America and Israel

[shadow destroy]

If they turn their back on Israel it's just another disappointment on the list really.
The United States is largely responsible for allow that mess in the middle east, might as well take responsibility for once.

[Busman]

In this point in time i think Israel is just a US asset.

Multiple nations in the middle east have little or no governments and some are actually in civil war and it will only be a matter of time before it consumes the region and the US is probably putting its eggs into one basket by supporting Israel and supplying them with technology to use in a war. Innocent people are going to die due to the actions of some closed minded individuals that want this to happen.

[bobsobol]

FYI any prophecy which locates Armageddon / the end of days / the last days of the world / the final war etc. all place it somewhere around the turn of the 21st century and starting in the middle east.

Just so you know.

And I do mean "all of them". This is the war between Odin and Thor, the time when the Jade Emperor sends his armies to reign down on the mortals, the day when the sins of our hearts are weighed against a feather and Allah turns all our sins against us to distort the faces of the most holy of us till we are unrecognisable.

Every nation should have some interest in this region, at this particular time. However, if we are to avoid prophesy, we should be *very* careful what we do there. ^_^

[SiGGy]

Nuke Iran and nuke Palestine. Problem solved!

[Repthon]

If you Nuke Palestine Israel will be affected badly if you know geography and science.

[Junkers]

If you Nuke Palestine Israel will be affected badly if you know geography and science.

He isn't being serious

[bobsobol]

If you Nuke Palestine Israel will be affected badly if you know geography and science.

Actually, from the current state of the "political map" Palestine is Israel. (that's kinda what all the fuss is about)

[mucski]

I am not American , and I might be hated for this , but I tell you , America's intention is not to help them. Their intention is to get their oil. Now I don't know if you know about this , but for some War means pain and loss , while for others is cash , cash , and more cash. Trust me , no country on earth helps other country without getting back something , especially not America.

[Flash1369]

are you talking about iran or israel?
edit:yes israel is palestine, in the eyes of palestinians, they wanna setup a country right here, and want us to go back to 67's limits.
example:

green-israel
brown/orangeish-palestine
white-jerusalem, internetional place ruled by the Un.
i think its still how it is registered in the un too.

[bobsobol]

Yes. That's the major place I think "America" (the U.S. government, specifically) could help, but don't... because they are more interested in other middle-east states they consider hostile. (or oil rich) Actually, I don't think Israel (or Palestine, but to be more fair to both sides of that argument "the disputed territories") are particularly oil rich. If I'm not mistaken, there is some fossil fuels, but not a great deal compared with various U.S. or eastern European states. (I could be wrong)

Here's a more current "political map" I found of the same region:-

There isn't really a Palestinian state. No official army, no official government ... only rebels and leaders of a liberation movement.

Again, despite the many differences, I would liken it to the Northern Irish Republicans who considered Northern Ireland "occupied" by "the British". They aren't actually wrong even today, in speaking in such terms. The Palestinian ... err ... I'm going to say "activists" (because just about every other form of language has become "politically charged") believe that Palestine is "occupied" by the Israelis. And it is. And just like Northern Ireland has many "Unionist" citizens who are proud to be British and have lived in Northern Ireland for generations, there are many who live in areas of Israel formerly considered to be Palestine who consider themselves Israeli and have considered themselves Israeli for generations. (actually, before the agreement following WWII all of this area was "Palestine" and there was no "State of Israel")

That change from old Palestine to present Israel is before even my time, but to Israelis it's kind of like "Istanbul" vs "Constantinople", or "Leningrad" vs "Saint Petersburg". By which I mean, these places had their name changed in the past, and then chose to change the name back from the new name to the older one. Palestine was Israel before it was Palestine, and is Israel now, where it was once Palestine. In other words, the name has changed to and from but the place is still the same place, what's the fuss about? People who still consider themselves Palestinian don't see it the same way at all.

Just like the British deliberately moved English families into Northern Ireland (though in the more distant past) Palestinian regions have been, and are still suffering an influx of pro-Israel settlers and have no political recourse against this. (because, as it stands, it's all one nation and people are free to live where they choose) Jewish settlers in what was Palestine can also make claim that their ancestors where exiled from that region a long time ago (when it was Israel before Palestine existed) and they are simply "reclaiming" an ancestral home.

I can't condone "terrorist" actions, but I do understand that with such "legitimate grievance" and pretty much 0 political voice, people will resort to violence, and when people resort to violence governments will respond in kind, and their instinct is to stamp out "propaganda" and "incitement" and things quickly get out of hand. This is what has happened (as I see it) and is continuing to happen.

Those people who still feel "Palestinian" (and I'm not going to label them by faith or race, that's not the point ... my government spoke about "Catholics" and "Protestants" in Ireland, and that wasn't the point either ) feel they are not being listened to, and the official political response is "Listen to what? You are arguing over a nothing!" Which, I have to agree, is equivalent to "not being listened to." On the other hand, there is a difference between "listening to legitimate grievances" and "negotiating with terrorists". This is a balance which is very hard to get right when you have any kind of "vested interest" in the argument, one way or the other.

The U.S. could use it's leverage with the Israeli government and foreign supporters of the Palestinian movement to broker talks aiming for an agreement. Whether it be political concessions which give "Palestinians" a "voice" in legitimate government in return for cessation of hostilities and disarmament (as ended up being the resolution in Northern Ireland) or a parting of ways such as "the two state solution" ... I'm fairly sure that the people living there on either side of the argument are suitably bored of the status-quo and genuinely want an end to the conflict. Or, at least, to reduce the conflict to the level of verbal hostility in a political forum. XD

The Israeli government is aiding the U.S. middle-east conflicts because it sees many of those nations as aiding their domestic uprising. (not without cause) But the U.S. deteriorates it's position with "Palestinian leaders" by painting it's self Islamophobic with each new conflict, and "pro-Zionist", each time it accepts the aid of the Israeli government.

U.S. citizens have a constitutional rite to freedom of religion and freedom of religious expression. But this is not the ethic the U.S. is exporting today. Why? (for myself, I know, but I'm asking everyone else to consider, especially "Americans" )

[LightWarrior]

We only like the Israeli cause that's our middle east fortress, I'm pretty sure they let us keep nukes there too. Anybody that knows any history at all knows that Israel is a created state to keep the jews safe. Muslims and Jews have coexisted for thousands of years before in peace.

[Flash1369]

yo that didnt made me lol right there.

[Caustik]

yo that didnt made me lol right there.

Erm, you should research into your history, because what light warrior said was correct..
Jews and Muslims did live side by side in peace, which only 'stopped' within the past 100 years or so (after Palestine became Israel, etc).

[bobsobol]

That's debatable. It's rumoured that the "Crusades" / ancient Jihad where inspired by, and certainly would have been funded by European Jewish money lenders. They had considerable power in Europe because Christians where forbidden from lending money. (being caught doing so would mean immediate excommunication) Most European Kings, and at times even the catholic church where in debt to "the Jews". (I quote that, because I'm not aware of any particular Jew or Jewish organisation masterminding any of this ... simply that Jewish peoples where granted free passage and freedom to live in Christian nations as part of the money lending schemes they set up with Europes' Kings and Lords)

For most Christians, Rome has always been more of a "holy land" than anywhere else. Christ was, after all, a wandering prophet.

Conversely, for a long period of time hordes of Muslim armies defied the teachings of the Qur'an by setting siege to nation cities until they converted or died out. They persecuted this tactic to such great effect that many cities converted upon word of their arrival.

After this period of "conquest" Islamic law held that "all followers of the one true God, and their forms of worship where protected under Islamic law." In practical terms, this meant all forms of Christian, Muslim or Jew, but expressly forbid multi-theist religions. (I'm not sure how they would consider essentially A-theist religions like Buddhism, but I suspect they didn't really encounter many) This was essentially an Islamic equivalent of the "peace" imposed on Europe for a long time by the Catholic church dictating that any Christian who killed another Christian, even in war, or under order of his King was a "Murderer" whose sins could never be absolved. However, it protected people from more than one faith, and more than one sect of a faith. ^_^

The peace in "Palestine / Israel" prior to the creation of the modern state of Israel was enforced by British colonialism, just as it was in the combined "India" which instantly became India AND Pakistan when colonial rule ended. But the cost of colonial peace was high. Specifically, while it's not greatly documented in many of these places, we know that British rule was no less severe than the regime of Saddam Hussain in Iraq. This is, or certainly may well be, what it takes to keep such hostile communities together in relative "peace".

My conclusion? None of us is without blame, or shame, and none of these acts are the wishes of any God but the acts of arrogant and wilful men. Our best course of action now is to accept what has past and let it lay, move on, and find a peaceful solution to the problems of todays' world in order that we do not propagate our hatreds into future generations.