RE: Israel

RE: Israel (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

kdsub -> RE: Israel (10/4/2012 11:52:04 AM)
quote: You might have a valid point, Butch. I guess Israel will have to take the whole West Bank then. Oh wait, they have pretty much done that, haven't they? One of the problems Vince is the peace process is not just Palestine and Israel. It is Israel and the surrounding hostile Arab nations as well. There is plenty of room for negotiation over settlements and land between Israel and Palestine but not in giving up strategic corridors for invasion. I wish all outside interference in the basic dispute could be eliminated but that will not happen with super powers supporting both sides. Butch

kdsub -> RE: Israel (10/4/2012 12:01:41 PM)
To me the only way peace will come about is if a recognized Palestinian state is established with agreed upon secure borders with free access to trade and transportation in and through Israel. And Israel’s right to exist is inviolate and without attack, or threat of attack, by neighboring states. This would require some permanent alteration of pre-1967 Israeli borders. Butch

vincentML -> RE: Israel (10/4/2012 12:06:41 PM)
quote: One of the problems Vince is the peace process is not just Palestine and Israel. It is Israel and the surrounding hostile Arab nations as well. Agreed, Butch. But with the rise of the Islamists (Islamic Fundamentalists) and the fall of secular govts in the region the issue becomes more dire. How long for Jordan and then Arabia after Assad falls?

kdsub -> RE: Israel (10/4/2012 12:18:42 PM)
I am not quite as pessimistic as you I suppose. Outside of religion or perhaps along with religion people just want to live peaceful lives. Islamic fundamentalism is a step back in human development. It will not last or succeed because it will never bring peace with freedom. When the passion dies and people must live under the oppression of fundamental Islamic law the desire for peace, freedom, and quality of life will again redirect their passion and overthrow their oppressors. At least again in my opinion and hope. Butch

vincentML -> RE: Israel (10/4/2012 2:37:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub I am not quite as pessimistic as you I suppose. Outside of religion or perhaps along with religion people just want to live peaceful lives. Islamic fundamentalism is a step back in human development. It will not last or succeed because it will never bring peace with freedom. When the passion dies and people must live under the oppression of fundamental Islamic law the desire for peace, freedom, and quality of life will again redirect their passion and overthrow their oppressors. At least again in my opinion and hope. Butch You have a very Western outlook, Butch. Afghanistan was invaded three times by the British, once by the Soviets, and now by America. Syria and Lebenon were under the control of France. Iraq and Transjordan were dominated by the British and later by GWB Iran had a Shah imposed upon them by the the British and Americans, and the Shah's secret police, the SAVAK, were incredibly cruel. Egypt fell prey to French, British, and Americans who supported Mubarak. Algeria suffered the oppression of France. See a trend here? The "oppressors" have been Western. It is colonialism that is being overthrown. Now, how do you suppose the Islamic world views the Israelis???

Politesub53 -> RE: Israel (10/4/2012 4:16:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub To me the only way peace will come about is if a recognized Palestinian state is established with agreed upon secure borders with free access to trade and transportation in and through Israel. And Israel’s right to exist is inviolate and without attack, or threat of attack, by neighboring states. This would require some permanent alteration of pre-1967 Israeli borders. Butch Spot on Butch.

vincentML -> RE: Israel (10/4/2012 5:44:41 PM)
quote: Israel’s right to exist is inviolate and without attack, or threat of attack, by neighboring states. This would require some permanent alteration of pre-1967 Israeli borders. That assumes that the character of "neighboring states" will not undergo alteration, that the staus quo will be maintained. I see no valid reason for that assumption. The trend is not Israel's friend.

kdsub -> RE: Israel (10/4/2012 6:13:32 PM)
quote: Now, how do you suppose the Islamic world views the Israelis Will the same can be said for them when it comes to the Israeli's...remember who has claim to that area of earth. Jews have just as much claim as Muslims ...In fact as has been said they are from the same ancestors. Jews were a nation and in possession long before Muslims so where do you draw a line in history. Butch

Anaxagoras -> RE: Israel (10/4/2012 6:29:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML You have a very Western outlook, Butch. Afghanistan was invaded three times by the British, once by the Soviets, and now by America. Syria and Lebenon were under the control of France. Iraq and Transjordan were dominated by the British and later by GWB Iran had a Shah imposed upon them by the the British and Americans, and the Shah's secret police, the SAVAK, were incredibly cruel. Egypt fell prey to French, British, and Americans who supported Mubarak. Algeria suffered the oppression of France. See a trend here? The "oppressors" have been Western. It is colonialism that is being overthrown. Now, how do you suppose the Islamic world views the Israelis??? Vincent, if you want to genuinely analyse the ME, you need to leave that left-wing anti-Western stuff to the side for the truth is that Islam was very much given to empire building as was the Christian West. It is merely circumstance that the Ottomans were stopped at Vienna, whilst the West later had superior technology to take much of the Middle East. It could even be said Islam was founded as a colonial enterprise for there was just a mere hundred year gap between Mohammad having his first visions and Islamic conquest well into Asia, covering North Africa and reaching Spain. No other faith expanded to remotely the same extent in such a time frame, and there have been a few Islamic empires since. Of course the West did damage there but the reality is they did elsewhere too, and more so such as in India. Yet there isn't remotely the same phenomenon that we have in the ME. If it was to overthrow colonialism, why do so many Islamists that influenced the Arab Spring seek to re-establish the Islamic caliphate? The ME is really a pre-modern society.

vincentML -> RE: Israel (10/4/2012 7:49:18 PM)
quote: Vincent, if you want to genuinely analyse the ME, you need to leave that left-wing anti-Western stuff to the side for the truth is that Islam was very much given to empire building as was the Christian West. It is merely circumstance that the Ottomans were stopped at Vienna, whilst the West later had superior technology to take much of the Middle East. It could even be said Islam was founded as a colonial enterprise for there was just a mere hundred year gap between Mohammad having his first visions and Islamic conquest well into Asia, covering North Africa and reaching Spain. Anax, thank you for a reasoned and leveled response. Let me respond first to the above. Agree the Muslims were/are a religion of the sword which spread through north Africa and well into Europe from the East and from the South. Driven out of Spain in the 15th C and stopped at Vienna by a counter attack in 1683 thanks to intervention of the Prince or King or whatever of Poland. No question in my mind that Islam was and still is an imperialist religion. At the same time, Christiandom had spread the WORD by sword and horse throughout the New World. Two continents added to the "Holy Roman Empire" [8\|] of western Europe. quote: No other faith expanded to remotely the same extent in such a time frame Isn't it a toss up as to which religion was the fiercest and most aggressive imperialist? I submit it is so. quote: Yet there isn't remotely the same phenomenon that we have in the ME. If it was to overthrow colonialism, why do so many Islamists that influenced the Arab Spring seek to re-establish the Islamic caliphate? The ME is really a pre-modern society. If I understand you correctly here you are saying the desire to re-establish the Islamic Caliphate is a signal that the Islamists are a pre-modern society. I hope I have your meaning correct. Firstly, if you search it out I think you will find that the Caliphate c800-1100 AD (dates off the top of my head) was a time of great intellectual tolerance and achievement in Baghdad. The same transpired in Spain before Isabella. It is not for nothing we use Arabic numerals and Algebra today, and the works of Classical Greece and Hellenism were preserved while Europe wallowed in medieval ignorance. On the other hand, you are spot on when you say today's Islamists are pre-modern. Their potential success bodes ill for the Islamic world. And possibly for Europe as well. This is the most serious danger to western civilization imo. So, the question remains: how far back shall we go to analyze the causes and effects of current events in the ME and South Asia? The 15th C in Spain? The 17thC in Vienna? I submit to you those dates and events are too far behind us. For our purposes I suggest modern day issues have their genesis in the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire in 1919. It is not a matter of "Left-wing anti-Western stuff." Surely, whatever our politics can't we agree that we are suffering the consequences of post-colonialism throughout the non-white world. Not only the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, but also the fall of the German, British, and French empires, as well as the implosion of the Soviet Union. Other than Afghanistan we have yet to hear from the other land-locked 'stans.' I think we are in a post colonial world, Anax, with implications for Asia, Africa, South America, and the ME. The West sadly is reaping the Whirlwind. What do you think?

Politesub53 -> RE: Israel (10/5/2012 3:28:10 AM)
Colonial empires, as a term, usually applies to modern european nations. The world itself has been full of expansionism since the Ice Age finished. Vikings, Phonecians, Romans, Assaryians, Israel, Iran (Persia) The Mongols, Celts, the Zulus.....And a host of others I have forgotten. All have sought to expand there territories. much of Islam, was spread through trade, some here want to deny that and while its okay to ignore me, it isnt okay to ignore history. The most successful colonialists have always been the ones who have assimilated with the locals. Islam spread eastwards due to, not inspite of, the Mongol invasion of the middle east. There were also Muslim missionaries travelling with the traders of the day. The violent spread of Islam came during the Ottoman Empire, but was no different to the spread of Christianity of that time. Infact, when Muslims withdraw Spain and Sicily, those Muslims who stayed behind were forced to either convert to Christianity or leave. Anything different is just revisionism at best, bullshit at worst. Vincent, you are correct, there was hardly any expansion under the Abbasids (Unsure of the dates but roughly what you said)

Anaxagoras -> RE: Israel (10/5/2012 5:42:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Anax, thank you for a reasoned and leveled response. Let me respond first to the above. Agree the Muslims were/are a religion of the sword which spread through north Africa and well into Europe from the East and from the South. Driven out of Spain in the 15th C and stopped at Vienna by a counter attack in 1683 thanks to intervention of the Prince or King or whatever of Poland. No question in my mind that Islam was and still is an imperialist religion. At the same time, Christiandom had spread the WORD by sword and horse throughout the New World. Two continents added to the "Holy Roman Empire" [8\|] of western Europe. No offense Vincent but I pointed out that both the Christian West and Islamic East did the same in response to your expressed view that the West was solely to blame for colonisation so we should have a similar view here. However, you refer to Syria, Lebanon, Jordan (AKA Palestine) etc. Its worth pointing out they were under the Ottoman Empire for centuries just before that, and had passed from other Islamic empires. If you were being consistent that would be significant for you too yet it was not worthy of mention. [8\|] Christianity did indeed spread in that fashion through the New World, and brutally, albeit Missionaries were not always acting in concert with the authorities, whilst Protestants escaping persecution traveled to North America, bringing with them their faith so its not quite as black and white as you appear to be suggesting. quote: quote: No other faith expanded to remotely the same extent in such a time frame Isn't it a toss up as to which religion was the fiercest and most aggressive imperialist? I submit it is so. It is not easy to measure the aggression of vast civilisations over major periods of time. I would suggest Islam was worse broadly speaking but there were also times when Muslims exhibited greater tolerance than Christians, and Christian expansionism exhibited a genuine barbarity too, e.g. the Crusades. However, one difference is very overt indeed. The Christian West went through an immense transformation from the Enlightenment onward, whilst in Islam the change has been marginal for the most part. quote: quote: Yet there isn't remotely the same phenomenon that we have in the ME. If it was to overthrow colonialism, why do so many Islamists that influenced the Arab Spring seek to re-establish the Islamic caliphate? The ME is really a pre-modern society. If I understand you correctly here you are saying the desire to re-establish the Islamic Caliphate is a signal that the Islamists are a pre-modern society. I hope I have your meaning correct. Firstly, if you search it out I think you will find that the Caliphate c800-1100 AD (dates off the top of my head) was a time of great intellectual tolerance and achievement in Baghdad. The same transpired in Spain before Isabella. It is not for nothing we use Arabic numerals and Algebra today, and the works of Classical Greece and Hellenism were preserved while Europe wallowed in medieval ignorance. No disrespect but the above view you express is one oft expressed by apologists. It is too black and white imo. It is odd how few people have heard of the Carolingian Renaissance from the 800's! People even say no one in the West could speak Greek, yet Eriugena (regarded as the greatest philosopher of the era) came from my patch of the World, and was translating important Greek texts. Similarly it would be hard to say that any piece of Eastern art truly bettered an illuminated manuscript called "The Book of Kells" which comes from a distant Western outpost. Note as well the explosion in Medieval philosophy as further texts from ancient Greece came Westward - this started to happen after 1000 AD. Re. tolerence, would this happen to be the same Baghdad (during the same period) that required Jews to wear bells to mark them out as unclean and corrupting? The tolerence exhibited in Moorish Spain is greatly exaggerated, with the relative tolerance of the time only (due to a policy of co-existence) existing for a very short period of time. Some of the Christian kingdoms were tolerant too. quote: On the other hand, you are spot on when you say today's Islamists are pre-modern. Their potential success bodes ill for the Islamic world. And possibly for Europe as well. This is the most serious danger to western civilization imo. So, the question remains: how far back shall we go to analyze the causes and effects of current events in the ME and South Asia? The 15th C in Spain? The 17thC in Vienna? I submit to you those dates and events are too far behind us. For our purposes I suggest modern day issues have their genesis in the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire in 1919. It is not a matter of "Left-wing anti-Western stuff." Surely, whatever our politics can't we agree that we are suffering the consequences of post-colonialism throughout the non-white world. Not only the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, but also the fall of the German, British, and French empires, as well as the implosion of the Soviet Union. Other than Afghanistan we have yet to hear from the other land-locked 'stans.' In my opinion we have to back to the beginning. Why? Because Islam is a religious entity that looks back to its own history and scripture for understanding of itself. Taking a highly selective view that only allows for relatively recent history will not get to the truth, and the consequences of such a stance are potentially disasterous when it comes to conflict. BTW some of the former soviet states that are Islamic come from a very different (largely secular) political environment so extremism may hopefully not be as great an issue. quote: I think we are in a post colonial world, Anax, with implications for Asia, Africa, South America, and the ME. The West sadly is reaping the Whirlwind. What do you think? I'm afraid I don't think so Vincent for the reasons mentioned above. Note I don't think the impact of Western policies hasn't had a negative impact but I think it has been grossly exaggerated, hence my comments about the "Left". It may sound like a strange thing to say but I believe the real conflict in the ME isn't so much to do with the West as it is presently constituted, being a largely secular entity. Hence my comment about the ME existing in pre-modern conditions. Rather it is based on perceptions of shadows of times past.

vincentML -> RE: Israel (10/5/2012 7:54:05 AM)
quote: I'm afraid I don't think so Vincent for the reasons mentioned above. Note I don't think the impact of Western policies hasn't had a negative impact but I think it has been grossly exaggerated, hence my comments about the "Left". It may sound like a strange thing to say but I believe the real conflict in the ME isn't so much to do with the West as it is presently constituted, being a largely secular entity. Hence my comment about the ME existing in pre-modern conditions. Rather it is based on perceptions of shadows of times past. We have more common ground here than one might think at first glance, Anax. I apologize for lacking crispness in my presentation. More succinctly stated, the power structure of the world has changed since 1919 with the collapse of Western Empires. Delayed by WW II and the Russo/American conflict, the emergence of the former colonies has been a fact of geopolitical reality. But it has not been without a struggle. Instead of supporting democratic factions our obsession over communism lead us to throw our lot in with dictators and kings. Specifically in Southeast Asia, the ME, and Latin America. It is too long and tedious a list to hang on this wall. Returning to a debate of pre-20 Century history is a futile exercise except to identify the forces at work today. I acknowledge again that the Islamists are pre-modern in their views. So are Christian fundamentalists and their eschatological embrace of Israel. My point is that our leaders have dealt badly with the post-colonial vacuum. Often, hubris and delusions of exceptionalism have lead them to faulty actions. Little wars here and there. Consequently, reactionary Islamists have gained adherents at the expense of modernist, secular, potentially democratic Muslims. We continue to stir the hornets' nest of the post-colonial world. We are wasting time and bandwidth debating and blaming the past. The empires are dead. What do we do with what is at hand? That is the question we should encounter, imo. There we may differ greatly, you and I. I fear the presence of Israel will only continue to contribute to the rage of the reactionaries. I see no solution there. Sorry if it is a gloomy outlook I have. ETA: we haven't even touched upon the changing demographics between the West and the World of Color (the WOC)

Anaxagoras -> RE: Israel (10/5/2012 11:29:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: I'm afraid I don't think so Vincent for the reasons mentioned above. Note I don't think the impact of Western policies hasn't had a negative impact but I think it has been grossly exaggerated, hence my comments about the "Left". It may sound like a strange thing to say but I believe the real conflict in the ME isn't so much to do with the West as it is presently constituted, being a largely secular entity. Hence my comment about the ME existing in pre-modern conditions. Rather it is based on perceptions of shadows of times past. We have more common ground here than one might think at first glance, Anax. I apologize for lacking crispness in my presentation. More succinctly stated, the power structure of the world has changed since 1919 with the collapse of Western Empires. Delayed by WW II and the Russo/American conflict, the emergence of the former colonies has been a fact of geopolitical reality. But it has not been without a struggle. Instead of supporting democratic factions our obsession over communism lead us to throw our lot in with dictators and kings. Specifically in Southeast Asia, the ME, and Latin America. It is too long and tedious a list to hang on this wall. That did happen but its important to note that the West did not do this in isolation. The USSR developed its own puppet states arguably due to greater intervention (e.g. Afghanistan). Thus this activity was done out of a sense of fear and preservation. I think this activity needs to be understood in that context. You mentioned the West supporting Mubarak. Indeed but the US had been exerting pressure on him to allow elections for a long time, and he was of the chain that included Nasser, who was a revolutionary in his time. quote: Returning to a debate of pre-20 Century history is a futile exercise except to identify the forces at work today. I really don't think so. We are talking about a time that lasted into the early decades of the 20th Century, hardly a hundred years in a society that has remained relatively static, and is increasingly looking backward. They had existed in those conditions for many centuries, whilst the relatively intrusive Mandates etc. only existed for a few decades. quote: I acknowledge again that the Islamists are pre-modern in their views. So are Christian fundamentalists and their eschatological embrace of Israel. The end-of-times Christians that support Israel are not that major a part of broad Christian support for the State. Its more a US phenomenon. Many far more mainstream (and sometimes liberal) Christians see Israel and the Jews it constitutes as kindred. I suggest you look up what St. Paul said in Romans 11 to gain some insight into what I mean. quote: My point is that our leaders have dealt badly with the post-colonial vacuum. Often, hubris and delusions of exceptionalism have lead them to faulty actions. Little wars here and there. Consequently, reactionary Islamists have gained adherents at the expense of modernist, secular, potentially democratic Muslims. We continue to stir the hornets' nest of the post-colonial world. We are wasting time and bandwidth debating and blaming the past. The empires are dead. What do we do with what is at hand? That is the question we should encounter, imo. There we may differ greatly, you and I. I fear the presence of Israel will only continue to contribute to the rage of the reactionaries. I see no solution there. Sorry if it is a gloomy outlook I have. ETA: we haven't even touched upon the changing demographics between the West and the World of Color (the WOC) The presence of Israel to any extent is seen as objectionable to Muslims the world over, even to quite tolerant Muslims sadly. It is a state constituting the People of the Book within Dar al Islam, and as such it is intolerable, even as a 10% statelet as proposed in the 1938 Peel Report. It is nothing other than a religious conflict. A similar issue affected Lebanon which used to be a Christian state until a civil war which killed a multiple of those killed in Arab-Israeli wars. If you wish to say the US should completely abandon Israel in the face of Islamic aggression then that is understandable but it should be accepted that it is not so much a moral position as an opportune one. However, Israel's destruction will do little to improve the situation. The real conflict is between Sunni and Shia in the Middle East, and Muslim and Christian to a lesser extent. The point being that sectarian extremism will remain in the ME for centuries to come whether the Israels and Lebanons are snuffed out. Only a genuine transformation from within (a la the Enlightenment) will bring peace.

Politesub53 -> RE: Israel (10/5/2012 12:30:15 PM)
quote: No disrespect but the above view you express is one oft expressed by apologists. It is too black and white imo. History shows you to be wrong though Anax. For most of the Abbasadian Empire there was little Jewish persecution. There was some towards the end with the grandson ( I think ) of Saladin, when he was Caliph. For instance, in Cairo, there were Jews, Christians and Muslims working and living side by side. You correctly stated, as have I, the Christianity was spread sometimes by the sword and sometimes by missionaries, Islam was spread the same way. Incidentally, when the Abbasid caliphate ended, due to the invasion of the Mongols, it was the Mongols themselves who took the Islamic faith and spread it through their own Empire. You could also say that while there was indeed Caroligian renaissance, there was also much bloodshed, especially when they deposed the Merengivian king and proceeded to take over the arears either side of the Pyranees. History is never straight forward, tales of bloodshed and murder live side by side with tales of enlightment, trade and invention.

vincentML -> RE: Israel (10/5/2012 2:22:12 PM)
quote: That did happen but its important to note that the West did not do this in isolation. The USSR developed its own puppet states arguably due to greater intervention (e.g. Afghanistan). Thus this activity was done out of a sense of fear and preservation. Afghanistan was a death trap for the USSR. Really, the list of America's intrusions in the affairs of other nations since 1950 is just too damn long. It is exhausting. quote: I really don't think so. We are talking about a time that lasted into the early decades of the 20th Century, hardly a hundred years in a society that has remained relatively static, and is increasingly looking backward. They had existed in those conditions for many centuries, whilst the relatively intrusive Mandates etc. only existed for a few decades. Okay, Anax, are you saying then that the Muslims from Indonesia, Malaysia, Burma, Pakistan, Afghanistan thru Iran, the ME and North Africa have been in stasis for 500 years because of their backward gazing theology? Why then was there little technological progress during those 500 years in China, India, and Latin America? Why similar poverty amongst non-Islamic people over the same period of time? quote: The end-of-times Christians that support Israel are not that major a part of broad Christian support for the State. Its more a US phenomenon. Many far more mainstream (and sometimes liberal) Christians see Israel and the Jews it constitutes as kindred. I suggest you look up what St. Paul said in Romans 11 to gain some insight into what I mean. Paul in Romans? Perhaps Martin Luther instead? Luther's Advice for dealing with the Jews quote: The point being that sectarian extremism will remain in the ME for centuries to come whether the Israels and Lebanons are snuffed out. Only a genuine transformation from within (a la the Enlightenment) will bring peace. Respectfully and with good cheer, Anax, you bounce from the past to the future and you ignore the concern I raised for the present. Perhaps you disagree with my premise. By all means say so. My feelings will not be hurt. [:D][:D] I repeat: the power structure of the world has changed. What strategy should the West employ for this new world? Good vs Evil is just not a suitable framework for a national strategy, imo, except for GWB.

Anaxagoras -> RE: Israel (10/5/2012 7:08:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: No disrespect but the above view you express is one oft expressed by apologists. It is too black and white imo. History shows you to be wrong though Anax. For most of the Abbasadian Empire there was little Jewish persecution. There was some towards the end with the grandson ( I think ) of Saladin, when he was Caliph. For instance, in Cairo, there were Jews, Christians and Muslims working and living side by side. You correctly stated, as have I, the Christianity was spread sometimes by the sword and sometimes by missionaries, Islam was spread the same way. Incidentally, when the Abbasid caliphate ended, due to the invasion of the Mongols, it was the Mongols themselves who took the Islamic faith and spread it through their own Empire. You could also say that while there was indeed Caroligian renaissance, there was also much bloodshed, especially when they deposed the Merengivian king and proceeded to take over the arears either side of the Pyranees. History is never straight forward, tales of bloodshed and murder live side by side with tales of enlightment, trade and invention. Accounts vary on the Abbasids (if they are the folks you refer to). Some sources say they weren't too bad to Jews but I don't really think they can be considered a paragon of tolerance as they were largely responsible for bringing in discriminatory clothing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_badge which has a huge impact on minorities within societies. Jews had wooden effigies of apes and demons nailed on their doors too so they were separated out within these societies. The Abbasids almost destroyed the ancient Zoroastrian civilisation as well, since being as Kuffars (pagans) they were pretty low on the pecking order. I think it was al Mutawaki who also persecuted orthodox Christians. I have absolutely no problem acknowledging many Muslims did convert voluntarily, and will do in the future. There was nothing wrong with your last response but often it seems you project the worst on people who criticise Islam. 1.3 billion people simply won't go away - I assume even "Islamophobes" must concede that. When I have been critical it was because I genuinely believe some issues have to be addressed. Rather its just a modest attempt to bring up issues that I think need to be confronted if we are all to live in peace. I agree re. conflict and cultural development often occuring side by side. The 15th C Renaissance wasn't a peaceful time either. Just the Medieval West is wrongly seen as ignorant.

Anaxagoras -> RE: Israel (10/5/2012 7:34:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: That did happen but its important to note that the West did not do this in isolation. The USSR developed its own puppet states arguably due to greater intervention (e.g. Afghanistan). Thus this activity was done out of a sense of fear and preservation. Afghanistan was a death trap for the USSR. Really, the list of America's intrusions in the affairs of other nations since 1950 is just too damn long. It is exhausting. You seem to focus on condemning one while not addressing the wrongdoing of the other. The USSR (and China to some extent) was at least as bad, if not worse. For a start Eastern Europe was under the vice-like grip of the USSR, the harmful effects of which most of those societies are still struggling with today. quote: quote: I really don't think so. We are talking about a time that lasted into the early decades of the 20th Century, hardly a hundred years in a society that has remained relatively static, and is increasingly looking backward. They had existed in those conditions for many centuries, whilst the relatively intrusive Mandates etc. only existed for a few decades. Okay, Anax, are you saying then that the Muslims from Indonesia, Malaysia, Burma, Pakistan, Afghanistan thru Iran, the ME and North Africa have been in stasis for 500 years because of their backward gazing theology? Not at all. Muslims in the Far-East have a different society. I was talking more about the ME (and parts of central Asia) which have long had a stricter tradition of Islam. quote: Why then was there little technological progress during those 500 years in China, India, and Latin America? Why similar poverty amongst non-Islamic people over the same period of time? I'm not talking so much about economics. The scientific and Industrial Revolution was a uniquely Western phenomenon. Before that much of the West was static as well but the seeds of dramatic change began in the "ignorant" Medieval era. quote: quote: The end-of-times Christians that support Israel are not that major a part of broad Christian support for the State. Its more a US phenomenon. Many far more mainstream (and sometimes liberal) Christians see Israel and the Jews it constitutes as kindred. I suggest you look up what St. Paul said in Romans 11 to gain some insight into what I mean. Paul in Romans? Perhaps Martin Luther instead? Luther's Advice for dealing with the Jews Why? My point was not that all Christians believe that. [8\|] quote: quote: The point being that sectarian extremism will remain in the ME for centuries to come whether the Israels and Lebanons are snuffed out. Only a genuine transformation from within (a la the Enlightenment) will bring peace. Respectfully and with good cheer, Anax, you bounce from the past to the future and you ignore the concern I raised for the present. Perhaps you disagree with my premise. By all means say so. My feelings will not be hurt. [:D][:D] I repeat: the power structure of the world has changed. What strategy should the West employ for this new world? Good vs Evil is just not a suitable framework for a national strategy, imo, except for GWB. I did disagree with your point (albeit not completely) and thought I did say so quite plainly. If you want to take a more selective approach to history then by all means do so but I don't think it sufficient to understand a problem that has fundamental roots in the 7th Century. This is fundamentally a religious issue, written into the very fabric of ME civilisation. As such it is intractable. Similar conflicts can be very old, e.g. conflict in Ireland goes back at the very least to the 1600's.

slvemike4u -> RE: Israel (10/5/2012 8:03:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub quote: You might have a valid point, Butch. I guess Israel will have to take the whole West Bank then. Oh wait, they have pretty much done that, haven't they? One of the problems Vince is the peace process is not just Palestine and Israel. It is Israel and the surrounding hostile Arab nations as well. There is plenty of room for negotiation over settlements and land between Israel and Palestine but not in giving up strategic corridors for invasion. I wish all outside interference in the basic dispute could be eliminated but that will not happen with super powers supporting both sides. Butch I thought there was only one "super power" left ? What other super powers are you referring to ?

vincentML -> RE: Israel (10/6/2012 4:38:38 AM)
quote: You seem to focus on condemning one while not addressing the wrongdoing of the other. The USSR (and China to some extent) was at least as bad, if not worse. For a start Eastern Europe was under the vice-like grip of the USSR, the harmful effects of which most of those societies are still struggling with today. Only because we saw communists hiding under every bed and the fear permeated our politics, was used to exploit our politics, and not only led us down the road to Vietnam but impelled us to ugly deeds throughout the Americas. quote: I did disagree with your point (albeit not completely) and thought I did say so quite plainly. If you want to take a more selective approach to history then by all means do so but I don't think it sufficient to understand a problem that has fundamental roots in the 7th Century. This is fundamentally a religious issue, written into the very fabric of ME civilisation. As such it is intractable. On reflection I will concede you are correct with the caveat that the Sunni/Shia conflict became conspicuous with the withdrawal of the Colonial Powers and the fall of the Ottomans. All the more to emphasize the folly of GWB's invasion of Iraq. Which brings us back to Israel. Her army and 200 nuclear warheads and her insistance on this border or that do not seem so much advantage in such a turbulant and treacherous neighborhood. Does she really gain security by expanding settlements to the east, or is that not also driven by a zealous religion? And what are the vital national interests of the West with respect to supporting Israel? If oil is our chief interest in the ME how is that interest served by having Israel "as our staunchest ally in the region" as some say?

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625