Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Rob C on May 14, 2018, 01:23:47 pm
-
Is there any truth to the rumour that Jerusalem is going to replace Washington as the new capital of the USA?
This came at lunch from my waitress who was arguing that sons-in-law are more important than world peace, silly girl!
I told her that Mr T had told all of us that peace in the Middle East was one of several number one priorities and that he would be doing all in his power to retain his honourable position as the most honest of brokers. How could anyone, anywhere, doubt that for a moment!
:-)
-
We're living in strange times.
-
Maybe a meltdown is coming.
-
For eons, we tried one approach. It has obviously spectacularly failed. Time for a different approach?
-
For eons, we tried one approach. It has obviously spectacularly failed. Time for a different approach?
Maybe: Eliminate the Palestinians and thus solve the "Palestinian problem?"
It worked pretty well for us with Native Americans in this country. ::)
-
I wouldn’t bet on it, Eric (unless it is an Indian casino).
-
Makes me wonder what all those long, tall Texans would do if some group from the UN decided to give their state away to some religious cult just because it wanted one to make its own. And how would the neighbouring states feel about the overflow?
I may be starting to understand what the NRA is secretly all about.
There is great fear of that in the two Irelands, as well, and has been for as long as people can remember.
-
Hypotheticals, Rob, hypotheticals. Right or wrong initially, the reality is here to stay.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
America is a free country. They can move their embassies as they like. In Canada, they have their embassy in Ottawa and US consulates in several other cities. It works quite well, although one could argue that other nations lived in Ottawa before.
I don't remember any fights and demonstrations when they moved in 1999 their German embassy from Bonn to Berlin. Although Russia thought it was a bit provocative.
OTH, the Occupy disturbers caused a real mess and a lot of damage in 2011 in Berlin.
-
For eons, we tried one approach. It has obviously spectacularly failed. Time for a different approach?
Pretty sure this going to fail too.
The reality is Israel is running an apartheid state and we are enabling it. It does not matter where the capitol is; unless we (the USA) stop enabling Israel and stop providing them with support, this will never get solved.
If we suddenly cut all support to the Israelis and told them it would not be brought back until they made pease, there would be pease pretty fast.
-
Well they certainly ought to make pease, Joe. Maybe even beans and corn.
-
Pretty sure this going to fail too.
The reality is Israel is running an apartheid state and we are enabling it. It does not matter where the capitol is; unless we (the USA) stop enabling Israel and stop providing them with support, this will never get solved.
If we suddenly cut all support to the Israelis and told them it would not be brought back until they made pease, there would be pease pretty fast.
I'm not so certain about that.
I think they - the Israelis - would still not find peace unless they got the hell out completely, and as Slobodan suggested in another context, ain't gonna happen.
The problem is that people remember where they once had home; you can't throw them out on the strength of agreements drawn up thousands of miles away and expect smiles and congratulations all round.
I remember the emotional support Israel earned at the end of the Six Day War pretty much from all non-Moslem quarters. The rescue from that African airport was another such respect and admiration earner. So, what does it do with all that positive vibe in its bank vaults? Blows the whole goddam lot by encroaching, in inexorable manner, onto more and more land, internationally acknowledged that it should not touch. And the U.S. does nothing to discourage in any effective, real way. It knocks Russia for its veto of anything to do with Syrian despots but silently aids Israel at every step. Why? Everybody not blind, that can read, knows the answer without having to consult Dr Google. Follow the money trail in the U.S. instead.
-
Pure coincidence, Russia unveiled yesterday their new bridge from Russia to Crimea. Not sure if the lead trucker in that convoy had a valid truck license.
The bridge is 19km long and it cost much more than the US Embassy compound in Jerusalem. Mike Pompeo condemned Russia's construction of the new bridge, but otherwise no disturbances were reported.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/putin-kerch-strait-bridge-crimea-ukraine-russia-1.4663923
-
Well they certainly ought to make pease, Joe. Maybe even beans and corn.
Oops; I have never claimed to be the best speller.
-
I think they - the Israelis - would still not find peace unless they got the hell out completely, and as Slobodan suggested in another context, ain't gonna happen.
If the Israelis "got the hell out completely" the Middle East soon would be in a position to threaten what's left of Europe as well as the U.S. with nukes. You think North Korea is a problem? Its threat would pale next to a nuclear Middle East.
-
If the Israelis "got the hell out completely" the Middle East soon would be in a position to threaten what's left of Europe as well as the U.S. with nukes. You think North Korea is a problem? Its threat would pale next to a nuclear Middle East.
This is pure speculation. And, if I might ask, exactly which country would be posing this threat?
Personally I think if we left Israel alone to defend themselves, and do provide any help, regardless if they prevail or disappear, that would help us greatly in relations to all other Middle Eastern countries.
-
If the Israelis "got the hell out completely" the Middle East soon would be in a position to threaten what's left of Europe as well as the U.S. with nukes. You think North Korea is a problem? Its threat would pale next to a nuclear Middle East.
That presupposes that the various ME factions wouldn't annihilate one another first; I believe the major conflict will not be between Jew and Moslem, but between Moslem and Moslem, just as, left to its own devices, Ireland would be a bloodbath of different Christian bloods. It's all absolutely crazy. And it simmers away in various football supporter bars throughout many "civilized" European countries; who needs politics as an excuse for stupidity?
-
This is pure speculation. And, if I might ask, exactly which country would be posing this threat?
Personally I think if we left Israel alone to defend themselves, and do provide any help, regardless if they prevail or disappear, that would help us greatly in relations to all other Middle Eastern countries.
Joe, you seem to think that without the U.S. Israel would simply give up if invasion from its neighbors were imminent. We've already had at least two demonstrations that that's not true. Israel has nukes. If they were threatened with, say, Iran developing the ability to hit them with nuclear weapons what do you think they'd do? The other thing you have to understand is that Israel has more effective Middle East intelligence than has the United States and infinitely more effective Middle East intelligence than has Europe. Left on their own, Israelis aren't going to lie down and let the Arabs walk over them. They've been down this road before, in Europe. If a neighbor becomes an existential threat they'll take appropriate action, and the rest of the world won't like the aftermath.
I was at Udon Thani in Thailand in 1973, helping as best I could our attempts to prevent a bloodbath in Cambodia, when the Yom Kippur war broke out. Moshe Dyan, with his eye patch, stopped the invasion cold. A bunch of signs went up on the base with a picture of Moshe and the words: "Hire the handicapped."
If I were an Arab I wouldn't mess with these guys. When the Middle East equivalent of the Nazis come for them, the Israelis aren't going to go quietly this time.
-
Joe, you seem to think that without the U.S. Israel would simply give up if invasion from its neighbors were imminent. We've already had at least two demonstrations that that's not true. Israel has nukes. If they were threatened with, say, Iran developing the ability to hit them with nuclear weapons what do you think they'd do? The other thing you have to understand is that Israel has more effective Middle East intelligence than has the United States and infinitely more effective Middle East intelligence than has Europe. Left on their own, Israelis aren't going to lie down and let the Arabs walk over them. They've been down this road before, in Europe. If a neighbor becomes an existential threat they'll take appropriate action, and the rest of the world won't like the aftermath.
I was at Udon Thani in Thailand in 1973, helping as best I could our attempts to prevent a bloodbath in Cambodia, when the Yom Kippur war broke out. Moshe Dyan, with his eye patch, stopped the invasion cold. A bunch of signs went up on the base with a picture of Moshe and the words: "Hire the handicapped."
If I were an Arab I wouldn't mess with these guys. When the Middle East equivalent of the Nazis come for them, the Israelis aren't going to go quietly this time.
True, but it doesn't excuse or cancel the reality that Palestinian land was taken and given away to another population with nothing worthwhile in exchange.
Neither would I feel too confident about NK folding it's cards and lying down. What some of the people in the cockpit in Washington don't get is that for many nations, face counts, and you don't buy it away. Crowing about magically solving the probability of a nuclear NK before the famous face-to-face even happens, without any agenda apparently down and agreed prior to such a meeting, it smacks of unbelievable arrogance and, as bad, lack of international nous. One could imagine that Vietnam had left some fresh sense of reality in the US and that it understood all peoples do not share the same set of values concerning the worth of a life. David and Goliath, anyone? If the nukes do fly, there are no winners; the shit travels on the winds, and with the effects of global warming on top, they'll get around even faster - and wider.
Now there's food for thought.
-
Joe, you seem to think that without the U.S. Israel would simply give up if invasion from its neighbors were imminent. We've already had at least two demonstrations that that's not true. Israel has nukes. If they were threatened with, say, Iran developing the ability to hit them with nuclear weapons what do you think they'd do? The other thing you have to understand is that Israel has more effective Middle East intelligence than has the United States and infinitely more effective Middle East intelligence than has Europe. Left on their own, Israelis aren't going to lie down and let the Arabs walk over them. They've been down this road before, in Europe. If a neighbor becomes an existential threat they'll take appropriate action, and the rest of the world won't like the aftermath.
I was at Udon Thani in Thailand in 1973, helping as best I could our attempts to prevent a bloodbath in Cambodia, when the Yom Kippur war broke out. Moshe Dyan, with his eye patch, stopped the invasion cold. A bunch of signs went up on the base with a picture of Moshe and the words: "Hire the handicapped."
If I were an Arab I wouldn't mess with these guys. When the Middle East equivalent of the Nazis come for them, the Israelis aren't going to go quietly this time.
Yeah ... so ... what's your point?
That Israel may may actually survive by using nukes, and then be berated and abandon by every other country, and completely fail and disappear due to attrition through lack of any interaction or support with other countries.
Or maybe they would use the nukes and somehow Benjamin Netanyahu (assuming he does not go to prison over the recent and credible accusations of corruption) keeps the international community at bay (highly unlikely with how most of the world thinks about the use of nukes currently) and the country does survive.
In either situation, the USA (and Europe) staying completely out of it only makes us look better to the rest of the Middle East.
Not to mention, Israel is only making matters worse. Being an apartheid state and unjustly engaging in military campaigns against an unarmed population is not really good for their image.
Last, I got news for you, Iran is the next major power in the Middle East. Nothing we can do will stop. As of matter of fact we only helped this by castrating Iraq. We best get use to Iran, because they are not going away.
-
... only makes us look better to the rest of the Middle East...
You mean we would please those who were dancing in the streets on 9/11?
-
You mean we would please those who were dancing in the streets on 9/11?
Stranger things have happened.
We are allies with England, you know, that country that burned down our capital in 1812.
-
Is there any truth to the rumour that Jerusalem is going to replace Washington as the new capital of the USA?
So, are you saying Israel is trying to be the banker of the USA?
Hum...Mnuchin is the Sec of the Treasury...
Or did you mean Capitol?
:~)
-
So, are you saying Israel is trying to be the banker of the USA?
Hum...Mnuchin is the Sec of the Treasury...
Or did you mean Capitol?
:~)
I am perfectly aware of the differences betwen capital, capital and Capitol.
If you haven't already, consider for a moment where huge piles of wealth sit these days; in whose gift the keys to so much opportunity, power and patronage. Consult your nation's version of Who is Who if this needs spelling out, though I'm sure you already are perfectly aware of whose hands are doing the puppeteering.
And it sure ain't Joe Public's. Anywhere.
-
You mean we would please those who were dancing in the streets on 9/11?
Out of synch. - ask, first, why they flew those 'planes.
As you well know, any country that claims to run its state on the slogan that God is on our side is playing mind-games with its population.
States are run by human power structures with very clear tribal, social agendas that leave precious little room for the concept of God, who is turned into a smokescreen, the carrot even that leads the poor ass round and round the perpetual, horizontal treadmill of his life. The lucky ass gets the lure of a carrot, whereas the less fortunate one the taste of the stick.
If we could all of us but lose religion and find a personal God of peace, love and hope, life would be far more pleasant all round. It would even influence the manner in which we treat that poor ass drawing the water or grinding the corn.
;-)
-
Speaking about capital. Guatemala, a small country with GDP of $3100 per capita which is about 25% of the world average, just opened its new embassy in Jerusalem.
-
Yeah ... so ... what's your point?
That Israel may may actually survive by using nukes, and then be berated and abandon by every other country, and completely fail and disappear due to attrition through lack of any interaction or support with other countries.
Or maybe they would use the nukes and somehow Benjamin Netanyahu (assuming he does not go to prison over the recent and credible accusations of corruption) keeps the international community at bay (highly unlikely with how most of the world thinks about the use of nukes currently) and the country does survive.
In either situation, the USA (and Europe) staying completely out of it only makes us look better to the rest of the Middle East.
Not to mention, Israel is only making matters worse. Being an apartheid state and unjustly engaging in military campaigns against an unarmed population is not really good for their image.
Last, I got news for you, Iran is the next major power in the Middle East. Nothing we can do will stop. As of matter of fact we only helped this by castrating Iraq. We best get use to Iran, because they are not going away.
Hi Joe,
Since your age is N/A I can't guess how long you served with the state department or the military. Which organization gave you your background? How long did you serve? In what capacity?
-
Hi Joe,
Since your age is N/A I can't guess how long you served with the state department or the military. Which organization gave you your background? How long did you serve? In what capacity?
So your response to valid points is to create a red herring and set the foundation for an ad hominem argument by bringing up my age and lack of military experience? Come on Russ, you're better then that.
And while we are at, what does service in the State Department have anything to do with this? They've been at the problem for years, and, well, the Middle East isn't any better. One could make a valid argument that in fact our State Department and military has only made the situation worse.
-
One could make a valid argument that in fact our State Department and military has only made the situation worse.
Right, Joe. Our military along with our allies won WW II, and just look at us now.
If you can make a "valid argument" make it. Don't leave us in suspense.
-
It's past time to turn Iraq, Iran, and Syria into a sheet of glass.
Don Bryant
-
It's past time to turn Iraq, Iran, and Syria into a sheet of glass.
Don Bryant
Well, collateral damage will resolve the "Israel Problem" as well as utterly ruin the tourist trade in Cyprus. But perhaps if it can be kept to that, possibly by means of a very large bell jar borrowed from a friendly local laboratory somewhere, it will all have been worth it.
Of course, that will leave Saudi Arabia and Yemen still contributing whatever they contribute, and naturally, the experiment would then have to be extended southwards, too... and eastwards, to encompass all the territories marking the edges of northern India. If the neighbours even further east (or west, depending from where you choose to begin your atomic crusade, don't panic and launch their own preemptive strikes at you, then everything will have been settled once and for all, and you'll be left to mutate into whatever post-apocalyptic life dictates. I can hardly wait.
I am assuming that Mr Putin will sit back and play the waiting game; you known, wait until your enemies have ruined one another.
Rob
-
...Or did you mean Capitol?
No he didn’t, although, with “capital,” the pun is uncanny.
-
... ask, first, why they flew those 'planes...
And the answer would justify it?
P.S. Wishing the world without religion is an interesting daydreaming activity, on a par with wishing to be young again. In the meantime, we have to deal with the world as-is.
-
Right, Joe. Our military along with our allies won WW II, and just look at us now.
If you can make a "valid argument" make it. Don't leave us in suspense.
First, the fact that our military won WW2 has no bearing on what would happen if we pulled out of the Middle East. It is an erroneous interject designed to be a red herring argument.
Furthermore, WW2 is pretty much an anomaly when it comes to ending conflicts. It is the only conflict where peace universally happened and all sides gave up feelings of revenge towards another. Nearly every other war, including many we have been a part of, has ended the opposite.
Next, although our military won WW2, we did loose the Korean War, Vietnam War, and the War of 1812.
On top of that, the idea, that you are proposing, that the whole Middle East would go to hell and a WW3, with nukes, would be a result of it is nonsense. The fact is, we have no idea what would happen.
-
...The fact is, we have no idea what would happen.
I think we pretty much do have.
The only compatibale civilization in the region would be “pushed into the sea,” or at least that would be attempted, and replaced with an incompatible one, with a medieval worldview, hellbent on turning the rest of the world into one giant sharia state. Now, given that Israel wouldn’t go without a fight, most likely a nuclear one, then you might actually be right, we don’t know what the end result would be. Other than an even bigger mess.
-
Much of what has been said in the thread is so dumb it makes my teeth hurt, but I'll try to be as temperate in my comments as I can.
I've spent quite a bit of time in the Middle East -- Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, with brief visits a decade or so ago (as a reporter embedded with the Army) to Iraq and Kuwait. I like and admire the remnants of middle eastern civilizations, especially those of Iran and Egypt. I spent quite a bit of time in Israel, as I worked on archaeological digs there for 15 years (as a dig photographer.) I should mention that I'm not religious, but my heritage is Roman Catholic; and that I'm a political liberal.
1. Israel is not an apartheid state. On the contrary, until recently most of its Jewish population was made up of refugees from Arab states that maintained apartheid as related to its Jewish residents. With the recent arrivals of large numbers of Russian Jews, driven out by the widespread revival of anti-Semitism in Russia and Eastern Europe, Jews of European heritage now have a slight majority.
2. Israel is often thought of as having a relatively small population of Jews, when in fact, there are 6.5 million Jews in Israel, as well as a couple million of the most affluent Arabs in the Middle East. Its Jewish population is about one and a half times that of Ireland. The point being, the Jews aren't going anywhere, any more than the Irish are.
3. American "progressives," who make up one of the most anti-Israeli, anti-Semitic groups in the US, are usually so insular that they equate their ignorant, flower-child feelings of goodwill with the natural state of being of the world. That's because they don't know any better. What the Jews have learned over their history, and particularly in the 20th Century, is that you should listen to what your enemies say, and then, **believe them.** Hamas advocates the elimination of Jews. Period. It's not a secret, it's part of their charter. The Jews believe them, as they should. That's the core of the conflict. Hamas is also an explicitly fascist organization. No secret about that either; it's kind of odd that U.S. progressives and fascists should make such friendly common cause, but there it is.
4. There have always been Jews in Jerusalem and Israel in general, going back to the first millennium BCE. The Jews have very good reason for taking the land they've taken in the recent expansions, and it's not because they wanted to grow grapes on it. Anyone whose been there knows that's laughable -- most of the land they're talking about (that taken over by "settlers") is hard desert. Then why do it? Because the Arabs forever have threatened to invade Israel, and some of the most sensitive land takings have involved defensive/offensive positions. The original West Bank came as close as either 12K or 12 miles to the Med (I forget which), about halfway down Israel. One quick military thrust by Jordan (which controlled the West Bank before the war) would have cut Israel is half. Same with the Golan Heights: If you stand on the wall of the Golan Heights, you are looking straight down on the Sea of Galilee and Tiberius, one of Israel's major cities. And, of course, the first thing the Syrians did, when they controlled it, was fill it up with artillery.
5. Originally, the land occupied by new, incoming Jewish inhabitants of Palestine in the early 20th century was not "taken." They didn't have that power. It was purchased from Ottoman overlords who mostly lived in Istanbul. The Arabs were essentially driven out after what amounted to a guerrilla conflict begun after WWI by the Arabs, continuing through the 20s and 30s, culminating in all-out war after WWII. Even then, the Israelis didn't exactly drive out Arab inhabitants, though they could have. Muslim Arabs still make up 25% of Israel's population; whole towns are dominated by Arabs (including Nazareth) and Arabs sit in the Israeli legislature. It's not in any way analogous to the European settlement of the Americas, which often was an explicit invasion.
6. Americans too often think of the conflict between Jews and Arabs as a "problem." Problems can be solved, but the conflict isn't a "problem." It's a situation. A situation can't be solved -- it just is. If you insist on a "solution," you're going to get a bloodbath. The Northern Ireland/Ireland situation is somewhat similar. So is the Russia/Ukraine situation, and the India/Pakistan Kashmir situation.
7. By the way, the U.S. military didn't actually win the European war during WWII. That was mostly done by the Russians, who had the Germans on the run before the Normandy invasions. We helped, but most of the credit for winning in Europe goes to the Russians.
-
Thanks, John!
On a related note:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/hamas-says-most-of-protesters-slain-in-gaza-were-its-members/ar-AAxpHEa
-
Thanks, John, for that very clear clarification. The only thing I'd quibble with is the last paragraph. Yes, the Russians beat the Germans, but they beat them for three reasons: (1) Old man winter decimated the German army just as it had the Swedes in 1709 and the French in 1815. (2) Hitler blundered badly when he diverted the attack toward Ukraine when Moscow was about to go down. (3) The US was breaking its neck to supply Russia with the tools to fight the war.
It's a real pleasure to hear from somebody who's been there and done that. Bravo!
-
That, Russ, plus a minor detail of the 20+ million military and civilian dead, which dwarfes anything else.
-
Absolutely, Slobodan. I started to put that in, then decided not to. But it's an incredible thing. Had Hitler not decided to invade Russia the west would be very different from what it is now. I know Churchill heaved a sigh of relief when Hitler moved east, because he put the sigh in his six-volume set on WW II. I also suspect the Russian move convinced FDR that we weren't going to be able to stay out of the war.
-
Much of what has been said in the thread is so dumb it makes my teeth hurt, but I'll try to be as temperate in my comments as I can.
I've spent quite a bit of time in the Middle East -- Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, with brief visits a decade or so ago (as a reporter embedded with the Army) to Iraq and Kuwait. I like and admire the remnants of middle eastern civilizations, especially those of Iran and Egypt. I spent quite a bit of time in Israel, as I worked on archaeological digs there for 15 years (as a dig photographer.) I should mention that I'm not religious, but my heritage is Roman Catholic; and that I'm a political liberal.
1. Israel is not an apartheid state. On the contrary, until recently most of its Jewish population was made up of refugees from Arab states that maintained apartheid as related to its Jewish residents. With the recent arrivals of large numbers of Russian Jews, driven out by the widespread revival of anti-Semitism in Russia and Eastern Europe, Jews of European heritage now have a slight majority.
2. Israel is often thought of as having a relatively small population of Jews, when in fact, there are 6.5 million Jews in Israel, as well as a couple million of the most affluent Arabs in the Middle East. Its Jewish population is about one and a half times that of Ireland. The point being, the Jews aren't going anywhere, any more than the Irish are.
3. American "progressives," who make up one of the most anti-Israeli, anti-Semitic groups in the US, are usually so insular that they equate their ignorant, flower-child feelings of goodwill with the natural state of being of the world. That's because they don't know any better. What the Jews have learned over their history, and particularly in the 20th Century, is that you should listen to what your enemies say, and then, **believe them.** Hamas advocates the elimination of Jews. Period. It's not a secret, it's part of their charter. The Jews believe them, as they should. That's the core of the conflict. Hamas is also an explicitly fascist organization. No secret about that either; it's kind of odd that U.S. progressives and fascists should make such friendly common cause, but there it is.
4. There have always been Jews in Jerusalem and Israel in general, going back to the first millennium BCE. The Jews have very good reason for taking the land they've taken in the recent expansions, and it's not because they wanted to grow grapes on it. Anyone whose been there knows that's laughable -- most of the land they're talking about (that taken over by "settlers") is hard desert. Then why do it? Because the Arabs forever have threatened to invade Israel, and some of the most sensitive land takings have involved defensive/offensive positions. The original West Bank came as close as either 12K or 12 miles to the Med (I forget which), about halfway down Israel. One quick military thrust by Jordan (which controlled the West Bank before the war) would have cut Israel is half. Same with the Golan Heights: If you stand on the wall of the Golan Heights, you are looking straight down on the Sea of Galilee and Tiberius, one of Israel's major cities. And, of course, the first thing the Syrians did, when they controlled it, was fill it up with artillery.
5. Originally, the land occupied by new, incoming Jewish inhabitants of Palestine in the early 20th century was not "taken." They didn't have that power. It was purchased from Ottoman overlords who mostly lived in Istanbul. The Arabs were essentially driven out after what amounted to a guerrilla conflict begun after WWI by the Arabs, continuing through the 20s and 30s, culminating in all-out war after WWII. Even then, the Israelis didn't exactly drive out Arab inhabitants, though they could have. Muslim Arabs still make up 25% of Israel's population; whole towns are dominated by Arabs (including Nazareth) and Arabs sit in the Israeli legislature. It's not in any way analogous to the European settlement of the Americas, which often was an explicit invasion.
6. Americans too often think of the conflict between Jews and Arabs as a "problem." Problems can be solved, but the conflict isn't a "problem." It's a situation. A situation can't be solved -- it just is. If you insist on a "solution," you're going to get a bloodbath. The Northern Ireland/Ireland situation is somewhat similar. So is the Russia/Ukraine situation, and the India/Pakistan Kashmir situation.
7. By the way, the U.S. military didn't actually win the European war during WWII. That was mostly done by the Russians, who had the Germans on the run before the Normandy invasions. We helped, but most of the credit for winning in Europe goes to the Russians.
John, I'm writing on my iPad and it's not my most flexible of friends, but the computer is in another, depressing room I'd rather not use right now.
So, let me just address lightly, hoping not to increase the pain in your teeth.
#4. You write about land that Israel "has taken in recent expansion" and say that they have good reason. That may be perfectly good and true, but having motivation and reason is not the same as having a legal right to undertake an action. I have good reason to desire another lens, but as I can't justify the cost, does that imply, going by your statement, that I am morally free just to go steal one because "I have good reason" to desire it? Anyway, would you believe that building settlements is akin to building defensive, preemptive military outposts? Strikes me as far more a little matter of civilian expansion via land grab.
I don't think what you wrote there stands anything other than reading by a most sympathetic eye.
On #5, are you suggesting 1948 was a peaceful transfer of lands and ownership and control?
On #6, are you sure you can include the Russia/Ukraine problems? The others are purely religion-based, which has ultimately split communities as long as religion has flourished, just as with the ME fights between different flavours of Muslim. Without religious intolerance, there would have been no partition of India at Independence. But hey, even the Jews have their factions which probably drive much of the troubles, just as the Brexiteers are doing in a fairly non-religious country. People are very good at inciting civil wars, fratricide, if you like. Seems to be in our genes.
-
As a teenager in 1968 I visited Israel. A month before I'd seen the dreadful death camps in Germany with the photographs of uniformed soldiers and sub machine guns.
In Jerusalem I noted the similar uniformed soldiers and sub machine guns.
It was a young age to realise you become like the people you hate.
David
-
As a teenager in 1968 I visited Israel. A month before I'd seen the dreadful death camps in Germany with the photographs of uniformed soldiers and sub machine guns.
In Jerusalem I noted the similar uniformed soldiers and sub machine guns.
It was a young age to realise you become like the people you hate.
David
And then when you get even older, you realise, sometimes to your horror, that all of those bleaker options - and more - already reside within each of us.
Only by the grace of circumstance do we keep to the brighter side, the darker left dormant.
Rob
-
John, I'm writing on my iPad and it's not my most flexible of friends, but the computer is in another, depressing room I'd rather not use right now.
So, let me just address lightly, hoping not to increase the pain in your teeth.
#4. You write about land that Israel "has taken in recent expansion" and say that they have good reason. That may be perfectly good and true, but having motivation and reason is not the same as having a legal right to undertake an action. I have good reason to desire another lens, but as I can't justify the cost, does that imply, going by your statement, that I am morally free just to go steal one because "I have good reason" to desire it? Anyway, would you believe that building settlements is akin to building defensive, preemptive military outposts? Strikes me as far more a little matter of civilian expansion via land grab.
I don't think what you wrote there stands anything other than reading by a most sympathetic eye.
On #5, are you suggesting 1948 was a peaceful transfer of lands and ownership and control?
On #6, are you sure you can include the Russia/Ukraine problems? The others are purely religion-based, which has ultimately split communities as long as religion has flourished, just as with the ME fights between different flavours of Muslim. Without religious intolerance, there would have been no partition of India at Independence. But hey, even the Jews have their factions which probably drive much of the troubles, just as the Brexiteers are doing in a fairly non-religious country. People are very good at inciting civil wars, fratricide, if you like. Seems to be in our genes.
Rob: The current taking of the land isn't "legal," but on the other hand, in most cases, there's nobody on it. I urge you to go to Google Maps, type in "Israel," then expand the map until you're looking down at that point, about halfway up the coast line, where the former 1967 lines project west toward the coast. Then click on the satellite view, and check what you see. There are isolated small towns and villages perched on ridge tops, but the land in between populated spots is quite clearly desert. (And most of the towns are Arab.) Those black dots are pine-type desert trees. Then scan east, and look down at the land just above the Jordan Valley. That's some of the hardest desert on earth. There's nobody there. I've driven across it many times, but that's where you find "settlements," which most often are a few shacks and trailers sitting on a mountain top. No one was driven off -- but what the Palestinians don't want is the so-called right of possession ("possession is nine-tenths of the law.") Most of the land (not all) they are "grabbing" to use your phrase, has no one on it -- they are not driving Arabs off. And yes, most of it is taken to force the Israeli government to either leave them there, or to embarrass itself by taking them off it. There are a few places where land that was once open, but is on the former Jordanian side of the line ("The West Bank") is occupied by Jewish cities. Most of those are suburbs of either Jerusalem or Tel Aviv-Yaffa (Jafo.) What I'm trying to say is, in general, the Israelis did not take over Arab villages -- they built their own. There may have been some take-overs, but they were few. You can still see abandoned Arab villages in some places, one near a dig I visited last year, but you also see many many Arab villages all through the country. As far as your camera analogy is concerned, it wouldn't be right for you to take the camera. But what if the situation was this -- (and this is a somewhat realistic situation, which we could talk about in another thread, and which, IMHO, is an outlandish and outrageous situation) -- what if the camera was sitting there, unused and unguarded by anyone, and your family was literally starving to death, and you could save them by taking and using the camera. Would you take it? Or would you let the kids starve? For the Jews, holding onto the land is not an option -- it's an existential choice.
Of course I don't think 1948 was a peaceful transfer -- it was the end of a guerrilla war started by the Arabs, goaded on by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem who during WWII was holed up in Berlin and who urged the extermination of the Jews -- and developed into a full-scale war between the Israelis and ALL of the surrounding Arab states, and some not even close. The Arabs lost. The Israelis didn't give the conquered land back. But the families of the Palestinians who didn't flee are still there, and for the most part, doing quite well, thank you.
The Russian Ukraine situation is different and difficult, and I don't know a lot about it, but I will say that Ukraine was absorbed into the Russian empire before there was a United States -- and the US fought a Civil War less than a hundred years after it became a country, when one of its main regions (the South) tried to leave. In other words, the Ukraine was a fundamental part of the Russian Empire for hundreds of years, and its departure was traumatic for Russia. For more than that, I'd have to read a book. I do have a good friend who runs the only English language newspaper in Kiev.
I'll also add that I'm not blind to Palestinian problems -- I once told an Israeli Jewish friend that if he ever wondered what it was like to be black in America in the 1930s, all he'd have to do is see how his Jewish countrymen treat Palestinians. It can get pretty bad. But on the whole, the West Bank and Gaza Palestinians are ruled by vicious, greedy despots who take care of themselves before anyone else, and if they weren't there, I'm pretty sure that Palestine would be a peaceful federation of two states, and Israel would be run by a liberal socialist government rather than the current rightwing crazies. Hamas enables the Netanyahu government, and vice-versa, IMHO.
And for anyone curious, I'd like to point out that Jordan is effectively a Palestinian state -- the majority of its legislature is Palestinian, and the King is married to a Palestinian. His heirs will be half Palestinian. The great nightmare of the Israelis is that the West Bank becomes autonomous, but then voluntarily merges with Jordan, putting a major Arab country right back where it was before 1967, 12 miles from the Israeli coast.
-
Of course I don't think 1948 was a peaceful transfer -- it was the end of a guerrilla war started by the Arabs, goaded on by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem who during WWII was holed up in Berlin and who urged the extermination of the Jews -- and developed into a full-scale war between the Israelis and ALL of the surrounding Arab states, and some not even close. The Arabs lost. The Israelis didn't give the conquered land back. But the families of the Palestinians who didn't flee are still there, and for the most part, doing quite well, thank you.
That's how it usually works out after winning a war.
The Sudetenland in the former Czechoslovakia was grabbed by Hitler and relegated to Germany in October 1938. At that time, about 3 million Sudeten and other Germans lived in Czechoslovakia which was roughly the same population as of Palestine. The Czech part of Czechoslovakia was subsequently invaded by Germany in March 1939, with a portion being annexed and the remainder turned into the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia. After the war, the Sudetenland was restored to Czechoslovakia, which expelled most of the German inhabitants and repopulated the area with Czechs.
Soviet Union annexed also most of the territories it had invaded in 1939. For instance, eastern Poland was annexed into the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic.
And much later some parts of Ukraine were annexed by its neighbour unexpectedly even without any war or provocation.
-
Rob: The current taking of the land isn't "legal," but on the other hand, in most cases, there's nobody on it.
Tired old excuses trotted out every time Israeli excesses threaten to distract people from the "Jews deserve a homeland" narrative and debunked the same number of times.
I tried your exercise with Google Earth, and when I'd done I zoomed in on your house. Looked like nobody in the yard, and a couple of spare bedrooms. I'm moving in.
-
And much later some parts of Ukraine were annexed by its neighbour unexpectedly even without any war or provocation.
Are you referring to the annexation of Crimea by Russia?
I doubt it's the best example to pick.
In the March 2014 referendum 83% of eligible Crimeans turned out to vote and 97% voted to cancel the 1954 edict of the Soviet Presidium and to rejoin Russia. Who knows why Khrushchev decided to give it to the Ukraine in the first place. Some say it was after a night hitting the bottle.
I can't say I blame the Crimeans for wanting to leave. They saw what Kiev's National “there’s nothing inherently wrong with national socialism as a political idea" Militia were doing to the Russian speaking population of Donbas and what they had planned for Viktor Yanukovych. I think in their shoes I'd also have wanted to end the short affiliation with the Ukraine.
-
If everyone were true Christians, there'd be no problem. Love your enemy, and love your neighbours as yourself. Such a pity that so many who claim to be Christians are not true Christians.
The behaviour of mankind, in respect of all the wars and conflicts, confirms the Darwinian view that we are no more than sophisticated apes. We have bigger brains and more sophisticated tools, but we are driven by the same instincts as animals in general, who fight to the death to mate with a female, and kill to protect their territory (except me of course ;) )
-
Are you referring to the annexation of Crimea by Russia?
I doubt it's the best example to pick...
+1
-
Are you referring to the annexation of Crimea by Russia?
I doubt it's the best example to pick.
In the March 2014 referendum 83% of eligible Crimeans turned out to vote and 97% voted to cancel the 1954 edict of the Soviet Presidium and to rejoin Russia. Who knows why Khrushchev decided to give it to the Ukraine in the first place. Some say it was after a night hitting the bottle.
I can't say I blame the Crimeans for wanting to leave. They saw what Kiev's National “there’s nothing inherently wrong with national socialism as a political idea" Militia were doing to the Russian speaking population of Donbas and what they had planned for Viktor Yanukovych. I think in their shoes I'd also have wanted to end the short affiliation with the Ukraine.
I agree that Crimea is not the best example of annexation. As David mentions, the 1954 transfer to of Crimea to Ukraine made even less sense. Maybe it was not so much access to "voda" as to "vodka". I mentioned it only as another example of annexation.
-
If everyone were true Christians, there'd be no problem. Love your enemy, and love your neighbours as yourself. Such a pity that so many who claim to be Christians are not true Christians.
The behaviour of mankind, in respect of all the wars and conflicts, confirms the Darwinian view that we are no more than sophisticated apes. We have bigger brains and more sophisticated tools, but we are driven by the same instincts as animals in general, who fight to the death to mate with a female, and kill to protect their territory (except me of course ;) )
But not very: it has always been noted with humans that a standing tool has no conscience.
-
That's how it usually works out after winning a war.
The Sudetenland in the former Czechoslovakia was grabbed by Hitler and relegated to Germany in October 1938.
please do not forget that Poles and Hungarians who like to whine about being victims in 1939 or in 1956 did promptly join Germans in annexing parts (granted on smaller scale that Germans) of CzS lands back in 1938 (and Hungary did even more land grab in 1939 from puppet Slovakia) under the eternal pretext of protecting Poles and Hungarians - but they don't teach that in their schools ;D ...
-
(1) Old man winter decimated the German army just as it had the Swedes in 1709 and the French in 1815.
(a) 1812 (b) French were already retreating back since mid October 1812 and (c) winter conditions were always the same for both sides ...
(2) Hitler blundered badly when he diverted the attack toward Ukraine when Moscow was about to go down.
Battle of Moscow was in Dec 1941 (over just after the NY41/42) before anything was diverted to Ukraine and as 1812 shows Moscow or no Moscow the end will be the same.
(3) The US was breaking its neck to supply Russia with the tools to fight the war.
Just like USSR was breaking its neck in human toll to divert Germans from putting all those resources on the England/in Africa instead of Eastern front - it goes both ways
-
when they moved in 1999 their German embassy from Bonn to Berlin.
there was already an American embassy in Berlin post WWII... since 1977.
-
Yes, there was a US Embassy in Berlin between 1974 and 1990, but that was an office for GDR in the east section of the city. US operated a US Mission in West Berlin between 1945 and 1990. The official US Embassy of the FRG (BDR) was in Bonn between 1949 and 1990 (as most of the other embassies). I visited both sectors of Berlin in the sixties and both parts of the city seemed rather gloomy.
-
Yes, there was a US Embassy in Berlin between 1974 and 1990, but that was an office for GDR in the east section of the city. US operated a US Mission in West Berlin between 1945 and 1990. The official US Embassy of the FRG (BDR) was in Bonn between 1949 and 1990 (as most of the other embassies). I visited both sectors of Berlin in the sixties and both parts of the city seemed rather gloomy.
It's just the visible part of the Teutonic mindset. Think of Helmut Newton and even of my current favourite, Lindbergh: not exactly flowing over with "magical" colours, either of them! But I'm sure they both lived/live very full lives.
-
It's just the visible part of the Teutonic mindset. Think of Helmut Newton and even of my current favourite, Lindbergh: not exactly flowing over with "magical" colours, either of them! But I'm sure they both lived/live very full lives.
i think the Russians were punishing the Germans any way they could. The gloomier the better. The less rebuilding and cleanup allowed, the better. At least that is what it felt like when i visited several cities in East Germany back in the early '80s.
-
i think the Russians were punishing the Germans any way they could. The gloomier the better. The less rebuilding and cleanup allowed, the better. At least that is what it felt like when i visited several cities in East Germany back in the early '80s.
Also, there probably wasn't all that much money floating about in the east; it took the UK a long time to pick itself up post WW2 too, so the Marshall Plan gave western Germany a great push upwards and beyond what some other parts of Western Europe were able to manage. On top of that, the German work ethic was invaluable, the same ethic that seemed to be lost in eastern Germany and, AFAIK, caused much financial worry at the time of the falling Wall.
-
[quoteP.S. Wishing the world without religion is an interesting daydreaming activity, on a par with wishing to be young again. In the meantime, we have to deal with the world as-is.][/quote]
I think you mean "wishing the world without people" . . . In the same way that guns don't kill, people do, "religion" as a category is on par. Religion doesn't kill, people do. Not all people with guns kill. In fact very few do. Not all people with "religion" kill, in fact very few do.
I watch these various threads, all with a single common foundational causation... "the evil that men do," and yet it is never mentioned "as such" as the root of all these issues, common to all mankind in varying degrees. Talking about surface issues of any sort is a bit like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Yet no one much is interested in what lies at the center of real problem - "the evil that men do" - let alone what might actually be done about it. And, my sense is that with the death of the consensus on anything having the possibility of transcendence, there's not much to talk about, anyway. So, one sort of hegemony is as good as another, I guess . . . as long as "my ox" isn't the one gored.
Rand
-
[quoteP.S. Wishing the world without religion is an interesting daydreaming activity, on a par with wishing to be young again. In the meantime, we have to deal with the world as-is.]
I think you mean "wishing the world without people" . . . In the same way that guns don't kill, people do, "religion" as a category is on par. Religion doesn't kill, people do. Not all people with guns kill. In fact very few do. Not all people with "religion" kill, in fact very few do.
I watch these various threads, all with a single common foundational causation... "the evil that men do," and yet it is never mentioned "as such" as the root of all these issues, common to all mankind in varying degrees. Talking about surface issues of any sort is a bit like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Yet no one much is interested in what lies at the center of real problem - "the evil that men do" - let alone what might actually be done about it. And, my sense is that with the death of the consensus on anything having the possibility of transcendence, there's not much to talk about, anyway. So, one sort of hegemony is as good as another, I guess . . . as long as "my ox" isn't the one gored.
Rand
I don't think there's any argument against "the evil that men do" just that, well, if you don't let them access guns, they have to create their havoc with less efficient tools and stand a far better chance of getting stopped.
A class full of teens with chairs not riveted to the floor will stop a guy with a knife, where not with a gun.
-
It's a good point, Rob. But when you start limiting the ability of citizens to own the tools of self-defense, you're likely eventually to arrive at the position of Venezuela or North Korea where the only guns are in the hands of dictators and their flunkies.
-
It's a good point, Rob. But when you start limiting the ability of citizens to own the tools of self-defense, you're likely eventually to arrive at the position of Venezuela or North Korea where the only guns are in the hands of dictators and their flunkies.
Yes. Canada, Australia, UK, NZ, most of Europe, Japan...so few good examples compared to your extreme ones, right?
There's nothing "likely" about your scenario unless you add in dictatorships, or unless you have governments who blatantly and openly lie and attempt to control and suppress the media and who have blind followers who accept their every word...
Rob's point was exactly on point. There's a reason miltiary and police forces use guns and not other forms of weapons. Guns amplying and multiply the killing capacity of an individual more than any other personal weapon. Easy access to guns means far more people are able to inflict far more damage and death then if they didn't have access.
The US can and should determine what it thinks is right for itself, but when I see some folks literally saying that the 2nd Amendment is "God given" and cannot be removed, I think there's a strong case to suggest some people shouldn't have so much of a say in things.
So, yes, people do things, but when you give them tools that make them better at it then there are consequences and your founding fathers could not possibly have conceived the impact of personal arms in the modern US. But, hey, just turn your schools into maximum security prisons, with more protection than a military base - that'll be an outstanding learning environment for kids and will help to "fix" the education problem you think exists.
-
But, hey, just turn your schools into maximum security prisons, with more protection than a military base - that'll be an outstanding learning environment for kids and will help to "fix" the education problem you think exists.
The next logical step in securing the schools after training the teachers in close combat tactics would be to install metal detectors at the entrance and equip the janitors with high-speed rifles.
-
It's just democracy in action. Americans have had many opportunities to vote against slaughter in schools, but they have chosen not to do so. Inexplicable, from this side of the world, and unfortunate for the murdered children, but we have to respect their decision.
-
It's just democracy in action. Americans have had many opportunities to vote against slaughter in schools, but they have chosen not to do so. Inexplicable, from this side of the world, and unfortunate for the murdered children, but we have to respect their decision.
But is it democracy?
Where the gun lobby has so much influence, democracy and its expression seem a doubtful coupling.
But I wouldn't suggest that it's simply a US problem: guns, perhaps, but our own media and those who control it are as agenda-driven as anywhere else; it's just a slightly different agenda.
Anyone who sat watching the Brexit thing unfold - as I did, because of its possible impact on my life and security as a foreigner abroad - would laugh at the idea that there was much truth being bandied about. Rather, there were interviews aplenty with the unsophisticated grunts of English labour (one, in Sunderland, acually claimed that Japan had factories in the UK because of the UK's unique engineering skills! (Unique, today? Where hardly any people get an apprenticehip in anything?) Even the often maligned Scots were able to see through that, possibly because they already know how transient the power of the shipyard, the coalmine etc.
There is a visible parallel to that in the politicians and officials who eschew proper dress code by appearinjg in public sans tie or even a formal suit. Public life appearance is not about showing what a cool dude you are at home or on the ranch, or on the farm; it's about observing the dignity of, and a respect towards the public office that, for better or worse, it's your turn to hold and represent. If you can't even uphold that simple prerequisite, what hope anything more sacred such as principle, and the common good?
-
It's just democracy in action. Americans have had many opportunities to vote against slaughter in schools, but they have chosen not to do so. Inexplicable, from this side of the world, and unfortunate for the murdered children, but we have to respect their decision.
When something appears “inexplicable,” perhaps it is time to question our own ability to understand, and how much our own mental and ideological framework prevents us from understanding?
-
When something appears “inexplicable,” perhaps it is time to question our own ability to understand, and how much our own mental and ideological framework prevents us from understanding?
That pretty neatly defines my take on religion: religion is flawed, but the belief in a reality beyond present understanding is not; it's just too far out of our league to be understood. Denial forces parallel or collateral denial of many things we see but don't understand...