posted
Two weeks ago the Clinton headed peace talks between Arafat (Palestine) and Bakarat (Isreal) suspended. Now, the presidential hopeful of Clinton's party chooses a vice president that, in the eyes of both leaders, shows favor to Isreal.
As religion may not mean as much in our country for our political canidates, a gesture of choosing an Orthodox Jew as a major leader in America to the Palestinian leader is nothing short of hostility. If the Gore ticket is elected, you can be sure Arafat wont be appearing anymore on American soil and no peace will ever be reached for another generation.
I, as many people, could care less about a canidate's religion. Lieberman, being a senior senator for many years, is obviously an experienced politician. Capable of the capacity of vice president. But we're Americans, living in a country based on religious freedom, and we think like that. People in the Middle East don't.
So for the sake of foreign policy, and the chance for a truce between Palestine and Isreal, lets hope Bush/Cheney wins.
------------------ -Small Computer Systems Interface "Scuzzy" Emperor
Operator of the Goulag Hotel, maintainer of the workhouses.
posted
..yeah...especially since they are so close to permanent peace now... (sarcasm implied)
I say, we should just get Iceland, evacuate all the existing residents...stick all the people of Israel, Palestine, the Orangemen and their Protestant friends, Chechnyans and Russians, Cubans and Americans, India and Pakistan there...mix with a nice big spatula and watch the fireworks behind fireproof glass (and bullet-proof...acid-proof...nuclear proof...)
------------------ Efficiency is a highly developed form of laziness. - anon (...and boy am I efficient...) A real diplomat is one who can cut his neighbour�s throat without having his neighbour notice it. � Trygve Lie
posted
The thing you're forgetting is THERE WILL NEVER BE PEACE BETWEEN PALESINE AND ISRAEL. Never.
The peace talks at Camp David were never going to solve anything, and I think it's ignorant to think the good ol' policeman of the world, USA, is going to be the one who helps set things straight between the two.
It's like the discussions we have about gun control. 8 pages and 265 posts later, nothing has changed, nobody's enlightened, and noone's better off.
Then, a month later, it starts again. And again, and again, and again, and never does it ever do anything but allow pompous blowhards to reiterate their position again and again.
As it is with Israel and Palestine. "Israel Good. Need Jerusalem. Religion." "Palestine good. Need Jerusalem. Religion." "Napster good." "Beer good."
Anyway, I think wether or not Lieberman should be elected should rest more on what he can do for the USA than how it will offend Mr. Chief-Terroristo-Arafat.
I just want them both to fucking nuke each other into dog food, so that I could take over their land, and create a nudist colony solely for SI swimsuit models.
In a UNITED STATES presidential election, I think the needs of the UNITED STATES come before all else, even if it means pissing of a country here or there.
------------------ "What happens if a big asteroid hits the Earth? Judging from realistic simulations involving a sledge hammer and a common laboratory frog, we can assume it will be pretty bad." - Dave Barry
posted
I've always liked that forced relocation solution. Just in reverse. Take the Palistinians and stick them in the Australian outback. Take the Israeli and stick them in Siberia. Problem solved.
But for another question: why can't these morons just coexist!? Just make one BIG state with Jerusalem as its capital, with total religious freedom, and EVERYONE's happy. Well, all REASONABLE people, at least. Which may not count for much, upon reflection.
------------------ "The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
quote:I think the needs of the UNITED STATES come before all else, even if it means pissing of a country here or there.
That's where you're wrong, son. The only serious job of a president and its high ranking officials is foreign policy. And as conflicts maybe eternal, and bloodlines different, the US always has to keep the stance of peace and make truce. It is the responsibility for us to douse the flames. Seperate the fighting. In extreme situations, annex the country. But we must promote peace.
And with the promotion of peace comes an impartial stance towards everyone, or at least fooling a leader into an impartial stance. And choosing Lieberman does not convey this important idea. Instead, it does much the opposite.
Pleasing everyone comes in the best interests of you. And you cannot afford to alienate anyone.
------------------ -Small Computer Systems Interface "Scuzzy" Emperor
Operator of the Goulag Hotel, maintainer of the workhouses.
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
Never mind that...have they looked at the land they're claiming? A smart man would claim something like Tahiti as their homeland. But I digress.
I know Joe Lieberman. I've met him, I've worked with his campaign people the last time he ran for re-election. He's not a stupid man. We actually sat & talked for about 45 minutes on Mideast policy; he'd heard me talk about my wargames that I used to run (& I'd LOVE to run an online version of them, but...) & we got to talking. He's a very smart, very intelligent man who knows where the chips fall. As a MAN, as a Jew, he was very much concerned about Israeli tactics about their need to always be right. As a politician, he understood that things are a long, slow arduous process. In many ways, his insight might HELP along the travel down the road becasue he has that rare ability to see both sides of the argument. Given the Israeli propensity to switch from one extreme to the other wit htheir leaders (conservative to liberal & back again), Barak's eventual replacement (& I'm thinking it'll come soon) will most likely be a peacemaker of Begin proportions. My only hope is that Arafat is alive long enough to help secure a good deal, because some of his possible successors as de facto Palestinian spokesperson aren't as mellowed out as he's gotten.
------------------ "Do you know how much YOU'RE worth??.....2.5 million Woolongs. THAT'S your bounty. I SAID you were small fry..." --Spike Spiegel
posted
All nations interact in foriegn policy to protect their own interests. Period. In many cases, foriegn policy and internal interests coincide, BUT, a nation will always go with their own interests before those of other nations.
Please note as well... Clinton's "Mid-East Peace" agenda has nothing to do with anyone in the U.S. He's doing it for his own legacy. He's trying to validate his terms as president. And since they've broken, he has probably made it worse.
posted
Er, why is peace impossible? You do realize that this grudge match between Jews and Palestinians is largely a 20th century invention, don't you?
Saltah'na
Chinese Canadian, or 75% Commie Bastard.
Member # 33
posted
Not really. Jews and Palestinians have had battles all throughout the Bible, if I remember correctly. But the Palestinians in the Bible were not affiliated with Islam at the time. Rather, God seemed to treat them like monsters or something. The Descendants of Joseph were basically chosen people of God, and basically told to kill all the *ahem* sinners.
If I recall correctly, Jerusalem fell to some empire at some point after the NT was written. All the Jews living there were either exiled or massacred. Can someone verify this?
Today, Palestinians are different then the ones in the bible in the sense that they follow a particular religion. But the Jews still want to fight.
Sadly, I predict that another Jewish Holocaust will happen. While Israel's enemies have lost many battles, the enemies have regrouped to become stronger. They will stop at nothing short of the complete annexation of Israel and turning it over to whom they believe are the rightful owners, those of Islamic faith. Israel, meanwhile, seems to be more weakened as these battles drag on. It's only a matter of time when Israel is gone, perhaps for good.
As for Lieberman, I agree. One of the few reasons why I would consider Bush and Cheney.
------------------ "My Name is Elmer Fudd, Millionaire. I own a Mansion and a Yacht." Psychiatrist: "Again."
It seems like everyone but me has met Joe Lieberman. Maybe its because of where I live (Tucson, AZ, where the closest politician I've seen is Mayor Bob Walkup), but I had never heard of Lieberman until a few weeks ago when they were talking about people interested in being on Gore's ticket. I was actually thinking Kerry would of made the perfect running mate for Gore (he has that Vietnam battle hero thing going, as well as a way to wrap up the mid-west). I was also thinking how funny it would be if he picked another Kennedy. There hasn't been a good Kennedy joke for a while.
Anyways, as I said, the man is a great politician. But you can't help anti-semitism [prob sp] one bit, not only with Americans but with your foreign relations. And if Lieberman likes to or not, the more the press touts the ethnic thing, the more it hurts Lieberman.
As its been a modern convention in recent years to send your veep to the Middle East, I couldn't see Lieberman do it. If nothing else for safety issues.
I remember that Henry Kissinger was of Jewish herritage. Like a smart politician, he covered everything up so no one could say anything. Good or bad, so that he stayed an neutral party. And through this careful tact, he handled foreign policy better than any staff member in the 20th century. Mao, Breschnev, both handled wonderfully by Nixon thanks to Kissinger's planning.
It would work to Lieberman's advantage to take Kissinger's strategy.
quote:All the Jews living there were either exiled or massacred. Can someone verify this?
I know that the people there today bow down to the ruins of a second temple, indicating a first one frequented by a different group of Jews, like you said. I believe the first Jews were mostly cycled through Europe, where they lived there marry, or not so marry, ways until they the mass emigration sparked by the holocaust.
Since this isn't my subject, I could be wrong. Though I'm pretty sure about it.
------------------ -Small Computer Systems Interface "Scuzzy" Emperor
Operator of the Goulag Hotel, maintainer of the workhouses.
About 50 years (IIRC) after Christ was crucified, the Hebrews went on a wee rampage and the occupying Romans summarily kicked the shit out of them, culminating in a mass-suicide after a standoff on a cliftop fortress called the Masada (shades of Waco? ) All but a few thousand Hebrews were dispersed across Europe, and the Romans ruled Palestine with an iron fist as a relatively Jewless, pretty Roman, province for the next several hundred years. Then a Kurd named Saladin did a bit off ass-whooping of his own, and from then until about 1900 Palestine was ruled by the non-Hebrew native tribes, collectively referred to today as the "Palestinian Arabs" They adopted Islam, but as Simon said, the few thousand Jews still in Palestine were hardly persecuted. Eventually the area became part of the Ottoman Empire, which brings us up to World War I. That's when things get complex.
------------------ "...I was just up in Canada, Toronto actually. You know, they really hate you guys [Americans] up there? The funny thing is, they think you hate them back, when in fact, you just couldn't be bothered to care. Now in Ireland, it's a different story. At least we had the common decency to wait until the English invaded before we started hating them. I guess the Canadians are hating you in advance..." -Irish Comic Ed Byrne on Canada-US relations
[This message has been edited by The_Tom (edited August 11, 2000).]
posted
Our resident political analyst had these tidbits to share:
1: Gore's probably not going to win anyway. 2: Hillary wants really badly to win in New York. 3: There seem to be a lot of Jewish folks in New York. 4: Having a Jewish VP candidate might make the Democrats (Hillary) look better in the eyes of Jewish voters in New York.
Therefore, this may be a 'if you can't win, help your friend' pick.
And... if you think it might alienate Arafat, think about how it could annoy some of the Democrat's core constituents... BLACKS. After all, the black fringe leadership (Farrakhan, Sharpton, Jessie "Hymietown: Jackson) has been playing up a black/jewish conflict for years and years...
------------------ "Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi
[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited August 11, 2000).]
) All but a few thousand Hebrews were dispersed across Europe, and the Romans ruled Palestine with an iron fist as a relatively Jewless, pretty Roman, province for the next several hundred years. Then a Kurd named Saladin did a bit off ass-whooping of his own, and from then until about 1900 Palestine was ruled by the non-Hebrew native tribes, collectively referred to today as the "Palestinian Arabs" They adopted Islam, but as Simon said, the few thousand Jews still in Palestine were hardly persecuted. Eventually the area became part of the Ottoman Empire, which brings us up to World War I. That's when things get complex.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
