I’m sure you’re correct, Collounsbury. However, I don’t like the idea of kowtowing to Palestinian hatred.
Note that Israel has many Arab citizens. If Israel wanted to kick them all out (which they don’t), the world would no doubt rise up against them. The lack of parallelism offends me.
Well december you might … no never mind you wouldn’t … be less ‘offended’ if you recalled that the settlers settlements are post-facto to occupation and illegal under international law.
There is a fairly large difference between expelling Israeli Arabs who were settled in situ before the state existed, and the settlers who came in as part of an explicit program on the part of an occupying power.
Not that I expect you will be able to realize the difference.
I refer you to my original post and draw your attention to the word ‘sometimes’.
I also note that in just about every case it was very much in America’s interests to play a part in solving the problem, and more often than not they were there with their oar in at the start of the problem.
You don’t get a pat on the back for clearing up your own mess, especially if make a profit at the end of it.
Well, for all that there is some truth in that, it is also inevitable as a global power that (a) the US will have some part in any problem, even unwittingly (b) the law of unintended consequences will come round to bite one in the ass.
No doubt there is a legal argument here, but that’s not what you said. Your earlier post admitted that the problem is that “the settlers are widely hated, and I mean really hated.”
Incidentally, note that Israel was really hated by its Arab neighbors from day one in 1948, long before there were any settlements.
Are all Arabs united in their thinking of the U.S. and Israel?
Should we lump them all together, or do some countries differ noticably on relations with the West?
I am asking as I don’t know; I have no prejudices here.
WEll, december my dear fellow, now we have to seperable questions:
(a) the legal argument, which is clear if we take inernational oligations by occupying forces.
(b) the hatred specifically of the settlers. I did not say Israelis, I said the settlers. You want to conflate the two statements as it plays to your prejudices.
The reality is (a) plays into (b), and having settlers stay means continued Israeli security presence which means recipes for disaster. Posture on as you like, that is the reality, even abstracting away from (a).
Summertime:
Your question is too broad. The Arab world is not a hive mind but on a popular level there is a lot of commonality on the general sensation the US has not been equitable in re its dealing with the Arab world, some of this fairly based, some not. Where to go from that feeling is another matter.
Collounsbury: Neither of Dext’s posts said what you said they did.
For the first one, he was pointing out what a number of those who actively hate the US want to happen. Some of those folks are supported by at least one government in the Arab countries.
The second one was merely to point out that in the years he mentioned there was a particular entity dedicated against the US.
Nice strawmen you put up there. Any yellow roads in your neighbourhood?
No Monty there are not, nor do I see your interpretations of Dex’s responses to be ressembling a fair reading. But then we’ll just have to differ.
Uh, stop invading them?
A few years ago we were (somewhat belatedly, perhaps, but were) intervening in Serbia/Bosnia, mostly with an effect of stopping the slaughter of Muslims at the hands of Milosevic’s forces.
How was this viewed in the internaitonal Muslim community? Was there a sense that America was not so anti-Islamic as had previously been perceived to be? (Or had the US been perceived in that fashion prior to that anyhow?)
Uh, which Arab country did we invade prior to 2001?
Other than the one where we were (unsuccessfully) trying to rescue some people who had been taken hostage?
Well, C, they’re being left in place now, so it’s not as if the present situation is better than my alternative.
I realize the settlers are despised; the possibility does exist that the hatred for them may be alleviated somewhat if the Israeli occupation ends. If that’s the sticking point, then its removal will take the edge off the other points. After all, once that happens the settlers’ status changes; rather than being the advance guard of an ethnic cleansing effort, they’re just a small minority, and not even one localized to one or two places. A despised minority, but the primary problem that creates the hatred (Israeli occupation) would be gone.
The other option, of course, is for Israel to forcibly remove them. To be honest, C, I don’t see how that would turn out any better; it would be a truly ugly, military-level, violent event that could lead to significant civil unrest on its own. Seems to me we’re dealing with six of one bad thing and a half dozen of another. Given the choice I’d rather hand off at least the APPEARANCE of an option to the settlers.
Of course, I’m real far from the OP at this point.
Huh? Who said anything about prior to 2001? We just invaded Iraq. Did you catch that story? - it was in all the papers.
Well, there was that time in the 1950s when we overthrew the democratically elected leader of Iran and reinstalled the Shah. Although that wasn’t quite an invasion.
Not to nitpick, but Iran isn’t an Arab country.
I said it. AFAIK the Arabs hated us BEFORE 2001. Do YOU remember September 11, 2001? That was in all the papers, too. It was also before we invaded anybody. You implied (or I inferred that you meant) that if we “stopped invading them” they would stop hating. I’m simply pointing out that at least some of the leadership in some Arab countries would not stop hating us until we stopped being us. Or until we stopped being, period.
Regarding the reinstallation of the Shah of Iran: Guinastasia, I wish I knew why that happened; I really do. Actually, I don’t even know the details of whether we “overthrew the democratically elected leader of Iran” or just did not interfere with others who were doing so, or what the motives were. I’m sure there are others who may well inform me of some facts.
I suppose it’s possible for a democratically elected leader to be dangerous, or oppressive. I believe that SH was, strictly speaking “democratically elected,” but there was some question as to whether it was a competely fair election. :rolleyes:
But in any case, I agree that wasn’t really an invasion.
Actually, I think it’s been quite a while since any U.S. forces invaded anywhere with the intent of conquest and annexation that is usually the purpose of an invasion. Entering a country, doing away with a bunch of murdering thugs, and then giving its inhabitants food, water, medicine, money and other resources – and then leaving – shouldn’t really count as an invasion, IMHO.
Oh, why, oh WHY must people hate the poor, benevolent U.S. administration? We only want to be loved, and only use our power for good, never evil. When will our self-sacrifice be acknowledged?:rolleyes:
First of all, Osama is an extreme radical, and not representative of every Arab in the world. The attack on 9/11 was irrational, and should be roundly condemned by any sane person.
BUT, we’re not talking about only that. There is IMO a more encompassing issue of general Arab animosity towards the U.S., and I think it’s shortsighted to think that EVERY Arab on the planet is some kind of nut with an insane, irrational hatred of the U.S. that could never be quelled. This idea that they would hate us no matter what we ever did is bullshit. We have helped arm and support Isreal, and while we obviously can’t go back in time and not give Isreal weapons, the very least we can do is stop fueling the fire, and be cognizant of the Arab point of view without dismissing the Arab world as an entire race of crazy people.
Now if you could just see the situation as it really is, without the spin, you might understand why the world is quickly losing patience with us. You make it sound like we sailed over there on the Good Ship Lollypop with flowers in hand.
blowero: Try to keep up, okay? The title of the thread says “Arab countries.” It doesn’t say “Arabs.”
blowero:
It is kind of interesting, however, that Sharon’s govt. has publically expressed 15 reservations about the peace plan, whereas the PA has accepted the roadmap.
Granted, the “roadmap” is not a pure U.S. plan, but the U.S. is part of the quartet and you know “we” will be the main broker and nurturer of the peace, if it is to be brokered and nurtured (heaven willing).
Considering that we’ve “dismissed the Arab world as an entire race of crazy people” I’m curious to hear how you would characterize the initial reactions to the plan from both the Palestinians and Israeli perspective.