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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zonder who wrote (50440)	10/9/2002 9:31:01 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

A state has to make long term plans for the welfare of its citizens, on a level far deeper than the human gut instincts that you are citing. Tom Paine once said, "The common good is nothing more than the sum of the individual good." Our attitude toward Israel may have started out because Harry Truman's "Haberdasher" partner was Jewish. In any case, Truman felt that Israel was the right thing to do and recognized it as soon as it declared it's Independence. Marshall almost resigned as Secretary of State because of that action, and our Diplomats at the UN could not believe it. The result of the '48 war bent our attitude toward Israel to "Those Gutty Little Jews," and Leon Uris cemented it when he wrote a best seller called "Exodus" and they made a Movie out of it, starring Paul Newman as the Jewish Hero. I am a big believer in a Foreign Policy that works on the basis that "We have no permanent friends or enemies, just permanent interests," but there are the "exceptions that prove the rule." We have two major exceptions that we have a "Special Relationship" with. One is Britain. The Brits have been cultivating that since the end of our Civil War. The other is Israel.

To: zonder who wrote (50440)	10/9/2002 12:19:59 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Try to think of it this way: European culture is more idealistic than this (or "Utopian", in your words) and they would not be caught dead supporting another country just for cultural proximity, especially when that country is oppressing a minority (for whatever reason). They are not on the side of Arabs. It could be the Chinese in place of the Palestinians and their aversion to Sharon's policies would not change. Well, let's speak of the Chinese. The Chinese, who regard the Tibetans roughly as we in the US regarded the Sioux a hundred years ago, are in the process of colonizing Tibet and turning it Chinese. Now, if you want to pick a Third-world group to sympathize with, I would think the Dalai Lama to be much more sympathetic than Yasser Arafat, and the peaceful Tibetans more sympathetic than the suicide-bombing Palestinians. By your arguments, Europe should be much more incensed over Tibet than Palestine. Yet they do not seem to be that way at all. Might I suggest that your explanation is incomplete at best? I do agree that Chinese victims in Palestine would not materially change Europe's views; but non-Jewish 'oppressors', now that would change matters, I believe.