Quote:

Originally posted by Dave:

I don't even think I'm being overly idealistic. My take on the situation is this: Israel's imperative is security, Palestine's is nationhood, and on top of that there are overlapping territorial claims.

These things are not irresolvable, and not mutually exclusive.




The Arab neighbors have made very clear in the last 50 years, four wars and relentless terrorism that their true goal is the annihilation of Israel, not peace with Israel in ANY form.
If this were not so, then Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and a large bloc of the Egyptian people, if not the Egyptian government, would not all be actively funding, or otherwise endorsing/enabling terrorism against Israel.

As I said prior, Palestine's statehood is just a stepping stone, on the path toward further terrorism toward Israel, and Israel's eventual destruction. I've yet to see any evidence of goodwill by the PLO or any surrounding Arab nations, beyond lip service to peace.

Quote:

Originally posted by Rob Kamphausen:
<strong>

This is what is patently obvious about it

there's been fighting in that region since before there was a 'United States'.



Quote:

Originally posted by Dave:

Eh? You mean the Crusades? The Ottoman Empire had fighting in Central Asia. There was not a fear and loathing of a Jewish state until the Jewish state was created



I think that's rather the point, counter to the point you were making, T-Dave:
The Arabs are extremely hostile to the existence of Israel, in any shape or form.

Quote:

Originally posted by Dave:

And world opinion is not something the US has ever been bothered by, anyway



Quote:

Originally posted by Dave:

As in, the US is increasingly prone to doing as it will, unilaterally, without paying heed to consensus. So if it decided to go and do a Judge Judy, it could.





On the Bill Moyers program I mentioned earlier, there was a panel of scholars, many who favored the Arab and European perspective of Israel (i.e., pro-Palestinian ), and repeatedly condemned U.S. support of Israel, and other U.S. foreign policy as "simplistic".
To which Charles Krauthhammer finally responded that U.S. "simplicity" had bailed out European sophistication three times in the last century (referring to U.S. action in WW I, WW II and the collapse of the Eastern Bloc between 1989-1991.

I'd also add the 1991 Persian Gulf War, which was the equivalent of neutralizing Hitler in 1938, before Hitler became a threat).


The point being, any number of times, American unilateralism has occurred in similar circumstances, when the rest of the world refuses to act.
We've seen how effective U.S. cooperation with U.N. policy and world opinion has worked in bringing down Saddam Hussein's government in the last 12 years.
(As in completely INeffective.)
And even with the U.S. complying with U.N. resolutions in Iraq, which provides enough of an economy for Saddam Hussein to more than provide for his people, the U.S. is blamed by the Arab world and liberals worldwide for the suffering of the Iraqis.

So if we comply with world opinion we're vilified, and if we invade Iraq and try to put an end to Hussein's tyranny, then we're arrogantly acting unilaterally, and imperialists and so forth.
Same thing in Afghanistan.
Same thing in Bosnia.
Same thing in Somalia.
Same thing in Haiti.
Same thing in Kosovo.
And other places, I forget.

[ 07-27-2002, 01:52 AM: Message edited by: Dave the Wonder Boy ]