Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : WAR on Terror. Will it engulf the Entire Middle East? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (2243)	4/13/2002 11:51:42 AM
From: E. T.	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 32591

I can't explain it, perhaps I'll get around to reading some Jerusalem history. Before 1967, wasn't Jerusalem a divided city, one side Arab the other not? Hey, but while we're on the topic perhaps you can explain something for me. A couple of weeks back on NBC evening news they did a little item on Jerusalem and some of the problems between Arabs and Israelis. Something I didn't quite understand had to do with an Arab family having left their home for a short while and when they returned there was a Jewish family living in their house. Now they had to share the house, so I'm asking you, how can that be? I mean, if an Arab family moved into a Jewish family's home while they were away, wouldn't the Arabs be thrown out. But the Jewish family seemed able to stay, to the dismay of the Arab family. NBC indicated this was not an isolated event.

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (2243)	4/13/2002 2:21:05 PM
From: epsteinbd	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 32591

That Berlin example is very good. Haven't heard it before.

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (2243)	4/13/2002 6:09:57 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 32591

Hi Zeev Hed; Re: "When Germany was divided, and Bonn was their capital, instead of their historical Berlin, for about 50 years, did you see Germans blowing themselves up in Russian and American military installations?" We killed 10% of the population of Germany in the process of conquering her. *By the end of the war, everybody there who wanted to fight was already dead or permanently maimed.* After the surrender we treated the Germans as allies and helped rebuild their economy (partly as a bulwark against the USSR). Meanwhile, the USSR treated East Germany more harshly than we did, but the fact is that East Germans had a higher standard of living than Russians did, so they were not that harsh. They similarly saw the East Germans as an ally and bulwark against NATO. By the time a new generation of cannon fodder had reached killing age West Germany was a permanent ally of the United States, and East Germany was a (more or less) permanent ally of the USSR. This process is called pacification. In addition, there wasn't a lot of other ethnic Germans in Europe that felt Germany had been badly treated. The Palestinians are surrounded by millions and millions of Arabs (and other pot stirrers) who strongly feel that the Palestinians are being badly treated, and give assistance to them. In order to pacify the Palestinians in the same way as the US pacified Germany, Israel will first have to kill 10% of their population. (I.e. 3~500,000 people.) The recent excursion into a few cities maybe killed 1000 at most. Compared to real war it was all for show. Israel will have to do this another 300 times at least to pacify the Palestinians the way that the Allies pacified the Germans. In addition, Israel will also have to neutralize the hundreds of millions of ethnic relatives that are allies and friends of the Palestinians in the area. Even killing 2% of them would add millions to the number required to die. But this is all theoretical. The United Nations won't let Israel pacify the Palestinians. If the Israelis saw the Palestinians as a useful ally and bulwark against, for instance, the Syrians, then Israel would have a chance of achieving the pacification that the US was able to achieve in West Germany. But this late in the game that looks to be impossible. -- Carl