Kerri's Israel Question (or WTF is wrong in Israel)

[Adam D]

Back in 1948 after WW2 the UN thought it would be a good idea to set up a homeland for the Jews. No better place could be found than their holy land (where Israel is today). The problem was that there were Palestinians, Christians and Jews already living there. The Palestinians were Arabs who had moved into the region several centuries ago, and were the majority landowners and population of the then British colony of Palestine. To be fair to everybody, at least as fair as possible, the UN established Israel to be a bi-national state. Basically, there would be one side with a seperate government for the Jews, and on the other there would be a seperate government for the Palestinians. Jerusalem would be split in half, sort of like Berlin was during the Cold War. There wouldn't relocation of anybody, and it wasn't as though the Palestinians or Jews had to be on their respective side, each group just got their own share of power.

Almost immediately after the charter went into effect, the Jews decided to fuck the Palestinians, drove a lot of them off their lands and denied them rights and their own government. The Palestinians, over time, have been shoved into smaller and smaller parts of Israel, into the least resourced lands. That's pretty much what has been happening to them over the past 50 years.

The Palestinians created the Palestinian Authority some time ago (I don't remember the year) as sort of a self-government structure, but it lacks any real authority. It has worked out a number of treaties with the Israelis over boundaries, but the Israelis never uphold these boundaries. Likewise, the UN has in the past called for Israel to secure boundaries according to these treaties, but Israel never obliges those, either.

So there's been violence on both sides over boundaries and rights.

The US refused to get involved in the conflict until the late 1960s, now it is the strongest defender of Israel, offering contractual business work, huge sums of military aid (Israel receives more aid than any other nation from the US), and puts a halt to any UN action to condemn Israel. That's one of the reasons why the US is hated in the Middle East.

Israel has also attacked and been attacked by its neighbors over the course of its existence. Everytime, Israel kicks their asses. In some cases, such as with Syria and Lebannon, Israel is occupying part of their land, illegally, despite UN resolutions several decades old calling for Israel to evacuate those lands.

Most of this freewheeling land grabbing is due to Zionism, a Jewish ideology born in Europe a little over a decade old. Zionism is extremely racist towards Arabs, and it believes Jews have a God-given right to the Holy Land (as well as the rest of the world, in some cases), and are Jewish by blood, not by choice to be Jewish. It's heavily militant towards wiping out the Palestinians and shoving the reminants out of Israel. For a good idea of how Zionism works today, read USACommitteeX's posts.

The problem with the conflict today is two-fold. One, the Palestinians lack real cohesive leadership. Arafat and others in the PA are more self-serving than beneficial to their people. The rest of the leadership is tied up in terror groups, unfortunately. Two, Sharon, the Israeli Prime Minister, is a hardcore Zionist conservative who won pretty much by promising to wipe out the Palestinians. He's been the worst offender of Palestinian rights and sovereignty in quite some time. Since he came to office, Israeli military assaults on Palestinians have increased dramatically.

The worst part of his "peace" concept is the security wall that is being built. The wall sits on Palestinian land and dissects many of the villages and settlements, cutting Palestinians off from each other and splitting farm land in half, as well as basic resources like water. What's most ironic about it is that it's being called a "security wall" but it's not very secure. Palestinians frequently hop the wall or break parts down and walk through. Why? Because it's very poorly made and unstable. It's not permanently built into the ground, and it's not more than maybe 12 feet high. Does that sound secure to anybody? Wouldn't it make more sense to build a security wall out very high up and deep into the ground? The reason it's not built like that is so it can be mobil so the Israelis can shift the border at whim.


That's glossing over a lot of details, especially about the wars and such, but if you want to know more on them, I can direct you to some very good resources.

[seksybeetchkerri]

wow... i didnt know all of that.

thank you.

*edit*

I am in shock on all of that, i never knew there was that much involved in the whole thing. Makes me wonder what else is going on that i dont know about :-/

*starts doing internet searches*

[TheHawk]

Originally posted by seksybeetchkerri
Makes me wonder what else is going on that i dont know about :-/

The only advantage of Bush being in office: More people are starting to see thru the bullshit and realize how fucked up this world is

[seksybeetchkerri]

Now adam... i have one more question... and i am kinda wondering if i should ask it, but i do want an opinion based on facts and what not, not just peoples hatred towards whats going on.

With all of this going on? Why are we in iraq?

Honestly.

Originally posted by seksybeetchkerri
Now adam... i have one more question... and i am kinda wondering if i should ask it, but i do want an opinion based on facts and what not, not just peoples hatred towards whats going on.

With all of this going on? Why are we in iraq?

Honestly.

Iraq doesn't really have anything to do with Isreal. We're over there because (IMO) Hussein's regime needed to be dealt with sooner or later and sooner is better than later (seeing that we didn't do the job right the first time). But Isreal is one of the big reasons why there is so much hatred for us and the U.N. in the Middle East.

[MysteryMeat]

Originally posted by seksybeetchkerri
Now adam... i have one more question... and i am kinda wondering if i should ask it, but i do want an opinion based on facts and what not, not just peoples hatred towards whats going on.

With all of this going on? Why are we in iraq?

Honestly.

We're in Iraq right now because days after 9/11, Rumsfield put a note on Georgies lap essentially saying that this would be a good time to invade.

[TheHawk]

Originally posted by -m-3000
(seeing that we didn't do the job right the first time)

What exactly would have been 'doing it right the first time'?

Should we have taken Hussein out of power, which would have almost certainly allowed/encouraged the Shiites (sp) to take control of the country, which would in turn cause a similar uprising in Saudi Arabia, destroying one of our most powerful Arabian allies and compromising multiple military estabilshments within Saudi and our safe haven in the middle east?

Originally posted by TheHawk
What exactly would have been 'doing it right the first time'?

Should we have taken Hussein out of power, which would have almost certainly allowed/encouraged the Shiites (sp) to take control of the country, which would in turn cause a similar uprising in Saudi Arabia, destroying one of our most powerful Arabian allies and compromising multiple military estabilshments within Saudi and our safe haven in the middle east?

You're right.

From now on I propose that all hostile dictatorships be left alone to thrive and plot against us.

[question]

I read in an article somewhere, Time I believe (i won't be able to link it, because I'm unsure) that Dubya went to Rice's office in the first few days of his administration and said "Fuck Saddam, we're taking him out." Which would, to me, make it sound as though he was acting on his own accord. Not in suggestion from the SoD. Is this note you talk about being from Rumsfield legit, or are you just making it up?

Originally posted by MysteryMeat
We're in Iraq right now because days after 9/11, Rumsfield put a note on Georgies lap essentially saying that this would be a good time to invade.

[TheHawk]

Originally posted by -m-3000
You're right.

From now on I propose that all hostile dictatorships be left alone to thrive and plot against us.

We got him out of Kuwait, it's what we went there to do, we did it, we came home. There was no intention of removing him from power or taking control of his country. He invaded another country, the UN stepped in and corrected the problem, end of story.

[MysteryMeat]

Originally posted by question
I read in an article somewhere, Time I believe (i won't be able to link it, because I'm unsure) that Dubya went to Rice's office in the first few days of his administration and said "Fuck Saddam, we're taking him out." Which would, to me, make it sound as though he was acting on his own accord. Not in suggestion from the SoD. Is this note you talk about being from Rumsfield legit, or are you just making it up?

No, I actually read this; I'll post the article (if I can find it online) after lunch.

[question]

fnooooooooord.

Originally posted by MysteryMeat
No, I actually read this; I'll post the article (if I can find it online) after lunch.

[Adam D]

Alright, here's a factual argument for why we're there.

I'm disclined outright to believe liberation or concerns of Iraqi WMD use are the reasons we're there. Why? Because there was no clear evidence of WMDs in existance. In 1999, 2000, and 2001 the State Dept. and the CIA were saying Iraq was less of a threat now than in the past. Then all the sudden they are. That doesn't make sense. It also doesn't make sense that as there was more criticism of the WMD argument, the administration backed off of that to champion liberation. You can look through Bush's speeches from 2002-2003 and there's a transition from talking about WMD to liberation. WMDs aren't even discussed anymore.

So you're left with the liberation argument. If the administration believed this from the beginning, why wasn't it a reason from the start? Moreover, if you look at the history of people in the administration, like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc. these are all people who in the past championed regimes like Hussein and other very brutal regimes. I don't think these people suddenly changed their minds altogether. There is a common trend that does link them all together in their histories. They're all followers of the same sort of ideology.

This ideology isn't new, it's something that goes all the way back to the post-WW2 era. Foreign policy and military planners realized they were the only real world power left, and believed the US should take advantage of this. One document drafted by these people called for the creation of the "Grand Area" which pretty much meant we should take as much of the world as we can and ensure it is available to the US as a market for our goods. The best way to do that, is to ensure the leaders of other countries are subserviant to our foreign policy aims and establish an economic environment condusive to US capital and goods. Categorically, the best leaders for this job are brutal dictators who will crush popular movements and keep their own populations subserviant to themselves. In turn, they can keep the population in a position to be unable to stop the flow of US capital and be forced to purchase US goods. That's how people like Hussein end up in power. When these people step out of line and reject the US or try to help their own people, the US either sends in the military or the CIA to overthrow them, one way or another. Suddenly they become evil villians, when before they were our best friends.

It sounds very conspiracy theory-ish, but if you read these government documents, it's very, very real. You look at the way our leaders championed people like Hussein, and it's hard to deny that. You look at internal documents about these people, and it's almost more incredulous to read it yourself than for me to tell you about it.

In Iraq, Hussein stepped over the line when he invaded Kuwait. One would think after that the right thing to do would be to kick him out of power. Instead, the Bush I administration advocated keeping him there out of fear of a Shite government forming in his wake and it might be noncompliant with us. The US actually helped crush 2 different popular revolts against Hussein after the Gulf War. Since he's being increasingly noncompliant with the US since the sanctions began (preferring to sell oil to Russia, Germany, France over the US, etc.) it's time for him to go, according to the Bush administration. 9/11 and the war on terror provide a good cover for that. I'm not saying this war was about oil, it was about his refusal to be compliant with the US economic interests, and the existing sanctions prevent the US from selling a lot of exports to Iraq, beyond importing oil. So the best way to get a better share of oil and another open market is to oust Hussein.

Couple that with the new Bush doctrine of 2002. In it, Bush advocated the use of unilateral military aggression (preemptive strike) to achieve US interests. Iraq served as the perfect example and test case for this doctrine. Iraq has an unliked dictator and maybe some WMDs, so it's easier to sell that sort of doctrine on such a place as opposed to a country that it will be harder to sell aggression on, such as Venezuela. So you find the easy test case, ensure it is disarmed (that's why the WMD issue came up as a reason for war) and then demolish it. Prop up a favorable government, and all is good. Once you have established the doctrine and proven its useage once, it's easier to use it on other nations that reasons for war may be more difficult to sell on the public.

[Hey Bubu]

In short

9/11 attacks - we go on the hunt for Osama and terrorist groups. Problem, they are "shadowed" units without a single place to attack. Terrorist cells everywhere.

Opportunity arises: oust Hussein who has been a bad boy and use "possible" ties to Al Q'aeda to back up the war movement.

As the war moves on, move Al Q'aeda issue to the side. Implement WMD's issues. After long search, move from WMD's to a more "humanitarian and righeous cause" such as liberating the people of Iraq.

[Element4040]

Adam's so smart

Seriously, couldn't have summed it up better myself.