fireworks, eh?
first of all, i don't like sharon. i think he's been a disastrous leader who has fed on despair. worse, i think people who think like him reward delusion and encourage the abrogation of responsibility.
even Washington is being openly critical of Sharon's speech.
you say that as if there was nobody in washington (or in the jewish community) who thinks he's a pain in the arse!
In nutshell, Israel is trying to push the issue of protectionism to the point of isolationism
that's not what i'd call it. the israelis are desperate for a way to protect themselves from suicide bombers. so would you be if you had to walk through a metal detector and a security guard to get into a restaurant. a lot of people think the wall will help. i personally think that no sooner is it completed than the terrorists will find some way to circumvent it. if it was likely to work, i'd be more in favour. secondly, the idea of unilateral separation was first touted by barak and the left wing. it was seen by the right wing and the settlement movement as accepting the 1967 ceasefire lines and thereby accepting that israel would no longer include the west bank, so they objected to it. however, seeing that sharon, historically a friend of the settlement movement, has - to their way of thought - betrayed their vision, they are trying to coopt it as a means of grabbing land and creating what they call "facts on the ground" in order to include as many of the settlements within the new border - it is that that is souring the wall for many people.
but this is a tactic that can only be a form of diplomatic posturing
right, because nobody else ever engages in diplomatic posturing, especially the palestinians. i think that sharon thinks it's a way of pushing them back to the negotiating table.
as Israel is the country with the world's largest debts, and it's military is effectively paid for by the United States of America.
!!!!!!! where are these statistics from?? as a matter of fact, the country that gets the largest amount of aid from the US is - wait for it - EGYPT. where on earth did you come up with this?
The United States "would oppose any unilateral steps that block the road towards negotiations under the roadmap that leads to the two-state vision," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan.
this is taken by many people to mean if the wall doesn't follow the 1967 ceasefire lines, like i said above. but, yes, i'm sure the US doesn't want sharon imposing a settlement which will give the palestinians endless causes for complaint. let us also not forget that the last unilateral separation - barak's withdrawal of israeli forces from lebanon - has not exactly resulted in any softening of attitudes there.
No malice toward our Jewish friends here and elsewhere.
But I am inclined to think that Mahathir is right in saying that Jews, I however might have to limit Jews to Israelis, make others fight wars for themselves.
and which wars are these? did anyone else fight for the israelis in their wars? since when are the israelis not prepared to fight for themselves, or act unilaterally? and isn't that exactly what people criticise them for? things like when they destroyed saddam's nuclear reactor (built by the french, i might add)! so, what should they be allowed to do, in your expert opinion? wait until they're dead to react? perhaps you think that it was only the israelis that wanted saddam out of kuwait? the idea that the israeli government can somehow manipulate enormously powerful and rich governments the US and the UK into embarking on a war like one we've just had in iraq is patently ridiculous. how exactly do you suppose this armtwisting is done? your logic seems to be that because something like the removal of saddam is in the interest of israel, then israel must have "made" the US and UK go to war against him! the removal of saddam was in the interest of a hell of a lot of people, but yet - as usual - it is the israelis that are blamed.
did you actually read what mahathir said? it was the most profoundly antisemitic claptrap and it referred to jews, not israelis. saying "no malice" does not make the sentiment any less malicious on mahathir's part - or offensive on yours. jewish friends, forsooth. do you really believe that repeating conspiracy theories and expecting them to be taken seriously is conducive to dialogue?
And the U.N. does not seem to have any strength to make Israel observe the resolutions it has drawn in its regard.
israel is not the only country to disregard UN resolutions. the general assembly is a talking-shop, always has been. you can get anything through it providing it has a majority, even if that majority is made up of st. lucia, luxembourg and tonga. it's about as representative as a student union. israel is systematically excluded from almost every aspect of the UN, blackballed by the arab states and their oil-hungry supporters. israel doesn't have any oil - gave its only reserves back with the sinai in exchange for peace with egypt - yet somehow it is supposed to exert more influence than OPEC!
Maybe the Jews are indeed the Chosen people of God, and God as I always say being a person makes choices and has His biases and whims.
we don't see G!D as a person. these are your perceptions, not ours. and then again, i thought you were restricting your remarks to israel. clearly not.
One thing I notice is that the Jews don't seem to exert very decisive influence in the Far East, like in Japan and China. Or maybe I am wrong, they also have very controlling hold on the governments or governmental personalities in these countries.
yes, maybe we all meet in a big room in the centre of the earth and chant mystic runes and dance around in robes. sheesh. why not visit davidicke.com while you're at it?
You say anything against Jews, and the U.S. and the EU countries would seem to be jumping up and down to be their polemicists or apologists and to threaten you with cutting down economic favors or sales of war equipment and material.
really? the EU is so pro-israel? according to a recent survey, 59% of the population think israel is the "biggest threat to world peace" - that's more than iran, incidentally. and the mayor of london - where i live - has just described george bush as the biggest threat to human life on the planet! there is a total lack of proportion.
I do not consider it appropriate to equate "Jewish thought" as equivalent to "Israeli Nationalism", anymore than "Christian thinking" is therefore faithfully represented by "US Patriotism"
OK, but is patriotism always wrong, then? zionism is part of jewish thought. however, the best definition of it is *the jewish right of self-determination as expressed in the nation-state* - which is a) no more than what the palestinians are asking for and b) not mutually exclusive of this. nonetheless, there is a body of thought that apparently seems to think that we are the only ethnic group on the planet not entitled to our own nation-state. until we get beyond this narrow conception of the nation-state i don't think that is going to be transcended - as much as i think we ought to do so. where are we supposed to go, exactly? we're threatened with murder both in israel and in the diaspora. it doesn't even feel safe to be jewish in britain these days, what with islamic fundamentalists making common cause with anarchists and the extreme left. and this visceral hatred of israel frightens the hell out of us. i'm not going to be party to ritualised scapegoating of israel, no matter how much i disagree with its current government.
Sharon holds power by keeping the threat of terror alive and gains support through his war on terrorism. He has no political stake in having peace. To be fair, I don't think Arafat and Hamas do either - which is a major part of the problem.
nonetheless, he was democratically elected in a free media environment - unlike arafat or hamas. and to really be fair, the "threat of terror" didn't need him to 'keep it alive'! he came to power not by exaggerating the threat of terrorism, which was already a problem, but by his promise to deliver peace and security, which barak had manifestly failed to do despite his conciliatory profile. what he has failed to do, however, to nobody's surprise, is *deliver* on his promise. however, you could now say, sadly, that both groups are in a "mexican stand-off" - nobody wants to blink first.
b'shalom
bananabrain
eh.. trade offs.