[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] Indexes: Main | Date | Thread | Author

Re: [ba-unrev-talk] NOT++: Really, It's That Simple


> The options are:
>    1) Pick up the Isreali state and move it somewhere else.
>    2) Get out, stay out, and don't care what happens to
>        Israel.    (01)

Neither deemed politically expedient for the West at present, I suspect.
Major oil supply nearby.    (02)

>    3) Keep working, by a combination of means, to fix the
>        situation with carrots (concessions) and sticks (force)
>        even if it takes 40 years, as with the cold war, or
>        a few hundred years.
>    4) Get really nasty and start hurting people so badly that
>         they either quit, or there aren't enough left to make a
>        difference.    (03)

Israel appears to be going for a (4) followed by a (3) at present.    (04)

What is rarely stated in discussions about the West Bank etc. is
that underneath are some of the biggest aquifers of pure water
for 1000's of miles around.
I.e. it's barren rock that could be _very_ profitably fertile.    (05)

--
Peter    (06)


----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Armstrong" <eric.armstrong@sun.com>
To: <ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2002 5:42 AM
Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] NOT: Really, It's That Simple    (07)


> John, I respect your opinions and the reasoning behind them, but
> on this on I have to disagree.
>
> It is in the nature of a bully to use force to achieve their goals.
> It is in the nature of the truly brave (Ghandi, for example) to
> achieve their ends peaceably.
>
> In Ghandi's case, too, occupation was ended, but by far less
> brutal, despicable means.
>
> What holds back Western nations is *conscience*. Massive
> retaliation of the kind never before experienced on this planet
> would else end the atrocities. But Western nations are held in
> check by their own conscience. They do want the slaughter
> of innocents on their hands.
>
> Fantatics, on the other hand, know no such restrictions. That
> puts even a large power at a disadvantage.
>
> A lack of conscience allows a foreign leader to cry out against
> the injustices done to him, while inciting equal and greater
injustices
> at the very same time.
>
> The question is, at what point can a nation afford to *stop*
> standing for fair play and honor??
>
> It is lost in the dim recesses of history that the Palestinian state
> was formed on the very same day as the Israeli state, by the
> very same decree.
>
> Immediately, the Israeli state was declared unacceptable by
> the Palestinians, and war ensued.
>
> Once vanguished, the Palestinians immediately set about hollering
> about how their land was unjustly taken from them. Yet, once
> given back, the wars resumed -- time and again, in one form or
> another.
>
> Each time, promises were made: "Give us back our land, and
> there will be peace". But there never has been peace. This is
> the way of things when you deal with people who have no honor.
> They will say anything. They will promise anything. But they will
> do nothing.
>
> Unfortunately, Arafat is as totally without honor as anyone who
> has ever existed on this planet. His words mean exactly nothing.
> To accept any representation he makes is simply to play into his
> hands, and to gain nothing in return.
>
> For years now, the argument has been "We own it all. The Isreali's
> have no right here. Israel has no right to exist."
>
> Although there has been some softening of that position recently,
> it has only come about as a result of the realization that force will
> not rule the day.
>
> To retreat in the face of that force is to give the bully everything
> he wants. And after a stake has been driven far enough into the
> heart of Isreal's borders, Isreal, too, will fall -- if the religious
> fanatics have their way.
>
> Maybe the Israeli state should have been founded on some
> unoccupied islands in the South Pacific. I don't know. It sure
> would have solved some problems -- not that anyone would
> have gone there.
>
> Personally, I see religious movements as the cause of the greatest
> human suffering and the greatest travesties against mankind. To
> be so totally enamored of some rock in the middle of a dessert
> that one cannot even think of living elsewhere -- well, that defies
> sensibility, in my book.
>
> After religious fervor comes national fervor, and after that comes
> free market excesses, in their capacity to do harm in the name of
> good. But, like it or not, people do have those religious beliefs,
> and they do hunger after the same piece of barren rock.
>
> So, what is there to do?
>
> The options are:
>    1) Pick up the Isreali state and move it somewhere else.
>    2) Get out, stay out, and don't care what happens to
>        Israel.
>    3) Keep working, by a combination of means, to fix the
>        situation with carrots (concessions) and sticks (force)
>        even if it takes 40 years, as with the cold war, or
>        a few hundred years.
>    4) Get really nasty and start hurting people so badly that
>         they either quit, or there aren't enough left to make a
>        difference.
>
> I've no doubt left out some valid alternatives, but of that
> list, I think #3 makes the most sense. It combines a sense
> of honor and decency with the gumption not to get pushed
> around.
>
> On the other hand, when we start thinking about the problem
> of nuclear waste, it occurs to me that I can think of a few
> places I wouldn't mind dumping it....
>
>
>
>
>
>
>    (08)