Muslims

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
JD, come on, that is flame bait. No more please.

Sorry - but he comes off in his posts as if he thinks he's some superior alien race observing humans. I was going to tell him he can watch cartoons - as I watch the news.

[Blackheart]

"Tell the Palestinians and Israelis that it's a small conflict. It's not small - it's what the muslims use as a rallying cry against the west. It is MAJOR conflict on a small scale."

Well what the heck do you think the concept of limited-scale conflict implies? <BOGGLE>

Do you think any of the other "limited scale" conflicts were any less traumatic or brutal, or didn't evoke strong emotions among people sympathetic to one side or the other, or draw in volunteers and mercenaries, and profiteers- material and political?

"Israel and the palestinian terrorities are small - but the conflict is not. Small scale conlficts were the various wars waged between the US and the Soviet Union during the cold war in order to keep each side in check."

And um... The conflict between the USSR and the US was a small conflict? That is what you seem to be implying.


"Without those wars - Europe would be communist as would most of the rest of the world. The US didn't have to fight the Soviet Union - it coudl have sat back - but what would the world look like today? I don't think I would want to live in that world."

I suppose you would have preferred the resolution that involved thermonuclear destruction? Did you miss the point? Limited scale conflict is exactly what is going on in palestine/isreal. And it may, unfortunately, be EXACTLY what is needed. I really don't know what you're squawking about?!

I think you need to watch more cartoons man...

________________________________

<insert> Oh no! You made me miss Scooby-do!

[Lizra]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Sorry - but he comes off in his posts as if he thinks he's some superior alien race observing humans. I was going to tell him he can watch cartoons - as I watch the news.

He's the "Dark Lord" JD...get it? Relax! Get into the Entmoot scene!

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Blackheart
Well what the heck do you think the concept of limited-scale conflict implies? <BOGGLE>

Small scale conflicts are between large militarily powerful countries to prevent huge breakouts of war. This is not the case between Israel and the Palestinians.

Do you think any of the other "limited scale" conflicts were any less traumatic or brutal, or didn't evoke strong emotions among people sympathetic to one side or the other, or draw in volunteers and mercenaries, and profiteers- material and political?

No - I don't think that. But the difference was who the wars were really being fought by. The wars in South America - were basically between the Soviet Union and the US. Afganistan - Soviet Union and US. Iran/Iraq - Soviet Union and US.

And um... The conflict between the USSR and the US was a small conflict? That is what you seem to be implying.

That is not what I'm saying at all. There was the cold war - within that "non-violent" war - there were many many wars between our two countries. But were the US and Soviet Union ever at "war"? NO - we were never at war - we fought our wars through other countries. If the US just said - welll we want peace - we'll let the Soviet Union have South America, they haven't attacked us, or Afganistan, or Iran - the Soviet Union would have gotten way too powerful for the West to deal with - just like World War II Germany had gotten.

I suppose you would have preferred the resolution that involved thermonuclear destruction? Did you miss the point? Limited scale conflict is exactly what is going on in palestine/isreal. And it may, unfortunately, be EXACTLY what is needed. I really don't know what you're squawking about?!

It is not a small scale conflict partially because it is not between TWO large powers. Small scale conflicts help prevent two very powerful countries from destroying the world. This is NOT what is happening there. The conflict is betwene israel and the Palestinians and basically adds fuel to the other Muslim conflicts - but is NOT being fought to prevent a large power from getting the upper hand.

I think you need to watch more cartoons man...

I reserve my cartoon watching fot Saturday mornings.

<insert> Oh no! You made me miss Scooby-do!

Sorry - but they'll have repeats.

[Blackheart]

"Small scale conflicts are between large militarily powerful countries to prevent huge breakouts of war. This is not the case between Israel and the Palestinians."

Why do you not see it that way?

Isreael- Western powers. The US, and other alligned economic powers.

Palestine- Arabian powers. Oil producing countries in the region and Islamic culturally allied powers.

Actually, if I were of a totally hopeless point of view, I'd be pointing out that this is very similar to the situations preceding those little conflicts known as crusades...

You can't only look at military power. Economic power is just as important. As is World opinion, to a limited degree.

"No - I don't think that. But the difference was who the wars were really being fought by. The wars in South America - were basically between the Soviet Union and the US. Afganistan - Soviet Union and US. Iran/Iraq - Soviet Union and US."

And the Palistenians are backed by who?

And the Isreali's are backed by who?

"That is not what I'm saying at all. There was the cold war - within that "non-violent" war - there were many many wars between our two countries. But were the US and Soviet Union ever at "war"? NO - we were never at war - we fought our wars through other countries."

I would venture to guess that when (if) the Isreali and Palestinian people find out how they have been manipulated, they are going to be pretty pissed. Or did you think that I was saying that the conflict was about the Palesitinians and the Isreali government when I noted it was a "limited-scale conflict"?

"If the US just said - welll we want peace - we'll let the Soviet Union have South America, they haven't attacked us, or Afganistan, or Iran - the Soviet Union would have gotten way too powerful for the West to deal with - just like World War II Germany had gotten."

Not to mention that the people in South America or Afgan, or Iran would probably have gotten awfully upset about the US making important decisions about who their allies can and cannot be. Yeesh. It smacks of imperialism.

"It is not a small scale conflict partially because it is not between TWO large powers. Small scale conflicts help prevent two very powerful countries from destroying the world. This is NOT what is happening there. The conflict is betwene israel and the Palestinians and basically adds fuel to the other Muslim conflicts - but is NOT being fought to prevent a large power from getting the upper hand."

I think you need to re-evaluate what you call a large power. Or do you not regard the Islamic world as a large power? I would pretty much think that a war with Arabia would cause a lot of destruction world wide. I find your argument unconvincing.

It adds fuel? It attracts fuel!! Anyone and everyone with an axe to grind is interested, becasue it affords them opportunities to advance their own agenda. Not to mention that it has the tendancy to spill outside of the nicely defined borders and into other areas, just like any other "limited-scale conflict". (Lets bomb Cambodia again! Or <insert similar blunder by the USSR here>)

"I reserve my cartoon watching fot Saturday mornings."

The news IS one of my favorite cartoons. I think they are all very funny. And oh so entertaining. But not as good as the meddling kids. Or the history channel... Or the Major University Library I work in...

Oh if only Scooby would go to the middle east, I'm sure he would have everything solved in 30 minutes....

"Sorry - but they'll have repeats. "

What? You mean re-runs?! Hmm... I shall have to make a note of this human advancement in culture.

[Blackheart]

ACK! The Simpsons are on!

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Blackheart
Why do you not see it that way?

Because the Israeli - Palestinian conflict is causing more problems than it is solving. It would be MUCH better for the US and the world if the the conflict was resolved.

Isreael- Western powers. The US, and other alligned economic powers.

Sorry to point this out to you again - but Europe sides more with the Palestinians.

Palestine- Arabian powers. Oil producing countries in the region and Islamic culturally allied powers.

The palestinian conflict nothing to do with oil. The main thing that the Palestinian - Israeli conflict has ever been over is the hatred of Jews and the elimination of Israel.

Actually, if I were of a totally hopeless point of view, I'd be pointing out that this is very similar to the situations preceding those little conflicts known as crusades...

Which crusades woudl those be? The European crusades were major battles that extended fromt he south ot France the Jerusalem and beyond. I woudl hardly call that a small copnflict. It was also in response to muslims attacking and taking over southern Europe.

And the Palistenians are backed by who?

And the Isreali's are backed by who?

And who are we against in this global conflict? We support Israel because otherwise they would be forced off the face of the earth. They were the ones INITIALLY attacked by the Arabb countries. Israel did not try to claim palestinian land before they were attacked.

I would venture to guess that when (if) the Isreali and Palestinian people find out how they have been manipulated, they are going to be pretty pissed. Or did you think that I was saying that the conflict was about the Palesitinians and the Isreali government when I noted it was a "limited-scale conflict"?

Pissed at who? Who has manipulated Israel? It is obvious that the ilks like Osama bin Ladin want the conflict to continue - because it is a rallying cry for his cause. The US has no interest in the Israel - palestinian conflict to continue - because we see that it prevents peace in the rest of the region.

Not to mention that the people in South America or Afgan, or Iran would probably have gotten awfully upset about the US making important decisions about who their allies can and cannot be. Yeesh. It smacks of imperialism.

Oh - of course it was just teh big bad evil US that had anything to do with that. The Soviet Union had nothing whatsoever to do with US reactions. We weren't imperialistic - we didn't OWN half of Europe like the Soviet Union did.

I think you need to re-evaluate what you call a large power. Or do you not regard the Islamic world as a large power? I would pretty much think that a war with Arabia would cause a lot of destruction world wide. I find your argument unconvincing.

They're not a organized power. Do you think the Soviet Union would have allowed the United States to attack East Germany like we did with Iraq? or do you have only certain countries in mind?

It adds fuel? It attracts fuel!! Anyone and everyone with an axe to grind is interested, becasue it affords them opportunities to advance their own agenda. Not to mention that it has the tendancy to spill outside of the nicely defined borders and into other areas, just like any other "limited-scale conflict". (Lets bomb Cambodia again! Or <insert similar blunder by the USSR here>)

Cambodia was bombed because the North Vietnamese were attcking from Cambodia. And the Israeli - Palestinian conflict has spilled over - it's the damn rallying cry for all the fanatical clerics. You deny that Jews are blindly HATED in the Middle East? If there was peace between Israel and the Palestinians - what would they use to demonstrate that the Jews are evil?

The news IS one of my favorite cartoons. I think they are all very funny. And oh so entertaining. But not as good as the meddling kids. Or the history channel... Or the Major University Library I work in...

That's great. I watch CNN, ABC's World News Tonight, French News Channel, NJ News, NY News, Nightline and then the International History Channel, The Learning Channel and The History Channel. That is usually my daily tv watching schedule plus some primetime shows to give my brain a rest. Oh - and I used to have a library card for Princeton University which is down the street from me.

Oh if only Scooby would go to the middle east, I'm sure he would have everything solved in 30 minutes....

Or maybe if it was the Brady Bunch.

[Sween]

JD you make a lot of talk about how these problems have to be solved! How exctally are you going to solves these problems? All i see your government doing is drawing lines in the sand. You cannot in this conflict come out and say we are in support of one side no one side is in the right at all in this conflict!

You are drawing lines in the sand and thats a very dangerous and some would say stupid thing to do because once a line is drawn all you can do is cross it.

As for all this talk about humans been by nature apt to war like its some kinda reflex (its cold go put a jumper on etc) thats is very true! Allready in this country people are looking over there shoulders and saying to themselves 'theres a lot more black,white,asian people here than there was before' the phrase i heard most often muttred is 'they are taking over'! I saw it at college the chinease people stuck together, the asians (whom there were scaresly less than the white) the whites and the true black people mixed in pretty well but the lines are been drawn the country is segregation off into factions and this worries me greatly. I do firmly believe that in my lifetime i will see the closest thing to a civil war you could possiably imgin

[Blackheart]

"Because the Israeli - Palestinian conflict is causing more problems than it is solving. It would be MUCH better for the US and the world if the the conflict was resolved."

And who said limited scale conflict was always an effective solution? But I think at this point, that a full scale war between the US, Isreal, (possibly) Turkey and Syria, Egypt, Jordon (for argument's sake), Saudi Arabia, and posibly Iran would be a bit worse.

As for having it resolved, well go right ahead. Stick your hand in the bees nest... It would be better for the US to have the conflict resolved. It would be a considerable consolidation of political power through an influential ally.

As for whether it would be better for the world, I'm afraid I have to reserve judgement on that.

"Sorry to point this out to you again - but Europe sides more with the Palestinians."

Err, why do you bother to mention Europe? I didn't. Or didn't you notice the shift in Allies during the most recent conflict?

"The palestinian conflict nothing to do with oil. The main thing that the Palestinian - Israeli conflict has ever been over is the hatred of Jews and the elimination of Israel."

JD, were you sleepy? Oil producing countries is one way of refering to the richer Arab states. I didn't say anything about oil being part of the conflict.

It IS however part of the economic picture of the region, and probably the only real reason the US is interested in the Area, aside from special interest groups.

I'm quite aware of the origins of Isreal and why the Palestinains feel like someone moved them off their land, AND the history of conflict for millenia before that.

"Which crusades woudl those be? The European crusades were major battles that extended fromt he south ot France the Jerusalem and beyond. I woudl hardly call that a small copnflict. It was also in response to muslims attacking and taking over southern Europe."

Again, I think you are sleepy. The crusade analogy was to point out a LARGE SCALE conflict, and what it was like historically. And no, not all of them were in response to Moorish invasions. Some where Papal sanctioned to "free the holy land".

"And who are we against in this global conflict? We support Israel because otherwise they would be forced off the face of the earth. They were the ones INITIALLY attacked by the Arabb countries. Israel did not try to claim palestinian land before they were attacked."

Globally? It's western culture vs islamic culture, and the battle lines may never be neatly drawn. That's one of the reasons terrorism is such an effective method currently. There are no clear battle lines.

As for the root causes of the isreali/palestinian conflict, I don't see it as germane to what I'm pointing out. You could easily go back 1000 years and point out some more greivences. Neither side is lily white. They both have blood on their hands.

"Pissed at who? Who has manipulated Israel?"

Take a wild guess. Couldn't be the same people who have been funding their defense for all these decades. But perhaps manipulate IS too strong a word. More like, enabled. Enabling, like you do with an alcoholic...

"It is obvious that the ilks like Osama bin Ladin want the conflict to continue - because it is a rallying cry for his cause."

It's not just Al-Quida. There are many interests that would like to see the conflict resolved in favor of the Palestinians... As for prolonging the conflict, that's an interesting view. It's not prolonging the conflict if you're trying to win and haven't given up...

"The US has no interest in the Israel - palestinian conflict to continue - because we see that it prevents peace in the rest of the region."

Why yes the US does want the conflict to end. It would be effectively a succesful resolution in the limited scale conflict. But is it actually preventing peace in the rest of the region? Or an even better question, will it promote stability if the conflict isn't resolved in a manner that will suit both sides?

cont.

[Blackheart]

"Oh - of course it was just teh big bad evil US that had anything to do with that. The Soviet Union had nothing whatsoever to do with US reactions. We weren't imperialistic - we didn't OWN half of Europe like the Soviet Union did."

Your sarcasm leaves something to be desired. It's missing that biting edge... The fact that the US felt it had to force policies on other countries is indicative of how we chose to fight the cold war. Economic Imperialism versus Political Imperialism. No, we didn't "own" anyone. We just jerked the strings. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it backfired.

I find it amazing that you can slip into that role of martyr so easily. I wouldn't characterize either the US or the USSR as evil. So there's no need for you to try to put word in my mouth. But then, this is a digression from the main topic.

"They're not a organized power. Do you think the Soviet Union would have allowed the United States to attack East Germany like we did with Iraq? or do you have only certain countries in mind? "

Well finally, you have managed to present a salient point. They are not politically organized. They are however, culturally organized. In some instances, that could be far, far worse. Just ask the British...

And while you're on the subject of Iraq, Iraq was a rogue state. It wasn't an Islamic state, The Baath party were fascists, not Islamic. They were in fact toward the secular end of the scale, and as such not at all favored by any of the other countries in the area. As much as they complained, they didn't like the little tin-dictator anymore than we did. Now that he's gone you can expect to hear a lot MORE complaining that the US is still there.

"Cambodia was bombed because the North Vietnamese were attcking from Cambodia."

I'm definitely going to stop throwing bait in front of you. You can't avoid snarfling it up... What do you think would happen if the Palestinian forces were attacking from, oh Syria- Whoops, already bombed there, Lebanon.. whoops already bombed there.. Sigh.

"And the Israeli - Palestinian conflict has spilled over - it's the damn rallying cry for all the fanatical clerics. You deny that Jews are blindly HATED in the Middle East? If there was peace between Israel and the Palestinians - what would they use to demonstrate that the Jews are evil?"

What would the new world order use to show that Muslims are evil?! Well at least you can see the demagoguery on one side. Now open your other eye. How blindly do you think Muslims are hated in some areas now?

There won't BE peace because there are too many vested interests on BOTH sides to keep the war going. Which I would say is typical of a limited scale conflict gone awry

[Radagast The Brown]

Originally posted by Blackheart
What do you think would happen if the Palestinian forces were attacking from, oh Syria- Whoops, already bombed there, Lebanon.. whoops already bombed there.. Sigh.

That's different: First, Syria wa already an enemy of us before we started attacking it. I don't it should be thaty a big surprise. We won't attack in Jordan, for example, since we have peace there.
Second, we attacked Lebanon continuously in the last 20 years (after the Lebanon war, 1982-83), until three years ago. 3 years ago we got out of Lebanon. It was quiet from then. comparatively.
Third, the bombs in Syria were a warning. It wasn't to destroy the terror organizations camps in Syria, obviously.

How blindly do you think Muslims are hated in some areas now?

That is different, too. I'm not trying to be the victim here, but there are 1.6 billion muslims, and 13 million jews...
And again, many people dislike (don't want to use 'hate') muslims (which are arabs here) with a reason. (not very convincing one; but a reason. As I said, there's no point of hating a whole religion because of the religion. From the Proclamation of Independence: "it (Israel) will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture;..." - it doesn't prove anyrthing of course; it's just one of the most important laws.)

[Blackheart]

"That's different:"

Sorry but I'm immediatly skeptical of statements that start with those words...

"First, Syria wa already an enemy of us before we started attacking it. I don't it should be thaty a big surprise."

No it's not a surprise. The recent activity however was. I was not refering to the "30-day war" you know...

"We won't attack in Jordan, for example, since we have peace there."

And likely Jordan is not going to offer harbor to insurgent forces or terrorists, because they are also a (nominally) US aligned ally.

"Second, we attacked Lebanon continuously in the last 20 years (after the Lebanon war, 1982-83), until three years ago. 3 years ago we got out of Lebanon. It was quiet from then. comparatively."

This is an interesting case. One might argue that the bombing created as many, if not more, problems than it solved. It certainly kept up the conflict in an area that was removed from the Isreali governments primary concerns. That is of course, the purpose of a "buffer zone".

"Third, the bombs in Syria were a warning. It wasn't to destroy the terror organizations camps in Syria, obviously."

I understand your point, but you haven't sufficiently demonstrated that there is a real difference to me. The initial incursions into laos and cambodia were "limited strikes" also. Escalation occured after the initial strikes failed to have any positive results.

"That is different, too. I'm not trying to be the victim here, but there are 1.6 billion muslims, and 13 million jews... "

I also understand your position. But all that really means is that the Muslims are even less likely to put up with it. And the results are likely to be even more horrific...

Besides the fact that it's a disingenious argument. Why is hate different when applied to a majority or a minority? The only difference is one of vulnerability to it's effects. In ethical terms, there isn't a real difference.

"And again, many people dislike (don't want to use 'hate') muslims (which are arabs here) with a reason. (not very convincing one; but a reason."

Hrmm... That's a rather shakey position. Dislike instead of hatred, and unconvincing reasons? I'm sorry but it sounds just as irrational as any other similar position.

"As I said, there's no point of hating a whole religion because of the religion. From the Proclamation of Independence: "it (Israel) will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture;..." - it doesn't prove anyrthing of course; it's just one of the most important laws."

A very laudible statement. And it would be wonderful if all of the people in the region subscribed to that ideal, and wanted to participate in such a democratic government. But for some reason it's not happening. The question you have to ask is why?

[Ornelírë Mistë]

Originally posted by Blackheart
"That's different:"

Sorry but I'm immediatly skeptical of statements that start with those words...

That's all you can say to an interesting statement? Maybe he could not think of a better way to say it?

[The Gaffer]

Been away for 5 days and the thread is STILL about Israel/Palestine. Still, that was an interesting detour via warfare.

I'd like to pick up the comment someone made a few pages back, along the lines of "someone needs to do the counter-intuitive thing". This puts me in mind of the Truth and Reconciliation Committees in South Africa.

In the 1980s, pretty much everone agreed that there was going to be a bloodbath in South Africa before the whites handed over power. Here you had groups of people who were brought up under apartheid who, we predicted, would not be able to break out of that mindset without the use of overwhelming force.

It seems to me that the existence of a process (the Committees) where people could confess to the crimes they committed, yet not be hacked to pieces by a mob, has made a huge contribution to enabling the population to escape from that prejudiced mindset.

Any comments?

[Radagast The Brown]

No it's not a surprise. The recent activity however was. I was not refering to the "30-day war" you know...

What is 30-day war?

I don't understand you - you first say it's not a surprise, and then say it is?

And likely Jordan is not going to offer harbor to insurgent forces or terrorists, because they are also a (nominally) US aligned ally.

1. it was an example. Luckily only our enemies helps terror.
2. there are terrorists in Jordan. The goverment doesn't encourage them, or help them - but they do exist.

This is an interesting case. One might argue that the bombing created as many, if not more, problems than it solved. It certainly kept up the conflict in an area that was removed from the Isreali governments primary concerns. That is of course, the purpose of a "buffer zone".

The bombing in Lebanon wre not a warning - the terror oraganization there (Hizballa) does not rest much - but doesn't cause many problems.
And there is no buffer zone now.

I understand your point, but you haven't sufficiently demonstrated that there is a real difference to me. The initial incursions into laos and cambodia were "limited strikes" also. Escalation occured after the initial strikes failed to have any positive results.

I understand your point too, but, again, the situation is different here. (I don't care if you're skeptical now) Our problems with the terror organizations are not new - as they were in Cambodia and Laos. I actaully can't really tell youwhat exactly are the differences - I know almost nothing about the Vietnam war.
And our strikes are limited - and will stay limited - because they are succesful too. (unlike...)

Besides the fact that it's a disingenious argument. Why is hate different when applied to a majority or a minority? The only difference is one of vulnerability to it's effects. In ethical terms, there isn't a real difference.

Because they don't have to care if half of the world hates them or not.
And we should care if we want to survive.

Hrmm... That's a rather shakey position. Dislike instead of hatred, and unconvincing reasons? I'm sorry but it sounds just as irrational as any other similar position.

What I mean is that they have a reason, which they think is very good one. But it is not, for me.
Second thought - the Muslims probably think so too (they have a reason) - but they, as you said, attack us blindly.

I will continue afterwards. I'm busy.

[sun-star]

Originally posted by Sween
Allready in this country people are looking over there shoulders and saying to themselves 'theres a lot more black,white,asian people here than there was before' the phrase i heard most often muttred is 'they are taking over'! I saw it at college the chinease people stuck together, the asians (whom there were scaresly less than the white) the whites and the true black people mixed in pretty well but the lines are been drawn the country is segregation off into factions and this worries me greatly.

What makes you think that this will be more than temporary? Immigrants often take a while to integrate into a society, and while they do they stick with the people of their own culture - that's just natural. But over time I don't see any reason why ethnic groups won't become at least more integrated into our society. My ancestors moved to England from Ireland in the 19th century (as many did) and settled in the East End of London. The analogy with today isn't perfect of course, because although they had their own distinctive culture and religion they did speak the same language, but I think it's close enough to be taken into account. Such immigrants lived with people they had something in common with - their homeland - but over a few generations England gradually became their home, and it has long ceased to be a problem (long as in around 100 years). I might be being idealistic, but there's only so long you can remain a stranger in the country you have adopted as your home.

Not that there isn't a problem with a minority - I don't deny that - but I'm not convinced it's as bad as you make out. I wouldn't like to give the rest of the board the impression that the UK is on the verge of a race war

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
I'd like to pick up the comment someone made a few pages back, along the lines of "someone needs to do the counter-intuitive thing". This puts me in mind of the Truth and Reconciliation Committees in South Africa.

In the 1980s, pretty much everone agreed that there was going to be a bloodbath in South Africa before the whites handed over power. Here you had groups of people who were brought up under apartheid who, we predicted, would not be able to break out of that mindset without the use of overwhelming force.

It seems to me that the existence of a process (the Committees) where people could confess to the crimes they committed, yet not be hacked to pieces by a mob, has made a huge contribution to enabling the population to escape from that prejudiced mindset.

Any comments?

But how would that apply to the Israeli/Palestinian issue exactly? With South Africa you had one entity considered a pariah state under enormous economic and political pressure until they finally collapsed (in a whimper and not in an explosion thank god) and such committees could work. in the middle east you have various powers all more or less legitimate using real physical force on each other.

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
But how would that apply to the Israeli/Palestinian issue exactly?

FIIK. Another important difference would be the existence of charismatic leaders who were committed to peace who weren't assassinated by their own side the minute they showed any signs of "weakness". As well as Mandela you had Tutu, who was regarded as fair-minded by both "sides".

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Sween
JD you make a lot of talk about how these problems have to be solved! How exctally are you going to solves these problems? All i see your government doing is drawing lines in the sand. You cannot in this conflict come out and say we are in support of one side no one side is in the right at all in this conflict!

That's because that imust be all your country reports. We have been putting a lot of pressure on Israel NOT to build the wall. We think it is a bad idea. We do NOT agree with everything israel does and when we don't we speak out about it. With the Roadmap to Peace - we had given the palestinians praise for the things they were doing in the beginning.

You are drawing lines in the sand and thats a very dangerous and some would say stupid thing to do because once a line is drawn all you can do is cross it.

Where have we drawn lines in the sand?

As for all this talk about humans been by nature apt to war like its some kinda reflex (its cold go put a jumper on etc) thats is very true! Allready in this country people are looking over there shoulders and saying to themselves 'theres a lot more black,white,asian people here than there was before' the phrase i heard most often muttred is 'they are taking over'! I saw it at college the chinease people stuck together, the asians (whom there were scaresly less than the white) the whites and the true black people mixed in pretty well but the lines are been drawn the country is segregation off into factions and this worries me greatly. I do firmly believe that in my lifetime i will see the closest thing to a civil war you could possiably imgin

That is normal - for first generation immigrants. The US has had that forever. The Italians were hated when they came here, the Irish were, all the Europeans who immigrated during the Ellis Island years were looked at the same way. The segragation is generally a temporary thing while the new people get used to the country. They move to where their friends moved to - where they feel comfortable.

If students from two different junior highs enter a single high school - they will in the beginning only hang out with the people from their previous school. This changes though as the weeks go on. It's the same thing with immigration - just on a larger scale.

[Insidious Rex]

Top Israeli Officer Says Tactics Are Backfiring

By Molly Moore
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, October 31, 2003

JERUSALEM, Oct. 30 -- Israel's senior military commander told columnists for three leading newspapers this week that Israel's military tactics against the Palestinian population were too repressive and were fomenting explosive levels of "hatred and terrorism" that might become impossible to control.
In remarks that suggest a dramatic split with the approach of the current government, Lt. Gen. Moshe Yaalon, chief of staff of the Israeli armed forces, said that crackdowns, curfews and roadblocks in the West Bank and Gaza Strip were crippling the lives of innocent Palestinians and that the military's tactics were now threatening Israel's own interests.
The military chief directed most of his complaints at restrictions imposed on the West Bank four weeks ago, after a suicide bomber from the West Bank city of Jenin killed 21 people in a restaurant in the Israeli port of Haifa. Yaalon said the current curfews and travel restrictions, some of the tightest since the outbreak of the Palestinian uprising in September 2000, were preventing Palestinians from carrying out critical olive and other agricultural harvests, hampering thousands of children from attending school, increasing hatred for Israel and strengthening terrorist organizations.
"In our tactical decisions, we are operating contrary to our strategic interests," Nahum Barnea, columnist for the Yedioth Aharonoth newspaper, quoted Yaalon as telling him.
Yaalon also said he believed the Israeli government contributed to the failure of Mahmoud Abbas as Palestinian prime minister because it was too "stingy" and was unwilling to make concessions to bolster his authority.
Yaalon took his complaints public after several weeks of security staff meetings in which he advocated easing the military restrictions on Palestinians. But in each session he was overruled by Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz and the intelligence chief, Avi Dichter, who argued that loosening controls on travel in the territories could allow Palestinian militants to slip into Israel, according to two military officers familiar with the internal disagreements. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, the final arbiter in the meetings, sided with Mofaz and Dichter, the officers said.
"He felt it was his public duty to say that if we don't do something about this, then it will explode in our face," said one senior military official. "The war against terror is taking place on the backs of civilians."
Sharon and Mofaz, who both advocate stringent and wide-ranging responses to Palestinian suicide bombings and other attacks, reportedly were infuriated that the chief of staff aired his complaints publicly.
An official of Sharon's government, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that what Yaalon said "is legitimate," but that by making his case to the news media, "I don't think he said the right thing to the right people." He added that Sharon and Mofaz were "not happy" and that "it would not happen again."
But Yaalon's remarks, echoed by equally vociferous criticism from other military officers interviewed Thursday, revealed a schism between military and political leaders over the government's handling of a conflict that many officers and soldiers say they believe is not winnable through military force, incites more terrorism than it prevents and mistreats innocent Palestinians. Almost 900 Israeli citizens or foreign residents of Israel have been killed in attacks by Palestinians, and Israeli military forces have killed about 2,500 Palestinians.
"We're in a more serious situation that the U.S. was in Vietnam," said reserve Brig. Gen. Yiftah Spector, one of the most decorated fighter pilots in Israeli military history. Spector was grounded as a flight instructor last month after signing a letter, along with 26 other reserve pilots, calling the military's targeted killings of militants in crowded civilian neighborhoods "illegal and immoral."
Israel's military policies in the Palestinian territories, Spector said, are "opposing everything I was raised on" during his career in the air force.

(cont. in next message)