what is the correct course of action for the US in this situation?
DJ

seriously, we should support Israel, because they are the only democratic country in the region. for some reason when an arab is killed, it doesn't bother me. it seems like all they want to do is live in the 7th century. and their bloody religion keeps them from thinking intelligently. after what the Jews went through in WWll i hope they keep their land by whatever means necessary. normally, i hate war, but in this case i make an exception. ok, i'll say it, i do not like arabs.

point of contention but merely a little known fact) the Arab world of the 7th century was technologically superior to most of Europe. In fact it would remain so for about 500 years.

Quoted Text

---

seriously, we should support Israel, because they are the only democratic country in the region. for some reason when an arab is killed, it doesn't bother me. it seems like all they want to do is live in the 7th century. and their bloody religion keeps them from thinking intelligently. after what the Jews went through in WWll i hope they keep their land by whatever means necessary. normally, i hate war, but in this case i make an exception. ok, i'll say it, i do not like arabs.

---

Chris,
I get that you don't like Arabs, but please try to keep to the topic. I don't like taxes but you seldom see me talking about it here.

To All,
I don't mind having these current events topics (as opposed to the WWII What-Ifs) as long as they are kept friendly and don't start digressing on something along the lines of "let's nuke 'em". This is an international forum and a place for friendly interchanges. Not that we have a lot of Palestinian, Arab, or Muslim users (that I am aware of), but even so I would like this site to remain a pleasant relaxing gathering spot. I hope this sentiment is shared by a majority of you all.

Also - As this is the History Talk forum, (not really a point of contention but merely a little known fact) the Arab world of the 7th century was technologically superior to most of Europe. In fact it would remain so for about 500 years.

Cheers,
Jim

Scott---we have the Washington Post in my neck of the woods. One of their editorial writers (Richard Cohen) wrote an interesting piece on the construction of a physical barrier to facilitate a "peace" process. I finished it and said to myself, "nah, don't think so. Too simplistic." The separation would be a temporary measure, but would fail in the long run. The fence concept would not address the issue of settlements on former Palestinian land or the issue of water from the Golan Heights. Whether they know it or not, that is what the governments of their nations are squabbling over. Water and land. Now, if we confine ourselves to those topics and how to mediate a reasonable settlement, I think we go along way to resolving the conflict.
DJ

I am inclined to side with Scott on the Wall issue, DJ. Short-term it might help, at least insofar as the level of paranoia can be gradually reduced. Absolutely correct assessment that what is REALLY being fought over are land and water; everything else is a veneer slapped on to justify actions/whip up support/cover butts politically. The real spoilers here are the extremist on both sides of the (not yet built) fence who will not accept the right of the other side to exist. For a lasting peace to be made, these guys need to be marginalized. Keeping a wall between them for about a hundred years might be good. With well guarded gates, both sides can feel secure. Over a hundred years' time, the passions can cool and slow, tntative steps at political and economic engagement can happen. PEACE happens when it finally dawns on both sides that everybody can make more money and have a better quality of life by expanding commerce, cooperation, and removing the wall. But there is too little trust in the region now. for this to work. These kids need to be sent to their rooms to think things over for a couple of generations. Just my .02....
Greg

Riiiiiiiiiiight, Scott....So...as regards the nuclear dio, are you referring to the wreckage of the truck with the rear axle torn off or the hoped-for hole in the ground?

Having been a history teacher once upon a LONG time ago, I must also pose the query to you: What is the precise point you were wishing to make with respect to the topic at hand? I ask only because it eludes me, and because the former educator in me wishes to keep everyone on task...
Greg

OK, Scott...I didn't mean to be insulting. Your comment about "the way things are going" has some merit, but currently the only side with warheads are the Israelis. And the only time they have been even slightly inclined to use them was in '73 when Syria came close to breaking out from the Golan Heights. Israel keeps them as a political tool. Nukes in the immediate area of contention is not really realistic no matter how rabid or obtuse either side becomes. The reason is distance. There isn't enough of it. Blowing up Tel Aviv directly contaminates the entire region, for example. No point in doing that if your avowed objective is to push the Isrealis into the sea to get the land they are sitting on. Perhaps a couple of really extreme guys might accept that, but your average Palestinian would not. I totally agree that it is out of hand over there, but since only one side has nukes I think the threat of warheads being used in that region is far lower than in Kashmir right now.
Greg