U.S. middle east policy, pros and cons: discuss

Keh, where did I compare Israel v Palestinians to anything in the US?

I completely agree with the moral reasoning of this - where did I say otherwise?

I also believe in the right of Israel to exist (though not the expansion post 67 - which statement agreeing to the 67 borders violates the above agreement regarding the morals of such)

No - my position is known and reasoned to me - it is an understanding of a number of interests which I consider are valid on both sides, and the two sides interests are incompatible/conflicting. And I am also in disagreement with particular aspects of what is being done (as stated above).

Considering your reply - you are totally confused as to where I stand. That I don't blame you for. Given that my position can lead to statements that can seem to be in conflict, it's rather understandable.

Where I make incorrect statements, I am quite happy to acknowledge (see previous links & associated statements), and happy to assimilate those into what I think.

And you still misused generalised statements. Misused statements/comparisons (that started this conversation between you and I) never helps the spread of knowledge (I presume your purpose here is to help spread knowledge, rather than just showing knowledge off) because they show obvious bias, and very few people of differing persuasions bother listening after such obvious displays.

Nobody on this thread who speaks up for the Palestinians, thinks otherwise. It's the Israel advocates who view the Palestinians as little more than animals, and believe there should be no limits to Israel's expansion.

Go over the thread, see if you can find just one instance of an Israel apologist accepting pre 67 borders.

The pre 67 borders were ultimately indefensible. They contained 3 separate parcels of land, joined by two bottlenecks. No country would survive that sort of boundary distribution for too long.

Of course Palestine was divided in 3 pre 67, and that too was a problem that shouldn't have existed for Palestine (and it is worse now)

PS. I don't buy into what many of the 'apologists' on this thread write. 3 in particular have extreme views in any number of forums.

Stick with the topic; ad hominems only belittles what little credibility you might have.

You wrote,

Says you. I beg to differ. No amount of suffering by any group gives them license to take private property from others.

As I said, I agree with this.

But I don't agree with your comparison. If you believe that it is a comparable comparison, then we will just have to disagree drastically on that.

Odd, I thought I was sticking with the topic. Would you care to point out what you think is an Ad Hominem?

It seems more a case of you not following my line of reasoning, which is fine.

I do note that you haven't backed up your claims that I asked you to back up. Are you now going to put words in my mouth and then just go silent when I ask you to show me where I said what you claim I said?

There aren't direct comparisons, but the brutal treatment of the Palestinians has been going on for decades now, and shows no sign of stopping.

Yes.

Which is where my point was headed - if people want to spread knowledge of this, then biased or exagerated statements, or incomparable comparisons are detrimental to the spread of knowledge.

If you phrase things in an above mentioned way you generate walls that people don't look past (as a general rule), as they believe your credibility is lacking (have a look at CI's reaction to what I've been saying). If you just want to show off knowledge, then you can phrase it any way you want, and disregard peoples likely reactions to the way you state such.

If you want people to know about the depth of the oppression, phrase it in accurate ways that generate curiosity, or an 'I didn't know that' moment or an 'is that accurate - I'd better look' way.

People tend to resist change, and inaccurate statements (whether exagerated or otherwise) or what most consider gross comparisons will generate much resistance, and in many cases, instant dismissal of a persons position & knowledge (even if that is illogical - it's common)

The map that I linked for example, if accurate, was for me, very enlightening.

CI's reaction is understandable, he has been to Israel/Palestine and seen the effects of the occupation first hand.

I didn't say it wasn't understandable .

As you can see, I've been respectful of his views (while not necessarily agreeing with him). I consider him a very intelligent and thoughtful person (and I didn't know he had been to Palestine).

You will note that my major disagreement with CI has been in regards to the nature of his communication/phrasing/comparisons of his thoughts? I think certain parts were rather counter productive.

As you'll have noticed before, I've disagreed with you in the past, while I have always been respectful of your views. The same goes for CI. I've rarely seen disagreement alone to be a reason for disrespect.

Yeah, but people get emotional about things close to their hearts, and there are those with whom it is impossible to be civil.

As a rule, I'm only rude to those who are rude to me, unless they go completely beyond the pale.

So true. An unfortunate side effect is that, when the 'other side' is also emotional - they will use almost any reason to not listen to, or dismiss the 'other side' (and as there are religious attachments, and holocaust sympathies, combined with western news & surrounding arab hatreds - there is a lot of emotions involved in many, many western people)

That rule works both ways, so unless managed, both sides talk around in circles, not listening to the other. 'Fairness' in communication is one of the only ways to get through, and even then, that's no where near guaranteed...yet it's just about the only way through.

The exception to that are the naturally curious people (most don't like change, or challenge to their comfortable world). But they are relatively few and far between, and for those that exist, they may be curious about so many other things that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict may have a low priority on their radar.

As a matter of fact, I'll be in Israel again this month when our cruise ship stops for two days to visit Jerusalem and one day at Haifa. I'm not sure we'll have the opportunity to talk with a Palestinian on this tour, because my travel agent made the reservations for the ten in our group.

FYI, I also read Susan Nathan's "The Other Side Of Israel" many years ago. She's a Jewish woman who lived in the area where Palestinians lived to see how they were treated. It's an eye-opener, and you should read it. She has no tolerance for racial bigotry, and neither do I.

On my first visit to Israel, I saw the watchtowers all over that controlled the movement of Palestinians. The woman we were able to have a discussion with told us her family has lived in Palestine for many generations, but she doesn't have the freedom to travel in her own country.

I know how I would feel if my travels were restricted. However, I'm one of the fortunate ones who have traveled to over 170 countries, all five continents, flew to Mt Everest, and dipped my feet in the Dead Sea several times.

I'll report back what I "see" in Israel upon my return home.

"The Other Side Of Israel" Just got it on my Kindle

I'm glad you're willing to read it, because I believe you'll learn some things about Israel most people are unawares. As a matter of fact, I'm taking m Kindle on the cruise this month.

As an aside, read "The History of the World in Six Glasses." It's a light read, and very informative about human libations and other beverages.

Many people mistake my motivation for any number of my postings when there are emotions involved (I can understand why they do mistake such, which is why I don't get particularly upset by it)

I tend to be apolitical, even while I find politics/economics/foreign policy interesting. Basically I first decided what I find acceptable, good, right, beneficial etc - and then apply them to politics...which means that I don't find any of the political ideologies always good, and also from that view - it means siding completely with one political ideology is nonsensical to me.

So... I'm usually happy to read both sides of a story (that I'm interested in) where a decent opportunity presents itself.

I'm of the same philosophy about politics, and have changed from democrat to republican to Independent - now going on for a couple of decades as an Independent. I don't care for the extremes of either party, and will vote for the candidate I believe will do the best job for our country. The pickings gets slimmer every year.

I'm finding that the politicians of the major parties get more and more secretive every year. It seems that they also, at the same time, grow more and more fearful of any adverse publicity. Consequently the do everything they can to silence the critique of experts from all corners of the country (in Australia), and to place their cronies in positions of power.

That can only ever lead to poor decision making. Yet the general population doesn't seem to see this.

I'm also finding that big business are having, more and more, and open say in politics. They are getting to the stage where they run fear campaigns against the govt whenever a decision may affect their bottom line (not stop them making money, but stop them making so much money). Sadly, a lot of people are incredibly ignorant of economics, and fall for the fear campaigns.

I had a look at the growing divide in taxation contributions between corporations vs income tax in the US both were roughly equal in the 1930's. Since then, there's no surprise about which tax revenue has continued growing at a much greater rate the the other. If I recall right, income tax revenue is now 5 times higher than company tax revenue. Australia's divide isn't as great as that, but I can see that we are heading that way - every time there's a recession or slow down in the economy, they ask for concessions that are never given back (under the Mantra 'we must create jobs') - so the required revenue comes from elsewhere (with income tax being a prime source)

And then there's foreign policy - another beast.

That is all to say - I'm finding a similar thing in Australia - the quality of politician in Australia has been in decline for quite some time. The quality of democracy and decision making in Australia has also been in decline. Currently I don't like either of our major parties, and will be voting independent at the next election, even if they don't have a hope of getting elected.

My view is that the west is in decline, through it's own fear, greed, and sense of entitlement.
-------------------------------
Oh something you might find interesting. About 2 years back, I visited an academy - in Queensland, Australia - it is basically a State School for high achievers (ie. It's a school whose entry qualifications are exceedingly high - only for the brightest students in the State). 95% of the students were Asian, even though in the general population they are only about 7-10%. I asked the principal about this, and she said that the Asian students just work harder. She stated that there were plenty of bright caucasian students, but they didn't have the work ethic to succeed like the Asian students.

I found that eye opening.

ignorance and fear is a fatal one/two punch. we are in decline, and it is terminal....this civilization is over.