Israeli expansion in Syria

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Sayhey, Dec 31, 2003.

  1. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #1
    From the BBC another example of provocation instead of moves for peace from the Sharon government.

     
  2. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #2
    Anyone see the connection to "the war on terror" and how this is why it'll never be over?
     
  3. Macmaniac macrumors 68040

    Macmaniac

    #3
    I'm getting mighty sick of the Sharon government. They are making things worse for both sides. If peace is going to come to the Middle East all of the leadership is going to have to change. The middle east needs some new leadership that can push for peace. Maybe if Bush cut off America aide to Israel then we could get some results.
     
  4. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #4
    More and more I think that is the only viable solution. We came to Israel's aid at a time when they desperately needed it, since then they have hid behind big brother and taunted their neighbors with impunity. The only solution to Israel's aggression is to step out of the way and let them deal with what they have created.

    Israel has reached the point of no return. The Palestinian birth rate is such that in only a few short years there will be fewer Jews than Muslims/Christians in the country. Israel has two choices: genocide or creating a new country for the Palestinians, if not then Palestinians will rule Israel within twenty years.
     
  5. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #5
    If i recall correctly Syria attacked Israel along with some of its neighbors and then got its butt handed to them. maybe if Syria wouldnt have attacked Israel they would still have this land? there is a lesson here for Syria. Anyways i agree its not helping the process but i think if i was Israel i wouldnt hand over the Golan heights for now. its to strategic considering what happen earlier until all those Muslims decide to live in peace with Isreal. Then when they are no longer bombing innocent people and have learned that everyone is better off without violence then start giving some land back. my 2 cents.
     
  6. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #6
    If that's the criteria for invading a nation, taking their land and keeping it, then it would follow we should still have troops enforcing martial law in Japan and Germany and plant Americans to squat on foreign lands while we force the locals to live in ghettos.
     
  7. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #7
    It was Syria who attacked Israel and now they are crying because they lost that war and Israel wants to put homes there? Maybe they shouldnt have invaded Israel.
     
  8. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #8
    When Israel began its recent occupation of the West Bank and Gaza (early 2001?), President Bush was silent on the issue for a time. When he finally made a statement, it was that Israel should remove its troops right away. Sharon did nothing of the kind. Bush never mentioned it again. It's nice to know who's really in charge.
     
  9. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #9
    I say lets support those democracies in the Mid east, not Terror sponsering states like Syria. no tears from me on this issue. build those homes.
     
  10. Sayhey thread starter macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #10
    It is easy to contrast the parliamentary democracy of Israel to Syria, but for the millions of Palestinians in Israel and the occupied territory they are second class citizens at best. At worst they have no rights but what is granted by the military forces of a hostile power. Sounds like a good model to you? Ugg, rightly noted the choices that are being narrowed for the Israeli treatment of Palestinians. Right now it looks like, with the construction of the fence in the West Bank, we have a new apartheid system being implemented by the Sharon government. That along with the growth of settlements in the West Bank, the Golan Heights, and provocative attacks on other nations show the Sharon government for what it truly is. These are not policies I want my own government to support.

    I would like to see a consistent support for democratic forces throughout the middle east. That includes Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, Syria, and yes - Israel. This latest move is a continued act of provocation on the part of a government and party that wants nothing to do with a peace settlement that deals with the legitimate rights of its neighbors. If there is to be peace the rights of all people have to be supported not just Israelis.
     
  11. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #11
    Sort of how the US is spreading democracy around the world by kicking its ass and playing dictator.
     
  12. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #12
    come on as long as someone is blowing themself up in the name of whoever and murdering innocent woman,children and even sometime palestinians the palestinians are never going to have their own land. you dont reward terrorist. If they want to have their own land then they better start acting civil, create a govt who is not supporting terrorist etc. if not the statas quo will remain and i dont blame israel or Sharon at all. same goes for Terror sponsering Syria. Kick all of these guys ass' if that what it takes. Im surprised Isreal hasnt nuked all of these bastards after all the years of bombings.
     
  13. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #13
    Ooooo yeah, an Israeli nuclear strike on terrorists would certainly bring peace to the region!
     
  14. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #14
    It would also be the end of the zionist dream. Israel would cease to exist and the US would not be able to defend it any longer. One more reason that Israel should not have nuclear weapons.

    Don't Hurt Me, once again it is a matter of demographics and the Palestinians will win. Israel, via the terrorist Sharon, is looking for a "final" solution much like Hitler did or Perle & co. are advocating. Israel will not win. Their waiting game is not going to work and will only work to their disadvantage in the long run. Better to cut a deal now and salvage the goals of zionism. But it won't happen and Sharon will continue to populate the occupied territories with fanatical jews whose only desire is to see the Muslim population wiped away using whatever means necessary. Meanwhile, many sane Israelis are checking out. The country would not survive economically without MASSIVE US backing and intelligent Israelis are realizing that and the exodus has been enormous. Much less the backlash by the Israeli military against the pre-emptive strikes against civilian, non-terrorist targets. All that's bad enough but the lack of water is one of the most serious issues facing Israel and its current rate of growth is unsustainable given the water shortage.

    On another note I wouldn't be surprised if this move has been condoned by the US. If Syria were to defend the territory it would give the US sufficient although extremely faulty justification for attacking Syria.
     
  15. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #15
    Israels nukes have allways been for defensive purposes afterall they are the ones who have been attacked in a couple of wars and are the ones tolerating the suicide bombings. I think they have shown restraint in dealing with the terrorist. Israel does have many problems and though a little off this thread they have a religion class that is entirely supported by the working class. can you imagine a class of people who's paycheck is for praying?
     
  16. Sayhey thread starter macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #16
    A couple of things, Dont Hurt Me. First, there is a long history of terrorism from the Israeli side which you don't seem to condemn with the same vigor that you do, justifiably so IMHO, concerning the suicide bombers from the Palestinian side. This goes back to the foundation of Israel and the activities of the Irgun and the Stern Gang. Begin was wanted by the British Authorities for such activities as the bombing of the King David Hotel . Israeli actions at such places as Deir Yassin laid the basis for the treatment of the unwanted "native population." We now call these kind of policies "ethnic cleansing" and it is condemned worldwide, except in some quarters of the US when it applies to Israel.

    It would be good to read up a little on the treatment of Palestinians inside of Israel, in the occupied territories, and during such adventures as the invasion of Lebanon. Check out the history of Sharon in the invasion and in particular his personal responsibility in the massacre of Palestinians by Israeli allies at the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila.

    I'm sure that you can come up with a list of terrorist attacks by the PLO and now by Hamas and other Islamic fundamentalist. I could add to the list I’ve given you. All of this actions are horrible, but I'm afraid in this country we get to hear only one side far too often.

    Second, I find it incredible that you so quickly accept the idea that Israel has nuclear weapons only for defensive purposes, but so readily defend almost any action by the US to stop the spread of these weapons by any other nation, all of which also would state that it is pursuing them "only for defensive purposes." Why the double standard? Wouldn't a US position of a nuclear free Middle East make a lot more sense? If we are to ever have peace between Israel and her neighbors it won't be with an Israeli monopoly on WMDs.
     
  17. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #17
    I think because they do have nukes has detered a lot of those muslim nations that hate israel so much, after all when something doesnt go there way they try again, 67,73, but since they have had the bomb that has made its neighbors act a little more civil if you will. Israel is a tiny little country surrounded by much larger Muslim countries. what would you have them do? Sit back and watch as these countries wipe them out. countries who are not democracies seem to understand the big stick when they dont understand anything else such as living in peace with one another. Saddam tried like heck to bring in Israel during the first gulf war, again Israel was attacked by another one of its neighbors. how many missiles did it send their way. what was Israel response? they didnt do anything. Think if we were being bombed daily by our neighbors i dont think we would be sitting back. Israel may not be a saint but it has shown amazing restaint in my humble non jewish opinion. Lets not forget that Syria is still on the list of states sponsering Terror. Its easy for us to sit here and yak about it, it would be little more different if you and i cant even go to a coffee shop because of the fear of some unknown person walking into that shop and blowing everyone up in the so called name of allah. Terrorist are terrorist. you dont cut deals with terrorist. you give em what they understand THE BIG STICK.
     
  18. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #18
    The problem lies in who's definition of terrorist we are working with. Not everyone sees it the same way you do, that's why there are two sides to this Palestinian/Israeli thing. You think they don't call Sharon a terrorist, and make the same kinds of BIG STICK demand on their leaders that you do on ours?
     
  19. Sayhey thread starter macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #19
    mac,

    you are exactly right. There are forces in the Palestinian community that daily call for armed confrontation with Israel because they feel that is the only language Israel will understand. It is the same in the broader Arab world.

    However, Dont Hurt Me, the choices don't have to be between an agreement with the ideas of a "Greater Israel" that many in the Sharon government represent or agreement with the views of the Islamic fundamentalists within the Palestinian forces. The recent "agreement" at Geneva showed there is an alternative to this cycle of violence.

    Somehow we have to get to the point where the UN resolutions that have been in effect for over 30 years now are enforced and both side's legitimate rights are respected. I hope this administration or the next decides that it must push for such a settlement.
     
  20. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #20
    It seems to me you might be questioning the sincerity of the US-brokered efforts to find a solution. I don't see it quite that way. From Kissinger's "shuttle diplomacy" to Camp David, through Oslo, I think actual progress has been made by US presidents who were willing to put their prestige on the line. The failure to implement can be placed squarely, and equally, on the principal parties in the conflict.

    It seems to me that we've reached yet another critical stage, where the US needs to take on the role of the fair and impartial broker. We haven't, that's where I think we're failing now. Americans may not remember Bush's demands on Sharon, which were ignored, but you can be certain every Palestinian does.
     
  21. Sayhey thread starter macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #21
    IJ,

    I think progress has been made over the last thirty years and to the degree Kissinger, Carter, Clinton, etal helped that process along I commend them. The problem is that the rights of the Palestinians have not been effectively resolved for over 50 years. There will never be peace until this is dealt with. In the past US administrations have gone under the basic premise of the UN resolutions - land for Peace. With Israel giving up occupied land in exchange for security guarantees. It is clear that the Sharon government has no interest in this formula. They want peace through the military subjugation of the Palestinians and the annexation of at least the lands taken in the Six Days war
    (with the exception of the Sinai which is already gone.)

    The Bush administration is toothless in its objections to Sharon's policies. There has not been one single consequence of Sharon's aggressive policies from the US. In fact the polices of the neocons in the administration go along with those of the Likud government. I'm afraid for there to be any progress both the US and Israeli governments will have to be changed.
     
  22. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #22
    At least the Israeli and Palestinian leadership needs to be overturned by a younger generation that wants to have hope. The current leaders are fighting a 50-year-old war as though nothing has changed, or needs to change. The Middle East it seems to me is too much about the past and not enough about the future. Historical grudges are not only remembered, but treasured. Both the Israelis and the Palestinians have to come to the recognition that no future lay along the current path, except one of endless conflict. It amazes me that after all this time, neither side is ready to concede the utter hopelessness of the trajectory they've been on for all of these decades.
     

Share This Page