Much of the Arab world was nominally under the control of the Turks. The fact that the region split into several countries (thanks the Brits, again ...) doesn't relieve the successor governments of their practices of oppressing & expelling their resident Jews. How nice of you to overlook or ignore the increase in the resident Arab population within what is currently Israel. Hmm. What country was it, that sent the people to North America, to conquer the land? Could it have been England, aka Britain, aka Great Britain, lka the United Kingdom? A country which stole Scotland, Ireland, Australia, India & large chunks of Africa? well, in that case, at least something from your land was straight ...
Most of the arguments I read trying to justify the theft that was behind first the creation of the state of Israel and then the expansion of its territories, are simply annoying. Except for the uninformed or for the already converted, these arguments merely aggravate the problem and create greater passions on the other side. The only explanation that can perhaps soothe some of the hurt and anger over the entire enterprise, would be to explain the theft in terms of the desperation of the Jewish people in light of their plight at the time. To basically admit the theft, but say it was done because the theft was seen as a lesser evil than failing to provide a homeland for the Jews after what happened during the Holocaust. And then to make sure all these other pseudo justifications are treated and refuted with the kind of disdain that no one would repeat them without being turned into the leper they deserve to be turned into for spouting such nonsense. Perhaps then a conversation regarding how to best resolve the issues at stake in the region can take place.
I accept that Iran's support of Bashar Assad has dented Iran's popularity among many in the Arab street. However, I totally reject the notion that there is anything hypocritical about Iran's policy in this regard or that what Iran is doing is at all comparable to what the US/Israel do. The cornerstone of Iran's support for Assad is Iran's ideological stance as it relates to the resistance to Israel and as it relates to resistance to US/Israeli hegemony over the region. On a very limited "national interest" calculus -- the kind that people like Henry Kissinger like to urge on Iran when they say the US can reach a grand bargain with Iran if Iran stops acting as a "cause" and starts acting like a "nation-state"-- Iran can expect being rewarded by the US/Israel if it agrees to ditch Assad, the resistance, and agrees to change its policies as it relate to Israel and preventing US hegemony over the rest of the Middle East. That was certainly the case before. As such, unlike Iran's attitudes towards some other issues and countries, I find Iran's policies on this issue, far from being hypocritical, to be entirely consistent with its ideological stance.
Well, it was all European countries that did those things, not just Britain but, even if it WAS just Britain, at least we generally had the good manners to leave at some point... YOU'RE STILL THERE! Of course, coming from someone with the 'flexible' moral approach you display where IRA terrorism is good, (despite them having a political option available to them), but Islamic terrorism is bad, (despite them NOT having a political option, often because of dictators propped up by American support), it's pretty much what I'd expect
Is that a long-winded way of saying the Iranians really ARE full of crap and are simply using the existence of Israel as an excuse to further their own interests and those of their cipher, Assad?
Leave? You were run out of the US, and last time I looked, QEII is STILL the nominal ruler of Canada! The IRA hardly existed, when the RC minority in the north began marching for civil rights. Of course, when the British Army started shooting unarmed protestors, it quickly revived. Then, the UK condoning, if not controlling, terrorism by the Unionist paramilitaries, the RUC, the SAS, & the BA, was a great recruiting tool. Once the political option became more than lip service, the Nationalist community went for it. It was all they ever wanted. Even at the height of the Troubles, the moderate SDLP routinely outpolled Sein Fein. Ironically, now that there's peace, the DUP & SF have marginalized the UUP & SDLP. Islamic terorists do not believe in a political option, in case you haven't noticed. OK ...
Meanwhile, if an effort to get this thread back on topic: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20276252 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20278895
Hilarious how such a small (small in comparison to the topic at large) and relatively irrelevant detail, regarding Israel and Golan heights can induce such a heated argument about lands, occupation, repression of indigenous people bla bla bla. Its like when someone mentions the word Israel a special emotions meter goes up, causing everyone to go on the defense about anything relating to it. And none of you are even Israelis/Palestinian/Arabs LMFAO! Btw: Mmmm yum.
I am reading a book about Americas involvement in the ME, and we have been one way or another trying to get the Jewish people back in Israel since we gain independence. The whole thing they need to be in place for dude Jesus to come back or some shit.
Nominally... what a great word BTW, you don't think the native Americans Indians wanted to kick your arses out the place in the past? Hmm... maybe not. After all, who's gonna give them all those jobs as extras in the cowboys and Indian films if you fellas had left As you're obviously unaware of the history of Ireland, (not surprisingly), I suppose I'll have to explain that the partitioning occurred as part of a negotiated settlement with the majority of people in the south because of the objections of the majority in the north. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_Ireland#Unionist_objections_to_Anglo-Irish_Treaty But maybe you're saying that the Israelis will be negotiating with the Palestinians to arrive at a reasonable compromise soon? I'm sure we're all looking forward to it with keen anticipation Uh-huh! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_troubles#Responsibility LOL They always had the vote and, if they could convince others to agree with them, (i.e. like every OTHER democratic viewpoint), they could have achieved their ends at any time, INCLUDING a united Ireland. The truth is they couldn't. To compare THAT to the situation in Israel/Palestine is beyond ludicrous. There's nothing ironic about it at all. The bottom line is they've given up violence and realised, (well, most of them anyway), it was never justified. BTW, if you want irony look at the changing demographics in the north which indicate that the catholics will become the majority at some point and can VOTE to change tings any way they want... now THAT'S irony. You mean the same as the IRA, INLA, etc. etc. didn't? Okeley dokeley Oh, one final thing... I assume you're aware that the protestants were supported by the CONSERVATIVE party over here, (y'know, not MY lot), and were 'THE CONSERVATIVE AND UNIONIST PARTY' for many years? That's the most amazing thing about your position in all this.... that the very side YOU'D be expected to support, (given your posting history relating to the ME and it's problems), is EXACTLY the opposite of the side you support when it comes to Ireland where you've been nothing more than an apologist for terrorist and a shill for murderers and thugs. I, on the other hand, have spent years arguing AGAINST terrorists, (on BOTH sides, not just the republicans), and against the ludicrous and counter-productive actions of the right-wing elements in the British establishment. Of course, that doesn't change the fact I recognise the situation is more complex than your witless 'brave heart' ramblings. Again.... irony, eh?!
As in, you're nominally an intelligent poster in this thread. The "majority in the north" was actually only a majority of 6 of the 9 counties of Ulster, who were themselves the descendants of Scotish "planters" transported there by the English! If you had taken the time to read the first three paragraphs of the wiki entry: "The partition of Ireland ... occurred when the British Parliament passed the Government of Ireland Act 1920 ... The Act of 1920 was intended to create two self-governing territories within Ireland that remained within the UK. The Act also contained provisions for co-operation between the two territories and for the eventual reunification of Ireland ... Since partition began, a key aspiration of Irish nationalists has been to bring about a united Ireland, with the whole island forming one independent state." It was an imposed solution. Acceptance of the situation led to civil war in the remaining 26 counties. You haven't noticed that negotiations have occurred regularly over the past several decades? They didn't always have the vote, as there was means testing. In addition, germandering further limited what vote there was. Then, the British & Unionist oppression in the 1970s encouraged many to support the IRA. Nothing like having a relative shot in the head on his own doorstep by a British soldier, or a father beaten by a British soldier at a checkpoint. (Don't ask me how I know this.) It will be even more ironic, when it happens in Israel. I do. And, they were YOUR lot, to anyone living on the west side of the irish Sea. I wouldn't take your comments on any of these topics as reasoned. By topics, I mean the ME, Ireland and the USA. Certainly, here, you've dragged the discussion completely off-topic, and continue to do so.
You mean like most Americans are descendants of Europeans who went to America? Some of us actually KNOW most of this shit WITHOUT looking at wikipedia but I'll ignore that for a moment. In any event, if you follow some of the links there you'll get a pretty good idea of just how complex the history of this little group of islands are but, suffice to say, it's not simply a matter of people wearing white or black hats. Sorry if that's confusing for yer So, you managed to get as far as the bit that explained how the British have LONG wanted rid of the religious nutters in the north, (on both sides of the divide), did yer? Hey! I'm impressed Even YOUR fevered imagination must realise that's absolute shite! If we'd wanted to 'impose' something it would have been an Ireland united into the UK with no loss of sovereignty for the Westminster parliament. After all you can't have a load of 'rebs', (as you fellas might call them), coming and going as they see fit, can yer... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Confederacy So that's out fault as well, eh? Tell me, are they EVER responsible for what they do? Regardless, it might have been a good idea for them NOT to have a claim on the North as part of their constitution... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_2_and_3_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland#Controversy That kind of thing tends to rub people up the wrong way. If you think the Israelis have been negotiating you need to check the dictionary definition of the meaning of the word because meeting and talking once in a blue moon, ISN'T negotiating. There wasn't universal suffrage in Britain until the late 20's and we had multiple voting, (where those with businesses had an additional vote), until '48 in the rest of the UK and '68 in NI but that was the same for both parts of the community AFAIK. There wasn't a special rule for the Catholics I believe... unless you know different. So, how do you know that? Look, you and I have been around this stuff DOZENS of times over the years and you know full well didn't support the policies of the conservative AND UNIONIST parties any more now than I did then. My point is that YOU, on the other, WOULD have supported them if you hadn't have felt personally involved in support of the other side. I mean, THAT'S the point. Everything you've said in support of the policies of the Israelis says so. If that's how you feel maybe you should get on the right side of history as I've done in the past. Whether uninformed people in NI thought I was part of the problem is irrelevant. I went to a socialist workers party meeting in the mid 70's, (with a mate of mine who was a member), and the people I met know that's not the case but there we are. It's OT in some ways but not completely irrelevant. Your attitude, (like many Americans), is conditioned by concepts of people in 'white and black hats', scenes from brave-heart and other cultural allusions that have NO place when we analyse highly complex matters such as the ME, (and NI come to that). The fact that YOU feel a kinship to SOME of the people in NI shouldn't change your thinking. In the same way, the answer to the Israelis problems isn't to, 'draw the wagons in a circle'. They'll have to come to an agreement the same as we did with the people in Southern Ireland and funding the terrorists, (as Americans did with the IRA), or funding those fighting AGAINST terrorists, (as the Americans are doing with the Israelis), isn't helping.
Sigh. The bullshit dilogue continues. Give it time. Much as NI or Israel. YOU were the one who post the wiki link. Apparently without reading it. The British created the religious nutters in the north! As if the Act of Union had never happened. Read your own history! BTW, the failure was the reason for 1920 Act, if you hadn't noticed. As usual, yes. Yes. But when the UK plans many of the events, supplies the guns & ammo, provides the intelligence, & covers up its complicity during the investigation, it shares the blame. Only trying to reverse the previous actions of the British & the Irish Ascendancy. Thanks for making my point for me. Because, after the Plantation, Catholics owned so much of the North. That was just one part of the electoral manipulation. http://www.c-s-p.org/flyers/978-1-4438-1744-8-sample.pdf "the decision by the Ulster Unionist government toabolish P.R. in local government elections in 1922 was taken solely in theinterests of unionism while also serving to alienate the nationalist minority. Along with the abolition of P.R., Ulster Unionists began to push for the complete redrawing of electoral areas" You misstate my position, on multiple points. BTW, Nationalists in NI support the Palestinians, while Unionists support Israel. We've all done things we regret. You might be surprised to learn that Americans are pretty evenly divided on most issues.
Don't be so hard on yourself. I'm sure you mean well Ah, so you ADMIT you stole the country and forced it's indigenous population into ghettoes, (after ethnically cleansing them in forced marches), where huge proportions of them died? LOL Come now, you can do better than that counsellor Britain invented religion? Who knew! Face it. We've been trying to ditch the protestants in the north for DECADES and would GLADLY have given Ireland it's independence given half a chance. We tried again during WWII, (y'know, another one of those wars you fellas turned up late for), but, no joy. So when the Israelis face an 'existential threat' because people talk of Israeli as a country being 'removed from the map' then it's fair for them to take ANY action but when Southern Ireland does the same thing and claims Northern Ireland as part of it's own territory that's perfectly fair and reasonable. Well, that seems clear enough. I mean, totally idiotic... but clear Your 'point' was that there was some particular test or condition applied to one particular group in the north when that's not the case. Point being there wasn't a particular law against them owning businesses and, of course, many DID. However, as you correctly point out, the fact it was delayed in Northern Ireland was a serious mistake. Still, we can't ALL have the ling and fine tradition of universal suffrage as you fellas. I'm sure Americans wouldn't allow such an appalling lack of basic democracy to remain well into the 20th century, would they. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act Oops Yes, well, that would be my POINT then, wouldn't it yer twit Your stated position is in one direction in one case and flatly the OPPOSITE in the other. Actually the fella I went with was a nice guy. A bit confused about some things but generally a 'good egg' It seems you don't need that many of them either... I mean, you hold completely contradictory views about at least one issue on your own
Ethnic cleansing is as old as time, unfortunately. We do have the British to thank for the modern concept of the concentration camp. Not sure if the Nazis gave you proper credit for that. Of course, the English history within the current USA (1607-1783) set the standard for displacement, cheating and oppression of the indigenous population. You brought the Scots to NI, and left them there. If so, you've done a piss-poor job of it. Somehow, Africa, the Indian subcontinent and the West Indies have managed to gain various forms of independence. Not NI. True that you were two years into mucking it up, with all the lend-lease aid we could give you, when we finally decided to fully bail yer arses out. Again, I might add (see WWI). I'm sure you were trying to make a point here, but missed. In any event, it's not the rhetoric by either side that bothers me. It's the actual military or terrorist actions. Was it Voltaire who wrote that, "the law in its infinite widom prohibits both the rich & poor from sleeping under bridges"? No. I hold partially differing views on separate issues. Try to fathom that.
True, but I still think you guys set a 'gold standard' in that regard. During the Boer war y'mean? Hmmm... I still think we owe you guys a debt of gratitude, (if that's the right word), for your ground-breaking work on the Indian reservation system and forced marches to move them there. What was it.... 12m native Americans when you fellas got there, reduced to about 250k a few hundred years later? So, let me get it straight.... my ancestors stayed here, (in fact about a quarter of my family on my fathers side died during the enclosure acts, having their land stolen off them by the aristocracy, and industrialisation and about a third of my mothers side), whilst yours didn't and yet I'm somehow STILL responsible for what happened there? Your ancestors, on the other hand, despite nicking the entire country from the native Americans, carrying out mass exterminations of them and not giving African Americans the vote until the mid 60's, (even though they were JUST as much entitled to your 'plunder' as you were), means you're NOT responsible for what they did? Y'know, it's that sort of bold and imaginative thinking that's made America as loved throughout the world as... well.. as we were once Well, everyone's got to be somewhere. Anyway, the alternative was them coming down here and, trust me, NOBODY wants that. Maybe that's because the majority of the people that live there don't want to leave? Go figure! I knew there was reason we allowed you to use our language... that must have been it Right.... because the Palestinian military are so vastly overwhelming when compared to the Israelis. Yeah, that makes sense. And the blacks... don't forget them. Like I say, if ONLY we'd taken examples from you guys as to how to handle things, just THINK how popular we'd be I can't... it's beyond me. You are truly beyond the understanding of man Jake
Don't sell yourselves short. Perhaps it was "To Hell or Connaught", that you remembered. AFAIK, 3m then, 4 now. There are others on this board with closer connections. My ancestors got here in 1947, after experiencing the joys of living under British rule. Isn't it past your bedtime? Shouldn't the meds have kicked in? One man, obviously.
IM jan, as far as I understand, the Syrian rebels are even more aggressive in their resistance to Israel than the Assad regime. The rebels aren't rebelling because Assad is supporting Hamas and Hezbollah. Hamas joined in the resistance against Assad. But et the IRI supported Assad when practically every country on the planet supported the "rebels". So, if the end goal is to support the resistance against Israel, then the rebels may be the better pick. That said, I agree with you re: Kissinger. There are few thinkers who are as intelligent and revolutionary as Kissinger though. I remember that article he wrote a while back as well. If I recall, it was that if Iran is a cause, it will always be in conflict with the US/West. If it is a nation-state, there are points of common interest. Was that the crux of Kissinger's argument? I was hoping for a Kissinger/Nixon moment with Obama/Clinton (I think Bill Clinton would have been better..my dad loved Bill Clinton and a lot of his friends did also). There was progress in the 1990s in Iran's relations with its Arab neighbors (if anything Saddam's invasion of Kuwait showed Arab leaders that the real threat to them was Saddam and not the IRI...at first they thought the IRI was the biggest threat to them...hence their support for Saddam) and there was hope that relations could warm between Tehran and Washington. Until relations between Tehran and Washington warm up, I think the civil war in Syria will continue. Just my take. And Russia will definitely work to reduce the likelihood of a Tehran Washington rapproachment as well.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20295857 "The GCC comprises Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Qatar and Kuwait." Several of these have their own problems with Shiite opposition.
This is a damn shame!! http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/26/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html?hpt=hp_t3 I can only imagine the outrage we would be hearing had this happened in gaza. But since it happened in Syria I guess the moral outrage is muted and not as important.