And the Middle East has exploded once more

[Onhell]

Perun... You have too much time on your hands.

 

[Yax]

Terrorists cause terror, and that's what the Hezbollah is doing.

Excellent post, I agree totally, but you have to look at it from Hezbollah's point of view too, even if you don't agree with them (and I don't, I'm neutral). Hezbollah is a mixture of all kinds of people, including syrians, iranians and  Palestinians. The Palestinian members generally sees themself as freedomfighters. Remember, one terrorist might be the other side's freedomfighter as it's said.

The people from other nationalities does not fight for the right of the Palestininan state to exist, but because the Palestinians are muslims and Israel is a Jewish country. In other words, they want the middle-east to be united muslims only without a Jewish state in the middle, which I believe has its foundation in racsism, since some people just can't stand that other people worships 'another God', when it's in 'reality' the same. Which brings us to the eternal question. Why can't people just live in peace with one and other?

Is it because they are raised to hate? Is it fear? Is it egoism? Or just ignorance. I, among with many others say that it is a mixture of all and a vicious circle which can only be broken if both parts take a step towards acceptance (It's obvious, I know). But unfortunantly, noone high up in all the middle-east camps seems to be willing to do that, since they consider themself to be right and the other wrong. They never see a middleway. That's why I believe there will be future attacks, perhaps not tomorrow, but a few years from now.   

 

[Raven]

Which brings us to the eternal question. Why can't people just live in peace with one and other?

Is it because they are raised to hate? Is it fear? Is it egoism? Or just ignorance. I, among with many others say that it is a mixture of all and a vicious circle which can only be broken if both parts take a step towards acceptance (It's obvious, I know). But unfortunantly, noone high up in all the middle-east camps seems to be willing to do that, since they consider themself to be right and the other wrong. They never see a middleway. That's why I believe there will be future attacks, perhaps not tomorrow, but a few years from now.   

Because the Jews were originally foreigners in Israel. They came in and took land given to them by God. It's pure Xenophobia, and the fact that Muslims slaughtered thousands of innocents when they retook the Holy Land does not change their opinion that the state of Israel is false. Some are able to just ignore it and get on with their lives.  Others think that killing civilians on a massive scale is going to change anything. 

It's the same here in Northern Ireland. Some, from both sides, simply accept the state of Northern Ireland and get on with their lives. While the struggle has (thankfully) progressed past the petty squabbling of paramilitaries, we are now at the stage where we have to endure the petty squabblings of politicians, who are unable to put the past behind them. To digress, you may have heard of the 'Reverend' Ian Paisley, the leader of the Democratic Unionist Party, a major force advocating the links between NI and UK. However. in 1985, UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher signed the Anglo-Irish Agreement with Irish Premier, Garret Fitzgerald. This sought an end to the so-called 'Troubles', by giving the Irish government and advisory role in the NI Stormont government. It also effectively cemented Partition, stating that unless the majority of NI citizens wished to rejoin Eire, NI would remain a part of the United Kingdom. However, 'Reverend' Ian Paisley, an upstanding member of the Presbyterian Church, did not see it that way.  He saw the 'evil' Catholics of the South (because, of course, the Irish government was and still is controlled by Rome) seeking to invade his country.  This is an excerpt of a sermon he gave in his church on the night of 15th November 1985.  Please note I am paraphrasing this, as I cannot find an exact link:

'And we would pray, Lord, that you would come down upon that evil leader of our country [Margaret Thatcher], and we would pray that you would smite her! Show us your strength, Lord, and strike down this evil woman!'

Now, even though this is paraphrased, he did use the word 'smite'. And he did call on God to strike down Margaret Thatcher. To emphasise this point, this man is one of the leaders of the Presbyterian Church in NI, and the leader of one of the strongest parties in NI. And yet he is so ingrained in his hatred, he is completely unable to embrace new ideas-he called Pope John Paul II the 'Antichrist'. This is why the situation in NI and also, in part, why the situation is so bad in the Middle East. Because we have arrogant, narrow-minded pricks in government, who are completely unable to revise thier views on their opposition.  And as long as people like 'Reverend' Ian Paisley hold the majority in any government, things can never get better.
[/rant]

(Sorry for going off-topic... :-[)

 

[Anonymous]

Because the Jews were originally foreigners in Israel. They came in and took land given to them by God.

WHAT? 

It's pure Xenophobia, and the fact that Muslims slaughtered thousands of innocents when they retook the Holy Land does not change their opinion that the state of Israel is false.[/b]

WHAT?

 

[Raven]

WHAT? 

WHAT?

When the Hebrews settled in Israel (then the land of Canaan), they were not the original inhabitants (if you believe that there is some historical accuracy in Exodus). Even if you do not accept the Biblical history as a source, it cannot be denied that there must have been, at some point, a significant influx of Hebrews to the region at some point a few thousand years B.C., for the ancient Kingdom of Israel to have arisen. Maybe I didn't word my reply correctly, but the Jews were originally foreigners in Canaan, in the same way that the Anglo-Saxons or Normans were foreigners in England. The Jews, however, did not intergrate with the local population in the same way most invaders do, and this is one of the sticking points many Muslims have with the Israelis.

As for the second error, my Medieval history is sadly lacking.  The corrections should be 'Arabs' and 'occupied', sorry! In fact, scratch most of that statement, and replace it with this, as I wasn't thinking straight at the time:
'It's pure Xenophobia. The Jews have a tradition of keeping to themselves wherever they settle, and many people distrust them because of this'
Hope that helps, but if I have made any other ridiculously foolish errors, point them out. My knowledge of the region is sketchy at best.

EDIT: I've read up a little bit more about Saladin, and I can see why my second statement was so stupid.  I simply presumed that, because of the mass slaughter employed by the Christian Crusaders against Muslims when they captured a city, the Muslim armies under Saladin would retaliate in similar fashion after taking a city.  Now I can see that, from the Muslim side at least, there was great amnesty during the Crusades. I always wondered why Dante included Saladin among the souls of virtuous pagans in Limbo, but Mohammed and other Islamic prophets were condemned to the Circle of Hell chosen for 'sowers of strife'.

 

[Anonymous]

When the Hebrews settled in Israel (then the land of Canaan), they were not the original inhabitants (if you believe that there is some historical accuracy in Exodus). Even if you do not accept the Biblical history as a source, it cannot be denied that there must have been, at some point, a significant influx of Hebrews to the region at some point a few thousand years B.C., for the ancient Kingdom of Israel to have arisen. Maybe I didn't word my reply correctly, but the Jews were originally foreigners in Canaan, in the same way that the Anglo-Saxons or Normans were foreigners in England. The Jews, however, did not intergrate with the local population in the same way most invaders do, and this is one of the sticking points many Muslims have with the Israelis.

Yes, you are correct there. However, the land was certainly not 'given' to them by God/Jahwe/Allah/Indra/Ahura Mazda/Jupiter/Marduk/Odin/Perun/Whatever else.
As you said, any population has wandered into its home country at one point or another (except perhaps that at the banks of Lake Tanganyika). So it's not too much to believe that the Hebrews did that too.

As for the second error, my Medieval history is sadly lacking.  The corrections should be 'Arabs' and 'occupied', sorry! In fact, scratch most of that statement, and replace it with this, as I wasn't thinking straight at the time:
'It's pure Xenophobia. The Jews have a tradition of keeping to themselves wherever they settle, and many people distrust them because of this'
Hope that helps, but if I have made any other ridiculously foolish errors, point them out. My knowledge of the region is sketchy at best.

Righto, I misunderstood your statement and thought you said that at some point, the Muslims retook Palestine- I wouldn't know when that should have happened. Except maybe during the Crusades, which would be arguable in any case.

Let me sketch the basis of the present-day situation (Yes, I've got nothing to do but watch and wait right now as well). During the Judaean revolt of 79 AD, most of the Jewish inhabitants of the country fled, which became known as the Diaspora. during the following centuries, they settled down in most parts of Europe and much of Asia. They were never able to assimilate and always kept their identity. This caused several Catholic societies to view them with mistrust (interestingly enough, this was the same with the Christians in the Roman Empire). This led to occasional pogroms and persecutions. The whole thing started to settle down when the European society became more secular in the aftermath of the Thirty Years War (1618-1648), and by the 19th century, the Jews had largely assimilated to most European societies. However, with the ascent of nationalism during the second half of the 19th century, many Jews started to become aware of their religious and largely ethnic identity. This led them to believe they are one people, but without an own country. So, many decided to return to their country of origin, Palestine. In the early 20th century, many Jews in fact did return to that country, which was part of the Ottoman Empire at that point and mostly Muslim. It is an interesting fact, at least to me, that Jews and Muslims never had a big problem of living together. It was mostly the Christians who were being the non-conformists. To my knowledge, there had never been any kind of large-scaled persecution of Jews in any Muslim-controlled country during the Middle Ages or the Modern Age. The same happened in Palestine at that time: Jews and Muslims were peacefully living side-by side. The big problems began when the British promised the Jews to occupy Palestine from the Ottomans after World War I and later give it to the Jews to found their own country. Although the British did occupy Transjordania, things remained rather calm until after World War II, millions of Jewish refugees from Europe wanted to enter the country. Eventually, the United Nations decided to form three countries from Transjordania: the kingdom of Jordan, as well as an Arab Palestine and a Jewish state, to be called Israel. Palestine and Israel were to be roughly the same size. There were to be two international zones, Jerusalem and the area around Tel Aviv and Jaffa, since both were major centres for Jews and Muslims alike. The Israelis agreed on the plan, but the Palestinians and their Arab neighbours did not and threatened to drive the Jews back to the sea. Since many of the residents of Israel had just survived the holocaust and other mass persecutions in Stalin's Soviet Union, they were ready to defend their lives and their rights as a people. As I said before, they were determined never to be victims again. So, one day after Israels independence in 1948, joint forces from Egypt, Palestine, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon attacked the new country. And this is where the mess began.
Israel managed to defend itself, and even occupy some territories. Later on, it had to defend itself in a good number of other attacks, in 1956, 1967 (don't quote me on that one) and 1973. In the 1980s, the Palestinians, who were under Israeli occupation, began revolting against the Israelis in what became known as the 'Intifadah'. Only in 1979 did a Muslim country actually acknowledge Israel's existence -Egypt- and was heavily sanctioned by all other Arab countries. In 1994, Jordan followed suit. Until now, I believe (don't quote me on this), there are only four Muslim countries who entertain diplomatic ties to Israel- Turkey, Egypt, Jordan and Pakistan. Iran cut the ties in 1979. The Palestinians revolted again in 2000, in the second Intifadah.
So, it is easy to see that Israel believes itself surrounded by enemies. There are only three or four countries which it can rely on for at least having friendly ties -the USA, Germany, Turkey and, I believe, Great Britain. Many European countries are seen as not supportive, because they tend to take the position of Israel's enemies. Russia has always been known to be supportive of Israel's enemies. So, this is what the whole mess looks like, from the Israeli perspective. Any critical mind should be able to work out the Palestinian/Arab point of view from this short and inaccurate description of mine.

 

[Raven]

Thanks for that, Per.  I've been reading the innumerable number of articles on the history of the Middle East on Wikipedia, and have at least a base of knowledge now.  It interests me that you say the Jews and Muslims had no problem living with each other-perhaps this was entertained while the Middle East enjoyed a fairly affluent reign under the Ottoman Empire?

As for my second statement, I intended to mean the capture of Jerusalem, in the 11th (?) Century.  But as I have since then found my belief that the capture of the Holy Land by Islam was bloody was completely erroneous, the statement no longer holds.  Especially as the pogroms in Russia and other European states and the holocaust were probably more bloody than any Arab atrocity, real or otherwise.

Finally, I suppose the real problem here is not religion, but territory?  It's exactly the same here, in Northern Ireland.  The real problem is not Protestantism vs. Catholicism, as it has been demonstrated that, with proper application of will and an open mind, these sects can live peacefully (hell, many of my fellow Christians of my generation reject the traditional Churches and choose to label themselves simply as 'Christians'-I do).  The problem is the past giving and taking of land and drawing of borders-religion simply playing a role as an excuse.  The trouble with the Middle East is that the division has been more drastic-when you have Israel as one country surrounded by Arab countries, with little discussion between them for many years, the labelling of 'Us' and 'Them' becomes more tangible...

Bah, the entire history of the world seems messed up to me.  'Those that do not study the past are doomed to repeat its mistakes'-the problem is the parties involved may know what happened in the past, but they are unwilling to analyse what went wrong...instead, they simply enter a cycle of hate.  If you took a Catholic child and Protestant child from the estates of Belfast and asked them who they hate, they would say each other without a pause.  If you asked them to explain why, however...

EDIT: And to clear my first statement up entirely, when I said 'God gave them Israel', I didn't mean to use that as a justification.  I meant to use it as an example for why the Israelis may claim their sovreignity as a nation, at least in the initial stages.  Now, their motivation is 'We're here now, and we're not going to up camp and bugger off!'

 

[Anonymous]

Thanks for that, Per.  I've been reading the innumerable number of articles on the history of the Middle East on Wikipedia, and have at least a base of knowledge now.  It interests me that you say the Jews and Muslims had no problem living with each other-perhaps this was entertained while the Middle East enjoyed a fairly affluent reign under the Ottoman Empire?

I suppose the reason is that under the Ottomans, everybody was equally opressed, it doesn't matter whether (s)he was Muslim or Jewish.

As for my second statement, I intended to mean the capture of Jerusalem, in the 11th (?) Century.  But as I have since then found my belief that the capture of the Holy Land by Islam was bloody was completely erroneous, the statement no longer holds.  Especially as the pogroms in Russia and other European states and the holocaust were probably more bloody than any Arab atrocity, real or otherwise.

Phew, that's a good question. Was the Arab expansion justified? The spread of Islam? Ask a Muslim and ask a Christian and you'll get three different answers...

Finally, I suppose the real problem here is not religion, but territory?

Of course! Religion is never the 'real' problem, it's just a perfect fuel for every conflict. Take religion away and you'd have the real things lie open: Territory, economy (I believe the Jewish settlers introduced a more 'western' economy which proved to be more effective and profitable) and water. If you could point it down to those things, you could solve the problems. But with religion in the game, you can never solve a conflict, sad but true.

Bah, the entire history of the world seems messed up to me.  'Those that do not study the past are doomed to repeat its mistakes'-the problem is the parties involved may know what happened in the past, but they are unwilling to analyse what went wrong...instead, they simply enter a cycle of hate.

The big problem is that some people love to learn about the past, but refuse to learn from it. Or they draw the wrong conclusions.

 

[Anonymous]

Have to postpone reading this for later, as I'm busy at work (unlike my friend Perun ). Just wanted to jump in quickly: nice to see a great exchange again, gentlemen...

EDIT: Just hope I haven't killed it...

 

[Anonymous]

No you didn't. It just went to bed for today

 

[Raven]

Well, trying to steer this thread back on-topic, both sides appear to be holding to the truce imposed yesterday morning, although there are still (naturally) sporadic skirmishes as the Israeli forces advance towards their own border, passing through areas where the removal of communications has prevented certain Hezballah cells from receiving word about the truce.  Whether the area will restabilise or not with the arrival of the Lebanese and UN forces remains to be seen, but there will certainly be a reckoning in both Lebanon and Israel; PM Olmet did not achieve the aims he set out before the conflict-Hezballah still stands, and the two soldiers captured in July have not been recovered.  In Lebanon, on the other hand, Hezballah has brought the wrath of one of the mightiest armies in the world down on its country; while Hezballah's leader may claim that he his the victor, as his organisations still stands, the rest of the Lebanese population may not feel so inclined, with their houses in the rubble...

Wow, my summary is so vague and non-specific, it could be on the 10 O'clock news!

 

[Anonymous]

Well, you people might know that Olmert has specifically asked Germany to send troops down there. In Germany, there was quite a bit of debate about this, but now, it seems that the parliament will agree. Right now, Germany has troops in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Congo as well as Kuwait and Djibouti, if the latter two haven't been withdrawn.
Germany has been notorious for the nasty habit of starting world wars, so its military has got a couple of unique restrictions. First of all, it is forbidden in the constitution for any German troop to incite or participate in a war of agression. Just to make sure, this also means that German troops are basically not allowed to engage in any fights that do not include self-defence or defence of the Federal Republic of Germany or its interests. That means that in Afghanistan, for example, the German troops are not engaged in the persecution of the Taleban, but instead are there to ensure peace and stability, and help rebuild the country. The same counts for the Kosovo; in Congo, the troops are only supposed to function as a sort of military police to ensure the area stays calm during the elections.
A second thing that is special for Germany is that the parliament may issue a veto if it is against sending German troops to other places. That means, the chancellor and the minister of defence can promise as much as they want that they'll send troops, if the parliament says no afterwards, it doesn't happen.

So, it is a brilliant tactical move of Olmert to ask for German troops. He knows that all they will do is stand there, possibly stop Hezbollah fighters from going to Israel, and help Lebanon rebuild its infrastructure, which will literally take ages but makes the whole thing seem less bad. Moreover, it is known in Israel that no German soldier would ever dare to shoot at an Israeli one. Just imagine the consequences for Germany's image alone. On the other hand, this very same thing is the reason for Germany to be unable not to follow an Israeli plea for help. The Federal Republic feels responsible for Israel's safety and for the country's right to exist. So if Israel is threatened in its existence, it is impossible for Germany just to turn away.

 

[Anonymous]

Germany has been notorious for the nasty habit of starting world wars

Yeah right...

 

[Anonymous]

Nice argument.

 

[Raven]

Well, you people might know that Olmert has specifically asked Germany to send troops down there. In Germany, there was quite a bit of debate about this, but now, it seems that the parliament will agree. Right now, Germany has troops in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Congo as well as Kuwait and Djibouti, if the latter two haven't been withdrawn.
Germany has been notorious for the nasty habit of starting world wars, so its military has got a couple of unique restrictions. First of all, it is forbidden in the constitution for any German troop to incite or participate in a war of agression. Just to make sure, this also means that German troops are basically not allowed to engage in any fights that do not include self-defence or defence of the Federal Republic of Germany or its interests. That means that in Afghanistan, for example, the German troops are not engaged in the persecution of the Taleban, but instead are there to ensure peace and stability, and help rebuild the country. The same counts for the Kosovo; in Congo, the troops are only supposed to function as a sort of military police to ensure the area stays calm during the elections.
A second thing that is special for Germany is that the parliament may issue a veto if it is against sending German troops to other places. That means, the chancellor and the minister of defence can promise as much as they want that they'll send troops, if the parliament says no afterwards, it doesn't happen.

So, it is a brilliant tactical move of Olmert to ask for German troops. He knows that all they will do is stand there, possibly stop Hezbollah fighters from going to Israel, and help Lebanon rebuild its infrastructure, which will literally take ages but makes the whole thing seem less bad. Moreover, it is known in Israel that no German soldier would ever dare to shoot at an Israeli one. Just imagine the consequences for Germany's image alone. On the other hand, this very same thing is the reason for Germany to be unable not to follow an Israeli plea for help. The Federal Republic feels responsible for Israel's safety and for the country's right to exist. So if Israel is threatened in its existence, it is impossible for Germany just to turn away.

So, in effect the German troops will be simply discouraging belligerence by their prescene-after all, the average Lebanese may not know that a German soldier can't fire unless fired upon, and the threat of force is a more effective way of keeping the peace than force itself...

One thing, though; why would Olmert want to guarantee against any possible skirmish between UN and Israeli troops?  I don't see how that could be a feasible threat, although if you mean that there could be cases of mistaken identity a.k.a 'friendly fire', I can see your point.

 

[Anonymous]

Nice argument.

It was Austria-Hungary who startet WW I, not Germany.

 

[Raven]

It was Austria-Hungary who startet WW I, not Germany.

Actually, if you want to play that game, it was the Bosnians (or was it the Serbians?) who triggered the war, by murdering the heir to the Austrian throne.  And even discounting that, Austria-Hungary would never have gone to war without the support of the Wehrmacht.

 

[XoRRoX]

In this conflict (that is a little ice cold right now) i have supported Isreal the most. Libanon has not done enough to fight against Hizbollah - and the kidnapping of the soldiers was the step, there crossed the frontier.

But i also support Isreal because of the left-wing propaganda, that has crawled all over the danish televison and newspaper. All TV time has been about the bombning over Libanon. They don't show anything about Hizbollahs bombning over Isreal, but it don't surprise me. Actually a freelance journalist from Libanon manipulated a picture taked over Libanon, so the bombardement looked more harsh, that it actually were!

(Sorry if i sound to harsh to anybody, who don't share my view. And sorry for my bad english)

 

[Anonymous]

It was Austria-Hungary who startet WW I, not Germany.

Wrong.

Austria-Hungary was never keen on a war with Great Britain or France. It was Germany that attacked France, marched through Belgium and dragged Great Britain into the war. It was Germany that knew that Paris and Moscow had an alliance, and it was Germany that stuck to any Austrian action, no matter the consequences. It was Germany that said it supported Austrian actions in Serbia, despite knowing that Russia was allied to Serbia.

 

[IronDuke]

Been readin a lot of Fritz Fischer lately, Perun?

It's easy to lay the blame for the collosal clusterfuck that was the Great War on one nation. The truth is, however, that everyone was to blame.

If Serbia had given in to the Austrian demands.....
If Austria hadn't been so unreasonable in making said demands....
If Germany hadn't issued the "blank cheque"....
If Schlieffen's plan wasn't implemented by Moltke....
If France had been better prepared....
If Britain had minded their own business......
If Russia had stopped trying to "gobble" the Ottoman Empire and play "big brother" to the Balkans....