Quote:
Originally Posted by hkbajwa  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. |
Personally speaking, I think it is yourself and others who wish to cast the US as some sort of idealistic world leader...even though, again, the US, like all other countries, acts to protect its own interests.
And I definitely think the big difference between the US and other governments with regards to world perception
is media coverage.
And, all of the world's other more dominant powers (the UK, Russia, China, France) are all involved in the internal affairs of other nations and, in some cases, much more than the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hkbajwa 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. |
Oh, other countries are just as "guilty" of acting in their own self interests as the US is.
Perhaps you shouldn't read too much into what US politicians say, because some of it is simply rhetoric. And other country's leaders do the same thing, even though you might not see it in the media as often.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hkbajwa 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. |
But, how is Hamas' demand that Israel doesn't exist any more or less of a "pre-requisite before 'talks' can occur" than Israel's demand to be recognized by Hamas as a nation with a right to exist?
The truth is, they are already in negotiations...regardless if you call such positions as being "official talks" or not.
In short, Israel has nothing to further talk about with Hamas if Hamas doesn't outright declare that Israel has a right to exist.
And, on the other hand, Hamas has nothing further to talk about with Israel if Israel doesn't outright accept the position that it doesn't have a right to exist and that it will simply go away.
In essence, these are the initial demands of these two groups...so there is an impasse between them.
And, at this point in time, I think it is irrational for Hamas to hold on to their demand since there is an extreme improbability that Israel will ever concede to such a demand.
Personally speaking, I think Hamas would be acting more pragmatically if they drop this position, recognize Israel's right to exist, and demand, instead, that Israel abandon all settlements in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and in East Jerusalem...before they will "talk" further with Israel...since this is the position of many of Israel's allies, the US included.
Then, if Israel agrees to this demand, which I believe might be acceptable to Israel in general...with a bit of a push from her allies, at least...then Israel would remove these settlements as long as there is no attacks on Israel and Hamas takes an active role in preventing any possible attacks.
Then the resettlement of Palestinian refugees could be negotiated next.
The truth is, for any of this to work, both the Israelis and the Palestinians are going to have to compromise. But, if Hamas represents the Palestinians and they are unwilling to compromise with regards to such a basic notion that Israel exists or has the right to exist, then how will the Israelis actually be able to live up to this demand if they have no real intention in doing so?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hkbajwa 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. |
The truth is, the Arabs and Jews in the region in the 1940's were offered a two state solution back in the 1940's by the UN...which the Arabs promptly turned down without any real desire to even negotiate the details of that two state solution.
And, the fact is, the Arabs in that region wanted that region for themselves and it is very likely that, if they had declared that region as their state prior to the Jews, it would be those Jews who where in the region at the time who would be refugees today, instead of the Palestinians.
But, all of this is academic at this point in time and focusing on the past isn't going to solve today's problems.
And, how exactly are the Palestinians going to negotiate with a nation or government it says doesn't exist?
(There is even evidence that it was non-indigenous Arabs that, to some degree, had asked indigenous Arabs to leave the region so that they could fight the new Jewish state. So, the Palestinian refugee situation isn't, in fact, all of Israel's doing.)
08-22-2007, 11:58 AM
Linear Mode
