would israel preemptively attack?

[helene_t]

I would hope that the lessons of Iraq where we're repaing the benfits of invading the wrong country would lead people to understand the benefits of "in depth investigations".

How can a scapegoat be the "wrong" country? Iraq would have served ok as a scapegoat if the war had been won. Thought experiment: suppose Iraq was, after a couple of weeks of U.S. occupation, turned into a stable, pro-Western despotism a la Saudi Arabia and everybody were happy. How big a fraction of the U.S. population would even know that there had been no WMDs, no Bin Laden connection, no other valid excuse for invading Iraq? How many would care?

[pbleighton]

"Thought experiment: suppose Iraq was, after a couple of weeks of U.S. occupation, turned into a stable, pro-Western despotism a la Saudi Arabia and everybody were happy. How big a fraction of the U.S. population would even know that there had been no WMDs, no Bin Laden connection, no other valid excuse for invading Iraq? How many would care?"

 

Thought experiment: suppose that the moon were made of delicious, nutritious green cheese. We could build moon cheese shuttles, and the problem of world hunger would be solved.

 

Peter

[luke warm]

"If a small stolen or bought nuke from the USSR or wherever was used by terrorists on the Usa or Israel what is the moral response?"

 

What are the circumstances?

 

What are the connections?

 

It matters, a lot.

 

Peter

 

1) Ok Peter votes for an in depth investigation into many complicated issues after a nuke strike on the USA.

Thorough investigation sounds like a good idea to me, especially when we're talking about using nuclear weapons.

actually mike's question was

"If a small stolen or bought nuke from the USSR or wherever was used by terrorists on the Usa or Israel what is the moral response?"

and peter's response was

What are the circumstances?

What are the connections?

 

It matters, a lot.

what possible difference do "the circumstances" make? that implies that there are circumstances under which someone could possibly be justified in setting off a nuke in the usa, which all americans should (i would think) think of as an act of war... the connections? what does that mean?

 

thorough investigation is fine, if the aim is to determine upon whom to visit annihilation

Does anyone actually fear the country of Iran having nuclear weapons?

israel evidently does

Can anyone seriously believe that the moment nukes are available to Iran they would launch a nuclear offensive against Israel?

i don't know, but the question is can anyone seriously believe that the moment nukes are available to iran *israel* would launch a (maybe nuclear) preemptive strike against iran?

[Winstonm]

that implies that there are circumstances under which someone could possibly be justified in setting off a nuke in the usa, which all americans should (i would think) think of as an act of war...

 

Well, here is on fool who would not consider it an act of war - it would be an act of terrorism. I mean, with whom would you war? It's not like the perpetrators would all dress in uniforms and occupy one specific region in Iran or Iraq and say, Hey, we did it, and then sit quietly while we turned them to dust with our nukes.

 

No, when you talk about terrorists, the ones who kill with actions, you are talking about people who appear normal but who harbor a dark secret - they live two lives. These types must be ferreted out.

 

IMO, terrorism can never be classified as war - it is criminal - it is murder. Homicide is legal in war else everyone who ever fired a weapon or dropped a bomb from a plane would be a criminal. There is no such waiver of stipulation for terror. It is murder, never condoned, never justified, and never to be tolerated.

 

But it isn't war. And you can't end terror by attempting to stop their backers, those countries who might harbor them. You can only stop terror one terrorist at a time.

 

 

thorough investigation is fine, if the aim is to determine upon whom to visit annihilation

 

And what country would you annhiliate for the sins of the few? In the State of the Union Address, Bush himself said the terrorists were a tiny minority....then what is the purpose of wiping a country from existence? Criminals have to be sought out and punished - killing a few hundred thousand innocents as "collateral damage" does nothing to stop terror - indeed, it only provides a reason for those on the fence to slide to the other side.

 

QUOTE (winston)

Does anyone actually fear the country of Iran having nuclear weapons?

 

 

israel evidently does

QUOTE

 

I meant does anyone in the U.S. And even if Israel "fears", is that justification for them attacking Iran? If it is wrong for Iraq to invade Kuwait, it is wrong for Israel to attack Iran. Once you open the door to "preemptvie" attacks, you open the door to false propoganda and lies to justify warfare. The risk is not worth the potential gain.

 

Can anyone seriously believe that the moment nukes are available to Iran they would launch a nuclear offensive against Israel? 

 

 

i don't know, but the question is can anyone seriously believe that the moment nukes are available to iran *israel* would launch a (maybe nuclear) preemptive strike against iran?

 

Would that make Israel "right"? Under this theory, the U.S. should have long ago banned all Muslims flying on U.S. airplanes as they might hijack one and fly it into the World Trade Center. Or perhaps ban all Islamics entry to the U.S. because one or two might set a bomb in the basement of the WTC.

 

When you act preemptively our of fear, you are invalidating another's rights and placing the assuaging of your own paranoia above their freedom of choice.

 

Doesn't sound very democratic to me - and that's what I thought the U.S. was trying to do - spread decocracy across the middle east - or at least to those countries that have some worthwhile oil reserves.

[luke warm]

winston, i personally think israel has reason to believe that certain people wish to harm all jews, and i think they take seriously the words of those who express those views... when such people are the leaders of countries, waiting could lead to mass murder, as happened last century... so whether or not it would be "fair" for israel to preemptively attack should be viewed from an historical perspective

 

fair is in the eyes of the beholder, and if those eyes have seen the results of failure to act in such upclose, personal ways - well, could they really be blamed for not waiting for it to happen again?

And what country would you annhiliate for the sins of the few?

i don't know... maybe the country that gave the nuke to the terrorists? or the country that harbored the terrorists while the weapon was produced?

[hrothgar]

what possible difference do "the circumstances" make? that implies that there are circumstances under which someone could possibly be justified in setting off a nuke in the usa, which all americans should (i would think) think of as an act of war...

Here's a hypothetical: Lets assume that Bush and company decided that the danger that Iran might get a nuclear weapon was too great. They decide to start bombing Iran. Iran responds by launching missile attacks against US carriers in the gulf. Things escalate, and in a matter of months we end up in a major war. The US air force establishes air superiority over Iran and we start major bombing campaigns against Iranian infrastructure and civilian targets. Unfortunately for US, the Iranian already have one or two nukes that they bought from Pakistan. They manage to slip one into Baltimore and set it off...

 

Is this "justified"? Hard to say. I would argue that its not justified. There are behavioral norms that should apply even during a war. One of those is that you don't destroy civilian population centers for the sake of destroying civilian population centers. Other people seem to feel differently. For example, you and Mike often seem to advocate concepts of total war and asymmetric responses. Countries can (and should) do whatever they see fit to protect their interests. For example, Israel is justified in launching an attack against Iran based on a hypothetical future threat. However, whats good for the goose is good for the gander. If you accept that the US has the obligation to take any action to advance its national interests it would seem the height of hypocracy to assume that the Iranians should behave differently.

 

This is one of my major issues with you, Mike, Dwanye, and the rest of your ilk. You act as if the US has the right do whatever it damn well pleases and everyone else just needs to suck it up.

 

Interesting to see how "relative" your behavioural norms are. Actions are good if they are taken by Americans and Israelis. Actions are bad if they are taken by Arabs or "old" Europe.

[Winstonm]

winston, i personally think israel has reason to believe that certain people wish to harm all jews, and i think they take seriously the words of those who express those views... when such people are the leaders of countries, waiting could lead to mass murder, as happened last century... so whether or not it would be "fair" for israel to preemptively attack should be viewed from an historical perspective

 

Jimmy, as much as I admire you and your even-mindedness, I have to respectfully disagree.

 

First, let my state that I am not in any way anti-semite or anti-Israel - that said, let me also state that I am not totally and blindly pro-Isreal. I have supported Israel when I thought they were right and chastised them when I thought they were wrong or gone too far.

 

The holocaust was an atrocity that hopefull will never again occur - but the holocaust was an atrocity against Jews, not the State of Israel.

 

Jews are dispersed worldwide, living in many countries - to suggest a threat from Iran on Israel is the same type of threat as the holocaust is disinginuous. If, say, Israel voluntarily disbanded their country, there would be no "bounty" on Jews paid by Iran. It is the country, not the people, that is at risk. The threat to destroy Israel is not genocide, as there is a huge Palestinian population still there.

Nukes do not descriminate.

If Israel wants to rattle its swords to protect itself as a country, that much I can understand - but when they start bringing up the ghost of the holocaust as somehow being the same thing as a threat to the country, I find the argument unconvincing.

 

In 1948, just prior to Israel declaring statehood, the U.N. had adopted a resolution to separate the territory into two distinct lands, Palestine and Israel. But before this could occur, Israel declared statehood, and the U.S. soon supported that statehood, and the idea of an independent Palestine died - which the world, through the U.N., had decided was best. To me, Palestine has a reasonable complaint.

 

There appears to me to be no "melting pot" in Israel. The Jews are in power, and the Palestinians are not treated equally, do not have the same political strength, and are not incorporated into the society as is the case in the U.S.

 

The jews in Europe had a horror inflicted upon them, and it should never be forgotten. Israel has been attacked. These are truths. But I think it fair to keep in mind that Israel is not the total innocent victim she portrays, and that there are always two sides to every story and the truth usually lies somewhere between the two.

 

And what country would you annhiliate for the sins of the few? 

 

 

i don't know... maybe the country that gave the nuke to the terrorists? or the country that harbored the terrorists while the weapon was produced?

 

See, not so easy is it? Who do you punish, the population of the country who "might" have harbored terrorist or who "might' have supplied a bomb. Do you really want to go to war with Russia if the Russian Mafia sold a black market nuclear weapon to a terrorist?

 

Terrorism is a complex issue - it requires a complex answer. Bombing the hell out of everyone is simplemindedness to the extreme. IMHO. :lol: It is a criminal action. What do you do with crimes? You solve them and punish the guilty - you don't blow up mother's house, killing 10 sleeping children inside because the one son who lives there sells dope out of the kitchen window.

[Winstonm]

what possible difference do "the circumstances" make? that implies that there are circumstances under which someone could possibly be justified in setting off a nuke in the usa, which all americans should (i would think) think of as an act of war...

Here's a hypothetical: Lets assume that Bush and company decided that the danger that Iran might get a nuclear weapon was too great. They decide to start bombing Iran. Iran responds by launching missile attacks against US carriers in the gulf. Things escalate, and in a matter of months we end up in a major war. The US air force establishes air superiority over Iran and we start major bombing campaigns against Iranian infrastructure and civilian targets. Unfortunately for US, the Iranian already have one or two nukes that they bought from Pakistan. They manage to slip one into Baltimore and set it off...

 

Is this "justified"? Hard to say. I would argue that its not justified. There are behavioral norms that should apply even during a war. One of those is that you don't destroy civilian population centers for the sake of destroying civilian population centers. Other people seem to feel differently. For example, you and Mike often seem to advocate concepts of total war and asymmetric responses. Countries can (and should) do whatever they see fit to protect their interests. For example, Israel is justified in launching an attack against Iran based on a hypothetical future threat. However, whats good for the goose is good for the gander. If you accept that the US has the obligation to take any action to advance its national interests it would seem the height of hypocracy to assume that the Iranians should behave differently.

 

This is one of my major issues with you, Mike, Dwanye, and the rest of your ilk. You act as if the US has the right do whatever it damn well pleases and everyone else just needs to suck it up.

 

Interesting to see how "relative" your behavioural norms are. Actions are good if they are taken by Americans and Israelis. Actions are bad if they are taken by Arabs or "old" Europe.

Why is it that you say what I say but say it so much better?

 

From my perspective, there is so much deep truth and knowledge available in what we think of as "trite" sayings that most of us discount - you cannot know a man until you have walked a mile in his shoes....

 

Have we really considered what this means? It means we cannot understand totally another human being unless we are that other being. If we had been born in Iran, raised by Islamic parents, seen wars and civil unrest, would we think the same way we do now? If our leaders, our presidents and prophets, preachers and teachers, had railed against the evil of Israel would we still hold them dear?

 

It seems to me the last time we had a sane man in the White House, he was murdered, but before he died he said, "We all share this same small planet, breath the same air...."

 

This was the man who diffused the cold war not with bombs, but with words and radical ideals that peace had a higher priority than war.

 

And when he was gone, we did what we always seem to do - went back to war.

There seems to be a lesson there, but I can't quite grasp it.....

[helene_t]

Thought experiment: suppose that the moon were made of delicious, nutritious green cheese. We could build moon cheese shuttles, and the problem of world hunger would be solved.

It's a petty that the Republican dynasty is about to collapse since otherwise the next president of the U.S. would have a great job for you. I see it before me:

 

"There is no scientific evidence for hunger in the third World, it's just anti-patriotic propaganda. But just in case that food shortage becomes a problem in the future, we've decided to implement the plan of our scientific adviser, Peter: To devote all NASA's resources to the Cheese Harvesting Program.

 

As a side benefit, NASA will not waste any resources on Earth monitoring and other liberal-biased pseudoscience."

[hrothgar]

And what country would you annhiliate for the sins of the few?

 

i don't know... maybe the country that gave the nuke to the terrorists? or the country that harbored the terrorists while the weapon was produced?

Winston re-iterated a very important point: If there is going to be a nuclear attack on the United States, odds are its going to come from a non-state actor. Here is a hypothetical...

 

1. The terrorist cell responsible for planting the the bomb in a container ship was a group of Islamic radicals based out of Hamburg Germany

 

2. The funding for the attack came from a distributed network of Wahhabist extremists, many of whom are located in Saudi Arabia. Some, though not all members of this network are closely connected with the Saudi Royal family. This network funds and wide range of projects, ranging from construction initiatives in Yemen to schools in Pakistan and Afghanistan to social programs and reconstruction projects in Lebanon. Financial controls are extremely lax and significant amounts of money disappear into various side projects.

 

3. The actual bomb seems to have been purchased on the Black market. Its unclear whether the bomb came from an ex-Soviet Republic or Pakistan.

 

Don't get me wrong: I very much agree that the United States would need to take action if one of our cities was attacked with a WMD. However, its far from clear what type of action should be taken. Assume a scenario like the one described above: I believe that the United States would be justified in taking extreme measures to deal with the individuals responsible for a nuclear terrorist incident, however, I don't thing that we would be justified in launching our own WMDs at Germany, Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan. 99.999999999% of the people that we killed would have nothing to do with the incident in question.

 

We would be no different from the terrorists.

[pbleighton]

"It's a petty that the Republican dynasty is about to collapse since otherwise the next president of the U.S. would have a great job for you."

 

I don't understand why I've never got a job offer from any president.

 

I could solve so many of their problems.

 

Peter

[luke warm]

The holocaust was an atrocity that hopefull will never again occur - but the holocaust was an atrocity against Jews, not the State of Israel.

that's true, but it doesn't preclude from being true my remark that "... i personally think israel has reason to believe that certain people wish to harm all jews... " in your opinion are there certain people who wish to harm (i.e. kill, maim, torture) all jews, and are some of these people leaders of countries? that's all i said, or meant

If Israel wants to rattle its swords to protect itself as a country, that much I can understand - but when they start bringing up the ghost of the holocaust as somehow being the same thing as a threat to the country, I find the argument unconvincing.

i think they do so because of statements made by certain people who hate not only the state of israel but jews as a race... i honestly don't think you believe that there are no people who sincerely wish all jews were dead, and that some of these people are leaders of countries, but i could be wrong

In 1948, just prior to Israel declaring statehood, the U.N. had adopted a resolution to separate the territory into two distinct lands, Palestine and Israel.  But before this could occur, Israel declared statehood, and the U.S. soon supported that statehood, and the idea of an independent Palestine died - which the world, through the U.N., had decided was best.  To me, Palestine has a reasonable complaint.

i don't believe that's quite accurate... the idea of an independent palestine didn't die, it was killed by the arabs of the day... it was the arabs who refused to accept the u.n. resolution and attacked israel... israel was perfectly willing to do what the u.n. wanted, until the attack... from wikipedia:

 

"After the United Nations proposed to partition the territory of the British Mandate of Palestine into two states, Jewish and Arab, the Arabs refused to accept it and the armies of Egypt, Syria, Transjordan, Lebanon and Iraq, supported by others, invaded the newly established State of Israel which they intended to destroy. As a result, the region was divided between Israel, Egypt and Transjordan."

But I think it fair to keep in mind that Israel is not the total innocent victim she portrays, and that there are always two sides to every story and the truth usually lies somewhere between the two.

that's true, israel has its share of guilt also... but i asked this question before, and i'm not sure if you answered it... if israel announced and followed thru with destroying every weapon in its possession, would anyone in the arab world attack them? if the arab world did the same with its weapons, would israel attack it? i'm asking for an opinion, i realize we can't *know*

This is one of my major issues with you, Mike, Dwanye, and the rest of your ilk. You act as if the US has the right do whatever it damn well pleases and everyone else just needs to suck it up.

i'm not sure either mike or dwayne would be pleased with you putting them in my "ilk"... but i do believe that america's interests should be paramount when formulating policy - don't you? sure compromise is a good thing, sure diplomacy is a good thing, but there are times when neither work

[hrothgar]

I do believe that america's interests should be paramount when formulating policy - don't you? sure compromise is a good thing, sure diplomacy is a good thing, but there are times when neither work

It depends on what you mean by "America's interests". I suspect that you and I would this very differently.

 

I believe that America is a near hegemon. However, I believe that our long term interests demand that we strengthen international institutions like the United Nations and try to establish a rule of law between nations.

 

America's predominant position will not last forever. We are best served creating using our position to work towards a just and equitable system that will serve us when in the future when the world returns to its traditional multi-polar state.

 

I would even go so far as to argue that the duration of our position as a hegemon will (largely) depend on the extent to which we shackle our ambition. If we act as single minded unilateralists and pursue partisan self interest we inspire the world to tear us down.

[Winstonm]

If Israel wants to rattle its swords to protect itself as a country, that much I can understand - but when they start bringing up the ghost of the holocaust as somehow being the same thing as a threat to the country, I find the argument unconvincing.

 

 

i think they do so because of statements made by certain people who hate not only the state of israel but jews as a race... i honestly don't think you believe that there are no people who sincerely wish all jews were dead, and that some of these people are leaders of countries, but i could be wrong

 

 

Jimmy, I don't see how this can be as Arabs and Jews lived side by side in Brittish controlled terroroty - it was Zionism, the birth of the state of Israel that caused the furor. Sure, there may be those who hate all Jews, but like terrorists they make up a small percentage I would hope.

 

In 1948, just prior to Israel declaring statehood, the U.N. had adopted a resolution to separate the territory into two distinct lands, Palestine and Israel.  But before this could occur, Israel declared statehood, and the U.S. soon supported that statehood, and the idea of an independent Palestine died - which the world, through the U.N., had decided was best.  To me, Palestine has a reasonable complaint.

 

 

i don't believe that's quite accurate... the idea of an independent palestine didn't die, it was killed by the arabs of the day... it was the arabs who refused to accept the u.n. resolution and attacked israel... israel was perfectly willing to do what the u.n. wanted, until the attack... from wikipedia:

 

"After the United Nations proposed to partition the territory of the British Mandate of Palestine into two states, Jewish and Arab, the Arabs refused to accept it and the armies of Egypt, Syria, Transjordan, Lebanon and Iraq, supported by others, invaded the newly established State of Israel which they intended to destroy. As a result, the region was divided between Israel, Egypt and Transjordan."

 

Jimmy, you may be dead right about this as I was working on memory and did not take the time to refresh - and I apologize to anyone offended by my error - it was not my intent to offend but just a poor, old, tired mind at work.

 

Still, even this shows what I am trying to say - the objection was not about Jews living in the area but about a creation of Israel as a state.

 

if israel announced and followed thru with destroying every weapon in its possession, would anyone in the arab world attack them? if the arab world did the same with its weapons, would israel attack it? i'm asking for an opinion, i realize we can't *know*

 

As you say, all we can do is form opinion; but a better opinion should be based on history than guesswork, no? My understanding is that Jewish immigrants migrated to the Brittish terrirory after the war, living with Palestinians. There was friction.

The U.N. tried to correct the troubles, and the rest is history.

 

I think there are some people who hate Jews because they are Jews, but not every Arab automatically hates Jews. If there were no armies, would there be mass fistfights? No, I don't think so. There would be some, I'm sure.

 

Not being from that region, I don't know the underlying hate/no hate line between Arab and Jew, whether it is ingrained by culture or is open to reason - I would like to think with greater overall education and prosperity, reason would reign supreme.

 

But you run into the challenge of hard-core fundamentalist Islamics, who think the dark ages were the "best of times" and today is the "worst of times", and when poverty and ignorance is rampant, these types of leaders have a built-in following.

[pbleighton]

"it was Zionism, the birth of the state of Israel that caused the furor"

 

It was prior to that, in the 20's.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_(mandate)

 

Peter

[Winstonm]

Thanks, Peter.

 

In 1920 at the Conference of Sanremo, Italy, the League of Nations mandate over Palestine was assigned to Britain. This territory at this time included all of what would later become the State of Israel, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, a part of the Golan Heights, and the Kingdom of Jordan. The majority of the approximately 750,000 people in this multi-ethnic region were Arabic-speaking Muslims, including a Bedouin population (estimated at 103,331 at the time of the 1922 census [2] and concentrated in the Beersheba area and the region south and east of it), as well as Jews (who comprised some 11% of the total) and smaller groups of Druze, Syrians, Sudanese, Circassians, Egyptians, Greeks, and Hejazi Arabs

 

This is the point, isn't it? Although Brittish led, the vast majority of the popullation were Arabs, yet the minority interest was served in creating Israel. What became of those 750,000 Arabs suddenly living in Israel and not Palestine?

[mike777]

"....But you run into the challenge of hard-core fundamentalist Islamics, who think the dark ages were the "best of times" and today is the "worst of times", and when poverty and ignorance is rampant, these types of leaders have a built-in following...."

 

I think this is a small but important point, the problem is not fundamentalist Islamics but radical Islamics.

 

 

 

 

Are you guys suggesting nothing will improve unless Israel does not exist as a Jewish state?

[Winstonm]

Here is something I ran across which may alter the debate - what exactly DID

Iranian President Ahmadinejad say about Israel?

 

We have heard he would "wipe Israel off the map", suggesting an annhiliation of the country and possibly genocide. But is that what he meant?

 

The Bush clan has been resourceful in using bumper sticker slogans to pound in their world views - has it happened once again?

 

Here are some quotes:

 

According to numerous different translations, Ahmadinejad never used the word "map," instead his statement was in the context of time and applied to the Zionist regime occupying Jerusalem. Ahmadinejad was expressing his future hope that the Zionist regime in Israel would fall, not that Iran was going to physically annex the country and its population.

 

To claim Ahmadinejad has issued a rallying cry to ethnically cleanse Israel is akin to saying that Churchill wanted to murder all Germans when he stated his desire to crush the Nazis. This is about the demise of a corrupt occupying power, not the deaths of millions of innocent people.

 

The Guardian's Jonathan Steele cites four different translations, from professors to the BBC to the New York Times and even pro-Israel news outlets, in none of those translations is the word "map" used. The closest translation to what the Iranian President actually said is, "The regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time,"

 

"It's important to note that the "quote" in question was itself a quote, writes Arash Norouzi, "they are the words of the late Ayatollah Khomeini, the father of the Islamic Revolution. Although he quoted Khomeini to affirm his own position on Zionism, the actual words belong to Khomeini and not Ahmadinejad

 

Professor Juan Cole concurs, arguing, "Now, some might say, "So he didn't say, 'wipe off the map,' he said 'erase from the page.' What's the difference? Anyway he's saying he wants to get rid of Israel. Ahmadinejad was not making a threat, he was quoting a saying of Khomeini and urging that pro-Palestinian activists in Iran not give up hope -- that the occupation of Jerusalem was no more a continued inevitability than had been the hegemony of the Shah's government. Whatever this quotation from a decades-old speech of Khomeini may have meant, Ahmadinejad did not say that 'Israel must be wiped off the map' with the implication that phrase has of Nazi-style extermination of a people. He said that the occupation regime over Jerusalem must be erased from the page of time."

 

Are we being misled into war once again?

[pbleighton]

"Are you guys suggesting nothing will improve unless Israel does not exist as a Jewish state?"

 

No, just explaining that there are two sides of every coin.

 

Peter

[Winstonm]

"....But you run into the challenge of hard-core fundamentalist Islamics, who think the dark ages were the "best of times" and today is the "worst of times", and when poverty and ignorance is rampant, these types of leaders have a built-in following...."

 

I think this is a small but important point, the problem is not fundamentalist Islamics but radical Islamics.

 

 

 

 

Are you guys suggesting nothing will improve unless Israel does not exist as a Jewish state?

I don't think you should separate by much hardcore fundamentalist from radicalists - fundamentalism is by its nature a radical departure from norm - it is extreme by its nature - it is radical.

 

This is akin to saying the problem is David Koresh, not Seventh-Day Adventists; however, without the basic hardcore fundamental teachings of the SDA, there would have been no David Koresh.

 

Regardless of the religion, it is subjugation to blind faith instead of reason and logic and education that is the flaw - to belive as the terrorists do, the faith must be deep-seated and beyond appeal of reason and logic - and this is the heart of fundamentalism.

 

I am saying that the inception of hostilities commenced with the creating of the state of Israel. How to solve the problem is more complex than simply uncreating Israel, which should not be done.

 

Maybe someone here can enlighten me on this, but my understanding is the Palestinians living in Isreal are basically treated as second-class citizens, that they do not have political equality and suffer mightily. If true, wouldn't this suggest that it is Israel who acts racist? Or is this simply a power struggle of religions, Jew verses Islam, not much different than Shiia/Sunni or any other religios difference?

 

If Israel allowed itself to become a melting pot, would it still be Israel?

[mike777]

Well I would call the Pope a fundamentalist Catholic or Desmond Tutu a fundamentalist Protestant. IMHO they are part of solution not the problem.

 

No Israel as a melting pot would be a very different country. As I pointed out in a 100 years there may be more Muslim babies than Jewish in this very tiny country.

How can a minority govern a majority without violence or expulsion?

 

I do not know the answer.

[Winstonm]

No, just explaining that there are two sides of every coin.

 

Peter

 

I don't mean to dominate the topic, but this "two sides" comment spurred my thinking.

 

Look at it this way, as if a debate.

 

Jews: We have a right to this homeland that was given to us by god.

Islamics and Arabs: We have similar claims and history proves it is our land.

 

Jews: We suffered the holocaust and were threatened with annhilation, complete genocide. We deserve a country where we can be safe.

Arabs: We agree. All people have the right to be safe from threats of genocide. But we didn't do it. The Germans did. So why are we punished by loss of our lands? Why are the Palestinians homeless because of Germany's sins?

 

Hmmmm. Why indeed?

[Winstonm]

Well I would call the Pope a fundamentalist Catholic or Desmond Tutu a fundamentalist Protestant. IMHO they are part of solution not the problem

 

As is so usually the case in a dialogue, the problem lies in each person's understanding of the meaning of the word. To me, fundamentalist are extreme - the ones in christianity who claim every word of the bible is literal truth and refuse to accept science over religion if science disagrees with their faith. (My grandfather, for example, could "prove" the world was only about 5000 years old by counting the generations presented in the bible.) From my perspective, the fundamental christian is one with whom you can never have a reasonable discourse, who always falls back on, Well, the bible says...

 

A fundamental Islamic in my mind was Ayatollah Khomeni - if that helps.

[DrTodd13]

Since no one else will say it I will. For there to be peace in the middle east, one of several things have to happen.

1) Israel is destroyed. Even then the Sunnis and Shias would kill each other so I'm not sure if this would count as peace.

2) Islam ceases to exist.

3) All muslims fail to take their religion seriously.

 

In Islamic theology, it is unacceptable that lands once controlled by Islam would subsequently not be controlled by Islam. That point seems to be very clear. If they don't take their religion seriously then they can ignore this requirement. Israel and Iran actually had pretty good relations until the the Ayatollah took control. Along with him came people who took Islam seriously.

 

For the record, it isn't like a country called Palestine existed and then the mean world decided to break it up and give part to the jews. The British were in control and could damn well do what they like with it. They chose to relinquish control and form two countries but the Palestinians rejected this. In terms of Germany being the one who should have ceded land to the jews, what jew would want to live right next to country that had just tried to exterminate them? While the jews may believe the land is theres because God gave it to them, in a secular sense, the country is theirs because the British and the UN gave it to them. Islam can deny that Jews ever lived in the land but that is pretty silly. The Philistines may have lived there are one time but the jews did as well. Should we give all the US back to native americans because of the way they were treated 3 centuries ago? These ancient claims to land can get tricky but from a practical standpoint the British were in control and chose a disposition of the territory. Israel hasn't acted perfectly since its creation but if Islam were defenseless, Israel wouldn't invade but we all know the reverse is totally not the case.

[pbleighton]

"Since no one else will say it I will. For there to be peace in the middle east, one of several things have to happen.

1) Israel is destroyed. Even then the Sunnis and Shias would kill each other so I'm not sure if this would count as peace.

2) Islam ceases to exist.

3) All muslims fail to take their religion seriously.

 

In Islamic theology, it is unacceptable that lands once controlled by Islam would subsequently not be controlled by Islam. That point seems to be very clear. "

 

So there will be no peace in Europe until Muslims win back the parts of eastern Europe which were formerly parts of the Ottoman Empire?

 

Peter