Posted on 02/10/2002 6:49:58 AM PST by FresnoDA
But the third segment is a lying Arafat.
I have long known and believed that there is never any way for the jews and muslims to live in any one country. The odds of that suceeding I saw as dismal, less than dismal really, as soon as I looked at it as a young teenager and really started thinking about it. After any of the various wars-the earlier the better, my opinion-there should have been complete total segregation. Total. complete. enforced somehow, by the west. Instead, this creation of weird broken up and insecure borders, combined with using the muslims as a cheap labor pool inside israel, and the muslim despots keeping their populations off balance and in sefdom by promoting hate, and the ultra fantical expansionists in israel doing the same-completely and utterly doomed to failure. It's failed. It's "officially" failed near as I can tell.
This is not surprising given the odds against the attempt.
I think that almost everyone would agree on it. "Part' autonomy, etc, wouldn't work for the jews, they wouldn't stand for it after world war 2, and I don't blame them one bit, and it won't ever work for the muslims in that region, either. It just won't ever, it has to be full segregation and autonomy, and I wish it had happened a long time ago.
Now, it's built up over several generations, there is way too much hate and distrust, the who shot who first or who stole who's goat first argument is beyond stupid, it goes back thousands of years, and frankly, I never cared about that part.
There's no way to tell anymore "who started it". I refuse to pick some arbitrary point in fairly recent history to start looking at that from, even though it appears to be the politically correct thing to "do" here, I just plain won't-thankyou- so instead, I have always thought it was more rational and sane to segregate those people's. The sooner the better. use the carrot and the stick, with the justice blinded and fair, equally, across the board And THEN if that didn't work, if one side clearly invaded the other, after a fresh clean slate like that, then swell, then I guess it would get to full war, not scab-picking war that has built to the point now that it endangers the entire planet.
Basically, the entire world is at risk of thermonuclear and biological war over the squabbles of just a few million people,and the blood profits of even a smaller number than that, much smaller, and that's about it.
And frankly part two, the top leadership levels of those two peoples have been more or less fanatical nutcases forever, completely incapable of seeing beyond their own suspicions and hatreds and personal power politics. And the squabbles come from them not being able to deal with each other, and being egged on from each others blood lust genocidal maniacs. And INSIDE those various countries, even there, the same people squabble furiously with themselves. they are squabblers, it's apparent to anyone outside looking in. it's their nature, but now they all have WMD and are building up as fast as possible.
This is lame to egg them on each other, and to arm them, completely lame. In the long run, people will see that-after it's too late to do anything about it.
I think the west could have and should have forced the issue of segregation on them many many years ago, and then NOT ARMED them. This is an overlooked and completely minimalised point, no one wants to admit to it. No one. Not the US, not england, not russia, not china, not anyone who makes hundreds of billions selling arms into that rregion. It's supposed to "not be seen or talked about". Arms are the largest exports of the major nations, check the stats, and no one is going to tell me that that economic reality doesn't play a role in forming foreign policy in those nations, and our nation, because it just does.
So, no arms, not sold or lent or granted or aided, none, sell them no longer so much as a bullet, any of them. And oil. No oil out, no oranges out, no technology out, none of it matters when you risk purchasing world war three, and no weapons in, conventional or advanced.
I wrote this before. Say you have two gangs, or just two families, any 'two" analogies you want,they are fighting constantly down the street. Do you sell arms to both sides, both gangs? Would you do any sort of business with either of them, knopwing they love to fight, whatever the reasons are?
That's what we have been doing, no different. Is that the smart thing to do? Or do you force them to get civilised, and to grow up? Would you "boycott" dealings with them, combine with your sane neighbors and force them to stop endangering the neighborhood? That should be easy to answer. Would they still fight, well, maybe, probably, but you wouldn't be worrying about stray WMD hitting you either, if all they had was small quantities of small arms, tops.
We could have done it years ago with simple economic boycotts of the entire region, and a very major effort to further use our economic clout-that we had more of years ago, when it would have been easier- as the carrot part to get other nations to follow suit. In fact, I still think it's possible, but not probable, as the thought of losing all that armament money and cheap oil is just too much to bear for the people calling the foreign policy shots for the last 50 years. They get the swooning vaporous buckwheats even thinking about losing those profitable 'markets".
I know none of this has much bearing on the "here and now', past history, etc. I still think a true visionary in a top leadership position could pull it off, if it was tried, and if there was any possibility of an intelligent and non corrupted visionary getting to a top leadership position..
%^)
Unfortunately, I think way too many politicians and international 'business' pirates-jews, gentiles, muslims, whatevers- all of them,-have it as a basic tenet of "work" and 'busy-ness" that perpetual strife and conflict are nifty ways to keep themselves in power and make billion$. Well, it obviously DOES work for them, admirably so. The concept is called perpetual war for perpetual profits (and political control), and I agree with that basic premise, that it is almost universally embraced and used and applied by all governments, from the available geopolitical data that's there to see.
The master of "deny, deflect & blame it on the Jews." He never answered a straight question with a straight answer.
The master of "deny, deflect & blame it on the Jews." He never answered a straight question with a straight answer.
As Saint Bernard, but hardly man's best friend.
Where to start....Wallace kept pressing Arafat about the terrorist attacks. Arafat never answered the question. The Karine A? Well, um, Arafat never answered the question...Wallace confronted him with the "Jihad Jihad Jihad Jihad" statement...Arafat was evasive. Wallace confronted Yasser about statements made by some muckimuck in the Pal government (the usual threat to Israelis)...Arafat never heard it.
It went like that for the entire interview.
The rockets go up,
The rockets come down
"Dot's not my department,"
Says Werner von Braun.
"I aim for the stars, but sometimes hit London."
I think you’re approaching the subject from the wrong perspective. Israel was not created so Jews and Muslims could live together. It was created as a Jewish Homeland, a place of refuge recognizing that throughout history Jews have been persecuted worldwide. IMO you don’t have to search through thousands of years for a historical benchmark. Most of the nations in the Middle East were created at the Paris Peace Conference following World War I (albeit a much, much larger Israel). If Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia are legitimate, how can Israel not be.
"Part' autonomy, etc, wouldn't work for the jews, they wouldn't stand for it after world war 2, and I don't blame them one bit, and it won't ever work for the muslims in that region, either. It just won't ever, it has to be full segregation and autonomy, and I wish it had happened a long time ago.
Now, it's built up over several generations, there is way too much hate and distrust, the who shot who first or who stole who's goat first argument is beyond stupid… There's no way to tell anymore "who started it".
I assume you’re talking about the territories here. I think it’s easy to tell who started it. The Arab states have refused to this day to recognize Israel’s right to exist. The West Bank and Gaza were first conquered by Jordan and Egypt, who kept the territory but refused to resettle the population. Israel kept control as a defensive buffer after one of many unsuccessful wars of aggression initiated by the Arab states, just like the Sinai and the Golan Heights. Note in making Peace, the Sinai was returned (with a demilitarization agreement, and Jewish settlements dismantled). Neither Jordan, in their peace negotiations, nor Egypt had any interest in their former territory.
Unfortunately, the buffer is still needed. A fully autonomous Palestinian State would simply serve as a breeding ground for terror on a worldwide basis.
IMO it’s difficult for Israel to negotiate peace with an enemy who refuses to abandon their destruction as a goal. At the same time that Israel has made generous offers to implement Oslo, Arafat in the Arabic press has described the Oslo process as just one more step toward the destruction of Israel. Remedying this will take not only a recognition of Israel’s right to exist, but a virtual re-education of the Palestinian population (and much of the Arab world) in terms of their knowledge not only of Israel but the West as well. IMO arms boycotts don’t work. America has no role on the ground, in terms of enforcing separation. The role we may assume, largely as a result of common enemies, is dealing with the real sources of the problem, Iran, Iraq, and Syria.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.