Post #114,472
8/20/03 3:11:05 AM
|
Why are Africa and the Middle East in such bad shape?
One factor is the fact that when the colonial powers drew the bordrs, they paid no attention to tribal and ethnic concerns and just threw different groups together. This has led to states taht are only viable if 1 group takes control and oprresses the other.
|
Post #114,474
8/20/03 3:33:13 AM
|
Nicely done.
"It's not our fault, it's those evil colonial powers that are making us blow each other up!"
Time to take responsibility for yourselves and your actions.
Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Blog]
|
Post #114,480
8/20/03 3:55:07 AM
|
So you explain Africa ...
and why the continent is an absolute disaster.
|
Post #114,512
8/20/03 7:17:18 AM
|
Re: So you explain Africa ...
Same problem as the brats in the Middle East (i.e. Israel/Palestine).
So easy to blame those who went before. Actions have consequences, true, but I thought we were talking about governments composed of adults.
Apparently not.
Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Blog]
|
Post #114,513
8/20/03 7:22:13 AM
|
So, the fact that the West ...
oppressed the people, raped the countries for their natural resources, drew ridiculous borders and then left had nothing to do with it?
|
Post #114,517
8/20/03 7:40:53 AM
|
Re: So, the fact that the West ...
Ah, that'd be why the Hutus murdered the Tutsis in Rwanda?
"The Belgian/French/British/German colonial pigdogs made us do it!"
There comes a point when you can no longer blame your own shortcomings on the actions of people long since dead.
Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Blog]
|
Post #114,535
8/20/03 9:50:30 AM
|
in a sense the pigdogs *did*
The distinction between Hutus and Tutsis was exacerbated--all but created--under colonial administration: Under colonial rule, first by the Germans and then by the Belgians, this hierarchical division was racialized and made more rigid. Ethnic identity cards were required, and the state discriminated in favor of Tutsi, who were considered to be closer to whites in the racial hierarchy. This was reinforced by versions of history portraying the Tutsi as a separate "Hamitic" people migrating into the region from the north and conquering the Bantu- speaking Hutu. In fact, current historical evidence is insufficent to confirm to what extent the distinction arose by migration and conquest or simply by social differentiation in response to internal economic and political developments.
In the post-colonial period, for extremists on both sides, the divide has come to be perceived as a racial division. Political conflicts and inequalities in the colonial period built on and reinforced stereotypes and separation. Successive traumatic conflicts in both Burundi and Rwanda entrenched them even further. Despite the efforts of many moderates and the existence of many extended families crossing the Hutu/Tutsi divide, extremist ideologies and fears are deadly forces. Far from being the product of ancient and immutable "tribal" distinctions, however, they are based above all in political rivalries and experiences of current generations. [link|http://www.africaaction.org/bp/ethcen.htm|http://www.africaact...org/bp/ethcen.htm] I'm not particularly sympathetic myself to the practice of "blam[ing one's] own shortcomings on the actions of people long since dead" (although some of them are still living--the Belgians didn't leave until 1962, and in the waning years of their administration they actively pursued an ethnic "divide and conquer" policy, which included the tacit support of some early massacres in 1959, in an attempt to fight the independence movement that had grown up among the previously favored Tutsis. Complicated place, the world), but in this instance it's tough to exonerate the colonialists completely--curious to think that the bland Belgians used to be such beastly brutes, and in living memory at that. The roots of Africa's disadvantages vis-à-vis the rest of the world generally and their European and European-descended colonizers in particular, are discussed in some detail in Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel, and according to his thesis the causes long predate colonialism or, for that matter, industrial technology. cordially, Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist.
|
Post #114,475
8/20/03 3:34:39 AM
|
Because you are superstitious children
..afraid of bugbears, troubled by imaginary spirits - and without any tradition of sane self-governance, you are incapable of providing for your own security, or of preventing your squabbles over imaginary beings, fearsome deities, wood fairies, prophets, dietary laws etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. from spilling out into the civilized world and corrupting it as well.
I suggest you doff your black hats, get a close shave, and invite your besheeted neighbors over for some pulled pork.
(Is my contempt for you all coming through? Excellent.)
-drl
|
Post #114,481
8/20/03 3:57:06 AM
|
In other words ...
the peoples of Africa are just primitive and uncivilized. I wonder if you believe that has anything to do with the color of their skin?
|
Post #114,487
8/20/03 4:08:51 AM
|
I wouldn't rule out the correlation
..but no, that's not what I think. I think learning to govern oneself requires some kernel of democratic tradition, however vague. We earned it the hard way over several thousand years. The key point was the abstract idea of individual worth and self-determination. You haven't learned it, nor has Africa for the most part - and I believe they never will.
The depressing thing is - we in the West seem to be unlearning it while you are ignoring it.
-drl
|
Post #114,492
8/20/03 4:29:59 AM
|
When did the West really get the message?
After all you say it is being unlearned. When were the golden years of the US? The 1950's (or before) when Jim Crow still ruled? The 1960's with Vietnam, riots, protests, etc.? The 1970's and Richard Nixon? The 1980's, the decade of greed and Ronald Reagan? The 1990's ad Bill Clinton and polls, and spin?
|
Post #114,494
8/20/03 4:42:26 AM
|
The message was that of Jesus
It took forever to mature, but "love thy neighbor as thyself" eventually became "all men are created equal", and "My kingdom is not of this earth" became "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".
Now we have some jackass in Alabama who thinks God told him to erect a monument to Mosaicism in a courthouse. You guys are winning!
-drl
|
Post #114,495
8/20/03 4:48:02 AM
|
Tell me when it matured
Not before the 1970's in the US where Blacks were second class citizens. In fact, school prayer was mandatory and what about the blue laws? When my parents went to public school in NY in te 1950's every December there was a Christmas play.
|
Post #114,496
8/20/03 4:48:26 AM
|
7/4/1776
-drl
|
Post #114,499
8/20/03 4:52:55 AM
8/20/03 5:00:41 AM
|
When blacks were slaves???
That was some lousy message. Slavery continued another 90 years in the US and then segregation for another almost 100 years. What about women? Do they not deserve the right to self determination? Didn't happen until 1920. What about the brutal anhilation and taking of land of the American Indians in the 1800's, what happened to their right of self determination? Do you mean to say that only white males have these inalienable rights? Are you saying that you would prefer the America of 1776 to the America of today?
Edited by bluke
Aug. 20, 2003, 04:57:51 AM EDT
Edited by bluke
Aug. 20, 2003, 05:00:41 AM EDT
|
Post #114,501
8/20/03 5:00:57 AM
|
Re: When blacks were slaves???
Yep. That was not good, and is now gone. Instead, we are now all slaves to fashion, TV, and saturated fats.
BTW the slave trade was stewarded by the Semitic people of North Africa and environs - that area next to the Land of Doe Breasts and Goblet Bellies - known to everyone else as the Middle East.
Do I prefer 1776 to now? Do I prefer an ice cream cone to a stab in the eyeball with a redhot eel gig?
-drl
|
Post #114,504
8/20/03 5:31:32 AM
8/20/03 5:32:34 AM
|
If I understand you right
You would prefer to a live in a society that held human beings as slaves solely because of the color of their skin and looked at them as sub humans rather then society of today. America of 1776 is your ultimate society. You have certainly revealed your racist true colors today.
Edited by bluke
Aug. 20, 2003, 05:32:34 AM EDT
|
Post #114,533
8/20/03 9:46:56 AM
|
Ah, they were shipping slaves because they vere Semitic.
Not because they were greedy and it was profitable. Blame the supplier. War on drugs.
You know, I'd never imagined that you'll reach dictionary-pure, animal antisemitism before some other people here. Short of formal apology, this is my last post to you.
--
Less Is More. In my book, About Face, I introduce over 50 powerful design axioms. This is one of them.
--Alan Cooper. The Inmates Are Running the Asylum
|
Post #114,570
8/20/03 1:22:23 PM
8/20/03 1:38:48 PM
|
Re: Ah, they were shipping slaves because they vere Semitic.
"Anti-Semitism" is a euphemism for "anti-Jew" - I am not and never will be. "Semitic", as has been pointed out before, refers to the entire region in proper usage, and includes all sides of the self-destructive struggle among Arab, Palestinian, and Jew.
I DO have a great mistrust of the ability of the Semitic people - all of them - to govern themselves. This is not based on opinion, but bloody history and violation of fundamental, sound principles of government. No religion can be the basis of government - it just doesn't work. It leads to disaster in every case.
I will not apologize for something I did not say and do not believe. I am no more "anti-Jew" than I am "anti-Martian". I am against the religious state tyranny that is Israel. I maintain that Israel is a disaster and an enantiodromic blot on the history of the Jews.
[link|http://constitution-first.org/semite.htm|http://constitution-first.org/semite.htm]
It seems that whenever Jewish or Israeli interests are openly criticized, the perpetrator is inevitably denounced as being an anti-Semitist. The anti-Semitism flag is of course intended to shield the Zionist/Israeli agenda from accountability by branding anyone who challenges it as racists and Nazis. That is unacceptable; no nation or group of people, nor their religion or politics are beyond accountability. However, if the issue of anti-Semitism is going to get tangled up in the mix, then perhaps it is worth knowing what the term "Semite" really means.
From Webster's dictionary (1957), we find an evolved popular definition of, "1. a Semitic word or idiom, 2. Characteristics of the Semites; especially, the ideas, cultural qualities, etc, originating with the Jews." Undoubtedly, this definition of Semitism fits well into the Judo-Christian scheme of things, which mythologizes the ancient tribes of Israel as the genealogical key-stone of the Middle Eastern world (the Genesis Myth and all that). Chosen people, master god, master doctrine, master race; haven't we heard this sort of thing somewhere before? In any event, the definition of "Semitic" exists in its present state only because of popular convention in Christian dominated English and thus doesn't accurately reflect historical realities (Reference), not even according to Webster. For example, the same dictionary defines a "Semite" as, 'a member of any of the peoples whose language is Semitic, including the Hebrews, Arabs, Assyrians, Phoenicians, Babylonians, etc; now especially the Jew'." In addition, "Semitic" is defined as, "1. characteristic of, or like a Semite or the Semites, 2.designating or of a major group of languages of south Western Asia and Northern Africa, related to the Hermitic languages and divided into East Semitic (Akkadian), North West (Phoenician, Punic, Aramaic, Hebrew, modern Hebrew, etc) and south West Semitic (Arabic, Ethiopic, Amharic).
Considering the extended scope of these definitions, it would seem that anyone using the term "Semitism" is invoking a definitional root that encompasses a rather huge and diverse amount of genealogical and cultural ground, of which the Jews are only a segment. As such, one might just as well accuse the Israelis and their supporters of being anti-Semitists for aiding and perpetrating Israel's colonialist aggressions against the Palestinians. It is no coincidence that the world community through the auspices of the United Nations has condemned Israel for being the most raciest state on the planet.
-drl
Edited by deSitter
Aug. 20, 2003, 01:38:48 PM EDT
|
Post #114,587
8/20/03 2:35:57 PM
|
shun
--
Less Is More. In my book, About Face, I introduce over 50 powerful design axioms. This is one of them.
--Alan Cooper. The Inmates Are Running the Asylum
|
Post #114,644
8/20/03 7:54:34 PM
|
He's not antisemitic, he's just on a roll
He will be proclaiming Custer's last Stand only happened because some Jewish Whiskey traders were directing the Cheyene and Souix or he would have beat them.
:-)
thanx,
bill
America, Love it or give it back
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #114,534
8/20/03 9:49:46 AM
|
I would choose Today's America
I couldn't treat others as subhuman or unequals, I just couldn't do it. I don't feel like it is right. I have many friends from many different ethnic backgrounds. Our society has come a long way, but still has a long way to go.
"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"
|
Post #114,548
8/20/03 10:50:01 AM
|
I would hope that most people here would
18th century America was a very racist and prejudiced place (not only against blacks, don't forget the anti-Irish sentiment, the anti-Chinese sentiment, etc.). Of course the status of women was not much better. It says a lot about Desitter that he would prefer such a society.
|
Post #114,553
8/20/03 11:26:26 AM
|
18th century America
was, bluke asserts, "a very racist and prejudiced place," and he reminds us of "the anti-Irish sentiment, the anti-Chinese sentiment."
Two nits here. Anti-Irish and anti-Chinese "sentiments" did not become significant political elements until these groups began to arrive en masse the following century. The Chinese, in particular, were approximately as rare in the early Republic as Patagonians are in your neighborhood, and as such were likelier to be perceived as exotica rather than cheap labor and a threat to the urban proletariat, such as it was. It might also be observed that people in all societies and in all epochs are to varying extents unavoidably the captives, for good or for ill, of the cultures in which they are embedded. Conventional wisdom is a perishable commodity, and while we may be thankful not to share the reflexive xenophobia of some of our forebears, and comfortable with such tolerance as our own milieu has learned, we do ourselves no favors merely to indulge a facile condescension toward the attitudes of the past. The most enlightened among us (no, don't all stand up at once) might do well to scrutinize some of our own reflexive beliefs and consider that among them at least a few, however deeply held, however self-evidently true and just these may seem today, must inevitably strike posterity as outlandish at best.
cordially,
Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist.
|
Post #114,693
8/21/03 4:22:52 AM
|
re your caveat..
.. and never trust guys with beards ;-)
The popular antidote to this umm temporal malleability of something so deucedly difficult to grasp as, Treating People Decently (an admittedly highly complex involute concept): is most often nicely handed-off by reference to one's Guide to Objective Morality.
(Currently we appear to be living-out the various One True Objective Morality (s) as each group attempts to demonstrate its wisdom, tolerance, forbearance and just plain Humanity, via duelling Firepower.)
Given this state of affairs.. I think I'll just read another Discworld adventure. Instead. The Objective Morality implied by the writer .. but left to the reader to discern .. somehow appears a better Source than the hoary texts of the above miscreants. (Those obv haven't Worked for a full calendar year since the ink dried.. and no matter Who's calendar you go with.)
Damn it's tough evaluating a species you imagine you might somehow 'belong to', yet - -
|
Post #114,532
8/20/03 9:46:32 AM
|
The Pledge of Allegiance is no longer required in schools (new thread)
Created as new thread #114531 titled [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=114531|The Pledge of Allegiance is no longer required in schools]
"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"
|
Post #114,498
8/20/03 4:50:39 AM
|
Love thy neighbor as thyself is not Jesus but the Bible
|
Post #114,502
8/20/03 5:04:39 AM
|
Wrong
-drl
|
Post #114,503
8/20/03 5:23:46 AM
|
Leviticus 19:18
also see Leviticus 19:34
|
Post #114,642
8/20/03 7:49:59 PM
|
Including 3/5ths of all Nigra's?
America, Love it or give it back
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #114,521
8/20/03 8:10:16 AM
|
Minor nit...
..is that there is still a "colonial power" operating in the region...and that would be Israel.
In fact...its one of the principle reasons for the violence today.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #114,525
8/20/03 8:48:35 AM
8/20/03 9:01:51 AM
|
How is Israel a colonial power?
The Jews have had a continous presence (at times small) since the destruction of the temple unil now. The archeological and historical facts undeniably tie the Jews to the land. Jews have been praying since the destruction of the temple in 70 CE) to return to their land.
Edited by bluke
Aug. 20, 2003, 09:01:51 AM EDT
|
Post #114,539
8/20/03 10:00:51 AM
|
Fifty years vs. nineteen hundred and thirty years
Which one of those was ancient history again?
The way I see it, Israel has a major problem; their economy is dependent on cheap Palestinian labour; without it, their economy will go tits up, so they have to let them in. That's the real reason they can't stop the suicide bombings; it's impossible to tell bombers from workers with 100% reliability.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #114,546
8/20/03 10:42:16 AM
|
Not really
The Palestinians need the jobs more then Israel needs them. It is the US, EU, etc. who are constantly pressuring Israel to let Palestinian workers in because otherwise they have nowhere to work.
|
Post #114,558
8/20/03 12:07:01 PM
|
So why don't they stop them coming in?
Or is the fact that the US puts pressure on considering that the US gives more than a billion a year to Israel have a lot more to do with it?
What would the economy in Israel be like without foreign aid and Palestinian labour?
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #114,683
8/21/03 2:53:30 AM
|
Because the US and the EU want them to let them in
The US influence is not really an issue of money. The money that the US gives to Israel is a very small percentage of the budget and in fact most if it has to be spent in the US. The primary benificiary of the aid money are US arms manufacturers. The US has tremendous influence because of it's role as the sole superpower in the world.
|
Post #114,789
8/21/03 2:22:34 PM
|
Many countries have told the US to go stuff themselves
there's no reason Israel need be any different.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #114,815
8/21/03 4:40:23 PM
|
There certainly is
There is no other country that is under attack at the UN like Israel. I forget the number, buit a huge percentage of UN resolutions are against Israel. Israel needs the US on the security council.
|
Post #114,824
8/21/03 5:09:42 PM
|
Why are the resolutions being passed?
Ask yourselves that. And "wah wah we're Jewish so everyone hates us the bastard nazi thugs!" isn't the answer.
Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Blog]
|
Post #114,853
8/21/03 10:59:07 PM
8/22/03 12:22:56 AM
|
For one, anti-smeitism definately plays a role
secondly there are 22 Arab countries, a whole bunch of non-Arab muslim countries, and a whole bunch of countries dependent on Arab oil.
Whatever you think about Israel it should be clear to any thinking person that Israel is not the problem in the world. Yet from the number of UN resolutions it certainly looks that way. Even Kofi Anan has admitted that the UN has been anit-Israel.
The 2002 Durban Anti-RAcism conference is a perfect example. Israel is clearly not the most racist country in the world and neither is it a big source of racism, yet Israel was the focus of the conference, what is your explanation?
Edited by bluke
Aug. 22, 2003, 12:22:56 AM EDT
|
Post #114,841
8/21/03 9:58:27 PM
|
Cough...no argument there
The money that the US gives to Israel is a very small percentage of the budget and in fact most if it has to be spent in the US. The primary benificiary of the aid money are US arms manufacturers.
Best possible way for US Politicians to get graft to Defense Contractors - give US billions to another country and then demand that other country spend said billions buying US Defense contracts. Quick question - is it good for Israel in the long run? I know it's not good for the US in the long run.
|
Post #114,855
8/21/03 11:00:41 PM
|
No it's not
and a number of prominent people in Israel have said it. However, it is hard to implement.
|
Post #114,560
8/20/03 12:16:53 PM
|
Most of the current violence...
...centers around land...taken by force...and being "settled" by Jews. It was not land granted by the original charter nor is it land granted to them by God since the dawn of recorded civilization. The 1947 charter had the strip and included territories as land that was to become an independent arab state.
I forgot that the other colonial power in the region is the US...but they are occupied on the other coast at the moment.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #114,686
8/21/03 3:04:53 AM
8/21/03 10:19:28 AM
|
Not correct
The 1947 resolution was rejected by the Arabs and in any case was only advisory. In fact the only international agreement with any standing regarding the West Bank and Gaza is the 1922 San Remo conference agreement which gives the Jews the explicit permission to settle all over Palestine including the West Bank and Gaza. See my post [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=114717|here] for some links relating to this.
Edited by bluke
Aug. 21, 2003, 10:19:28 AM EDT
|
Post #114,881
8/22/03 6:48:36 AM
|
Also
There are reasonable grounds that Britain and Franch double-crossed the Arabs in 1947/8.
Wade.
Is it enough to love
Is it enough to breathe
Somebody rip my heart out
And leave me here to bleed
| |
Is it enough to die
Somebody save my life
I'd rather be Anything but Ordinary
Please
| -- "Anything but Ordinary" by Avril Lavigne. |
|
Post #114,526
8/20/03 8:57:36 AM
|
Of course, blame the Jews
It amazes me how Israel is blamed for the all of the ill's of the region. Is it Israel's fault that Saddam invaded Kuwait? Or even the fact that Saddam was in power? Is it Israel's fault that all 22 Arab countries are corrupt dictatorships? Did Israel put Assad in power? Is Israel somehow holding Egypt back? Is Israel somehow preventing the Saudi's from opening up their society? Why is it that Israel with all of the war's has managed to build a modern society with a GDP of $17,000, while absorbing millions of Jewish refugees on a tiny sliver of land with no resources and the arabs have not?
Israel is a great scapegoat for the Arab world. The Arab world somehow justifies all kinds of things because of Israel, for example martial law in Syria.
|
Post #114,561
8/20/03 12:30:32 PM
|
Lesse...
It amazes me how Israel is blamed for the all of the ill's of the region. Is it Israel's fault that Saddam invaded Kuwait? No...but what does that have to do with a) my post and b) bus bombs in Tel Aviv? Or even the fact that Saddam was in power? see above Is it Israel's fault that all 22 Arab countries are corrupt dictatorships? Nope Did Israel put Assad in power? Nope Is Israel somehow holding Egypt back? Nope Is Israel somehow preventing the Saudi's from opening up their society? Nope Why is it that Israel with all of the war's has managed to build a modern society with a GDP of $17,000, while absorbing millions of Jewish refugees on a tiny sliver of land with no resources and the arabs have not? Becasue they are better at applying the billions in aid to productive use than the arabs are at spending their oil money...maybe? Israel is a great scapegoat for the Arab world. The Arab world somehow justifies all kinds of things because of Israel, for example martial law in Syria. The arab world might do this...but I didn't. 2 decades of terrorism against Israel over a 10 mile wide strip of beach that was supposed to be an independent state. Hell...every US major city has its slum right next door...outside of its jursidiction...NY has Newark...Philly has Camden, St Louis has East St Louis etc...cut'em loose ferchrissakes...its more trouble than its worth. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #114,685
8/21/03 3:02:08 AM
|
Barak offered more at Camp David in 2000 ...
and look what the answer was. In truth most people in Israel would have no problem with getting rid of the Gaza Strip. However, it would not solve the problem. The Arabs want everything. Nabil Shaath an important minister in the PA stated over the weekend in a speech that of course the Palestinian refugees will be returning to Haifa, Jaffa, etc. They want their own Palestinian state with 0 Jews and then they want to innundate the Jewish state with 3 million Arabs. Their are already 22 Arab states with 99% of the land, do they really need a 23rd state. In addition, the British already created a Palestinian state on 80% of Palestine Jordan.
In addition, Hebron, Jerusalem and the other cities in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) are historic Israel. Jerusalem is where the 2 temples stood, Hebron is where Abraham Issac and Jacob are buried, Nablus, Joseph, Bethlehem, Rachel. These are cities with ancient Jewish conenctions.
|
Post #114,710
8/21/03 8:32:07 AM
|
Apparently they do.
Becasue that 23rd state has been a demand for quite some time.
Nonsense to you? Oh well.
Sure there is more involved...rights of those who live and work in Israel, fate of the areas of religious significance in the West Bank...but this consistent stubborn attitude about settlements in gaza and the protection of these by violence against others...does NOT actually look like a willing stance in negotiations.
They kill someone, Isreal kills someone...the last few months have both sides pointing at the other and saying "they started it" like a bunch of schoolkids.
The Arab League >certainly< shoulders a certain amount of the blame here. But do you honestly expect them to try and solve >any< issue surrounding the creation of Israel?
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #114,717
8/21/03 9:47:15 AM
8/21/03 10:17:12 AM
|
Where was that demand from 1948-1967?
Did anyone ask for or try to establish a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza when the Arabs ruled there? No! Who doesn't UN Resolution 242 (1967) talk about a Palestinian state? Because no one dreamed of it. It is only after Israel won the Six Day war which was brought on by the Arabs and the Yom Kippur War (1973) that suddenly the Arabs started demanding a Palestinain state. Here are some links to articles which explains the legal status of the West Bank and Gaza
[link|http://www.freeman.org/m_online/jun01/shusteff2.htm|THE MYTH OF "OCCUPIED" TERRITORIES]
[link|http://www.netanyahu.org/inlawreglano.html|THE INTERNATIONAL LAW REGARDING THE LAND OF ISRAEL AND JERUSALEM ]
here is a link to the mandate itself [link|http://www.shalomjerusalem.com/jerusalem/jerusalem73g.html|1922 LEAGUE OF NATIONS MANDATE] in particular see article 6
" The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes. "
it is unfortunate that more people don't know these basic facts.
Edited by bluke
Aug. 21, 2003, 09:48:32 AM EDT
Edited by bluke
Aug. 21, 2003, 10:03:56 AM EDT
Edited by bluke
Aug. 21, 2003, 10:17:12 AM EDT
|
Post #114,724
8/21/03 11:13:30 AM
|
Prior to 1967
the west back and gaza were occupied by Egypt and Jordan.
After 67 Israel "posessed" the Sanai, Golan Heights, the west bank and Gaza.
So, you see, the "arabs" didn't need to ask for those areas to be controlled by arabs...because they >were<.
ARGENTINA, AUSTRALIA, BELGIUM, BOLIVIA, BRAZIL, CANADA, CHILE, CHINA, COLOMBIA, CUBA, CZECHOSLOVAKIA, DENMARK, EL SALVADOR, FRANCE, GREECE, GUATEMALA, HAITI, HONDURAS, INDIA, ITALY, JAPAN, LIBERIA, NETHERLANDS, NEW ZEALAND, NICARAGUA, NORWAY, PANAMA, PARAGUAY, PERSIA, PERU, POLAND, PORTUGAL, RUMANIA, SIAM, SPAIN, SWEDEN, SWITZERLAND, SOUTH AFRICA, UNITED KINGDOM, URUGUAY, VENEZUELA, YUGOSLAVIA, ALBANIA, AUSTRIA, BULGARIA, COSTA RICA, FINLAND, LUXEMBOURG, ESTONIA, LATVIA, LITHUANIA, HUNGARY
What is that you ask? Why its the membership of the league of nations in 1922. I don't notice anyone there even remotely located in the Middle East. Does it surprise you, then, that there is no recognition by these people of decisions made by these organizations?
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #114,761
8/21/03 12:44:28 PM
|
{cackle} Arabs must be slow.. in slogan-building
No Taxation Nation-creation Without Representation!
(Catch (19)22 - one must Be a Nation to request Admission or Protest same. Is the Planet unclear on the concept?)
|
Post #114,778
8/21/03 1:40:16 PM
|
That would be a problem.
But the "nation" existed. Only the lines >we< recognize were not.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #114,814
8/21/03 4:38:35 PM
8/21/03 4:46:10 PM
|
Wait, you mean the Palestinians are just Arabs
If so they already have 22 countries. The West Bank and Gaza were controlled by Arabs but not Palestinians, rather Egypt and Jordan. If so why didn't the Palestinians (and the world) demand an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza from 1948-1967 instead of Jordanian and Egyptian rule? The fact is that no one suggested establishing a separate Palestinian state because there never has been one and there never was a separate Palestinian identity until the 1970's.
Regarding your second point, all of the Arab countries came into existence based on that same conference.
Edited by bluke
Aug. 21, 2003, 04:42:42 PM EDT
Edited by bluke
Aug. 21, 2003, 04:46:10 PM EDT
|
Post #114,536
8/20/03 9:50:47 AM
|
If Israel did not exist,
it would have been invented. It's not a principal reason for violence, it's the main outlet for hatred. If it weren't there, some other outlets would have to be found. In fact, the hatred reaches such proportions that Israel is no longer sufficient to serve as the only outlet. US is getting some action. Indonesia. And now, even UN. I wonder how long before France feels the heat.
--
Less Is More. In my book, About Face, I introduce over 50 powerful design axioms. This is one of them.
--Alan Cooper. The Inmates Are Running the Asylum
|
Post #114,696
8/21/03 4:30:02 AM
|
It's not nice
to point out the rather mechanical stimulus/response behaviour of homo-saps: they imagine that they are sentient, and that there are Ponderous Reasons for behaving like stupid jerks.
(You aren't advocating introspection, now are you? ;-)
|
Post #189,868
1/11/05 7:54:07 PM
|
Re: Why are Africa and the Middle East in such bad shape?
I belive that puting opposite factions into the same "cage" makes it harder for them to escape.
Also my darwinist theory for the tribal culture of southern states (read M E and Africa nor Texas and Alabama) that lack of basic resourses like water makes survival of your Family and larger tribe a top priority over coexistance with others with superficial differenses in religion, customs and cultures devised by patriarches to impose a farther "Iron Curtan"
Surviving in the harsher northern climats takes a larger group of people to geather nessesary resurse that are plenty.
|
Post #189,870
1/11/05 8:01:55 PM
|
surviving in the arctic requires co-operation
that is truly communistic in nature, and avoidance of other groups that will compete for "your" resources.
regards,
daemon
that way too many Iraqis conceived of free society as little more than a mosh pit with grenades. ANDISHEH NOURAEE
clearwater highschool marching band [link|http://www.chstornadoband.org/|http://www.chstornadoband.org/]
|
