Saudi prince: Zionism to blame for terror attack

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

But we can't influence history, only the present.

Well said. I agree.

Quote:

There is only one world, only one united nations and only one way of getting states to resolve their differences peaceably. Thats why its important Israel abides by international law and why America should use its influence to enforce it.

I don't agree that the UN represents the only way for nations to resolve their disputes peaceably. It is merely one of several forums (THe Commonwealth is another) in which nations deal with one another. I also believe the subject of just what is international law and how effective it is in resolving serious disputes requires more critical examination than it usually gets in a contemporary Europe, deeply involved in the process of creating a European government. International law did not stop the slaughter in Bosnia a decade ago, and it is doing nothing to stop the slaughter in Sudan today, notwithstanding the boastful pretenses that surrounded the ICC.

Quote:

My own feeling is that Israel has failed to establish itself as a viable country. It cannot function without American financial and military aid, and it will never be accepted by the Arabs.

I agree the US should significantly reduce the aid we provide to Israel. However, even without it, Israel would function at a much higher level economically than her immediate neighbors. If it "will never be accepted by the Arabs", is that entirely Israel's problem or fault? Should the stubborn refusal of "the Arabs to accept" doom a nation to extinction?

Quote:

If Israel cannot work with its neighbours and is forced into taking ever more drastic measures against people in territory it has illegally occupied, if it can't exist without doing these things, then it would be better if it didn't exist.

Easier to say than to implement. How do we go about taking Israel out of existence? The very creation and population of Israel is a direct result of European intolerance towards Jews and the often duplicitous relations between various European governments and prominent members of Jewish and Zionist organizations. I find the ability of Europeans and their governments to forget all this and in effect absolve themselves of any lingering responsibility, quite remarkable. The United States did not create Israel: Europeans did.

Quote:

The best solution to my mind would be for America to guarantee the establishment of a new bi national state with equal status for Jew and Arab in the land that was formerly British mandated Palestine.

I don't believe this is entirely our problem (as noted above). Clearly a Europe, faced with low birth rates, accelerating depopulation and mounting pressures for immigration from the rapidly growing Moslem states to the south - mostly former colonies of various European powers - would like all these difficulties to somehow just go away. I believe the concern that we may somehow stir up great trouble for them is at the heart of contemporary European frustration with the US. However these problems have their own independent existence - Europe must at some point face them and deal with them, instead of just blaming us for difficulties of their own creation.

You are correct - we can't influence history. Moreover, we can't avoid dealing with its consequences. either

0 Replies

Quote:

How do we go about taking Israel out of existence?

You just get the President of Israel to announce it. There is nothing concrete about the State of Israel. Its an abstract noun, just an idea. You can easily have a better idea.

Its only fanatical Zionists who deliberately use and confuse as synonomous the terms "Israel" and "Jews".

0 Replies

And how do you get the President of Israel to make such an announcement?

After you solve that problem, how do you deal with the consequences?

What nation do you propose to do all this? What would you do with the Israeli Jews who might seek repatriation back to the European homes of their grandparents?

Have you read Aesop's fable of the mice and the cat?

0 Replies

georgeob wrote:

The very creation and population of Israel is a direct result of European intolerance towards Jews and the often duplicitous relations between various European governments and prominent members of Jewish and Zionist organizations.

Easy said. If you are pointing at the Holocaust (Shoah): yes. However, just a few sidemarks. A large number of Jews came to Israel after both pogroms in a considerable part of the Arab world, as well as a repeated call to Arab Jews by the young Israeli government to perform aliyah (immigration to Israel), drove Arab Jews from the Arab world (approximately 750,000). I agree that after the first years of WW II, hundreds of thousands of European Jews who had survived the slaughters came to Israel in a mixture of ideology and the wish to leave the continent where so many of their brothers and sisters had been killed solely because they had the Jewish religion. As for the part of European intolerance (a phrase that needs no overusing, for anti-Semitic feeelings differ(ed) from country to country).

But I'm lost in the second part, "... and the often duplicitous relations between various European governments and prominent members of Jewish and Zionist organizations." Do you mean by that history or present? And in what way has it has its part in taking Israel out of existence (or not)?

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Its an abstract noun, just an idea. You can easily have a better idea.

Easy said Steve. However, I doubt whether what you say is actually true. According to your way of thinking, (Jewish) Israelis do not attach any value to their country, Israel. I seriously doubt that (and there's nothing wrong with that).

0 Replies

Quote:

I believe the concern that we may somehow stir up great trouble for them is at the heart of contemporary European frustration with the US. However these problems have their own independent existence - Europe must at some point face them and deal with them, instead of just blaming us for difficulties of their own creation.

Not quite sure who is "we" and who is "them" in that George.

I get a feeling of real resentment even anger towards all things European. Not just from you but many Americans who seem to go ballistic at the mention of the word "French".

I may have had this discussion before, but I suspect there is actually fear on behalf of the US that they might be losing their position of world dominance which they have grown accustomed to, and regard as a birthright. The European Union and the euro aren't going away. And I think America is worried that given the choice, the rest of the world would actually prefer the EU to take a lead than the US.

And of course we live in a fast moving world. This might seem fanciful now but in 100 years time could we see a Eurasian super power block stretching from Europe via Russia to China and India?

0 Replies

Quote:

And how do you get the President of Israel to make such an announcement?

Well it wouldn't be done overnight obviously. I accept some Israelis might object to the disestablishment of the State of Israel. They might have to be pursuaded that its in their best long term interests. But that what leaders are supposed to be able to do.

Quote:

After you solve that problem, how do you deal with the consequences?

You assume they would be negative. I think just the reverse. For a start the new state, for the purpose of argument lets call it the United Republic of Israel and Palestine, or URIP would be recognised by its Arab neighbours. Neither would it threaten them with nuclear weapons.

URIP would become a centre of the world's three great monotheistic religions. There would be widespread international support for it. Its well placed geographically. It should thrive economically.

Quote:

What nation do you propose to do all this?

The United States recognised Israel within 15 minutes of the declaration of the establishment of the State of Israel. This was a big mistake made in a hurry in my opinion. Israel has only really survived because of American support. And only America has sufficient influence to make it happen. But the change would get widespread international support as I said. The United States could force through radical change overnight if it wanted to by threatening to withdraw recognition, but there is no need to move that fast.

Quote:

What would you do with the Israeli Jews who might seek repatriation back to the European homes of their grandparents?

They would be welcome.

Quote:

Have you read Aesop's fable of the mice and the cat?

No. What happens? Have you seen the Tom and Jerry cartoon when Jerry has to babysit the bulldog pup?

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Quote:
I believe the concern that we may somehow stir up great trouble for them is at the heart of contemporary European frustration with the US. However these problems have their own independent existence - Europe must at some point face them and deal with them, instead of just blaming us for difficulties of their own creation.

Not quite sure who is "we" and who is "them" in that George.

We is the U.S. and them refers to Europeans. (I think the sentence was clear)

Quote:

I get a feeling of real resentment even anger towards all things European. Not just from you but many Americans who seem to go ballistic at the mention of the word "French".

I may have had this discussion before, but I suspect there is actually fear on behalf of the US that they might be losing their position of world dominance which they have grown accustomed to, and regard as a birthright. The European Union and the euro aren't going away. And I think America is worried that given the choice, the rest of the world would actually prefer the EU to take a lead than the US.

The supposed American world dominance is a very recent thing - hardly to be regarded as a birthright by anyone. The fall of the Soviet Empire occurred only a decade ago, Don't confuse American self-confidence with any particular desire for dominance.

I strongly believe most Americans would earnestly welcome real action on the part of Europeans, their governments or their union to address any of the major problems in the world - particularly some of the problems they created. Where there is friction between us, one of the root causes is American concern about the failure of Europeans to actively deal with such issues -- Bosnia was a good example.

Quote:

And of course we live in a fast moving world. This might seem fanciful now but in 100 years time could we see a Eurasian super power block stretching from Europe via Russia to China and India?

Still dreaming about empire in India? I believe the possibility of any political connection between Europe and China is not worthy of serious consideration.

The remainder of these "Eurasian nations" are all beset with very serious demographic problems. They are depopuating at a rapidly growing pace. Female fertility in Europe (from Britain to the Urals) is about 1.4, compared to 2.08 in the United States (2.05 is required for equilibrium). The median age in the United States is about four years less than that in Europe, and the % of population under 15 years is about 21%, compared to 14% in Europe. These facts point to gathering and accelerating declines in population across Europe. Europe faces wrenching changes in social welfare systems, and very serious challenges for labor productivity if it is to avoid serious economic decline. Your rather fanciful surmise is possible, but unlikely. It is more likely that in 100 years, Arabic, Turkish, or Urdu will be prominent languages in Europe.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

You assume they would be negative. I think just the reverse. For a start the new state, for the purpose of argument lets call it the United Republic of Israel and Palestine, or URIP would be recognised by its Arab neighbours.

50 years of conflict but you assume the wounds can as easily heal as me drinking a glass of Coke? Now, I do believe in peace, don't get me wrong; but I'm afraid you believe in a fairy tale. Now, I'm not a pessimistic person, but why would this not work? 1) It will be the end of the Jewish State, and Jews will be a minority again. Israel was founded so it could be a country where Jews were a majority, as being minority proved to be rather "tricky" throughout the centuries Rolling Eyes

. 2) As I said, the wounds can not heal in one day, or a year. The past is the past, but it's quite vibrant. People will not easily forget the atrocities done by both sides. Putting these two nations together will mean - in my eyes - putting more oil on the flames.

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
What would you do with the Israeli Jews who might seek repatriation back to the European homes of their grandparents?

They would be welcome.

Now, I have a double feeling with this. It's true that a lot of Israelis are immigrating to Germany at the moment (to give an example), and for what I know, I've heard of no stories of mass amounts of Israelis going back after some time. But I think the question an sich is rather strange. A majority of Askhenazi Jews in Israel have their roots in Europe; most of them have their roots in Eastern Europe. Do you really think there will be a lot of Jews willing to return to Eastern Europe, to the countries of their grandparents, to countries which have worse living conditions than Israel?

Jews born in Israel are called sabras. For what I know, a lot of sabras lose their connection with the country of their (grand)parents because they feel Israeli. People should understand that in the eyes of many Israelis, Israel is their nationality, that they are Israelis, not Polish Jews in Israel, not Russian Jews in Israel, not Yemenite Jews in Israel.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

It is more likely that in 100 years, Arabic, Turkish, or Urdu will be prominent languages in Europe.

And?....

0 Replies

Rick d'Israeli wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
It is more likely that in 100 years, Arabic, Turkish, or Urdu will be prominent languages in Europe.

And?....

There was a article in any scientist magacine, but that had not really to do with politics. It is propably, that English is no more the real world language,rather the languages above.

0 Replies

I know. But I don't know how it could be a real problem. This may sound naive, but as long as we can go along well, and people also speak the language of the country where they live, I don't see a lot of future problems.

0 Replies

I agree there.

0 Replies

Rick

I've said numerous times that I think the foundation of Israel was a mistake. For a small country Israel has caused a lot of trouble in the world. And its a fact that Israel would have trouble surviving a couple of months if the US withdrew its support. My idea of URIP is not quite the day dream you and George make it out to be, but I'm not exactly serious either. :wink:

I actually hope those Israelis who are reluctant to embrace the "twin state" solution which is in reality the only game in town, might be encouraged to get the peace process under way again if they thought the alternative might involve a "no state" solution.

0 Replies

Now, I understand you think the foundation of Israel was a mistake. For a long time, I thought that as well. Now, I don't. I won't explain. I do not wish to jump in this endless discussion :wink: .

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Rick

I've said numerous times that I think the foundation of Israel was a mistake.

And yet Britain, through the Balfour Declaration and other actions was profoundly complicit in the creation of Israel. When the consequences of their deceitful, contradictory committments to the Zionists and Arabs became clear, and civil war erupted, Britain simply bugged out and turned the mess over to the United Nations. This is not a strong platform from which to criticize others.

Quote:

I actually hope those Israelis who are reluctant to embrace the "twin state" solution which is in reality the only game in town, might be encouraged to get the peace process under way again if they thought the alternative might involve a "no state" solution.

This appears to contradict your earlier proposition that the Israelis simply announce that their state no longer exists. However I do agree with the proposition here for a two state solution. For it to occur two things must happen (1) The Palestinians must create a responsible government that can do something besides steal and pay off terrorists; and (2) The Israelis must cooperate with it seriously. I believe the next step is up to the Palestinians.

0 Replies

Quote:

profoundly complicit

you use some strange language George. I said it was a mistake, not a war crime.

I agree we should not have made mutually contradictory promises. But hey we were still empire building then. We wanted bits of the Ottoman empire, just like you do now. Very Happy

But we didnt let Palestine go without a struggle. We killed, captured or hanged many Jewish terrorists from the Stern and Irgun gangs. And lost many army and police personnel, most notably when Yitshak Shamir blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, killing many Jews too in the process.

Quote:

I believe the next step is up to the Palestinians

This is and always will be the Israeli line. The fact is no progress will be made until Israel has a government which is serious about the two state solution. Israel is yet again just going through the motions. War criminal Sharon regards the very idea of a Palestinian state as anathema. He will do anything to prevent it happening, even if it appears at certain times. that he is co operating with the road map and peace process.

And yes I dont like Sharon. He should be in jail.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

I agree we should not have made mutually contradictory promises. But hey we were still empire building then. We wanted bits of the Ottoman empire, just like you do now.

Yeah, but you wanted much larger bits, and tried to keep them longer.

No longer empire building .... true enough, but there is a difference between virtue and the lack of opportunity for sin.

Quote:

But we didnt let Palestine go without a struggle. We killed, captured or hanged many Jewish terrorists from the Stern and Irgun gangs. And lost many army and police personnel, most notably when Yitshak Shamir blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, killing many Jews too in the process.

True enough. I believe Britain tried very hard to do justice to the situation that unfolded after 1946, and that few could have fully forseen the consequences of Versailles in the Middle East. However, I can't help but believe you apply a higher standard to your (mis) judgements of the actions of United States than you do to those of Great Britain, or of your other European friends.

I agree that the Likud governments of Israel have consistently pursued territorial expansion over an accomodation with the Palestinians, and that this has contributed substantially to the Palestinian mistrust and hostility. However, one must also consider the general failure of Arab governments to deal well with the modern world and the specific failure of the PA to meet the governance goals it accepted. From where we are now the next step is still up to the Palestinians.

There is no doubt that American Jews have influenced our policy with respect to Israel, and that on many occcasions we have, as a result, been too supportive of their side in this struggle. However, unlike most continental Europeans we did not have occasion to steal the property of our Jews and ship them off to concentration camps. Here I refer specifically to the French. I believe one could make a much stronger case for excessive French support of the Palestinian cause as a result of internal ethnic politics, than one could of American for Israel. We are more powerful, so our sins have greater effect, but the subjective aspects are the same.

0 Replies

Saudi prince: Zionism to blame for terror attack

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know