|
Participant: Fleabag
Date: 2003-03-12 19:49:18
The world does need an international police force. This, I believe, should be the job of the UN. No other body should, or could, be a legitimate impartial voice when dealing with the nations of the world, whether or not they are members. Many countries do not subscribe to the notion of any such thing as 'human rights' and that should not be a reason for exemption from responsibility. Neither should the US and Israel(and others) be able to declare themselves or their citizens immune from war crimes prosecutions.
With regard to the word 'Policide', it is a recent term used to describe the death (or regime-change) of one nation's political structure at the hands of another.
I think the US has it's hands full far greater than they realize with the Iraqi conflict. They do not realize, or refuse to acknowledge, that there is no 'separation of church and state' in most Islamic countries. If they intend to accomlish this through force, especially with their own gains in mind, the world should brace itself for bloodshed of untold proportions.
Until the UN has at it's disposal, a credible force of arms under it's direct control, it has only it's member nation's armed forces to accomplish the enforcement of it's resolutions. Countries such as the US and Israel can continue to defy the UN because they wield the largest military might, not because 'they are in the right'. Iraq, as well, should be subject to force (upon preset conditions) only by the UN, in a strict police-action sense, unless the US feels it can openly declare war on a soveriegn nation. Mind you, it has in the past, and defied UN resolutions damning their actions and gotten away with it.
PS. I wonder what would happen if Iraq were to shoot a couple of UN inspectors and then deny an ambulance access to the victims resulting in their deaths? Israel did that last year and received a 'stern letter of reprimand' from the UN.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: Vox
Date: 2003-03-12 22:11:10
I think you have some good ideas.
I also agree it would be better to have a UN with its own "police force". The tough part is how to engineer such a body. The UN is really a sum of its members and relies on goodwill and solidarity to accomplish actions as opposed to "window-dressing" with words.
Perhaps you can suggest ways to accomplish this. A key ingredient might include enduring respect from all member states. I think it can happen but it will take much time and courage.
I note that many critics of the US are also critics of Israel, often to the extent of completely discounting the threats posed by Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. To win the confidence of all earnest people, critics of the US and Israel must also view the Al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein and even Gaullist politics objectively.
I am also a critic of Israel and have, on more than one occasion, written to the US State department to complain about US policies regarding Israel and the Middle East. IMO Israel is extremely dysfunctional. Its government is a total failure to its people, both Jews and Arabs. Its complete failure as a viable nation state is a primary reason why it is so dependent on the US and has dragged the US into confrontation with Arab fundamentalists. It is also a good example of how organized religion can sometimes poison the minds of people. As things stands, Israeli government policies have a good chance of triggering WWIII.
UN resolutions against Israel should be reviewed and enforced if still relevant and the nations embroiled in following up on 1441 should devote as much effort to tackle Israel's intransigence as well as the US's intransigence. If France, Germany and Russia are truly honourable they might take this opportunity to work a deal with the US on its past record on these failed UN resolutions.
Finally, I think that countries with no separation between religion and state are unsustainable and would only result in violence, bloodshed and their own ultimate destruction. While religion can serve many people well IMO such "fundamentalist" nations are the creations of men with tiny minds, self-loathing and deep-seated fear. Unfortunately, history has no shortage of such fools. This human predicament repeats itself with each generation that we fail to educate and protect.
Vox Canadiana
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: Fleabag
Date: 2003-03-13 18:38:00
One of my ideas to encourage and foster involvement in, and commitment to, the unbiased enforcement of UN resolutions is an 'international militia'. Member nations could be asked (or required) to offer a fixed amount, or percentage, of it's military or citizens to do a certain term in the 'UN militia'. Adherence to these terms could earn the member nations 'credits' toward or in lieu of monetary contributions.
many countries, especially socialist ones, require a couple of years of military service from those capable for national defence. The UN as of now relies on such 'donated forces' for peacekeeping missions, but they have never been used to 'enforce' resolutions. There would be no comparable example of an impartial force in the world such as this. It would have to be able to also access military intelligence of it's member nations and also have some form of permanent military command structure.
This is a very rough idea of how the UN could make a viable 'world militia', but it is deeply dependent on the willingness of it's members to commit to world peace rather than it's own interests. However, in the long run, truly peaceful nations would not have to expend so much of it's own resources on 'self-defence' if there were a credible body (such as the UN) to rely on to come to it's aid in times of strife.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: horton
Date: 2003-03-15 00:56:22
Have you been to Israel?
If your answer is not I see your comment comes from ignorance.
The real failure is the arab leadership, instead to give freedom to their people, maintains them in the middle ages, and promotes hatred.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-15 18:41:28
Yours is an emotional response and opinion. It is a 2 way street. Israel under Sharon has become extremely aggressive; disobeys UN resolutions and completely over reacts. When Mr Rabin was in power Israel was working towards peace. There are angry people on both sides who have had innocent children and other civillians murdered.
Israel would be more prone to seek peace with the Palestinians if it did not have full funding and backing from the USA; and the Palestinians may have more inclination to work towards peace if it was more equalized without American favoritism being shown to Israel
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: jwitt
Date: 2003-03-16 16:44:49
fatmomma
The issue of Israel and the Palestinians is deeply complex and needs to be approached in an historical context. Unfortunately, the media presents the conflict with deliberate bias toward one side or the other. It is quite difficult to find any reporting which is truly balanced, as opposed to badly polarized and unhelpful. I see the polarization of opinion toward one side or the other as a major part of the problem as opposed to part of the solution. I would have to cite comments such as the following as a prime example: "IMO Israel is extremely dysfunctional. Its government is a total failure to its people, both Jews and Arabs. Its complete failure as a viable nation state is a primary reason why it is so dependent on the US and has dragged the US into confrontation with Arab fundamentalists. It is also a good example of how organized religion can sometimes poison the minds of people. As things stands, Israeli government policies have a good chance of triggering WWIII".
As someone who has spent considerable time in both Israel and the West Bank, as well as elsewhere in the middle east, I would have to describe such statements as biased, seemingly uninformed and unhelpful. Like it or not, Israel has a public health, education and transportation system which puts Canada's to shame, and to dismiss the country as a "complete failure" is nonsense.
Horrible atrocities have and continue to be made by both the Israelis and the Palestinians, and the behaviour of both sides must be condemned, as does the current and past behaviour of many Arab countries who have deliberately fuelled the conflict by using the Palestinians as dupes and poster children for their own ends, and completely failed to do anything tangible or meaningful to improve their condition. You are quite correct that Sharon is a major problem. His program of wanton destruction will ensure a steady stream of well indoctrinated Palestinian youths with explosive belts for the forseeable future. However, he could also be described as a democratic reaction (albeit a misguided and unfortunate one)to Yasser Arafat's response (violence and bombings)to the real and rather extensive concessions (these included east Jerusalem and the removal of most settlements) made by Ehud Barak. Bad leadership on both sides has historically, and continues today to create serious obstacles. The US has a clear bias toward the Israelis while the Europeans have a clear bias toward the Palestinains. There just doesn't seem to be much in the way of balance anywhere, and this polarization of opinion in the West only serves the purposes of extreme elements among both the Palestinians and Israelis.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: Vox
Date: 2003-03-17 19:14:29
You wrote:
"... I see the polarization of opinion toward one side or the other as a major part of the problem as opposed to part of the solution. I would have to cite comments such as the following as a prime example: "IMO Israel is ..."
I wish to correct you on your mistaken assumption.
IMO, there is no polarization as I only stated my opinion of Israel. I did not compare Israel to any other entity so that can be no polarization. Perhaps you subconsciously believed that I would naturally criticize Israel in deference to the Palestinians. My views were absolute - Israel is completely dysfunctional and its policies are unsustainable regardless of whom it is oppressing.
Israel is a total failure because it believes it can only exist by subjugating another people. The "fact" that, as you say, (Israel) can boast of "... a public health, education and transportation system which puts Canada's to shame..." only demonstrates how inhumane its policies are.
If a government can afford to be so generous to its own people then how can it justify its cruel and indiscriminate policies of punishing and crushing another people? It is curious that you should used a materialistic measure to validate your contention that Israel is not dysfunctional. IMO a person is most dysfunctional when he/she values material trappings beyond that of showing human dignity to another.
By its reprehensible and ineffective policies, the Israeli government is actually robbing its own people of the soul that it claims the Jewish faith bestows them with. I grant that you have visited Israel and the West Bank but I gather you did not visit any Palestinians while you were there. I personally have no desire or need to visit either of those places. I do admit I am making my judgement from a distance and I am open to more illuminating views if you have them.
Finally, I wish to add that I also have a very poor impression of the Palestinian "representation". I understand the impossible situation Israel finds itself in when it is expected to work with the corrupt Palestinian Authority. However, Israel's policy of indiscriminate punishment and annexation of people's homes will only create more injustice and justify future opposition. The tragic death yesterday of 23-year old Rachel Corrie should be a graphic example of how out-of-control Israel's aggressive policies have become. How can anyone believe their mission is so important that they would even risk driving a bulldozer over a defenseless young woman who is only trying to prevent destruction of people's homes? Can you now say "dysfunctional"?
Israel seems bent on achieving "victory" by successfully oppressing its detractors and non-Israeli inhabitants. It is a hopeless cause because it will never find peace this way. Locating Israel in Palestine was a big mistake from the beginning - a mistake that the European nations as well as Canada and the US must share equally with Israel, for it was the rejection of the Jews by these nations that led them to find a separate home. IMO, if Israelis want to be free from the threat of violence, an original goal for a homeland, they must co-exist and blend in more with the peoples of the region. Otherwise, Israelis will continue to live with an "outpost" mentality and the violence will only become more tragic.
Vox Canadiana
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: codc01
Date: 2003-03-18 13:20:05
I agree entirely with your point of view. I think your analysis is unbiased and very objective.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: jwitt
Date: 2003-03-18 19:49:21
Vox,
I do understand where your coming from, in part. However, before I comment more fully on your response, I'd like some clarification on one point. You state "Israel is a total failure because it believes it can only exist by subjugating another people". Have you arrived at this conclusion on the basis of current Likud policies? or are there additional points you can present to support your hypothesis?- please elaborate. Also, I think we may both be guilty of pre-supposing a bit too much eg- "I gather you did not visit any Palestinians while you were there". One of the more memorable experiences (but not the fondest) of the time I spent living in the mideast was when I was detained by the Israeli Border Police while I was trying to hitch a ride from Nabulus to the Megiddo area after spending a few days with some Palestinian friends of mine.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: Vox
Date: 2003-03-21 14:54:48
Thank you for your reply and clarification. The fact that you have Palestinian friends does help to explain and lend credibility to your views. What do your Palestinian friends think of the Israeli government?
As for presupposing and letting our egos get ahead of sensible judgement, I can honestly say this is not the case with my opinion of Israel. I perceive that it is also not the case for you in your opinions. I have no personal stakes in Israel or Palestine except for the seemingly unending tragedy and peril that their situation represents. My opinions are the product of years of observation and debates with my friends.
My opinion is that the current Israeli government and its policies mirror the views of hard-line Jewish cultural elements. These policies are basically racist and morally unconscionable. I do appreciate the impossible situation that Israel finds itself in. There are many intractable elements to the Palestinian milieu as well as the manner in which it has attracted fanatical Islamic support from outside Palestine.
To start with I think it was a monumental mistake to locate Israel in its biblical site. If people worry the US action in Iraq may result in a clash of religions then we have no further to look than Israel. The only way to avoid making Israel's first mistake a fatal one is to have Israel integrate with Palestine and embrace the surrounding peoples.
At the moment, Israel still behaves as if it can use force to secure its presence. Just the other day Israel made an incredibly tactless (and apparently unsubstantiated) announcement that the US had pledge US$ 10 billion to help Israel rebuild its economy. I think more than a few people were put off by that announcement. It is also a slap in the face for the many Arabs and other non-Jewish people who would be affected by the US-led war with Iraq.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2867619.stm
The fact that Israel has bankrupt itself in part by spending on weapons and security measures demonstrates its failed concept as a nation. To me, Israel smells of those "white elephant" projects where too much money, people and resources are poured into some pipe dream that a few misguided souls dreamt up against conventional wisdom. In order to become successful, Israel needs to remain secular, play down the Jewish faith and be absolutely impartial to Jews and non-Jews. This will take a lot of time and courage from all parties to achieve. If this were to ever happen it would represent a complete reversal of the hate and suffering we now see.
Vox Canadiana
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: codc01
Date: 2003-03-16 04:50:40
Please read my comments in the: Israel, Palestine et le Projet Liberté thread. In summary, both Palestinians and Israel are at fault - its not only Palestinian's fault. The isssue is very complex indeed. Palestinians are at fault for not getting rid of the terrorist groups - lack of political will (no they can't do that anymore since Israel completely destroyed Palestine's infrastructure)... And Israel is at fault for not stopping colonization and not accepting sharing Jerusalem with the Palestinians...
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: jwitt
Date: 2003-03-13 18:47:11
How can the UN be transformed out of its current status as a five ring circus? One can easily see any new resolution brought forth to do so being vetoed five times........and the dog and pony show continuing...
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: Fleabag
Date: 2003-03-13 20:00:46
Indeed, the UN is in serious credibility trouble. Not through it's own actions, though. France is pre-emptively vetoing for it's own adgenda, the US war machine doesn't like it's dogs chomping at the bit for too long, lest they lose their taste for blood, Russia not wanting to see US control of the Middle East, the bickering seems endless. Any resolution to come forth will probably be for naught, though as the US will yet again claim that Saddam, even if he does comply, is lying and invade anyway.
It seems that the only way to clear up this imbroglio would be to have a few learned people in the UN renounce citizenship to any country to achieve true impartiality. I personally consider myself a 'citizen of planet earth' before Canadian, but I do love Canada. I do not love it to the point where I am willing to let my country bend the rest to it's 'will to power', however.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-16 10:39:33
Don't put motives in France's veto. Geermany and Russia are prepared to veto also. Stop making France the scapegoat for the impasse at the UN. The USA is the one out of step. The USA has not been supporting the UN for years; it refuses to join in banning land mines or to join the International Crime Court. The USA has not paid its dues to the UN for at least 2 years.
Why?? Because they no longer want or need the UN; as they are the only "super power". They will make decisions based solely on US interests
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: Fleabag
Date: 2003-03-17 00:06:27
I do not mean to imply that France alone is the problem in the UN. I merely mean that France is acting as any other power would act. They are protecting their already considerable investment and future payoff. Iraq does, after all, have the world's largest oil reserves and the country that comes out on top in this 'event' will have IT'S nation's company of choice become the world's largest (and richest) oil producer. The are all guilty of greed to one degree or another and that is the root of the current dysfunctionality of the UN.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: codc01
Date: 2003-03-17 02:55:07
I disagree with you, France has almost nothing to lose by the invasion of Iraq, there is only one French company which signed contracts for oil production in Iraq, while there are several Russian and Chinese oil companies involved in Iraq.
I would completely reverse the logic of this, it would be positive for the US government to invade Iraq so they can have greater control over the oil reserves of Iraq (Currently there is no US Oil company in Iraq).
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: Fleabag
Date: 2003-03-17 20:45:05
The 'complete reversal of logic' you speak of, I believe, is merely the other side of the same coin. The billions, perhaps trillions, of dollars that are to be made from 'the rest of the oil on earth' (that meaning Iraq has the largest amount of oil in the ground anywhere in the world) will go to stimulate one nation's economy. That means millions of 'trickle-down' jobs, as that nation's 'richest company in the world' will create employment, tax revenues, et al. TotalFinaElf is already owed billions, and stand to make untold billions more. That would be a tremendous boon to the French economy. The US would benefit in the exact same way if the reserves go to Exxon or Mobil.
The US is a very fat, hungry nation, consuming a disproportionate share of energy and resources compared to the rest of the world. Pres. Bush has promised the American people that they have every right to continue doing so, even if he has to go to war to secure the right of 'every American to have SUV's".
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-18 16:03:44
Oil sands included, Canada probably has the most oil in the ground - its an issue of proven versus probable reserves.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: Vox
Date: 2003-03-17 11:44:11
Personally-speaking, I feel the issues of oil and business opportunities with Iraq are blown completely out of proportion. The "fight behind doors" between the various security council members go much, much deeper and further than mere business opportunities.
IMO, people who speculate on the intentions of France should do some serious research into Gaullist government policies. They are very specific and are the crux of the reason behind Chirac's policies.
In particular you should examine French politics before WWII, as well as de Gaulle's WWII and post war political career.
Compare the track record of de Gaulle and his Rassemblement du Peuple Français (RPF) movement to Chirac's record and his ties to de Gaulle's ideals embodied in Chirac's party, the Rassemblement pour la République (RPR).
There is much more to Chirac's play-acting (pay close attention to his choice of words). If you wish to avoid being fooled by the "spin" played by various governments (including the one in Washington) you also need to be wise to the same self-serving cynicism from Paris, Beijing, Moscow and London. If you agree that one should never trust the words of politicians then I think you would benefit greatly by understanding their past behaviour and motivations instead.
Vox Canadiana
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: Fleabag
Date: 2003-03-18 23:53:02
I would think that France is an anomaly, to be sure. I don't think, however, that they are not reasonably transparent. France has had, for a while, a very large communist-leaning section of the populace. They were also the last 'traditional colonial power' to have to cede their territories, and reeled from the 'prestige-blows'. The loss of Indo-China meant the loss of the opium trade, which they had gained from Britain, only to see it go to the US.
Their fervent ardor to hang on to the African colonies still is a cause of strife today.
DeGaulle was a patriot, to be sure, and greatly helped in WWII, after certain 'differences' were ironed out by the allies and they 'made' DeGaulle as leader of the Free French. He always had the single-minded drive, however, to "restore France to it's former glory". Hardly attainable, I should think, in this day and age. At least for France.
I should like to point out, that some people have criticized me in the past for 'digging into the past' when trying to prove current, or ongoing', actions of dubious motivation'. I think that those who fail to acknowledge history are doomed to repeat it.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: Vox
Date: 2003-03-21 11:30:40
I am not sure what you mean by saying France is an anomaly. If we look at the UK, Russia and China, we can also find "special" circumstances that they bring over from their past and their differences in culture. Perhaps you have a different meaning.
I agree with you that we need to acknowledge history and use this knowledge wisely.
I would like to add some detail to your description of de Gaulle vis-à-vis "The Resistance". France was a very, very, very divided and confused country in 1943. While most of occupied France was indifferent to their German minders, amongst the reaction to defeat by Germany there were many different french views of the future of France *as well as* how to achieve them. De Gaulle was perhaps the essence of what we might call a "political animal". He was a consummate political schemer. The "Free French Resistance" was not de Gaulle's creation and he viewed it with suspicion and ambivalence. He sought to weaken its power and purposely minimized it.
The liberation of Paris was a bit of a farce because of the behind-the-scenes shenanigans between de Gaulle and the other french liberators. At one point, Georges Bidault, president of the National Council of the Resistance (CNR) i.e. the "internal resistance" was sternly told by de Gaulle "Monsieur, un peu en arrière, s'il vous plaît" - basically a french way of saying "You, move back there where you belong!". When Bidault solemnly asked de Gaulle to declare a new republic, de Gaulle declared "...I am the president of the government of the Republic. Why should I proclaim the Republic now?". The Free French Resistance risked their lives and their families by staying in France, fighting the Germans while this "pretender", through political skills, comes "home" to claim his glories. De Gaulle was always intolerant to sharing power (a curious trait in light of his magnanimous multipolar ideals) and he proceeded to undermine the CNR by introducing his own people to the CNR while creating new organizations to supplant the CNR. There was a lot of more of this nonsense but you can read up on it if you pick up some decent books.
The reason why I delve into de Gaulle is because this manner of politics seems to have pervaded France for much of the last century and Chirac is a direct follower of de Gaulle and seems to follow his style. While no one can be certain of Chirac's real motivations, people who see him as a symbol of righteousness in this Iraq affair should do well to look into the "Politics of Grandeur" and the behaviour of people and policies that shaped Chirac.
Now, if you really want to be more up-to-date, you should read up on the sad history of the EEC or the "Common Market". Remember the "Common Market"? Most of us have left that term behind years ago but it was the precursor to the EU and it was the brain-child of France. The EU is also the brain-child of France. Many people and I will tell you the intent of the EU is to facilitate the re-emergence of France as the master of Europe. Germany is actually more powerful but it is out-of-commission politically because it is now culturally, mentally and constitutionally restricted in its foreign policy options. Germany simply fears using its political potential in the world stage lest it be viewed as a Nazi resurgence so it is effectively nullified so long as its people will not support overt presence in the world stage. Economic power is one thing but being involved in controversial international politics is quite something "sehr unangenehm" for the Germans. Gaullist France wants to exploit this untapped potential by re-wrapping it as part of the EU. If you doubt this, you may ask yourself why Portugal, the Netherlands, Denmark, Italy, Spain and Poland do not support France. Come back to the UK. Do you know what de Gaulle said to the UK when it first asked to be admitted to the Common Market? Why do you think France is not enthusiastic about the newer entrants and applicants to the EU and NATO? It's all written in the history books - way before the Iraq issue ever came up.
Vox Canadiana
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: jwitt
Date: 2003-03-27 20:05:07
Vox,
Once again, I understand the spirit of your arguments, but believe some of your suggestions will remain impractical for the forseeable future. I must agree that the "hardline Jewish cultural elements" have a resoundingly disproportionate influence in Israeli politics, but would strongly disagree that this represents a desire among the preponderance of Israeli society to subjugate another people. Israel has a proportional democracy, which works somewhat differently than Canadas representative democracy. The result is a bewildering array of political parties, and coalition governments where the really hardline parties, which represent a small minority end up with real power.
In fact, Canada could learn something by monitoring Israeli political outcomes. I have heard much discussion of Canada moving toward a similar system over the past few years, and although such a system may seem to have merits on the surface, we could end up with a situation where the 'Family Action Coalition' and other far right religious parties have real and disproportionate power.
As for the the location of the State of Israel, hind site is 20/20. It is interesting to note that before the 'Balfour Declaration' the British offered the Jews what is now Uganda to develop Israel, but my guess is that this might have resulted in some problems as well. Regardless, we can't turn back history and must focus on the here and now. I of course understand completely your emphasis on a need for secularity, this meshes well with my personal beliefs and those of the majority in the West. However, this won't work at all in most of the mideast for the forseeable future (if ever at all). Much as I am personally quite contemptuous of all forms of organised religion, it has formed the cultural foundation of the entire mideast to a far greater extent than the west, principally because it is the birth place of three of the worlds major religions (Islam, Christianity, Judaism and is home to their major spiritual sites). A secularized Israel which encompasses both the Israelis and the Palestinians would not only require the Israelis to de-emphasize Judaism, but also the Palestinians to de-emphasize Islam- both of which will be an impossible sell. So, I think a two-State solution will remain the only course which has any hope of success in both the near and long term. My French is not the best, but I believe the ideas given in the Israel and Palestine posting in this forum offer the best hope for a lasting solution. To answer your first question: What do your Palestinian friends think of the Israeli government? On the whole, I'm surprised you really need to ask. BUT, having said that, It is definitely my experience that the Palestinians really do try to see the difference between policies resulting from political processes and Israelis as individual people (this was absolutely true of those I knew). The media has a feeding frenzy on what is not positive as opposed to what is positive. The right wing media would have us believe that the Palestinians are a faceless mass of suicide bombers, and that the West Bank is a giant Islamic Jihad Rally- an utterly absurd contention. While the left wing media would have us believe that the Israelis are all frothing with hatred, and itching to turn the West Bank into a parking lot- an equally absurd contention. Both sides are represented by REAL PEOPLE, not badly embellished abstractions which can be turned on and off with a remote control. Real people who in many cases have an enormous amount in common and really ought to be friends, but extremists on both sides and the Western Media focus only on their differences instead of what they share in common.
Let me conclude by telling you about what in many ways I regard as my greatest personal failure- the day I had beers by myself. First you must know that I am a drummer, and a big fan of Jazz music. I came to know two other drummers, both Jazz fans, with a strong degree of overlap in their cassette tape collections. One was Palestinian, the other Israeli. After some hesitation from both, I got them to agree to meet, and set up a time in a small bar near the Israel/West Bank border (both very much enjoyed having a couple beers and sitting back and relaxing, hence becoming friends with me). Neither showed up, and both gave me really lame excuses as to why, but it became clear that the real reason was fear- not of themselves or even of each other, but rather by how it might be perceived by their peers should they find out. This is why I despair when I read polarized statements which feed this mentality, and the horrible grip which extremists have on both sides. You may have initially thought that when I made reference to your earlier statements serving extremist elements, I was referring to only Palestinian extremists, however those comments serve "hardline Jewish Elements" equally as well. They provide them with the "see, the world hates us and is out to get us" ammunition which was born in the holocaust, and has since been twisted to serve the interests of a small minority of right wing ideological expansionists. So I request that you take a more nuanced approach to the middle east, and not inadvertently serve the purposes of extremists who have created a climate which keeps people who really should be friends from becoming just that.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: Fleabag
Date: 2003-03-28 19:20:58
Having read much on Israel and Palestine, I would like to offer only this.
It is truly tragic that the rift between peoples of the middle east bar even individuals with a common love for music from developing friendships because of predjudice and 'peer-pressure'. Predjudice is a learned thing, as anyone can see by watching children play.
Once upon a time, parents told their 'white' children not to play with the 'black' children(and some vice-versa). Only the parents thought there was good reason, while the children had no such feelings, until there were told to have them.
If children are the future of the world, and represent purity of feelings, (tantrums aside) we should all learn from them, rather than imprint upon them. (To a certain degree)
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: Vox
Date: 2003-03-29 00:03:41
jwitt:
My suggestions are "impractical" by the very nature of the problems in the Middle East. I will try to answer your posting succinctly. I realize fully that my suggestions will appear impractical. I will give reasons for that later in my reply.
You say "...I must agree that the "hardline Jewish cultural elements" have a resoundingly disproportionate influence in Israeli politics, but would strongly disagree that this represents a desire among the preponderance of Israeli society to subjugate another people...".
This is not what I said or meant. I make the distinction between the Israeli people and Israel, the state; Israel, the government. Please look through any of my comments and you will not find me passing judgements on the Israeli people. I always point to the Israeli government or its policies. When I use "Israel" I refer to its official representation, and not to its people per se.
The oppression of Israel on Palestinians is expressed by its policies and the acts of Israelis who condone these policies and not necessarily indicative of the attitude of all Israelis. The tragedy is that Israelis seem powerless to reverse this trend. That is why I alluded to "... the Israeli government is actually robbing its own people of the soul that it claims the Jewish faith bestows them with...".
You make a good point regarding Israel's democratic framework and how it creates disproportionate representation of hard-line ideologies. I agree with your thoughts on this regarding Canada. IMO, this danger is not peculiar to Israel but to any democratic society that aspires to ideals that its people are not yet ready for.
Your reference to the 'Balfour Declaration' is interesting. I do not think there would have been any "better" home to designate as the Jewish State for the people of any inhabited location would have felt pushed out by the Jews. I had alluded to the blame that western nations (and Britain) must all share with regard to the Jewish people's plight. IMO, it would have been much better to have these nations welcome the Jews and for the Jews to have the courage to try to live solely amongst gentiles again. As it stands, Israel as a nation was born out of a religious imperatives and is now still struggling to survive because of these imperatives. Given you misgivings of organized religion, I am sure you see the inherent flaw in this primary tenet of Israel's policies. Will it ever end. What would happen if the US withdrew financial support? Could Israel stand on its own without being propped up? What constitutes failure and success as a nation state?
I agree with your assessment that a secularized Israel must consist of both moderate Jews and moderate Muslims. However, I do not agree that it is impossible and again, I will explain later.
As for my question about your Palestinian friends' opinions of the Israeli government, you indicate that they can make the distinction between Israeli people and their government and policies. You seem surprised I would ask. However, IMO the overwhelming impression one gets is that many Palestinians are reluctant to make such fine distinctions. However, I accept your assessment that many do make the distinctions. I also agree that most people caught in this mess are "REAL PEOPLE" who prefer to be in peace with one another.
Now I come to my final and most important comments. You indicated that my suggestions are "impractical", that they "won't work at all..." and that moderation is "an impossible sell". Well, I would say that from your own observations of your jazz-playing friends' behaviours that they really do want to "bury the hatchet", share their common interests and be friends. I would also say that you believed they could have made friends with each other. You did try...once. Your impression was that your friends "pooped out" on you and on themselves.
Why?
Because they thought it would have been "impossible", "impractical" and "impossible to sell" (to their peers). They were essentially afraid. They were too "practical" and "conventional". Your idea wasn't. Why do you complain about mine?
I believe there is never an easy way out of the strife that is born out of vicious sectarian differences. We can try to keep people apart with fences or threats of violence but there would never be peace. We just prolong the misery, rack up more grudges until the next big confrontation. If you want to solve the real problems you must tackle the fundamental basis of this sort of strife - IMO, it is the blind, primitive nature of all organized religion. Unless you get the parties to moderate and live in the same spot as neighbours they will always eye each other's intentions and each other's possessions with suspicion and resentment. Thus, my suggestions are not actually impractical. They are actually extremely hard to achieve but the reason why they are so is because they strike at the very heart of the problem. So take your pick. Take the easy, practical route and procrastinate or put some courage and vision into your actions and actually try to solve the problem.
In fact, I think you already made a start on this route but just haven't realized it yet. Why else would you have tried to get your friends together?
Vox Canadiana
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: banquosghost
Date: 2003-03-13 20:12:55
The UN sometimes looks like a five ring circus because of it's attempt to be a global democratic institution. Democratic institutions are messy, can get loud with a lot of people talking at once and over long periods of time, can take a long time to accomplish things and on and on. It's part of the deal when an aim of an institution is to foster dialogue rather than armed conflict. As Churchill said, "To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war." So a dog and pony show it may appear to be but quoting Churchill again, on democracy, "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried." I'm OK with lots of talking over long periods of time because *precisely that* is one of the foundational tenets of democratic government.
If some group tries to convince you that all that talking is a waste of time and everything would be so much better without it, immediately look for the unsmelled rat.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: jwitt
Date: 2003-03-14 14:11:04
Can a council where five members have permanent status and special powers really ever be democratic?
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: codc01
Date: 2003-03-14 06:28:46
Yes, but everyone forgets once again that the UN general assembly has the same power as the Security Council if the permanent members cannot agree! So its not so much a circus as people might think.
The following text clearly states the power of the general assembly:
http://www.un.org/Depts/ dhl/landmark/pdf/ares377e.pdf
A small article on its usage in the past:
http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=386906
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: Fleabag
Date: 2003-03-14 09:54:02
I am expecting Saddam Hussein to not live through the US invasion, should it come to pass. The US could not 'arrest and detain' him, for what would he be charged with? The UN is the body to try war crimes, not individual nations. They cannot simply 'oust him' and hope he goes away. He would be back in power within a week without US occupation. (I assume they also intend to do this)
Therefore, I can only assume that they intend to murder him. While this may happen in the course of any war, I believe it will be the US intention from the outset. They cannot afford to have him live. In the long term, for the safety of the world, it may not be a bad outcome. However, assassination is supposed to be illegal and should be.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-15 21:04:28
I would not be too sure about Saddam not surviving an invasion. He will probably have a safe exit already planned; probably Iran. Iran will probably be the USA's (Bush's) next target. I believe Bush has already stated he had no qualms about assassinating Saddam. That could lead to making him a martyr; and rally more terrorists.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: jwitt
Date: 2003-03-16 17:15:03
Iran is about the last place where Saddam could seek asylum. He would almost certainly be tried and executed there.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: Fleabag
Date: 2003-03-17 20:31:48
Absolutely correct. Saddam has made many enemies in the Middle East, and Iran is at the top of the list. Kuwait, UAE, even Saudi Arabia would turn him over to the US in a second so they would not jeopardize their oil profits and IMF dollars. He would have a better chance and find more freinds in Syria or Lebanon, but would also have less hiding places. If the US is serious about only wanting him to leave, as a free man, it should not matter where he goes. I think that the whole truth is shockingly being kept from the masses.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: jwitt
Date: 2003-03-18 19:21:42
Precisely. Whats additionally bothersome about the whole state of affairs is that no countries currently seem to be making offers of asylum. I am no fan of Saddam, but given the situation we are in at the moment, I think Canada would do well to offer the senior Iraqi heirarchy asylum if there is any chance it could avoid a bloodbath.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-17 14:03:39
Fatmomma,
So, if Saddam is assasinated you think that he will become a martyr and rally more terrorists.
I know this will make you mad at me (please don't!), but it appears you can make a link between Saddam and terrorists.
Think about that...
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: codc01
Date: 2003-03-17 15:05:33
Terrorists will make anyone a martyr if it advances their cause in recruiting other kamikazes...
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-18 04:56:52
Now you are using Powell's flawed logic. Saddam is a despicable human being and certainly capable of using terrorism. That doesn't link him to the terrorists who attacked the WTC.
I think Saddam baited the US deliberately;(offering rewards to terrorist families); then he cooperates with the UN inspectors. I believe, he knew Bush would be hot headed and insist on attacking Iraq; he also counted on the majority of the world would want a peaceful resolve through the inspections. He is probably revelling in the dissension he has brought to the UN. Saddam is winning this propaganda war with the USA because Bush is too bull headed and hot headed to wait until Saddam screws up and shows his true colours.
Why could Bush not wait; get rid of as many weapons as possible(safer for his troops) Then if and when Saddam quit cooperating; the USA would have more world support and justification. Without strong Arab support and world support; it is Mr Bush who is villifying the USA; angering the Arab people thereby bringing more to the terrorist's point of view.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
