bi-national state

[passingby]

hi

do you think a bi-national state in israel will bring peace between palestine and israelis?

[Lateralus]

No, this would just create a two-class society. They just need to fight it out until one side submits.

[Magic Poriferan]

They just need to fight it out until one side submits.

In summary: They will eliminate each other.

[Lateralus]

In summary: They will eliminate each other.
Probably not. But if a culture is so stubborn that it won't change, even when faced with oblivion, I say let them.

[Oberon]

If the Palestinians and their allies would quit attacking, the sporadic fighting would end. The Israelis would gladly live and let live... they need Palis like we in the US need Mexicans.

[IlyaK1986]

A bi-national state? You mean Israel's national suicide? Funny. No.

If the Palestinians wouldn't attack, Israel would have no need to resort to the tactics it does.

If it had been the Israelis with the rocks and poorly guided rockets and rifles and the Palestinians with the tanks and fighter jets, everyone knows there'd be no Israel.

But I say the world's opinion is hypocrisy anyway. America manifested its own destiny by kicking a lot of Indian and Mexican ass. Remember that in the beginning, everything west of the 13 colonies was uncivilized aside from a few Spanish colonies in California.

So too do I think Israel has the right to manifest its own destiny.

[Night]

hi

do you think a bi-national state in israel will bring peace between palestine and israelis?

In doing so, you're eroding the sense of autonomy each is willing to sacrifice generations of soldiers to "protect".

Not a realistic negotiation to broker.

[AllAboutSoul]

Nope, not till Jesus comes. No peace till then. This was said by a Palestinian Christian when asked if there would ever be peace there.

I agree with him.

[passingby]

I'm in accord with the fact that Israel won't easily be prepared to give up their one Jewish state goal nor will Palestine give up their national identity. Both sides would have to agree in order to make this work. And I think it's far fetched anyway.

But what if the US government stop aiding Israel and open votes for all people living there? Another question, even if a binational state does become a reality, under what ever circumstances, do you think it will bring peace? And why?

Many thanks :)

[IlyaK1986]

Anyone that thinks the U.S. will end its support of Israel is a fool.

Put it this way: if Israel was this evil nation that Palestinians made it out to be, they wouldn't be alive to cry about how evil it is. They'd all be dead by carpet bombing and tank shelling.

Palestinians try to murder civilians. Israelis use percision guided bombs to try and minimize collateral damage.

The burden of peace is NOT on Israel.

Edit: If there were two states, the only way there'd be peace is if the Palestinians stopped attacking Israel. The end. But that won't happen, because most Palestinians hate Israel anyway.

[pure_mercury]

Anyone that thinks the U.S. will end its support of Israel is a fool.

Put it this way: if Israel was this evil nation that Palestinians made it out to be, they wouldn't be alive to cry about how evil it is. They'd all be dead by carpet bombing and tank shelling.

Palestinians try to murder civilians. Israelis use percision guided bombs to try and minimize collateral damage.

The burden of peace is NOT on Israel.

Edit: If there were two states, the only way there'd be peace is if the Palestinians stopped attacking Israel. The end. But that won't happen, because most Palestinians hate Israel anyway.


I support that State of Israel, but to imply that Israelis have never done anything wrong or punitive to the Palestinians is just not right.

[Edahn]

I'm all for a bisexual state, especially because Israelis are hot.

[Night]

I hear that!

Benjamin Netanyahu seems like an unselfish kisser.

[Oberon]

I support that State of Israel, but to imply that Israelis have never done anything wrong or punitive to the Palestinians is just not right.

I don't think that's the thrust of what he was saying.

I think the point is that the Israelis don't seek the utter destruction of the Palis, while the Palis do seek the utter destruction of the Israelis.

The PLO still considers itself under mandate to push the Israelis into the sea. If the Palestinians quit attacking, there would be peace.

That doesn't make the Israelis innocent, of course; there's blame for both sides.

[pure_mercury]

I don't think that's the thrust of what he was saying.

I think the point is that the Israelis don't seek the utter destruction of the Palis, while the Palis do seek the utter destruction of the Israelis.

The PLO still considers itself under mandate to push the Israelis into the sea. If the Palestinians quit attacking, there would be peace.

That doesn't make the Israelis innocent, of course; there's blame for both sides.

I honestly do not believe that the majority of Palestinians still want to destroy Israel. Not through slaying every last Israeli, anyway.

[Oberon]

I honestly do not believe that the majority of Palestinians still want to destroy Israel. Not through slaying every last Israeli, anyway.

Probably not, but they have repeatedly chosen policy makers who do.

[pure_mercury]

Probably not, but they have repeatedly chosen policy makers who do.

I'll cut them a little slack in that regard, because they had no leaders besides terrorists for 40+ years. There is a long road to hoe left, but Israel is responsible for some of it. If you go back in time, the biggest problems were the British Mandate and the hamhanded way the Western powers carved out the State of Israel post-WWII.

[IlyaK1986]

I support that State of Israel, but to imply that Israelis have never done anything wrong or punitive to the Palestinians is just not right.

War isn't about who is right. It's about who is left. If you were surrounded on all sides by people that actively try to kill you, I'd say you killing *them* would be perfectly justifiable.

In fact, the world would be a lot better of a place without people that try to actively kill everyone in the free world in the name of their religion.

[pure_mercury]

War isn't about who is right. It's about who is left. If you were surrounded on all sides by people that actively try to kill you, I'd say you killing *them* would be perfectly justifiable.

In fact, the world would be a lot better of a place without people that try to actively kill everyone in the free world in the name of their religion.

This argument is about more than just Allah vs. Yahweh (who are the same god, BTW).

[IlyaK1986]

Of course. But if a group of people are trying to kill you, and not for political reasons, but because they believe it is their god-given command to do so, should we REALLY trying to be pushing for a PEACE with those people?

Until they don't believe that, in my book, they might as well be dead, because if they won't be killed, they'll throw their own lives away just to kill others.

[pure_mercury]

Of course. But if a group of people are trying to kill you, and not for political reasons, but because they believe it is their god-given command to do so, should we REALLY trying to be pushing for a PEACE with those people?

Until they don't believe that, in my book, they might as well be dead, because if they won't be killed, they'll throw their own lives away just to kill others.

I don't believe that the majority of Palestinian extremists are solely (or even primarily) religiously motivated. They have a land dispute with what they consider to be foreign occupiers. The fact that it's the Holy Land for the Abrahamic religions just inflames people more.

[Dom]

I'll cut them a little slack in that regard, because they had no leaders besides terrorists for 40+ years. There is a long road to hoe left, but Israel is responsible for some of it. If you go back in time, the biggest problems were the British Mandate and the hamhanded way the Western powers carved out the State of Israel post-WWII.

Yep, never have had this kind of problem if we'd proped up the Ottoman Empire some more, but post WWI no one wanted to, apart from Britain.

It is similar to the problems partitian and empire made in India. Different religeous groups seem to manage to get on when one is not rulling the other. Arab and Jew co-existed prior to the balfour decalration fine (that was actually made to try to intice Amercia into WWI and had little to do with what was happening in palestine at the time). Mulsim and Hindu in India mostly got on with each other until devolved government was likely to give one or the other power which overarched or unfairly represented one faction over the other. Then the system started to disintegrate into a near civil war. So while arab and jew lived under a practicaly secular ottoman rule and Hindu and Muslim co-existed well enough under the British Raj.

[Dom]

I don't believe that the majority of Palestinian extremists are solely (or even primarily) religiously motivated. They have a land dispute with what they consider to be foreign occupiers. The fact that it's the Holy Land for the Abrahamic religions just inflames people more.

The land itself is of far greater religious value to the Israeli side...

[pure_mercury]

The land itself is of far greater religious value to the Israeli side...

I know several committed Zionists who are actually agnostics. Like I wrote before, it's about more than just the religious aspect. It's about cultural identity and the concept of "homeland" and what it means to be a Jew for them.

[Peguy]

The Jewish philosopher Martin Buber was in favor of a bi-national state, even if it meant having an Arab minority.

[IlyaK1986]

I don't believe that the majority of Palestinian extremists are solely (or even primarily) religiously motivated. They have a land dispute with what they consider to be foreign occupiers. The fact that it's the Holy Land for the Abrahamic religions just inflames people more.

Religious, political, whatever. The fact is that we have a bunch of people taking every chance they get to kill Israelis.

If they were all carpet bombed to death, we wouldn't have any more of these issues.

America itself wiped out a heck of a lot of Indians and Mexicans in order to stretch from "sea to shining sea". To not stand behind Israel in whatever it deems necessary to defend itself IMO is hypocrisy of the highest order.

Why does the world care about the Palestinians? What do they do that make them worth caring about? They're a parasite on the world.

[ajblaise]

Sorry my Jewish friends, but the only way for peace is for yall to bounce out of the Middle East.

[Bella]

Never!! It's their God-given land.

[Dom]

Religious, political, whatever. The fact is that we have a bunch of people taking every chance they get to kill Israelis.

If they were all carpet bombed to death, we wouldn't have any more of these issues.

America itself wiped out a heck of a lot of Indians and Mexicans in order to stretch from "sea to shining sea". To not stand behind Israel in whatever it deems necessary to defend itself IMO is hypocrisy of the highest order.

Why does the world care about the Palestinians? What do they do that make them worth caring about? They're a parasite on the world.

Because they are human beings. Frankly at the time the US destroyed the Native Americans, and then created false reason for stealing land form the Mexicans, the free world had accepted imperialism as a right and proper consideration. It was their moral duty to colonies the world and bring civilisation and Christianity to the masses. America joined in with their "Manifest Destiny" as much as the older nations of Europe. To consider action taken in 1970 as being justified as they appear similar to those taken in the 19th century is ridiculous.


I know several committed Zionists who are actually agnostics. Like I wrote before, it's about more than just the religious aspect. It's about cultural identity and the concept of "homeland" and what it means to be a Jew for them.

Sadly this also belongs in another century. They had a homeland, and they decided it wasn't 'complete' the justification for the seven days wars, a war of conquest; a plain and simple land grab, was the scriptural description of the territorial limits of the promised land. The lines on the map that the Zionists want are religious and bear no resemblance to any MODERN claims to land. These are nearly always rejected but are made on the case of ethnicity of the population. As I said in 1967 there was a secure Israeli state, it went to war not to create a homeland, they had that already, they conquered someone else's because they wanted more land. That seriously belongs in a different century too. A Zionist that doesn't believe in God who then wants Solomon's national borders or even the ones promised but never realised doesn't even have the flimsy recourse to religion with which to attempt to justify their greed.

If the UK attempted to press claims to their old possessions in France the world would assume they lost their minds.

[Eileen]

I don't know enough about this topic to feel okay going on at length about it. But here are the things I have heard:

-the state of Israel was formed after WWII as a location for displaced Jews (kind of as a reparation?). [Wikipedia seems to suggest that this was actually happening before WWII, around WWI... was this an effort merely by Zionists, or was it an effort encouraged by antisemites who wanted European Jews out?]

-the land was actually purchased from Palestinians; so it wasn't really like the land was STOLEN and that the Jews are OCCUPIERS. However, if this was done in a heavy-handed way by the UN, it might make sense that the Palestinians perceive the situation as theft, even if they technically were compensated.

-Palestinians have been the prime aggressors. To what are they responding, though? Are they just attacking to be aggressive and defend their concept of what's "theirs," or are there civil rights issues as well? I am not asking a question that I know the answer to here!

-It seems that the Great Britain was involved. Are there some colonialism or post-colonialism issues here that ought to be recognized when sorting out blame?

-Each side seems to have denied or actively deny that the other side exists or has a right to exist.

-It seems that Palestinians have (I haven't looked it up right now, and I don't have time to) complained about the treatment of Palestinians by Israeli soldiers and such, and they have complained about essentially being forced into "ghettos." Again, this is just something I vaguely remember reading about.

My impression has always been (now, this is an impression that I admit may come from not having enough information) that somehow, the UN or League of Nations fucked up by imposing the state of Israel on Palestine--even if the Palestinians were technically compensated. Also, it seems to me that each side has actually hurt the other and neither is merely a victim. Terrorism is not a good way for Palestine to handle these issues, for sure... it seems that Palestine lacks appropriate leadership since they repeatedly resort to those tactics instead of real diplomacy.




Here's the one thing I DO feel pretty sure about, though: The US is all up in Israel because of the religious right. Fundamentalists believe that Israel must exist for Jesus to return, and they see support of Israel as necessary for facilitating the second coming. It is FUCKED UP. Do I know what we should do? Nope (but thankfully, I suppose, I'm not in a position to be in charge.... unlike some other people who probably don't know what we should do either).

[Lateralus]

Balfour Declaration of 1917 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration_of_1917)

[Victor]

If the UK attempted to press claims to their old possessions in France the world would assume they lost their minds.

Frankly, I regret the loss of Calais.

And whenever I meet a Frenchie on the bus, particularly if she is pretty, I ask - no demand - she return Calais.

For reasons I don't understand, I get a sweet smile and a patient explanation that Calais is French.

Naturally I demur and our conversation continues over milk coffee and croissants. And we reach an agreement in principle over Calais.

But not so with Yankees, pretty or not. Naturally I demand to know what happened to Les Darcy and to Phar Lap.

All I get is a strange look as though I have lost my mind.

As I am highly suggestible, I do feel I have lost my mind. Then I think I should mention Calais, then I realise that would even be worse.

And worse still, there is no milk coffee and croissants or an agreement in principle.

And I am, as you know, a man of principle.

[pure_mercury]

Here's the one thing I DO feel pretty sure about, though: The US is all up in Israel because of the religious right. Fundamentalists believe that Israel must exist for Jesus to return, and they see support of Israel as necessary for facilitating the second coming. It is FUCKED UP. Do I know what we should do? Nope (but thankfully, I suppose, I'm not in a position to be in charge.... unlike some other people who probably don't know what we should do either).

That is actually one thing you SHOULDN'T be sure about, because it's pretty inaccurate. ;) Israel has been #1 or #2 on the list of countries with most foreign aid from the U.S. since its inception, and the Religious Right were not a coherent political force in the United States at all until the 1970s. The main reason we've been such close friends is because there is a large and very wealthy Jewish lobby in the United States that is very pro-Israel. They are highly influential in American politics, and the influence is disproportionate to their population. I am not decrying this (many who do decry are, in fact, anti-Semites); I am just pointing out a reality. Jewish people are wealthier than average in the United States, and they are more politically active.

[Dom]

I don't know enough about this topic to feel okay going on at length about it. But here are the things I have heard:

-the state of Israel was formed after WWII as a location for displaced Jews (kind of as a reparation?). [Wikipedia seems to suggest that this was actually happening before WWII, around WWI... was this an effort merely by Zionists, or was it an effort encouraged by antisemites who wanted European Jews out?]


During world war 1 the British empire unilaterally declared that it would attempt to find a "home" (it did not say a independent state) for the Jews. IT is widely considered by historians as an attempt to get the Jewish/Zionist suicide bombers and other freedom fighting/terrorist actions to stop as this was destabilizing a vital area during the second world war. It is also agreed that a measure of this declaration was to encourage the Americans to join the war (WWI).


-the land was actually purchased from Palestinians; so it wasn't really like the land was STOLEN and that the Jews are OCCUPIERS. However, if this was done in a heavy-handed way by the UN, it might make sense that the Palestinians perceive the situation as theft, even if they technically were compensated.

This I've never heard about so I'm off to have a lookise, but my instincts suggest that if this happened it was probably not as straight forward as it sounds, it was probably unilateral, compulsory and not to true market value and certainly left the evicted/sellers, with no where to go. There is a reason 4 million Palestinians live in refugee camps. I'm also pretty sure any UN action of this kind would have been vetoed and the league never had anything like this much power. As I'm unsure about this I'll say little else on it.


-Palestinians have been the prime aggressors. To what are they responding, though? Are they just attacking to be aggressive and defend their concept of what's "theirs," or are there civil rights issues as well? I am not asking a question that I know the answer to here!


Again I'm unsure I can qualify much, the Palestinians were not the original aggressors though, there was Zionist freedom fighting/terrorist action way before WW2 but practically nothing prior to WWI.


-It seems that the Great Britain was involved. Are there some colonialism or post-colonialism issues here that ought to be recognized when sorting out blame?


Britain was given a League of Nations Mandate to protect, secure and control the area after WW1. This was seen as necessary as the old ottoman empire (which Palestine had been a Provence of) was collapsing. Before being given the mandate the British attempted to prop up and defend the Sultan as dictate by part of the Versailles settlement. No other nation (including the Dominions Canada, Auz, NZ and SA) were prepared to put troops on the ground. Breaking the ottoman empire into smaller mandates was preferred. The area we know today as Syria was mandated to France as another example. Britain Proposed the two state compromise in 1947, after WW2, when it became apparent that they did not have the means to prevent general civil war between the Zionist and Arab populations. The British compromise was accepted by the Palestinians but not the Zionists and used population densities as the main means to draw the borders. Subsequent UN resolutions to suggest that the legal borders be set upon this compromise have been consistently vetoed by the US. Everything has become worse since then.

The original draft, agreed to by Truman and others, for the declaration of the independence of a new Jewish state included territorial limits mostly agreed upon by both sides. When the declaration was finally made it excluded any mention of borders. Truman was placed in the position of deciding whether to recognize the new state or not (and thus commit political suicide). Effectively he recognized Israel's right to exist without agreeing to her borders or limits to the territory she could claim. Ever since then the US has steadfastly defended Israel in the security council and with what is now about $B of annual military aid.


-Each side seems to have denied or actively deny that the other side exists or has a right to exist.


Yeah, it wasn't always this bad but things are really a mess these days.


-It seems that Palestinians have (I haven't looked it up right now, and I don't have time to) complained about the treatment of Palestinians by Israeli soldiers and such, and they have complained about essentially being forced into "ghettos." Again, this is just something I vaguely remember reading about.

This is the 4 million Palestinian refugees that live in camps (or slum cities) they were displaced during the 7 days war in 1967. There was a quiet period in between with two nations existing in 1967 Israel occupied the west bank and Gaza strip and continued to do so until the 1990's since which they maintain external control and their right to move through over and do what they like in these territories but had handed over every day running of them to the Palestinian authority which is elected (and thus currently controlled by Hamas) The displaced have not been allowed to return from whence they came.


My impression has always been (now, this is an impression that I admit may come from not having enough information) that somehow, the UN or League of Nations fucked up by imposing the state of Israel on Palestine--even if the Palestinians were technically compensated. Also, it seems to me that each side has actually hurt the other and neither is merely a victim. Terrorism is not a good way for Palestine to handle these issues, for sure... it seems that Palestine lacks appropriate leadership since they repeatedly resort to those tactics instead of real diplomacy.


The UN nor the league imposed the state of Israel on Palestine, every attempt to agree on borders for a two state system resulted/s in being vetoed by either the US or France, Russia depending on who proposed it. Israel exists due to a unilateral declaration of independence, which was legitimized by Truman's recognition of the new state. A decent solution was made even more difficult when the two cold war super powers decided to champion one cause against the other.

As for terror verses real diplomacy yes the Palestine's have a credibility issue. They elected Hamas who is definitely a terrorist organization. Prior to that the PLO under Yasser Arafat ran it, but sadly in a corrupt fashion. However it is very difficult to effectively govern millions of people you can barely feed, he at least managed to do that, arrange some aid form the international community (aid which has been suspended since Hamas took over) even if he was stealing part of it, he also seemed to be prepared to at least discuss a solution. His inability to restrain Hamas was often interpreted as his unwillingness to do so, the fact Hamas had a shoot out with the PLO after his death certainly demonstrates that he probably was unable to control them rather than unwilling.


Here's the one thing I DO feel pretty sure about, though: The US is all up in Israel because of the religious right. Fundamentalists believe that Israel must exist for Jesus to return, and they see support of Israel as necessary for facilitating the second coming. It is FUCKED UP. Do I know what we should do? Nope (but thankfully, I suppose, I'm not in a position to be in charge.... unlike some other people who probably don't know what we should do either).

I find trying to explain the way the US is involved very difficult. With no real national interest at stake; normal geo/real political interpretations fail to explain the situation. And the problems began with Truman's recognition of the border-less Israel, which was before the cold war had even kicked off properly so using the coverall cold war explanation doesn't fit either. I have to agree that some other ideological reason is the cause.

It is incredibly sad that there seems to be no answer to these issues and I can see no hope for a future until either Hamas is gone or the international community decides that their election by the Palestine people legitimized them, I hope not as that would encourage other violent NGO's around the world.

At this stage arguing about who's fault it is and who started wont help, but as nothing else will either it's pretty much all we can do.

[IlyaK1986]

Because they are human beings.

To consider action taken in 1970 as being justified as they appear similar to those taken in the 19th century is ridiculous.




Sadly this also belongs in another century. They had a homeland, and they decided it wasn't 'complete' the justification for the seven days wars, a war of conquest; a plain and simple land grab, was the scriptural description of the territorial limits of the promised land. The lines on the map that the Zionists want are religious and bear no resemblance to any MODERN claims to land. These are nearly always rejected but are made on the case of ethnicity of the population. As I said in 1967 there was a secure Israeli state, it went to war not to create a homeland, they had that already, they conquered someone else's because they wanted more land. That seriously belongs in a different century too. A Zionist that doesn't believe in God who then wants Solomon's national borders or even the ones promised but never realised doesn't even have the flimsy recourse to religion with which to attempt to justify their greed.

If the UK attempted to press claims to their old possessions in France the world would assume they lost their minds.

1) Define human being. Someone who speaks and walks on two legs? This whole concept of "too big a price now" means far more will happen in the long run.

2) Is it ridiculous? In fact, Israel has FAR more justification for doing what it does than America did for its manifest destiny.

3) You know *nothing*. 1967 was NOT an Israeli offensive. 1967 was 6 nations trying to destroy Israel in one strike, and then getting crushed. In return, Israel took land as a punitive repayment. Whether it was greed or not, would you rather that land go to people that try to kill Israelis day in and day out? And don't say that's nonsense--they *elected* Hamas, with FULL knowledge of their history.

4) What?

[Dom]

1) Define human being. Someone who speaks and walks on two legs? This whole concept of "too big a price now" means far more will happen in the long run.


They are human beings, as in homo sapiens and therefore just allowing their wholesale destruction would be nothing more than allowing and condoning an Islamic holocaust. Maybe that would be what it would take to bring peace to the region that sure as hell doesn't make it right. They may appear to ahve little value to the world, but then crammed into the refugee camps and devoid of money and any hope of economic growth it is hardly supprising that they are not able to contrbute much.


2) Is it ridiculous? In fact, Israel has FAR more justification for doing what it does than America did for its manifest destiny.


No I find both justifications utterly lacking accept in terms on national aggrandizement, prestige and power. Exactly the kinds of justifications the west left behind as civilized behavior many decades ago.


3) You know *nothing*. 1967 was NOT an Israeli offensive. 1967 was 6 nations trying to destroy Israel in one strike, and then getting crushed. In return, Israel took land as a punitive repayment. Whether it was greed or not, would you rather that land go to people that try to kill Israelis day in and day out? And don't say that's nonsense--they *elected* Hamas, with FULL knowledge of their history.


Yes, I know that the surrounding nations all went to war with Israel in 1967, I know they got beat, and Israel took what she wanted in punitive measure. I find it amusing that it does become difficult to claim God wasn't on their side when you see how outnumbered they were. However, the taking of this land was in line with earlier claims and certainly did not help to make Israel any more popular with her neighbors. Also it is hard to see how Israel would have won it if it had not been for the military aid she was receiving from the US. Also it is Israel that made the first move with their pre-emptive strike on Egyptian air force, so lets not be too hasty to say the Arabs started it? Calls for united action are only calls, sadly the Israeli's gave them a reason to combine... maybe that is what they wanted anyway... In fact Nasser had warned that ""If Israel embarks on an aggression against Syria or Egypt, the battle against Israel will be a general one and not confined to one spot on the Syrian or Egyptian borders." I personally consider an attack made before a DoW to be an act of aggression.

They elected Hamas while Hamas had control of their streets having fought for them against the PLO and they turned to what we consider an evil group in desperation. I think their choice was utterly self defeating and they are paying a price for it. People do stupid things when they are desperate.

And as for how violent the Palestinians are, who was it that assassinated Rabin? Oh I believe it was Israelis.... after all how dare he suggest there may be some hope of a two nation compromised negotiated settlement?


4) What?
Oh something you don't know about? How surprising.

[Oberon]

During world war 1 the British empire unilaterally declared that it would attempt to find a "home" (it did not say a independent state) for the Jews.

The piece of the puzzle that nobody will tell you about is that at the time, Jews were about as popular in the West as gypsies, or perhaps a raging case of the clap. They were parked on a reservation in Palestine because A) the Brits had a lot of cheap real estate there, and B) nobody else would take them. Just because the Allies liberated the death camps doesn't mean that the Allied countries were not still deeply anti-Semitic. One of the reasons that the UK was divided over the war for so long was that a lot of Brits thought Hitler had some pretty good ideas.

So these displaced Ashkenazim moved into what had been a dusty, dreary backwater and promptly established one of the most vibrant and prosperous cultures on the Mediterranean, using sheer brilliance and determination to get the job done.

[pure_mercury]

So these displaced Ashkenazim moved into what had been a dusty, dreary backwater and promptly established one of the most vibrant and prosperous cultures on the Mediterranean, using sheer brilliance and determination to get the job done.

And billions of American dollars. I think Israel is great, but let's not be triumphalist here. That country gets very special treatment from the West and has gotten it in since Day 1.

[Oberon]

And billions of American dollars. I think Israel is great, but let's not be triumphalist here. That country gets very special treatment from the West and has gotten it in since Day 1.

Well, yes. Granted.

But then, why should I be 'triumphalist'? I don't particularly identify with the Israelis. I just admire them.

[IlyaK1986]

And billions of American dollars. I think Israel is great, but let's not be triumphalist here. That country gets very special treatment from the West and has gotten it in since Day 1.

Yes, just like many other countries. What's your point?

All I know is that if it meant the end of extremism and a price only the Islamic world had to pay, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

[millerm277]

And billions of American dollars. I think Israel is great, but let's not be triumphalist here. That country gets very special treatment from the West and has gotten it in since Day 1.

Definitely. The reasoning seems simple as to why this is the case:

1. We have a large Pro-Israel lobby, and they push for support. Not supporting Israel comes off as Anti-Semitic, so politicians are happy to oblige. The large Jewish population in South Florida also gives Jews a sizable hand in elections, which results in politicians not wanting to risk offending them. Also, as Jews are generally among the wealthier people around, they have more ability to "get what they want" politically.

2. Israel is a Democratic country that's very friendly to us in an area where we don't have a ton of allies. As such, it becomes very valuable, from a military and political perspective because of that. (See South Korea and Taiwan for other examples.

[Enyo]

Yes, just like many other countries. What's your point?

All I know is that if it meant the end of extremism and a price only the Islamic world had to pay, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

Why the hate-on for Islam?

[IlyaK1986]

Why the hate-on for Islam?

Let's see here...walking eyesores, terrorism every day, demanding special treatment from everyone around, and using their religion founded by a pedophile (he had sex with a 9 year old girl) warlord (he led an army to conquer) as an excuse for all of that, so I say BS.

If anyone else acted the way Muslims did without calling their reasoning religious, they'd be ridiculed. But because Islam is labeled as a religion, all of the sudden, we have to make an effort to understand these people and not discriminate them based on "religion".

I say we pierce their religious veil just like we pierce the corporate veil.

To me, anyone that wears a headscarf is blindly believing in 1400 year old nonsense and shouldn't be let near any job which requires independent thought. Anyone that takes five timeouts during a day to pray shouldn't be let near any position which requires a time commitment.

Religion is NOT a free pass to act like assholes. Jews have realized this, Christians have realized this, and just about every single religion in the world has realized this, except for Islam. No, they can't adapt. Everyone has to make special permissions for them.

People that kill while shouting ALLAH AKBAR aren't Muslims, no...they're "extremists". Well, where the heck are the extremists from the other 80% of the world's population? Gee, that's a tough one.

Islam is BS. If practitioners would actually practice their religion PRIVATELY and not use it for political gains, I'd be tolerant. But this is bullshit.

Yes, there are good Muslims that actually practice their religion in a respectable way. Too bad.

You shouldn't judge how good a woman looks when she gets dolled up, but by how she looks after the Saturday wild night party without her makeup and her hair done and all that.

So too should you not judge a religion by the rational people, but by how bad it can get.

That's the cornerstone of Risk Management. Nobody gives a damn how much money you can make off of a venture if you're going to get wiped out if it goes wrong. So too do I not care how many good Muslims are in this world. I'll judge each one on a case by case basis. It does nothing to absolve their religion.

[Enyo]

*snippage of a bunch of ignorance*

I love seeing rabid bigotry first thing in the morning.

[Oberon]

I love seeing rabid bigotry first thing in the morning.

I am reluctant to defend bigotry, but I cannot help but notice that the world hasn't exactly been racked lately with violent uprisings by radical Zoroastrians either.

What I'm saying is, Ilya may be misinterpreting the matter out of ignorance, but it's not because there's no correlation to observe.

[Enyo]

I am reluctant to defend bigotry, but I cannot help but notice that the world hasn't exactly been racked lately with violent uprisings by radical Zoroastrians either.

What I'm saying is, Ilya may be misinterpreting the matter out of ignorance, but it's not because there's no correlation to observe.

I'm not disagreeing that there is currently more violent episodes perpetrated by Islamic extremists in the name of religion than any other group at this time. I have no objection to that, because that is well-publicized information, whether it is accurate or not. (I am not saying it is or isn't accurate. I'm saying that if there are Christian extremists out there killing Muslims, we're not hearing about it.)

My only issue with Ilya is that she is misinterpreting the matter out of ignorance. However, to so ardently defend that ignorance and wear it with such pride moves it strictly into the realm of bigotry.

[IlyaK1986]

First, I am a HE. What am I misinterpreting out of ignorance? I'm not talking about historical body count, because historically, the Christians have long LEARNED that trying to convert people by the sword doesn't really work, and we haven't seen extremist Christianity in CENTURIES. I'm talking about a 21st century body count.

Sure, there are some really stupid preachers like Jeremiah Wright. However, while Christians might preach fire and brimstone and death and apocalypse to those that want to listen, it's Islam that tries to make everyone accomodate it and claim that it's a religion of peace--and it will kill anyone that disagrees.

I have friends that are Muslims that observe Islam the way everone willing to give it the benefit of the doubt does--as a monotheistic religion with its own customs, that are tolerant of others' beliefs and ideologies and all of that.

That does nothing to paint Islam in a better light.

To me, all religions are bullshit that were made up thousands of years ago by people who were secularly more stupid than a fourth grader is today. However, since then, all other religions have practiced in peace and not flown planes into buildings, detonated bombs in Israeli restaurants, or just caused all sorts of massacres in places that I can't really be bothered to remember the exact names of.

If Islam wasn't making such a horrible name for itself, I'd have nothing against it. But, given the numbers in my lifetime, Islam TRIES to make itself hated. Sorry, I'm no idealist. I don't give religions the benefit of the doubt. I see observations, and I draw conclusions. Conclusion? All religions are bullshit, but at least they don't bother anyone. Islam simply needs to be ostracized.

[Cenara]

One that focuses on progression at a world scale, and I mean industrial progress and construction such as the angle by which Ilya is coming from (or so I assume), I can understand why Islam comes off as highly perplexing for that type of individual. And why wouldn't it, for the reasons outlined in his/her post among other underlying facts that provide a logical basis of a particular premise.

However, that should be whole different subject matter to that of religious beliefs. It's not wise to deem a religion false or founded by a peadophile whatsoever - simply because there are a collective within the Islamic society that are willing to make belief a personal matter (they respect their Islamic belief system) and politics as well as other subjects as a complete separate issue. Will you then, say, these very rational and reasonable individuals follow a religion founded by a "peadophile"?

This is how I am able to see Ilya's point and it's more or less mine too, with a few exceptions.

Anyhow, back on topic - I don't think binational will bring peace between both sides, not unless a few barriers are overcome, but that requires both sides willing to co-operate. Easier said and imagined than done. However, a binational will reduce the level of hostility.

[Oberon]

Oooh, time for popcorn!

:popc1:

[Jack Flak]

Frankly, I regret the loss of Calais.

And whenever I meet a Frenchie on the bus, particularly if she is pretty, I ask - no demand - she return Calais.

For reasons I don't understand, I get a sweet smile and a patient explanation that Calais is French.

Naturally I demur and our conversation continues over milk coffee and croissants. And we reach an agreement in principle over Calais.

But not so with Yankees, pretty or not. Naturally I demand to know what happened to Les Darcy and to Phar Lap.

All I get is a strange look as though I have lost my mind.

As I am highly suggestible, I do feel I have lost my mind. Then I think I should mention Calais, then I realise that would even be worse.

And worse still, there is no milk coffee and croissants or an agreement in principle.

And I am, as you know, a man of principle.
Somehow, this is also the post of the week, along with your other post of the week.

[IlyaK1986]

Cenara, I don't disregard the existence of a rational, kind collective in that religion. I have friends that are Muslims, and all the Muslims I know and have known were good people that don't go shouting ALLAH AKBAR and trying to make life miserable for Jews and Christians and Atheists and Agnostics and Jewish Agnostics (like myself). That doesn't make the religion any more right.

And a bi-national state is nonsense. In order to have a state, you actually have to want your people to prosper. All of the speeches made by Palestinian leaders show that Palestinians don't give a damn about themselves. They're trying to exterminate Israelis. And until they love their children more than they hate the Jews, this is a moot point. And so long as you have a group of people intent on wiping out another, that is justification enough for me to say "they're trying to kill us all. Morals out the window. If it's a matter of life and death, I say kill *them* all instead."

[Oberon]

Frankly, I regret the loss of Calais.

And whenever I meet a Frenchie on the bus, particularly if she is pretty, I ask - no demand - she return Calais.


No reason to stop there. You have precedent to demand the entirety of the old Angevin empire, not to mention the Aquitaine.

Which is not to say that you could ever actually get them back, but they are valuable bargaining chips that might be traded in consideration, say, for services rendered.

If only the Queen knew of your diplomatic efforts on behalf of the Kingdom. :D

[Dom]

No reason to stop there. You have precedent to demand the entirety of the old Angevin empire, not to mention the Aquitaine.

Which is not to say that you could ever actually get them back, but they are valuable bargaining chips that might be traded in consideration, say, for services rendered.

If only the Queen knew of your diplomatic efforts on behalf of the Kingdom. :D

I made reference to this a while back... Ah yes... from the shetland Islands to the Spanish border... Them were the days...

[Dom]

The piece of the puzzle that nobody will tell you about is that at the time, Jews were about as popular in the West as gypsies, or perhaps a raging case of the clap. They were parked on a reservation in Palestine because A) the Brits had a lot of cheap real estate there, and B) nobody else would take them. Just because the Allies liberated the death camps doesn't mean that the Allied countries were not still deeply anti-Semitic. One of the reasons that the UK was divided over the war for so long was that a lot of Brits thought Hitler had some pretty good ideas.


I really tried to just let thisgo but as a student of British history I love to learn...

Who are these masses of Nazi sympathisers? And I hope you are not confusing people who prefered to have peace, if they could, with people who liked Hitler's final solution or any of his policies? Also what is this division in Britain "over the war for so long" that you mention? I'd also point out that the supposedly Jewish friendly US stayed out of it till they were bombed into waking up some twp years and two months after everyone else realised there was a problem...

Britain herself had a very small Jewish community and so her decision to create a "Home" for them certainly not an attempt to get rid of them, and if it had Britain had lots of other cheap real estate that she could have offered. The declaration was made to impress America and to keep a lid on Zionist terror activity in the Levaniant at the time.

[Cenara]

And a bi-national state is nonsense. In order to have a state, you actually have to want your people to prosper. All of the speeches made by Palestinian leaders show that Palestinians don't give a damn about themselves. They're trying to exterminate Israelis. And until they love their children more than they hate the Jews, this is a moot point. And so long as you have a group of people intent on wiping out another, that is justification enough for me to say "they're trying to kill us all. Morals out the window. If it's a matter of life and death, I say kill *them* all instead."

Greetings Ilya,

If religious motives and motives alike were to be set aside, energies can be focused on the infrastructural benefit of Israelis and Palestinians - that means their basic necessities are covered such as health, housing, education and so forth. Will a bi-national state cater for this? One of the implications is the apartheid society, which will require gradual change for the poorer of the two if, and only if they allow this gradual progress to take place. Otherwise the worst that can happen is conflict again. For this reason I can see a binational as a potential solution, however realistically, by taking into account the strong natonalism that both sides hold plus the suspicion and misgiving nature one to the other from Israelies and Palestinians, there's a slim chance of the ideal picture kicking into play. One can almost predict the consequences of holding tight to personal whims and motives - it is these very motives of both sides that need to be eliminated should anyone want peace in the land.

But, if they choose to ignore these realities that are the cause of hostilities, then they're really not set for peace, hence let them kill each other. It's not something which I decide but they decide by and between themselves given the choices they could or would have made otherwise.

[Oberon]

I really tried to just let thisgo but as a student of British history I love to learn...

Who are these masses of Nazi sympathisers? And I hope you are not confusing people who prefered to have peace, if they could, with people who liked Hitler's final solution or any of his policies? Also what is this division in Britain "over the war for so long" that you mention? I'd also point out that the supposedly Jewish friendly US stayed out of it till they were bombed into waking up some twp years and two months after everyone else realised there was a problem...


I don't mean to claim any more honorable position for the US. Hitler had sympathisers here, too, and not just on the fringes... Some mainstream media here was publishing laudatory articles about the Fuhrer in the 1930s. And I never would propose that the US got into the war to save Jewish lives. The political class in Washington at that time was likely as anti-Semitic as they come. Not outspokenly so, of course, but in more of a "you might employ one, but you'd never let your daughter marry one" kind of way.

As for British Nazi sympathizers, a cursory glance at Wikipedia pulled up the following on the Duke of Windsor:

In 1937, the Duke and Duchess visited Nazi Germany, against the advice of the British government, and met Adolf Hitler at Berchtesgaden. The visit was much publicised by the German media. During the visit the Duke gave full Nazi salutes as a mark of respect to his hosts.[60] The former Austrian ambassador, Count Albert von Mensdorff-Pouilly-Dietrichstein, who was also a second cousin once removed and friend of George V, believed that Edward favoured German fascism as a bulwark against communism, and even that he initially favoured an alliance with Germany.[61] Edward's experience of "the unending scenes of horror"[62] during World War I led him to support appeasement. Hitler considered Edward to be friendly towards Nazi Germany, saying "His abdication was a severe loss for us."[63]

The couple settled in France. On the outbreak of World War II in September 1939, they were brought back to Britain by Lord Mountbatten in HMS Kelly, and the Duke, already an honorary Field Marshal, was gazetted a Major-General attached to the British Military Mission in France. In February 1940, the German Minister in The Hague, Count Julius von Zech-Burkersroda, claimed that the Duke had leaked the Allied war plans for the defence of Belgium.[64] When Germany invaded the north of France in May 1940, the Windsors fled south, first to Biarritz, then in June to Spain. In July the pair moved to Lisbon, Portugal, where they lived at first in the home of Ricardo de Espírito Santo, a Portuguese banker with both British and German contacts.[65] During the occupation of France, the Duke asked the German forces to place guards at his Paris and Riviera homes: they did so.[66] A "defeatist" interview with the Duke that was widely distributed may have served as the last straw for the British government: Prime Minister Winston Churchill threatened the Duke with a court-martial if he did not return to British soil.[67] In August, a British warship dispatched the pair to the Bahamas, where in the view of Churchill the Duke could do the least damage to the British war effort.

The Duke of Windsor was installed as Governor. He did not enjoy the position, and referred to the islands as "a third-class British colony".[68] The British Foreign Office strenuously objected when the pair planned to tour aboard a yacht belonging to a Swedish magnate, Axel Wenner-Gren, whom American intelligence wrongly believed to be a close friend of Luftwaffe commander Hermann Göring.[69] However, the Duke was praised for his efforts to combat poverty on the island nation, although he was as contemptuous of the Bahamians as he was of most non-white peoples of the Empire. He said of Étienne Dupuch, the editor of the Nassau Daily Tribune: "It must be remembered that Dupuch is more than half Negro, and due to the peculiar mentality of this Race, they seem unable to rise to prominence without losing their equilibrium."[18] He was praised, even by Dupuch, for his resolution of civil unrest over low wages in Nassau in 1942, even though he blamed the trouble on communist agitators and draft-dodging Jews.[70] He held the post until the end of World War II in 1945.

The Duke in 1945

Many historians have suggested that Hitler was prepared to reinstate Edward as King in the hope of establishing a fascist Britain.[71] It is widely believed that the Duke (and especially the Duchess) sympathised with fascism before and during World War II, and had to remain in the Bahamas to minimise their opportunities to act on those feelings. In 1940 he said: "In the past 10 years Germany has totally reorganized the order of its society ... Countries which were unwilling to accept such a reorganization of society and its concomitant sacrifices should direct their policies accordingly."[72] Lord Caldecote wrote to Winston Churchill just before the couple were sent to the Bahamas, "[the Duke] is well-known to be pro-Nazi and he may become a centre of intrigue."[73] The latter, but not the former, part of this assessment is corroborated by German operations designed to use the Duke. The Allies became sufficiently disturbed by the German plots that U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered covert surveillance of the Duke and Duchess when they visited Palm Beach, Florida in April 1941. Duke Carl Alexander of Württemberg (then a monk in an American monastery) had convinced the Federal Bureau of Investigation that the Duchess had been sleeping with the German ambassador in London, Joachim von Ribbentrop, had remained in constant contact with him, and had continued to leak secrets.[74]

Some authors have claimed that Anthony Blunt, an MI5 agent, acting on orders from the British Royal Family, made a successful secret trip to defeated Germany as the war was ending in order to retrieve sensitive letters between the Duke of Windsor and Adolf Hitler and other leading Nazis from Schloss Friedrichshof, Kronberg im Taunus.[75] What is certain is that George VI sent the Royal Librarian, Owen Morshead, accompanied by Blunt, then working part-time in the Royal library as well as for British intelligence, to Kronberg in March 1945 to secure papers relating to the German Empress Victoria, a daughter of Queen Victoria. Part of the castle's archive, including surviving letters between daughter and mother as well as other valuables were stolen by looters, some of which were only later recovered in Chicago after the war. The papers rescued by Morshead and Blunt, and those returned by the American authorities from Chicago, were deposited in the Royal Archives.[76]

After the war, the Duke admitted in his memoirs that he admired the Germans, but he denied being pro-Nazi. Of Hitler he wrote: "[the] Führer struck me as a somewhat ridiculous figure, with his theatrical posturings and his bombastic pretensions."[77]

[pure_mercury]

Yes, just like many other countries. What's your point?

My point was clear. I support Israel, but it's not fair to tax Americans (especially ones who have a problem with Israel and its policies) to prop up their government. That is wrong.

All I know is that if it meant the end of extremism and a price only the Islamic world had to pay, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

And that makes you sound like a bigot.

[IlyaK1986]

My point was clear. I support Israel, but it's not fair to tax Americans (especially ones who have a problem with Israel and its policies) to prop up their government. That is wrong.



And that makes you sound like a bigot.

1) It's not fair to tax Americans to support America's only true ally in the middle east that fights so many battles for it?

2) I don't care what it makes me sound "like". I don't really give a damn about ethics or morals one way or another. If you can solve a problem, then you do it.

[pure_mercury]

1) It's not fair to tax Americans to support America's only true ally in the middle east that fights so many battles for it?

Yes, it's unfair to take money by force from your own citizens and give it to a foreign government, especially if they are not a current ally in a major (and legitimate) war.

2) I don't care what it makes me sound "like". I don't really give a damn about ethics or morals one way or another. If you can solve a problem, then you do it.[/QUOTE]

You're entitled to your opinion, and I am entitled to mine.

[millerm277]

Yes, it's unfair to take money by force from your own citizens and give it to a foreign government, especially if they are not a current ally in a major (and legitimate) war.

One may argue that they are an ally in the "War On Terror". (I find that to be a ridiculous idea.) Of interest to our current government is that Israel is a good counter to Iran, from their point of view.

Also, another point:

Like it or not, the majority of americans have a distrust/dislike of the Arab countries of the middle east. They generally have a more positive opinion of Jews/Israel. I can assure you, that if the american public didn't like Israel, politicians would not go out of their way to publicly "aid" Israel.

[pure_mercury]

One may argue that they are an ally in the "War On Terror". (I find that to be a ridiculous idea.) Of interest to our current government is that Israel is a good counter to Iran, from their point of view.

Also, another point:

Like it or not, the majority of americans have a distrust/dislike of the Arab countries of the middle east. They generally have a more positive opinion of Jews/Israel. I can assure you, that if the american public didn't like Israel, politicians would not go out of their way to publicly "aid" Israel.

I understand the line of reasoning, but I don't support it. Besides, the other country in the top 2 of foreign aid from the United States is Egypt, a traditional enemy of Israel's. I wish the federal government would at least acknowledge the influence of both the Israel lobby and the oil lobby. It has nothing to do with any of these nations being "allies against terror" or any of that nonsense.

[IlyaK1986]

Egypt has been at peace with Israel for a LONG time. Yes, it has its problems, but it's not a trouble spot in the world.

[lowtech redneck]

I understand the line of reasoning, but I don't support it. Besides, the other country in the top 2 of foreign aid from the United States is Egypt, a traditional enemy of Israel's.

That's directly connected to the Camp David Accords, which were largely responsible for removing the threat of another regional war against Israel with massed armies involved (no, the Lebanese wars don't compare). I think it also served to keep Egypt out of the USSR's orbit (I would need to take a refresher on Cold War history to be sure), a very important consideration before 1989. Even now, withdrawing aid that we are treaty-bound to deliver would likely create more problems than its worth.

On the subject of the OP, I don't think a bi-national state would work; neither side wants it, and the Palestinians would be collectively unable to abide by the necessary terms, anyway. Its not entirely their fault, but Palestinian society has become a fundamentally sick society; the fact that Arabs in Israel can live very well (albeit as second-class citizens) while Jews would be unable to live-period-in a Palestinian state limits the amount of sympathy I might otherwise have for a people who have been screwed over so thoroughly by historical developments.

[pure_mercury]

Egypt has been at peace with Israel for a LONG time. Yes, it has its problems, but it's not a trouble spot in the world.

The Yom Kippur War was only 35 years ago. Egypt is a moderate by Arab standards in the Middle East now, but they aren't exactly allies. Besides, the point was that the United States' interests in the area were political and tactical, not ideological.

[millerm277]

I understand the line of reasoning, but I don't support it. Besides, the other country in the top 2 of foreign aid from the United States is Egypt, a traditional enemy of Israel's. I wish the federal government would at least acknowledge the influence of both the Israel lobby and the oil lobby. It has nothing to do with any of these nations being "allies against terror" or any of that nonsense.

I agree. I was just putting up what the typical line of reasoning that will be cited is.

My personal opinion is that I happen to like Israel (I was raised Reform Jewish, and half my family is.), and I don't agree with giving massive amounts of aid to Israel, as it's wealthy enough to afford it at this point, and it has the weapons it needs to defend itself. (A lesser amount of aid would seem reasonable).

[Dom]

I don't mean to claim any more honorable position for the US. Hitler had sympathisers here, too, and not just on the fringes... Some mainstream media here was publishing laudatory articles about the Fuhrer in the 1930s. And I never would propose that the US got into the war to save Jewish lives. The political class in Washington at that time was likely as anti-Semitic as they come. Not outspokenly so, of course, but in more of a "you might employ one, but you'd never let your daughter marry one" kind of way.

As for British Nazi sympathizers, a cursory glance at Wikipedia pulled up the following on the Duke of Windsor:

...

This is exactly what I feared, the fact that a single duke was interested in the Germans (bearing in mind the British Royal family is german) does not mean that there was widespread sympathy for the nazi's or anti-semitism in Britain (which is what matters as it is and was then a full democracy). Yes there were some highly placed pro german aristocracts. They mostly just wanted peace, not a facist reigme for Britain and at the time the "final solution" was not widely unknown about. All I was trying to establish is that anti-semitism had nothing to do with British policy making in the 1930's or 40's. Other factors; such as re-armaments programs, how to pay for them while the world stumbles through the great depression and how to convince a nation still horriffied by the last war that they may have to do it again. In 1932 a government white paper identify a threat from germany and that another war was likely. It also identified Japan and Italy as threats, concluding that the british empire could meet any one of these threats alone, but not if two of them became aggressive at once.... opps.

I'm sorry but any erstwhile and annoyed Duke has had little to no say/power in british politics since 1688.

The above wiki stuff is wonderful though. It gives us an incredible insight into how important people thought the royals were, despite not being. The duchess having an affair with the german ambassador.. great.. leaking secrets... hehehe... and what secrets do you think she knew? The war cabinet did not often include a sidelined duke in their considerations, infact half the time they didn't even inform the king of the details of what they were up to. Also even if htey had included him, considering that his wife was having an affair do you think he would share all with her? It's a terribly romantic view/opinion of the place fo the royals but even if Edward did sympathise with the Nazis it didn't mean that the ordinary policy makers and people did. In fact I recall my grandparents talking about him... "He was a traitor you know, kept talking to old adolf." my grandmother said... Certainly he was not heading some deep felt, grass roots, pro nazi, anti-semite movement in Britain.

[Dom]

I understand the line of reasoning, but I don't support it. Besides, the other country in the top 2 of foreign aid from the United States is Egypt, a traditional enemy of Israel's. I wish the federal government would at least acknowledge the influence of both the Israel lobby and the oil lobby. It has nothing to do with any of these nations being "allies against terror" or any of that nonsense.

Egypt has been at peace with Israel for a LONG time. Yes, it has its problems, but it's not a trouble spot in the world.

Yes Egypt has effectively taken the bribe... and that is why they have their own problems with radical islamists and nationalist groups that occasional gun down toursits etc....

[Oberon]

(lots of very reasonable pro-Brit apologetics)

Dom, I think the fairest way to summarize my point of view on this matter is to say that, in the 1920s and '30s in the west, there were plenty of folk that held provincially intolerant views about Jews, and our post-WWII loathing of Nazism had not yet come to be.

Prior to the first acts of German expansion, very few people could see what Nazism really was at its core, or where it would take Germany. Churchill was considered something of a mad dog for his ferocious opposition to Hitler, until the blitz proved him right. Even after the US became involved in the war, Roosevelt discounted reports of the concentration camps as Zionist propaganda.

Now, we know better. But, were we able to return to 1935, I think you might be shocked to discover how well-regarded the premises of German national socialism actually were among a fraction of people in the west.

[pure_mercury]

Now, we know better. But, were we able to return to 1935, I think you might be shocked to discover how well-regarded the premises of German national socialism actually were among a fraction of people in the west.

The fraction was higher than many people would now believe. You had some Old Right types who were anti-WWI and noninterventionist who thought Germany got a raw deal with the Treaty of Versailles (which was true). You had the Progressive Era social engineering types who appreciated the eugenics and nationalst/Futurist tendencies of Fascism and Nazism, and you had the more radical New Dealers who wanted to model a new managerial, corporative "state capitalism" on the rising totalitarian states in Continental Europe. And, for the more vigilant racists, plain old anti-Semites and the German American Bund.

[Dom]

Dom, I think the fairest way to summarize my point of view on this matter is to say that, in the 1920s and '30s in the west, there were plenty of folk that held provincially intolerant views about Jews, and our post-WWII loathing of Nazism had not yet come to be.

Prior to the first acts of German expansion, very few people could see what Nazism really was at its core, or where it would take Germany. Churchill was considered something of a mad dog for his ferocious opposition to Hitler, until the blitz proved him right. Even after the US became involved in the war, Roosevelt discounted reports of the concentration camps as Zionist propaganda.

Now, we know better. But, were we able to return to 1935, I think you might be shocked to discover how well-regarded the premises of German national socialism actually were among a fraction of people in the west.

In the 1920's and 30's there were lots of folk who held provincially intolerant views about many many many ethnic and/or religeous groups. Anti-semtie opinion was just one anti-something of many; it is only in the light of the Holocaust that we interpret history. If you had said plenty of people were racist scum bags who wanted to persue policies that were only in-line with their national interests and didn't care much for the fate of ANY people group but themselves then I'd be happy to leave it at that. Of course that is exactly how the international community contiues to this day. We let millions die in Cambodia, thousands in Bosnia and Rwanda. Why? Cos we all hate ethenic Vietnamese? Cos their is wide spread anti-Toutsism? These are not the reasons we did next to nothing in these cases. They are not the reasons despite the fact that we could probably find examples of people who do think this kind of rubbish. The international community allows genocide because no one sees any gain for their national interest or political career to stop them. Ths is not to suggest that doing nothing was/is morally right.

I can assure you that if we were to return to 1935 I would not be shocked at all by attitudes to german nationalism. We must consider that admiration for Germany or sympathy with her treatment at Versailles (which frankly wasn't harsh enough but that is another thread) does not equal anti-semitism. This you implictly suggest you understand by your comments about how the truth of nazism unfolded. It does not follow that just because someone didn't want a war with germany that they hated jews. It also does not follow that just because people said they wanted to do something to create a Home for Jews, that they wanted rid of them. Frankly I expect the British Government thought it could recant on the "national home for the jews in palestine" half promise of the Balfour declaration., that is much more likely that secerectly thinking: "oh great finally a way to get rid of these jews."

As for Chruchil, he was mad dog crazy; if the British had listened to him, we would have been flying bombers to shoot down the Luffewaffe, instead of the fighters that Chamerberlain had ordered. Do you think Britain could have won "The Battle for Britain" without large numbers of fighters? The British government had already started to quitely re-arm before Churchil had started his ranting. The moderates and appeasers, were trying to buy time and avoid war if they could, they were not shy of it.

I could go on more but I've de-railed the thread far enough... maybe this should be split off?

[Oberon]

I could go on more but I've de-railed the thread far enough... maybe this should be split off?

No point, as far as I'm concerned; I think I've exhausted my interest in the topic, if that's all right with you.