What logical solution can there be?

[montyfowler]

For over 4,000 years the entire world has castigated the jews for various reason, most of which boil down to racism, plain and simple.

The Arabs -- especially the Palestinians -- have a legitimate beef with the Isreali government, the Bristish, the UN, and the US. Let's not forget how the modern state of Israel came to be. (See UN Partition Plan 181 - Nov. 1947) http://www.masada2000.org/historical.html

Here is a great timeline that summarizes the persecution of the Palestinians. www.palestinerefugees.org/HTML/history.htm Funny we never hear them referred to as persecuted.

Now don't misunderstand me. I am not talking about Muslims like the ones that attacked us on 9/11. OBL and AQ have no justification for their actions in the Arab-Jew problem. This family feud goes back thousands of years before Islam even existed.

Let's talk about some of the real issues and some real potential solutions. Let's try to keep the antisemitic comments out of the mix. Besides offending people, it only serves to destroy the credibility of your arguments.

 

[Bry]

I follow and/or agree with everything you say with the exception of:

Now don't misunderstand me. I am not talking about Muslims like the ones that attacked us on 9/11. OBL and AQ have no justification for their actions in the Arab-Jew problem. This family feud goes back thousands of years before Islam even existed.

I'm not sure how to understand this. OBL certainly does cite the American support of Israel as one of his reasons for attacking American targets. That along with American support (if puppeteering isn't a better word...) for various dictatorial regimes in Islamic countries. Do you mean to say he is not responding to the US sponsorship of the creation and support of Israel, or that he is but that those claims on his part are not justifiable?

I know this is a bit of a nit pick, but it seems an important difference to me.

 

[AtlantaWalter]

Interesting concept.....

"For over 4,000 years the entire world has castigated the jews for various reason, most of which boil down to racism, plain and simple." (quote montyfowler)

that the ENTIRE world could be wrong for 4,000 years.

I'm thinking your premise is missing something somewhere along the line.

And, as for "Let's try to the antisemitic comments out of the mix."
(quote montyfowler)....

It is quite impossible to attempt to keep racism out of the argument due to the fact that when one attacks the jews as a race, they become a religion, and when one attacks them as a religion, they become a race. Slippery little suckers aren't they!!!

 

[montyfowler]

Originally posted by Bry
Do you mean to say he is not responding to the US sponsorship of the creation and support of Israel, or that he is but that those claims on his part are not justifiable?

The latter...there is no justification for the actions of ABL and AQ in the US support for Isreal. It is overly-simplistic to think that the plight of the Palestinians could inspire people from a different country, language and culture to commit suicide on their behalf.

Let's dig a bit deeper (Shipler's book does this better than anything I have read on the subject) and uncover the real reasons. As with so many things, the reality is often less sensational and more revealing of man's true nature than is the fantasy.

Start thinking about this...if you were a poor 20 year old man living in Malaysia with no job, no education, no skills and your only contact with the West was what you see on satellite TV, what would your opinion of Americans be? Now add a weekly speech from the local Imam during worship at the mosque that names the US as the Great Satan, blames us for every evil in the world and every misfortune of the people, and you get a very, very angry young man who hates the West.

More later...

 

[montyfowler]

Originally posted by AtlantaWalter
Interesting concept.....that the ENTIRE world could be wrong for 4,000 years.

I'm thinking your premise is missing something somewhere along the line.

And, as for "Let's try to the antisemitic comments out of the mix."
(quote montyfowler)....

It is quite impossible to attempt to keep racism out of the argument due to the fact that when one attacks the jews as a race, they become a religion, and when one attacks them as a religion, they become a race. Slippery little suckers aren't they!!!

Exactly what I would expect an antisemite to say. Look, some groups do have a legitimate gripe with the Jews...on religious grounds. Other have legitimate gripes with the state of Isreal (all citizens included without regard to their religion). That's why I said, "MOST of which boil down to racism". Some reasons are valid and need to be addressed.

The problem with racism is that it assumes an unlevel playing field. When one race elevates itself above another, it necessarily reduces the humanity of the other and makes it easier to abandon morality and ethics when dealing with that race, or country.

Consider how we (the US) dehumanized the Japanese during WWII and the North Vietnamese and Cambodians during the Vietnam War. What attrocities were committed under those conditions...

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Monty, I find your signature line revealing: "You are what you say." Does this also mean, "you are what you say you are?". So, if you say your conservative, we're just supposed to believe you, even though you're obviously lying?

Very interesting.

 

[montyfowler]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Monty, I find your signature line revealing: "You are what you say." Does this also mean, "you are what you say you are?". So, if you say your conservative, we're just supposed to believe you, even though you're obviously lying?

Very interesting.

Do you have anything constructive to say or are you just the self-appointed Conservative police? Give it a rest, man!

I know who and what I am. At least I have something remotely intelligent to say. You are just a mouthpiece for the worst ideas and vitreol our party has to offer. There is good and bad in every party...and you are revealing yourself as the embodiment of all that is bad.

Now I am done with you.

 

[nbdysfu]

Interesting site Mf., I like this tidbit about 'Palestinian refugees':

On May 14, 1948 the "Palestinian" Jews finally declared their own State of Israel and became "Israelis." On the next day, seven neighboring Arab armies... Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Yemen... invaded Israel. Most of the Arabs living within the boundaries of the newly declared "ISRAEL" were encouraged to leave by the invading Arab armies to facilitate the slaughter of the Jews and were promised to be given all Jewish property after the victorious Arab armies won the war. The truth is that 68 percent of the Arab Palestinians who left in 1948 – perhaps 300,000 to 400,000 of them – never saw an Israeli soldier! The remaining 30% either (1) saw for themselves that these Jews would fight and die for their new nation and decided to pack up and leave or (2) were driven off the land as a normal consequence of war. So much for the blatant lie about Jews throwing out all the [Palestinian] Arabs!

When the 19 month war ended, Israel survived despite a 1% loss of it's entire population! Those Arabs who did not flea became today's Israeli-Arab citizens. Those who fled became the seeds of the first wave of "Palestinian Arab refugees."

The Arab propagandists and apologists almost never mentioned that in 1948, five Arab countries launched a war against a one-day-old Israel. Instead he focused on the main consequence of that war: the creation of Arab refugees, stating that Israel "short of genocide" expelled 800,000 of them. This not only disagrees with UN estimates of a bit over 400,000 refugees but also ignores the fact that most of the Arabs/Palestinians were encouraged to leave by the Arab World itself!

 

[tim_duncan2000]

Not only that, but the Arab nations would not take in the Palestinian refugees and they have done little to nothing about the problem other then talk about how horrible Israel is.

 

[Bry]

What you say about the other arab countries doing little or nothing to help the plight of the Palestenians is good and correct as i understand it. Perhaps a refugee problem they were ill equiped to handle. Or perhaps they saw the benefits of such a humanitarian disaster in diplomatic terms. Whichever the case, this bit about "five arab countries attacking a one day old Israel" is garbage. The zionists were very prepared for that conflict, and if anything welcomed it.

" While the Yishuv`s leadership formally accepted the 1947 Partition Resolution, large sections of Israeli society- including…Ben Gurion- were opposed to or extremely unhappy with the partition and from early on viewed the war as an ideal opportunity to expand the new state’s borders beyond the UN-earmarked partition boundaries and at the expense of the Palestinians. "Israeli Historian, Benny Morris, in "Tikun", March/April 1998.

As for the myth that Arab countries encouraged Palestenians to leave...

"The BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) monitored all Middle Eastern broadcasts throughout 1948 was ‘self-inspired’. The records, and companion ones by a United States monitoring unit, can be seen at the British museum… There was not a single order or appeal, or suggestion about evacuation from Palestine, from any Arab radio station, inside or outside Palestine, in 1948. There is a repeated monitored record of Arab appeals, even flat orders, to the civilians of Palestine to stay put. Erskine Childers, British researcher, quoted in Sami Hadawi, Biter Harvest"

and...

"Israeli propaganda has largely relinquished the claim that the Palestinian exodus of 1948 was ‘self-inspired’. Official circles implicitly concede that the Arab population fled as a result of Israeli action – whether directly, as in the case of Lydda and Ramleh, or indirectly, due to the panic that and similar actions (the Deir Yassin massacre) inspired in Arab population centers throughout Palestine. However, even though the historical record has been grudgingly set straight, the Israeli establishment still refuses to accept moral or political responsibility for the refugee problem it – or its predecessors – actively created. Peretz Kidron, quoted in "Blaming The Victims," ed. Said and Hitchens."

 

[Bry]

Monty:

I think your easy dismissal of OBL's resting his justifcation in US's support of Israel is overhasty. OBL is generally upset about the US interference in areas that are predominantly Muslim, and Palestine is the most visible (because unresolved) example of that interference. Even in Europe, Israel is seen as the second gravest threat to global stability, after George Jr. of course, and he had to work hard to wrest that dubious distinction away from Sharron's clutches.

Also, your referencing of the Masada sight was unfortunate. Could you possibly have found a more perfect example of propagandistic shite? Try this one for the division: http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS/1947-un-partition-plan-reso.html

 

[montyfowler]

Originally posted by Bry
Monty:

I think your easy dismissal of OBL's resting his justifcation in US's support of Israel is overhasty. OBL is generally upset about the US interference in areas that are predominantly Muslim, and Palestine is the most visible (because unresolved) example of that interference. Even in Europe, Israel is seen as the second gravest threat to global stability, after George Jr. of course, and he had to work hard to wrest that dubious distinction away from Sharron's clutches.

Also, your referencing of the Masada sight was unfortunate. Could you possibly have found a more perfect example of propagandistic shite? Try this one for the division: http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS/1947-un-partition-plan-reso.html

Again, let me clarify...

OBL and AQ use Israel and the conflict with the Palestinians as an excuse to attack us and other so-called supporters of Israel. What I meant was that this is not a valid excuse to essentially declare war on us or anyone else.

You will find that as I participate in these discussions, I will try not to speak from an emotional point of view. That's not to say that I am dispassionate about the topics...quite the opposite. But in my experience, meaningful discourse is better served by debaters that can distill out the emotion and focus on reason as the basis for their arguments.

Now back to OBL. Since 9/11 I have been paying close attention to the statements that come from OBL and his henchmen trying to determine if we are dealing with a madman or a mad man. There is a difference.

If he is insane, then their can be no diplomatic or rational settlement of our differences. He must simply be hunted and killed like a dangerous animal on the prowl.

If, however, he is a man who has, at least in his own mind, righteous anger towards us, then he must be dealt with very differently.

I believe he is the latter. In the end we may still desire to hunt him down and kill him, but the man with righteous anger leaves a legacy that must be considered, unlike the troublesome animal which leaves nothing but a stain on the ground.

Let's not forget or trivialize the fact the OBL has inspired dozens of young men and women to commit suicide on behalf of his cause. That is significant. This is a different enemy that requires different responses and considerations.

First of all, AQ is not a nation state nor does it represent one. So the normal channels for diplomatic discourse do not exist. Any such discussions must be facilitated by surrogate nations or groups with affiliations to or contact with AQ. This is cumbersome and yields poor results.

Add to this the simple fact that OBL and the AQ leadership have little or no desire to have diplomatic discussions with us. Their demands are quite simple. Let the Muslim world choose it's own path without interferrence from the West. And (this is really important) stop supporting the state of Israel and their pursecution of the Palestinians. Thus, ensuring the destruction of Israel.

More tomorrow...

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by montyfowler
Do you have anything constructive to say or are you just the self-appointed Conservative police? Give it a rest, man!

I know who and what I am. At least I have something remotely intelligent to say. You are just a mouthpiece for the worst ideas and vitreol our party has to offer. There is good and bad in every party...and you are revealing yourself as the embodiment of all that is bad.

Now I am done with you.

I have something constructive to say. The truth is that the surrounding arab nations could easily absorb the palestinian population. But they don't. They'd rather force the entire group to serve as international poster children for their jihad against the west. It's sick and deceitful; they, and you, should be ashamed for propagating this anti-semitic rhetoric.

You may feel you're done with me, but in actuality our relationship has just begun.

We've only just begun
Paul Williams and Roger Nichols

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We've only just begun to live,
White lace and promises
A kiss for luck and we're on our way.
And yes, We've just begun.

Before the rising sun we fly,
So many roads to choose
We start our walking and learn to run.
And yes, We've just begun.

Sharing horizons that are new to us,
Watching the signs along the way,
Talking it over just the two of us,
Working together day to day
Together.

And when the evening comes we smile,
So much of life ahead
We'll find a place where there's room to grow,
And yes, We've just begun.

 

[montyfowler]

Continuing last nights discussion...

The Bush administration is acutely aware that OBL and AQ have to be handled differently than your run-of-the-mill terrorist organization. They are not the Basques or Red Brigade.

We cannot simply write off their leadership as homicidal maniacs anymore than we can treat them like statesmen. They are in fact a group of highly motivated killers with a half-legitimate political agenda.

Take their primary demand: that the Muslim world be left alone by the West to determine its' own course and future. What does this mean?

Simply put, they want the governments of every nation with a Muslim majority to become theocracies led by strong Imams who eschew all things Western. They want all contact with the West reduced to only essential trade and diplomatic contact. They do not want us in their countries, they do not want our culture or our habits.

Now, taken apart from the terrorist actions on behalf of this agenda, the agenda itself is not necessarily a bad one. It is certainly isolationist and xenophobic in the extreme, but any soveriegn nation has every right to determine its own foriegn policy.

The problem is created by the simple fact that this part of the Muslim agenda is utopian, and therefore, can never be achieved. What they want is impossible. That's bad for them and its bad for us.

What can we do?

The good news is that this is all well known by the Bush administration and Powell's State Department. They know what we are dealing with and have, to date, dealt brilliantly with the situation.

The end-game for us is a simple choice between to options -- one easy, the other more difficult. The first option is to simply capitulate to the radical Muslim agenda and withdraw all Western presence in the aforementioned countries. This, for obvious reasons, will never happen.

So that leaves the second option -- show the Muslim majority that a utopian dream is not only unrealistic, but it also limits the future of a people who were, at one time, one of the great cultures of the world.

The problem for both sides is that the current conflict is being portrayed by AQ and other terrorist groups as a Holy War or Jihad. This is literally a religious war between Islam and Christianity (the dominant religion of the West) in the eyes of the Muslim on the street and some on our side.

As with the Crusades of antiquity, this modern crusade that has been thrust upon the West will also fail to change the hearts and minds of a people who are as proud as they are ignorant, but not as much as they are dangerous and blind.

The current situation in Iraq, however necessary the cause, only serves to inflame the ignorant Muslim masses, and give the Imams an endless supply of sermon fodder. But a free, open and democratic Iraq will help us to begin the very long and slow process of building real relationships in the region. Some future and currently unknowable solution to the Israel/Palestine problem will also bring stability and allow the entire region to concentrate on positive policy issues such as economic growth, social justice, and human rights. There is no country in the world better suited to shepherd the Middle East through the first steps of a new beginning than the United States.

The Bush administration and their bold and daring vision for democratizing the Middle East will be remembered as one of the great achievements of the 21st century. But only if we stay focused on the goal, be steadfast in our resolve, and be willing to pay the price, both in financial and human currency.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Pretty good monty. Maybe you ARE conservative. Sounds to me like maybe you hang around lots of liberals and are tired of arguing the truth, so you started to believe their lies. I'm glad we could be here for you to pull you back from the brink.

and, you're welcome!

 

[montyfowler]

I'm getting a little tired of the term Neoconservative. It is the new codeword for "Jew-who-is-not-a-liberal" or "Reaganesque-Rumsfeld-loving-warmonger" or "politician-who-decided-to-actually-do-something-about-the middle-east-rather-than-just-talk-about-it".

For the past 60 years the U.S. has tried to influence policy in the Middle-east via remote control. Our track record has been abysmal and the violence has gotten worse and worse.

Now that we have a President and State Department with a tough, thoughtful, and reasonable foriegn policy on the Middle-east, the lefties (the great defenders of human rights and self-determination) are freaking out. The Bush administration properly determined that we can no longer stand on the sidelines and hope to have a meaningful impact on the game (to use a football metaphor).

Now that we have suited up and stepped onto the field, the opponents are scared to death. Syria, Lebanon, Iran, the Emirates, and our "good friends" the Saudis are crapping their 90-day shitters. They cannot stand the notion of a protracted or, Allah forbid, permanent military presence in the region. They cannot fathom what a strong, secure and democratic Iraq will mean to the future of their little kingdoms.

Just the mere whiff of our cruise missiles over Iraq was enough to cause Libya to disarm and join the world community. And yet, the libs still think that the Bush Doctrine is somehow making the world less safe for us and our allies.

They are not stupid, nor are they missing the point. Instead they are transparently political and intellectually dishonest. They have placed themselves in the untenable possition of having to hope for the worst for America in order to win back the White House and Congress. Instead of casting aspersions on them, we should offer tham our solemn prayers and a healthy dose of pity. No wonder Nader looks good to some of them.

 

[kcmcdonald]

Wow,
OK monety you're screwing me up. one minnute i'm dead sure that you're a Lib. and the next you come out with some fantastic conservative stuff. You baffel my mind. I'll still wait and see, but with some shacky suspicion I say Right on!

Now to replly to your post.
Exelent deductions. It is exactly the case that the laft is almost hopping for a blood bath in Iraq. So that the left can feel complacent and say "I told you so." THese people are anti-american in every sence of the word, It's the whole "Vietnam syndrom again."
For political gains the left must have an american loss. They must have casualties in the thousands. THat is horrible. The goal of any conflict is to keep casualties at a minimum and have a populus back home with unwavering support. The Left hopes for none of this, I do feal pitty for them. There hatered of Bush and the republican party has cloweded their judgment. Peace is only a few steps away, but they would rather us fail and die than see Bush be responsible for middle-east peace.
As to the Neo-con thing. I cnosider my self a Neo-con. The republican party has gone through many changes in the last 30 or so years. The major changes have occured over the last 20. A neo-con is a internationalist. We belive that it is america's responsibility to the world(even though they won't admit it)to ensure that peace and prosparity flourish, and that no govt. go byond it's boders to create instabiltiy. And to ensure that WMDs do not become a have all in the world of dictators and Barbaric regimes.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Yep. Monty gets the most improved student award. What a startling story of rehabilitation!

 

[kcmcdonald]

absolutly, he's a changed man. I had my doubts but look like he's coming around

 

[montyfowler]

RWA and KCM,

Cut it out guys...I'm not sure I want to be on your good side. It's way more fun being yelled at. ;-)

I am what you might call a Conflicted Christian Conservative.

Christian because I love the Lord.

Conservative because..well...because we're right and they're wrong.

Conflicted because sometimes what the Lord says and what our party does do not mix.

That's why GWB's compassionate conservatism is the best way for our party to express our very human desire to care for one another. Not by giving them a handout, but instead offer those in need and hand up.

Did you guys ever read a biography of Teddy Roosevelt? Now that was a true Republican with a conscience.