The most sane post in this whole thread! Completely agree with everything you said. I think US foreign aid should be cut off from ALL Middle Eastern countries. That would be a good, non-confrontational substitute for invading them to democratize them. That way, the average Arab won't have the US to blame anymore for all their troubles, and Israel won't use our tax-payer money to expand their illegal settlements and continue their apartheid-inspired policies. Another good idea would be to require nations receiving our aid to use that money in its ENTIRETY for economic development, and ban any military aid to ME countries.
Good points, I think it's worth a try. I seriously doubt it would fix our problems, but at least it would distentangle us from the situation at least to a certain extent. Perhaps they will blame us less for their own problems if we aren't involved ata ll.
You are living in a fantasy world if you think that removing aid from Israel would cause them to go back to the 1967 borders. US aid is the only thing that keeps Israel in line. If we suspend aid to Israel, the cheaper and more Israel friendly solution for them is not to pull back to the '67 borders, but to push out the Palestinians and have the whole enchilada. As you said, their neighbors aren't going to attack them, so they might as well solve their biggest problem once and for all.
Hayes is right. By definition, neocons can't be hardline Zionists. Since I humored Hayes' game of diction with respect to "Zionism," I would appreciate someone humoring me with the same type of diction game regarding the word "Jihad." Please post the definition of Jihad and then explain to everyone how the terrorist defintion of "Jihad" is exclusive to the terrorists and is not a part of Islam. Please tell me that the way that terrorists use Jihad is misleading at best. Thanks
If that was the case, I would hope not only would their neighbors use troops to stop them, but the UN lead by U.S. forces would intervene as well.
Not sure why that's 'humoring' me, or why the use of jihad is comparable. But since you're a Muslim maybe you can delineate the two jihads for us (you'd be in a better position to do so I think). As for pulling out of the middle east, you might just end up with the middle eastern states of israel, or you might end up with a big glass plain where Egypt used to be.
"Humoring" is just a word I like to use. Maybe it's usage was not the most appropriate here. First of all, let me say that I sincerely agree with you. By defintion, neocons are not Zionists. However, the use of "Zionist" has taken a negative and inappropriate connotation today. The vast majority of people do not even know what a real "Zionist" is (the Zionist that you defined). The Zionist of today is not the original Zionist. The reason I said "Jihad" is because the word "Jihad" has also lost its real meaning today. People today use "Jihad" as a justification for evil acts today, just like "Zionism" is used. The contemporary meaning of the word has taken over the real meaning. Jihad today is not the original Jihad that is prescribed in Islam. The meaning of Jihad has been perverted to justify evil acts.
And you think that's going to be a good solution. There are I believe around a million more Palestinians than Israelis and most of those aren't going to sit around passively while the Israelis push them out. The only way Israel could do that is through a literal genocide of the Palestinians. While it seems highly unlikely that any Arab country will go to war to wipe out Israel under current conditions the outcry over a Palestinian genocide would be so great as too force war. At that point then either Israel and the Arabs destroy themselves or worse it drags in other countries like the US on the side of Israel potentially France and Russia on the side of the Arabs. In other words the whole Middle East goes KABOOOM! Israel's one viable alternative for peace is to withdraw to something approximating the 1967 borders. Even Sharon knows that which is why he has been pushing for the Gaza withdrawl.
Y'all are blinded by Israel's success at defending Israel proper as compared to Israel actually trying to rule or control swathes of Arab territory. Israel voluntarily withdrew from the Sinai not just to make peace with Egypt but also understanding that it wasn't worth the resources to occupy such a large area. Same thing with the withdrawl from Lebanon and it is also why Sharon has been pushing withdrawl from Gaza. While Israel has a formidable military it is still a small country with a small population compared to the its Arab neighbors. They're having a hard enough time controlling the Gaza strip and West Bank even getting $2 bil. in US aid a year. Imagine them with no US aid trying to occupy Jordan, Syria or Egypt. There's no way they could do it. As for is Israel attempted an offensive nuclear strike against its neighbors that would be when you see a few Pakistani nukes suddenly showing up in Arab hands directed Tel Aviv. Without US support propping them up Israel will only be able to defend the 1967 borders and maybe a few large West Bank settlements. There will be some skirmishes, some more terrorism Israel will build a stronger wall and sit back behind it and with the threat of a Middle Eastern version of MAD but in the end both sides will settle down to an acheivable peace.
Fair enough. Honestly my only exposure to jihad is in the context of the 'jihad (of) today.' Can you delineate for us what the other context is, or what the original context is?
Your first assertion was that we should withdraw aid and that would more than likely result in a fundamentalist regime in Egypt. If you think that's going to make peace MORE likely I think you're mistaken. I didn't say Israel would offensively nuke a neighbor, but the possibility does exist in conflict with an aggressive fundamentalist regime (in fact Israel jets armed with nukes were actually in the air in '73 only to be called back). Further cutting aid to Israel is likely to remove any moderating influence we might have with Israel. What incentive would they have to be MORE cooperative in the region than they do WITH aid? Also, I think you're misanalyzing the process the general population goes through in forming their anti-american sentiment. If a fundamentalist regime replaces Mubarak why on earth would you believe they'd suddenly lose their anti-americanism? I can't think of another case where such a thing has happened. Remove Israel as a rallying point (a huge burden to prove which you haven't even come close to doing) and the clerics can point out how we supported Mubarak. Remove Mubarak and they can rally about Iraq. Withdraq from Iraq and they can rally around Saudi Arabia's regime, or Kuwaits, or Afghanistan, or the general conflict between modernity/the West and Islam (as they see it). Its well documented that the regimes in the middle east (pretty much across the board) use anti-americanism as a mechanism to distract the general populace from the failures and oppressive tendencies of the regimes in the ME. THAT motivation to spur anti-americanism will not evaporate with a regime change (ala Mubarak) and seem certain not to change if current regimes are replaced outright by fundamentalist regimes. It much more likely to have a undesirable effect on our relations with friendly regimes by sending a clear signal that they can't count on our support. Not saying we shouldn't use our aid to affect change in Israeli or others policies. Its more straightforward in Israel than in Arab states however. Not sure we should cut Mubaraks legs out from under him so a fundamentalist regime can take his place.
Zionist is supposedly a secular movement, and the problem is that it is now tainted with religious overtone, by the religious right in the US and some of the orthodox Jews in the US and Israel...... And the Middle East is really the Crusade Part Deux Version 2.0, pitting religion against religion just like the Middle Age when human lives revolve around religion wars in spite of the Machiavelian dealings by the then Popes & Kings..... It was the days of heresy and until the Reformation which terminated the supreme power of the Pope and thus end the First Age of Religious War..... Never thought there will be A Second Age of Religious War..... Let's hope one could take care of business before the Orcs and Sauron come around again for the Titanic battle in the Third Age and we would all go to the Grey Haven across the Sea once and for all.....
Israel is unlikely to use nukes because I don't believe any arab regime will attack Israel even if they are Islamic. Iran is Islamic and it along with Syria certainly have been fanatically anti-Israeli enough to have cause to attack Israel since 73 and haven't. Even Saddam's ridiculous attack on Israel in 91 was only because the US was attacking him and he figured at that point had nothing to lose. He didn't attack on his own even when Israel bombed his nuke facilities. As for moderating Israel. Israel can only sustain its heavy handed attempts to control the occupied territories and build settlements because of US aid. They're far better economically than the Arab states but it costs them a lot and they get little economically in return from occupation. The only time it was starting to pay off was when there was relative peace in the mid-90's. Without the crutch of US aid they will quickly realize they can't maintain a functioning economy while also aggressively expanding or holding onto swathes of territories outside of Israel proper. They don't have enough people, or resources. The evidence is Iran. Prior to GW Bush calling Iran part of the axis of evil Iran was making huge strides towards democracy and unlike may of our countries that are considered our allies opinion polls were favorable towards America. I will agree that as long as we're in Iraq and the war on terror is percieved as a war on Islam its going to be difficult but I'm taking a longer view. The problem I see is the belief is that the US has to be involved directly or indirectly through aid to make things safer. It comes off as arrogant and offensive to nationalistic views but also entangles us because it makes other peoples problems ours. Its also what I call the rich uncle syndrome where relatives get offended when a rich uncle interferes in others lives because he's rich and feels entitled to do so. That is based on the assumption that a fundamentalist regime is inevitably going to be bad over the long run. They may not kow tow to us but in the end may not bother with us if we don't bother them. Even regimes like Iran aren't suicidal but as long as we antagonize them they have as much incentive to hate us. Also as long as we support unpopular regimes like what happened with the Shah the more the population will hate us.
