Who's the terrorist?

[Nirvana-Eld]

Ok I have been thouroughly disgusted by the American Media and their coverage of this latest war in the Middle East. So, naturally, I turn to you for your opinions.

Given the circumstances under which Israel has invaded the Gaza Strip and Lebanon and the manner in which they are conducting the invasion and the tactics used, I would say that Israel is in fact terroristic towards the civilians in the respective areas.

I won't dive into too much detail yet, I would rather see your opinions first and hopefully start a good discussion if not a heated debate.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

My solution:

Move Isreal accross the globe. Since the US (for whatever reason) has always had such an interest in Isreal, we can lend a little help. We will donate Idaho (no one lives there anyway). To quell and nostalgic draw to the Holy Land, we will forklift all the holy temples and whatnot (including the ground they stand on) and ship them to Idaho.

You may think I am kidding, but I am actually sort of serious. If there are no takers, then I am up for trying the asteroid plan.



On the other hand, we could just be patient and wait for Islam and/or Judaeism to go out of fashion.

Which of the three is most economically feasible?

There's never been any innocence. Both sides have been in the wrong since 1947 and Israel is costing us a hell of a lot of money to support when they simply don't deserve it. There are enough pricks in the Middle East already, we didn't need to drop the Jews there because we felt guilty for WWII.

Problem is, there were all ready upwards of 600,000 Jews in the area. The Zionist movement started long before WWII.

The way I see it, there is no innocence, but also not much heavily concerted blame to be dealt. This whole mess is mostly an accumulation of factors beyond anyone's real control. The Romans/Greeks/Assyrians ousted the Jews eons ago. Coupled with their persecution in Europe (which was a problem well before Hitler), it is understandable that the Jews might be drawn back to their Holy Land. There was initially no violence associated with the Zionist movement. They won back most of the Holy Land the fair way; by buying it up from local landowners.

From the fundamentalist Islamist perspective, you can certainly understand why this massive number of incomming Jews might be percieved as a threat. Palestine had a lot invested in the area.

If I was going to blame anyone, it would be Moses and Mohammed. Britain can also bear some of the guilt for butting in with the Balfour Mandate.

[Cathar1950]

I still like the amusement park idea.

The Jews have been rather knocked around.
The Romans abuse the crap out of them. The governor from Rome tried to get them to revolt. Pilot was a jerk. The killed them by the thousand in Alexandria.
Then the Europeans did the job on them.

There were less then 1000 Christian martyrs but look at these numbers from Christian Europe between 1000 CE - 1700 CE
That is a small sample.
Cologn 1,000
Worms 500
Eller 3,000
Navarre 5,000
Majorca 300
Seville 4,000
Erfurt 3,000
Strassburg 2,000
Frankfurt 2,000
Brussels 500

1209: 200 Jews and 20,000 Cathars. What is that all about?

They still are not safe with the little bit of land they have.
I feel sorry for the people in the mid-east.
Half the people are fighting are related.
what a mess
If we took the money spent on arms and actually feed people it would be a nice start.
What is it I read 900 billion a year on arms and 30 billion on humanitrian aid?

I am just bitching.

[Cephus]

Move Isreal accross the globe. Since the US (for whatever reason) has always had such an interest in Isreal, we can lend a little help. We will donate Idaho (no one lives there anyway). To quell and nostalgic draw to the Holy Land, we will forklift all the holy temples and whatnot (including the ground they stand on) and ship them to Idaho.

A local radio host proposed the same thing. Move them all to Arizona or New Mexico (which looks pretty much like Israel anyhow), bring in all the Hollywood set designers who are losing their jobs to CGI and have them build a new Jerusalem.

You may think I am kidding, but I am actually sort of serious. If there are no takers, then I am up for trying the asteroid plan.

It's not a bad plan, it's probably what we should have done in 1947 to begin with. The problem is, the Israelis would never go for it. They've got a hard-on for that particular piece of real estate and nothing is going to make them let go of it. Same for the Muslims. Same for the Christians. That's why I really go for the asteroid/nuke idea: how else are you going to piss off three major world religions at once?

On the other hand, we could just be patient and wait for Islam and/or Judaeism to go out of fashion.

That would be nice, wouldn't it? But we all know that religion is not rational and fanatics don't go out of fashion very well. That might have been a feasible solution years back, but today with the advent of nukes and chemical and biological weapons, having two groups willing to slug it out to the last man (no matter how many other people it kills) cannot be allowed.

Which of the three is most economically feasible?

Considering the insane amount of aid we send to Israel now, moving them is certainly a cheaper idea than what's going on now. Depending on the year, we spend more per capita on Israeli citizens than we do on US citizens.

Problem is, there were all ready upwards of 600,000 Jews in the area. The Zionist movement started long before WWII.

Of course, but the US and Britain just took land that had belonged to the Arabs for centuries and declared "hey, we're taking this land and giving it to your most hated enemies. Play nice!"

[sue]

If it is a zero sum game, and win-win is not feasible, you must look at the wrongs committed and decide which is the greater evil.

Lebanon has committed small-scale acts and can easily be contained if the US decides to intervene. Offering a diplomatic exchange for the return of the 2 kidnapped soldiers is an easy solution. And treating them with respect could result in better relations with Iran and Syria. Iran is a key player in the middle east; improving relations with them can only help the United States.

Israel's actions and the disruption they have caused have effectively led to the "kidnapping" of millions of people. The economic implications alone are staggering.

[sue]

Which of the three is most economically feasible?

That is the key question.

If moving Israel is the least expensive, most humane solution, I am all for it.

[youngborean]

Iran is a key player in the middle east; improving relations with them can only help the United States.

There is no way that a relationship with the current government of Iran can be improved. If we did move Israel across the world Iran would look at it as victory and expand their pan-arabic ideologies into Europe. They are already avid supporters of the genocide Carried out by the government in Sudan. The west will always advocate the position of the importance of democracy. Therefore it is impossible to prop up Iran's government in anyway. Ideally the West would spend much, much more money advocating the truly moderate muslim factions in all countries of the middle east, including resistance movements in Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Lebanon. And put an absolute stop to all foreign money being donated from Iran and Saudi Arabia to Muslim organizations in the West. The former is possible, but the latter will probably never happen. Which is sad because it would greatly reduce home-grown terrorism and solidify a new type of moderate Islam which could be a model for people questioning the extreme stance of Khomeni-like muslims.

[Lainey]

Wow, the media in my city is waaayyyy out of balance on this issue. The way they tell it, Israel is nothing but perfect and holy, and Palestinians are nothing more than evil terrorists bent on destruction. I figured that was a load of crap, but I didn't know what the real story was.

Move Isreal accross the globe. Since the US (for whatever reason) has always had such an interest in Isreal, we can lend a little help. We will donate Idaho (no one lives there anyway).

Well, if that's your criteria, why not North Dakota? Or Saskatchewan? If nothing else, the heavy winters will confuse them for a couple of years. 'Course, then they'll probably just get bored and start fighting again.

I feel sorry for the people who live in that area who are just terrified, and want the fighting to stop. Maybe they should be the ones to move somewhere safe. Drop the looney ones off on a deserted island somewhere (or Antarctica, anyone?), and let them go to town. Make sure there are no nukes available.

We could send Vince McMahon over and they could all wrestle with each other. Last one to keel over wins. Nobody stops until they've worked out all their frustrations.

Isn't there any way to tap into some sort of sense of rationality with people? You'd think everybody would have it in them somewhere. Maybe there's a "rational" gene.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

It's not a bad plan, it's probably what we should have done in 1947 to begin with. The problem is, the Israelis would never go for it. They've got a hard-on for that particular piece of real estate and nothing is going to make them let go of it. Same for the Muslims. Same for the Christians. That's why I really go for the asteroid/nuke idea: how else are you going to piss off three major world religions at once?

We will steal Jerusalem in the night and leave a ransom note.

"Come to Idaho if you ever want to see your pretty temples again, mwahahaha."


Anyway, it's evident that there is no sure fire way to prevent the clashing of ideologies. What we need is one particular ideology that everyone can hate.... together.

We will invent a new religion. This religion's dogma will involve everything that the other world religion's despise. It's holy rites will include bombing sacred sites; first off will be Mecca, Jerusalem, and Vatican City. We will hire adherants (convicted felons, perhaps) to carry out these unspeakable deeds.

Muslims, Christians, and Jews will be so busy killing members of this religion that they won't have time to kill each other. They will have to work together in order to eliminate this scourge, and perhaps in the process will discover that they are all not really so different afterall.

It's perfect! We can kill about 50 birds with one stone.

Don't try and make them come to terms with their scapegoats: just invent a new one.

[juliod]

Muslims, Christians, and Jews will be so busy killing members of this religion that they won't have time to kill each other.

I think qwe already have that religion. It's called "the poor".

DanZ

[OccamsRazor]

The most appalling comments that I have seen in the conflict so far are those of the US government.

"We will be back here in six months again... or in a year... trying to get another ceasefire because Hezbollah would have decided... yet again to use southern Lebanon as a sanctuary to fire against Israel," she said....
Ms Rice told reporters at the state department in Washington that Hezbollah was guilty of "outrageous provocation" and "the source of the problem"...
During her plane journey from Washington, Ms Rice told reporters Hezbollah must no longer be allowed to "plunge Lebanon and the region into war".

I have never heard such partisan comments as the ones that Condoleezza Rice has been making during the last week.

Can the US members here tell me whether general opinion really is that partisan?