You cannot make an untrue allegation (that I allegedly made a claim that Arabs do not have flaws in their societies as compared to Israelis),
It didn't stop you...
Lord knows you made a bundle of false accusations against the Israelis, while deliberately trying to narrow the scope of your argument to just one aspect in a multi-faceted equation. I know you would like to keep it really simple, but the Mid-East is anything but that.
You cannot indict Israeli behavior without understanding the rationale behind it. Just as one cannot indict Arab behavior either without understanding historical context.
And you can't throw around inflammatory .50 cent words like apartheid without identifying the differences between the two VERY different societies.
For one.. Blacks under S. African apartheid could not vote.
Israeli Arabs CAN.. AND DO.. vote.. 9% of the Knesset consists of Arab representatives.
Thus, by that fact alone, your use of the word "apartheid" is ABSOLUTELY UNWARRANTED!!!
Secondly, you claim that Israel is trying to annex territory that belongs to another nation. That ALSO is false. Jordan owned the west bank before losing it in 1967 as the price of their ill-taken aggression. They RENOUNCED ALL CLAIM to the territory in 1989 Thus, they no longer "owned" it. And they made peace with the Israelis in 1994 in exchange for a pledge to create an autonomous Palestinian state on the West Bank. But make no mistake about it.. the Israelis, by sheer right of sole possession, "own it", for them dispose of as they politically see fit. (we'll save how the Israelis granted the PA autonomy, armed them, and negotiated with them for an eventual Palestinian state).
So maybe you need to maintain some minimum standards for your political definitions. (wink, wink, nudge, nudge)..
I guess the question is whether your only interested in arguing merely a biased point of view, or interested in understanding that BOTH SIDES have LEGITIMATE GRIEVANCES against one another. Why focus on only one side when BOTH SIDES are trying to drag the US into the "swamp".
And it would also probably help if you stopped trying to paint the world with some form of polly-annish "way it should be" kind of rhetoric. Because this is about power and the ability to exercise it, as well as restrain oneself from going too far. The Israelis have such power, yet they have shown years of restraint in the face of terrorism and suicide bombings.
And they have shown amazing restraint in the face of repeated calls for the destruction of Israel from within the West Bank and Arafat's dealings with Saddam Hussein and Iranian militants in trying to escalate the violence.
The Israelis are NOT going to compromise their security on the West Bank so long as Arafat and Islamic Militants hold political control over there.
And they are not going to leave the middle east. The Arabs might as well just get used to that.
If someone asks you about the rape that occurred next door, do you answer by saying: "why don't you mention the 1000 rapes that occurred that day elsewhere in the country?". Hello?
First off, I don't recall you asking anything... But I would assert that you were trying to point out that the "rape next door" is more appalling that the 1,000 other rapes that occured around the nation that day. Rape is rape... no matter who commits it, or for what purpose.
And that goes for violence and war.. War is terrible and cruel. It is the result of two groups losing all tolerance for one another and resorting to murdering one another in order to dominate their opponent. You'll never be able to civilize it, nor will you be able to democratize it. The only thing a democracy can do, once forced into it, is to apply all of its means to end it in its favor so that they can resume the life they once knew before it.
Or course, for the Israelis, the Arabs haven't let them know much else other than hatred and war for the past 50 years.
As for your knowledge of Zulu origins beginning in Central Africa, you might want to refresh you awareness of their history. They were no different than the British.. They migrated, conquered, and colonized. Except they did it with spears instead of rifles and gatling guns.
kzn-deat.gov.za
kzn-deat.gov.za
When Shaka's father died, Shaka assumed control of the Zulu clan,its 1,500 people and 150 sq.kms of territory. Shaka determined to gain hegemony over the local clans and the ritual skirmishing that had been the traditional manner of settling disputes was to change....
Within eleven years, he had accumulated and trained an army of fifty thousand warriors, defeated all the local clans and was master of most of the eastern seaboard and interior of what is now South Africa....
Now if that ain't imperialism and colonization according to normal definition, I don't know what is...
Shaka just got beat up by a new and bigger bully on the block than himself, that's all. It's not like the Zulus had anymore right to that territory than the British.. They took it from someone else, and the British took it from them...
As for the disposal of the captured Ottoman Empire:
That land was not for the British and French to give to anyone. The fact that Brits and French conquered and colonized does not give them the right to then "deed" a territory away from the natives, or deed it to ANYONE at all. They have no right to decide anything.
I don't know what color the sky is in YOUR world, but how it works down here on planet Earth is that if you conquer something, expending your blood and treasure in defeating your enemy, you get to keep what you take from him..
The question is whether you can hold it.
Israel's existance is justified by a U.N. resolution. Fine. Israel has the right to exist, and to live in peace (something the Arabs would accept - see Saudi initiative).
And just who gave the UN the right to determine anyone's borders, Israeli or Palestinian?? (rhetorical question)
And why didn't the "UN" acknowledge Israel's right to exist in 1948, something that might have made the next two Arab-Israeli conflicts illegal and unessary??
I'll give you one hint as to why the UN recognized Israel's right to exist.. Because they kicked their opponent's @sses and took their land from them. The only way of getting that land back was by recognizing Israel.
But Israel played hard ball... they demanded peace treaties in exchange for returning land.. something Egypt's Sadat did, and received at Camp David.
The Jordanians?? Well, they abandoned their people to the hands of Arafat and the Jews.
And the Syrians? Well, their Nazi/Baathist leaders still can't bring themselves to making peace with Jews. But it doesn't stop them from occupying Lebanon and arming Hezbollah.
I think I'm done with you for now... hehe
Hawk |
