For a contrast...  In the 1980's good, Communism (and God)-fearing American "patriots" imagined how fervently they would slash, burn and bomb to defend every last home if the Soviets invaded.  I remember.  I watched Red Dawn and War Games, too.  Yet when someone else in the world adopts that sort of thinking about defending a little territory and the local way of life of the moment, but big old US has picked an "ally" in the region, then it's generally: oh no that's totally unacceptable and look what the terrorists "started"...

[Elven Sex Goddess]

Canaan had been a collection of city-states, tributary to the Egyptian Pharoah, as attested to in the Tel- El Amarna tablets. The breakup of the Egyptian empire beginning about 1500 BCE made possible the invasion of the Hebrews.  The oldest dating back to what is now known as the Gaza strip,  the city state of Philistine.   

According to Hebrew tradition, 12 tribes entered Cana'an from Egypt and conquered it, led by Moses. Historical evidence from the Amarna tables suggests that there were already 'apiru' (probably Hebrews) in Canaanites in the time of Egyptian rule, some possibly with names such as "yakubu-el" (Jacob). The biblical account allots different parts of the land to the twelve tribes as shown in the maps.  Soon after, a kingdom was established, first under Saul and then under David. The right-hand map shows the borders of the kingdom of David (about 1000 B.C.E. ) and other nations. The maps are necessarily conjectures based on biblical narrative and supporting archeology.

After the death of King Solomon, Israel split into two kingdoms. Eventually, both the kingdom of Israel, and later that of Judea, with its temple in Jerusalem, were overrun by invaders. The Persians restored the Judean kingdom and allowed the Jews to rebuild their temple. This kingdom fell to Greek and later Hellenic-Syrian domination when Alexander the Great conquered Persia.

In 164 BCE the  Hasmonean Kingdom of Judea revolted and became semi-independent of Syria. It was protected by a treaty of friendship with Rome. However in 61 Pompei conquered Jerusalem, and from then on Israel or Palestine was subordinate to Rome. Parts of it were nominally independent under the rule of local kings of the line of Herod the Idumean. 

Herod build many towns and fortifications (including Massada and Heordion) and extensively remodelled the temple in Jerusalem. After the first Jewish rebellion and fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD,  large numbers of Jews were exiled. Jerusalem was eventually rebuilt as Aelia Capitolina. After the failure of the revolt of Bar-Kochba in 133, there were more exiles and ruined towns. On the ruins of Israelite and Canaanite towns, the Romans built new ones, populated partly by inhabitants of neighboring lands. The land was divided into several districts, of which Palestine was only one. The Negev (southern district), generally excluded from these divisions was inhabited by the Nabateans, an Arab trader nation that made a notable desert civilization in cities such as Avdat (in modern Israel) and Petra (in modern Jordan). The whole area between the desert and the sea was known, later in the Roman Empire, as the Christian Patriarchate of Jerusalem, though this was not a Roman administrative division.

Christian Palestine fell first to the Persians,  in 614. It was reconquered briefly in 629 by Heraclius. However,  with the rise of Islam, the Middle East, and with it Palestine - Israel - Canaan -  was conquered by Arabs. Jerusalem fell in 640. The Jews  were willing allies of the Arabs, as they had been of the Persians. The Land was divided into a Southern Jund  (district)  of Filastin with a capital in Al-Lud (later in Ramleh), and a northern Jund of Al Urdunn with its capital in Tabariyeh (Tiberius).

Beginning in 1095, the crusaders conquered Palestine and the surrounding areas. Initially savage toward Muslims and Jews, crusader rule eventually seems to have brought a measure of good administration before it was eventually eliminated  the Kingdom of Jerusalem by Salah e din  and his successors.

Palestine changed hands several times among Moslem conquerors, the last of whom were the Turks (Ottoman Empire)

The rest of modern history is well known and does not need to be rehashed here.  Since this is what the argument is all about.

So what is the answer,  this fighting over this strip of land predates even where I began with 1500 BC,   We can date back to 3200 BC with the early Egyptian dynasties and Akaddians 
For this strip of land was more wanted for a gate way to the rich Nile delta region of Egypt  An the indigenous people of a sparsely populated land were nomads

What it will take is not other nations but people courageous on both sides to step forward and say we can co exist.    Because the truth is both have claim and both don't.  An this is bordering on ludicrous in carrying on ancient squabbles.    Two co existing states should exist,  that recognize each other.   The Palestinians  need to get over it but Jerusalem  is a Jewish city, first and foremost before the tides of conquerors through out history. 
Now if we were talking about Damascus I would say that Israel  would have to give it up to the Syrians the proper people of that city.   Regardless if Israel had built temples and declared it also a holy place.    But that is not to say with Jerusalem other faiths could not worship freely.  For Israel is suppose to be a democracy.  I would hope such will be the case with a established sovereign Palestine.

Finally to give justification to criminals that would fire weapons of destruction upon innocent people and then hide behind their own people.   Does not make it right.   

[Kate]

I am very impressed with the views expressed here.

That historical outlay of the previous post is probably the most interesting thing I have learned on the topic - ever.

If such a thing was broadcast on national television it would restore my faith in the television media.

Documentaries ( the english love them - usa too but not proportionally so )

oh ... give me a spliff (some call them blunts)... a glass of wine ... and anyone with 1/2 a brain nearby to discuss meaning of what I am learning with me - and I am in heaven.

It is heaven ... really what I dream as heaven. ... literally.

[btw Any that want to split this thread into several please feel free to list them one intention for doing so concerned the concept of democracy not being the
"most advanced / legitement government scheme that exists which suits all cultures and peoples ra ra ra".

To me another soul doing so made sense.

Another I see is one arising is history or form dictating "legitimacy"

Legitimacy is an interesting word.

Linguistics is fascinating.

Legitimate is subjective, what is Legitimate to your perspective is what relates to what you beleive is important, what is important is what directs your awareness,
what directs your awareness depends on intention.

Your current one.

A peoples current one.

What if in the USA ... Utah spontaneously thought to discent ... and wanted to be a completely separate "nation" (which it already is ... states are so relatively different in the USA ... THe "United states of america" is ... almost true logically... where states may as well be nations in their own regard ... it is very strange being a white non-american to hear americans relating their identity to their state more than their country ... they say things like "Im a texan" or "Im a californian".. to european / australian  / new zealand ears etc ... its weird. (in a beautiful way though that charms "us")

To others in the world who hear that they think "huh? wtf?" ... this is a healthy sign
as it means that america can some how sustain massive cultural differences within its own boarders.

This has only been seen before during the roman empire.

The lead singer of U2 said something like "America is not a country it is an ideal"
... this is true ... being "another state of america" would give MASSIVE benifits to
a "nation"... because the USA's federal government is so relatively lean compared to state law relevance (ie more things are mandated by federal law in other countries, the states within the US are very separate compared to states of other countries - so much so states within a country" is an expression that only makes sense in america - it doesnt really map well to other places)

.. anyway ... what seems interesting to me is divisions of association or identity.

My nation belongs to a common wealth - yet i dont have a passport being a citizen of the "common wealth" allowing me to stay in those nations for as long as i like.

I am not for some reason deemed a "citizen of the world" ...

why ?

Simple

For government roles to hold their jobs they have to maintain the promises they keep or loose income or their position of power to do what either they want to to or have to do for individual objectives of them identifying a justification of being in that position in the first place.

For that to happen certain variables have to be stabilized.

They made promises about the future or what changes they will push.

Predictions which may be dependent on tax - which is dependent on how many people are contributing to tax .. or security etc.

More variables stabilize if things like "who is american who can vote in the next elaction"  or "who am i representing" ... "who am i trying to make happy" ... "what am i trying to fix or elate"  are things that are stable

OR

predictable.

Lets say its not just Utah but the entire bible belt of america tried to become its own nation because its sick of the "ethically weak heads of state" that it sees representing its own values. The rest of america says "um ... you realse that means that you have to form your own this and that .." and they go "yep ..we are willing we are sick of you pandering to what is not right from our perspective"

... oh and what they want in place of what they have is not a democracy btw .. it will be this "else thing" as "we have found the the second coming" ... (or whatever).

Is it legitimate ? ... no "legitimate" history ... no democracy

<pause judgment for a moment on what you beleive is relevant>

Tibet wanted to be different from china . before china hand tibet , tibet was part of china but tibet used an oppitunity to be its own "nation" for a while.

(I assume "nation" means it has no laws that are governed by an "else" where state means there are some laws that are dictated by an "else" that it doesn't have control over)

I was talking to someone who passionately believed that historically because china once "owned" it it should have it it was always "china".

(btw this person forged a belief in myself that the native american indian's view on the word "ownership" being an issue that triggers a thought like

"wft you insane weirdo you identify yourself and what is true with being merged with "possession" of this something and have faith others should see such a stance as objective and more true that the questions of about why crap ? 
wtf ? where the fuck did this delusional sense of self appear ? )

.. and he believed tibet was "opportunistic" in "liberating" "itself "... from "china" while "china" views "legitimacy" of "ownership" as "tibet" "always" has "belonging" to it

"but" ...

(So many quotations ... quotations btw is a linguistic method of the writers telling others they are trying to disassociate their stance from owning all interpretations of the word ... while still wanting to "use" it :) )

To me

"legitimacy" = relevance = subjective = interpretation of meaning = perspective = intention = identity

... usually associated with "ownership" which triggers the needs for control ..
which creates the need for power thus "legitimizing" the

" top down approach "

<whoa ... wait a minute im a soul appearing on this earth in a body .. for reasons that can be described as "plan X"... what is with this backdrop of Y owns Z crap ?
... where did this backdrop come from ? ... how is it that something is more relevant to the success of my intention exist AT ALL ? >

*

What I want to know is "what" ... then "why" becomes a justification for that "what" being relevant

(thus "why" is only relevant to those who do not agree such a path serves their intention)

"what" is what is "human" wants.

If it is shared then a "We" exists.

is it Utopia ?

If  "We" exists in any measure ... then yes utopia exists.

and if we are not there yet ...

can we fix it ?

[Oniya]

Just as a note, last night I was watching Battles BC on the History Channel, and it put forth the idea of the Exodus and settling in Canaan as less of a 'poor wandering tribes looking for a home' and more of a 'well organized military campaign'.  It was definitely an interesting theory, giving explanations of the 'pillar of fire and column of smoke', the so-called 'parting' of the Reed Sea, and the bit where Moses raising or lowering his staff seemed to influence the battles.

[Will]

I believe it's already been decided what will happen if part of the United States decides to secede.  No one in their right mind would want that to happen again.

And as far as referring to oneself by state as opposed to country, I don't think much of it.  The United States covers a sizable area; it makes sense to be more specific.  If I met someone from China, or Russia, or Canada, I wouldn't think it odd if they told me they were from a specific city, region, or province.

[Jude]

I always had a problem with the western response to suicide bombing.

When it first started to happen and the general populace became aware of it, people were absolutely puzzled.  They took a brief moment to ask themselves why, then it seems they settled on whatever convenient and shallow answers that analysts in the media offered.

Take Osama Bin Laden for example; shortly after 9/11 he stated that the reason why Al Qaede attacked the United States was because of United States Foreign Policy.  In light of this, how exactly did so much of the country end up convinced that it was because "they hate our freedoms."  It's really quite simple; the majority of the populace accepted a convenient answer which absolves them and the country of responsibility.  Everyone loves to feel guiltless, retribution (even if it was excessive, horrible, and completely unacceptable) isn't as easy to suffer as victimization.

I don't honestly believe the American Public has made any decisions to directly create the destitute state that the Middle East is in.  What the voters have done, is elect people who have made a series of bad decisions to meddle in the affairs of the Islamic World in order to tip the scales in our favor to their detriment in many circumstances.

I don't think the average American really understands and knows of all of the foreign policy blunders we've made over there.  And they certainly don't justify acts of terrorism; but at the same time playing the "justification game" isn't conducive to resolving the problem.  Pride is a pointless entity, as is blame, when it comes to solving an issue.

Then there are those who blame Islam.  Some of which is anti-Islamic sentiment coming from Atheists, Agnostics, and Christians.  I don't feel this is productive either.  A vast majority of America is Christian, and we love to say, "Look what Islam says about this" while conveniently pretending that Deuteronomy doesn't exist.  Here's a few of Deuteronomy's greatest hits:

- The death penalty is also prescribed for males who are guilty of any of the following: disobeying their parents, profligacy and drunkenness.

- The law of rape prescribes various conditions and penalties, depending on whether the girl is engaged to be married or not, and whether the rape occurs in town or in the country.

- Slavery can last no more than 6 years if the individual purchased is "thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman."

- The peace terms to be offered to non-Israelites before battle - the terms being that they are to become slaves

- The procedure to be followed if a man suspects that his new wife is not a virgin: if the wife's parents are able to prove that she was indeed a virgin then the man is fined; otherwise the wife is stoned to death..

I know, there's justifications and explanations for this, but I'm not saying Christianity is bad.  I'm just saying (ironically), "Let he without sin cast the first stone."

The fine, and obvious explanation on why the Islamic Suicide Bombers act why they do is pretty simple.  It doesn't have to do with religion, it doesn't have to do with internal politics, it has to do with foreign policy.  Lets face it, people don't strap themselves with explosives and blow themselves up, committing suicide and murder, unless they're feeling pretty desperate.

They feel that way for a multitude of reasons.  Some of them have been convinced (erroneously I might add) that the west is out to get them by extremists, some have lost loved ones from western intervention in the middle east, and some live in poor conditions thanks to the United States backing of Israel and oppressive regimes (Saudi Freakin' Arabia).

People don't act without cause; there's always a kernel truth to their claims, even if it doesn't justify such drastic actions.  Looking at Israel with perfect adoration needs to stop; and Americans need to start questioning Middle East Foreign Policy.

[Kate]

Jude that is an excellent summary.

[Serephino]

I agree that the US has made some serious mistakes in dealing with the Middle East.  The biggest one is trying to tell them how to live.  We're trying to force them to be democratic.  We completely ignore their culture.  They've been around longer than we have, why not leave them alone...  If democracy is so great then why are we in such trouble?

That little History lesson was interesting too.  Like I said before, land has exchanged hands several times over the centuries.  I only wish more was covered in school.  Oh well, I have the History Channel. 

[Will]

The reason Israel was taken and made into a Jewish homeland was because of the Holocaust, I believe.  So, while I'm not saying it was a smart move, I can understand where they were coming from.  From that point on, it's just been a matter of the U.S. sticking with the side it picked.

Is that not what an ally does?

And like others have said, that land has changed hands many, many times, and always by military force.  So, complaining about who had it first or last is pretty irrelevant, as is the fairness of it being taken.  If you want it, take it back yourself; this is the way the world has worked always and forever.  Coexisting is a lovely idea, but it just doesn't seem like it's going to happen.  As has been said, the people who could make it happen don't seem to have any desire to do so.

[Kate]

Will1984

Your view I think is an ancient one that more describes history but not the only possible paths life can be lived, it basically says that thoughts of utopia are delusional and all should accept how things are.

"from that point on its been a matter of the usa sticking with a side it picked" - to a large extend that is the problem.

Germany was placed under horrible conditions - thus WWII broke out (from germanies pov .. japan had other reasons). Those who dont learn from history are doomed to repeat it.  The united nations exists so countries can live in harmony - active involvement with other countries in other ways outside that is what the UN is there to prevent.

"If you want to back take it back yourself" and "If i want something I take it"
the problem is this - with current technology things escalate, other countries may see certain actions as what causes fear in them so they perform "pre-emptive" strikes. Bitterness developed and terrorism or some virus to wipe out certain people are things that people may be interested in looking into where they would otherwise be busy making a family or creating something cool or whatever.

"Is that not what an ally does?" ... picking a side and sticking with it ?

Um.... no.

An ally is only an ally for a chapter in warfare, or certain conditions concerning conflict ( which change on a dime ) trading agreements form allies more now as they are what your nation is dependent on.

New Zealand was an ally of the "allies" during WWII - but it wasn't an ally for recent incursions. Australia and England were Americans allies during one recent one - but an ally wouldnt do some things that america has done to australia (your not as nice to Australia as you think you are)

Will - America doesnt stick with anything other than its own best interest.
other countries are likewise - te only reason why America is being picked on now is because its foreign policy is effectively.

"lets see all other countries as things we can own or manipulate for our own benefit - and if it causes grief to them who cares ... there is no way they are powerful enough to give us grief back - and even if they do 20 yrs down the track - who cares ? I will be out of office then so it will be someone else's problem. Only thing that matters is how happy Americans are in the short term really"

9/11 showed America that their current foreign policy methods are not meeting this aim, the rest of the world is not meek to these things.

The world saw what happens when Germany is pissed off.
Japan saw what happens when america is pissed off.
... piss off the middle east ? (or china or Russia or northern Korea ... )

heaps have nukes - more worryingly many Russian nukes went missing during a pressured accelerated collapse ( where it didn't have time to instigate controls that prevented those things). America can't afford to be arrogant - you only need one billionaire that has bought a few to get bored and want to prove a political statement or change history in a way they think is "better" and "justified" and "right" and legitimate.

[Will]

Yeah, America sucks.  Sorry.  But as far as superpowers throughout history go, we aren't that bad.  I am of the opinion that being put in a position of power leads to that sort of behavior in a nation.  People are terrible and corrupt creatures, which leads to inevitable corruption of anything they try to build, including governments.  Tough cookies.

Will1984

Your view I think is an ancient one that more describes history but not the only possible paths life can be lived, it basically says that thoughts of utopia are delusional and all should accept how things are.

This gets back to the same idea.  I actually don't believe human beings can be changed that much, and certainly not enough to form a "utopia" on any scale larger than a small community.  I think that humans begin to show their true nature more and more in larger groups, which leads to the inevitable corruption that I mentioned before.

[Kate]

I think that humans are opportunistic by nature, not corrupt by nature.
Money grants many things - how you got that money is abstracted.

Depending on the style of government, ownership, its values etc certain things are easy and other things are more difficult. Most people to the easiest thing to get ahead. Some formats of governments make corruption harder - or different corruption harder.

More transparency = harder for corruption to exist.

More rewards for being "good" => opportunistically more do good things. In capitalism a tabacoo company or one that makes candy can get a lot of cash.... different tax rules for different industries can exist ( those promoting environmentally friendly solutions phps should be given tax breaks etc

If utopia is easier with smaller communities - that may be part of the answer - where small towns are planned for - each containing one service center (like a hospital) ... while very efficient high speed mag trains link them - and construction is highly regulated.

I guess what worries me about often seeing america taking involved foward steps while blaming others for not being happy or getting along is we have seen what happens when 5 buildings are destroyed in 9/11 ... vengence is sort and found (even if the victum was innocent or not) what happens if 5 nukes go off in 5 cities in america ?

Who did it ? it could be many (because America has pissed off many) does America just carpet nuke all possible villains who they don't beleive can throw nukes back ?

I do agree that as far as superpowers go america is the best of a bad lot - historically china actually could have been better ( not necessarily to its own people ) as it has been a superpower in previous times where it could have expanded its boarders but didnt (still it has issues with human rights etc ... and it is very "young")

[Jude]

1)  America isn't all that bad

Agreed.  America allows smaller states which cannot defend themselves to exist by playing World Police the way it does.  This is especially beneficial for nations like New Zealand, Canada, etc.

2)  Just because America is bad doesn't mean it's perfect

There are still ways we can improve our country.  I can name numerous problems including the Israel one.  If we can become better, why shouldn't we?

3)  I agree Utopia cannot exist, but this does not mean improvement isn't possible

Humans are good at solving problems and creating others.  What gives us meaning, in my opinion, is the endless march of progress.  We create something and constantly fix it and find new, smaller holes at the same time.  Our dam is never going to be perfect, but we can let less water through.

[Elven Sex Goddess]

First to bring into the argument quoting from the Deuteronomy.  From what is written over two thousand years ago.  Is the same narrow minded view and argument that lumps Islam as the reason for extremist.

Israel, or the Unite States  backing Israel or another country does not fuel this.  What is fueled is the levels of poverty that exist.   It is a natural breeding ground for such. 

First I like to point out simple facts easy to follow.   Where is the aide to truly give to these people from their own leaders.   It has for centuries thus been so.   So instead of funding money to militia organizations.   Build hospitals, schools,  I am not saying in brace democracy.  But instead feeding the extremist.  With continued objectivity of poor conditions.   Give people a sense of belonging, to be able to provide for their families. 

A good case in point that is not mentioned on these boards and often forgotten.   Because the Unite States is forced to take the lead.   In which we do make mistakes. But that is life and we learn from them.  No my case in point on the object poverty with no jobs,  no hope of getting ahead.  Can be shown in a kaleidoscope sliced up within Europe.  Take the riots in France it was born of such, and other European nations. 

Plus the basic argument on Israel can be made for the Kurds.  Which even one the United States allies in Turkey would  like to do without.   So we should allow a people to be systematically wiped out.   Or how about the Sudan and other neighboring nations.  That have been practicing a  genocide on there own people of African descent. 

Now should the United states or another country go into there.   I mean we don't really understand the culture.  Plus it may give rise to extremist.     

The truth is I have no answer.  It is complex and yes the United States has made mistakes or blunders.  But to say they are to blame for the woe is just as selective in argument.    No my fervant hope that President Obama does open up dialogue with each and every nation.  That those that manipulate will be revealed on the worlds stage.

So how about it, instead of casting stones.  Trying giving to those in Gaza strip.   Go open a business,  give that young man or woman a job.  Give them meaning to their life.  To be able to enjoy the simple things.  Such as raising a family.     Instead of going around in circles in saying who is to blame.   While the only ones fed is those that would be the root of the fighting. 

Because in the end all parties are to blame, in equal share to such plights.   Those that caused it, those that don't see and those that do but turn a blind eye. 

[Will]

I am in total agreement with Elven Sex Goddess, I believe.  The whole "World Police" role does seem like a lose/lose scenario, and our only choice is between two evils. 

If we abstain from getting involved, the world will ask "Where were you?  We needed you!"  If we get involved, the world will say "Why are you poking your nose in someone's business again, America? ::)"

More importantly, I completely agree that the only hope for the Middle East, and specifically the Israel issue, is for both sides to put aside blame and revenge.  Sadly, I have very little hope of that ever happening since, as I said before, the people who could make it happen clearly have no desire to do so.

[Callie Del Noire]

I agree that the US has made some serious mistakes in dealing with the Middle East.  The biggest one is trying to tell them how to live.  We're trying to force them to be democratic.  We completely ignore their culture.  They've been around longer than we have, why not leave them alone...  If democracy is so great then why are we in such trouble?

That little History lesson was interesting too.  Like I said before, land has exchanged hands several times over the centuries.  I only wish more was covered in school.  Oh well, I have the History Channel. 

Blunty put.. Democracy works only when John Q Public takes an active interest in the outcome. And sadly we haven't. Not since Watergate. The federal elections (with the possible exception of the last one) have been ridiculously small compared the possible voters.

If I had a dollar for everytime I've heard 'My Vote doesn't count' I could be very secure in paying off my current debt to the point I wouldn't need a job to live on my disability.  I think that we as a people have gotten lazy and let a small group of people hijack the process.

As for our policy in the Middle East.. a LOT of it goes back decades. Remember once upon a time it was support anyone (and I do mean ANYONE) who hated the Communists.

Example.. the Shah of Iran. (Wasn't he a saint..?) As a result we got a lot of people and policies that have been set in place from the days of the Cold War.

[Jude]

There are plenty of places in the world where poverty exists that do not serve as a breeding ground for extremism.  So if that's your only argument... it's a little thin.

[Callie Del Noire]

There are plenty of places in the world where poverty exists that do not serve as a breeding ground for extremism.  So if that's your only argument... it's a little thin.

No, it doesn't. Poverty alone doesn't do it. The loss of hope, despair and fear are needed. And the mix of frustration and evil men preying on others. Extremism isn't evil. The willingness to have another man strap a bomb on to blow himself and innocents in the street is. The use of your state to force others out of their home is.

Neither side is all good or bad. Israel and Palestine are not good guy/bad guys. They need someone outside their borders to sit them down and knock their metaphorical heads together and come to some agreement on what is and isn't acceptable for peace.

They've needed that for nearly forty years. Sadly no one seems to want to do it. The only person in any position of power to make an actual effort in my opinion was President Carter..and the four presidents since have dropped the ball in my opinion (with holding opinon on the current man in the white house)

I do think if folks push the Israelis too hard that someone's capital will glow in the dark.

[Morven]

Poverty is certainly one aspect that encourages it; it doesn't by itself explain it, but people are more likely to welcome extreme arguments and ideologies when they have less to lose.

[Jude]

I think poverty is more of a symptom of the problem, a manifestation of it, than the problem itself.  The Palestinians are poor because of their political situation over there and the lack of stability.

[Revolverman]

personally, I think we should support no one in the mideast and just wash our hands of all of it.

[Will]

That is an extreme option, and would certainly lead to a lot of problems.  BUT, since it does seem that we're damned if we do and damned if we don't, I could go along with that.  We could stop throwing money and resources (and lives) at a problem we can't solve, and turn it toward making things better here.

[Revolverman]

That is an extreme option, and would certainly lead to a lot of problems.  BUT, since it does seem that we're damned if we do and damned if we don't, I could go along with that.  We could stop throwing money and resources (and lives) at a problem we can't solve, and turn it toward making things better here.

Exactly, if your damned eather way, how about the damned that saves money, lives, and not draw the anger of the Muslim world.

[Will]

Exactly, if your damned eather way, how about the damned that saves money, lives, and not draw the anger of the Muslim world.

I'm afraid that's pretty much guaranteed at this point. XD  Whether we stay or go, we're already going to draw that anger.  We were screwed as soon as we sent troops, it seems to me.  Bleh.

[Revolverman]

I'm afraid that's pretty much guaranteed at this point. XD  Whether we stay or go, we're already going to draw that anger.  We were screwed as soon as we sent troops, it seems to me.  Bleh.

I disagree. Its not like the Mideast woke up one day, pointed at the US on a map and said "See these guys? Fuck them.". They dislike the amount of interference the US pulls in the Mideast, and its been happening long before any of the gulf wars started.

[Will]

But if we leave, we will have stirred up huge trouble and then bailed.  They'll hate us for that.  They will hate us no matter what, and so will most of the world, most likely.

[Revolverman]

But if we leave, we will have stirred up huge trouble and then bailed.  They'll hate us for that.  They will hate us no matter what, and so will most of the world, most likely.

But then, as you said, they already do. So whats the point of staying and wasting huge amounts of money, equipment, and worst of all, lives?

[Will]

I'm in agreement with you!  I'm just saying, they're going to hate us no matter what.  I think that's the only place we disagree.

[Revolverman]

I'm in agreement with you!  I'm just saying, they're going to hate us no matter what.  I think that's the only place we disagree.

Haha, fair enough.

[Elven Sex Goddess]

Exactly, if your damned eather way, how about the damned that saves money, lives, and not draw the anger of the Muslim world.

I disagree. Its not like the Mideast woke up one day, pointed at the US on a map and said "See these guys? Fuck them.". They dislike the amount of interference the US pulls in the Mideast, and its been happening long before any of the gulf wars started.

Your over simplifying by thinking that the United States is the sole basis and root cause.   While at the same time declaring that most of the middle east does not want us there.   I would contend that.  For a lot of the middle east wants us there.  They see as a beacon of hope to further there aims. While just as many don't want us.

The point is that you really don't understand middle east politic or motivations of you try to summarize in a western attitudes and beliefs.   Think of it as a big chess board.  An each move is made and counter moved.  That is the world of politics within the middle east.   

Example the western civilization looks at Iran.  As a country that would like to wipe all the Jewish people off the face of the earth.   Because of comments made by their president.   But does anyone realize that is a strong surviving Jewish community in Tehran.    With even Jewish Iranians in what is the Iranian parliament.   That more then a million still visit the tomb of Esther, from the bible. The Jewish queen/wife of Xertes.   That Ramadan is in fact from Prince Mordecai the Jewish uncle elevated to such by Xertes of Esther.   

This alone should show the complexities to the middle east that truly is not recognized and generalized.  The movie 'Bodies of Lies'  this is a good watch.  It catches and portrays the essence of the political by play that is a constant and way of doing things within the middle east.   

Just as most seem to be lumping the Muslim Arab world in one lump category.   When in fact it is much diverse.  From not only nationalities, from the various sects of Islam to breaking down to even individual tribes.   

Which then leads to this thread or many within it is linking the over all political climate as root in cause to Iraq to the Israel and Palestinians conflict.    That is not the case in point.  Was the United States right in going in and toppling a legitimate sovereign government.  A case both ways can be made.  For the old regime was repressive to its own people.  Committing genocide upon such fractions as the Kurds.     However,  the truth as much of a tyrant he was an actual a tool for the United States and the west.    As he broke up what is now turned into the Shiite crescent of power within that region.  Because the Iran, Iraq eight year war was not formed over our doing.  But in root cause the complexities of the middle east.   

Now why does the west have such a vested interested.   Well that very style of complexities of political climate leads to a degree of unrest and unsuitability.      And right now the west is slave to the carbon based fossil fuels.  In such a great way that it can topple economies.  While on Israel, it is born out of the fact of the holocaust of world war two.   In which is another whole story of the eluded excuse given because of the treaty of Versailles.  In which the German state got the shaft for world war one.  Where as the young unified state of Germany went from having one the most brilliant leaders ever in Otto Von Bismarck to a charismatic flawed insane leader such as Hitler.  In the span of just seventy years.   So how is it that the Jewish people had become the scapegoats of that treaty that had doomed Germany and breeded the Nazi party rise and thus the eventual  second world war. 

Well with having gone a bit off subject,  I will remain so with this next.   So if and when we the United States pulls out of Iraq.  What is going to be the reaction if and a very big possibility that Syria and Iran carve up the Iraq country.  If this were to happen would there be an outcry about the Iraq people having there own sovereign nation.    That is just one of the dilemmas facing the United States and President Obama.  And before some of you rush to it.  That we are greatly to blame for.  So that is another of the reasons that many do not want us to leave with in the Arab Muslim world. 

So why is it that the illusion is given that most of the Arab world hates us.  Is it because these terrorist instead of targeting military only.  Target the civilian populous.   In which are greater guilt is to be found.  That we have failed to protect adequately.  An thus anger at us over this is what gives rise.   So then do you really believe these people embrace and love those that are suicide bombers.  That have killed wifes, husbands, brothers, sisters, son, daughters and so on.   In people that just want to live their lives.    That once again you are over simplifying the middle east. 

[Will]

All I'm actually referring to is our tarnished reputation in world affairs.  I'm not specifically talking about the Middle East.  I have a hard time seeing how we can repair our reputation by staying there, and leaving doesn't seem like it will help much either.

As you say, different groups want different things from the U.S., and we can't please them all.  Since it's all the same, I would rather our resources be used domestically, and our soldiers not have to risk their lives.

[Revolverman]

Your over simplifying by thinking that the United States is the sole basis and root cause.   While at the same time declaring that most of the middle east does not want us there.   I would contend that.  For a lot of the middle east wants us there.  They see as a beacon of hope to further there aims. While just as many don't want us.

The point is that you really don't understand middle east politic or motivations of you try to summarize in a western attitudes and beliefs.   Think of it as a big chess board.  An each move is made and counter moved.  That is the world of politics within the middle east.   

Example the western civilization looks at Iran.  As a country that would like to wipe all the Jewish people off the face of the earth.   Because of comments made by their president.   But does anyone realize that is a strong surviving Jewish community in Tehran.    With even Jewish Iranians in what is the Iranian parliament.   That more then a million still visit the tomb of Esther, from the bible. The Jewish queen/wife of Xertes.   That Ramadan is in fact from Prince Mordecai the Jewish uncle elevated to such by Xertes of Esther.   

This alone should show the complexities to the middle east that truly is not recognized and generalized.  The movie 'Bodies of Lies'  this is a good watch.  It catches and portrays the essence of the political by play that is a constant and way of doing things within the middle east.   

Just as most seem to be lumping the Muslim Arab world in one lump category.   When in fact it is much diverse.  From not only nationalities, from the various sects of Islam to breaking down to even individual tribes.   

Which then leads to this thread or many within it is linking the over all political climate as root in cause to Iraq to the Israel and Palestinians conflict.    That is not the case in point.  Was the United States right in going in and toppling a legitimate sovereign government.  A case both ways can be made.  For the old regime was repressive to its own people.  Committing genocide upon such fractions as the Kurds.     However,  the truth as much of a tyrant he was an actual a tool for the United States and the west.    As he broke up what is now turned into the Shiite crescent of power within that region.  Because the Iran, Iraq eight year war was not formed over our doing.  But in root cause the complexities of the middle east.   

Now why does the west have such a vested interested.   Well that very style of complexities of political climate leads to a degree of unrest and unsuitability.      And right now the west is slave to the carbon based fossil fuels.  In such a great way that it can topple economies.  While on Israel, it is born out of the fact of the holocaust of world war two.   In which is another whole story of the eluded excuse given because of the treaty of Versailles.  In which the German state got the shaft for world war one.  Where as the young unified state of Germany went from having one the most brilliant leaders ever in Otto Von Bismarck to a charismatic flawed insane leader such as Hitler.  In the span of just seventy years.   So how is it that the Jewish people had become the scapegoats of that treaty that had doomed Germany and breeded the Nazi party rise and thus the eventual  second world war. 

Well with having gone a bit off subject,  I will remain so with this next.   So if and when we the United States pulls out of Iraq.  What is going to be the reaction if and a very big possibility that Syria and Iran carve up the Iraq country.  If this were to happen would there be an outcry about the Iraq people having there own sovereign nation.    That is just one of the dilemmas facing the United States and President Obama.  And before some of you rush to it.  That we are greatly to blame for.  So that is another of the reasons that many do not want us to leave with in the Arab Muslim world. 

So why is it that the illusion is given that most of the Arab world hates us.  Is it because these terrorist instead of targeting military only.  Target the civilian populous.   In which are greater guilt is to be found.  That we have failed to protect adequately.  An thus anger at us over this is what gives rise.   So then do you really believe these people embrace and love those that are suicide bombers.  That have killed wifes, husbands, brothers, sisters, son, daughters and so on.   In people that just want to live their lives.    That once again you are over simplifying the middle east.

I really... don't understand what you are saying.

You seem to chastise me for your assumption that I think everyone in the mideast hates the US, but I was saying how pointless it is for the US to sink money, and people into it.

[Kate]

I am in total agreement with Elven Sex Goddess, I believe.  The whole "World Police" role does seem like a lose/lose scenario, and our only choice is between two evils.

If we abstain from getting involved, the world will ask "Where were you?  We needed you!"  If we get involved, the world will say "Why are you poking your nose in someone's business again, America? ::)"

<groan>

The world saw America as world police post WWII when everyone else was rebuilding (so whoever did it first wouldn't just exploit the power difference after feeling a little bitter from the experience).

BUT the United Nations was formed to be the world police
(America does contribute a lot to the UN the world does appreciate this).

If america wanted to wash their hands of it what they should do In my opinion is go to the UN and say

"Um we made a mess here we will hand things over to the UN and finance what the UN chooses to do"

... which would work FINE if whatever the UN wants to do is not
VETO'd BY AMERICA (or another veto poweR) or ignore the UN and do their own thing.

If america really wants to help the world I think phasing out veto powers makes sense to allow the UN to do their job.

That WHY we have a UN ! America doesnt have to see itself as world's police (currently they are policing anything that AGAINST america's intention - this is not the same thing - when in Africa one culture was killing off another with machettes over a few weeks  - ie genocide - america didnt step in as world police force - they didnt get involved as there was no trade goods / resources to get out of it making it in their best interest - the world just looked on and shrugged their shoulders)

UN UN UN UN UN UN !

[Will]

But the U.N. can't make everyone happy any better than the U.S.  No matter what they decide to do, it will leave large groups of people feeling screwed.  Who is going to get the blame then?  The U.N.?  I'm doubtful.

[Kate]

But the U.N. can't make everyone happy any better than the U.S. 

Whoa .... slow down there sunshine. You don't know that.
The UN gives a lot of disaster relief etc.... does a lot of good.

If countries like America ignore UN decisions and go into war anyway or if countries like America veto UN suggestions ... your right the UN can't do any better. NOT vetoing its actions ... NOT ignoring its decision does free up options.

No matter what they decide to do, it will leave large groups of people feeling screwed.  Who is going to get the blame then?  The U.N.?  I'm doubtful.

Less people less so, blame the UN ? perhaps ... but the UN acts on what is voted for the UN to do (ie it has ambassadors / representives thinking of what is right and voting on it) any hatred of decisions wouldn't be directed at particular countries (well not as much)

[Oniya]

Whoa .... slow down there sunshine. You don't know that.
The UN gives a lot of disaster relief etc.... does a lot of good.

The thing is that any decision-making, aid-giving body cannot expect to please all the people all the time.  The major difference would be that, since the UN is a group of people from different countries, there would be less (note that I don't say 'no') chance that the decision would been seen as being biased.

It's like divorce court.  When two entities, be they countries or people, both want the same material thing (house, custody of the kids, the Gaza Strip), someone is going to be unhappy with the judge's decision.  Sometimes, the best the judge can hope for is that they're both mad at the court.

[Will]

I don't even believe that any blame will be deflected to the "court" in this case, either.  Everyone will know who started the problem, and the extremist groups in the region will not let anyone forget it.

We've been trapped!  Sneaky terrorists are sneaky.

[Kate]

the diffrerence is that the UN is thre to resolve disputes.

America is there to see things move in america's favor.

Which "police" do you beleive would have a higher effectiveness of resolving disputes ?

[Revolverman]

the diffrerence is that the UN is thre to resolve disputes.

America is there to see things move in america's favor.

Which "police" do you beleive would have a higher effectiveness of resolving disputes ?

None, because the UN is just as self serving as any other nation on earth.

[Kate]

self serving ?

Its unlikely coutries would propose actions that all vote for the UN to do unless they themeslves see the sense on it.

[Revolverman]

self serving ?

Its unlikely coutries would propose actions that all vote for the UN to do unless they themeslves see the sense on it.

And that's just it, why would a group of (rightly so) self serving nations coming together form some aturistic, fair handed global law enforcement?

[Will]

What makes you so certain that the U.N. can resolve the issues in the Middle East at all, much less to everyone's satisfaction?  You seem to be assuming that as a part of your argument, without question.

[Kate]

And others seem to be assuming america is doing as good a job as what the un could.

Simple.

Intention.

What is the intention of the UN

What is the intention of America

[Will]

Intentions don't solve problems, and that doesn't really answer my question.

And for the record, I never said the U.S. was doing a good job.

[Revolverman]

And others seem to be assuming america is doing as good a job as what the un could.

They are.

They are both utter shit.

[Oniya]

My point is that whoever the deciding body is, and no matter who they side with - or even if they side with no one - there are going to be people on one side, the other, or both that disapprove of the decision.

[Kate]

I am stunned others don't beleive the UN is the best
method to resolve issues between countries,
however flawed it may be.

[Revolverman]

I am stunned others don't beleive the UN is the best
method to resolve issues between countries,
however flawed it may be.

Why is that? what has it done in the past to prove to you its anything but a waste of valuable real estate?

[Elven Sex Goddess]

Why is that? what has it done in the past to prove to you its anything but a waste of valuable real estate?

You do seem to be rather shortsighted.  What Kate proposes is the ideal that is behind the United Nations.   Now the truth of that idea is often not the same as especially evident in the voting records of all of the security council  members of nations.  As it is open info and you can look it up and see each ones voting records.   

But to say it is a waste now that is pure ignorance.   The relief it brings to millions.  Allowing nations that normally would not work together to come together under the cloak of the United Nations in general humanity in helping out those hit by a disaster man made or natural.   Bringing about peer pressure of nations on human rights.  It might not end such, but does bring the pressure and keeps it in the focus of the world.

There has been many instances of UN using forces dedicated to the UN mission in securing the peace of a country and disputed area.   Just as there has been failures at this.  But the world is a complex place especially when it comes to the various peoples and there values and beliefs.  Which often leads to conflicts.

BUt over all the idea of the United Nations is sound.   And if you think I have singled you out. Your arguing with no information to defend your opinion.  As it seems your almost just posting to be contrary to others.   

[Oniya]

I never said that it wasn't a good method of settling disputes - provided that the two nations want to settle disputes, it is a less-biased way of doing it than having one country play Peacemaker.  The problem is that Israel and Palestine seem to both want the verdict to be 'You're right, the other side has to pack up and leave.'  In that case, even King Solomon would be hard pressed to deliver a verdict everyone was happy with.

[Kate]

Im not saying the UN would solve it easily or quickly.

It would be messy for a while.

But it is the most independant structure countries have.

Saying "well it doesn't work so its a waste"

is like saying

"well failures exist in the court system - it doesn't "work" so lets all just throw it away"

[Cythieus]

The problem with the UN and why many don't see it as a good judge is that they turn a blind eye to many of the things Palestine do and when Israel retaliates they jump all over them and act as if it was unprovoked. The UN even allows Palestine to do things that if done by anyone else would be considered blatant acts of war and gives them a free pass. For instance when Palestine elected Hamas as their defense force, that's pretty much a reason to go to war right there.

When you have a group who's goal is to eradicate you and they don't see you as having right to be there and then someone goes and votes them into power, Israel has a right to protect itself.

The UN also turns a blind eye to the things done to them by Hamas, such as the Hamas stealing food from the people in Palestine. Or the fact that Hamas constantly uses Human sheilds and sets up attacks and mortars on the roofs of schools, hospitals, and other places like that. During the last beat down Israel gave them, they were reported by Palestinians as having fired mortars from behind a building where people were taking shelter.

Speaking of the last little fight, Israel was on a cease fire to which they were the only ones abiding. Hamas continually fired rockets into their settlements and nothing was said or done by the UN to speak out on the attacks. When Israel lashes back and kicks the shit out of them, everyone wonders why.

No one in here could believe that if your neighboring country just shot at you on a near daily basis for six weeks that anyone has a right to get mad at you for stopping them, especially after such a long time of it happening.

I've always thought it was shitty that Palestinians had their country taken away.

Wasn't their land when it was given away I don't think. And a lot of countries get borders drawn on them without anyone else's say so. Instead of trying to co-exist with them they've taken the stance that they must be killed off and even voted people into government to fulfill this.

Using the Bible for justification of anything like this really pisses me off.  This is a big world and not everyone follows the same religion.  I don't believe the Jews are entitled to shit.  If they lost the land that's their problem.  It's not anyone else's place to step in and do anything. 

Where did anyone say the Bible anything, I love how people act like the Jews are so religious when they're actually pretty secular. How about the fact that Palestine didn't actually own the land when it was handed over. Palestinians in WWII in some ways sided with the Axis powers. When you lose a war or pick the losing side you lose your shit. That's how it goes, too bad so sad. And if its no one's place to step in and give it to them as you said, how come all of a sudden when Israel is taking more of it back does someone have to step in and stop them?

To everyone who compares the Palestinians to the Native Americans the WWII thing is the big difference. Why isn't anyone in here complaining about how we keep the Germans or the Japanese on a short leash? Why is it not okay to do the same with Palestine? They're plight is a direct result of them siding with the loser.

[Jude]

The problem with the UN and why many don't see it as a good judge is that they turn a blind eye to many of the things Palestine do and when Israel retaliates they jump all over them and act as if it was unprovoked. The UN even allows Palestine to do things that if done by anyone else would be considered blatant acts of war and gives them a free pass. For instance when Palestine elected Hamas as their defense force, that's pretty much a reason to go to war right there.

The UN doesn't really slap either side on the wrist honestly.  They have more right to punish Israel than Palestine, considering it was under UN terms that Israel even formed.  They've broken those terms repeatedly with their colonization.  Not to mention they've killed UN Peacekeepers by accident with their various offenses on numerous occasions.  I have no doubt Palestine's guilty of the same thing however.  Just pretending like Israel is so faultless is well, ridiculous.

When you have a group who's goal is to eradicate you and they don't see you as having right to be there and then someone goes and votes them into power, Israel has a right to protect itself.

Ask why Hamas got put into power to begin with.  If the situation wasn't so bad, they never would've been able to seize control really.

The UN also turns a blind eye to the things done to them by Hamas, such as the Hamas stealing food from the people in Palestine. Or the fact that Hamas constantly uses Human sheilds and sets up attacks and mortars on the roofs of schools, hospitals, and other places like that. During the last beat down Israel gave them, they were reported by Palestinians as having fired mortars from behind a building where people were taking shelter.

I'm not really sure how you can claim to even be remotely unbiased in your statements when you use the phrase "beat down" to describe a military offensive.

Speaking of the last little fight, Israel was on a cease fire to which they were the only ones abiding. Hamas continually fired rockets into their settlements and nothing was said or done by the UN to speak out on the attacks. When Israel lashes back and kicks the shit out of them, everyone wonders why.

Again, really biased language.  Your facts are sort of suspect in that you talk about the UN not speaking out as if it's a single entity.  Lots of member nations condemned what was going on, did the UN as a whole?  Possibly not.  Have you seen the list of UN Security Council Resolutions against Israel that the United States exercised veto-power to single handedly shoot down?

No one in here could believe that if your neighboring country just shot at you on a near daily basis for six weeks that anyone has a right to get mad at you for stopping them, especially after such a long time of it happening.

Ignoring context.

Wasn't their land when it was given away I don't think. And a lot of countries get borders drawn on them without anyone else's say so. Instead of trying to co-exist with them they've taken the stance that they must be killed off and even voted people into government to fulfill this.

What're you basing this off of exactly?  Figureheads of various Jihadist organizations love to state the whole death to Israel mantra, but I'd love to see some actual figures that prove that the majority of the Palestinian people would settle for nothing less than the destruction of Israel.

Where did anyone say the Bible anything, I love how people act like the Jews are so religious when they're actually pretty secular.

Generalize much?  Again, statistics.  If you're gonna make a claim that Israel is primarily secular, prove it.

How about the fact that Palestine didn't actually own the land when it was handed over. Palestinians in WWII in some ways sided with the Axis powers. When you lose a war or pick the losing side you lose your shit. That's how it goes, too bad so sad. And if its no one's place to step in and give it to them as you said, how come all of a sudden when Israel is taking more of it back does someone have to step in and stop them?

Justifying current action by past wrongs is a little silly.  First of all, the Palestinians you claim sided with the Nazis are all dead, dying, or in the twilight of their life.  The young people there did nothing to deserve this.  Secondly, it isn't about justice in returning the land to its rightful owners, et cetera, et cetera.  This is about resolving the conflict more than anything and the "too bad so sad" attitude doesn't really... resolve much of anything.  All it succeeds in is being incredibly callous and counterproductive.

Even if you're a supporter of Israel some of the views exposed in your post are quite honestly shockingly extreme.

To everyone who compares the Palestinians to the Native Americans the WWII thing is the big difference. Why isn't anyone in here complaining about how we keep the Germans or the Japanese on a short leash? Why is it not okay to do the same with Palestine? They're plight is a direct result of them siding with the loser.

I missed the part where post-war Germany and Japan were treated anything like Palestine.  You can't honestly believe that being kept "on a short leash" is an accurate description of the way they're being treated.

Palestine isn't guiltless, but Israel isn't perfect.  And the pro-Israel attitude to the extreme of refusing to even consider that the country has made its own share of mistakes is essentially plugging your ears and going "la la la."

[Jude]

That is an extreme option, and would certainly lead to a lot of problems.  BUT, since it does seem that we're damned if we do and damned if we don't, I could go along with that.  We could stop throwing money and resources (and lives) at a problem we can't solve, and turn it toward making things better here.

Before I explain why that's an inaccurate reading of American Foreign policy, I'd like to say I actually agree with you.  The Middle East situation isn't our problem and I think we should pull out of there and let the people over there deal with it.  I don't care if we went into Afghanistan and Iraq when we shouldn't have, I don't think it makes us responsible to stay unless the people actually want us doing that.  And I really don't think they do.

But as far this misconception of America as the World Police trying to help the world be a better place, that's a nice fairy tale, but completely ignorant of the reality.  America does what America does in the world in order to promote regimes, political ideologies, and rulers that are in its best interest.  People may disagree with me here, but the facts are with me.  I won't even touch on the Native American land grabbing, that's far too easy, lets start with...

Spanish-American War:  Propaganda War in the media incited by business interests (who want freer economic access to Cuba) creates public outcry for Cuba's liberation from Spain.

Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine:  Excuse to bully South American Nations to open up their markets for free/favorable trade and American investors.

World War I:  America wanted to stay out until the Germans attacked the Lusitania and committed a few acts of sabotage.  It also helped that the allies incurred a larger debt, so if they were defeated we would've been out a lot of money.

World War II:  The money thing also comes into play here, but more than that Japan drew us into this war.

Post WWII US intervention in Greece:  This one's rarely mentioned.  Fear of Communism led the United States to involve itself here.  Communism meant closed economic markets and essentially the death of a trading partner.

The Marshall Plan:  Can't export goods to devastated countries if they can't afford to pay for them.  It was an investment on their recovery so that we wouldn't suffer the same overproduction/no where to trade problems that led to the Great Depression.  Also, again, fear of Communism.

Korean War:  Fear of Communism; wanted to keep markets open for our influence.

Viernam:  See above.

Iraq:  Fear of Communism Terrorism; wanted to keep markets open/create a market to for our influence by creating a stable Capitalist Democracy in the region that would (in theory) spread.

[Will]

Kate, you still never answered my question.

Exactly why are you so sure the U.N. can solve the situation in the Middle East?  "Because it's meant to" falls a little flat, as does saying it will do a "better job than the U.S."  That's not really saying much. ::)

And Jude, I'm not really trying to paint the Iraq/Afghanistan actions as something altruistic.  Motivations do not enter into this.  Whatever the reasons for the U.S. being there, it's a broken situation now, and there's no sense in wasting our time, money, resources, and lives on it.  That is all I'm saying, period.

[Cythieus]

The UN doesn't really slap either side on the wrist honestly.  They have more right to punish Israel than Palestine, considering it was under UN terms that Israel even formed.  They've broken those terms repeatedly with their colonization.  Not to mention they've killed UN Peacekeepers by accident with their various offenses on numerous occasions.  I have no doubt Palestine's guilty of the same thing however.  Just pretending like Israel is so faultless is well, ridiculous.
Ask why Hamas got put into power to begin with.  If the situation wasn't so bad, they never would've been able to seize control really.
I'm not really sure how you can claim to even be remotely unbiased in your statements when you use the phrase "beat down" to describe a military offensive.
Again, really biased language.  Your facts are sort of suspect in that you talk about the UN not speaking out as if it's a single entity.  Lots of member nations condemned what was going on, did the UN as a whole?  Possibly not.  Have you seen the list of UN Security Council Resolutions against Israel that the United States exercised veto-power to single handedly shoot down?
Ignoring context.
What're you basing this off of exactly?  Figureheads of various Jihadist organizations love to state the whole death to Israel mantra, but I'd love to see some actual figures that prove that the majority of the Palestinian people would settle for nothing less than the destruction of Israel.
Generalize much?  Again, statistics.  If you're gonna make a claim that Israel is primarily secular, prove it.
Justifying current action by past wrongs is a little silly.  First of all, the Palestinians you claim sided with the Nazis are all dead, dying, or in the twilight of their life.  The young people there did nothing to deserve this.  Secondly, it isn't about justice in returning the land to its rightful owners, et cetera, et cetera.  This is about resolving the conflict more than anything and the "too bad so sad" attitude doesn't really... resolve much of anything.  All it succeeds in is being incredibly callous and counterproductive.

Even if you're a supporter of Israel some of the views exposed in your post are quite honestly shockingly extreme.
I missed the part where post-war Germany and Japan were treated anything like Palestine.  You can't honestly believe that being kept "on a short leash" is an accurate description of the way they're being treated.

Palestine isn't guiltless, but Israel isn't perfect.  And the pro-Israel attitude to the extreme of refusing to even consider that the country has made its own share of mistakes is essentially plugging your ears and going "la la la."

Israel Secularism: http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,469996,00.html

And I'm not putting my hands to my ears going lalala. I don't support Israel's blowing up ambulances for no reason or the other wacky stuff they get away with but at the same time I see a lot of stuff the Palestinians do and everyone feels so sorry for them. And that military assault was a beatdown. There's other more colorful, accurate terms to describe it but that's what it was. If we (the US) beat someone that badly we'd make it a nation holiday (in fact when the Texas revolution had a battle like that...it was a Holiday)

Israel might have run one of the most successful military campaigns in the past decade, they hit their targets when they were gathered, worked to lower casulties on their side and with the civilians and they did it all cleaner this time.

[Kate]

Will - I was addressing this comment of yours

But the U.N. can't make everyone happy any better than the U.S.  No matter what they decide to do, it will leave large groups of people feeling screwed.  Who is going to get the blame then?  The U.N.?  I'm doubtful.

I am not trying to say the UN will solve it - but I am not agreeing that america would do an equal or better job than what the UN could do.

then I started going on about how the UN (for all its flaws) is more likely to make the situation more happy (not solve) due to its structure of intention.

Do I beleive the UN will be able to wave a magic wand and everyone is all roses ?

No.

The middle east is so messy to me its like a bitter nasty divorce, that one doesnt ever get "over" - the best of what could be hoped for is a new "love interest" ie a new (economic/trade/debt release/funded infrastructure development) opportunity to spend attention towards ...

the past stays a bitter memory none hope to solve that
... but it becomes less releavent in increasing degrees of being faded and watered down when one has something else to look forward to.

America as the moderator is part of the problem from a Palestinian perspective - even if the USA's actions are more intelligent and 100 percent objective it is a problem - just because of the sour taste some there have of "america"

- its like a mediator is someone you hate passionately - and you beleive is bias against your divorcee and frankly part of the problem etc)

Part of the problem of why the UN could be frustrated "lessening the problem there" is that America does/would VETO many things the UN would propose to do (ie veto less pro-israel stances)

I agree with one thing of yours Will (Not being american myself)... is that america should wash their hands of it as soon as possible ( ie the Americans are sick of hearing about it).

To do that ... America needs to give up their vested interest in that area. Don't try and "win" anything there anymore.

One MAJOR problem comes from stances like

"We will ensure past american deaths in that area are for a good cause ... we will make them MEAN something ... by being hard and continuing and not letting them set us back .. forging our determination to retain or views strongly despite opposition until prevail / win... so history ends with us triumphant .. what is god what is good is americas intention becoming manifest ... ra ra ra"

... <groan> ... how about learning from them instead by stop being involved ? Red light - bad debt  - Abort / write off whatever intentions you have there (including pride retention).

How ?

STOP IGNORING OR VETOING UN DECISIONS CONCERNING THE MIDDLE EAST

hmm actually ... if america really wants to grow up,

stop vetoing any UN decision ... period.
.. better - push to absolve veto powers (with so many with nukes now they dont represent who is the most dangerous).

... if a decision is not pro-america ? "Too bad .. so sad"
... swallow the pill ... take your medicine, deal with it, move on.

[Will]

I really don't think the Middle East is going to be solved by infrastructure development, or investment, or anything else for that matter.  It is unsolvable, in my opinion, by the U.S., the U.N., or any other acronym you want to throw at it.  There are too many groups who don't want this "messy divorce" to be forgotten (i.e., extremists), and they have the ability to make sure that it is not.

I guess I have to restate my point.  The people there will hate the U.S. no matter what, so there's no reason for us to waste our resources.  I don't even care what the U.N. does after we're gone, but if it involves any American resources whatsoever, I will be against it.  I think even the U.N. would be wasting their time there.

[Cythieus]

The problem in the Middle East is that the two main approaches to dealing with something don't work, you can't ignore them because when you do they complain about how the world has turned a blind eye but if you go to help them then you're invading their life and forcing your life style on them.

[Kate]

Will ... (phew)

the thread title is not "how to solve the middle east"

(which america seems to view as peace + "legitimate government" everywhere (ie democracy which is not corrupted by anything other than america)...

as condition for america leaving.

pfft ... may as well invade all those countries and put a few more stars on the american flag)

it is concerning america's stance there.

[Will]

How to solve the Middle East pertains very strongly to -my- stance there.  As an American, I thought I was within the thread bounds.

Regardless, this discussion has been rather circular, so I think I'm done with it anyway.

pfft ... may as well invade all those countries and put a few more stars on the american flag)

I also thought it was an intelligent discussion, and not a bash-fest.

[Kate]

Will ...

I agree ! Dont waste your resources expecting "this thread" to go the way you want to - leaving / washing your hands of this "insanity" is a better option.

Peace in the middle east can not be "solved" while america acts on a vested interest there.

Leave it up to them and the UN ...
america wants to help the peace process there ?

Respect the UN's stances there.

I have NO problem with american troups being in the middle east flushing out "terroists" (right or wrong) or whatever, making poor decisions, or good ones

.. on ONE condition

their uniform doesnt show the american flag, but shows

"United Nations"

with orders and objectives directed by the united nations ...

[Elven Sex Goddess]

Will ...

I agree ! Dont waste your resources expecting "this thread" to go the way you want to - leaving / washing your hands of this "insanity" is a better option.

Peace in the middle east can not be "solved" while america acts on a vested interest there.

Leave it up to them and the UN ...
america wants to help the peace process there ?

Respect the UN's stances there.

I have NO problem with american troups being in the middle east flushing out "terroists" (right or wrong) or whatever, making poor decisions, or good ones

.. on ONE condition

their uniform doesnt show the american flag, but shows

"United Nations"

with orders and objectives directed by the united nations ...

Kate I am puzzled at this, there is no American troops in the GAZA strip or West Bank.  The only outside influence that is asserted by your reasoning by the United States is how they vote on the Security council.  In regards in support Israel.   Just as France votes in favor of Iran in regards because of the oil.   

Because contrary to popular belief all of the middle east is not just one nation.  That it is a host of various nations.  That at times hate each other just as much as they hate Israel. 

An speaking of the UN.  the WFP  world food program.    Did you realize that out of the wealthiest nations Arab Muslim states.  Give the least, and part of this is because it could be used to give to non believers. 

Oh and the next time Syria goes into Lebanon under a false pretense in attempt to acquire land.  And of course Israel is the only one to respond.  I guess that will be Israel aggression again.   

I am not disputing you that the UN should take a stronger roll there.   Just don't see what your talking about United States pulling out.  Pull out of what, Iraq, that is a separate issue and aside from being within the middle east.  Is not the Palestinian conflict. 

[Cythieus]

The only thing that we have in Israel is weapons systems, but I am pretty sure that they have provided us with some things too (they sure provided Iran with some, or rather Iran photoshopped some Israeli photos to pass off.)

[Kate]

Your both right - I did go off into a tangent myself - my bad.

I did tangent to voice my thoughts on another view of
How to "solve" the Middle East  ... which frankly is a related issue (and a lot bigger one).

I apologize for being two faced on "context relevance"

[Elven Sex Goddess]

I have a hypothetical question regarding the middle east as a whole.   

What happens when the oil dries up and there is no more.  Now will the nations now with invested interest continue to support the various countries.   Or will they back away. I mean France,  Germany are dealing with high unemployment.  I am sure if not for the oil they would not be invested money wise in the middle east.  The same can be said of any of the nations that depend on oil.    So as the world shifts and the oil runs out and new fuel sources are turned to.  Who will still be there.   The only answer I have is the United States.    I mean as noble as the United Nations is by concept it needs to be funded by all the nations.  It does not generate its own revenue.   I mean this is evident right now with the civil war still waging in the Dafur province of Sudan.  Any of your nations could step up and go in and stop the genocide.  But of course the world is waiting on the United States and when we do, we will be instantly condemned.   But then again if we don't act which is likely we will be hated for that.  Regardless no one else acted either. 

Just like now the US will be villain flied.   Because it is a no win situation, if do were dammed and if we don't were dammed in the rest of the worlds eyes.   

[Kate]

judging by history....

Same as what happens in africa when a local resource is exhausted by an external mining company.

[Morven]

I don't think that these days the UN could be considered a neutral arbiter either.  Few Israelis would trust it, for entirely the reason that, just as US support for Israel has been too unquestioning, support in the UN General Assembly for Palestinians has been a little too unquestioning as well, entirely because of the points it makes.

I don't think a UN General Assembly vote can be counted upon, these days, to treat Israel fairly; there will be much too much of a general anti-US vote, a general anti-colonialism vote.

[Elven Sex Goddess]

I have mentioned that in regards to the UN, as the United States has been accused of using the power of veto in the UN security council as one of the five permanent members to block any thing sanctioning against Israel.  That this is true of other nations.  With vested interest in the region. 

However, to merely have stated such does not back up my counter point.   As I have pointed to the situation in Darfu of the Sudan.  I have researched and pulled up key points to back my point.   As China has consistently refused to end selling arms to Sudan,  to pressure the Sudan government to end the genocide happening in Darfu.    Through actual vetoes on the security council. 

2004
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21143-2004Dec22.html

2006
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/china-darfur_04-25-06.html

2008
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9557/

What is staggering is this area is listed with the UN World Food program as the number one are for famine and starvation.  Yet the amount of money that has been thrown into Sudan, for the oil while a major section of its people starve is staggering.    Plus what is applied to the United States regarding the Israel nation and I have shown with China with Sudan, can also be extended to China with Iran.

Now apply this to the noble idea of the United Nations working as it was intended.   You can see why it is only in a Utopian state of an idea, and nothing more.  Though I suspect it will not matter, as I have pointed out with my hypothetical question.   Once the oil is gone, no one will really care outside of the region amongst the rest of the world.  Through I might be underestimating the power of religion and if it still holds sway.  Not in with Israel and  Judaism or the Arab world and Islam.   No I might be underestimating the Christian world when it comes to the Holy land.   

[Kate]

I don't think that these days the UN could be considered a neutral arbiter either.  Few Israelis would trust it, for entirely the reason that, just as US support for Israel has been too unquestioning, support in the UN General Assembly for Palestinians has been a little too unquestioning as well, entirely because of the points it makes.

I don't think a UN General Assembly vote can be counted upon, these days, to treat Israel fairly; there will be much too much of a general anti-US vote, a general anti-colonialism vote.

Neutral nations abstain from voting.

UN counted on to treat Israel fairly from a pro-Israel point of view - I hope not.

Is retrained daily building (encroachment) fair ?
Is restrained daily bombings fair ?
Is leveling X suburbs of palestine killing hundreds a fair response to 1 rouge palestinian killing 3 of your people?
Is expecting palestine's government to have thorough control of the behavior of all individuals of their nation a fair expectation and demand to make ?

What is pro-Israel is subjective.
What "fair" is, is subjective.

Unquestioning ? Unlikely, perhaps their stances has appear from considering different questions... in light of these i am sure to them their own views seem very justified.

To abstract subjectiveness to something practical you get many from different nations to vote ... thus a international court.is created (GA/UN)

[Cythieus]

Neutral nations abstain from voting.

Neutrality doesn't necessarily mean you take no stance, it means you take a stance based on the facts of the matter and the circumstances that are factually visible, not the emotions or connections you have with one side or another. Probably objective would be a better word to describe a desirable position to take.

[kylie]

     I have to admit I haven't really studied the Mideast at any length.  So I appreciate El's efforts to round up the history a bit...  It's still an area that I don't feel much connection with (and doubly so for being leery of uses of the Bible etc.).  But in a way, that is neither here nor there as I think most Americans could say about the same.  There's a lot of fumbling around in the dark with multiple elephants, but as a population (until our leadership cares differently at least) there we are.

     I don't know if a UN flag, or some particular countries working under a UN mandate, would do it.  At the moment, it seems like the demand would be for the UN to more or less enforce peace.  As I understand, the UN has a pretty bad history for putting troops that in the region; host countries have not been so accommodating and when violence breaks out, the casualties and chance of general mistakes are substantial.  The Somalia case, among many others, shows that at least if it is a use-of-force type of authorization and not a tripwire screen, there is more to what goes on than what UN Central rules on paper.  Even before the US went somewhat wild in its under-resourced heliborne manhunts, there was a common matter of the Italians, Pakistanis, and others all operating with their own narrow rules about how their forces should be used.  To my knowledge, the conventional wisdom is more that the UN is relatively good at "development," health, food, and infrastructure sort of programs but generally it turns into a fracture zone on multiple levels when there is any combat on the near horizon.  Even in Desert Storm (I'd say more a straight out military action "via" rather than under the UN flag), many of the "Coalition" troops were limited by their capitals to more or less defending in place -- a contribution of sorts, but a very restricted one.

     Kate is plugging, I think, for the US to back down and adopt a more idealized adherence to UN principles.  Without doing justice to that overall direction, I think it's worth pointing out that "multinational forces" under the UN have often fragmented into a geographically dispersed range of units each following the limits or expansions set by their own national capitals.  Now, Israel/Palestine is not such a huge land area.  It is a rather densely populated one, where some of the key arguments lie.  I wonder if this may be part of the reason we have seen as few UN forces in the area as we have to date.  There simply is not a lot of space for units to argue about whether they are each going to be civil security, boundary observers/tripwires, actively intervening, or what.  And there is plenty of history of both sides getting sniped and bombed in urban settings; it doesn't augur well for Western sources who tend to fret somewhat about operating among civilians and about losses among their own personnel.

     I don't want to go so far as to say it couldn't be done, but I think the big players in the UN are at loggerheads about what anyone would be trying to accomplish strategically.  Before the UN can act, there needs to be a stronger concensus on what the outcome should be and how much force will be put behind it.  I don't sense the Security Council coming together on that, though.  Sudan/Darfur have taken several long, bloody years of press and wrangling and in the meantime China has been developing more energy interests in Central Asia.  East Africa also seems just a long ways from what many of the big players consider a primary interest, whereas Israel directly abuts oil states here, Suez Canal there, contains its own nukes...  I'm not sure I see how a little sweetness on Darfur from China etc. (if it really, finally is that) translates into agreement on Israel/Palestine.  I also imagine there is a lot of uncertainty about getting other Mideast states committed to anything new, while they have several institutionalized interests in the status quo.

[kylie]

     What it reflects to me, off the bat, is the rigidity of the Western state system in which any redrawing of borders or relocation of people is presumed tantamount to opening the floodgates to a wave of postcolonial grievances.  Even without "sacred ground," we're struggling with what the implications are any time a border is redrawn or territory shared under various terms: semi-autonomy, state, what have you.  Yet, we obviously have many, many countries and populations parceled across the political geography in ways that practically set them up to lack resources and community, or to gravitate toward conflict. 

     To put the problem in a speculative and rather radical form (yes, just pretending some "legitimate" international institutions could agree on anything except forcing all but the uber-rich into more debt)...  Should there be a Nuremberg-style round of hearings to address such grievances?  Perhaps the results, done in phases, might be somewhat less calamitous than Kurds gassed here (by American-supplied weapons) and Palestinians bulldozed and bombed (by American-supplied weapons) there every few years.  Whatever you make of postcolonialism, as far as I understand: it's hard to argue that the Palestinians have had the most choices in their situation for the last few decades or that they have been given sufficient economic and political standing to help themselves through much apart from "extreme" measures.  Well, they're extreme when anyone but the CIA, the special forces, Rumsfeld policy for Abu Ghraib, or destinations of rendition use them. 

     An occupation is just that.  Neither the military nor the economic playing fields are equal.  We are not seeing F-16's versus F-16's on the news.  When any journalists can and are getting in (setting aside where they can reach), yes we do typically see a handful of suicide bombs, a smattering of snipers and rockets that usually land somewhat randomly...  And lots of daily blockades, poverty in Gaza, little kids in the streets taking rocks to armored vehicles, and Israeli policy that appears to me as intransigent as the rest.  When Israel speaks about "defending itself," it often ends up bulldozing questionably-cleared residential blocks (Jenin/pick a village) or bombing some Palestinian office building from the air.  "They make human shields" on one hand and on the other, "Oh, we just happened to have scores in collateral damage."  It's all pretty sick to me.  And yet, one side actually has more choices and a wider range of options if it would back off a little more. 

One other matter I'd like to mention.

To everyone who compares the Palestinians to the Native Americans the WWII thing is the big difference. Why isn't anyone in here complaining about how we keep the Germans or the Japanese on a short leash? Why is it not okay to do the same with Palestine? They're plight is a direct result of them siding with the loser.

In addition to other points that have been mentioned...  1)  It's not clear whether you're meaning to argue "just war in 1940's necessarily = just indefinite occupation," or simple might makes right, but I wouldn't suggest tossing both at once -- and 2) You appeared to be assuming everyone here has an obvious desire to keep Germany and Japan down.  That is entirely your presumption and I didn't sign up for any of it.

[Neroon]

     What it reflects to me, off the bat, is the rigidity of the Western state system in which any redrawing of borders or relocation of people is presumed tantamount to opening the floodgates to a wave of postcolonial grievances.

I would say that this is the single most perceptive point in the whole thread.  In the end, most of what the West- often through the UN, it must be said- has done over the last half century has been to preserve the status quo.  After all, that was the main result of the Cold War: that neither side could gain too much of an advantage lest the delicate balance that kept the world from nuclear destruction would be upset.  While the world might have moved on since then, the mindsets of the politicians and more importantly their advisors have not.

[Cythieus]

One other matter I'd like to mention.     In addition to other points that have been mentioned...  1)  It's not clear whether you're meaning to argue "just war in 1940's necessarily = just indefinite occupation," or simple might makes right, but I wouldn't suggest tossing both at once -- and 2) You appeared to be assuming everyone here has an obvious desire to keep Germany and Japan down.  That is entirely your presumption and I didn't sign up for any of it.

Why not? Don't we punish people by restricting their access to things and jailing them when they do wrong? When a whole country lets itself become an engine of war and is responsible for over 6 million deaths in the name of genocide why shouldn't we hold them accountable for their actions? I'm not sure what the problem you have with this is.

[Oniya]

Um - I hate to ask this, but...

The creation of Israel was immediately after WWII, so I'm assuming that there is an association with the time frame and this next part. 

The topic of restrictions against the Germans and Japanese for their actions in WWII keeps coming up.  Can anyone here name one restriction against those two countries that is still in effect?  Neither one is exactly being 'kept down', and has presumably 'served their time'.  In fact, if you look at the Marshall Plan and the economic balance between Japan and the US, both nations are hardly being 'punished'.

[Cythieus]

Um - I hate to ask this, but...

The creation of Israel was immediately after WWII, so I'm assuming that there is an association with the time frame and this next part. 

The topic of restrictions against the Germans and Japanese for their actions in WWII keeps coming up.  Can anyone here name one restriction against those two countries that is still in effect?  Neither one is exactly being 'kept down', and has presumably 'served their time'.  In fact, if you look at the Marshall Plan and the economic balance between Japan and the US, both nations are hardly being 'punished'.

Um Germany and Japan both have restricted military power, that's blatantly obvious.

[kylie]

     Actually, I think the whole WW2 comparison would take us off topic before it could be sold.  There are various potentially disparate parts to argue:

1) what US policymakers think about Germany or Japan (and it's crossing whole generations which I'm doubtful all think the same),

2) whether policy and the relevant context are actually consistent between either of those and Palestine and

3) presuming (I think at a great reach) we could nail down those two things neatly across 60 years and three countries, maybe we could stay on topic...  how many here would agree there should be any such consistency in place -- it's not a thread about what is, so much as what people believe is reasonable or justifiable

     Just to hint at the complexity involved here...  As far as what some policymakers think, sure, at least a few years back, US military strategists sometimes still described American troops in Japan as a "cork in the bottle" and their global plans warned that we wouldn't accept Japan fielding any carrier task force (with or without the task force, I forget but whatever).  There has been some diplomatic and arguably, domestic outcry about such things though -- the officer who made the "cork in the bottle" remark in a public form was forced to apologize, qualify, etc. and others had to "spin" the discussion differently before people would let it rest.  So the thinking is certainly not uniform about this everywhere... 

     Also if you look at Japanese public opinion, I can tell you from my own research that by the 1990's it was very critical of developing any stronger global military role.  Even in the 1960's, the Japanese government stopped short of sending out troops to deal with strong domestic, anti-military protests.  Ironically these were also anti-US protests but the point remains that the Japanese government had its own, domestic constraints that made civilian opinion a real force separate from value assigned to the military.  How one could actually get from a Japan that is economically strong, with a more unified civil society (as opposed to weak and being embargoed by countries like the US which in the 1930's could have known very well that would start a war) to some continuing sense of "necessity" for an occupation, I'm not clear.  That doesn't disprove your claim that US troops might be involved as a result of the past war (sure historically speaking: partly anyway), but it seems to problematize the notion that they naturally should be responding to WW2 indefinitely.

     As far as explanations, you'll also have to deal with the contention that today, Japan is not much of a military threat (small island, nuclear capacity kept more on the shelf, not so difficult to bomb critical facilities with longer-range aircraft) while US strategists (and some Japanese) are increasingly concerned about Chinese capacities.  Even among those who do think US troops belong in Japan, I'm skeptical that you can really prove everyone involved wants them there primarily to "hold Japan down" as it were?  One could easily argue the real reason they are there now has more to do with balance of power and questions about Chinese intentions. 

     Plus... That cuts partly against your ideas because if you recall WW2, the Chinese were generally seen as the greater victims.  We allow the atomic and fire-bombing of Japanese cities, carpet bombing of German ones on historical "moral" grounds, but under those same grounds the Chinese were innocent victims.  So if they can probably nuke or outmaneuver any Japanese invasion today, under your rubric of WW2 showed who was good and bad, why should the US be required to control Japan on top of it?  For that matter, why should the US arm Taiwan if we know Japan is bad by virtue of all the evils it inflicted on China.  That seems to imply, if the past is everything, that China should be the good one and we should leave them alone.  At the least, you would need to convince me that the Big Cop US is actually the Lone Good Ranger one before we have any serious, historical right to rule on the matter.  This assigning black or white to each national government for ever and ever thing really causes problems the longer you try to sit on it.

     And all that would be mostly about clearing #1 [edit -- okay, some the others too but see what is involved].  You might want another thread (or maybe two -- I'm not sure how similar the German situation is) if you're really interested in selling that.

[Cythieus]

What's reasonable? How about this, I think its completely reasonable to kick the shit out of someone for firing thousands of missiles into your homes and back yards, but that's just me.

That's why I can't feel sympathy for Palestine. If you're getting slapped around constantly the last thing you do during a cease fire is repeatedly break it.

You're drawing this all out and trying to stand up for the UN trying to help Palestine while doubting their abilities and what they still impose on Germany and Japan, who's to say they haven't again made the wrong choice in backing someone who not only doesn't adhere to the standards the UN tries to enforce, but has actually stolen from them and tried to use them as Human shields.

[kylie]

How about this, I think its completely reasonable to kick the shit out of someone for firing thousands of missiles into your homes and back yards, but that's just me.

"Missiles."  As I understand it, they have usually been rockets that can't hit anything.  Just another example of the general disparity in capabilities.   

If you're getting slapped around constantly the last thing you do during a cease fire is repeatedly break it.

I don't have this impression that historically the Israelis have been the only ones getting slapped around.  Without going to the trouble to look up the history of how many ceasefires to actually examine the claim that only the Palestinians ever violate them (which I rather doubt over such a close-quarters, urban, often hit and leave by both sides kind of conflict)...  Consider how the entire term "ceasefire" is being used to swing global opinion while keeping economic exploitation and the positioning/acts of Israeli forces out of the picture.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7835893.stm
(There were just blank lines in the original where I added ... )

Israel's assessment is that Hamas is in a lose-lose position. It believes that if Hamas accepts a ceasefire, it will show that it is beaten.... And if it does not stop shooting when Israel does, then the Israeli army will go back on to the offensive.... If that happens Israel believes it will have increased international legitimacy because it has declared that it is ready to stop fighting....  Hamas has repeated its conditions for a ceasefire. It wants a withdrawal of Israeli forces within a week, and the opening of Gaza's crossings to the outside world...  Israel says Hamas has to take it or leave it. The question now is whether Hamas decides to lick its wounds and regroup - or whether it gambles on dragging Israel into a war of attrition.

Whether or not you think some of Hamas' demands are overwrought (it's also common in some areas to demand much more than the end really must be), the point remains they have real interests and concerns.  It's certainly difficult to have stability without an open, egalitarian economy -- ask minorities in the US -- but around Israel there is so much more militarization of disparity.

You're drawing this all out and trying to stand up for the UN trying to help Palestine while doubting their abilities

Are you referring to me?  I'm not going to play the tired old conservative game of "Don't you dare say anything is wrong unless you have the 12-point plan that's bulletproof to fix it tomorrow."  I'm simply saying there are issues with the UN in military capacities.  Someone can suggest how they can be managed (or ways to open up new thinking within the region first), or someone could suggest a more heavy-handed intervention if it's assuming more principle than what we have there now... 

     I'm not claiming to offer perfection or even a specific plan myself, but I am sick and tired of nay-saying that only comes in the form "If Obama [or whatever is up there] is not the perfect Savior, then woe to those who would pursue any kind of change.  You know not what monster you have begun -- you can't tell us exactly how much it will cost or help in advance, so it's too risky."  There are always unknowns and often, some less than balanced parties to be negotiating with.  Deal with it.  As I gather, that is true whether one is looking for information on a marginalized subculture in the US or fussing more speculatively about international relations. 

     There are usually some conflicting interests in any discussion.  What we have historically in that region, though, is a rather obvious occupation and a huge disparity in wealth and military power between the occupiers and the occupied.  If you don't address that, you can go on blaming the Palestinians for appearing more "violent" or (hinting) "primitive" because they will be more desperate (and possibly because they have somewhat less regular control of the media reports).  But from those certain facts that you like to require so much, history does suggest that Israel will not gain any security from this pattern.  Israel claims it is adding security, but it appears to me that things are going on and on as a result of its policies, much as they have been -- plenty violently from both sides.       

what they still impose on Germany and Japan,

Sorry if I missed it in skimming through posts above.  Have you shown that the UN has "imposed" anything specific on Germany and Japan that's relevant to this?  I mainly recall you mentioning US troops occupying their territory, as if it were obviously (presently) forced and obviously entirely for that reason among everyone concerned.

[Cythieus]

Actually no I said that Germany and Japan aren't allowed a military over a certain size, I said nothing of us occupying their land.

And as for the capabilities of the Palestinians...is it then okay to fire at someone as long as you don't hit them? Should their repeated breaking of a treaty sanctioned by the UN and agreed upon by Israel be ignored because they didn't hit anyone. That's pretty bad reasoning. Tell you what, fire on any country's boat at sea, miss it and keep firing and missing. If they don't blow you out of the water with the big guns I would be very shocked.

Never before has another country's lack of ability been a free pass to do what they want. In fact, the Palestinians should learn that since they're so ineffective that they need to take more diplomatic solutions. Instead they have in the last three years fired thousands of rockets (for the sake of argument it doesn't matter if they were firing missiles, rockets or RPGs, they were firing during a cease fire) and in 2007 voted a recognized terrorist organization into their government as a defense force, an organization that has stated they want the destruction of Israel and its people, a group that uses Human shields, hides on top of Hospitals and Schools and has done nothing to spur the peace process along.

[OldSchoolGamer]

I think the two groups involved in this conflict are going to have to sort matters out on their own.

I'm tired of America trying to play kingmaker around the world.  Let the rest of the world solve its own problems.  What you've got here (to simplify, but not by much really) is two groups who each believe their Sky Daddy promised them the same patch of desert.  Sooner or later, they're going to have to either a) learn to co-exist, or b) duke it out the old-school way and settle it once and for all.

[Cythieus]

I think the two groups involved in this conflict are going to have to sort matters out on their own.

I'm tired of America trying to play kingmaker around the world.  Let the rest of the world solve its own problems.  What you've got here (to simplify, but not by much really) is two groups who each believe their Sky Daddy promised them the same patch of desert.  Sooner or later, they're going to have to either a) learn to co-exist, or b) duke it out the old-school way and settle it once and for all.

Does us voting in the UN to veto something is us playing kingmaker? Likewise the UN's constant siding with a group who will follow none of the rules set up for them is okay? I don't understand how its bad that we're voting like the other members of the UN. We're not over there fighting their battle for them and if left to their own devices its a pretty sure bet Israel would take all of Palestine without any further help from us.

As I said before the Jews are very secular and don't believe that the land is a divine gift as much as they want Palestine to recognize their right to exist and stop firing at them. They've been saying that for a while.

[OldSchoolGamer]

Does us voting in the UN to veto something is us playing kingmaker? Likewise the UN's constant siding with a group who will follow none of the rules set up for them is okay? I don't understand how its bad that we're voting like the other members of the UN. We're not over there fighting their battle for them and if left to their own devices its a pretty sure bet Israel would take all of Palestine without any further help from us.

As I said before the Jews are very secular and don't believe that the land is a divine gift as much as they want Palestine to recognize their right to exist and stop firing at them. They've been saying that for a while.

And regardless, it's really none of our business.  These people have been fighting each other since the days of the Roman Empire, if not before.

[Cythieus]

And regardless, it's really none of our business.  These people have been fighting each other since the days of the Roman Empire, if not before.

Actually pre-WWII it was supposed to have been relatively peaceful there. Especially compared to now.

[kylie]

Actually no I said that Germany and Japan aren't allowed a military over a certain size, I said nothing of us occupying their land.

Sorry if I mistook that part.  When talking about Israel, it's usually more outstanding to me that the Israelis have settled/occupied and then military continually, periodically patrolled and/or reoccupied the remaining Palestinian-assigned areas.  So I saw occupying forces as the one to compare.  There isn't much of a formal Palestinian military to limit, though.  And attempting to disband virtually all of the paramilitary forces, always a difficult endeavor it seems in the Mideast, isn't likely to be accepted after the history of occupation.  It's far worse than the "gun rights lobby" drifting into militia radicalism or arms at political events in the US -- themselves surprisingly intractable factors in American politics.  There is actually a recent history of conflict in the Mideast to make people skeptical, to make them hang onto their weapons and militant organizations tighter. 

     I don't believe that Japan is internationally, formally required to limit its military, at least in the present.  That is usually a domestic choice made with reference to % of GDP and a slippery claim to avoid more "offensive" forces.  There was I think a US-Japan agreement on a numbers cap somewhere between 1945 and the Korean War.  I can't say about Germany...  Except for noting a limit on forces in the 1919 Treaty of Versailles, part of a formula generally credited with setting up yet another war.  Were you maybe trying to suggest a bilateral agreement on force cap for 2009 in Palestine?  Either way, the whole reasoning of comparable situations and even comparable justification really seems a tortured stretch to me.  Let alone getting general support in the present context.

is it then okay to fire at someone as long as you don't hit them?

I'm simply saying I can understand some people firing, when they are being regularly and forcefully denied all sorts of value, opportunities, and honor in life.  When they feel their land has been stolen and their people basically imprisoned in substandard conditions.  No quantity of high-level formalities alone - especially with the Israelis constantly stretching settlement further and further despite the treaties - is going to change that.  People will make suicide attacks on people who they feel have unjustly rendered their lives meaningless.  It may be the only thing they feel they can do, you may go on painting it as barbaric or ineffective if you prefer.  But they will keep doing it because it is one of so few available options that makes a difference to them. 

Tell you what, fire on any country's boat at sea, miss it and keep firing and missing. If they don't blow you out of the water with the big guns I would be very shocked.

I think you don't understand the distinction people can make between conventional war (of uniforms and formal borders) and total war (of whole peoples, guerrillas and ways of life).  I think for some Palestinians, this is more like total war.  Will you say the tanks should shoot back at every child who throws a stone too?  After all, they dared to take on something bigger than them too.  Are they all merely brainwashed by the barbarians?  I think something more socially endemic and more profound is going on there.

Never before has another country's lack of ability been a free pass to do what they want.

Umm, does this mean that the fact the Jews had been persecuted across Europe and finally dragged into the Holocaust had nothing to do with why people accepted the formation of Israel as a state?

Instead they have in the last three years fired thousands of rockets

This really isn't surprising.  If you're going to fight, you use what you can get.  More rockets = either more psychological effect or occasionally, a few meaningful hits out of the bunch (leaving "meaningful" itself open to point of view).  The Soviets in WW2 and in planning versus technically superior NATO would employ mass wave attacks; the Vietcong would use the jungle and attack by surprise.  And in the end, with your elegant emphasis on might makes right (since you apparently think we should be satisfied simply to notice who gets blown away), you would have to note they all were recognized as having a certain strength -- they all frightened their opposition substantially and/or finally won something. 

     What's more interesting about Israel is, their politics have taken such a hard turn that it sounds like their leadership, if not many of their people, are not really frightened.  They seem able to absorb the rockets endlessly without changing their fundamental approach.  They claim the only alternative would be to fold the entire state, but I find that rather difficult to believe.  When you have a military with that much reputation and the backing of the US, do they really believe serious, balanced coexistence would allow others to overrun them at an acceptable cost?

[Cythieus]

The Rockey firing was during the ceasefire is the issue here, not why they were doing it. They also tried to tunnel into Israel. All that time no one threw up a red flag, even the Americans. We all let them do it because they didn't hit anyone.

People are saying stay out of it, its their conflict, the issue is that people seem to think that we only need to step in when Israel acts out, which isn't right. As far as the Jews go, they were pretty bad off after the war and that's why their homeland was formed.

I don't think there should be a force cap on Israel or Palestine because of the fact that they're not really bothering the nations around them. Most nations have either closed their borders or spoken out but there's not much evidence of others stepping in to do something or getting into wars with either side, at least not at the present.

As for the Mandate, the people who owned Palestine in 1948: Britain, are the ones who split it, it seems.

When the Second World War broke out, the Jewish population sided with Britain. David Ben Gurion, head of the Jewish Agency, defined the policy with what became a famous motto: "We will fight the war as if there were no White Paper, and we will fight the White Paper as if there were no war." While this represented the Jewish population as a whole, there were exceptions (see below).

As in most of the Arab world, there was no unanimity amongst the Palestinian Arabs as to their position regarding the combatants in World War II. A number of leaders and public figures saw an Axis victory as the likely outcome and a way of securing Palestine back from the Zionists and the British. Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, spent the rest of the war in Nazi Germany and the occupied areas, in particular encouraging Muslim Bosniaks to join the Waffen SS in German-conquered Bosnia. About 6,000 Palestinian Arabs and 30,000 Palestinian Jews joined the British forces.

I think its easy to see what I am talking about.

[kylie]

And regardless, it's really none of our business.  These people have been fighting each other since the days of the Roman Empire, if not before.

Perhaps you mean to argue, it should be none of our business?  Since our business has certainly been very involved.  In particular, military aid and thereby the arms industries.  Whatever our positions on it, we have been contributing tax money to Israeli policies.

You can see the full Congressional report this chart came from (it's on p. 18) at
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf

[kylie]

The Rockey firing was during the ceasefire is the issue here, not why they were doing it.

It's always handy to say something "isn't the issue" if you don't want to face it...  And here I thought (judging by the thread title) the topic was what America should or shouldn't be doing about Israel-Palestinian relations more broadly.  If you want to convince me that anything should or should not be done, you have to address why.  You seem to prefer to try to find a "winners write the rules" type of precedent, but that's just an exercise in selective historical revision as far as I'm concerned.  It's obviously taking a big detour to avoid moral issues of real importance to me -- while simultaneously attempting to paint some (actually unspecified which and why) Palestinian leadership (of today, no less) as "obviously" inheritors of some Nazi or otherwise inhumane set of values.   

As far as the Jews go, they were pretty bad off after the war and that's why their homeland was formed.

They were also historically oppressed, which can easily lead to one being "pretty bad off."  But now if the Jewish state, home of the downtrodden and oppressed, carries out policies for decades that ensure the marginalization of the Palestinians, you seem to be saying that's okay because apparently the Palestinians were all bad people or perhaps (arguably a very different model) because they followed the wrong people. 

     I'm sure plenty of people before 1945 around Europe were convinced that the Jews were untrustworthy, conspiring, and under questionable leadership.  Yet voila, when they are exploited enough, it contributes to their getting a state.  Is part of the difference - honestly, just throwing a guess - that the Palestinians are not wealthy and connected enough?  Or perhaps this is part of the overall European discomfort with the "Orient," more connected to the cultural histories of the Crusades and such?  There must be more explanation than simple WW2 where as you have noted Palestinians were not all on one side.  (I think I'd be divided too, if I had been colonized by one of the Allies before that mess.)  Whatever it is, I'm leery of allowing it to give Israel a clear pass to keep right on as it has been.

[Cythieus]

     Perhaps you mean to argue, it should be none of our business?  Since our business has certainly been very involved.  In particular, military aid and thereby the arms industries.  Whatever our positions on it, we have been contributing tax money to Israeli policies.

You can see the full Congressional report this chart came from (it's on p. 18) at
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf

101 Million over almost 60 years? That's chump change. We gave 800 million in funds for Tsunami relief in 2004. That crushes your number, but I guess that shit shouldn't be our business either, we certainly have no business helping others out, right?

    It's always handy to say something "isn't the issue" if you don't want to face it...  And here I thought (judging by the thread title) the topic was what America should or shouldn't be doing about Israel-Palestinian relations more broadly.  If you want to convince me that anything should or should not be done, you have to address why.  You seem to prefer to try to find a "winners write the rules" type of precedent, but that's just an exercise in selective historical revision as far as I'm concerned.  It's obviously taking a big detour to avoid moral issues of real importance to me -- while simultaneously attempting to paint some (actually unspecified which and why) Palestinian leadership (of today, no less) as "obviously" inheritors of some Nazi or otherwise inhumane set of values.   
  They were also historically oppressed, which can easily lead to one being "pretty bad off."  But now if the Jewish state, home of the downtrodden and oppressed, carries out policies for decades that ensure the marginalization of the Palestinians, you seem to be saying that's okay because apparently the Palestinians were all bad people or perhaps (arguably a very different model) because they followed the wrong people.

No, its easy to say it isn't the issue when it isn't the issue. I don't give a damn why someone blows up someone else if they did it during a cease fire that's in their best interest. That gives you free reign on them. No questions asked. If you want to break cease fires you better be able to back it up.

[Oniya]

Being the numbers-geek that I am, I took the time to graph that out.  Since 1997, with the exception of 2000 and 2003, the amount of overall aid has been decreasing fairly steadily.  The military aid has been (again, with the exception of those two years) steadily increasing.  It would be interesting to see the 2008 numbers and where everything stands, as it looks ready to reach the 100% mark.

(If someone can tell me how to make an Excel graph into a picture, I'll upload it.)

[kylie]

101 Million over almost 60 years? That's chump change.

Look closer!  That's millions of dollars times the numbers in the boxes.  In other words, in 2007 alone it was 2.34 billion dollars for military aid.  Now if you really wanted to make it look small, I suppose you could try noting that's what we blow in Iraq every week, in a designated foreign combat zone with over 100,000 troops. [Edit -- well that was Iraq in 2006, but it only adds to the point: Iraq was arguably a hotter zone then.]  It sure isn't small change to me, even talking military hardware.
http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/09/28/cost_of_iraq_war_nearly_2b_a_week/

I went to double check my own words for big numbers...  And found that we have already been "locked in" to continuing, and increasing our involvement, for 8 more years.
http://www.counterpunch.org/christison03052009.html

The United States and Israel signed a Memorandum of Understanding in August 2007 committing the U.S. to give Israel $30 billion in military aid over the next decade.  This is grant aid, given in cash at the start of each fiscal year.  The only stipulation imposed on Israel’s use of this cash gift is that it spend 74 per cent to purchase U.S. military goods and services. [paragraph split] The first grant under this agreement was made in October 2008, for FY2009, in the amount of $2.55 billion.  To bring the total 10-year amount to $30 billion, amounts in future years will gradually increase until an annual level of $3.1 billion is reached in FY2013.  This will continue through FY2018.

I don't give a damn why someone blows up someone else if they did it during a cease fire that's in their best interest.

You may not care less -- and I wonder if you even care if our money (be it $10 or 2 billion) continues funding the military that is backing the settlements contrary to the agreements with more assassinations and bombings of its own -- but I suspect others feel it is their livelihood and society at risk.  Probably not every single Palestinian by any means, but then you have suggested that all of them who chose or happened to fall under certain leadership should collectively suffer...  (Sounds rather like social Darwinism?)  I think you would have to argue precisely why you see that particular cease fire as being in someone's best interest.  You seem to like to search for a just war or a "right" side in some ideal war, quite long ago.  What about pursuing a just peace, now.

[Callie Del Noire]

Well let's see..

How much do we still spend on Germany and Japan? How much do we pay any of the oh.. dozen or so countries we have forces in every year?

[kylie]

How much do we still spend on Germany and Japan? How much do we pay any of the oh.. dozen or so countries we have forces in every year?

How or whether that leads back to desirable policy about Israel is the open question.  I'm not sure just how this helps but since you ask and I'm curious...  I don't see a neat table on Google right away, but here are some sample figures.  If you'll deal with some of the off the cuff sources (Japan Times, German embassy) -- but they cite involved US sources.  And some of these go back a few years in details, but assuming the overall structure hasn't shifted...

     I was honestly Googling for the US budget spent on foreign bases (and avoiding Wikipedia). Had a hard time finding a clear "bases"-type price tag from Germany for some reason...  (That is the kind of thing that one should get from a simple search of EUCommand's site -- but no.)  But I think the figures about relative contributions of various countries must be somehow pertinent when Odin's earlier claim was that Japan and Germany were being "restrained" from a military role.  If that is so clearly still the case, are we also extorting Japan into paying for it?

2004(ish?) relative contributions. http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/view/2591/1/145/

According to the 2004 annual U.S. Department of Defense report on contributions by 27 allies to the common defense, in 2002 in Japan, where 42,000 U.S. personnel are stationed, the government paid 4.4 billion dollars, or 52% of all contributions by all U.S. allies. Germany where 72,000 U.S. soldiers are stationed, paid 18 percent of the total.

2003 Germany and others. http://www.heritage.org/research/europe/hl782.cfm

Today, Germany contributes 21 percent to our basing. Japan and Saudi Arabia cover approximately 80 percent. Italy contributes 37 percent. In a relatively new agreement, the Korean government has pledged to increase its contributions from approximately 41 percent to 50 percent of stationing costs by 2004.

2003 Germany. http://fluglaerm-kl.saar.de/dl/American_bases_in_Germany_fs.pdf

Ramstein Air Base, the biggest U.S. base in Germany, costs about $1 billion annually—an amount equal to Germany's yearly contribution toward the upkeep of U.S. bases.  On average, the other 43 bases cost about $240 million each about the same as a single F/A-22 fighter jet. ([cite for both] Council on Foreign Relations, 2003)

2007 Germany. http://www.state.gov/t/pm/64768.htm

In FY 2007, the Department of State authorized the export of defense articles and services [to Germany] valued at $3,049,581,409.

(If that actually includes much of what one is looking to count, and not too many things one is not.)

2002 Japan. http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20080325i1.html

According to a 2004 report by the U.S. Department of Defense, Japan contributed direct financial support worth $3.23 billion and indirect support worth $1.18 billion in fiscal 2002, which offset as much as 74.5 percent of the total costs for the U.S. to station its forces in Japan.

December 2008 Japan. http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=59656

The Japanese government has decided to allocate $689 million during the next fiscal year for projects related to realigning U.S. forces in Japan.

(Emphasis mine: This is a new cost.  Planned relocation of Okinawa-based troops etc.)

[Elven Sex Goddess]

Here is some measuring sticks for if Germany and Japan are still being restrained.   With the IMF, International Monetary Fund.    The world organization that gives out loans to third world nations.  The Untied States is at the top in percentage of voting.  The next two are in order Japan and Germany over every other country. Which includes China, Russia, Great Britain and France.   All of which were on the winning side of World War 2. 

As for the military being held down.  The German military/defense is ranked 7th in the world while Japan is ranked 9th in the world.   As you see in the link provided.   

http://www.globalfirepower.com/

[kylie]

     
     Well, in absolute terms, the US outspends the next few dozen countries combined...  I forget what the exact number was, but it seems easier to argue the US is holding most everybody down -- never mind whatever all they each did in the past.  It's more an indicator of hegemony than any specific claim of justice. 

     Besides which, I don't see how much of this really translates into a coherent argument about Israel.  So this will probably be the last statistics I feed into the defense balance talk... At least, unless something clearly inaccurate or more focused emerges.


http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/policy/securityspending/articles/fy09_dod_request_global/

[Kate]

That kind of money is not to create peace or ensure national security, it is for dominance.

if 1/4 of that was spent giving money to projects that appease previous issues concerning past unwarrented involvement America would get 10 times the bang for their buck on peace and security for American civilians.

Staggering inst it.

[Cythieus]

Here is some measuring sticks for if Germany and Japan are still being restrained.   With the IMF, International Monetary Fund.    The world organization that gives out loans to third world nations.  The Untied States is at the top in percentage of voting.  The next two are in order Japan and Germany over every other country. Which includes China, Russia, Great Britain and France.   All of which were on the winning side of World War 2. 

As for the military being held down.  The German military/defense is ranked 7th in the world while Japan is ranked 9th in the world.   As you see in the link provided.   

http://www.globalfirepower.com/

That's because they depend mostly on others for defense. I have talked to people in Germany about this, Japan was just allowed its first Battle Ship in years, I don't know how they measure fire power, but I would say that I don't trust that Japan is more powerful than China and Britain, that doesn't even sound right.

Articles about restrictions:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2001/09/07/MN115813.DTL

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/23/world/asia/23iht-23japan.6776834.html

http://www.idsa.in/TWIR/8_1_2009_Japan1

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_military_restrictions_did_the_Treaty_of_Versailles_impose_on_Germany

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/09/02/former-axis-nations-abandon-post-world-war-ii-military-restrictions/

As for the hundreds of Billions you're talking about going to Israel, I still don't care, we pay a lot of money to other nations all of the time. If it helps keep an ally safe I could care less. Palestine picked the losing side in a war and they're reaping the benefit of bad choices. Maybe they will learn or maybe they'll keep giving the Israelis good excuses to attack them.

[Kate]

Odin this is not a hot idea. When Germany was about the crumble they begged the west to invade Germany and not the Russians (Because of very bad blood between them in the past).  Rubbing salt into a wound just adds more bitterness to the world and increases the chances of extreme options or ruthlessness directed to the aggressors way when who has been on the receiving end has options otherwise.

As Ghandi said "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind".

Those who are getting "punished" now are not the ones that choose sides in WWII.
Different people.

"Maybe they will learn or maybe they'll keep giving the Israelis good excuses to attack them. "

"They ?"

Somehow this sentence implies that attacks of Israel are all government excersises.
They are not ! Their government doesn't control individuals that do these things.

If Israelis level suburbs and kill families of INNOCENTS ...

This environment makes individuals left wish to seek means of vengence now all their dreams are ruined - if their lovers their family their shops their income is all gone - some can rebuild their lives - some don't - some seek vengeance - those that seek vengeance do things that effect innocents - the problem with suciside bombings is the villain is already dead - the effected culture still is angry and can not inflict vengeance of the culprit - so choose to inflict it to what they beleive is the culprits culture and kin.... innocents !

Palestine as a government CAN'T do more - they CAN'T give more there is no place they can. They can run about appealing to everyone to stop (they may not want to)... but it Palestinian individuals that choose to do these things ... (yes in the past Palestine's government military wing did try and launch an assult however considering what was happening within "their nation" .. it was justified to the palestinian government - Isreal was a threat and agressive towards direct palestinian intersts)

Its Israels government that can do more (and America frankly)

Oh odin ! Please reconsider this stance. This is like saying "maybe America could learn or they will keep giving X and Y and Z good reasons to seek to repeat 9/11."

After 9/11 America attacked what it thought was a cause (right or wrong) what if after that retaliatory attack the "else" bit America back ... then America bit them back
then the "else" grew to more nations and hit america back ...

Attitudes like that invite escalation, and warm otherwise neutral nations towards the side of your enemies. This attitute doesnt serve anything other than justifying warefare-orientated economies with war orientated cultures.

[Cythieus]

Sorry, those being punished now are the ones who two years ago voted Hamas into their government and then fired at Israli civillians over and over. They refers to the Palestinians, who as a people voted for Hamas. The same way we're blamed for voting Bush into office, they're blamed for this. There's no innocent because if you cast the ballot for Hamas you cast one for your own hardships because of what they cause and what they stand for.

[Cythieus]

What the "innocent" have voted into place:

http://www.yourish.com/2009/01/06/5953

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Hamas+war+against+Israel/Hamas+exploitation+of+civilians+as+human+shields+-+Photographic+evidence.htm

http://static.rnw.nl/migratie/www.radionetherlands.nl/currentaffairs/region/middleeast/090108-israel-herzog-mc-redirected

[Sydonai]

and you think Israel is the saint here when they were the very cause of this 4 decades of grief and suffering inflicted upon the weak and angry Palestinians? think again, the rocket attack did not happen after Hamas took over, it happens well before that together with the suicide bombings etc. The rocket attacks of Hamas are not the cause, it is the result of Israel's tyranical and oppresive rule towards the Palestinians, during the Gaza war, have you ever heard of Palestinian civilians shot and killed even after waving white flags? http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/08/13/israel-investigate-white-flag-shootings-gaza-civilians

Did you also know that Palestinians were denied of their basic rights to even the most basic and simplest form of natural resources, water? http://www.thewe.cc/weplanet/news/water/water_war_leaves_palestinians_thirsty.htm

and did you also know that Palestinian who had lived for so long in their own lands would have their houses destroyed, just so that Israel can continue on with their illegal settlement program? http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=110326&sectionid=351020202

The reason why the UN favors the Palestinian so much is because what appears here is so miniscule compared to the true horrors faced by Palestinians every single day when their homes, their lands, their loved ones and even their basic rights were forcibly taken away from them and guess what? surprised! these all happens well even before Hamas was voted to power, here's the reason why Hamas was voted instead of the traditional Fatah: http://www.redress.btinternet.co.uk/jhalper.htm. Ooh! ooh! and guess what, this one is written by an Israeli Jew, how about that, now we know they were those Israeli Jews who refused to close their eyes to the atrocities done by their government and their more humane side surfaces to sympathized with the Palestinian plight.

Also the reason why it would seem that the UN seems to favor the Palestinian plight can be explained in this graph: http://www.ifamericansknew.org/. Oh wait, but what's the deal with Palestinian Hamas breaking ceasefire you say? ahh yes I was coming to that, in truth it would be very irrational for a weaker faction to break a ceasefire with a larger or more powerful faction especially when it will do them little good and causes them more damage than good, so what inspire Hamas to act this unreasonable, well here's the answer: http://www.ifamericansknew.org/cur_sit/reigniting.html and this http://www.ifamericansknew.org/cur_sit/cfv.html

But do not be mistaken, Israeli violence not only involves the Palestinian but it also involves Americans themselves, well how about that! these American, whom I respect for their bravery to stand up to injustice were mauled and beaten in a campaign to silence them from speaking out against them when Illegal Israeli settlers began their campaign of intimidation, so that their....'terrosists' act of forcing someone out of their own homes and taking over their homes would be left in the dark: http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE15/099/2004/en/bd2a2bf8-d56a-11dd-bb24-1fb85fe8fa05/mde150992004en. Oh sure the Hamas may or may not(for all I know, those videos of they're even real could just as well be editted seeing as how there were in many such instances when the film was cut and then skipped to another part) commit their own atrocities but desperate time calls for desperate measures, but who do we blame? the causes of course, why blame the result when, if Israel had not oppressed the Palestinian, deny them of their basic right and forcibly take away their homes and lands the result(suicide bombing, hostage taking, mortars attack) would not have happen, yes?

Moreover, Israeli defense force has a lot of history of twisting up and downplaying severity of civilian casulties, with this fact up in the open how can you even be sure that anything posted by the IDF is true? no, in truth the atrocities commited by them is far greater than the number media had been given, so what's differentiating them from the terrorists? http://www.midwestfreepress.com/2009/09/12/human-rights-group-exposes-israeli-atrocities/

[Kate]

The only way I think that America can walk away with some pride intact is if they themselves have practical conditions that amounts to Israel declaring war - even if they excuse it ( ie - build over this line and your really building Palestinian buildings for them - or an act of war ... choose ... while building the palestinians a hot city - or infrastructure for it about as far from Israel as possible plus give hot trade options with them.

How "Provoked" or "Justified" something is, is subjective.

if the US wants to be "done" with the middle east - walk away while it IS a mess -
then respect the UN positions thereafter (if you agree with it or not)
... dont veto UN decisions on it
.... don't ignore the UN's stance and do stuff against its recommendations anyway.

(it may cause oil prices to change in a way that is not something that america "likes",
those there may sell oil to other countries and may intentionally not choose to sell to America...
ie a nation that doesn't want to sell its precious non-renewable oil reserves to someone it hates - preferring to keep it or sell it to those who it doesn't hate.

Just like America will unlikely sell stealth bombers to Palestine... for one reason ... it doesnt WANT TO. Oh national stability stuff - OIL is a national stability tool of the middle east - being forced to sell it at low profit margins to the USA ... is takign that power away it is saying

" well middle east because oil is so valuable your reserves are not REALLY yours to do with a you wish hmm ok ?? "

Being forced to sell  (or extract) a resource or service for low profits to someone you hate which is that nation's ace and hope for wealth .. in a landscape that threatens of war and trade sanctions is nuts.... its about a nasty as repeating kicking them in the privates every day.

"Don't do this which is not in your best interest but ours or we will call on everyone to trade sanction you and they will because we are so damn powerful and are worried we will do so to them ... and if you don't cooperate we will be nastier

.. is NOT a "world policing" attitude.... its a
"hey world fuck you ! and we are nice because we could be meaner ok ?"

I think the reason why the USA spend so much on the military is that its foreign policies are so abraisive.. it is easy to convince people that an enemy can be anyone anywhere so it has to defend all borders from increasing amounts of options for increasing reasons...

and must STAY dominate for ANY chance for safety.

Is the UN "neutral" on this issue ? Hell no I hope not ! Is the UN non-perfect ? Likely
can the UN be corrupted - people / nations bribed ? yes. However it is the most neutral thing we have to work with for countries to resolve issues peacefully. Thats its objective - to make a happier world for all.

So far America has not experienced a time where they have lost dominance, as such their foreign policy doesn't cater for a time that dominance is not retained. - many other nations have and learn from past mistakes.

If the US is "there to help the world" - walk away from the middle east (yes middle east cheap oil will be harder to get your mitts on - but you have your own reserves), respect the UN, become a leader on environment stuff and help Africa.

[Elven Sex Goddess]

I am simply amazed at turning the United States as the poster child for colonialism.    When if you pull up any history of colonialism.  It is led by all the leading nations of Europe and their colonial empires.  We make games and glorify the era of piracy in the Caribbean.  When in truth these were nothing more then criminals and mercenary that often held as privateers were commissioned into service by the various powers at the times.    Just as they did so in the early part of the last century leading into the two world wars in the middle east.   

Then the chart is misleading,  on the differential of what is spent on military.  How can it even begin to compare the cost factors of each countries defense budget. 

Off the site that I found ranking the worlds countries in regards to military strength. 

The United States

PERSONNEL
Total Population: 303,824,640 [2008]
Population Available: 144,354,117 [2008]
Fit for Military Service: 118,600,541 [2008]
Reaching Military Age Annually: 4,266,128 [2008]
Active Military Personnel: 1,385,122 [2008]
Active Military Reserve: 1,458,500 [2008]
Active Paramilitary Units: 453,000 [2008]

ARMY
Total Land-Based Weapons: 29,920
Towed Artillery: 5,178 [2001]

NAVY
Total Navy Ships: 1,559
Merchant Marine Strength: 422 [2008]
Major Ports and Harbors: 10
Aircraft Carriers: 12 [2008]
Destroyers: 50 [2008]
Submarines: 75 [2008]
Frigates: 92 [2008]
Patrol & Coastal Craft: 100 [2008]
Mine Warfare Craft: 28 [2008]
Amphibious Craft: 38 [2008]

AIR FORCE
Total Aircraft: 18,169 [2003]
Helicopters: 4,593 [2003]
Serviceable Airports: 14,947 [2007]

FINANCES (USD)
Defense Budget: $515,400,000,000 [2009]
Foreign Exch. & Gold: $70,570,000,000 [2007]
Purchasing Power: $13,780,000,000,000 [2007]

OIL
Oil Production: 7,460,000 bbl/day [2007]
Oil Consumption: 20,800,000 bbl/day [2005]
Proven Oil Reserves: 21,760,000,000 bbl [2006]

LOGISTICAL
Labor Force: 153,100,000 [2007]
Roadways: 6,465,799 km
Railways: 226,612 km

GEOGRAPHIC
Waterways: 41,009 km
Coastline: 19,924 km
Square Land Area: 9,826,630 km

China

PERSONNEL
Total Population: 1,330,044,544 [2008]
Population Available: 729,323,673 [2008]
Fit for Military Service: 609,273,077 [2008]
Reaching Military Age Annually: 20,470,412 [2008]
Active Military Personnel: 2,255,000 [2008]
Active Military Reserve: 800,000 [2008]
Active Paramilitary Units: 3,969,000 [2008]

ARMY
Total Land-Based Weapons: 31,300
Tanks: 8,200 [2004]
Armored Personnel Carriers: 5,000 [2004]
Towed Artillery: 14,000 [2004]
Self-Propelled Guns: 1,700 [2004]
Multiple Rocket Launch Systems: 2,400 [2004]
Mortars: 16,000 [2001]
Anti-Tank Guided Weapons: 6,500 [2004]
Anti-Aircraft Weapons: 7,700 [2004]

NAVY
Total Navy Ships: 760
Merchant Marine Strength: 1,822 [2008]
Major Ports and Harbors: 8
Aircraft Carriers: 1 [2010]
Destroyers: 21 [2004]
Submarines: 68 [2004]
Frigates: 42 [2004]
Patrol & Coastal Craft: 368 [2004]
Mine Warfare Craft: 39 [2004]
Amphibious Craft: 121 [2004]

AIR FORCE
Total Aircraft: 1,900 [2004]
Helicopters: 491 [2004]
Serviceable Airports: 467 [2007]

FINANCES (USD)
Defense Budget: $59,000,000,000 [2008]
Foreign Exch. & Gold: $1,534,000,000,000 [2007]
Purchasing Power: $7,099,000,000,000 [2007]

OIL
Oil Production: 3,725,000 bbl/day [2007]
Oil Consumption: 6,930,000 bbl/day [2007]
Proven Oil Reserves: 12,800,000,000 bbl [2007]

LOGISTICAL
Labor Force: 800,700,000 [2007]
Roadways: 1,930,544 km
Railways: 75,438 km

GEOGRAPHIC
Waterways: 124,000 km
Coastline: 14,500 km
Square Land Area: 9,596,960 km

Russia

PERSONNEL
Total Population: 140,702,096 [2008]
Population Available: 73,239,761 [2008]
Fit for Military Service: 50,249,854 [2008]
Reaching Military Age Annually: 1,602,673 [2008]
Active Military Personnel: 1,245,000 [2008]
Active Military Reserve: 2,400,000 [2008]
Active Paramilitary Units: 359,100 [2008]

ARMY
Total Land-Based Weapons: 79,985
Tanks: 22,800 [2005]
Armored Personnel Carriers: 9,900 [2005]
Towed Artillery: 13,585 [2005]
Self-Propelled Guns: 6,010 [2005]
Multiple Rocket Launch Systems: 4,350 [2005]
Mortars: 6,100 [2005]

NAVY
Total Navy Ships: 526
Merchant Marine Strength: 1,074 [2008]
Major Ports and Harbors: 8
Aircraft Carriers: 1 [2005]
Destroyers: 15 [2005]
Submarines: 61 [2005]
Frigates: 19 [2005]
Patrol & Coastal Craft: 72 [2005]
Mine Warfare Craft: 41 [2005]
Amphibious Craft: 22 [2005]

AIR FORCE
Total Aircraft: 3,888 [2005]
Helicopters: 2,625 [2003]
Serviceable Airports: 1,260 [2007]

FINANCES (USD)
Defense Budget: $43,200,000,000 [2008]
Foreign Exch. & Gold: $476,400,000,000 [2007]
Purchasing Power: $2,097,000,000,000 [2007]

OIL
Oil Production: 9,870,000 bbl/day [2007]
Oil Consumption: 2,916,000 bbl/day [2006]
Proven Oil Reserves: 60,000,000,000 bbl [2006]

LOGISTICAL
Labor Force: 75,100,000 [2007]
Roadways: 854,000 km
Railways: 87,157 km

GEOGRAPHIC
Waterways: 102,000 km
Coastline: 37,653 km
Square Land Area: 17,075,200 km

You can't even begin to sort out the factors such as what it costs for each country to even support and maintain one soldier in comparsion to another.  Though the cost of one American soldier upkeep is not the same as one from China.  Let alone the cost of the weapon systems.  Thus putting up a graph that shows such is really a wash in playing semantics of the facts.  It is just like the distortion of facts that the United States gives the most money as a country to others, and on a private level of its citizens.  Yet ranks only 22nd in the world.   However, in this is not taken in account that not all Americans are rich and with money.  Thus with such a huge base it drives down the number in comparison to others.

So what drives the United States with needing to have such a strong military.  Sure you can find greed, greed is everywhere.   But the underlying policy of the past latter half of the century is the United States has been dragged into two world wars.   Dragged into a conflict in French Indo China, Vietnam.  Based on part because of Europe's over all view on communism.  Which if one looks at history is the reason why Germany fought on two fronts in each of  the wars.   The first one, it really was not about winning on the western front.  It was about stalling to win a peace agreement.   The real focus towards the end was to hit hard and what was feared and that was the state that emerged in Russia as the Soviet Union.  In such this carried over to the world war 2.   

Finally to easily place the Palestians as the ones that have been totally wronged.  Making the state of Israeli with their responses to rocket attacks and bombings of terrorist acts.   As the fault of Israel and their responses.   Well one has to look at the why of the response.  We tend to forget or over look twice the Arab world around Israel has risen up to put away their own age old differences to attack Israel. If you compare size and amount of people to each.  Israel is compelled to show such a superior show of overwhelming responses to such.   Especially when you have nations around you that to this day refuse to recognize you. 

On Germany and Japan,  I will go by a site with facts and not the hear say of because I talked to someone that is German.   Hell growing up, I had a Korean born step mother of sorts,  Actually a lived in girlfriend of my dads, as I was an Air force brat growing up.  Her mother came to visit from Korea and she hated anything to do with Japanese.  Perhaps because she had to endure the rape camps.  A culture that we tend to raise up as honorable with romantic notions of the era of Samurai.   Well that romantic notion in truth was Japan through out its history was the far east equivalent of  west colonial powers.  In such that gave rise to such historic notations as the Korean turtle ships that held off invasions.    To the Chinese losing a fleet to invade Japan to end such invasions.  So when one says the United States is the sole responsible for holding Japan down from rebuilding a military.  That is hardly the case, just have to look at the views of its neighbors in the region to see who really does not want Japan to reform its militant history. 

I am argue not to pit we against the world.  Because I truly thinks the world needs to step up, if you don't want the United States to be the big watch dog,  then take responsibility for what your just as much blame for creating.  An start doing something about it.  Instead of continuing pointing the finger and brushing off the woes are all based on American greed.   When the truth is much more complex and is the result of everyone being at fault.  Until the world steps up, the American response will be filtered with the same.  Because as pointed out the American public general view has been, we have been dragged into two world wars and numerous other incursions.  Due to what was once the result of colonialism.  In which we at our beginning was part of, and fought for our independence.

So like a married couple, the basic thing is trust, we don't trust the rest of the world.   So how about the rest of the world ask why this is, the most powerful nation in the world does not trust it.

Finally since this is about the conflict of the Israeli/Palestinians.   As I have tried to point out. This is not the cause of actions of the United States alone.  Nor the last sixty years.  But on a level that has spanned not a mere 2000 years, but can be traced back 5500 years to the first peoples that occupied the valley. the Canaanites.   So until that can be sorted out, and people can live together,  no matter who the United States, the United Nations,  or who ever.  The only peace will be formed at the end of a gun barrel in figure of speaking 

[kylie]

     Odin, I have to say you are sliding around an awful lot on trying to hold everyone down to WW2 thinking.  You seem to want a Nazi in the room so badly that you're losing sight of most of the present.  So first, a bit more detail on Japan...  Sure there was an Article 9 banning "offensive" capabilities.  It is not a simple, timeless extension of American claims of justice since 1945, because those keep changing!  It's been a point of contention, really, whenever the West (or some Japanese) change their mind and want something else from the Japanese military.  Often Japan has pointed to it to say, look, we aren't allowed to help the US fight, sorry and please don't ask us to send troops anymore.  Parts of that Article were written by the Japanese representatives in ways that actually took the American occupation by surprise.  The Occupation was not really in control of every institution that developed; they just sat on the territory and tried to mold things in a general direction. 

     This puts the whole notion that Japan was ever consistently punished all this time since WW2 in question.  But more to the point, it's all really a far cry from Palestine where Israel is making an economic stranglehold, now.  And there is no international Palestinian military (certainly not within Gaza or the West Bank) to compare with anything like the current Japanese military which does have large numbers and a conventional defense worth mentioning.

Palestine picked the losing side in a war and they're reaping the benefit of bad choices. Maybe they will learn or maybe they'll keep giving the Israelis good excuses to attack them.

Well, if it were that simple, let's dig up some more bad blood over 60 years and see what it would seem to demand of the world in the present if we stuck to certain parts.  You've provided a quote that indicates that only certain Palestinian factions were even against the allies in WW2 to begin with, but wanting to punish all of them about it forever is not a very practical (never mind ethical) option.   

     Germany invaded Russia in WW2 and inflicted tremendous suffering; perhaps the Soviets should have nuked NATO rather than risk allowing any resurgent Germany.  The US supported the terribly corrupt and sometimes brutal Marcos administration in the Philipines, perhaps that country should cut diplomatic ties with us and immigrant Filipinos whose relatives were harmed should begin sabotage and guerrilla attacks within the US.  We supported Saddam versus the Kurds just a few years back, so they should be working against our troops now.  The Iranians probably didn't vote for their president, but he says they did and they can't stop him -- is anyone allowed to say it isn't entirely their fault he hasn't been ousted?  But you might recall, we backed the Shah in Iran who had some quite brutal policies, more recently than WW2 occurred (should we leave Iran alone now because we were bad, back then).  We backed the Contras when they were rather unpopular in Nicaragua; what should that mean for trade and peace in Latin America?  Oh, and Sweden overran most of Northern Europe around the 16th-17th century I think?  Shouldn't they be punished some more?  Wherever does this thing end. 

     Hamas provides social services for Palestinians while Israel basically often embargoes them.  But you say if Hamas challenges Israel, it all doesn't matter.  How about taking away some of the factors that make the challenge meaningful?

[Elven Sex Goddess]

I am not going to rebuttal on such the Kurds and such, which is pretty much an untruth in regards to us assisting Saddam in carrying out genocide on the Kurdish people.  If they United States is guilty of anything in that regards.   It is not stepping in sooner for that reason.   

As to the other, that is seeking and stretching to thus continuing throwing the blame in one direction.  I could counter with history, but I sense that your mind is already made up and will not change.

However, what I will counter with is this lifting up of Hamas.  As if this organization is a benign government of the Palestinian people.   So I offer this, articles of the platform that is the party line of the Hamas. 

* Hamas is an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood (Art. 2);
    * Hamas' goal is Jihad and the death of Jews (Art. 7);
    * Jihad is the path of Hamas, and death for Allah its most sublime belief (Art. 8);
    * The land of Palestine is an Islamic inheritance (Art. 11);
    * All Muslims are duty-bound to commit Jihad against Israel (Art. 12);
    * Peace is not an option (Art. 13);
    * Muslims everywhere are duty-bound to liberate Palestine (Art. 14);
    * Muslims must study the enemy, looking for weak spots (Art. 16);
    * Western culture is a Zionist plot to distance women from Islam (Art. 17)
    * Women must train their children to become Jihad fighters (Art. 18);
    * Enemies rule the world through intermediaries such as the United Nations (Art. 22);
    * The PLO is too secular (Art. 27);
    * All Arab states must support Jihad (Art. 28);
    * All Muslim leaders must support Jihad (Art. 30);
    * Hamas cares about human rights and religious toleration, provided all other religions live in the shadow of Islam (Art. 31);
    * Peace accords are treacherous schemes of Zionists (Art. 32);
    * Jihad will not end until liberation is complete (Art. 33); and
    * Palestine is the navel of the earth and Jihad is our answer to the Christian Crusades (Art. 34).

[kylie]

I am not going to rebuttal on such the Kurds and such, which is pretty much an untruth in regards to us assisting Saddam in carrying out genocide on the Kurdish people.  If they United States is guilty of anything in that regards.   It is not stepping in sooner for that reason.

As I understand, we armed Saddam generally at that time, yes did nothing to intervene about it while internally, generally praising Saddam and sending Rummy over to visit in proximate years (if primarily as a balancer against Iran).

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/4936

As the Reagan administration had removed Iraq from the State Department list of State Sponsors of Terrorism, US companies were allowed to export chemical precursors to the Saddam regime.

Then, there is the little matter of the US not enforcing declared no-fly zones against Iraqi helicopters putting down the insurrection by Shiites in the South immediately after Gulf War 1991.  Some would argue that was basically setting up Saddam's opposition to be crushed...

As to the other, that is seeking and stretching to thus continuing throwing the blame in one direction. 

I never said the Palestinians were completely blameless.  I said basically, they have fewer options and are more practically boxed in.  Practically, though, how could the US proceed to change anything by blaming them -- particularly those who are residents in the West Bank and Gaza Strip?  Attempting to overly emphasize blame on the Palestinians has typically gone with arguments that feed into the status quo.  I don't think it's the best possible arrangement, just the one that people with the bigger guns and walls have decided to implement.  So I don't focus that way.  That's all.

However, what I will counter with is this lifting up of Hamas.  As if this organization is a benign government of the Palestinian people.   So I offer this, articles of the platform that is the party line of the Hamas.

They provide some services and they represent some real grievances.  If no one who actually has the options to do so addresses the grievances, then the idea of jihad will be more attractive to more people.  It's not simply some extremist blackmail.  The violence is only absolutely "senseless" for those who believe everything that is in place, is perfectly reasonable and should keep right on.  There is also a certain popular and somehow moral movement under it.  I think if one looks behind that for motivations though, there is a lot of inequality and some Israeli political snubbing fanning the flames.  Hamas can say whatever as a platform, much as the Republican right can.  It is common for more drastic goals to go on paper than anyone is really interested in fighting for -- and this is a region where people may ask 10 times the reasonable bus fare before you dicker.   I think how much intensity of conflict will actually fly in practice, depends on how besieged the Palestinian people feel.

[Callie Del Noire]

So what do we do?

Back out. Let them kill each other? I'm sure the radical Islamic elements would be more than happy to fight the the last Palestinan? I know Syria would love to help the Israelis into the ocean or put a bullet in the skull of everyone of them.

Point of fact. Both sides have done HORRIBLE things.  To make either side the victim isn't right.

But tell me how long the Isrealis would last without help? Or how likely that if push comes to shove someone Arab nations will be joining the atomic bomb victim club?

Is American policy right? No.

Do we need to get President Carter (with the backing of the government and Pres. Obama) to get them to sit, listen, and COMPROMISE.

Something neither side has done since the Palestinians tried to push them into the Med. (Though I don't blame them as much as their 'allies')

[Cythieus]

and you think Israel is the saint here when they were the very cause of this 4 decades of grief and suffering inflicted upon the weak and angry Palestinians? think again, the rocket attack did not happen after Hamas took over, it happens well before that together with the suicide bombings etc.

Get your fact straight, the Rocket attacks happened last year and Hamas took over in 2007.

The only way I think that America can walk away with some pride intact is if they themselves have practical conditions that amounts to Israel declaring war - even if they excuse it ( ie - build over this line and your really building Palestinian buildings for them - or an act of war ... choose ... while building the palestinians a hot city - or infrastructure for it about as far from Israel as possible plus give hot trade options with them.

How "Provoked" or "Justified" something is, is subjective.

if the US wants to be "done" with the middle east - walk away while it IS a mess -
then respect the UN positions thereafter (if you agree with it or not)
... dont veto UN decisions on it
.... don't ignore the UN's stance and do stuff against its recommendations anyway.

Provoked is provoked, if someone swings at you, hit or miss, you've got provocation right there. Hamas and Palestine constantly "swing" at Israel and the second Israel beats their ass they whine to the UN.

Also respecting the UN's descion doesn't mean you don't veto it or don't disagree with it. That's a horrible short sighted way to see things. I can respect your opinions but if I disagree I am going to say something. And the UN garners very little respect from anyone.

[Sydonai]

nope, the first Palestinian rocket to fell into Israeli territory(and hurts no one) is on 16 April 2001: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel,_2001%E2%80%932006

[Cythieus]

nope, the first Palestinian rocket to fell into Israeli territory(and hurts no one) is on 16 April 2001: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel,_2001%E2%80%932006

And that's not what I am talking about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Israel-Gaza_conflict

Thanks for playing though.

[Callie Del Noire]

And that's not what I am talking about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Israel-Gaza_conflict

Thanks for playing though.

Sorry.. you're not thinking like the folks involved are. This isn't about today. This sort of thing went back to the friggin 1920s! Memory, personal or cultural, plays as much into this as anything that went on since.

[Elven Sex Goddess]

It seems everyone is being subjective in interpreting history and facts to move their opinions on the subject.

First I ask where do you pick in history.  To has the right and claim to the area.  I mean if you really look at it, the so called chosen land, King Saul, King David and finally King Solomon really came before anything conceived as the Jihad or Islamic movement. 

I am not saying it makes what Israel does right.  My main point has been to point out that no matter who attempts to create a solution.   Be it through the United States,  the United Nations or who ever has to deal with a complex issue that has not been settled throughout history.   And what history has shown us, is only through the strength of military has any peace existed if such can be called in the region. 

As this is not the crusades,  this is not an extension of world war 2 and having chosen the wrong side.   This is an issue that is about humanity.  About people coexisting together.   To get past their prejudices.  Born of atrocities that both sides and the world has inflicted upon both sides.   

Which leads to the basis of this thread.  Should the United States pull out.  Pull out, I would assume meaning quit backing the Israeli.  That would in a matter of time amount to the eventual genocide of the Jewish people once again.    Of course a people that for the longest was forced from their claimed homeland.  That had just endured one of the most horrific atrocity in the holocaust with over 6 million killed.   You can see from where their moral judgment comes to how they respond.   While it does not excuse it gives basis for their actions.  While on the other hand,  what is the basis of the entire Arab world of Islam in conjunction to wanting to eradicate Israel.  I can understand the Palestinians fighting for what the believe is their right and homeland.    So the question is how does one get each side to recognize that each have claim and that it would behoove them both.  To form a agreement both can live with. 

I don't have the answer.  I only have an opinion based on what the past has shown.  That until it is worked out, no solution will work.   Which is the problem there, because they both come to the table with not latitude to effect this.

With one final point to be made.  That most pacifist/idealist here have based their formed opinions on rallying around the cause that Israel is the sole bully.  Disregarding the historical evidence which gives rise to cause of their actions.  While using the same very argument for the Palestinians and Arab world in turn against the brute of Israel.  Because of a underdog syndrome.   Which in truth places blame on both.   So instead of asking if America can pull out.  Or if the UN should get involve.  As how who ever it is, will go about this.  How do you change the face of secular and years of religion that propagates such on both sides to create a lasting peace of coexistence.

[Cythieus]

Sorry.. you're not thinking like the folks involved are. This isn't about today. This sort of thing went back to the friggin 1920s! Memory, personal or cultural, plays as much into this as anything that went on since.

What I posted was the most recent attempt to be peaceful and how the Palestinians are just as good a breaking treaties as the evil Israelis.

[Callie Del Noire]

What I posted was the most recent attempt to be peaceful and how the Palestinians are just as good a breaking treaties as the evil Israelis.

I personally think the President needs to smack both side's leaderships heads together. Sadly I fear the most rational leaders on both sides are long gone.

[Sydonai]

by recent attempt of Palestinian or Hamas breaking the truce? I assumed you mean in Jan 2009? because if it is(I would suggests that you give in a specific date of the breaking of the truce so it would make it easier for me to read and search about it) it was again Israel that break the truce first, not the palestinian, the rocket attacks was the result of Israel Illegal incursion/raid into Palestinian territory and killing 6 Hamas fighters.

United Nations: Hamas Did Not Break the Truce, Israel Did.

CNN Confirms Israel Broke Ceasefire First

With one final point to be made.  That most pacifist/idealist here have based their formed opinions on rallying around the cause that Israel is the sole bully.  Disregarding the historical evidence which gives rise to cause of their actions.  While using the same very argument for the Palestinians and Arab world in turn against the brute of Israel.  Because of a underdog syndrome.   Which in truth places blame on both.   So instead of asking if America can pull out.  Or if the UN should get involve.  As how who ever it is, will go about this.  How do you change the face of secular and years of religion that propagates such on both sides to create a lasting peace of coexistence.

I'm not even sure if religion has anything to do with it, I spoke with a Palestinian student that's been studying in my college and he said most of the reason for Palestinian continuous struggles and refusal to backed down even a little is the fact that the harsh environment they are living in has forces them to be so stubborn and vengeful, but he also mentions that most of his people fought to get their lands back and this has to them little to no relation to religion whatsoever as he claims of course but then again its not me who lives there and having to suffer everyday for it.

[Elven Sex Goddess]

I'm not even sure if religion has anything to do with it, I spoke with a Palestinian student that's been studying in my college and he said most of the reason for Palestinian continuous struggles and refusal to backed down even a little is the fact that the harsh environment they are living in has forces them to be so stubborn and vengeful, but he also mentions that most of his people fought to get their lands back and this has to them little to no relation to religion whatsoever as he claims of course but then again its not me who lives there and having to suffer everyday for it.

Funny thou such is not their case with the articles of the platform that is Hamas party line.  Nor is the killing between the two fractions.  The prior Fatah that ruled for more then thirty years and the surprisingly new leadership of Hamas, to in fact create a civil war within the Palestinians. 

But then your missing the very point in being made.  I am confident leading up to the creation of Israel.  That the Jewish people suffered leading to their need on forming a state of independence.   So I do not dismiss your friends view, but one person voice against what is the backdrop of the Hamas doctrine is just that a lone opinion that carries not the weight to persaude other wise.

Drawing upon history again.  I like to remind those that argue for the return of a Palestinian state.  To once again go back in history and re look it over. Before working with a revisionist history framework to support their argument.

As the British forces pulled out of Palestine and the mandate came to an end, the Executive Committee of the Jewish "Yishuv" (community) in Palestine met to decide whether or not to declare a state, as has been envisioned under UN Resolution 181. The Arab states had declared that if such a state was declared, they would invade it. Nonetheless, the committee decided to declare a state, armed with the promise of US President Harry S. Truman that he would recognize such a state if it was declared. The Israeli Declaration of Independence was read out on Friday, the 14th of May 1948 by   David Ben Gurion, who then became the first Prime Minister of the new state. The State was quickly recognized by the United States and the USSR.

The Palestinians did not declare a state immediately, and though several attempts were made to do so, they were blocked by the Jordanians and then by the Egyptians. The Egyptians later allowed the declaration of such a state in Gaza in September 1948, but it was recognized by no-one and had no resources and no real existence. Arab states had no interest in the formation of a separate state in Palestine, both because each state had territorial ambitions in Palestine, and because they feared the radical influence of Palestinian leadership under Haj Amin El-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.

[Kate]

Provoked is provoked, if someone swings at you, hit or miss, you've got provocation right there. Hamas and Palestine constantly "swing" at Israel and the second Israel beats their ass they whine to the UN.

- Odin

My statement of provocation concerned "Justified" actions in retaliation. What constitutes "excessive" equaling war ?

Also respecting the UN's descion doesn't mean you don't veto it or don't disagree with it. That's a horrible short sighted way to see things. I can respect your opinions but if I disagree I am going to say something. And the UN garners very little respect from anyone.

- Odin

I am not saying the USA can't VOTE (ie have their say, make their case to others etc) in the UN. What I meant was they should avoid using VETO (weird those two words share the same letters), and if the end finding (after all votes are tallied) is not the way the US voted... to accept the UN's "democratically" deduced position.

If the USA chooses stances which frustrates what the UN deems as aiding the "Uniting of Nations", respect is not deserved in that forum.

*

I don't think ANYONE really believes that any party is "good" from their own values of what good is 0 enough to justify something "very bad". Historically in any place mankind can go back and say "oh look that land which was rightfully ours ... wasn't really at this point we thought /did something selfish and assumed ownership"

If you give animals rights ... a bunch of cave men clearing a place of wolves so they can make a few huts and start a village because their wifes are pregnant or whatever is not "fair".

To them "peace" = I dont have to worry about wolves killing my family because I killed them all. My familiy's unmoderated dreams are more important than the dreams of that wolf pack, to give the best environment for my families dreams - wolves must be gone, poisonous snakes gone, spiders gone ... Oh I need to enslave some horses and some cows or goats perhaps. Once I do that I "own". I only "own" though to be free - free of having to moderate my wants to be in synergy with what else is here. For that to happen I need to be dominate - this ideal dream is a requirement. Mine. Me. This feels right.

Claiming that is the way of things is just dismissing its releavence to those that see those actions as a choice of principals that can change into something better which is still workable.

We don't live in harmony with anyone or anything, we often dont get along with our own family or lovers or even ourselves. Every emotion we have had feels justified to ourselves at the time while someone else looking on may "rightly" think "your insane" - a true view of what the observer believes is what that person should be managing regarding their own best interest.

I think everyone is sick to death of hearing about the middle east in the news our own bordem of the topic forms hard principals as the minds excuse not to think about it anymore.

A lot of my understanding of history is wrong, a lot of historians understanding of history is wrong. A lot of an individualks understanding of something private within them that justifies certain extreme feelings may not be based on "objective" reality.

nothing is "right or wrong", justified or otherwise from an "objective perspective".

Something that is objective has no vested interest in an event's interpretation of meaning, likely the only objective view is one that is not active and does not care.


Debating what is "right" ,, for america's involvement here is more trying to work out what america wants, expects and the conditions where these wants are revisited.

[Zakharra]

I am not saying the USA can't VOTE (ie have their say, make their case to others etc) in the UN. What I meant was they should avoid using VETO (weird those two words share the same letters), and if the end finding (after all votes are tallied) is not the way the US voted... to accept the UN's "democratically" deduced position.

If the USA chooses stances which frustrates what the UN deems as aiding the "Uniting of Nations", respect is not deserved in that forum.

I'm a bit confused.  You're saying that the US should not use it's veto power if  the UN wants to do something it disagrees with? Then if the UN  does something the US disagrees with we should just , essentually, bend over and take it?

That is NOT the way for an effective democracy (which the UN isn't. It's more of a debate club) should work.  By your reasoning, if the UN body and Security council decided to disband some nations to form a larger nation, or decided to vote on a resolution to take over a nation or nations, the US should not veto that resolution? Each nation uses it's veto power as that nation sees fit. As it fits that nation's self interests.  In this instance the US is doing what every other nation in the UN and on the US Security council is doing.

The UN is not a world government, even if some people wish it was. It has no military, no capital. It rules no nation. It's mostly a glorified debate club that has some powers that the members can disagree with and go against in ways.

[Kate]

by ignoring the UN and doing as you please the USA
is expecting others to "bend over and take it."

Granted less so than some other nations that have been more warmongering,
but not by as much as what many American's would deem good.

People - what do you all beleive the UN is for - and why VETOS existed for some countries at all ?

[Zakharra]

by ignoring the UN and doing as you please the USA
is expecting others to "bend over and take it."

Granted less so than some other nations that have been more warmongering,
but not by as much as what many American's would deem good.

People - what do you all beleive the UN is for - and why VETOS existed for some countries at all ?

As is everyone else that uses their veto. The veto option is there for that nation to use for it's national interests. China and Russia have used their vetos many times. Why? Because it's in their nation's self interest to oppose the proposal.

I believe the UN is nothing more than a debate club. A place for the nations of the world to talk things over in a somewhat civilized  manner.  The UN certainly cannot enforce any of it's resolutions or rulings.

[Elven Sex Goddess]

I  have a question on the vetoes Kate.   You continuously try to portray the United States as the bad guy.   

Yet when I look up the number of vetoes used over the years.  The USSR/Russia has a commanding lead on vetoes used.   124 to 82 for the US.     So what excuse would you offer for this.  Would it be by chance the explanation given by Zakharra.    Then that be pretty hypocritical to your argument. 

Here is the link providing this information.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security-council/tables-and-charts-on-the-security-council-0-82/use-of-the-veto.html

I tend to agree with Zakhara on this.  It is nothing more then a debate club.   Another avenue of diplomatic means.  Though not such that it precludes national interests.   That holds  no real power in truth.

[Kate]

As is everyone else that uses their veto.[/quote]

Quite right.

That's the problem.

This could be addressed first with the phasing in of "anti-vetos" that some countries can earn.

[Moreth]

I personally do not like the idea of involving American lives in anything in the middle east. While our government might be corrupt and the world may hate us. Just about every government or regime on earth is corrupt, America just gets the bully tag because we are currently the only hegemony. China may also be closing in on that title, I have not researched in a while. Israel is one of the most powerful small states on the planet, and I believe that can handle their own affairs now. I would like to see the U.S. disengage itself from conflicts that are religiously motivated. That area of the world will never be peaceful as long as 3 major religions call one piece of real estate sacred, and that's fact.

We should mind our own business and work on our problems at home like the war on drugs, prison overcrowding, finding energy alternatives, educating our citizens.

[kylie]

This might be of some interest. 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/17/cia-palestinian-security-agents

[Inkidu]

 I'll tell you why America constantly backs Israel is because if Israel ever thinks its back is to the wall and it''s going to lose its nation. They have no reservations about launching nukes at every major Middle Eastern city they don't particularly like; or their oil fields which will break the world economy like a rotten egg.

[Windfall]

I think it is going to be a deadlock for a long time, I used to be quite supportive of Israel because I felt they were getting undue condemnation by the world, when neither Israel or Palestine were more right than the other, but I don't get Israel anymore if they're still continuing to build settlements and limit the area for the Palestinians, I hope there will be a solution, just to hope and see.