Eisenhower
First time out of the vault
argh all this reminds me off the berlin wall. and that wasnt a good one :S
Israel's wall
- Thread starter welsh
- Start date
First time out of the vault
welsh
Junkmaster
I think JJ is making a very good point, and I agree with you Eisenhower, it also reminds me of the Berlin Wall.
There is a big difference between the economies and quality of life on either side of the border. If there is a lot of resentment on both sides, whcih snake is pointing out, I think that both sides can trace back their histories for grievances.
I think both leaders have used this conflict to their advantage, and like extremists on both sides, are better off with the conflict than without it. It's the poor folks who just want to live a better life, see their kids do well, and grow old happily that I feel sympathy for.
If, as JJ points out, the problem is economic and the movement of labor to a better quality of life, than the answer is an economic one. I would think that economic and social policies might go further to making a longer-term peace in the middle east than a military policy which so far hasn't worked.
I doubt you are ever going to end the bias and prejudices of some folks, but you can chance the circumstances in which their extreme rhetoric has less sway over the general public.
If you were able to get to the point when some dude in a mosque or a temple were to say, "Hey lets set off a bomb in that bistro just to show them we're pissed off," and everyone else says, "Don't be an asshole, we might not like them but we don't want them blown up." than you got a chance for peace.
Prejudice and bias alone is not enough to start a war. There are plenty of places around the world were people of different color or religion or ethnicity dislike each other but don't blow each other up. Getting them to like each other is asking a lot. Getting them not to kill each other is much easier.
There is a big difference between the economies and quality of life on either side of the border. If there is a lot of resentment on both sides, whcih snake is pointing out, I think that both sides can trace back their histories for grievances.
I think both leaders have used this conflict to their advantage, and like extremists on both sides, are better off with the conflict than without it. It's the poor folks who just want to live a better life, see their kids do well, and grow old happily that I feel sympathy for.
If, as JJ points out, the problem is economic and the movement of labor to a better quality of life, than the answer is an economic one. I would think that economic and social policies might go further to making a longer-term peace in the middle east than a military policy which so far hasn't worked.
I doubt you are ever going to end the bias and prejudices of some folks, but you can chance the circumstances in which their extreme rhetoric has less sway over the general public.
If you were able to get to the point when some dude in a mosque or a temple were to say, "Hey lets set off a bomb in that bistro just to show them we're pissed off," and everyone else says, "Don't be an asshole, we might not like them but we don't want them blown up." than you got a chance for peace.
Prejudice and bias alone is not enough to start a war. There are plenty of places around the world were people of different color or religion or ethnicity dislike each other but don't blow each other up. Getting them to like each other is asking a lot. Getting them not to kill each other is much easier.
EyeMaster7
A Smooth-Skin
Snake said:
Israel didn't get attacked. Israel attacked that nations. I think BBC has a good review of that war. Its not after two years but after 19 years. BBC has a good neutral summary of the "six day war".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/10/newsid_3047000/3047177.stm
Snake said:
Palestinian government? No power? There isn't a palestinian country. Its under Israel law and is an autonomy state inside Israel. There is corruption there? sure. But last year I saw yassir arafat inside a bunker without water and starving. Canadians volunteers said that everyone there was pooping inside a bucket. Yassir Arafat had medical problems and was treated by the Red Cross. (which in my opinion is strange since there is a muslin version of Red Cross which is the Red crescent or something like that. Maybe they were not allowed on that region).
I don't think a guy who lives in that conditions is one of the "top 5 richest people in the world". I know his name is not in the fortune magazine. Where did you read that?
ConstinpatedCraprunner said:
Guess who said that about killing palestinians: "the old will die and the young will forget"
Hint: It was not a nazi
I don't think any side is doing something right. The suicide bombing is not helping and the demolitions of homes and the violence against palestinians is just increasing the number of suicide bombings.
I don't think a wall is going to help. It didn't help germany to get any better. I don't think a wall will avoid a terrorist attack. A terrorist is going to find other means to attack. Remember that he is going to kill himself in the process, so I do not think he is afraid of being caught.
I think the UN should intervene in the region and decrease the hostility in both sides. Hunting terrorists and at the same time giving the territory where there is a majority of palestinians living there. Also both sides should work in a common education program to increase the tolerance between them. The violence is not going to help anyone. The suicide bombings is going to kill civilians. These civilians are going to support a repressive government. The government is going to attack the palestinians killing more civilians. The civilians' relatives are going to revenge their family. And that is going to happen again. Again. Again. Again. Again. The violence must stop and only an education program can do that. And the only organization that can do that is the UN with the help of Palestinians and Israelites.
welsh said:
Hello! I said that already! Sheesh, so much for my opinion!
Murdoch said:
/self-righteousness
A wall in itself is a pretty fucking stupid idea that can't and won't do anygood. Add to that the fact that the wall (weather you believe it's a good or bad idea), is being built in the wrong place, and this is what you get.
The only solution that can work is a political one, independence.
The only solution that can work is a political one, independence.
Well Frost meant that a wall keeps neighbours good as long as it seperates them and everyone minds his own buisness.. i think..
we had a discussion about that poem in class last week..
anyway.. well.. i think that i as someone that actually lives in the discussed place will have most information on the matter...
1st of all there wasnt only the 6-days war, there were 3 of them.. one WAS a couple of years after the country was founded.. i should visit history more often.. yeh.. and there were attacks of arabic raiders on jewish settlments even before there was a country here...
2nd.. even though there isnt a palestenian country.. there the Palestinian Autonomy(sp) - They have their own goverment, law, law enforcment.. etc.. they even have land of their own with their own juristiction.. BUT that land is merely towns that are given to them by this goverment.. attempts for diplomatical solutions bring to the conclusion that the palestenians dont want a pice of israel for their country - they want WHOLE israel for their country..
From what arab villages and towns ive seen - they actually live pretty well, either 7-8 room villas, or a shack with 3-4 mercedess' or BMW standing outside.. roumors say that osme have lamburginies.. rumors not verified.. although those are only the arabs ive seen living within israely territory.. they're all rich as hell, because due to their nationallity they're free of paying land taxes.
About Arafat.. you've read about him being rich, and being starving in a bunker.. well i think the rich part is truer, because when the israelis were taking direct military actions against him they found boxes filled with money (like.. tv size boxes) in his residence..
As for the wall itself.. i think that for now itll help, stopping terror, at least partially... though.. i dont think that israelis can live without arabs.. because.. they do all the dirty work around here.. all the cunstruction work for example.. deam country.. half is unemployed, most blame arabs or russians for taking their jobs, BUT.. were all arabs kicked out of their jobs and out of this country - less than 3% of those unemployed people would go and take their work places in cunstruction etc.. no one would like ot carry bricks all day in a 40c. heat, or clean and repair sewers, etc..
Dunnow about those schoolbuses, but there was an ordinary bus blown up yesterday or the day before, in jerusalem..
about comparing to the berlin wall.. after it being broken.. there was peace(i think.. i really should visit history more often..).. but if the israel-palestine wall is to be broken.. i think that the first thing to go through will be a big shiny cammoflauge-colored tank..
Sucicde bombing btw is also an economical solution for some palestenians.. their family gets paid for the poor guy blowing himself up and taking 20 jews with him..
The orthodoxal religious guys at the goverment - no one likes them, theyre too currupted, theyre trying to force religion on this country in an era where religion doesnt exist anymore..
In the time of war raising taxes was expected, as war consumes resources.. but now, in times of relative peace - the taxes are still near and sometimes over 50% of a man's income.. it all goes to the goverment - and form there - to those fuckers.. all those "truly religious" assholes.. they do nothing for years, and get paid monthly, waay more than minimum wages, they can aloow themselves to have 6-7 children, with no financial problems.. they dont serve in the army to protect this country the "love" so much, they dont do shit, and live off our money, what do we have to pay them for? because theyre part of the goverment, part of the currupted system that rules this place..
Giving arabs independence - please.. we'd be all happy to give them independence and get rid of them.. but.. where? in israel? they depend on us too much.. the only power station in this country - ours, ad not going to give away, the only clean water soure - ours too, wont be given away for strategical reasons(lake surrounded by mountains) so what are they gonig to do if this goverment gives them their own country? the'll be living in the friggin stone age, or paying tons of money for what we consider trivial (power, water)
What then? moving them to some other muslim country? those countries are great in talking them against us, and in funding terror, but none of them will agree to recieve this 3 million(or was it 6) "Minority"..
and last(for now, hands hurt from typing..) CNN said that, BBC said this, candas voulenteers said something else.. local news say... bluh bluh.. its all propaganda.. some pro-arab, other opposite.. no one knows whats is really gonig on out there.. neither we nor you people.. you think it was hard for one of the 5 riches men in the world to wear something that was used to clean the floor, and pay those candians a couple extra dollars so that they get him on camera and say that the poor fucker is dying of hunger? but we cant prove that, but neither can we prove that he isnt really dying of hunger.. we all know only what we've been told by the media, and whoever controls that controls the world.. imagine they said on the news that canada floated away from the us into the sea, wouldnt you believe them? or if they said that aliens invaded the us(adding some colorful illustration..) we aint there, we cant prove that right or wrong, so we just live with it..
I could go on like tihs for hours(but i have school in 20 min so i need to get myself ready..) i one even had a theory that the whole anti-bin-laden war was a conspiracy to get bush voices in the elections and to put his name in the history books as "the guy who defeated terror"..
-Tolik
calculon000
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
All I wanted through this whole war in Iraq business was an interview by CNN with a reandom Iraqi in the street on what he though of the war on terror.
I completely agree with you on the media warping what is really going on, and only reporting half the story. What we learn about a situation in any part of the world should be told by someone who lives there and has to actually work for a living. (IE not part of some corrupt government)
I completely agree with you on the media warping what is really going on, and only reporting half the story. What we learn about a situation in any part of the world should be told by someone who lives there and has to actually work for a living. (IE not part of some corrupt government)
well.. the media aint telling half-story imho.. they tell what they are told to tell.. either by goverments, threats or bribes.. but as i see things - the media has less and less truth in it since the days of the cold war.. i think that if it wasnt for the media's intervention in all this matter with the palestenians it would have been solved long ago.. but since there's media.. the israelis are outraged that world news show the palestenians as poor opressed people, that only try to peacefully survive under the reign of the evil jews, the arabs on the other hand are outraged that israely media shows them in a light of terrorists, agressive, uneducated, currupted people that should be considered as outlaws and hance come the mutual hatred.. the media is always drawn to support some side.. the so called "obejectiveness" is no more.. and all that people know is hat they are told by the media.. if all of the media was objective to the situation and not supporting some side there would long ago be a single, united, worldwide news company, but as a proof to what i say there are hundreds of news channels, each showing what they preffer.. and we are forced to believe, due to the inability to check for ourselves
welsh
Junkmaster
Printed in the New York Times-
A Wall as a Weapon
By NOAM CHOMSKY
AMBRIDGE, Mass. — It is a virtual reflex for governments to plead security concerns when they undertake any controversial action, often as a pretext for something else. Careful scrutiny is always in order. Israel's so-called security fence, which is the subject of hearings starting today at the International Court of Justice in The Hague, is a case in point.
Few would question Israel's right to protect its citizens from terrorist attacks like the one yesterday, even to build a security wall if that were an appropriate means. It is also clear where such a wall would be built if security were the guiding concern: inside Israel, within the internationally recognized border, the Green Line established after the 1948-49 war. The wall could then be as forbidding as the authorities chose: patrolled by the army on both sides, heavily mined, impenetrable. Such a wall would maximize security, and there would be no international protest or violation of international law.
This observation is well understood. While Britain supports America's opposition to the Hague hearings, its foreign minister, Jack Straw, has written that the wall is "unlawful." Another ministry official, who inspected the "security fence," said it should be on the Green Line or "indeed on the Israeli side of the line." A British parliamentary investigative commission also called for the wall to be built on Israeli land, condemning the barrier as part of a "deliberate" Israeli "strategy of bringing the population to heel."
What this wall is really doing is taking Palestinian lands. It is also — as the Israeli sociologist Baruch Kimmerling has described Israel's war of "politicide" against the Palestinians — helping turn Palestinian communities into dungeons, next to which the bantustans of South Africa look like symbols of freedom, sovereignty and self-determination.
Even before construction of the barrier was under way, the United Nations estimated that Israeli barriers, infrastructure projects and settlements had created 50 disconnected Palestinian pockets in the West Bank. As the design of the wall was coming into view, the World Bank estimated that it might isolate 250,000 to 300,000 Palestinians, more than 10 percent of the population, and that it might effectively annex up to 10 percent of West Bank land. And when the government of Ariel Sharon finally published its proposed map, it became clear the the wall would cut the West Bank into 16 isolated enclaves, confined to just 42 percent of the West Bank land that Mr. Sharon had previously said could be ceded to a Palestinian state.
The wall has already claimed some of the most fertile lands of the West Bank. And, crucially, it extends Israel's control of critical water resources, which Israel and its settlers can appropriate as they choose, while the indigenous population often lacks water for drinking.
Palestinians in the seam between the wall and the Green Line will be permitted to apply for the right to live in their own homes; Israelis automatically have the right to use these lands. "Hiding behind security rationales and the seemingly neutral bureaucratic language of military orders is the gateway for expulsion," the Israeli journalist Amira Hass wrote in the daily Haaretz. "Drop by drop, unseen, not so many that it would be noticed internationally and shock public opinion." The same is true of the regular killings, terror and daily brutality and humiliation of the past 35 years of harsh occupation, while land and resources have been taken for settlers enticed by ample subsidies.
It also seems likely that Israel will transfer to the occupied West Bank the 7,500 settlers it said this month it would remove from the Gaza Strip. These Israelis now enjoy ample land and fresh water, while one million Palestinians barely survive, their meager water supplies virtually unusable. Gaza is a cage, and as the city of Rafah in the south is systematically demolished, residents may be blocked from any contact with Egypt and blockaded from the sea.
It is misleading to call these Israeli policies. They are American-Israeli policies — made possible by unremitting United States military, economic and diplomatic support of Israel. This has been true since 1971 when, with American support, Israel rejected a full peace offer from Egypt, preferring expansion to security. In 1976, the United States vetoed a Security Council resolution calling for a two-state settlement in accord with an overwhelming international consensus. The two-state proposal has the support of a majority of Americans today, and could be enacted immediately if Washington wanted to do so.
At most, the Hague hearings will end in an advisory ruling that the wall is illegal. It will change nothing. Any real chance for a political settlement — and for decent lives for the people of the region — depends on the United States.
A Wall as a Weapon
By NOAM CHOMSKY
AMBRIDGE, Mass. — It is a virtual reflex for governments to plead security concerns when they undertake any controversial action, often as a pretext for something else. Careful scrutiny is always in order. Israel's so-called security fence, which is the subject of hearings starting today at the International Court of Justice in The Hague, is a case in point.
Few would question Israel's right to protect its citizens from terrorist attacks like the one yesterday, even to build a security wall if that were an appropriate means. It is also clear where such a wall would be built if security were the guiding concern: inside Israel, within the internationally recognized border, the Green Line established after the 1948-49 war. The wall could then be as forbidding as the authorities chose: patrolled by the army on both sides, heavily mined, impenetrable. Such a wall would maximize security, and there would be no international protest or violation of international law.
This observation is well understood. While Britain supports America's opposition to the Hague hearings, its foreign minister, Jack Straw, has written that the wall is "unlawful." Another ministry official, who inspected the "security fence," said it should be on the Green Line or "indeed on the Israeli side of the line." A British parliamentary investigative commission also called for the wall to be built on Israeli land, condemning the barrier as part of a "deliberate" Israeli "strategy of bringing the population to heel."
What this wall is really doing is taking Palestinian lands. It is also — as the Israeli sociologist Baruch Kimmerling has described Israel's war of "politicide" against the Palestinians — helping turn Palestinian communities into dungeons, next to which the bantustans of South Africa look like symbols of freedom, sovereignty and self-determination.
Even before construction of the barrier was under way, the United Nations estimated that Israeli barriers, infrastructure projects and settlements had created 50 disconnected Palestinian pockets in the West Bank. As the design of the wall was coming into view, the World Bank estimated that it might isolate 250,000 to 300,000 Palestinians, more than 10 percent of the population, and that it might effectively annex up to 10 percent of West Bank land. And when the government of Ariel Sharon finally published its proposed map, it became clear the the wall would cut the West Bank into 16 isolated enclaves, confined to just 42 percent of the West Bank land that Mr. Sharon had previously said could be ceded to a Palestinian state.
The wall has already claimed some of the most fertile lands of the West Bank. And, crucially, it extends Israel's control of critical water resources, which Israel and its settlers can appropriate as they choose, while the indigenous population often lacks water for drinking.
Palestinians in the seam between the wall and the Green Line will be permitted to apply for the right to live in their own homes; Israelis automatically have the right to use these lands. "Hiding behind security rationales and the seemingly neutral bureaucratic language of military orders is the gateway for expulsion," the Israeli journalist Amira Hass wrote in the daily Haaretz. "Drop by drop, unseen, not so many that it would be noticed internationally and shock public opinion." The same is true of the regular killings, terror and daily brutality and humiliation of the past 35 years of harsh occupation, while land and resources have been taken for settlers enticed by ample subsidies.
It also seems likely that Israel will transfer to the occupied West Bank the 7,500 settlers it said this month it would remove from the Gaza Strip. These Israelis now enjoy ample land and fresh water, while one million Palestinians barely survive, their meager water supplies virtually unusable. Gaza is a cage, and as the city of Rafah in the south is systematically demolished, residents may be blocked from any contact with Egypt and blockaded from the sea.
It is misleading to call these Israeli policies. They are American-Israeli policies — made possible by unremitting United States military, economic and diplomatic support of Israel. This has been true since 1971 when, with American support, Israel rejected a full peace offer from Egypt, preferring expansion to security. In 1976, the United States vetoed a Security Council resolution calling for a two-state settlement in accord with an overwhelming international consensus. The two-state proposal has the support of a majority of Americans today, and could be enacted immediately if Washington wanted to do so.
At most, the Hague hearings will end in an advisory ruling that the wall is illegal. It will change nothing. Any real chance for a political settlement — and for decent lives for the people of the region — depends on the United States.
Hmm, interesting. I was under the impression that the wall was being built along the original Israeli-Plaestine border, and not doing all those things that Chomsky's article states.
It brings up an even larger argument though: does anyone know what is in it for the US? Why does the US feel that Israeli security is worth violating so much international law and concensus? I can't imagine that a few hudred square miles is worth the trouble, especially when the alternative would go along way towards peace.
-sigh-
Even if the thousand year Reich only lasted a decade, its legacy may go alot further toward that goal. Stupid anti-semitism.
It brings up an even larger argument though: does anyone know what is in it for the US? Why does the US feel that Israeli security is worth violating so much international law and concensus? I can't imagine that a few hudred square miles is worth the trouble, especially when the alternative would go along way towards peace.
-sigh-
Even if the thousand year Reich only lasted a decade, its legacy may go alot further toward that goal. Stupid anti-semitism.
welsh
Junkmaster
Well there is an international security perspective that says that Israel- as being one of the few democracies in the region, of being a stable and good trading partner with the US, and being a strategic ally, gets US protection.
But the other argument is that it's a matter of culture. Remember the Judeo-Christian values, starts with the Jews. There is the Holocaust, but more importantly I think is that there are a lot of Jewish Americans that support Israel. The Jewish lobby is one of the strongest in the US.
But the other argument is that it's a matter of culture. Remember the Judeo-Christian values, starts with the Jews. There is the Holocaust, but more importantly I think is that there are a lot of Jewish Americans that support Israel. The Jewish lobby is one of the strongest in the US.
Not only that it's a stable trade partner, Israel is one of the biggest clients for US military equipment. Remember that war is money.
It is, in a way, a Western enclave in the middle east, built and equipped to enforce policies in the region.
Not to mention the Sharon government. Ugh.
I'm quite surprised the New York Times published a Chomsky article, BTW.
Anti-Semitism has older and stronger roots than the nazi reich, and I believe nazis have little to do with the palestinian terrorist organizations... hm.
It is, in a way, a Western enclave in the middle east, built and equipped to enforce policies in the region.
Not to mention the Sharon government. Ugh.
I'm quite surprised the New York Times published a Chomsky article, BTW.
Anti-Semitism has older and stronger roots than the nazi reich, and I believe nazis have little to do with the palestinian terrorist organizations... hm.
Executioner
It Wandered In From the Wastes
I used to be pretty even in my opinions regarding Israel and the Palestinian people. However, the images of Palestinians dancing in the streets on 9/11 have been burned into my mind. 
Its strange how some memories can still be so clear... Now, my view regarding Palestinians is that all problems can be solved with a couple of Trident IIs.
Its strange how some memories can still be so clear... Now, my view regarding Palestinians is that all problems can be solved with a couple of Trident IIs.
I guess you live up to your nick then.Executioner said: