You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 06, 2016, 03:58:05 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: America what is with your current stance between Israel and Palestine ?  (Read 9847 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline KateTopic starter

Re: America what is with your current stance between Israel and Palestine ?
« Reply #25 on: November 05, 2009, 10:04:57 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2009, 10:10:31 AM by Kate »

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: America what is with your current stance between Israel and Palestine ?
« Reply #26 on: November 05, 2009, 10:08:04 AM »
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?

Offline kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: America what is with your current stance between Israel and Palestine ?
« Reply #27 on: November 05, 2009, 11:09:40 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2009, 11:13:47 AM by kylie »

Offline Zakharra

Re: America what is with your current stance between Israel and Palestine ?
« Reply #28 on: November 05, 2009, 01:41:42 PM »
 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.

Offline Kotah

Re: America what is with your current stance between Israel and Palestine ?
« Reply #29 on: November 05, 2009, 01:53:36 PM »

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.

Offline Chea

Re: America what is with your current stance between Israel and Palestine ?
« Reply #30 on: November 05, 2009, 07:01:32 PM »
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.

Offline Morven

Re: America what is with your current stance between Israel and Palestine ?
« Reply #31 on: November 06, 2009, 01:51:40 AM »
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.

Offline Kotah

Re: America what is with your current stance between Israel and Palestine ?
« Reply #32 on: November 06, 2009, 02:04:28 AM »
Not to mention war is profitable if your the right people.

Offline kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: America what is with your current stance between Israel and Palestine ?
« Reply #33 on: November 06, 2009, 02:43:57 AM »
Quote from: Zakharra
    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.

Quote
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.
   
Quote
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?

Quote
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?

Quote
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"...
« Last Edit: November 06, 2009, 02:46:23 AM by kylie »

Offline Elven Sex Goddess

  • All doorways lead to adventure.
  • Lady
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2006
  • Location: In the mind's canvas of life's eroticism.
  • Gender: Female
  • "Imagination is the fruit of sensuality"
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: America what is with your current stance between Israel and Palestine ?
« Reply #34 on: November 06, 2009, 05:09:07 AM »
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.   

Offline KateTopic starter

Re: America what is with your current stance between Israel and Palestine ?
« Reply #35 on: November 06, 2009, 08:43:40 AM »
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 ?
« Last Edit: November 06, 2009, 09:27:24 AM by Kate »

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: America what is with your current stance between Israel and Palestine ?
« Reply #36 on: November 06, 2009, 09:23:45 AM »
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.

Offline Will

Re: America what is with your current stance between Israel and Palestine ?
« Reply #37 on: November 06, 2009, 10:21:30 AM »
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.

Offline Jude

Re: America what is with your current stance between Israel and Palestine ?
« Reply #38 on: November 07, 2009, 01:09:28 PM »
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:

Quote from: Wikipedia Deuteronomy Page
- 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.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2009, 01:10:38 PM by Jude »

Offline KateTopic starter

Re: America what is with your current stance between Israel and Palestine ?
« Reply #39 on: November 07, 2009, 09:14:00 PM »
Jude that is an excellent summary.

Offline Serephino

Re: America what is with your current stance between Israel and Palestine ?
« Reply #40 on: November 07, 2009, 09:52:53 PM »
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. 

Offline Will

Re: America what is with your current stance between Israel and Palestine ?
« Reply #41 on: November 07, 2009, 10:17:05 PM »
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.

Offline KateTopic starter

Re: America what is with your current stance between Israel and Palestine ?
« Reply #42 on: November 07, 2009, 11:20:25 PM »
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.


Offline Will

Re: America what is with your current stance between Israel and Palestine ?
« Reply #43 on: November 07, 2009, 11:29:56 PM »
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.

Offline KateTopic starter

Re: America what is with your current stance between Israel and Palestine ?
« Reply #44 on: November 08, 2009, 12:09:31 AM »
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")

« Last Edit: November 08, 2009, 12:14:57 AM by Kate »

Offline Jude

Re: America what is with your current stance between Israel and Palestine ?
« Reply #45 on: November 08, 2009, 01:35:41 AM »
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.

Offline Elven Sex Goddess

  • All doorways lead to adventure.
  • Lady
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2006
  • Location: In the mind's canvas of life's eroticism.
  • Gender: Female
  • "Imagination is the fruit of sensuality"
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: America what is with your current stance between Israel and Palestine ?
« Reply #46 on: November 08, 2009, 05:55:31 AM »
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. 


Offline Will

Re: America what is with your current stance between Israel and Palestine ?
« Reply #47 on: November 08, 2009, 09:14:34 AM »
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.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: America what is with your current stance between Israel and Palestine ?
« Reply #48 on: November 08, 2009, 09:55:41 AM »
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.

Offline Jude

Re: America what is with your current stance between Israel and Palestine ?
« Reply #49 on: November 08, 2009, 11:18:50 AM »
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.