What's everyone think about the Palestine-Israel issues? I admit i don't know a whole lot about it, but it's amazing that an "entity" of a country has remained for so long. Palestine isn't even a state (correct me if i'm wrong), and when Israel was established they just continued to act like they were. It's been going on since like 1948, and it's been relatively the same for decades.

Hope this Sharon's efforts for a "cease-fire" actually has some substance in it, and is not just for show and media. I mean, you'd think after decades of war and terrorism that something critical would have been done to stop it, but nothing has that has stopped it. So anyway,:

What's everyone think about the Palestine-Israel Situation?

I guess it's US intervention again to try and "save" some other county in which we might end up just quartering troops for decades after in a "peace." Ah, the heart of darkness (thats an inside joke that i'm not even actually totally part of). Actually Orientalism Kritik, yah? So on a side topic (i might make this a seperate topic):

Is the spreading of US ideals a good thing or a bad thing? Or is it the only feasible way to insure tranquility in the world due to the corruption of so many other countries.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

I don't know too much bout this issue either, but a friend of mine is a devoted Jew and he is very knowledgeable and opinionated about this issue....

anyway, on the subject of Orientalism, It's not a good idea for the U.S. to be benevolent and "help" other nation-states by spreading "US Ideals." This practice is inherently racist, because the U.S. assumes a position where it views other nation-states as irrational, and almost immature actors, and that without U.S. intervention they'd all kill themselves. In acting, the U.S. only subjugates the other nation-states, and makes them conform, and mold themselves to these "US Ideals" as well. If the U.S. were to act after taking in to account important cultural factors, and change the way it veiws the world of IR, then there'd be no problem. But this imperialist mindset's got to go. Actions like these lead to ethnocide.

haha anyway,

from a realist POV, it would be optimal that the U.S. gets in and helps mediate the situation, as the U.S. is a hegemon, and many other countries look to the u.s. for aid, and pleasing Israel is important to the U.S., but they don't wanna leave out palestine either. Anything to stop terrorism right?

besides, the U.S. will probably go in anyway, since Bush wants to get to Iraq, and the only way is to go through the Israli-Palestinian conflict. Oh well. I hope a draft doesn't start anytym soon... hah

__________________
word is bond

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

sometimes i wonder what would happen if the US just stopped all int'l action except commerce and stuff. You think another nation would step in to take our place tentatively or we'd just get flamed in the media and get international pressure for us to resume our position.

Maybe if we left, not saying we should, but these countries would actually ask for our help, and then they would have a less hard time adjusting to the US ideals we set out to mold the rest of the world into. Not saying the imperialism is good, but it's a thought.

Last edited by PsychoSnowman on 04-12-2002 at 08:16 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Hello, it is my first time posting but since i was referred to earlier i felt is nesscessary. To begin with Tomas you are partially right and partially wrong. Palestine is the region in which Isreal and Jordan are located. Before 1948 there was a Zionist movement of the Jews to regain the holy land, while met with some problems it began to grow until the British stepped in and wrote up a charter to have the land shared with the Arabs who were living there and the Jews immigrating in. That didn't work at all, there were infact even more conflitcs in that the land was to be shared was wanted by both groups. After the Holocoust the world felt that the Jewish people should have a homeland and designated Palestine. In 1948 the Jewish State of Israel was created, met with much opposition from the neighboring Arab states and the Arabs within the country. There were many wars between those neighbors and Israel and more often than not Israel won, gaining more territory. The Arabs began to call themselves Palestinians as an attempt to raise awareness their land had been taken. The PLO - Palestine Liberation Organization created in 1964, is not a nation state but it is a state. In 1993 the PLO and Israel signed an accord creating the PNA- palestinian National Authority to be a government for the palestianian held lands on the Gaza Strip and The west bank.

That is all the recent history behind this conflict. But it has almost nothing to do with that. This is a religious conflict, not one over land. If the Jewish state had been istablished in Siberia, the Arabs would have sent troops, built larger bombs, done whatever it took to fight it. There has always been conflict between the Arabs and the Jews, each one blames the other and they are both to blame. Sharon is in a position to potentially create peace, but by doing so he will have to weaken the Jewish state in the minds of everone. I don't think that Israel should cave for peace and i dont' believe that the United States should be placed in total control either. This will never be resolved, just subdued so the united states has more to lose than to gain.

__________________
We're Hard Hitting
Always been Cool as Hell
Got trees in my mirror so my car don't smell

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

heyitsdean got it right. it's all about religion. And since many people are devoted to theirs, many more people will die before this is ends... if it ends.

quote:

---

Is the spreading of US ideals a good thing or a bad thing?

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

yeah, we really shouldn't be there. But with so many people dying and the "war" on terrorism we would be criticized by the rest of the world community. The lone superpower not doing anything to help out the lower countries of the world community would look like we didn't care, and even violate our war we have right now.

The problem is that we can't pull out because we'd contradict our entire war on terrorism bush is running. The US has made it seem as if world terrorism is their business regardless of the fact that it's not in our own country. However, it is relevant in that terrorism brings a risk to world community. So we do have a point there. I don't know how this is going to be rectified.

I'm curious though as to if we pulled out. If they'd actually ask us for help.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

heyisdean... (haha you got the handle right this time)

yeah i know i'm only partially right (That would lead to the assumption that i'm partially wrong. hah:rolleyes), i did give mad pr0pz to you.. never expected you to post though haha.

anyways, dean you are correct.

__________________
word is bond

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

the US is there because they dont want another big war to break out like in WWII
during the days before WWII, Hitler started to break the treaty of Versailles (treaty of WWI). since britain and france didnt give a damn what hitler was doing, this gave hitler more power and he just went crazy and took over poland. before britain and france could react, hitler had already started another war. hitler also admitted that if britain and france gave some resistance to what hitler was doing before WWII, then hitler probably would have stopped his actions

__________________

credits to sHiNHaWk

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged