Questions about Isreal... - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Billy Ocean · 05-27-2003, 02:37 PM

It seems the Arabs don't like the US policy with Isreal, could someboy explain what the beef is all about in regards to US policy and explain how we might be able to make some changes?

The_Dude · 05-27-2003, 05:06 PM

well, US is an ally of isreal, and arabs hate isreal = they hate us.

the prez has supported actions of isreal very much, scolding on very few occasions = more hatred from the arabs.

the best way for the US to do here is get the hell out. dont condone or praise anybody's actions.
just stay out.

Billy Ocean · 05-27-2003, 05:59 PM

That's kinda what I'm asking here... what can be done to change that preception? what can we do to seperate from them?

Easytiger · 05-27-2003, 07:28 PM

There is the option of pretending that nearly sixty years of firm support for Israel by the U.S. government didn't happen...
I would say that it is more or less impossible for the U.S. to try to "seperate" from Israel.
What I'm reading here begs the question of WHY the U.S. would want to pull away from Israel. Anybody game to try answering that one?

The_Dude · 05-27-2003, 07:47 PM

we could pull out of that region.

stop supporting/condoning either nation (except condone extreme acts committed by eather side, but no support)

Easytiger · 05-27-2003, 09:37 PM

I would say that the damage has been done. You can't just pretend that sixty years of support didn't happen. Old hate is just as strong as new hate, and maybe even stronger.

Charlatan · 05-28-2003, 06:17 AM

There are way too many political financial supporters that are pro-Israel in the US... there is no way the US will stop supporting Israel.

There is also no way the US is getting out the middle east region any time soon... I don't think I really need to explain that.

Sticky · 05-28-2003, 11:15 AM

Why shouldn't the U.S. support any one country over the other?
How about answering that?

So many people are so worried about being politically correct?
Why shouldn't the U.S. have a better relationship with a country that has its interests and policies more in-line with its own?
Why shouldn't any coutry follow this same idea?

Nobody is asking why the U.S. supports South Korea more than they do Norht Korea?
Why have Free Trade with Canada and Mexico but not the rest of the world?

The reason is that the U.S. does not (and should not) treat everyone the same if they are not the same.

If there was no difference betwee two nations then it would make sense to ask why one has preferential treatment.
For example if there were two Canadas where everything was exactly the same yet the U.S. had a different foreign policy for each, the question of "why" would make sense.
However, different nations with different levels of compatibility require different approaches.

Note: Compatibilities are not always ideological, in fact they are often financial.

hiredgun · 05-28-2003, 11:29 AM

The reason the Arab world is at odds with Israel is mostly due to financial support (up to about $3 billion a year now) and unconditional diplomatic support. The US has a more one-sided policy on Israel than any other country in the world.

That said, the US has made many attempts at peace, (which on the whole is better for all involved, of course), most notably Clinton, who presided over the famous Handshake on the white house lawn, and who got very close to a new agreement near the end of his second term. A lot of this is overlooked by Arabs, though, because when push comes to shove, the US is on Israel's side in any dispute.

Right or wrong? It's hard to say. It's certainly true that the US has never questioned the human rights issues surrounding Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and its unauthorized, unilateral "incursions" into these territories last year, during which the Church of the Nativity caught fire in Bethlehem and the refugee camp of Jenin was nearly razed to the ground. Allegedly, the civilians of some occupied cities were forced to stay indoors (one could argue that this was for their own safety), but there were reports that anyone who left his home was shot at, and that even ambulance movement was frozen by IDF forces, effectively keeping the injured from receiving medical attention.

So as for the original topic, the reason the Arab world is at odds with the US is because of implied and overt support for Israel (which implies support for its aggressive policies against the Palestinians). Arab nations see hypocrisy in American denunciation of human rights abuses in Arab countries (where they are quite common), when they refuse to censure Israel for its treatment of Palestinians.

Of course, whether or not Israel's actions are justified is a topic for another thread, and one that could likely start a massive flame war.

clues_blues · 05-28-2003, 11:50 AM

i don't know too much about the source (christian science monitor), but i found this article to be a good explanation of what the hell is/has been going on over there...

http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/1026/p1s1-uspo.html

Phaenx · 05-28-2003, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Dude
well, US is an ally of isreal, and arabs hate isreal = they hate us.

the prez has supported actions of isreal very much, scolding on very few occasions = more hatred from the arabs.

the best way for the US to do here is get the hell out. dont condone or praise anybody's actions.
just stay out.

That might be okay (I doubt they would stop hating us if we stopped supporting Israel) for us, but screw Israel? Well maybe they'd be fine without us, they rocked face on like 3 or 4 arab countries back in the day and are still far better equipped then any country that might want to take them down. They have a problem with arabs that probably won't go away until we persistantly make these small steps forward over a very long period of time. To not lend a hand and just say screw it will not make us safe from terrorists, won't make them stop hating us, and will not lead to peace.

The_Dude · 05-28-2003, 01:20 PM

i think that the anger would considerably lessen if we stop interveing w/ their affairs.

let isreal fend for itself, as it very well can.

Lebell · 05-28-2003, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Dude
i think that the anger would considerably lessen if we stop interveing w/ their affairs.

let isreal fend for itself, as it very well can.

You have one government, Isreal, that has nuclear weapons.

You have another government, Iran, that has vowed to destroy Isreal and is pursuing nuclear weapons.

Do you really think a "hands off" policy is in our interest?

The_Dude · 05-28-2003, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell
You have one government, Isreal, that has nuclear weapons.

You have another government, Iran, that has vowed to destroy Isreal and is pursuing nuclear weapons.

Do you really think a "hands off" policy is in our interest?

fine, you want those irani nukes coming at us?

Lebell · 05-28-2003, 02:02 PM

What I am trying to get you to understand, is that a nuclear exchange between Israel and any Middle east country could possibly go global (this is a common scenario among war planners.)

Therefore it is in our best interest to make sure that NO exchange ever takes place.

The_Dude · 05-28-2003, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell
What I am trying to get you to understand, is that a nuclear exchange between Israel and any Middle east country could possibly go global (this is a common scenario among war planners.)

Therefore it is in our best interest to make sure that NO exchange ever takes place.

well, we better intervene in india and pakistan then, to me, they have more of a chance to have a nuke war.

that's not the point here.

yes, there is a possibility that this could go off.

but we're showing ourselves here as a very staunch ally of isreal = piss of hardcore hardline people who hate isreal to their death.

if we are going to get involved, we should come in w/ a neutral stance.

we shouldnt support either side's military actions and we should only condone especially haneous actions.

Lebell · 05-28-2003, 02:54 PM

We ARE involved with India and Pakistan.

And we ARE an Ally of Isreal, just as we are Allies with Egypt, UAE, Oman, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

As allies we help make sure these countries are stable. In return, we are given a place to store materials and in the event of conflict, logistic and possibly military support.

Our best bet for peace is not to let the region blow up by abandoning Isreal, but to get our Allies and the other players to make a peace deal.

If you think that we will acheive peace by abandoning Isreal, you are wrong. The militants will always find a reason to hate us and attack us.

Sticky · 05-28-2003, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Dude
fine, you want those irani nukes coming at us?

The_Dude, are you saying that if Iran launched anuclear missle against the U.S. that it would be due to the U.S.'s policy towards Israel.

Don't you think that it would be the insane lunatics who gave the orders to alunch the missle that would be to blame. Is disagreement with U.S. foreign policy a valid reason for launching a nuclear attack. Of course not (I hope you agree). Then why should the U.S. bow to these, effectively terrorists, threats and change their foreing policy.

Your comment sounds a lot like those people who blame Israel ans U.S. foreing policy for the 9/11 attacks.

Dragonlich · 05-28-2003, 11:38 PM

As long as many Arabs and their governments want Israel destroyed, along with all the Israelis inside... I see no reason for the US to come in with a neutral stance. How can you be neutral when one country is fighting for it's very survival, while others want it gone?

The Palestinian issue was created by the Arabs as a means to put pressure on Israel, and as a means of diverting their own population's attention away from their pathetic lives. There wouldn't have been a Palestinian problem had the Arabs left Israel in peace; instead they decided to attack the state *three* times in the past 50-60 years.

As for the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians: in normal conditions, I would disapprove of Israeli actions. However, with the Palestinians attacking Israeli civilians on a daily basis, I can't blame Israel for fighting back. And yes, I do know that part of the Palestinian terror stems from the Israeli occupation itself; yet, without occupation, there would still be terror attacks - Hamas and their kin want Israel *gone*.

And of course, I could ask: why aren't the Arabs angry at the equally brutal treatment of Kurds by Arab governments and their armies? Why aren't they angry at the treatment of Arab rebel groups fighting Arab governments? Why are the Palestinians so special to them? Could it be that they're only interested because it's Jews (and their Western backers) fighting Muslims? Could it be that most of that attention and anger is managed by their own government and media??? (Yes and yes, I'd say)

The_Dude · 05-29-2003, 04:50 AM

that's what the UN is for!

if isreal is fighting for it's survival, go to the UN and ask for assistance.

Dragonlich · 05-29-2003, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Dude
that's what the UN is for!

if isreal is fighting for it's survival, go to the UN and ask for assistance.

Yeah, right... Even if the UN were able to do anything at all (Bosnia? Congo? Iraq?), I doubt the Israelis would ever trust anyone else to safe them (Holocaust?).

In theory it's a nice idea; in practice it doesn't work that way. If you think it does, you're *very* naive.

Sticky · 05-29-2003, 07:28 AM

The_Dude
Right, ...go to the UN for assistance.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the UN's record with Israel.

Read this article http://broadscapeventures.com/weblog...es/000056.html

Here is a little bit of the article just to get you started:

Quote:

IN 1948, when the armies of five surrounding Arab dictatorships invaded tiny, newborn Israel--in what the secretary general of the Arab League announced was a "war of extermination" against "the Jews"--the United Nations sat on its ass. And did not send a fact-finding mission.

But, oh, how the U.N. has been making up for that oversight ever since. For more than 50 years now, the Jews have been its favorite subject.

Among the nearly 200 nations represented at the U.N., only Israel has ever been assigned special--reduced--membership privileges, its ambassadors formally barred, for 53 straight years ending only recently, from election to the Security Council. Meanwhile, and right up to the present day, that same Security Council has devoted fully a third of its energy and criticism to the policies of a single country: Israel. The U.N. Commission on Human Rights, which regularly--and unreprovingly--accepts delegations from any number of homicidal tyrannies across the globe, has issued fully a quarter of its official condemnations to a single (democratic) country: Israel...

...No fewer than four separate administrative units within the U.N.--two of them directly supervised by Kofi Annan's governing secretariat--do nothing but spend millions of dollars annually on the production and worldwide distribution of propaganda questioning Israel's right to exist...

...UNRWA funds and staffs the schools of Jenin, where, from fall through spring each year, children are taught that all of "Palestine," from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, belongs to them...

MacGnG · 05-29-2003, 07:49 PM

considering that neither group is going to leave israel nothing is going to happen any time soon...unfortunately. most people in israel live in peace but the radical groups on every side cause most of the problems and since they are RADICALS no one can control them so unless someone finds a way to control radicals all we can hope for is peace

Publius · 05-29-2003, 09:23 PM

Hello all. Just thought I'd drop a few links and/or book names for those who want to do some historical reading on this whole situation. I would incourage you to take a look at these books and draw your own conclusions based upon what you read. The first one can be found online here:

http://www.balkanunity.org/mideast/e...nism/index.htm

The second book is named 'Zealots for Zion' by Robert Friedman and can e purchased here or any other online book store. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...books&n=507846

I have used both of these sources for a major term project on a middle eastern class I was taking and having done background research on both books, everything that they talk about is true, which shocked the hell out of me. Anyway, happy reading.

Sticky · 05-30-2003, 01:44 PM

Publius, why don't you just recommend The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Lebell · 05-30-2003, 02:19 PM

I confess that I am unfamilar with those books and Ralph Schoenman in general.

Sticky, do you have any information on this person or perhaps sources to give a balanced or opposing viewpoint?

seretogis · 05-30-2003, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MacGnG
considering that neither group is going to leave israel nothing is going to happen any time soon...unfortunately. most people in israel live in peace but the radical groups on every side cause most of the problems and since they are RADICALS no one can control them so unless someone finds a way to control radicals all we can hope for is peace

Well, while you're "hoping", there should be efforts made to eliminate terrorist training camps, remove hateful anti-semitic/anti-American/anti-Arab speech from schools and public television/radio. Teaching them tolerance while they are young is one of the only ways to discourage blind hate. It's working in the US in regards to women/blacks/gays but it takes time.

Publius · 05-30-2003, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sticky
Publius, why don't you just recommend The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

LOL well I didnt because this book is german propaganda blaming the Jews for all the worlds problems. Although Ralph Schoenman is not a jew, Robert Friedman is, or should I say was, he died late last year. The distinction that you missed and that should be made here is between Jews and Zealots. While the Zealots in Isreal make up only about 20% of the population and they play a very significant role in Israeli policy especially towards Palestine. As much as we might like to think otherwise, the problems between Israel, Palestine, and the rest of the middle east are largely part of a religious war between the various fundimentalists groups in the religions sects in this region, ie Jews, Christians, Muslims and others. To compare this situation with racial discrimination is an injustice because it over simplifies the problem. Yes, I am saying that racial discrimination is simplistic compared to the religious make-up in this region. Additionally, I would like to clairify a term that is often used incorrectly. Semite refers to the people who live in the middle east and share a common language. Jews as well as most Arabs are Semites, so to call someone an anti-semite means that they hate both Jews and Arabs. So it is unlikely that either a Jew or an Arab would be an Anti-Semite themselves.

Let me further state that I am in no way attempting to justify or condone the actions of the Palestinian terror groups. But by the same token I do not support the way in which Israel has treated its Arab neighbors. Both sides are equally guilty of horrible crimes, but unfortunatly here in the US we usually only hear about the crimes commited by the Palestinian terrorist because the media largly ignores the actions of the Zionist terrorists. I recommended these two books because they show the other side of the story, the side we don't hear unless we go looking for it. Both of these books try to be objective about the situation, but you must keep in mind that this is next to impossible. One's own oppinions will always have an impact on one's writtings no matter how objective one thinks themself to be. (myself included)

As I stated previously, I used both of these books as sources for a term project for one of my middle eastern studies classes. (note. because I am new I suppose I should explain that I am a dual major in political science and philosophy) The purpose of the paper was to choose books about the particular problems in the middle east and then critically analize the information contained there in. Although there are some obvious political leanings in both books, the factual evidence stated therein is all true and can be verified with minimal effort both in Israeli and US media. (again, Im a college student so minimal is best cause Im lazy) So, as I previously stated I recommend that everyone who is interested in the subject read these books, critically, and check out the sources for your self. You will be surprised by what you learn.

MacGnG · 05-30-2003, 10:21 PM

seretogis... true

The_Dude · 05-31-2003, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Publius
LOL well I didnt because this book is german propaganda blaming the Jews for all the worlds problems. Although Ralph Schoenman is not a jew, Robert Friedman is, or should I say was, he died late last year. The distinction that you missed and that should be made here is between Jews and Zealots. While the Zealots in Isreal make up only about 20% of the population and they play a very significant role in Israeli policy especially towards Palestine. As much as we might like to think otherwise, the problems between Israel, Palestine, and the rest of the middle east are largely part of a religious war between the various fundimentalists groups in the religions sects in this region, ie Jews, Christians, Muslims and others. To compare this situation with racial discrimination is an injustice because it over simplifies the problem. Yes, I am saying that racial discrimination is simplistic compared to the religious make-up in this region. Additionally, I would like to clairify a term that is often used incorrectly. Semite refers to the people who live in the middle east and share a common language. Jews as well as most Arabs are Semites, so to call someone an anti-semite means that they hate both Jews and Arabs. So it is unlikely that either a Jew or an Arab would be an Anti-Semite themselves.

Let me further state that I am in no way attempting to justify or condone the actions of the Palestinian terror groups. But by the same token I do not support the way in which Israel has treated its Arab neighbors. Both sides are equally guilty of horrible crimes, but unfortunatly here in the US we usually only hear about the crimes commited by the Palestinian terrorist because the media largly ignores the actions of the Zionist terrorists. I recommended these two books because they show the other side of the story, the side we don't hear unless we go looking for it. Both of these books try to be objective about the situation, but you must keep in mind that this is next to impossible. One's own oppinions will always have an impact on one's writtings no matter how objective one thinks themself to be. (myself included)

As I stated previously, I used both of these books as sources for a term project for one of my middle eastern studies classes. (note. because I am new I suppose I should explain that I am a dual major in political science and philosophy) The purpose of the paper was to choose books about the particular problems in the middle east and then critically analize the information contained there in. Although there are some obvious political leanings in both books, the factual evidence stated therein is all true and can be verified with minimal effort both in Israeli and US media. (again, Im a college student so minimal is best cause Im lazy) So, as I previously stated I recommend that everyone who is interested in the subject read these books, critically, and check out the sources for your self. You will be surprised by what you learn.

exactly, and aj jazheera does the exact opposite, they only show the attacks by isreal.

Publius · 06-01-2003, 12:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Dude
exactly, and aj jazheera does the exact opposite, they only show the attacks by isreal.

True true, but when was the last time you watched aj jazheera here in the US?

Sticky · 06-02-2003, 08:06 AM

Here are some links on Ralph Schoenman the author of one of the books that Publius recommending.

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_co...&x_article=371

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_co...&x_article=205

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_co...ticle=144#scho

About Camera: http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=24

http://www.adl.org/presrele/dirab%5F41/3963%5F41.asp

http://www.adl.org/sih/sih%2Dprint.asp

About the ADL: http://www.adl.org/main_about_adl.asp

The following is a quote from another of Ralph Schoenman's books
"The hand of the FBI and of the Mossad is all over the bombing events of the World Trade Center in 1993. ..."
http://www.balkanunity.org/mideast/e...tab3.htm#item1

As for the term anti-semite
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/featur...fid=1861586058
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/featur...fid=1861586057
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=anti-semite

Publius · 06-03-2003, 12:56 AM

Sticky,
I dont mean to keep dragging this out but I cant help myself here. I realize that there are some problems with some of Ralph Schoenman's work, and I believe I commented on the fact that there is always a bios in reporting. All I am asking is that people read both sides of the story before they make conclusions. If Robert Friedman's book had been online and therefore free to everyone I would have stopped with his work. Since it is not and Schoenman's is then I included it as well. Now you are obviously a smart person, and I respect you for this, so I dont want to get into any sort of flame war here. I am just attempting to present a case for the other side of the story and people can draw whatever conclusion that they want. Showing both sides is what is called fairness in reporting.

As for the whole semite, anti-semite issue, I realize that in this country anti-semite is used in reference to people who dislike/hate jews. But I am a student of the world culture and in the middle east it is an oxymoron to tell a Arab that he is an anti-semite.

http://www.bartleby.com/61/87/S0258700.html
Semite
1. A member of a group of Semitic-speaking peoples of the Near East and northern Africa, including the Arabs , Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, Hebrews, and Phoenicians. 2. A Jew. 3. Bible A descendant of Shem.

It there for stands to follow that an anti-semite includes all of the above ethnic groups. Although it may not mean this here, it does mean it over there, which was my original point.

Why am I making such a big deal about all of this? Well for one I do not like the way in which the media in this country is only portraying one side of the issue. For another my professor and mentor, who I will leave unnamed other than to say that he worked in the foreign embassies as part of the CIA in and around the middle east for 25 years, has instilled in me a desire to objectively view all the evidence before making any conclussion about a situation. Lastly, I will be leaving in a few weeks to spend the summer in the middle east, doing field research, learning the language, and of course doing some sight seeing. Cheers, Publius

Dragonlich · 06-03-2003, 02:03 AM

Okay Publius... how's about calling anti-Jewish guys from a Semitic background "Anti-Jewish" then? Then we have no more problems with "anti-semitic" being weird to Arabs.

Sticky · 06-03-2003, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Publius
Hello all. Just thought I'd drop a few links and/or book names for those who want to do some historical reading on this whole situation. I would incourage you to take a look at these books and draw your own conclusions based upon what you read. The first one can be found online here:

http://www.balkanunity.org/mideast/e...nism/index.htm

The second book is named 'Zealots for Zion' by Robert Friedman and can e purchased here or any other online book store. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...books&n=507846

I have used both of these sources for a major term project on a middle eastern class I was taking and having done background research on both books, everything that they talk about is true, which shocked the hell out of me. Anyway, happy reading.

My problem with you comment is that in recommending these books you referred to them as "historical reading" and you said "everything that they talk about is true".

It is one thing to say that it is a point of view and that we should be open to the points of view of both sides. It is another to claim that it is "Historical" and "True". Opinions are not historical and true, they are opinions.

Publius · 06-03-2003, 08:06 PM

I've been thinking about how best to respond to this. I could go and pull out sightations backing them up with actual news reports from mainstream Western and Jewish media, but I'm to lazy. I could ask you if there is any one particular with either book that you disagree with. So far you have focused primarily on Ralph Schoenman's work, and I have conceeded that 'some' of his work in that past has been problematic, although I have yet to see anything specificly wrong with this particular selection. However, I would challenge, (maybe that is to strong of a word) you to find anything wrong with the work of Robert Friedman.

As for historical fact, lets get the facts straight. Historical 'facts' are decided upon by the winners or ruling class. ie.
Columbus discovered America. Hmmm, but now we know that Columbus re-discovered America because the Vikings had already established colonies here nearly 400 years before. But wait, there were already millions of people living here, how can you discover something that millions of people already know about? What we normally read in the mainstream American media is the 'facts' from a particular point of view. They are 'true' from this perspective. What I am asking people to do is to look at things from a different perspective, that of the Arabs in the Tri-Continental Hub. From their perspective the 'history' portrayed in these books is true. If you want to understand why things are the way that they are you have to see both sides.

Sticky · 06-04-2003, 09:15 AM

I agree with you that different people (or groups of people) have a different perspective about history.

As you described above, peoples opinions differ about who discovered America but what we can agree on is that in 1492 Columbus lead an expidition across the Atlantic Ocean and they ended up landing on what we now refer to as America.

Events can be historical.

To say that Columbus gay, however, would be historically inacurate unless there was recorded evidence of him saying he was gay. In fact, even if there was eye-witness testimony from someone that say him having sex with another man it still does not prove that he was gay. Who knows what the circumstances were surrounding the situation.

My point is that there are facts and there is interpretation.
The eyewitness can factually say that he saw Columbus having sex with another man but the eyewitness cannot factually say that Columbus is gay.

Similarly, we can fatually say that Columbus arrived in what is now called America with his expidition yet we cannot factually say that he was the sole (or first) discoverer of America as you pointed.

Again, similarly, an author can factually and historically reports what actions happened but to say that an event proves that people are a certain way is factually and historically inacurate.

I have not focused on Friedman becuase I cannot comment on what I have not read. It would be unfair of me to do so.

XenuHubbard · 06-06-2003, 11:35 PM

Okay, all Americans, move out.

I want Vinland back.

Sun Tzu · 06-11-2003, 11:23 PM

http://www.fmep.org/

05-27-2003, 02:37 PM	#1 (permalink)
Billy Ocean Crazy Location: City London UK	Questions about Isreal... It seems the Arabs don't like the US policy with Isreal, could someboy explain what the beef is all about in regards to US policy and explain how we might be able to make some changes?

05-27-2003, 05:06 PM	#2 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	well, US is an ally of isreal, and arabs hate isreal = they hate us. the prez has supported actions of isreal very much, scolding on very few occasions = more hatred from the arabs. the best way for the US to do here is get the hell out. dont condone or praise anybody's actions. just stay out. __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

05-27-2003, 05:59 PM	#3 (permalink)
Billy Ocean Crazy Location: City London UK	That's kinda what I'm asking here... what can be done to change that preception? what can we do to seperate from them? __________________ "To live outside the law you must be honest." - Bob Dylan

05-27-2003, 07:47 PM	#5 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	we could pull out of that region. stop supporting/condoning either nation (except condone extreme acts committed by eather side, but no support) __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

05-28-2003, 06:17 AM	#7 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	There are way too many political financial supporters that are pro-Israel in the US... there is no way the US will stop supporting Israel. There is also no way the US is getting out the middle east region any time soon... I don't think I really need to explain that. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

05-27-2003, 07:28 PM	#4 (permalink)
Easytiger Insane Location: Tigerland	There is the option of pretending that nearly sixty years of firm support for Israel by the U.S. government didn't happen... I would say that it is more or less impossible for the U.S. to try to "seperate" from Israel. What I'm reading here begs the question of WHY the U.S. would want to pull away from Israel. Anybody game to try answering that one?

05-27-2003, 09:37 PM	#6 (permalink)
Easytiger Insane Location: Tigerland	I would say that the damage has been done. You can't just pretend that sixty years of support didn't happen. Old hate is just as strong as new hate, and maybe even stronger.

05-28-2003, 11:15 AM	#8 (permalink)
Sticky	Why shouldn't the U.S. support any one country over the other? How about answering that? So many people are so worried about being politically correct? Why shouldn't the U.S. have a better relationship with a country that has its interests and policies more in-line with its own? Why shouldn't any coutry follow this same idea? Nobody is asking why the U.S. supports South Korea more than they do Norht Korea? Why have Free Trade with Canada and Mexico but not the rest of the world? The reason is that the U.S. does not (and should not) treat everyone the same if they are not the same. If there was no difference betwee two nations then it would make sense to ask why one has preferential treatment. For example if there were two Canadas where everything was exactly the same yet the U.S. had a different foreign policy for each, the question of "why" would make sense. However, different nations with different levels of compatibility require different approaches. <i>Note: Compatibilities are not always ideological, in fact they are often financial.</i> __________________ Sticky The Stickman

05-28-2003, 11:29 AM	#9 (permalink)
hiredgun Addict	The reason the Arab world is at odds with Israel is mostly due to financial support (up to about $3 billion a year now) and unconditional diplomatic support. The US has a more one-sided policy on Israel than any other country in the world. That said, the US has made many attempts at peace, (which on the whole is better for all involved, of course), most notably Clinton, who presided over the famous Handshake on the white house lawn, and who got very close to a new agreement near the end of his second term. A lot of this is overlooked by Arabs, though, because when push comes to shove, the US is on Israel's side in any dispute. Right or wrong? It's hard to say. It's certainly true that the US has never questioned the human rights issues surrounding Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and its unauthorized, unilateral "incursions" into these territories last year, during which the Church of the Nativity caught fire in Bethlehem and the refugee camp of Jenin was nearly razed to the ground. Allegedly, the civilians of some occupied cities were forced to stay indoors (one could argue that this was for their own safety), but there were reports that anyone who left his home was shot at, and that even ambulance movement was frozen by IDF forces, effectively keeping the injured from receiving medical attention. So as for the original topic, the reason the Arab world is at odds with the US is because of implied and overt support for Israel (which implies support for its aggressive policies against the Palestinians). Arab nations see hypocrisy in American denunciation of human rights abuses in Arab countries (where they are quite common), when they refuse to censure Israel for its treatment of Palestinians. Of course, whether or not Israel's actions are justified is a topic for another thread, and one that could likely start a massive flame war. Last edited by hiredgun; 05-28-2003 at 11:32 AM..

05-28-2003, 11:50 AM	#10 (permalink)
clues_blues Tilted Location: 3 feet high and rising	i don't know too much about the source (christian science monitor), but i found this article to be a good explanation of what the hell is/has been going on over there... http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/1026/p1s1-uspo.html __________________ nothing to see here

05-28-2003, 01:20 PM	#12 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	i think that the anger would considerably lessen if we stop interveing w/ their affairs. let isreal fend for itself, as it very well can. __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

05-28-2003, 02:02 PM	#15 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	What I am trying to get you to understand, is that a nuclear exchange between Israel and any Middle east country could possibly go global (this is a common scenario among war planners.) Therefore it is in our best interest to make sure that NO exchange ever takes place. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

05-28-2003, 02:54 PM	#17 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	We ARE involved with India and Pakistan. And we ARE an Ally of Isreal, just as we are Allies with Egypt, UAE, Oman, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. As allies we help make sure these countries are stable. In return, we are given a place to store materials and in the event of conflict, logistic and possibly military support. Our best bet for peace is not to let the region blow up by abandoning Isreal, but to get our Allies and the other players to make a peace deal. If you think that we will acheive peace by abandoning Isreal, you are wrong. The militants will always find a reason to hate us and attack us. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

05-28-2003, 11:38 PM	#19 (permalink)
Dragonlich 42, baby! Location: The Netherlands	As long as many Arabs and their governments want Israel destroyed, along with all the Israelis inside... I see no reason for the US to come in with a neutral stance. How can you be neutral when one country is fighting for it's very survival, while others want it gone? The Palestinian issue was created by the Arabs as a means to put pressure on Israel, and as a means of diverting their own population's attention away from their pathetic lives. There wouldn't have been a Palestinian problem had the Arabs left Israel in peace; instead they decided to attack the state three times in the past 50-60 years. As for the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians: in normal conditions, I would disapprove of Israeli actions. However, with the Palestinians attacking Israeli civilians on a daily basis, I can't blame Israel for fighting back. And yes, I do know that part of the Palestinian terror stems from the Israeli occupation itself; yet, without occupation, there would still be terror attacks - Hamas and their kin want Israel gone. And of course, I could ask: why aren't the Arabs angry at the equally brutal treatment of Kurds by Arab governments and their armies? Why aren't they angry at the treatment of Arab rebel groups fighting Arab governments? Why are the Palestinians so special to them? Could it be that they're only interested because it's Jews (and their Western backers) fighting Muslims? Could it be that most of that attention and anger is managed by their own government and media??? (Yes and yes, I'd say)

05-29-2003, 04:50 AM	#20 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	that's what the UN is for! if isreal is fighting for it's survival, go to the UN and ask for assistance. __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

05-29-2003, 07:49 PM	#23 (permalink)
MacGnG Know Where!	considering that neither group is going to leave israel nothing is going to happen any time soon...unfortunately. most people in israel live in peace but the radical groups on every side cause most of the problems and since they are RADICALS no one can control them so unless someone finds a way to control radicals all we can hope for is peace

05-29-2003, 09:23 PM	#24 (permalink)
Publius Crazy Location: Never Never Land	Hello all. Just thought I'd drop a few links and/or book names for those who want to do some historical reading on this whole situation. I would incourage you to take a look at these books and draw your own conclusions based upon what you read. The first one can be found online here: http://www.balkanunity.org/mideast/e...nism/index.htm The second book is named 'Zealots for Zion' by Robert Friedman and can e purchased here or any other online book store. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...books&n=507846 I have used both of these sources for a major term project on a middle eastern class I was taking and having done background research on both books, everything that they talk about is true, which shocked the hell out of me. Anyway, happy reading.

05-30-2003, 01:44 PM	#25 (permalink)
Sticky	<b>Publius</b>, why don't you just recommend The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. __________________ Sticky The Stickman

05-30-2003, 02:19 PM	#26 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	I confess that I am unfamilar with those books and Ralph Schoenman in general. Sticky, do you have any information on this person or perhaps sources to give a balanced or opposing viewpoint? __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

05-30-2003, 10:21 PM	#29 (permalink)
MacGnG Know Where!	seretogis... true

06-02-2003, 08:06 AM	#32 (permalink)
Sticky	Here are some links on Ralph Schoenman the author of one of the books that <b>Publius</b> recommending. http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_co...&x_article=371 http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_co...&x_article=205 http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_co...ticle=144#scho About Camera: http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=24 http://www.adl.org/presrele/dirab%5F41/3963%5F41.asp http://www.adl.org/sih/sih%2Dprint.asp About the ADL: http://www.adl.org/main_about_adl.asp The following is a quote from another of Ralph Schoenman's books <i>"The hand of the FBI and of the Mossad is all over the bombing events of the World Trade Center in 1993. ..." http://www.balkanunity.org/mideast/e...tab3.htm#item1 As for the term anti-semite http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/featur...fid=1861586058 http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/featur...fid=1861586057 http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=anti-semite __________________ Sticky The Stickman

06-03-2003, 12:56 AM	#33 (permalink)
Publius Crazy Location: Never Never Land	Sticky, I dont mean to keep dragging this out but I cant help myself here. I realize that there are some problems with some of Ralph Schoenman's work, and I believe I commented on the fact that there is always a bios in reporting. All I am asking is that people read both sides of the story before they make conclusions. If Robert Friedman's book had been online and therefore free to everyone I would have stopped with his work. Since it is not and Schoenman's is then I included it as well. Now you are obviously a smart person, and I respect you for this, so I dont want to get into any sort of flame war here. I am just attempting to present a case for the other side of the story and people can draw whatever conclusion that they want. Showing both sides is what is called fairness in reporting. As for the whole semite, anti-semite issue, I realize that in this country anti-semite is used in reference to people who dislike/hate jews. But I am a student of the world culture and in the middle east it is an oxymoron to tell a Arab that he is an anti-semite. http://www.bartleby.com/61/87/S0258700.html Semite 1. A member of a group of Semitic-speaking peoples of the Near East and northern Africa, including the Arabs , Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, Hebrews, and Phoenicians. 2. A Jew. 3. Bible A descendant of Shem. It there for stands to follow that an anti-semite includes all of the above ethnic groups. Although it may not mean this here, it does mean it over there, which was my original point. Why am I making such a big deal about all of this? Well for one I do not like the way in which the media in this country is only portraying one side of the issue. For another my professor and mentor, who I will leave unnamed other than to say that he worked in the foreign embassies as part of the CIA in and around the middle east for 25 years, has instilled in me a desire to objectively view all the evidence before making any conclussion about a situation. Lastly, I will be leaving in a few weeks to spend the summer in the middle east, doing field research, learning the language, and of course doing some sight seeing. Cheers, Publius

06-03-2003, 02:03 AM	#34 (permalink)
Dragonlich 42, baby! Location: The Netherlands	Okay Publius... how's about calling anti-Jewish guys from a Semitic background "Anti-Jewish" then? Then we have no more problems with "anti-semitic" being weird to Arabs.

06-03-2003, 08:06 PM	#36 (permalink)
Publius Crazy Location: Never Never Land	I've been thinking about how best to respond to this. I could go and pull out sightations backing them up with actual news reports from mainstream Western and Jewish media, but I'm to lazy. I could ask you if there is any one particular with either book that you disagree with. So far you have focused primarily on Ralph Schoenman's work, and I have conceeded that 'some' of his work in that past has been problematic, although I have yet to see anything specificly wrong with this particular selection. However, I would challenge, (maybe that is to strong of a word) you to find anything wrong with the work of Robert Friedman. As for historical fact, lets get the facts straight. Historical 'facts' are decided upon by the winners or ruling class. ie. Columbus discovered America. Hmmm, but now we know that Columbus re-discovered America because the Vikings had already established colonies here nearly 400 years before. But wait, there were already millions of people living here, how can you discover something that millions of people already know about? What we normally read in the mainstream American media is the 'facts' from a particular point of view. They are 'true' from this perspective. What I am asking people to do is to look at things from a different perspective, that of the Arabs in the Tri-Continental Hub. From their perspective the 'history' portrayed in these books is true. If you want to understand why things are the way that they are you have to see both sides.

06-04-2003, 09:15 AM	#37 (permalink)
Sticky	I agree with you that different people (or groups of people) have a different perspective about history. As you described above, peoples opinions differ about who discovered America but what we can agree on is that in 1492 Columbus lead an expidition across the Atlantic Ocean and they ended up landing on what we now refer to as America. Events can be historical. To say that Columbus gay, however, would be historically inacurate unless there was recorded evidence of him saying he was gay. In fact, even if there was eye-witness testimony from someone that say him having sex with another man it still does not prove that he was gay. Who knows what the circumstances were surrounding the situation. My point is that there are facts and there is interpretation. The eyewitness can factually say that he saw Columbus having sex with another man but the eyewitness cannot factually say that Columbus is gay. Similarly, we can fatually say that Columbus arrived in what is now called America with his expidition yet we cannot factually say that he was the sole (or first) discoverer of America as you pointed. Again, similarly, an author can factually and historically reports what actions happened but to say that an event proves that people are a certain way is factually and historically inacurate. I have not focused on Friedman becuase I cannot comment on what I have not read. It would be unfair of me to do so. __________________ Sticky The Stickman

06-06-2003, 11:35 PM	#38 (permalink)
XenuHubbard Cute and Cuddly Location: Teegeeack.	Okay, all Americans, move out. I want Vinland back. __________________ The above was written by a true prophet. Trust me. "What doesn't kill you, makes you bitter and paranoid". - SB2000

06-11-2003, 11:23 PM	#39 (permalink)
Sun Tzu Conspiracy Realist Location: The Event Horizon	http://www.fmep.org/ __________________ *To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking*