I don’t think abandoning Israel would appease anyone really. Israel would continue in it’s own direction and bring about war upon itself. The invasion is the only solution to appease the other interested parties. Give Palestine a home and disarm.
I was under the impression they fled under military pressure and were denied the right to come home when things felt a bit safer.
All Arabs in Israel are citizens. And they do have voting rights.
If you know differently, please tell us how.
Well, ok. What percentage of Arab residents of Israel proper have Israeli citizenship?
You were serious?
Alright, who are we appeasing and what for.
Yeah… they just wanted a change of scenery Monty.
The argument goes, isolationism is the best policy philosophically. George Washington warned us about getting ourselves entangled in alliances. We are allied with Israel. Many people think this is a bad idea.
As I quoted RexDart as saying, if we “abandon” Israel, meaning I assume withdraw all government economic and military aid, will this work? For example, will Usama issue a fatwa retraction? The isolationism part plays in through us removing our bases from Saudi. If we quit supporting Israel, and remove our bases from Saudi, will this improve the US and world situation or lead to more bloodshed?
Am I serious? Sure, I try to warn when I use the sarcasm bomb.
See new signature. For demonstration purposes only.
“Israel proper” just keeps growing you know. Let me check the latest advancements and I’ll get back to you.
But seriously, if there were anywhere else to cram the rest of the Palestinians it would be done and Israel would take what is left of thier land. But as it stands if they took anymore they would be faced with a large number of Arab nationals that would threaten a democratic system that might actually show the will of the people living there.
Well, I already answered the OP, so I’ll leave that subsequent discussion alone.
But just as a slight digression on the democracy question - Turkey is really the only nation that comes close to Israel as a local contender. Nobody else is in the running.
However I will note that Iran, for all that is fundamentally a theocracy ( probably the only true theocracy in the world now that the Taliban have been ousted ), has a surprisingly robust democracy at the ( somewhat toothless ) legislative and ( second-tier ) executive level.
Of course the supreme executive level and the judiciary are theocratic and have final power. Which makes Iran a non-democracy. But I do find it interesting that Iran is well ahead of many of the other regimes in the region at the lower levels of government. It’s one of the reasons I have high hopes for them in the future. Even mostly toothless democracies are excellent training and breeding grounds for real democracies - It gets one in the habit, so to speak.
A few other countries are also making slow progress, as with Morocco and Tunisia. But they have a long way to go as well.
- Tamerlane
Well, this thread was addressed to me, but doesn’t really seem to require my participation. At this point, anything I say will probably get lost in the shuffle, as the conversation seems to have skewed elsewhere. Nonetheless, I’ll make my points, clarify a few things, though you can pretty much get this in the thread the OP links to.
Whether appeasement will “work”, and I think it will, depends on what we establish as our goals. It is my contention that the primary policy goal of the United States government has to be protection of the United States. As human beings, we might regret what occurs overseas, but the social contract with our government requires it to put the safety of U.S. citizens first.
The article I mentioned does the argument more justice than I can, but it’s pretty simple in essence. Terrorists are most effective when they are willing to toss away their own lives. They will only do that for limited reasons. The primary reasons right now which motivate them, and seeing mention of that poll solidified my opinion on this, are U.S. actions. Those actions are:
1.) Support for Israel
2.) Trespassing on Islamic holy sites
3.) Support for oppressive Arab monarchies
My contention in short is that terrorism is unstoppable when it’s practicioners are willing to die. Ergo, to prevent U.S. deaths, we must eliminate the causes for suicidal terrorism. The 3 causes mentioned above are all local problems to the Arab region. I believe that only problems that hit “close to home” will sufficiently motivate enough people to suicidal terrorism to facilitate the sort of strike against the U.S. that concerns me. Thus what I advocate is ending those policies, thus cutting out the root cause of the suicidal terrorism threat presently facing us.
I think that the only policy that will completely satisfy our nation’s safety concerns is total nonintervention in the Middle East. Anything we do there is bound to piss off somebody, and create a local problem. So any affirmative policy is that area may create a situation which hits “close to home” and thus drives up the recruiting for Islamic suicidal terrorists.
The first step needs to be highly visible. To that end, I believe the first step must be a public disowning of Israel. The President (I know, fat bloody chance with Bush in there, but we’ll see what 2004 brings) must get up before the country and the world and say “The United States is no longer allied with Israel, we will no longer give any support to the Israeli government, financially, militarily, politically, or otherwise.” Then after this visible step comes the conversion to a policy of total nonintervention in the region, which also solves problems #2 and #3 on my list above.
Will this embolden the terrorist leaders, will our appeasement make them greedy for more? Possibly, but the question would be then, what would they want? If the U.S. was a total nonplayer in the Middle East, then there is nothing they could want us to stop doing, because we aren’t doing anything. After implementing nonintervention, the only complaints they’ll have about the U.S. are very remote. We won’t be tied into the local problems anymore, thus terrorists will have a much harder time convincing anybody to die attacking us.
They could move on to coercing and threatening somebody else, but though it sounds callous, that isn’t strictly the U.S. government’s problem. There isn’t any interventionist policy, no alliance we hold, that is worth the possibility of a major U.S. city going up in nuclear fire to a suicidal terrorist. We have to protect first against that, and worry later about the effect outside our borders. That’s the American government’s job, protect innocent Americans first.
Is it appeasement? Yes. But it’s not bad appeasement. If what they want is for us to get out of their backyard, and I think clearly that is what they want from us, then give it to them. It doesn’t hurt us much at all to do this. Maybe it plays hell with oil supplies, but the market is already responding to that danger, and the advances demonstrated by the 2004 models of hybrid cars are going to show that we’ll get by with less oil if we really have to.
If someone threatens to shoot you unless you leave his property, is it appeasment to leave his property? Let’s stop meddling where we don’t belong, let’s stop making enemies, and let’s stop making friends that create enemies. Take our ball and go home, the game isn’t worth the price of playing.
Glad you showed up. In retrospect, I should have sent you an e-mail. I’m glad you explained isolationsim your way. I think I guessed pretty well how you might go about it.
I have wondered about the utility of our bases in Saudi, even from a non-isolationist viewpoint.
Well, I think I’ve already made my opinions known on this topic… I believe it’s much much too late for us to do what RexDart suggests in any practical way that would’ve leave us in a bigger mess than we’re in now, but there’s one thing I’d like to point out:
So… You’d be asking all American businesses to withdraw from the region, and stop any and all imports to the Middle East? Because unless I’m wrong, one BIG beef that foreign countries have with us (and not just in the Middle East) is the Westernizing influence of our exports and culture, how it does annoying things like make women think for themselves and wear jeans and so on. So I’d assume this President you’re hoping for would be asking for the immediate cessation of all business abroad. Good luck staying in office after that.
While I know this came up in your other thread, I still think you’re wrong about the ability of nations to do business in other nations without binding trade agreements, which in themselves would cause U.S. interests in any region they exist…
Western influence is a big issue, I hear from the European liberals that I talk to. So I guess all we have to do is remove all traces of US and Western influence from their societies and maybe convert the United States populace to Islam, under Islamic law, and then possibly OBL would retract something. You know…some of these same appeasement people - not directed at you RexDart - will go apoplectic if the Christians try to influence domestic law. Devout Muslims can dictate foreign policy though, that’s understandable. Too funny.
Israel seems to be a Republic, though I don’t know for sure, and the US is a Republic which means we are not a ‘true’ democracy either. Makes no difference to me, I’d never agree to stop supporting any country friendly to the US just because it ticks others off. On principle. We help others and have for years and years; Israel is a good investment and a strong ally. Eventually they won’t need our support and I respect them for working to achieve that. I don’t agree with every decision they’ve made or direction that they go in, but I assume we can settle our differences peacefully to mutual benefit. Societies that respect each other can do that.
I disagree with RexDart’s statement that the government’s job is to protect innocent Americans first. It’s more like the job is to uphold and enact the Constitution, which in turn protects Americans as a whole, but haven’t fleshed that out yet…
Just to point out a couple things quickly…
Demands that the US convert to Islam or follow Islamic law as a theocracy face the local/remote problem. If I’m right about the fact that only problems hitting “close to home”, i.e. local problems, carry sufficient motivation to recruit suicidal terrorists, then remote issues need not require any appeasement. How the U.S. runs itself within its own borders is a remote issue to people in the Middle East, what matters to them is how our policies affect them and their neighbors.
Western influence is local, but difficult to identify single actions or policies to point to as a cause. If the U.S. government adopted nonintervention, it may be tough for would-be terrorists to argue that Western influence is caused by the U.S. Don’t forget that Europeans are “western” too, and they trade with the Middle East as we do. Some of the blame might fall on them. U.S. nonintervention might make it more likely that the residents of the Middle East will not put all the blame for Westernizing influences solely upon our head, and terrorism isn’t as effective without a single target to point towards. Anyways, if those countries want to ban our corporations from doing business there or our products from entering their borders, that’s within their power and soveriegnty to do, and no U.S. action other than outright coercion would be able to prevent it even if we wanted to.
Israel isn’t our friend, any more than Saudi Arabia is. They all think of the U.S. as a fat, stupid rich kid to be milked for as much as possible. If they can bully us, they will. If they can play the sympathy card, they will. We need to consider only our own interests, because I can guarantee you, no one in the Middle East gives a flying flip about our interests.
That said, I don’t think appeasement will work. It has a VERY poor track record, long term. Best thing – tell Israil they’re out of money and military support if they don’t abandon the settlements. Tell Palestine we’ll give Israel carte blanche to settle anwhere they like and have their way with all of Palestine if they don’t cut that terrorism shit out.
Then do what we say we’ll do.
For me, this is the only statement in this thread so far worth answering. EC - you’re wrong. I don’t know about the Saudis, but we’re your friends, your allies, and we’ll back you up whenever you need it. We’re pals, achukim, partners and we love you guys. Ask anyone.
Damn it, how can I prove it?
Well, what about Iraq? Do you think we really need scuds landing on our houses to complement the exploding buses? Believe you me, right now we need a war withike we need a hole in the head. But hey - it seems like it’s important to you, so count us in. Friends back each other up, you know?
Just because you’re our rich uncle, that doesn’t mean your not family. And family means a lot 'round here.
Count you guys in? Really? When can we expect your public support and commitment of troops?
You have it - Sharon has come out with statements of support several times. As fortroops, the U.S. doesn’t want any; doesn’t even want to use our airforce bases. Too afraid to upset their Arab “friends”, I suppose. But Israel has definitely offered troops.
Not using Israel’s people and places at the outset makes sense to me though for different reasons, and none of them concerned our Arab friends. It’s the enemies I’d be worried about. I think some would love to see Israel commit troops and change the focus from getting rid of a crime boss to Zionists against Muslims. As for me, I appreciate the offer and hope it stands in case we need it later.
Set up during the Gulf War. Margaret Thatcher’s idea, I think, and King Faud agreed. Used to protect SA from invading Iraqis, which some people do not think was ever a possibility(?) (and they have every right to think it.) SA was willing enough to fight alongside us at the time, and I believe we will be there by invitation until Saddam is no longer in residence.