1. The obvious, and somewhat meaningless, distinction is obvious: France was a major power in Europe, the US is a major power in the world. 2. France didn't have such power, relative to Spain and perhaps England, as the US does now. The Us is many times more power in absolute terms than her nearest rivals. France was merely the most powerful nation, but in an absolute sense, her rivals were far closer. 3. Inability to implement coercive measures. France was very powerful, but nobody honestly believed they were ever going to simply take over and occupy rival states. They could not have... too many logistical problems. And they lacked the threat of total annihilation as well. A very good argument can be made that the nuclear era completely revolutionized the way power works, and that comparisons w/prior eras are meaningless. Because ideas gain power with time. The US has been a superpower for a shorter time, but superpower status isn't what binds the nation together. Rather, our conception of ourselves as a nation-state does. Simple, really. Our status as a superpower is simply a modifier of that image.
I don't feel that I was redundant in my original post, and there were a few points, I felt, but in terms of the one you addressed, it was part of an overall argument. Allow me to explain; History does not give defintie answers about the present, no, but it gives indications, it reveals patterns, ot shows tendancies between cause and effect. All empirical learning is based on absorption of some sort of history, whether it is knowing that flame hurts, or that Hakeem is a better player than Patrick, it all comes down to an accumulation of data on past actions. Now the scope of history is so wide that it doesn't allow for defintive answers like flame hurts or Hakeem kills Patrick, but there are general indications that at least should be considered. In the past, whenever I have pointed out the potential flaws in our current policies, and cited cpmparative examples from history, I have invariably been met with a response of either " That was then, this is now." even when the actions were our own, say Nagasaki...or I have heard something like " To compare the United States in any way with Nazi Germany is offensive and stupid." or words to that effect. The assumptive base cause for both of these responses is that the historical indicators may apply elsewhere...and if pressed, amy even have applied here in the past, but that it doesn't and can't apply here and now, simply because this is here and now. That was what I was trying to get out of the way; that standard response. It is dangerous, it is faulty, and it itslef has historical precedent. I was not using this argument to prove that the sky is, in fact, falling...I was trying to explain the fallacy that lies at the heart of the assumption that it isn't because it couldn't be. P.S. The Romans didn't have the Bomb.
Daniel Pipes?? Thats the guy that screams anti-semitism at any professor that speaks against Israel, and is a zionist. Jerusalem is the third holiest city in Islam as it was stated that Muhammad made a journey there with the angel Gabriel. Besides, if a bunch of chinese came into houston and kicked everyone out of Texas and sent them to the worst habitats in Arizona and New Mexico and then did not allow them to recieve adequate water supply as well as have many racist policies what does it matter if its religious or not??
That's the problem....while the Israelis absorbed thousands of Jews booted from Arab lands with only the shirts on their backs (and little else), the Arab states decided to manufacture a perpetual problem for the Jewish state by refusing to absorb the Arab refugees leaving Israel. Voila....you have the Palestinians. Palestinians (their identification, not mine. They are not a distinctive group) make up eighty percent of the population of Jordan. They already have a country and want the land the Jews live on as well. How are the Israelis and their policies racist? Why are you simply spouting the lies of the pro-Arab press without checking into the facts? One time in one of my poly-sci classes some girl talked about how the UN created Israel and how the Jews didn't belong there, etc. I retorted...."I think God trumps the UN." God gave that land to the Israelis and thus the holy city of Jerusalem will always be their holiest city. It's not about the Palestinians and a "Palestinian state" because that is a bunch of horse pucky. It is about killing the Jews and driving them into the sea.
Bama, where were you in the 70's when the Warren Comission needed you? Palestinian is an adaptation of the word Phillistine, thought to designate a people in the region from at least 1200 B.C., and probably decendents of the mysterious Sea Peoples. They had a country until we took it away, whether they had signed up with the UN as a charter memeber according to our definition aside; the fact that they constitute a majority in another land in no way invalidates their claim to their land, nor their outrage any more than the large jewish population in Brighton Beach constitued an answer to the Diaspora. It is beyond faulty thinking, and suggests that popular displacement is excusable so long as the displaced people don't evaporate. There is no doubt that we, and by we I mean the US and UN, created this situation, nor that we tried to resolve a percieved wrong done to one people by victimizing another people, the classic dig a hole to fill a hole, only in this case we went one step further by trying to avoid culpability by refusing to acknowledge the existence of the second hole. We screwed these people something awful, and saying it was God's will hardly alters that fact. Do you even know how the Jews captured Jerusalem? Probably through a sewer. God, it would seem, does work in mysterious ways. If we didn't have your word for it, it might seem like just another military upheavel, and a kingdom which lasted less than one tenth the time in the region then have the people you say don't belong.
That article could not have been written by a Muslim and if it was, he is a r****d. Centered at the core of the Israeli-Arab conflict is the fact that The Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, one of the most sacred sites in Islam, sits on the foundation of the Temple of Solomon, one of the most sacred Jewish sites. In addition to arguably being the original resting place of the Ark of the Covenant, the floor of the Dome of the Rock is supposedly where Abraham ascended into heaven from. This is the very reason why I never see the Israeli-Arab conflict coming to an end unless they can agree to have Monday's, Wednesday's, and Friday's be Muslim day at the site while Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday are the Jewish day at the site. Getting the Israelis out of the occupied territories is not the goal of the Arab world. They want the Jewish people out of the middle east altogether. As for F.D. Khan's statement that "I don't understand Middle Eastern history"...........I don't know what that is based on but I certainly have a knowledge, probably far superior to yours on the history of the middle east. Not only because history is a hobby of mine, but because it was required learning for me when I grew up there. Feel free to test me if you want. That brings up a good point though. Central to understanding the modern Palestinian-Israeli conflict is understanding the events that lead up to The 6-Day War. It's funny how few people seem to really know the facts that lead up to that conflict. Most people blame Israel solely for the 20th century version of the 2000 year old conflict between the Arabs and the Jews in Israel, but when you hear the story of the 6-Day war, you realize that the Arabs really share some of the blame for Israeli's army being built up with help from the Americans. Don't get me wrong, the Israeli's and the Americans shoulder a lot of blame for this problem, but I think the Arabs are out of line to act like it's all Israel and America that created the 20th century Jewish-Palestinian conflict.
Well who God gave the city to is a matter of opinion. Everyone has different ones. And tell me this. The palestinians have agreed to a state within the Occupied territories and EVERY Arab/Muslim nation said they would have relations and accept their right to that land. Yet Israel refused. That would mean peace at the original boundaries and back to the pre-1967 territory. But Israel flatly refused. That is because they continue to expand and create new settlements at the expense of Palestinian (or whatever you want to call them) homes and villages. That is wrong.
Uh....I think your suggesting that the Arabs ruled in Israel first. Actually, Israel was originally the land of the Jews over 2000 years ago before Arab hordes sacked and took over the city. Personally, I think using events that happened over two milleniums ago to decide land ownership should have some kind of statue of limitations on it, but the fact remains that the Jews occupied the land of Israel long before the Muslim religion ever existed.
But by definition of the word 'created' that would be an accurate statement. We created a nation and displaced a people who had lived there for over 2, ooo years. That was the creation of the problem. If you feel that a refusal to accept that eventuality is akin to anything other than fighting for your land, then the Arabs are certainly guilty of helping continue the conflict, and share the blame if it is to be treated as an act of God. but if we accpet that the creation of Israel was an act of man, then what basis do you have to suggest that the palestinians continued struggle for their land in any way constitutes a different action than , say, those of the French Resistance? Would you have simply packed up and moved because Korea and India agreed that Texas should be given to the Spanish? If not, would you have been partually responsible for 'continuing hostilities'? Don't get me wrong, I don't blame Israel for defending themselves whwn that has been all they've done...they were given a nation and have had to fight for it. But it is hardlya situation of equal responsibility; the Israelis were put in a difficult position, but one they wanted, and one that benefited them. The Palestinians were screwed because of events that had nothing to do with them at all, and were then further screwed so that the first screw up wouldn't fall apart.
Read the history of the 6-Day War and you will have a better understanding of why the Israelis have occupied Palestinian territoy. It was a geographically strategic move to keep Muslim nations from trying to use their armies to conquer the middle, narrow part of Israel as it was drawn following WWII. The 6-Day war began as the Egyptian and Syrian armies were mounting an offensive towards the Israel to just that, divide the nation of Israel in half reclaiming Jerusalem at the same time. As a DEFENSIVE measure, the Israelis occupied Palestinian territories to widen the middle of their country and not allow the Egyptians and the Syrians to achieve their goal. There's a lot more to the history of this conflict, but that's the part that's central to explaining why the Israelis originally occupied the Palestinian territories.
Who said anything about Islam? And the Jews conquered Canaan roughly 200 years after the Philistines were already in the region, and the Canaanites themselves were of a similar racial composition to the Arabs, as such if you are going for original descent, it doesn't belong to the Israelites. If you are going for the right of conquest, it doesn't belong to the Israelites. They took it by the sword, ruled for a relatively short period, and lost it by the sword, were given it back, ruled for an even shorter period, saw a succession of conquerors, and then were removed by the last of the conquerors by force due to percieved political and religious incompatibility. In total they were in the region of Canaan for roughly 350 years as an independant kingdom, another 700 years as a subject people, and always maintained some form of presence there after the Romans lost interest there. The Palestinians have been there continuously for about 3200 years.
It's worth mentioning that it was the British who gave Israel back to the Jews since the British were ruling the land of Israel at the end of WWII. The Arabs were not in charge. I'm sure America played a hand in getting the British to hand the land of Israel back to the Jews, but let's face it. Nothing was taken from the Arabs at the end of WWII. That was British occupied territory, period. America's real role in this conflict comes as they help Israel arm itself which was really more of a Cold War policy than the Americans playing favorites. The Egyptians needed the Aswan Dam built on the Nile and asked the Americans to build it. America didn't want to do it, so the Egyptians went to the Russians. The Russians said "Sure we'll help build your dam" and at the same time they armed the Egyptians with Russian military technology. Under America's Containment Policy to prevent the spread of communism wherever it tried to spread, the U.S. countered by arming Israel. Personally, while it was American foreign policy to do this at the time, I think it was a huge miscalculation by our government at how sensitive an issue the land of Israel was in the middle east. We should have never backed Israel in the first place and even if we did, we should have left them to fend for themselves long ago. With Israel armed, the Egyptians began the offensive I described in my last post to divide the land of Israel in half and reconquer Jerusalem. American satellites saw the offensive and America advised Israel to roll their nukes out of the caves so that the Russian satellites could see them. When the Russians saw the nukes (at the time no one knew Israel was nuclear) they informed the Egyptians and Syrians and the offensive came to an immediate halt. Sharon took this opportunity to annihilate every man and vehicle in the Egyptian/Syrian official using American weaponry (most notably fighter jets), the event that sent the region into the turmoil that is still burning in the region today, and the primary source for Arab anger towards the United States in this matter. There's self defense and there's ethnic cleansing and Sharon was practicing the second that day. The annihilation of the entire Egyptian army was unnecessary, but it did get the Israeli point across, that they had superior weaponry and would not hesitate to use them.
One idea to consider is the basis of our current economic system capitalism is a finite endeavor. This system will eventually have to transform into something completely different to support a society where there is no longer any demand for the US and the world's supply of goods, services, and information. If we don't eventually adopt a new system we will fail as a civilization. Capitalism began in the 13th century and has remained the most efficient and effective economic system ever since. Modern capitalism evolved from commodity capitalism, to industrial capitalism, and now we have a mixture of the two along with information/commercial capitalism. The end of the 21st century brought a major correction to the US economic system one that we have yet to recover. Was it just a correction or was our current form of capitalism beginning a revision to a more stable form-- or is it the beginning of the end of our current system? Its said that a strong US military will continue American dominance as the world continues its transformation to a global market, but this is a finite endeavor as well. What shape will the future form of capitalism take? Will it continue to adapt as it has for centuries or will it evolve into a form of democratic socialism, communism, or something else entirely? The reason I feel we have become so militaristic is the simply fact that military spending is driving the economy of the US which in turn drives the world economy. I don't expect this to change anytime soon-- if we did end our current military campaigns would our economy collapse entirely? It certainly is an idea we should consider seriously.
Since you continue to abhor paragraphs, I will have to quote sections to respond to them. "It's worth mentioning that it was the British who gave Israel back to the Jews since the British were ruling the land of Israel at the end of WWII. The Arabs were not in charge. I'm sure America played a hand in getting the British to hand the land of Israel back to the Jews, but let's face it. Nothing was taken from the Arabs at the end of WWII. That was British occupied territory, period." It is also worth mentioning that A) British occupation of the region was largley accomplished with the cooperation of the Arabs, who fought for them against the Turks in WW1, and were royally screwed afterwards by the European powers. It is also worth mentioning that the region was no more actually British than India belonged to the Raj, less so, and I doubt that the world would have been blythe to the Brits telling all the Indians they had to get out cause they'd given the land to the Portugese. "America's real role in this conflict comes as they help Israel arm itself which was really more of a Cold War policy than the Americans playing favorites. The Egyptians needed the Aswan Dam built on the Nile and asked the Americans to build it. America didn't want to do it, so the Egyptians went to the Russians. The Russians said "Sure we'll help build your dam" and at the same time they armed the Egyptians with Russian military technology. Under America's Containment Policy to prevent the spread of communism wherever it tried to spread, the U.S. countered by arming Israel. Personally, while it was American foreign policy to do this at the time, I think it was a huge miscalculation by our government at how sensitive an issue the land of Israel was in the middle east. We should have never backed Israel in the first place and even if we did, we should have left them to fend for themselves long ago. " Partially true, but it overlooks the huge role US based Jewish people had in the formation of Israel. The Brits were nominally in charge, but take a look back at the negotiations at the time, and the biggest push, by far, came from the US among existing nations. The Brits were just looking for a way out, and had already considered other options to dispose of control of the region. As far as Cold War policy, we always do this. We act like actions we took, be it coups, propping up tyrants, etc. can all be now excused in light of the phrase " Cold War tactics"...as if the people affected ought to just understand and agree that they suffered for a worthy cause; us. It matters little to the oppressed how good your reasons are for oppressing them, and to expect them to just take the attitude of bygones once our actions have passed, and then act mysitifed as to their antipathy towards us is unrealistic. 3) I largely agree with your assessment of this. It should also be noted that the US was involved in other wars, Yom Kippur for example, wherein they acted largely on the behalf of the status quo; when Israel entered Egypt and wanted to advance to the Nile, the US told them that if they didn't stop there they would pull support. When the Egyptians were within miles of an undefended Jerusalem, the US poured in equipment to help Israel fend off the attack, which they did. But generally the US support, in terms of decisions, UN vetos, funding, arms, etc. has been almost entirely in favor of the Arabs. From a Palestinian perspective, considering that they ( rightfully) feel that they are fighting either to regain their stolen homeland or to simply dig and and stay where they are, the fact tha Israel hs often used US weapons supported by US money to kill their brothers and parents equates to how we would have felt if there had actually been evidence that Saddam funded 9-11. That is their reality.
A huge generalization that is untrue as such. Much of the conflict has evolved over religious sites, but the intial conflict arose over land, and was never resolved. Religion was, I agree, gas on the fire, but then that was another element we overlooked when playing God.
Racist may not be the word but their laws based solely against the Palestinians. First of all their is water distribution. The Palestinian CIVILIAN farmer receives the same amount of water for drinking, irrigating crops, bathing, cooking etc. that an Israeli settler receives for just drinking. Furthermore the Palestinians are not allowed to drill new water wells even in areas they supposedly have control of. The Palestinians pay a higher rate for water. There are roads which only non-Palestinians can use. There is a military edict ordering the destruction of any Palestinian business which can compete on an economic level with any Palestinian business, and the list of bigoted practices goes on. Water distribution by the way won't help stop terrorism, in fact it might breed it. So not all of the laws are only to stop terrorism, they are based solely on the nationality of the person. It's as bad if not worse than Apartheid. Now as for Palestinians wanting to drive Jews to the sea... IT's very true that some do. Both sides of people who believe that, and that attitude only hampers the peace process and well being of everyone involved.
The Israel issue is boring in the format being argued here. Israel is, by definition, racist, as race serves a basis for the granting of benefits and censure. This cannot be argued, because it's true in the basic sense of the term "racist state." You can argue justification if you wish. You can argue that the Israeli government is a practical "lesser of two evils." You can argue (although it's pathetic) that God wants the Jews to have Israel. All irrelevant to the basic question of whether Israel is racist as a state. Of course it is. To dispute this is nonsensical, if you have a decent understanding of the English language.
What? How is it a racist state again? If Israel is racist, then what the hell are all of the other Middle East Arab nations, who would murder any Jew they came across in their country? How come you never mention that the Palestinians or racists? Or the Syrians? Or the Saudis?
