Read about the history of warfare. There will be peace when one side has beaten the other side into complete and total submission. So I'm to take this to mean that The United States and the Soviet Union nuked each other into submission? Funny how no one told me. All religious sites become property of the world. Nobody will hold the title. Upkeep will be joint each nation Israel and Palestine will contribute funds. Why would we put the Indian's in charge? seems to me they would be Anti-muslim due to the Pakistan situation. There's lots of people in other places that don't subscribe to any religious faith that would make perfect canidates for a stabilizing force of this type.
A Pal. Gandhi would face serious if not even insurmountable pressures. For instance to many, the idea that Zionist Israel is based on religion (which is a lie) is enough to totally discount any Arab cause for their rightful freedom. If you want peace in the region, as I have said before you need to bring people together not separate them. One state solution is simply the only solution to the problem that Israel/Palestine faces today. South Africa is so much like Israel the comparisons were even noticed at Johannesburg a couple years back. Bantustans, walls, inequality forced upon the native peoples of that land. Of course no one in the west (or at least officially) thought that to fair, and imposed sanctions of the country. The Israeli situation is even worse then South Africa was, not only do you have walls that are going to cut people off from Israel you are going to cut the native people from each other as well. Even the US is starting to think about this "separation wall" and the psychological effects it will have on the normal Pal. This affirms my belief that Israel doesn't want peace, if she gets it then why would the US aid her with $12 billion a year? No rather Israel wants tensions but not in Israel proper, rather within the "easily controlled" areas of the region. South Africa and Israel are two examples, one that showed you can have peace with your neighbor and the other that hatred is the best way to stay in power.
"...insurmountable pressures. For instance to many, the idea that Zionist Israel is based on religion (which is a lie) is enough to totally discount any Arab cause for their rightful freedom." A lie discounts a rightful cause? Please explain. "If you want peace in the region, as I have said before you need to bring people together not separate them. " Ghandesque nonviolence is all about that. "One state solution is simply the only solution to the problem that Israel/Palestine faces today. South Africa is so much like Israel the comparisons were even noticed at Johannesburg a couple years back. Bantustans, walls, inequality forced upon the native peoples of that land." I agree. Where is nonviolence in conflict with a one-state solution? "Of course no one in the west (or at least officially) thought that to fair, and imposed sanctions of the country. The Israeli situation is even worse then South Africa was, not only do you have walls that are going to cut people off from Israel you are going to cut the native people from each other as well. " I agree. How does nonviolence support Israeli apartheid? "Even the US is starting to think about this "separation wall" and the psychological effects it will have on the normal Pal. This affirms my belief that Israel doesn't want peace, if she gets it then why would the US aid her with $12 billion a year? " Why would they need it? " No rather Israel wants tensions but not in Israel proper, rather within the "easily controlled" areas of the region." Obviously the tension can't be bottled up without producing an explosion. "South Africa and Israel are two examples, one that showed you can have peace with your neighbor and the other that hatred is the best way to stay in power." Because the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is not concluded, it is unreasonable to draw such a comparitive conclusion. It seems to me started by dismissing the applicability of nonviolence (was this intentional?) and then reiterated some aspects of the Palestine-Israel dilemma (OK). There have been some good discussions here on possible solutions. I'd reference them here, but I'm not good at searching the new archive structure here yet. I don't know of a thread here that focused on nonviolence in Palestine / Israel. World opinion, and specifically American opinion, is the key to a viable solution to this conflict. Non-violence is the key to effecting that change. Here are some organizations & people applying nonviolence: Gush Shalom Middle East Nonviolence & Democracy (MEND) Palestinian Centre For Raprochment Between People Mubarak Awad (expelled by Israel in 1988) Bill Thomson (teaches non-violence for Palestinian cause in U.S.)
there's been some numbers stated in this thread concerning US aid to Israel. I looked into it and found these actuals (total US aid - military, economic, immigration, & other grants): 1949-1996 $68,030b 1997 $3.132b 1998 $3.080b 1999 $3.010b 2000 $4.129b 2001 $2.876b 2002 $2.848b 2003 est. $3.760b Total $90.866b
You guys are over-complicating a situation. Israel was created. Soon after the creation Arabs attacked. Arabs lose. Arabs attack again. Arabs lose. Arabs attack yet again. Arabs lose. Arabs attack again, Arabs lose. Finally after approximately 30 years of being on the losing team, the Arabs make peace. Within a few months militant Islamists assassinate one of the last believers in Secular Pan-Arabism (Sadat) because he wasn't a religious wingnut. Simultaneously Iran falls to Islamists. Fast forward to 2004. If you ask the Arab in the street why he does nothing to eradicate the murderers within his own society, and why he wasn't completely appalled by the events of 9/11, you will get an interesting answer. The Arab in the street will direct his own inadequecies and shortcomings on the West, and on Israel. Why is that? Why is he incapable of accepting blame for falling short? I realize that the Arab humiliations at the hands of the West and Israel over the last century have burned a permanent scar on the minds of Arabs, but I always tried to give them the intellectual credit to realize that they provoked these wars, and therefore should be willing to deal with the consequences of their actions. Apparently I have given them too much credit. They just don't seem to realize that there are consequences to agression. Why they can't take their medicine in an honorable fashion like the Germans or Japanese is a question for another forum. But I must say that I am shocked that so many, who know so little about the history of this situation, would rush so quickly to the defense of those who would attack a people who merely want to live peacefully in a U.N. sanctioned homeland. What else would you have the Jews suffer through to accept that they merit a scrap of desert land that no Arab was that concerned with pre-1948?
So basicly, the cost of going to the moon, say, four times (leaving out the last two landings) to prop up a state which in the past few years has approached the attitude towards the palestinians that it's founders once experienced in Poland and Germany. Wonderful, simply wonderful. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! *ahem* Iraq, Afghanistan, Grenada, Nicaragua, Argentina, El Salvador, hell all of south america, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia.... Off hand, the words "pot", "kettle" and "black" seem to suggest themselves...
There should be no comprimises, the jews simply must be removed from palestine. Preferably by death. Then America should follow suit. The jewish people are a scourge, indeed.
it's sort of like that Simpsons episode when Lisa was making that science project where she compared Bart's and her hamster's intelligence... the hamster got electrocuted once and stopped touching the metal bar but Bart kept getting electrocuted.
A lie discounts a rightful cause? Please explain. Well let's take into instance the Christian Zionist movement in the US: http://jhm.org/support-israel.asp He is one of the biggest supporters of Israel, and he funds Jewish immigration to the country. The Christian Zionist movement does not love Israel, rather it loves the fact that the Jews are going to that land, in sin. So God can get rid of them or convert them, and Idiotic Zionists show this as support. :bugeye: The Cause of Arab nationalism has never been one that westerners have supported. This case is no different if not even worse then any other form of Arab nationalism. Pals. must understand that their violent "Jihad" has done them no favors. Ghandesque nonviolence is all about that. But you must have the other side at least thinking of it, or a base of support. In Britain you had the liberals support Gandhi, and in Israel you have Gush. The changes have to occur inside Israel as well as in Palestine. I agree. Where is nonviolence in conflict with a one-state solution? It isn't, did I give that impression? I agree. How does nonviolence support Israeli apartheid? Israeli's like the British are going to get frustrated and lash out at the Pals. Why? because it is like someone ignores your screaming some people turn violent to get your attention. Why would they need it? Israel wouldn't need any assistance if terrorism against her was abolished. I think the funds from Iran, S.A, and other states should be invested in passive resistance movements, and fund social programs. Obviously the tension can't be bottled up without producing an explosion. Israel like the Nazis before them can easily suppress any resistance movement that is within the wall, alas Warsaw. Because the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is not concluded, it is unreasonable to draw such a comparitive conclusion. Not really, the South African experience in the 80's and Israel's now is very much alike. It's funny that they were both one of their biggest allies during that time period as well... there is a ideological connection to Zionism and Apartheid.
that no Arab was that concerned with pre-1948? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Please tell me you're kidding. Have you forgotten that this land belonged to SOMEBODY ELSE before it was invaded?? Ok, fine the natives havent been able to win it back yet, but how can you make such an ignorant statement?! Of course Arabs were concerened with this land.... it BELONGED to themm.. remember? :bugeye: all in favor say aye! aye! And what makes you think there haven't already been bin Ghandis in Palestine? you think the IDF gave them any chance?!! It takes a lot of effort & organization to organize a rally .. which of course takes time, in which case the IDF would surely have heard about this Pal.ghandhi & surely killed him before news of him could reach the outside world. sucide bombing on the other hand takes no real prep. .. which is why they usually aren't caught beforehand. Any chances of a Palestinian ghandhi in Israel ever making it past 5 supporters before he's shot is ziipp to none to zip.
One with the courage to stand unarmed in the path of the Maharajah's goons, can easily humble the (ahem) Jewish Brothers, right in their own courtrooms, mishpokha. Sa-Lammmmed. Muhammand went to Yale But not like lil'Dubya He posted Dubya's bail He studied dirty poke, Er, well, you can imagine the rest of the song.
It takes a lot of effort & organization to organize a rally not really. they just announce it on the loud speakers and everybody runs. they dont have anything else to do anyway. or just print some flyers. they do that on a constant basis. sucide bombing on the other hand takes no real prep Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! there needs to be a whole infrastructure to get it done. from the explosive smugglers to the bomb assemblers to the scouts to the drivers to the stolen cars, to the coordinators, to the dispatchers, to the leaders who decide when and where, to the contact-people with the offices in Tehran and Damascus, etc. etc.
Ghandi can passively resist the Israelis, great, but that's not the problem. They don't need Ghandi, they need Musharrif. They need someone that will crush the terrorist groups inside Palestine giving legitmacy to the cause of an independent Palestine. The terrorists want to destroy Israel and until Israel's existance does not feel threatened they will keep builidng a wall and destroying a viable Palestinian community.
Ghandi dealt with that too. He earned so much respect from moms, pops, Sikhs, kooks, and mullah-washers, that it was suddenly very dishonorable to lash out while the Great Soul was making change happen that violence had long and recently shown that it could not do. Suddenly all the Whos in Whoville got a Clue, learned How To Deal, and it was good. All violence did not really stop absolutely everywhere, -but the change was so dramatic that it seemed like it, and was catalytic, and that's all that mattered. In Palestine and now also Iraq (and I believe these two conflicts have already merged, although US is in denial of this fact) it's both easier and more effective to do nonviolence than to do violence. You choose to stand in a crowd of 250,000 while 500 of you are killed, 1,000 wounded by rifle and mortar. Or you can choose to ambush an IDF column with a small, scared, and ill-trained squad on foot. You can wire up your friend's nephew with 15 kilos of Semtex, make his tacky tape and send a Dead Boy Walking. Which is easier to organize regularly with minimal training and no money, and little food or equipment? Which strategy really takes the most personal courage? WHich strategy takes the smallest psychological toll on the warrior? The nonviolent warrior is a happy and productive man, during and after the conflict. Far fewer nonviolent warriors fall than the violent counterproductive misguided ones. Which strategy is most effective, most intelligent? Imagine.
Tit for tat. All this death and hatred is so terribly pointless. I agree, let them put down their weapons for once and bring the burden of shame upon "civilised" Israel. I hate to say this, but the Arabs are so stupid for not realising this.
Update: Mim-sit'ash linked a story here about Arun Ghandi's initiative. Let's wish Ghandiji's grandson well, shall we?
just one thing.. i see this mistake often and its a small one but it bugs the hell outta me considerin he is considered the Father of our nation.. his name is Gandhi, not Ghandi.. thanks
Thanks lostminotaur, it's everywhere, and it unfortunately has creeped into my own writing too. How embarrassing. I'll try and always remember it's G-a-n-d-h-i now.
