Israel wont allow other countries to invest in Palestine. Ive heard that when people leave palestine they are not allowed to take anything and people coming in are not allowed to bring in any $
It's irrelevant if other countries spend money on the Palestinians, its in our best interest to make sure that they live well. It's also in Israel's best interest to make sure that they live well, however, those in power in Israel don't see it that way. Sooner or later the Israeli population will see it that way, because they'll tire of enless warfare, and want to raise their children in an environment that is peaceful. We'd save money if that were the case, because there'd be a lot less angst, and need for defensive measures if they lived well. Prior to the 67 war, the Palestinians were the educated class in the Middle East, and training most of their scientists, teachers, administrators, etc. Because of the conditions after that, those advantages have been lost. These people aren't dumb, and given the right equipment could again take their place in the world's society. Failure to ensure that this happens will cause more, and more dissention, death, and diminish everyone's standard of living there. My understanding is that Europe has started to boycott Israel's products, and has caused a mini depression in Israel. They use the treatment of the Palestinians as their justification for the boycott. That isn't good for anyone. Art
Art: I try to avoid the euopean products when I can. It is nice to know that the Europeans are such Saints. A little late ? Dumping more $$ into a corrupt dictatorship will not bring or buy peace. You want peace ? We all want peace. Peace with accountability. Not peace such as Clinton forced on the parties in 1993 that was left unfinished. Peace with a partner that has free elections, democracy, and ends corruption. That is the only way.
Ralph: If you make sure that they live well, they'll have something to lose. Keep them in ****, because you don't like their leadership is a sure guarantee of more trouble. We can argue about Clinton, et al, but the bottom line is that they live poorly, and poverty, angst breed trouble, for everyone. Best way to make an enemy your friend is to make sure that both of you live well. Best example is China/USA. The trade issue has turned them from opposition to our ally in a good many items. Art
Art the bottom line is the leadership has to be accountable. Even the EU which I mentioned as being Saints; are not willing to just write blank checks anymore to support elite and corrupt members of the regime. They have poked around and wanted to know where the funds went. Did the funds go to education, and welfare "or" elsewhere ? Mrs. Arafat is hopping around Paris with a monthly "allowance" of $100,000. Why change a thing ? The regime did not want to disclose where the funds went. I can give plenty of examples of $ money $ that was sent to the PA that was diverted to their own bank accounts. It never went to the street. The street is where the $ money $ is needed. If it were a democratically elected government, other free governments around the world would support it financially. Supporting a dictatorship will not bring about peace.
Whoah!!! Guys don't get your panties in a knot about the suitcase nukes. It is KGB we are talking about. They do not just "lose" a couple of dozen closely guarded nuclear weapons. The Russians are themselves spreading the rumors because they need money for dismantling the rest of their surplus nuke stock and re-employing some of the scientists in sensitive positions. Let's face it you can't be mad at us for that. Yesterday they found an alleged Assquida document purpoted to outline a plan to force the election issue. The Spanish obliged. Looks like the French are not alone in their "zeal" in war on Terror. Us Ivans been struck many times by some pretty atrocious attacks (hundreds of dead at a time) but still going strong. War against Terrorism is a war of attrition. As for poverty being a breeding ground for Terrorism, that is boloney. By that logic Ethiopia should be the biggest terror threat right now. None of the 9/11 terrorist were poor. Most were at least middle class. (One was even bought a mercedes for his wedding) Ditto for moneybags Assama and Assman Al'Zawahiri who was a well known doctor. When you are poor you have better things to do (like where to get food) then regurgitate messiahnic ideas. Look at all the anarchist terrorists in Russia in 19th century (including Lenin's brother. By the way, I visited Lenin's family house and it is HUGE, with large stables for numerous horses) they were all middle class. Just like today, all the lefties are students living on their parents largesse with so much free time they have nothing to do but protest for a fashionable cause du jour. (What ever happened to Free Tibet?) Not that I am a rabid pro American. But in my opinion people who protest against supposed American evils are cowards becuase they can protest against US safe in the knowledge nothing will ever happen to them. Nobody is out their demonstrating against Iran, becuase deep down they are all afraid of it.
I guess when I said the Arabs That means all Arabs! Which statement is more simple minded, mine or yours! Of course not all Arabs want the destruction of Isreal just like not all Democrats are communist *******s. But, I am sure the vast majority do, or at least enough of them do to make Isreal nervous. I suppose I need to be more specific in these conversations to make sure I please everyone. Give me a break! Let's face it, the Arabs have not shown anyone that they want anything otherwise!
kds, art, etc i believe that up until the start of the last intifada 3 years ago, the single biggest contributor to the palestinian relief fund was.....you guessed it, the USA. i think this is no longer the case since arafat rejected the last chance peace proposal at the whitehouse, and then it was discovered that most of our aid money was going to his own swiss account.... it may seem anethema to you art, but the government does actually know that trying to take care of somebody is a more effective way of calming them. what do you think we are doing in afghanistan and iraq today? trying to win hearst and minds with better services etc. by the way, for much of the 80's and 90's the USA was also the largest contributor of foreign aid to pakistan and egypt.
You go from sweeping generalization to slightly more specific back to sweeping generalization in one paragraph. Does that make sense to you? Hamas et al and Arafat have shown they don't want peace. The former want to destroy Israel and the latter is more concerned about maintaining power and his secret Swiss bank accounts. Then you have the people living in squalor in the camps, who can't earn a living, or the farmers whose fields are now on the other side of the security wall or the farmers whose olive trees get razed by the settlers. So all of the above fits into "the Arabs have not shown anyone that they want anything otherwise!"? If thinking it's that one-sided and simple helps you comprehend the situation, that's fine. Just know that reality is little more complex. Speaking of people who don't want peace, in February, an Israeli parliamentary committee approved $20M for new settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. Are you sure it's only "the Arabs" who don't want peace? Regards, Joe
I think you missed the point! I was trying to say that just because I say THE ARABS does not mean I am saying ALL ARABS! Get that straight! I am well aware of the fact that the situation is more complicated than that. I am trying to make a point which is, the reason Isreal has done what they have done is because they are surrounded by enemies that want to wipe them out! One of my good friends Tzvia Lanka just happens to be from Isreal. In fact, her family still lives there. I get first hand from her how things are over there so don't go trying to make on like I don't know what is going on. I am not saying everything they are doing is ok, nor am I saying that they have always handled the situation well. What I am saying is if you had to live under the constant threat of annihilation as they do you just might understand why they act the way they do! BTW IN GENERAL the Arabs do want to destroy Isreal but more specifically it is the radicals. There now, does that make you feel better?
I think a history lesson might be in order. Here is a quote from a paper co-written by a number of Ohio state professors in reaction to an anti-semetic article they had all read. "How has the world reacted to Israels success? With jealousy, anger and bitterness. Israel has been attacked repeatedly on all sides. On the day Israel gained its independence, the Arab states, which surrounded Israel declared an all-out war. Outnumbering the poorly equipped Israeli citizen-soldiers 100 to 1, these massive armies attacked on three fronts. Then in 1967, Israel was again threatened by the Arab world. Nassar vowed to drive Israel into the sea and mobilized along Israels borders. This time Israel struck first, and won a decisive victory in six days. Once again, Israel forgave its enemies and gave back the oil rich Sinai to Egypt. Today, we see world leaders demanding that Israel give back still more of their land. What more will the world ask of Israel.?" Interesting how even these highly inteligent well respected proffessors also use generalities when making a point. Notice how they say "the Arab world" but that is not even the point. Isreal has been under constant threat since the end of WWII and of course we all know how the Jews were treated during the war. On top of everything they have endured over the years they have also had to face the threat of terrorism. I think it is easy to understand why they have become what they are. Once again, so as not to confuse anyone, I am not saying I approve of everything they are doing or have done in the past. I am saying I understand why, that is all! I think just about any reasonable person can understand that!
Again Charles, that sentence makes no sense. How about this? "BTW IN GENERAL, the Israelis don't want peace but more specifically it is the extreme right." (you know, the ones who want to expand the settlements and even want to "ethnically cleanse" the Palestinians.) Don't presume to give me a history lesson Charles - I am aware of how things came to be. I fully support the right of Israelis to live in peace and security - I just happen to want the same for the Palestinians, and that makes me unusual amongst conservatives (or what passes for a "conservative" these days). As for Whatever Charles - I'm sure you get the whole story. I suspect you think FOX News is fair and balanced too right? Regards, Joe
Just so that no one can say that I am not trying to be objective, I'll post one for the other side. Here is something that was published by Hartford publishing a couple of years ago. BTW this is one of the things I think Isreal is doing wrong! Quote: Thirty-five years is not much as anniversaries go, but there are things to discuss so it will have to do. It is just thirty-five years since Israel won a crushing victory in the June, 1967, war and quadrupled the amount of territory it controlled in less than a week. It was a calamity for both sides, though only one side realized it at the time. For the Arabs, the catastrophe was complete, immediate and largely irreversible. In their first two wars with Israel, there had been excuses for defeat despite their huge numerical superiority. This time, there was none. In Israel's 1948-49 war of independence, its Arab neighbours were just emerging from centuries of colonial rule, and still lived under the rule of corrupt and incompetent monarchs like Egypt's King Farouk. In 1956, when Israeli forces attacked the Suez Canal in secret alliance with Britain and France, the Arab defeat could be blamed on their great-power opponents. But in 1967 the Israelis were on their own, and revolutionary young officers across the Arab world were promising unification, material progress and, above all, victory over Israel. For ten years they made blood-curdling threats about 'a battle of destiny' - and then were dumbfounded when the Israelis took their threats at face value and struck first. The Arab front-line states lost their air forces in the first hour of the war. Over the next 132 hours they also lost the Sinai peninsula and the Gaza Strip (Egypt), East Jerusalem and the West Bank (Jordan), and the Golan Heights (Syria). The despair and psychological demobilization across the Arab world were so great that even the regimes responsible for the defeat were allowed to survive. (Indeed, they survive still.) And that should have been the end of it. Like most other countries, Israel is built on land that was previously occupied by somebody else. It's no big deal, historically speaking. There is usually a good deal of fighting in the early stages, as the previous tenants resist eviction and their neighbours lend a hand, but then if you win a few wars they accept your borders and the confrontation subsides. By 1967, Israel had effectively reached that stage - so why is there still an Arab-Israeli conflict 35 years later? Prime Minister Levi Eshkol understood that the 1967 victory could be the basis of a peace settlement guaranteeing Israel's place as an accepted if unloved neighbour of its former enemies. On June 19, 1967, less than a week after the shooting stopped, his cabinet secretly agreed to withdraw to Israel's pre-war frontiers in the Sinai peninsula and the Golan Heights, returning all the captured land in return for peace, diplomatic recognition, and demilitarization of the territory that would be returned to Egypt and Syria. But that offer was never actually sent to the Egyptians and the Syrians, and the cabinet was never able to agree on returning the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem at all. After four months, it even dropped the idea of a land-for-peace' swap with Egypt and Syria. Poor little Samson, as Eshkol put it: the choices opened up by the 1967 victory completely paralyzed Israeli diplomacy. The problem was that Israel's victory was too big. Ultra-nationalist and messianic elements in Israel seized the opportunity to expand into the new territories, setting up settlements everywhere with the explicit purpose of making the conquests politically irreversible by creating facts on the ground. If anybody objected, they argued that the old borders were unsafe - although Israel had just beaten all its plausible opponents without even working up a sweat. A surprise Arab attack in 1973, though launched for strictly limited objectives and rapidly defeated by Israel, subsequently persuaded Menachem Begin's government to trade the Sinai peninsula for peace with Egypt, by far the biggest of Israel's Arab neighbours, but all the rest of the land captured by Israel 35 years ago is still under its control. Many Israeli leaders have tried to create a domestic consensus on trading it for a lasting peace, but it's just too tempting to hang onto it. IMHO they should return to thier former borders. This would show THE ARABS, (boy that is a risky thing to say here isn't it) that they really do want peace. No matter how you slice it though, terrorism is an unaceptable way for the Palestinians or Arabs or what ever you want to call them to convince Isreal to do this.
Did someone say it is? By the way, I also think it is unacceptable to launch missles at cars or buildings to kill a militant(s) and then write off the inevitable civilian deaths as collateral damage. Don't give me the "but the bad guys use civilians as shields" argument - the IDF is capable of a surgical strike anytime, anywhere. They just have to want to do it.
Here we go again with the assumptions. Just becasue I mention one source of information you come back with this lame attack. What is with you? I am trying to make a simple statement here which is that I understand why they act the way they do! How many times do I have to say I am not in support of everything they do! Good lord give me a break! I think you are just trying to pick a fight!
Unbelievable how one simple statement has somehow escalated into what seems to be in your mind, my complete support for everything Isreal does. Did you not read what I just posted? I am trying to see both sides here so get that through you thick head! Does anyone else here see what I am trying to say?
I am definitely NOT trying to pick a fight Charles - I seek discussion, not flame wars. I maintain you are over-generalizing and only seeing one side of the story. "I underastand why they act the way they do" is an example of our miscommunication. I too "understand" why Israel has a siege mentality, but that does not lead to justifying everything they do. I can leave it at that - maybe we just don't see eye to eye and that's fine. Regards, Joe
Re-read my posts Charles and see if you can comprehend what I feel are very clearly stated positions. Please note that I am not stooping to questioning your intelligence, i.e. the thickness of your head.
I never said it justifies anything! I think you should go back and read my former posts. I even tried to help your case by posting something from the other viewpoint. I see all the same things you do believe me!
I appoligise for that but give me a break. You have indirectly tried to insult my inteligence with some of your statements! Case in point Quote:What a simple-minded generalization! And then you try to back pedal by saying you were not trying to insult me. Then the comment about Fox news, and look at what you just said above! If you want to keep this disscusion civil then do so!
No, I most certainly have not Charles. I questioned your objectivity (or maybe the way in which you expressed yourself seemed one-sided to me). But like I said, I'll leave it at that.
