Quote:
Originally posted by Darkblack
Here is a scenario for you. Say it is the year 3003 and Canada became this great power and started moving into our land saying it was their holy land. We are a third world nation now and do not have a huge military. France is a huge superpower and funds Canada for years. Eventually we are pushed back to California. This is where we make our last stand. George W Bush VI is president and he is trying to keep what little land we have left. France offers us Watts as a peace agreement if we stop fighting. Canada tells Bush to dismantle our militia because they are terrorists that are attacking their people.
Are we in the wrong? As Americans would we support Bush into bending over and taking it in the rear? As Bush, would you decide to dismantle the only soldiers you have left trying to keep your land?
I know this is a bit of an extreme example but I think most of you are a bit to far out of the area to really know what is going on. You only know what you see on the media and are not thinking about what is going on and what the history is over there.
|
Interesting that you build a scenario that is not analogous and then say that people here are not thinking of the history over there.
Anyway, I'll play
My problems with your analogy are thus:
-"Canada" is not an identifiable group or culture; it is a nation composed of different cultures.
-Even if it were, there is no historical claim to the US being it's 'holy land'.
-There has never been an appreciable "Canadian" culture or nation within current US borders.
-US does not shell Montreal or blow up passenger buses in Vancouver.
-The US has always recognized Canada's right to exist and has not tried to destroy it and "Canadian" culture.
In contrast:
-There has never been a nation of "Palestine". There has however been a historical Israel as well as an Ottoman empire.
-There have always been Jews in the region known as Palestine.
-The Jews that moved to Palestine in the 20's and 30's bought the land they live on. When the Arabs in the region saw their growing numbers, they attacked the Jews and descriminated against them.
-When the British was leaving the region (after having occupied it after the collapse of the Ottoman empire), they tried to make room for everyone. Had the Palestinians and other Arabs accepted the UN partition, they would have recieved HALF of what is now Israel.
-Isreal has tried for numerous peace treaties with their Arab neighbors since 1948. In response, they have been attacked 4 more times. In the first 2 of those wars (1956 and 1967), the stated goal was the TOTAL DESTRUCTION OF ISRAEL.
-After each conflict, it was the Palestinians who willingly left their homes for Jordan and Syria, confident that the next Arab attack would drive back the Israelis.
-Where Arab nations have been willing to sign peace treaties and recognize the Israelis right to exist, Israel has ceased all military action and returned land captured during those conflicts.
----------------------------
Now, for my own caveauts.
Frankly, I don't know what to do about the middle east. Sometimes I think the Israelis really need to step back and see what is the best way to get what they want: peace.
I do not think some of the things they are doing is conductive to that.
This includes building new settlements in areas that are nominally slated for an independent Palestinian state.
But to claim that Israel is the sole or primary agressor here ignores over 50 years of history.