Do you know what happens when one boxer stops punching? The other one continues to punch UNTIL THE PERSON IS KNOCKED OUT.
His or her analogy was of a specific instance of a boxing match in which no one side can win, one in which neither side CAN be knocked out. The two can basically just keep hitting each other, or they can both choose to stop. One side could stop unilaterally and take the first step, but neither is really willing to do so.
So no, the analogy wasn't stupid. Its a boxing match, if you want to call it that, that neither side can truly win via a KO. It is just needless violence going back and forth. At some point, someone or some group will have to decide to stop it, that enough is enough.
And no one sees why you persist in denying that both sides will need to make concessions in order to produce a lasting peace. The issue of who is right and who is wrong is now immaterial. What is more important, an end to the violence (not to mention a Palestinian state), or you being right?
I don't buy that...
This deck is already stacked in one direction, in the name of a fabricated, and media inflamed, enemy based on one definitely illegal war (Iraq) ...the other to be determined (Afghanistan). I still don't see Bin Laden wanted for 9/11 yet...but all the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia...but the guy who (after almost 7 years now) is still not wanted for 9/11 as per fbi.gov.
Something definitely wrong with this picture.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Thank you for understanding my point. Apparently it's easier to just pick sides and clarify how you're correct regardless if it fails to bring forth a viable solution.
His or her analogy was of a specific instance of a boxing match in which no one side can win, one in which neither side CAN be knocked out. The two can basically just keep hitting each other, or they can both choose to stop. One side could stop unilaterally and take the first step, but neither is really willing to do so.
So no, the analogy wasn't stupid. Its a boxing match, if you want to call it that, that neither side can truly win via a KO. It is just needless violence going back and forth. At some point, someone or some group will have to decide to stop it, that enough is enough.
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
Nice blog. She's actually a family friend who I just spoke to the other day.
get out...are you serious?
if so, small world.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
His or her analogy was of a specific instance of a boxing match in which no one side can win, one in which neither side CAN be knocked out. The two can basically just keep hitting each other, or they can both choose to stop. One side could stop unilaterally and take the first step, but neither is really willing to do so.
So no, the analogy wasn't stupid. Its a boxing match, if you want to call it that, that neither side can truly win via a KO. It is just needless violence going back and forth. At some point, someone or some group will have to decide to stop it, that enough is enough.
Our ENTIRE point is that Israel is the one who has to step down first. Do you agree with this, or not?
Thank you for understanding my point. Apparently it's easier to just pick sides and clarify how you're correct regardless if it fails to bring forth a viable solution.
well...if you've ever solved a problem before...you need to identify the source of the problem before you can identify and offer a viable solution.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Our ENTIRE point is that Israel is the one who has to step down first. Do you agree with this, or not?
Hmmm ... Yes, and no. Yes, I do think that Israel ought to engage in several unilateral actions, including withdrawing to pre-1967 borders and ceasing all further attempts to occupy new territory. If this means cracking down a bit on settlers, so be it.
I do not think that Israel can realistically commit to ending all military actions against Palestinians until they get some sort of commitment from Palestinians at large to also work towards peace. In other words, no more support for Hamas and other militant groups, no more bombings in civilian areas, and an explicit acknowledgment that Israelis are not going anywhere (once they withdraw to pre-1967 borders, that is) and have a right to live in peace as well.
Hmmm ... Yes, and no. Yes, I do think that Israel ought to engage in several unilateral actions, including withdrawing to pre-1967 borders and ceasing all further attempts to occupy new territory. If this means cracking down a bit on settlers, so be it.
I do not think that Israel can realistically commit to ending all military actions against Palestinians until they get some sort of commitment from Palestinians at large to also work towards peace. In other words, no more support for Hamas and other militant groups, no more bombings in civilian areas, and an explicit acknowledgment that Israelis are not going anywhere (once they withdraw to pre-1967 borders, that is) and have a right to live in peace as well.
Both your paragraphs contradict eachother though. If Israel were to withdraw to the '67 borders, then Hamas would be willing to negotiate with them, which would least to an ACTUAL peace, not a "ceasefire."
The only people standing in the way of peace are the Israelis.
Both your paragraphs contradict eachother though. If Israel were to withdraw to the '67 borders, then Hamas would be willing to negotiate with them, which would least to an ACTUAL peace, not a "ceasefire."
The only people standing in the way of peace are the Israelis.
But it is also true that Hamas provides Israel with a reason not to withdraw. If the Palestinians took unilateral action against violence, the Israelis wouldn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to expansion. Jimmy Carter on his recent trip actually presented this argument to Hamas leaders. I am pretty sure they patted him on the head like a puppy or a cute little retard and sent him on his way. Hamas has done precious little to convince anyone that they are interested in peace. If they took a few steps towards nonviolence and tolerance of other peoples, maybe they could shed the terrorist label, and begin to work against "Islamophobia" instead of being one of its posterchildren.
My basic point is that EITHER side could act unilaterally. None displays much willingness to do so. This is not Israel's issue alone.
Exactly. It is such disingenuous bullshit to think otherwise. Neither side is innocent in this mess.
It is time for the US to smarten up, pull out entirely, let them (the entire Middle East) have at it, and when the dust clears negotiate a mutually beneficial trade relationship with the winner. I personally don't give a shit who that might be. I'm fucking sick of the whole mess. US policy in the region has caused the US nothing but grief. It has also caused the Middle East nothing but grief. So if they're going to have grief either way (and history says they are), I'd just as soon be removed from that.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
But it is also true that Hamas provides Israel with a reason not to withdraw. If the Palestinians took unilateral action against violence, the Israelis wouldn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to expansion. Jimmy Carter on his recent trip actually presented this argument to Hamas leaders. I am pretty sure they patted him on the head like a puppy or a cute little retard and sent him on his way. Hamas has done precious little to convince anyone that they are interested in peace. If they took a few steps towards nonviolence and tolerance of other peoples, maybe they could shed the terrorist label, and begin to work against "Islamophobia" instead of being one of its posterchildren.
This is a lie. Hamas is outlined by the biased Western media as being nothing but a violent organization. In reality, almost all (what is it, 90%?) of their funds go to social programs, hospitals, etc, none of which of course are still suitable for Palestinian civilians. Their armed struggle is such a small part of them, it's not even funny. They do tons of nonviolent demonstrations and protests that the Israelis respond VIOLENTLY to. If the Palestinians took unilateral action against the Israelis, not only would the media ignore most of what's going on, the Israelis would do whatever they wanted. Palestinian deaths would increase, and Israel would continue to steal more land and do whatever it wants.
Exactly. It is such disingenuous bullshit to think otherwise. Neither side is innocent in this mess.
That's the thing. The Palestinians ARE innocent. No one in this thread has proven otherwise. the only thing you guys are saying is "both are guilty, and we should forget about it and throw all guns in the sea and have picnics together"... :rolleyes:
It is time for the US to smarten up, pull out entirely, let them (the entire Middle East) have at it, and when the dust clears negotiate a mutually beneficial trade relationship with the winner. I personally don't give a shit who that might be. I'm fucking sick of the whole mess. US policy in the region has caused the US nothing but grief. It has also caused the Middle East nothing but grief. So if they're going to have grief either way (and history says they are), I'd just as soon be removed from that.
That's smart. So after decades of meddling in the Middle East, they just pull out and let everyone kill eachother. Not to mention the fact that they depend on oil from there...
That's the thing. The Palestinians ARE innocent. No one in this thread has proven otherwise. the only thing you guys are saying is "both are guilty, and we should forget about it and throw all guns in the sea and have picnics together"... :rolleyes:
There are millenia of history recording violence in the region. Of course there are innocents involved. That is what makes this a total tragedy. But the innocents aren't exclusive to one side or the other. Your solution is to play the blame game and attempt to shame one side into submission. Good luck with that. My solution is to stop trying. It is an easier solution which will likely have the same result in the region as yours, but with much lower cost to me.
That's smart. So after decades of meddling in the Middle East, they just pull out and let everyone kill eachother. Not to mention the fact that they depend on oil from there...
Jimmy Carter, Barak Obama, Ralf Nader, Ron Paul (my guy), and others are not going to solve it. The best we can hope for is that the Middle East sorts themselves out. We depend on oil from there. Yes. That is why I will be happy to enter into a mutually beneficial trading relationship with the victor, whomever that might be.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
There are millenia of history recording violence in the region. Of course there are innocents involved. That is what makes this a total tragedy. But the innocents aren't exclusive to one side or the other. Your solution is to play the blame game and attempt to shame one side into submission. Good luck with that. My solution is to stop trying. It is an easier solution which will likely have the same result in the region as yours, but with much lower cost to me.
What does this have to do with the fact that Israel is illegally occupying Palestinian land?
Jimmy Carter, Barak Obama, Ralf Nader, Ron Paul (my guy), and others are not going to solve it. The best we can hope for is that the Middle East sorts themselves out. We depend on oil from there. Yes. That is why I will be happy to enter into a mutually beneficial trading relationship with the victor, whomever that might be.
You're right that Barack won't do shit. but atleast Jimmy Carter is trying to do something. Atleast Ralph Nader as president of the US would push for Israel to agree to the international consensus of withdrawing to the 67 borders, leading to talks between the Palestinians and Israelis. Atleast the US would be PUSHING both sides together, rather than giving complete backing to Israel.
You guys say the Palestinians should forget about what happened to them and work for a solution. Other than the fact that 1 million Palestinians were displaced in 1948 alone due to the Israeli violence, that thousands have been massacred, etc etc etc, you STILL offer NO SOLUTION.
You guys say the Palestinians should forget about what happened to them and work for a solution. Other than the fact that 1 million Palestinians were displaced in 1948 alone due to the Israeli violence, that thousands have been massacred, etc etc etc, you STILL offer NO SOLUTION.
I don't say what either side should do. I stopped caring. I only care that we (the US) get the fuck out of that entanglement. We are completely unable to contribute positively to the situation. What they care to do with one another is their business.
My solution is to leave and not look back. My solution is to quit meddling.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
I don't say what either side should do. I stopped caring. I only care that we (the US) get the fuck out of that entanglement. We are completely unable to contribute positively to the situation. What they care to do with one another is their business.
My solution is to leave and not look back. My solution is to quit meddling.
Other than the fact that it's simply not realistic, we're trapped in. The US has involved itself too much to simply back off now. The only thing we can do is act as a peacemaker. We want to be involved, we practically begged to be involved in foreign affairs, so we need to take responsibility. We need to call out Israel's actions, we need to stop using our tax dollars to fund Israel's illegal operations, and we need to find a way to settle this dispute.
I feel like the only reason people oppose these solutions is because it seems all too one-sided, when in reality, all of this falls in favor of EVERYONE, except for Israel's greedy government.
If you also "stopped caring" about the thousands of innocent Palestinians dying, then this thread is clearly not for you. Would you be happy if someone in the Middle East said "I stopped caring about the people who died on 9/11"? I don't think you would.
Other than the fact that it's simply not realistic, we're trapped in. The US has involved itself too much to simply back off now. The only thing we can do is act as a peacemaker. We want to be involved, we practically begged to be involved in foreign affairs, so we need to take responsibility. We need to call out Israel's actions, we need to stop using our tax dollars to fund Israel's illegal operations, and we need to find a way to settle this dispute.
I feel like the only reason people oppose these solutions is because it seems all too one-sided, when in reality, all of this falls in favor of EVERYONE, except for Israel's greedy government.
If you also "stopped caring" about the thousands of innocent Palestinians dying, then this thread is clearly not for you. Would you be happy if someone in the Middle East said "I stopped caring about the people who died on 9/11"? I don't think you would.
I don't expect them to care, from a policy standpoint. Of course, I care from a humanity standpoint, but not from a national policy standpoint. We will be criticized by one side or the other no matter what we choose to do. The outcome will be that peace eludes the region, and it will, of course, be our fault. Sorry, we've played that game too long. I don't believe we've been involved too long to back out now. That sounds like an addicted gambler talking. With investments and gambling you don't chase bad money with good. The same should go for foreign policy. The best thing we can do is absolutely nothing. It has the least cost to us and minimal downside to us.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
You mean other than the fact that your government is using your tax money to fund it?
ok.
Ha, well as a libertarian, I am quite opposed to the money taken from my pocket and given to other countries. So you're right about that. That is definitely a concern of mine.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
You mean other than the fact that your government is using your tax money to fund it?
ok.
This is a good point. It's easy to "stop caring" though, because it's a difficult situation and neither side wants to do anything about it really...so it's understandable to stop caring.
All you hear anymore is a constant verbal assult from either Pro-Palestinian or Pro-Israeli people...a verbal assult that will lead to nothing.
1. The first part of the paragraph you quoted reads: 'Jewish immigration to Palestine, particularly to the "four sacred cities" (Jerusalem, Safed, Tiberias and Hebron) which already had significant Jewish communities, increased particularly towards the end of Ottoman rule; Jews of European origin lived mostly off donations from off-country, while many Sephardic Jews found themselves a trade. Many Circassians and Bosnian Muslims were settled in the north of Palestine by the Ottomans in the early 19th Century...'
2. The Druze aren't Palestinians.
3. The Druze aren't Muslims.
4. Palestinians lived in peace with Jews for hundreds of years.
5. What sanctuary did Jews need in 1914?
6. No part of the land belonged to Jews. It belonged to the Ottoman Empire 'who ruled the area through local pontentates', having a minimal influence on the daily lives of the Arab inhabitants.
7. What does any of this have to do with the illegal Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and even of the illegitimacy of the Zionist enterprise in the early part of the 20th century and the ethnic cleansing that resulted?
And you haven't made any 'contradictions to a bunch of assumptions' by myself or Outlaw because no assumptions were made by either one of us.
Still, nice try.
Druze??? what????
The Druze (Arabic: درزي, derzī or durzī, plural دروز, durūz; Hebrew: דרוזים, Druzim; also transliterated Druz or Druse) are a religious community found primarily in Lebanon, Israel and Syria whose traditional religion is said to have begun as an offshoot of the Ismaili sect of Islam, but is unique in its incorporation of Gnostic, neo-Platonic, pagan and other philosophies. Because of such incorporation, most scholars label the Druze as a non-Muslim sect, even though some Druze identify themselves as Muslims.
(its fair to say these people probably held the Jewish populations within the region as inferior (dhimmitude) and it was recorded as a muslim slaughter of a non-muslim population for the glory of almighty allah. For an analogy the equivlent of the KKK hypothetically burning down Charleston because it was becoming too Black.)
Regardless in my 30 years on this planet there was one shot at peace and what you claim is all that palestinians want. Its Camp David and one leader said he could not agree to it. The rest has been whining and killing from both sides.
So please stop nothing you add on a Pearl Jam message board is going to change anything. thanks
PS: @ outlaw, I think we have sincerely tried (maybe not in the last 8 years, but before that) and the American people supported the amount of time and effort (and money) that was put into it. When it failed (thanks Yassir), it put us back 50 years to "the Jewish state must survive at all costs" mentality. Every action has a reaction, where could we be, what could have been avoided if Arafat had the balls to agree to the Camp David Accords.
"The really important thing is not to live, but to live well. And to live well meant, along with more enjoyable things in life, to live according to your principles."
— Socrates
most scholars label the Druze as a non-Muslim sect
you answered your own objection.
Regardless in my 30 years on this planet there was one shot at peace and what you claim is all that palestinians want. Its Camp David and one leader said he could not agree to it. The rest has been whining and killing from both sides.
what exactly was on the offer to the Palestinians at Camp David and of what were the Israelis allegedly willing to 'concede'??
The fact is that what was on offer to the Palestinians was nothing but a carve of the West Bank with numerous Apartheid style bantustans scattered around and separated from each other by Israeli controlled and checkpoints. Also Israel would maintain control of the borders, coastline, and airspace, and the Israeli army would continue to operate in around these settlements.
Here's a map of what was on offet to the Palestinians at Camp David: http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS/wbgs_campdavid.html
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14120.htm
'The Barak proposal in Camp David, the Barak-Clinton proposal, in the United States, I didn't check the Canadian media, in the United States you cannot find a map, which is the most important thing of course, check in Canada, see if you can find a map. You go to Israel, you can find a map, you go to scholarly sources, you can find a map. Here's what you find when you look at a map: You find that this generous, magnanimous proposal provided Israel with a salient east of Jerusalem, which was established primarily by the Labor government, in order to bisect the West Bank. That salient goes almost to Jericho, breaks the West Bank into two cantons, then there's a second salient to the North, going to the Israeli settlement of Ariel, which bisects the Northern part into two cantons.
So, we've got three cantons in the West Bank, virtually separated. All three of them are separated from a small area of East Jerusalem which is the center of Palestinian commercial and cultural life and of communications. So you have four cantons, all separated from the West, from Gaza, so that's five cantons, all surrounded by Israeli settlements, infrastructure, development and so on, which also incidentally guarantee Israel control of the water resources.'
PS: @ outlaw, I think we have sincerely tried (maybe not in the last 8 years, but before that) and the American people supported the amount of time and effort (and money) that was put into it.
money that was put into it? I assume by 'it' you mean the Israeli army to which I say yes, the American government has sincerely tried to aid in the systemic killing of Palestinians.
hmm... imagine one of these villages was your home... one that you and generations of your family before you was apart of for so long... then one day it was just destroyed... no one remembers or cares about your village, in fact no one even knows the name. It just becomes part of some list that barely any people even know about...
that's the reality of the palestinian/israeli situation, unfortunately one that most people will never hear about...
I guess they should have accepted the will of the United Nations in 1948 and not waged war. Bad choice .
It should also be noted that war erupted in 1947 AFTER the Arabs rejected the UN's plan for a separate Jewish and Arab state in Palestine. A plan that the Jews were not thrilled with but still accepted.
Dont throw actual history at these people. Their heads are liable to explode.
I guess they should have accepted the will of the United Nations in 1948 and not waged war. Bad choice .
the will of the United Nations? You mean to give Israel half of the land? why would anyone agree to that? if the "will of the United Nations" was to give a minority group in the U.S. half of the land, would you sit by and agree to that?
oh, and the Arabs didn't "wage war" in 1948, Zionist underground movements had been setting bombs and killing many innocent people (while destroying all those villages) while the Arabs were trying for a more peaceful solution, by seeking international help.
Comments
His or her analogy was of a specific instance of a boxing match in which no one side can win, one in which neither side CAN be knocked out. The two can basically just keep hitting each other, or they can both choose to stop. One side could stop unilaterally and take the first step, but neither is really willing to do so.
So no, the analogy wasn't stupid. Its a boxing match, if you want to call it that, that neither side can truly win via a KO. It is just needless violence going back and forth. At some point, someone or some group will have to decide to stop it, that enough is enough.
I don't buy that...
This deck is already stacked in one direction, in the name of a fabricated, and media inflamed, enemy based on one definitely illegal war (Iraq) ...the other to be determined (Afghanistan). I still don't see Bin Laden wanted for 9/11 yet...but all the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia...but the guy who (after almost 7 years now) is still not wanted for 9/11 as per fbi.gov.
Something definitely wrong with this picture.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
get out...are you serious?
if so, small world.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
well...if you've ever solved a problem before...you need to identify the source of the problem before you can identify and offer a viable solution.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Hmmm ... Yes, and no. Yes, I do think that Israel ought to engage in several unilateral actions, including withdrawing to pre-1967 borders and ceasing all further attempts to occupy new territory. If this means cracking down a bit on settlers, so be it.
I do not think that Israel can realistically commit to ending all military actions against Palestinians until they get some sort of commitment from Palestinians at large to also work towards peace. In other words, no more support for Hamas and other militant groups, no more bombings in civilian areas, and an explicit acknowledgment that Israelis are not going anywhere (once they withdraw to pre-1967 borders, that is) and have a right to live in peace as well.
The only people standing in the way of peace are the Israelis.
But it is also true that Hamas provides Israel with a reason not to withdraw. If the Palestinians took unilateral action against violence, the Israelis wouldn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to expansion. Jimmy Carter on his recent trip actually presented this argument to Hamas leaders. I am pretty sure they patted him on the head like a puppy or a cute little retard and sent him on his way. Hamas has done precious little to convince anyone that they are interested in peace. If they took a few steps towards nonviolence and tolerance of other peoples, maybe they could shed the terrorist label, and begin to work against "Islamophobia" instead of being one of its posterchildren.
Exactly. It is such disingenuous bullshit to think otherwise. Neither side is innocent in this mess.
It is time for the US to smarten up, pull out entirely, let them (the entire Middle East) have at it, and when the dust clears negotiate a mutually beneficial trade relationship with the winner. I personally don't give a shit who that might be. I'm fucking sick of the whole mess. US policy in the region has caused the US nothing but grief. It has also caused the Middle East nothing but grief. So if they're going to have grief either way (and history says they are), I'd just as soon be removed from that.
That's smart. So after decades of meddling in the Middle East, they just pull out and let everyone kill eachother. Not to mention the fact that they depend on oil from there...
There are millenia of history recording violence in the region. Of course there are innocents involved. That is what makes this a total tragedy. But the innocents aren't exclusive to one side or the other. Your solution is to play the blame game and attempt to shame one side into submission. Good luck with that. My solution is to stop trying. It is an easier solution which will likely have the same result in the region as yours, but with much lower cost to me.
Jimmy Carter, Barak Obama, Ralf Nader, Ron Paul (my guy), and others are not going to solve it. The best we can hope for is that the Middle East sorts themselves out. We depend on oil from there. Yes. That is why I will be happy to enter into a mutually beneficial trading relationship with the victor, whomever that might be.
You're right that Barack won't do shit. but atleast Jimmy Carter is trying to do something. Atleast Ralph Nader as president of the US would push for Israel to agree to the international consensus of withdrawing to the 67 borders, leading to talks between the Palestinians and Israelis. Atleast the US would be PUSHING both sides together, rather than giving complete backing to Israel.
You guys say the Palestinians should forget about what happened to them and work for a solution. Other than the fact that 1 million Palestinians were displaced in 1948 alone due to the Israeli violence, that thousands have been massacred, etc etc etc, you STILL offer NO SOLUTION.
I don't say what either side should do. I stopped caring. I only care that we (the US) get the fuck out of that entanglement. We are completely unable to contribute positively to the situation. What they care to do with one another is their business.
My solution is to leave and not look back. My solution is to quit meddling.
Sorry, I neglected to answer this question. My answer is -- It is not my concern.
I feel like the only reason people oppose these solutions is because it seems all too one-sided, when in reality, all of this falls in favor of EVERYONE, except for Israel's greedy government.
If you also "stopped caring" about the thousands of innocent Palestinians dying, then this thread is clearly not for you. Would you be happy if someone in the Middle East said "I stopped caring about the people who died on 9/11"? I don't think you would.
ok.
I don't expect them to care, from a policy standpoint. Of course, I care from a humanity standpoint, but not from a national policy standpoint. We will be criticized by one side or the other no matter what we choose to do. The outcome will be that peace eludes the region, and it will, of course, be our fault. Sorry, we've played that game too long. I don't believe we've been involved too long to back out now. That sounds like an addicted gambler talking. With investments and gambling you don't chase bad money with good. The same should go for foreign policy. The best thing we can do is absolutely nothing. It has the least cost to us and minimal downside to us.
Ha, well as a libertarian, I am quite opposed to the money taken from my pocket and given to other countries. So you're right about that. That is definitely a concern of mine.
This is a good point. It's easy to "stop caring" though, because it's a difficult situation and neither side wants to do anything about it really...so it's understandable to stop caring.
All you hear anymore is a constant verbal assult from either Pro-Palestinian or Pro-Israeli people...a verbal assult that will lead to nothing.
Druze??? what????
The Druze (Arabic: درزي, derzī or durzī, plural دروز, durūz; Hebrew: דרוזים, Druzim; also transliterated Druz or Druse) are a religious community found primarily in Lebanon, Israel and Syria whose traditional religion is said to have begun as an offshoot of the Ismaili sect of Islam, but is unique in its incorporation of Gnostic, neo-Platonic, pagan and other philosophies. Because of such incorporation, most scholars label the Druze as a non-Muslim sect, even though some Druze identify themselves as Muslims.
(its fair to say these people probably held the Jewish populations within the region as inferior (dhimmitude) and it was recorded as a muslim slaughter of a non-muslim population for the glory of almighty allah. For an analogy the equivlent of the KKK hypothetically burning down Charleston because it was becoming too Black.)
Regardless in my 30 years on this planet there was one shot at peace and what you claim is all that palestinians want. Its Camp David and one leader said he could not agree to it. The rest has been whining and killing from both sides.
So please stop nothing you add on a Pearl Jam message board is going to change anything. thanks
PS: @ outlaw, I think we have sincerely tried (maybe not in the last 8 years, but before that) and the American people supported the amount of time and effort (and money) that was put into it. When it failed (thanks Yassir), it put us back 50 years to "the Jewish state must survive at all costs" mentality. Every action has a reaction, where could we be, what could have been avoided if Arafat had the balls to agree to the Camp David Accords.
— Socrates
what exactly was on the offer to the Palestinians at Camp David and of what were the Israelis allegedly willing to 'concede'??
The fact is that what was on offer to the Palestinians was nothing but a carve of the West Bank with numerous Apartheid style bantustans scattered around and separated from each other by Israeli controlled and checkpoints. Also Israel would maintain control of the borders, coastline, and airspace, and the Israeli army would continue to operate in around these settlements.
Here's a map of what was on offet to the Palestinians at Camp David: http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS/wbgs_campdavid.html
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14120.htm
'The Barak proposal in Camp David, the Barak-Clinton proposal, in the United States, I didn't check the Canadian media, in the United States you cannot find a map, which is the most important thing of course, check in Canada, see if you can find a map. You go to Israel, you can find a map, you go to scholarly sources, you can find a map. Here's what you find when you look at a map: You find that this generous, magnanimous proposal provided Israel with a salient east of Jerusalem, which was established primarily by the Labor government, in order to bisect the West Bank. That salient goes almost to Jericho, breaks the West Bank into two cantons, then there's a second salient to the North, going to the Israeli settlement of Ariel, which bisects the Northern part into two cantons.
So, we've got three cantons in the West Bank, virtually separated. All three of them are separated from a small area of East Jerusalem which is the center of Palestinian commercial and cultural life and of communications. So you have four cantons, all separated from the West, from Gaza, so that's five cantons, all surrounded by Israeli settlements, infrastructure, development and so on, which also incidentally guarantee Israel control of the water resources.'
money that was put into it? I assume by 'it' you mean the Israeli army to which I say yes, the American government has sincerely tried to aid in the systemic killing of Palestinians.
I guess they should have accepted the will of the United Nations in 1948 and not waged war. Bad choice .
oh, and the Arabs didn't "wage war" in 1948, Zionist underground movements had been setting bombs and killing many innocent people (while destroying all those villages) while the Arabs were trying for a more peaceful solution, by seeking international help.