Poll: Which side do you support in the Israel/Palestine question?

[glenn1]

Ya know, threads like this one lead me to the inescapable conclusion that not a single person can hold an objective opinion on the Israel/Palestine question. Therefore, let's throw off the pretense, and choose sides now. So, pick your poison, and vote appropriately...

 

[JellyBaby]

Where's the option for "it's none of my business, I've got my own problems"?

 

[glenn1]

<< Where's the option for "it's none of my business, I've got my own problems"? >>



I think that would be covered by option #3 in my poll... "Who cares, let 'em kill each other... if it leads to genocide for either side, too bad, it won't be the first time"

 

[Dually]

I don't support either over the other.

 

[JellyBaby]

But I do care in a "thousands of miles away" sort of way. I certainly don't want to see them in a constant state of war and I don't want to "kill 'em all".

Neither side seems committed to peace and I'm getting rather tired of seeing the US throw money at the problem. We've brokered peace on several occassions only to see it last only a short while and break apart into conflict again.

So long as the folks over there covet the land of thy neighbor there will be war.

 

[Nitemare]

I think we should give both a really big bomb that is big enough to blow up the other side and let them go at it. Set up some odds in Vegas on who will shoot first and televise it on Pay per view.

Frankly I'm sick of it, both sides are evil if you ask me. The US supporting Israel unconditionally no matter what $hit they do is making us enemies in the eyes of others....and Israel does alot of stuff because they can get away with it...the US always has their back.

Maybe we should just take out Bin Laden, Sharon and Arafat at the same time?

 

[Czar]

Support neither or both, not one.

Israel is a problem created by the west and should be solved so that the arab countries can accept it.

If there was only one I could support I´d choose Palestine, they have suffered for so long and they need support more than Israel does.

 

[vi edit]

I don't want to confuse "see one of their sides" with "supporting their cause".

I can see why the Palestinians are upset. I may be oversimplifying the situation here, but I see is this -

What would happen if we took all of the Texans in one third of the state, and made them move to some part of the other two thirds against their will. We then took all of the citizens of New York city and populated them in that taken over 1/3 of Texas. I'm guessing you'd see a little bit of hostility.

That said, I don't think that suicide bombers sent to blow up city buses helps you gain any support in your cause.

I can see why the palestinians are are upset, but I by now means support their actions.

If my Texas analogy is flawed, please inform me as to why. That is just how I have interpreted the placement of Jews in Isreal after WWII.

 

[Czar]

vi_edit
only thing that is worng I think is that Israel controls 2/3 of the area (I think) not sure though

 

[Pentbomb]

The best scenario, from the U.S. perspective, is an easing of conflict between the two nations (which is obviously difficult to procure). Restarting the Israeli-Palestinian talks became a high priority for the Bush administration following the terrorist attacks for good reason. The White House believed that a Peres-Arafat meeting could be a first step toward improving the atmosphere in the region, which was crucial to its bid to pull together a global coalition against terrorism. The coalition, as of now, is shaky at best and the Israeli-Palestine conflict isn't helping.

Before the attacks happened, the U.S. was already backing away from Israel. Now, we need the support of as many Muslim countries as possible, and maintaining relations with Israel makes that difficult. We mustn't dichotomize the issue, we must keep Israel as an ally for their invaluable intelligence, but we must at the same time distance ourselves so as not to isolate Muslim nations.

Pentbomb

 

[JellyBaby]

<< Israel is a problem created by the west and should be solved so that the arab countries can accept it. >>

Depending on how you read history and which periods you look at, you could put the blame on the U.S.S.R not the West. I don't believe the West would have become so involved had the old soviet union not started arming Israel's neighbors.

Anyway it's like dealing with two spoiled brats. "I was here first!". "No I was!". You either separate them, favor one over the other or make them work things out. To permanently separate them, a greater authority must intervene and that takes a lot of will. To favor one over the other means constant conflict.

Nope, they need to work things out and come to an agreement. They both gotta want it.

 

[Balt]

<<Israel is a problem created by the west and should be solved so that the arab countries can accept it.>>

Yeah, maybe if we nuke Israel the Arabs would finally find that acceptable!


Sheesh.

 

[DaejangNim]

I'd support the Palestinians. Israel IS fascist.

 

[hungrypete]

First come, first serve. Who was there first?

 

[SupaDupaCheez]

I don't care which side 'wins' as long as it brings peace to that most screwed up of places "The MIddle-East"

SDC

 

[Lucky]

<< I'd support the Palestinians. Israel IS fascist. >>

 

[Lucky]

<< First come, first serve. Who was there first? >>




I believe the native americans were here first before columbus took over.

 

[geeves]

The problem is that the US got involved in the first place. Now that Israel has better weapons than the Palestines we can't just let them kill each other off. We need to support the peace process, unless we do the Israeli's will not stop with at the paliestine border.





Thats just my opinion, I could be wrong

Geeves

 

[glenn1]

<< I'd support the Palestinians. Israel IS fascist. >>



Just to enlighten others, in order to be able to make a judgement as to the validity of this statement, is the

fas·cism (Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si-) Function: noun

1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality -- J. W. Aldridge>

A couple of quotes from Mussolini:

"All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state."
"The truth is that men are tired of liberty."

and this helpful passage... link

What distinguishes Nazism from generic fascism is its obsession with racial theories of superiority, and some would say, its roots in the socialist theory of proletarian revolution. Fascism and Nazism as ideologies involve, to varying degrees, some of the following hallmarks:

*** Nationalism and super-patriotism with a sense of historic mission.

*** Aggressive militarism even to the extent of glorifying war as good for the national or individual spirit.

*** Use of violence or threats of violence to impose views on others (fascism and Nazism both employed street violence and state violence at different moments in their development).

*** Authoritarian reliance on a leader or elite not constitutionally responsible to an electorate.

*** Cult of personality around a charismatic leader.

*** Reaction against the values of Modernism, usually with emotional attacks against both liberalism and communism.

*** Exhortations for the homogeneous masses of common folk (Volkish in German, Populist in the U.S.) to join voluntarily in a heroic mission_often metaphysical and romanticized in character.

*** Dehumanization and scapegoating of the enemy_seeing the enemy as an inferior or subhuman force, perhaps involved in a conspiracy that justifies eradicating them.

*** The self image of being a superior form of social organization beyond socialism, capitalism and democracy.

*** Elements of national socialist ideological roots, for example, ostensible support for the industrial working class or farmers; but ultimately, the forging of an alliance with an elite sector of society.

*** Abandonment of any consistent ideology in a drive for state power.