Quote:
Originally Posted by baloney_detector  But, why single out the US when:
1) Other nations have been found in non-compliance with international resolutions?
2) Other nations have not agreed to the treaty laid out by the ICC?
3) Other nations have agreed to sign BILATERAL immunity agreements?
And,
4) Other nations have a general attitude of demanding adherence to UN resolutions while being in complete violation themselves?
...unless, as being evident, you have a problem with the US in particular...even though the US is doing exactly what other nations are doing themselves? |
No doubt at all. However the contrast between the CLAIM of being a good ally, a world benefactor and a bastion of democracy and its actual ACTIONS, is particularly stark in the case of the US. Perhaps it is a result of more media coverage and closer international scrutiny. However the US is more involved in the local politics of foreign nations than any other. It is the most vocal nation regarding the duties and obligations of other nations, and it is infinitely more powerful than any other nation on the planet. With power comes responsibility.
As the most powerful nation, as the world leader, as the alleged bastion of justice and democracy, the US cannot justify its actions by the actions of smaller and less powerful states. It claims to be setting global standards. That means that it should be doing as it SAYS. Because until it does, the smaller and less powerful states can always point to you and say "well they are doing it".
OF course i can understand that you may find it unfair that the US is held to higher standards, but that is a natural result of your successive admins casting themselves in the role as the world leaders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by baloney_detector The truth is, EVERY nation in the world generally acts in ways to protect its own self-interests...which means, at times, supporting dictatorships, protecting their own economies and businesses, and even turning a blind eye to examples of human rights violations.
So why, again, single out the US when other nations are acting, themselves, in ways that protect their own self interests?
Could it be that you personally expect the US to act in a more idealistic way than all other nations...even though the US does EXACTLY what other nations do to various extremes? |
Realpolitik. I'm all for it. I have absolutely no problems with a nation looking out for itself. But i respect the chinese more for being straightforward about it. They will deal with ANYBODY to safeguard their interests, but at least they aren't hypocritical about it.
What possibly burns people more than anything else are the false claims that the US stands for global democracy ( when they are actively supporting brutal dictators) the hypocrisy of condemning others for Human rights violations, (when they are clearly in breach themselves) and boykotting regimes under the guise of disliking their extremism ( again while supporting others who are guilty of the same).
ANd yes this brings a LOT of attention on the US because its statements/policies/principles are often in direct opposition to their actions. And it engenders a lot of hatred because when the US is accused of supporting dictators, or of human rights violations or of any of the number of things the US uses as excuses to fuck with other nations, it will either deny it or claim that it is "different". It's a very clear "do as i say, don't do as i do" situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by baloney_detector Well, if Hamas truly felt that the state of Israel has the right to exist, why wouldn't they just come out and say that Israel has a right to exist?
Surely, this would help bring Israel and her allies to the negotiation table with Hamas as being a more acceptable player (to them) in promoting peace in the region and a much more realized potential for a truely peaceful-and acceptable to both parties-two-state solution.
Evidently, if Hamas is unwilling to simply and publicly realize the very evident fact that Israel isn't just going to go away be making such a statement, what hope of peace between the Israel and the Palestinians is there-by way of Hamas-within such an environment that Hamas perpetuates? |
Again as the nation that has been decimated, as the poorest, least organized and most fractured nation, as the nation that has been EVICTED in favor of millions of immigrants, i have always found it incredible that the onus is on the palestinians. If any party in this conflict is practicaly incapable of changing things it is the palestinians. They are the party with the least power, the least wealth, the least organization, the least cohesion, the least governmental writ, and the least capacity for change. They are already living ont he brink of starvation, with no economy and with no state to speak of. How much more should they give. THey are without a doubt the biggest losers in this conflict. They have lost their land, they ahve lost their sovereignty, their economy, their self-determination, their ability to defend themselves EVERYTHING. How much more should they give. To retract the demand for Israel's destruction before the benevolent powers will deign to speak to the democratically elected representatives of the people is akin to slapping them across the face with their irrelevance.
There is no doubt that any solution for peace will inevitably require a two-state solution. However one cannot place demands PRIOR to negotiations. TO do so will mean that Hamas enter the talks already defeated. And no party or nation can do that. For Hamas it is particularly problematic as their support comes from the fierce nationalism they stand for. To accept this is an acceptance of reality.
The ONLY and i repeat ONLY thing Israel and the US has to do is agree to holding talks WITHOUT any pre-requisites. Once talks have started they will INEVITABLY lead to Hamas dropping its demand for Israel's destruction. But you cannot expect a nationalistic party to retract demands before they actually start talking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by baloney_detector The implied notion that Saddam's government was "all-inclusive" and peace-provoking along ethnic, cultural, or religious lines is complete nonsense considering the actual environment on the ground that Shiites and Kurds (and other groups) lived within while Iraq was being run by Saddam. |
No doubt tensions existed, but i can assure you that Saddam definately still had them working together ( this is what made Iraq the main regional power). Regarding the Kurds, they have always had a rough time both in Iraq and in Turkey.
Anyhow it is only natural that ethnic tensions erupt when the country is pluged into war and destruction. It would NOT have erupted in the same manner had the US not invaded and destroyed the country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by baloney_detector And, in addition, the notion that the Iraq War was a "unilateral" action by the US is also complete nonsense since other nations besides the US actively supported this war and also, to various degrees of participation, played active military roles in this war...and still do. |
come ON dude.. The US invaded Iraq IN SPITE of UN decisions to the contrary. It invaded IN SPITE of Hans BLix stating there were no WMDs. The action was unilateral in the sense that it was clearly spearheaded by the US. The US is fighting this war almost single handedly. the "coalition of the Willing" was and is more or less a joke. The only big power siding with the US in this conflict is the UK. And it is a fact that the Iraq war was started on the behest of the US> No other nation would ( or could) have suggested or spearheaded such action.
Quote:
Originally Posted by baloney_detector History often plays a role in helping guide decision-makers, in the present sense, by explaining how events took place in the past.
But, on the other hand, history can often be used as a crutch for decision-makers, in the present sense, if they focus all of their attention on history.
(Heck, its extremely hard to find ANY ethnic, cultural, racial, or religious group that DOESN'T have a beef with some other ethnic, cultural, racial, or religious group.)
Of course, Israel and her allies are guilty of past and present actions that may have harmed Palestinians in some way.
But, the Palestinians and her allies are also guilty of past and present actions that may have harmed Israelis in some way.
So, rather than harp on history or events that will soon be history, how do you think the Israelis and Palestinians should settle their differences...keeping in mind the doubt that Israel will simply go away?
(Personally speaking, I think you are an idealist...which is ok. I, on the other hand, tend to be a realist...which might explain some of the differences in our positions.  )
*[I'd add that your "Canada/Mexico taking over parts of the US analogy" isn't an accurate anology regarding the current Israel - Palestinian conflict since that area was a part of the Ottoman Empire and later a British Mandate before the current conflict began in the 1940's. And, throughout history before that, that area had been under the control of various peoples...and not just Arabs or Jews who happened to live there. It's a mess, I will admit.] |
Well the analogy was made to explain the emotions involved. When what you perceive as your land is arbitrarily given to an OUTSIDER BY OUTSIDERS, you will cling to the injustice for generations. ESPECIALLY when the injustice continues to deprive you and your nation of its fundamental rights.
Imagine yourself living in a place that has been ruled by various rulers for generations who never gave you self determination.. yet when the rulers decide to leave, they do so after having given the land away to somebody that doesn't even belong to the area. The creation of Israel was a travesty against the indigenous people.
It is true that after 60 years Israel must be considered a viable state and it CAN NOT be dismatled. But that does not mean that the injustice of its creation is forgotten, nor is it fair to expect that a whole nation ( many of which still live in refugee camps, or in the Gaza prison or in the West Bank upon which Israel continues to encroach ) should just "get over it".
It is this unrealistic expectation from Israel and the US that prevents any solution. The Palestinians are not allowed to feel wronged, they are not allowed to claim their land, they are not allowed to defend themselves against Israeli aggression, they are not allowed to build their nation and economy, and they are NEVER allowed to question whether Israel should even EXIST - yet they are expected to admit defeat even before any negotiations. DO you honestly feel that this treatment and denigration of a wronged people is JUST?
I too am a realist ( i would like to think ) . I understand that peace can only come in a two-nation solution. Those Israelis who have lived and died in Israel over the past generation have every right to remain in their land of birth. But it is only REALISTIC to accept the grievances of the palestinians. TO expect them to be happy and positive about Israel given their own awful situation is akin to expecting them to act as subservient slaves that should be grateful they are even being heard. ANd moer than anything it is completely unrealistic. Even if Hamas was to change their stance, it would not reduce the grievances of the palestinian people.
The Israelis and Palestinians need to talk. But you cannot set pre-requisites for talks that are meant to clear out problems. It's like telling the palestinians that they aren't allowed to bring certain problems to the table. Sure thing, but that can only lead to incomplete and inconclusive talks.