Like Archinect on Facebook.
Sign up to our mailing list.
"No that is not the way things happen, not in south Africa and not in India where the rebellions instigated a wave of killing of many british and european subjects ."
And like for the people of gaza, those killings accomplished exactly nothing. It wasn't until someone had the wisdom to put violence away and exact an actual political cost on their oppressors that anything actually changed for the better. If firing a few katyushas each day is their means of resistance it must be the most ineffectual, counterproductive resistance in the history of mankind.
It is beyond obvious that Hamas' current tactics are failing to benefit the people of gaza in any way whatsoever. When a rocket falls in Israel does it lift the blockade? Does it remove checkpoints? Does it gain back stolen land? Does it bring back those who have been killed and jailed? Or does it do exactly the opposite? I think you know the answer. It's not only ethically hypocritical, it's politically idiotic. I understand the suffering these people feel and even the hatred it inspires. But it is exactly the magnitude of that suffering that requires their leaders to be smarter and more effective than they currently are in order to bring an end to it.
Im not against violence in all circumstances. What I am against is stupid violence that serves no purpose whatsoever but to validate your opponent.
no, all this is accounted fo, you needn't worry. you are short sighted; that why you call it stupidity. they are now able to endanger israelis on their own soil where regular israelis, like regular gazawians, live. this is an alternative to suicide bombing activities that were severely curtailed. there is a new dimension to this. israel is more apprehensive now. hamas is also now emboldened by the new egypian leadership. they are of the same brotherhood fabric. in time, this will - i very much feel- be a source of major support. egypt has learnt how to play jewish games, lets say. there is a lot of complexity in the area that is feeding hamas.
no, your point of view is stupid, sorry to be so blunt. hamas has been empowered in many ways and probably more empowerment to come - unless the so called 'arab spring' countries get bored of conservative islamic leadership of course. they also have their version of realpolitik but it is not as condescending and obsequious as the one you're pedalling.
ok, mr. comb. this now is politics.
and of course, in effect, this brotherhood ascension might not bode well for the minorities in the larger region. but lets handle one disaster at a time.
"must we really be so vulgar?"
I missed this post while I was typing. My apologies. No, we mustn't. I know. There aren't words to describe how they are forced to live. I know that. It is exactly that though which demands their leaders to serve them with the seriousness and effectiveness they deserve.
"no, your point of view is stupid, sorry to be so blunt. hamas has been empowered in many ways and probably more empowerment to come - unless the so called 'arab spring' countries get bored of conservative islamic leadership of course. they also have their version of realpolitik but it is not as condescending and obsequious as the one you're pedalling."
And perhaps this is what has above all has prevented an end to the suffering of the Palestinian people. When Hamas and Israel fight, Hamas gains, Netanyahu gains, and the people who lose are the people of Gaza. They are the victims of the selfish and short-sighted political games of their own leaders. Israel is not more apprehensive. They pummeled gaza exactly as long as they wished and were only dissuaded from invading because Obama won a second term. Egypt will not support Hamas, not at least in any way that actually improves the lives of the Gazan people. They will sell them out for US aid as they always have.
Try hard to imagine how the actual people of gaza benefit from this. In what supposed long-term scenario are their political rights strengthened or their lives improved in any way? Do you really think Egypt will attack Israel? Do you really think missiles and bombs will solve anything whatsoever? Except to make life for Palestinians even worse? While Hamas and Israel and Iran and Egypt play games the people of Palestine suffer. You call me obsequious and condescending while the very leaders you kowtow to pedal and trade Palestinian suffering for their own petty influence and money. I for one am sick to death of it. They deserve better.
people elected Hamas, etc etc. they are of the people for the people. etc etc. please reread my post. you're spiralling now. enough. i don't want to discuss this topic this way anymore.
yes, i believe bombs are a solution. of course. the best solution would be for israel to etc etc but they won't and its not right to expect hamas or palestine to etc etc because israel are the wrong etc etc so basically bombing israel is perfectly ok and warranted and is self defense and is etc etc so ok now i can shut the etc etc up about this
Im sorry Tammuz. I realize this is much more difficult for you to talk about being so much closer to it. I shouldn't goad you. I agree with you on much of the larger issue, I just think given how long this has gone on people might benefit from rethinking the means by which they fight back. But what do I know. Im just a stupid american.
it is only diffficult to talk about it because of two reasons:
1- it is disheartening to see that many people who are not involved in any way either dont know what has been going on or don't want to know whats going on.
2- i have a very bad memory. there are so many other points i could have mentioned, so many other events i could have brought up...my bad memory renders me incompetent in talking about the immensity of the palestinian people's suffering.
kindly dont express any apology, with all due respect to your person. my sole aim in this discussion is to shed light and not be pathetic.
to answer the OP's question, i believe the primary thing you can do to help, is to have the courage to have a solid opinion in support of the oppressed. that, alone, as a citizen of your country, is admirable.
oops, i said i'd shut up about this
It is certainly better discussion and reception from the days of gettingthreatening and libelous unanimous letters full of profanities in my mail for speaking "for" the Palestinian cause and criticizing Israel just a few years ago. I credit this change to circulation of independent news and information outside the typical monopoly of large, popular and manipulative news agencies.
I just have to voice my horror again that people who claim so much to want to stop the murder of civilians continue to voice support for launching rockets at civilians. This is not fighting back.
Would it be ok for israel, instead of launching precision attacks, to give its populace equal amounts of rocket artillery to fire back at gaza whenever launches happened? I don't think so at all.
Stop supporting the targeting of civilians. It IS a war crime, without any doubt.
Israeli "precision" attacks are the biggest misinformation campaign there is. Instead, they precisely kill women, men, elderly and children.
You never explained those four maps, root cause of the many intifadas, like I asked you to but keep referring to rockets which so far proved to be a minor carnival fireworks compared to high impact killer ammo IDF fires.
"The eight-day attack killed 162 Palestinians, including 42 children – the youngest aged 11 months – 11 women, and 18 elderly persons, the oldest 82 years of age. In all 1,222 have so far been listed as injured, more than half of them women and children. Rockets fired from Gaza have killed five Israelis."
Personally I think even 1 person is too many on either side but you got to be kidding when blaming Palestinian populations for keep fighting for free access to Tylenol...
Israeli "precision" attacks are the biggest misinformation campaign there is. Instead, they precisely kill women, men, elderly and children.
In roughly ~1600 attacks in 8 days, innocent civilians were killed in 15. Less than 1%. Pretending that israel was aiming at civilians contradicts the reality on the ground. Also, your figure of dead includes teams launching rockets, hamas and other group members actively engaged in rocket activities, etc. They're combatants, not civilians.
Also, claiming that its ok to shoot at israeli civilians because the israelis have better bombs isn't enshrined in any treaty or agreement that decides what war crimes are. Attacking civilians purposely IS a war crime.
Well, lets examine the blockade, then. When did the blockade start? In 2006, after Hamas was elected. The first thing Hamas did was tell the UN they would no longer be bound by Oslo 2 and that they were in a state of armed conflict with Israel. Declaring to the UN that you are pulling out of an agreement and are now in a state of armed conflict with a country is a declaration of war.
Hamas decided the palestinians were actively at war with israel, which legitimized the creation of the blockade we all know makes life harder on the palestinians. Before that there was no blockade.
I can give you another example (a major one) where violence has caused palestinians unnecessary hardship. Prior to the first intifada many palestinians had work permits that allowed them to work in israel freely. After the first intifada many of these were cancelled for security reasons. After the second intifada most of them were cancelled, and many israeli businesses were worried about potential violence from those that remained. The violence directly affected the palestinian economy for the negative, and massively so.
You never explained those four maps, root cause of the many intifadas, like I asked you to but keep referring to rockets which so far proved to be a minor carnival fireworks compared to high impact killer ammo IDF fires.
Ok lets look at your maps. I don't think ANYTHING justifies someone shooting at civilians, but we'll talk about them.
The first one is dishonest. Much of palestine was owned by absentee turkish landlords. Palestinians lived there, certainly, and some owned land, but the much of the land was outright owned by foreigners and many palestinians were effectively living in the feudal system as peasants.
The second one was a plan rejected by the arabs at the time, not an actual layout of land ownership.
the third one is again dishonest - after 48 gaza was owned by the egyptians and the west bank by jordan. The palestinians didn't have control or ownership of either at the time. You'll recall that 4 years later the palestinians attempted to take over jordan, which resulted in Black September in 1971 and the subsequent move to lebanon.
In 1967 the six day war occured between israel, jordan, egypt, and syria, along with forces from 7 other arab countries as well as the PLO, and in the end israel controlled gaza, the sinai, the west bank, and the golan heights.
Sinai was given back to the egyptians for a peace treaty later, although every day that seems more precarious. Jordan abdicated the west bank in the peace treaty they signed with israel, although they did say the "palestinian question" had to be figured out later. I really wish we could figure this question out.
Now I say again, I am AGAINST israeli settlements in gaza, and I think israeli settlements in the west bank prior to a clear and mutual agreement with the palestinians is a bad idea. I don't support it at all. But I don't think you're going to get any of it with rockets falling on people and buses exploding, and none what I said makes attacking civilians morally or even tactically "right".
I think the time is nearing for the future palestinian state (well, long past, but I mean practically it may happen sometime in the next handful of years). I hope so, at least so that we can close a chapter on the situation and move forward. BUT I cannot support the creation of a palestinian state that supports attacks on civilians.
Israelis killing palestinian civilians is unreasonable to you, and if they are killed intentionally I agree. the person/people responsible should face justice, and often in israel they do.
But palestinians enshrine the names and pictures of their suicide bombers, the rocket launching teams are heros, and those who are responsible for attacks on israelis talk on TV about how they wish they could have killed more.
That is wrong. That cutlure is wrong, and destructive. Stop attacking civilians and many of the palestinian problems will go away. If rocket starts again I suspect the ground war that follows to reduce rocket fire will kill many more civilians.
I really need to stop looking at this thread. Really, its wasting a lot of my time and it seems to be largely a waste of time.
I think you should keep reading this thread because it is what world sees in the conflict not just the Israeli eyes. Or leave it altogether, it does not necessarily need you. Participation is voluntary and if you think it is a waste of time after writing thousands of words, you are the one responsible for wasting others' time.
So far what I understand from your "waste," you will never support Palestinians because ultimately your fear and alienation of them slowly eating your soul. Be careful friend.
I think you should keep reading this thread because it is what world sees in the conflict not just the Israeli eyes.
What makes you think I'm ignorant of that at all? Have you been reading what I've written? The main participants in this thread are you, tammuz, and I, as well as a few others. The only ones who support the rocket attacks are you and tammuz - not surprising considering your backgrounds.
Or leave it altogether, it does not necessarily need you. Participation is voluntary and if you think it is a waste of time after writing thousands of words, you are the one responsible for wasting others' time.
So do you think I'm wasting yours? and are thousands of words bad? I'm not wasting them shouting slogans or being belligerent. I am attempting to engage in intelligent dialogue. That your posts are shorter than mine is mostly because you tend to ignore most of my posts and only respond to the 1 or 2 points you want to respond to.
you will never support Palestinians because ultimately your fear and alienation of them slowly eating your soul. Be careful friend.
I don't think you've read anything I wrote, or at least not understood it. I would support the palestinians tomorrow if they weren't violent. I cannot for any reason support the attempted murder of civilians - something you've NEVER addressed in this thread, while I've made an effort to respond to every point you've raised. the lopsided nature of this thread is what makes me think it a waste - I take the time to write my thoughts out in detail and you still cannot come up with a moral reason for your support of attempted murder of civilians.
I hope any israelis who intentionally kill palestinian civilians face justice, while you support palestinians who kill israeli civilians. Whose soul should we be looking out for?
Look out for the souls of thousands of Palestinians killed by Israeli fire, millions of displaced families by Israeli land grab and more living in places amount to nothing more than open prisons. Your posts don't amount to anything that requires responds more than few words.
The only ones who support the rocket attacks are you and tammuz - not surprising considering your backgrounds.
I think this speaks for itself. I wish people here, of all sides, spent more time looking at the facts than radically voicing their opinions.
on a related note read Eyal Weizman on Gaza, Pillar of Defence, the Book of Destruction & "reading the rubble" in LRB. To the OP question Weizman writes "After the 2008-9 attack, human rights advocates undertook an investigation using techniques associated with the new field of ‘forensic architecture’. In so doing they discovered the traces of a new Israeli strategy...Now that the bombing is over, evidence will be accumulated (and allegations made and contested), not only by speaking to survivors and witnesses but by using geospatial data, satellite imagery of destroyed buildings and data gathered in on-site investigations".
So perhaps you may want to explore a role in forensic architecture as a way to assist? For more info check out Forensic Architecture at the Centre for Research Architecture – Department of Visual Cultures – Goldsmiths, University of London.
both sides are full of people who just want to eat sleep and fuck in peace. Nations never go to war because people generally do not want to fight, political gangs go to war. If these power hungry morons resort to war then they have failed. If a person was defending his home, and unnecessarily fired more rounds than needed to stop the burgler, that person would be arrested for second degree murder or manslaughter. We need to start holding gov't to the same standards we expect from citizens period.
Nations go to war all the time. Read a little history and you'll find too many examples of that to count.
Just two things when people discuss about international significant conflicts:
1. There is never an equal power in both parties. When there are two or more equal powers, there will be no war (there can be proxy battles, though). Often inequality in resource and powers determine the oppressors from the oppressed.
2. To say that the oppressed need to show "wisdom" by being "non-violent" i.e. insist on going only through diplomatic channel unfortunately is to misunderstand how oppression and occupation are fought back. And also to miss the fact that, often, these non-violent methods have also been tried but to no avail. Furthermore it is very demeaning to those oppressed that their resistance for a greater dignity in life is to be judged by people who have never experienced such condition.
Pro-Israeli people are pathetic liars. The bottom line is that most of you don't know squat about this situation. The Israelis are proven liars (as you can see from these threads) and use Hamas as an excuse for their continued occupation and land grab. Example: Take a look at the West Bank - no Hamas, no rockets fired into Israel, a relatively moderate leadership, no suicide bombing for quite sometime and they get absolutely NOTHING. All this yet the Palestinians there continue to get oppressed and killed, get their homes and farmlands destroyed so that more Eastern European and Brooklyn Settlers can take over, endure daily humiliation at all the checkpoints, and are made to live under foreign military occupation in an existence that is slightly more pleasant than death. Abbas even went to the UN for a peaceful recognition of their state only got spat at by Natanyahu and his little pawn Obama.
End the occupation and their will be peace. What part of that is difficult for you to understand? The fourth Geneva convention and all international laws clearly state that any people suffering foreign military occupation have the right to resist by any means necessary. No justice - no peace. some of you aren't going out of business as newscasters in Tel Aviv any time soon.
Pro-Israeli people on this forum are so full of shit.
One side is occupied illegaly by an foreign arrmy. The other side is the occupier with one of the most advanced armies in the world.
Anybody else find this memo odd? Seems like something's up, yo!
med., first i'd like to say i'm not pro-isreal or palestine. i'm pro-america because that's my country.
the hard part to understand about ending occupation is that it will essentially place israel where it's been since the late 40's. they have very hostile neighbors who want to see them all killed and an islamic palestinian state put in place. wasn't that the stated intent at the formation of hamas? that's why israel has one of the most advance armies in the world. they need it. a lot of organizations in their region want to attack them. peace as an outcome to the end of occupation makes sense in the broad view of 4 years of history, but doesn't seem likely with a view of 60 years of history.
put yourself in israel's shoes. why would they want to go back to constant war and threat from direct attacks on their civilians? if a palestinian state is set up, israel is going to want a cleaner border instead of the current broken up and amorphous palestinian area, and they should get some assurance that their neighbors are going to quit their whole 'destroy all of israel to create an islamic state' thing. simply ending the occupation would be great for the palestinians, but it would suck for israel to be in a less defensible position while strengthing the organizations that want to see them dead.
handsum, i think that memo looks to be pointed at bradley manning. maybe the white house is concerned about project mayhem. or congress's inability to work together.
Hmmm...further intrigue via presstv (ff&d: affiliated with the Iranian govt):
Who's propaganda is more proper? Tis the question, yo!
well, this pulled a little off topic, but you may be right handsum. yesterday there was another presidential memorandum saying the sect. of interior can act as federal representative in an event that could be considered a terrorist target, and should coordinate secret service activity.
perhaps this is in preparation of his inauguration in Jan. it could also be normal operational things that were just not public until obama kept his promise of more open government.
Not too far off-topic. The speculation (granted it's coming from an Iranian source) is that Israeli spies have infiltrated the US government & military and pose an imminent threat of assassination and/or nuclear attack.
I'd take all this with a grain of salt. But it's odd that such memos are virtually ignored by western press and it never hurts to see what the other side's take is on things.
Curkram, I think I need a shower after reading your painfully predictable tangential bag of racist drivel. Take my word, when it comes to the Middle East, you don't have the slightlest clue as to what you are talking about and you really should stay away from topics you have absolutely no business discussing. You are nothing but a part of the problem - I'm sure you are one the same dumb-fuck rednecks who were clamoring for war against Iraq - just because you are simply far too stupid to have a mind of your own and probably even though Saddam and Bin Laden were in cahoots, right? Take your filthy propganda to people who actually believe in it.
I know that intelligence isn't something that comes natural for you but take a step back and think for a moment. Palestinians live in the West Bank and Gaza. This territory is under illegal foreign military occupation by Israel - the indiginous Palestinians who live there do not want to be ruled by Israel - they want an end to the occupation.
I won't address Hamas because you don't know a thing about the organization or its structure. People like you just use them as an excuse to continue to steal Palestinian land and kill their people. Example, in the West Bank there is no Hamas, no rockets, not suicide bombing, yet no end to the occupation. You get where I am getting at? Probably not.
About your pathetic little assertion about justifying the Isaeli occupation - essentially saying that the Israelis have been occupying the Palestinians for so long (since the 1940s) that those people should "get use to it"is just pure shameful on your part. I don't think those Palestinians who are wtwice displaced, twice dispossed, oppressed and humiliated on a daily basis, and have no hopes in life can give a tuppeny fuck about what some dispicable fuck like you has to say to justify it.
ok, i'm going to go ahead and admit that i don't know much about the mid-east or specifically israel's current political climate.
but seriously. i'm racist, pathetic, stupid, pathetic again, and a dispicable fuck. ad-hominem much?
why do i "have no business discussing" this topic? isn't discussing such things how i could learn new things? or in your case teach new things. do you think it would be better for me to get all my information from msnbc? or are you a fox news type? how is it beneficial for you to tell me to stay out of it? you do know that this is not an actual peace agreement or a UN meeting, so it's not like we're actually brokering a deal?
oh, it's because i'm a dumb-fuck redneck. do you know what a racist is? might want to look at yourself instead me.
do you really think there is a correlation between my view on israel's occupation and that drivel about iraq you're going on about? has there actually been events in your life to reinforce that or is it just some fantasy you get off on for some reason? that's messed up.
you quoted "get use to it" in your post. who are quoting? it certainly wasn't me. in no way am i justifying or condoning israel's actions towards palestinians. i was answering the question you posed: "End the occupation and their will be peace. What part of that is difficult for you to understand?" i still don't understand how you think ending the occupation will bring peace. insulting me doesn't do a very good job of explaining how ending israel's occupation will bring peace either. perhaps you were unaware that there are organizations in the mideast that want to annihilate israel (you could say iran instead of hamas if you wanted). perhaps you want to see the annihilation of the people of israel yourself. maybe that makes sense to you, since you've already shown you're a bit of a racist. perhaps you're just unable to form a cohesive sentence.
from your earlier post, "The bottom line is that most of you don't know squat about this situation." i find it common that people who think they know everything, and those around them know nothing, are often missing at least a small piece of the bigger picture.
"ok, i'm going to go ahead and admit that i don't know much about the mid-east or specifically israel's current political climate"
This is all anyone needs to know about reading your garbage posts. Again just stay out of it keep your dispicable hatred for Arabs/Palestinians off this board.
you're smart. i value your input and respect your opinion.
Shit. And I thought that I was the racist hatemonger in these parts.
Now I'm heart broken, yo :.(
And good job explaining yor desire to maintain the Israeli occupation of the Palestinians! Bravo. Nothing but useless propaganda. And you don't know shit about Hamas - and only use them as an excuse to maintain the oppression of the Palestinians. You are totally on the wrong side of history. Ther WILL be a PALESTINIAN state no matter what people like you say.
Personally, I believe in a two-state solution with Palestine and Israel living in peace and prosperity. No human blood is better than the other and everyone should have the right to his or her country.
Based on your desire to see the occupation (all of course based on the demonization and lies of the Palestinians) to continue it is clear that you want to destroy all the Palestinian people and the society.
I have dealt with racism my entire life - you are the type of people I warn my children about for fear of their personal safety. Shame on you.
"Most hate-filled thread in Archinect history"
There you go. You wanted peaceful gestures? You got it - no bombs, no suicide missions, no rockets, no HAMAS, just the United Nations! And you know what the US and Israel did in response? The spat in Abbas's face and pissed on the Palestinians.
Can't wait for you buffoons to put some bullshit spin on it.
You'll make great PR people for Israel one day - your parents will be proud.
138 nations voted yes
9 voted no Israel, the United States and Canada, joined by the Czech Republic, Panama and several Pacific island nations: Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru and Palau.
41 Countries, having it both ways, were too "chicken shit spineless" to say anything about it.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the speech by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to the General Assembly shortly before the vote "defamatory and venomous," saying it was "full of mendacious propaganda" against Israel.
Abbas had told the General Assembly that it was "being asked today to issue the birth certificate of Palestine." Abbas said the vote is the last chance to save the two-state solution.
After the vote, Netanyahu said the UN move violated past agreements between Israel and the Palestinians and that Israel would act accordingly, without elaborating what steps it might take.
What will it take Israel to stop denying and sending threat after threat it may "do" something. We know what that is... New wave of killings and new Brooklyn settlements on the stolen land.
The future will judge us very harshly for being on the wrong side of this conflict.....
Orhan, I agee.
All of these people here keep preaching about Israel's survival. But it seems like it's the Israelis who want o whipe Palestine off the map.
As someone else pointed out above, this thread continues as a 'dialogue of the deaf'
"The future will judge us very harshly for being on the wrong side of this conflict....."
I also agree. The state department's stance on this is colossally tragic horseshit.
Access to International Criminal Court, ICC, is now a State of Palestine's option. US & Israel's biggest nightmare of sitting on the defendant seat with thick criminal cases over abuse, torture, occupation, land grab and, yes, crimes against humanity with countless witnesses, and meticulously solid and credible documentation.
This is show time.
med., i don't have anything against palestinians and i don't want to see them suffer. i do not support the israeli occupation of the palestinians. as has been pointed out above, the israeli attacks and retaliations against the palestinians has been grossly overdone. i think the blockades in the gaza strip are opposed to international law and should not have happened. i don't understand why the US said they think this UN vote was an obstacle to peace. i think the current settlements are ridiculous and the most obvious block to the peace process. one of the things i really don't understand about this situation is why israel would do that and why their people would support leaders that take such a position. i don't think it's because they're racists pricks. that doesn't make sense to me.
a lot of the original inhabitants of the current state of israel were refugees from WW2. in 1948 they got to defend their new home against an attack from egypt, lebanon, syria, jordan, and iraq. the palestinian fedayeen was a non-peaceful group that attacked israeli settlemets. 1956 israel attacked egypt, with the support of britian and france, after egypt shut them out from the suez canal. 1967 was the 6 day war against egypt, jordan, and syria, shortly after the PLO formed and egypt kicked the UN out. 1969 egypt attacked israel in the war of attrition. 1972 was the munich olympics. 1973 syria and egypt attacked israel on yom kippur. 1976 entebbe hostage taking. 1987 was the first intifada. 2000-2005 was the second intifada; suicide bombers, palestinian attacks on civilians, and perhaps the start of israel retaliating with far greater force than would be generally acceptable. this keeps going on. israel has been at war since the UN partition plan.
it sounds like that's your idea of peace. leave the palestinians alone and everything will be fine. "End the occupation and their will be peace" is what you said. look at the region. when has there been peace? egypt has a new government, and there is a possibility they may be leaning towards and islamic govrnment. maybe lebanon is turning around but i think that's hard to say. syria isn't a particularly stable pro-israel country. you want to clean up the west bank so iran can move in with nuclear weapons? because the west bank is going to need some investment and i bet iran would be happy to jump in.
"Personally, I believe in a two-state solution with Palestine and Israel living in peace and prosperity. No human blood is better than the other and everyone should have the right to his or her country." -- this is brilliant. i support that idea too. in fact, i'm pretty sure the US has been trying to broker peace agreements to this end for many years, along with Olso and a lot of other countries. for some reason they haven't been successful. i suppose it's because almost everyone in the world is a racist. or maybe it isn't racism. maybe it's just not as simple as saying "End the occupation and their will be peace. What part of that is difficult for you to understand?" and maybe all that racism your facing isn't racism at all. maybe it's just your personality.
i'm pretty sure if there is going to be peace, it's not going to come about from one side saying 'sorry' and backing off while the other collects guns from their allies. it's going to come from both sides recognizing the other's right to exist. and it's going to have to include the neighboring countries as well. that's fine if israel backs off from the west bank and opens the gaza strip, and it's fine if the palestinians can get some sort of international criminal case, but that's not peace.
Excellent Discussion, – thank you very much!
I like your post man. This is a great site and is related to so many aspects of architects.
i admire the past and soulful Edward Said's position on the two-state solution (from an interview):
" One of most striking things about Oslo was that both sides said, Look, rule number one is no recriminations. We don't talk about bus bombings, you don't talk about refugee camps. That's the only way we can begin. We have to put aside bitterness.
Our society was destroyed in 1948. You don't seem to understand that.
What you're saying seems to lead to no possible political solution.
That's wrong. I'm not saying that everything has to be given back. You're not listening to me. I said what you need is an acknowledgment of the past, and then we go forward.
For me, the rhetoric that came out of Oslo, the words that came out of Rabin's mouth about the rights of the Palestinian people are irreversible and profound. They overthrow a few generations worth of lies about the nature of the Palestinian people and the Palestinian cause.
I'm sorry, you didn't hear what Rabin said at the White House. He said nothing about what happened to the Palestinian people.
He acknowledged there was a people. I'm not saying you should be grateful. I'm saying, as a Jew, I thought, About time, now we can begin to address reality. This is a beginning. And I continue to see it not as a perfect solution, but as a beginning, in lieu of any other beginnings visible to me.
You're now arguing with me instead of interviewing me.
Is that okay?
What is my choice?
Well, we have many choices.
But I don't think you're listening to what I'm saying.
Is it possible we disagree?
No, no. That's not a solution. If you say the things that you say -- namely, that you believe in two states -- it means that there are two peoples between whom there is no equality; there is apartheid. It's like telling a white South African, "Look, give the blacks what they want, and let's not talk about the past." That's nonsense. You can't do that. The genius of the South Africans was that they said, "One person, one vote, and let's have a truth and reconciliation commission."
That is not a two-state solution.
No, it's not a two-state solution. I don't myself believe in a two-state solution. I believe in a one-state solution.
Well you've changed ...
Of course I've changed. Reality has changed. Consider the fact that there are now a million Palestinians who are Israeli citizens, who constitute about twenty percent of the Israeli population. They have no interest at all in moving to a Palestinian state because they are in places like Nazareth and Haifa, which is where they belong. Why should they go to the West Bank? There are now Jews and Arabs on every inch of this tiny little country called Palestine, living next to each other and hopelessly intertwined. And how can we talk about anything unless we say something about the settlements, where they're still taking land --"
but we can also see that Israel has forced itself into a position where it cannot fathom either of the two solution that would consitute, in its pathologically antagonistic and colonial state of being, either an enemy within or an (or another) enemey on its borders.
i fear that the most feasible 'solution' (after all, in history, violence is as much a 'solution' as peace is) is for increasing violence and an increasing expression of the hatred felt by billions of people in the region and beyond for Israel.
1- the more democratic the arab/neighbouring countries are, the more this exression will be represented outwards - whether in a secular form or (currently, a more likely representation) a religious one. we can see this in turkey and egypt is inching in that direction
2- the main active military anti-israeli entities in the region, Hezbollah and Hamas are at their peak (no, maybe there are higher peaks to come). Attacks against them and their countries of origin have only managed to popularize them and their cause, have galvanized them. by managing to sustain themselves existentially and maturing politically throughout the wars agains them, they have gained a lot of strength and many friends.
3- iran, iran, iran, iran.
4- the waning of an old shamelessly supportive empire and the increasing participation and pull of new /new old powers
things are more complicated than this of course. we have to factor in the ambiguous situation in syria , the traditional duplicity of many traditional arab regimes, the israeli reaction against iran's nuclear plans (but i believe, whethere there are attacks or no attacks - in the long run, israel will come out the worse of it).
so, all in all, i don't believe the two state solution is the most likely one, i believe that a judicious (let me be clear, judicious for palestinians) one state solution would have been the best one but things may be way too past the edge...i believe violence and a macro-micro power struggle will determine the outcome...an otucome i can very much feel and see is overwhemlingly against israel's best (i.e. worse) interests.
zoom out and look at the map. look at what that nest-stealing cuckoo is, look at the mass of active/potential enemies around it.
how blind are israel, the US and co that they cannot see that the more "pro-israeli" (and in parallel, and on ground, anti-palestinians, anti-arab, anti-moslem...) they get, the more they compromise themselves morally, the more furious will be the "anti-israeli" activism, the less likely israel is likely to exist within the anyway very self-contradictory and non self-sustaining form it defines itself as : a democratic jewish state.
and by the way, anything you say against me will be deemed anti-semtitic because i am like totally a circumcised semite.
There is no learning curve with these people, i would like to help them too, but it seems almost impossible, i'am very sorry for the children's there.
Ok, let's think this through. We know the memo is true because it came from the White House itself. If the US President & other top US leaders were suddenly assassinated and a stolen nuclear weapon were detonated in the US somewhere then there's two obvious possibilities and scenarios. (Note: I'm guessing the nuke wouldn't be detonated in NYC because the region is already struggling with the recent hurricane. Maybe Washington? Or Los Angeles?)
1- Israel operatives set up the entire thing to make it appear that it was an attack by Iran thus opening the possibility for Israel & whatever is left of the US to counter attack with full force. Israel then expands its borders to aid with the US occupation of the middle east now stretching from Cairo to Tehran.
2- Alternatively, let's speculate that the intelligence is actually fake and that it was Iran behind the assassinations and nuclear attack all along. In a surprisingly effective offensive move, the US is caught with its pants down (already reeling from the shock of the attacks & with most of its army stretched across the globe) and Iran & Co start tossing bombs at mainland America. Smelling blood, every other country that has secretly despised the US starts kicking them while they are down too. Russia, China, Cuba probably even Canada, France & those socialist nutbags in Denmark. The US is blasted back to the stone age. And the rest of the world lives happily ever after?
I'm sure there are other possibilities, but right now these seem the most likely based on what we know.
if there ever was a world-war in the mideast that had US and israel on one side and the arab league on the other, you think russia would side with the arab league? our differences with russia, and historically the cause of US-russia aggression, has been political. it seems to me a war in the mideast would largely be divided by religion and ethnicity. russia has had problems with the mideast before (they fought the taliban. rambo 3). also, russia has had at least a little trouble with terrorism in kazakhstan and uzbekistan right? russia shares a certain political alliance with china, and china has had whatever issues they have with the uyghur. i think russia and china would both have stronger relations with europe, which will likely side with israel-america alliance. i think the other countries you mentioned, including denmark, are unlikely to bomb the US.
of course nukes are the great equalizer between large and small nations. us and russia have enough, but north korea would be selling theirs if not launching them, and pakistan has a few. israel has a bunch of nukes. if they were pressed to use them, they may not act as rationally as one might expect us or russia to act. if nukes become involved, any hope of civility or international law would be thrown out.
the architectual challenge will be todesign underground fortresses with decontamination areas and enough storage for food and other necessities to outlast the nuclear winter. i'm pretty sure there are a few places like this for our congressmen and other leaders in america.
my opinion is that it would be best to avoid world war 3. there would be a lot of suffering, including for palestinians, if that scenario were to play out. i hope that doesn't sound too racist.
Would there even be a "middle east conflict" if the US wasn't up to its armpits playing games there? If we withdrew entirely from the region tomorrow, the whole thing would be settled in a month or less.
I'm not sure about that. There's been conflict in the middle east since long before the US existed.
Then again if the US did outright up and leave, the shear dropping shock would probably ensure at least a short term peace.