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 : Idea Of The Day -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: IQBAL LATIF who wrote (44536)	9/6/2003 3:29:38 AM
From: IQBAL LATIF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 50167

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell yesterday aggressively defended the Bush administration's handling of foreign policy, arguing that instead of the widespread perception of a unilateralist, go-it-alone approach, "the president's strategy is a strategy of partnerships" with nations around the globe. The administration's foreign policy "strongly affirms the vital role of the partnerships that we have throughout the world -- our partnership with NATO; our partnership with the United Nations and with so many other precious alliances that we have created over the last 50 years," Powell said in an impassioned speech at George Washington University before an overflow crowd. "And the president's strategy doesn't rest on old alliances; it calls for new partnerships, new alliances to meet new challenges."

To: IQBAL LATIF who wrote (44536)	9/10/2003 2:40:07 PM
From: IQBAL LATIF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 50167

Allow parents the opportunity to choose a different school, one that is best for their children. In the District of Columbia, it's the right thing to do, and it will benefit all of the District's children. nationalreview.com

To: IQBAL LATIF who wrote (44536)	9/13/2003 3:45:48 PM
From: IQBAL LATIF	Respond to of 50167

Thoughts of Zack;;;Democracy, Jewishness, or Greater Israel. Pick any two Aziz Poonawalla touches upon the demo dillema heading Israel. He reiterates a long-held conviction:Democracy, Jewishness, or Greater Israel. Pick any two I would actually extend this argument to "pick any one". Considering the demographic trends, which I believe are exaggerated despite demographic momentum of the Palestinians, Greater Jewish Israel will be a distant fantasy. The population ratios of in historical Palestine, from the Mediterranean to Jordan River, are levelling to those seen at the turn of the century with a third of the population Jewish and the rest Arab. Jewishness in Israel Proper will also be threatened if Arab marshall out their fledgling demographic prowess and make themselves known in the general election. Fundamentally democratic instincts can only be preserved if the concept of citizenship moves beyond the parochial Jewish focus otherwise measures will have to be made to inhibit the Arab voting bloc. If Eretz Israel\Greater Palestine ever came about it would have to incorporate a canton federalistic structure, which would not conform to the democratic principles of one-man one-vote. At any rate I think that the demography rather than violence is a brilliant way for Muslims to reassert their historic rights, which have been denied to them. Rather than futile struggles like the intifidah I would have recommended to the Palestinians to have cooperated with Israeli rule, which was efficient, to improve their economic and demographic base. The crux of the issue is that in virtually every international dispute (Indonesia and Sudan are notable exceptions) the Islamic minorities and historic populations have a very legitimate cause. It's just their methods of expression, which are plain idiotic and regressive, and that must change. Imagine if in the 40's the Muslim League had rejected Gandhi's doctrine of ahmisa (nonviolence) and started terrorism to achieve Pakistan. I can assure readers that at the moment we would have had an united Greater India engaged in a brutal struggle with secessionist northwestern Muslim territories and the plights of these people would have been akin to the Chechnyans and Palestinians. The reason for Pakistan's existence is that Muslims implcitly accepted the status quo and, rather than engage in a futile struggle to overturn, used it to make it work for their own favour. This is precisely why Pakistan is unique in the Muslim world for the culmination as a modern state was achieved through entirely peaceful means and pragmatic politics. When the Indian Congress refused to help the Brits during WW2, the Muslim League replaced them as administrators and proved their loyalty to the British by ensuring recruitment amongst the Muslim population. It was a dying organisation in the 30's until Mohammed Ali Jinnah stepped in with his Anglicised ways to reinvorigate it. What is also important to remember is that the Muslim League also settled and accepted compromises to achieve the aim of Pakistan for when Gandhi mourned a vivisected India, Jinnah did lament on a bifurcated Pakistan. I would suggest the creation of an Academy in Pakistan that would invite the leaders of these historically wronged people (Palestinians, Chechnyans, Kashmiris) to teach them exactly how to go about to achieve their political and national aspirations. For instance I've come to believe that the counterparties in these disputes, Hindu and Jewish populations, are united and hardened primarily by the mythos of an external Muslim alien. Israel has Ashkenazis, Sefardim, Russians, Orthodox, chiloni (secular Jews), and the haredim (the Ultra-Orthodox). There are numerous national groups, such as Indian Jewry, especially those from the Islamic world, who retain their culture. Bernard Lewis once noted that the fission between Ashkenazis and Sefardim was a reflection of the greater clash between Judeo-Christian and Judeo-Islamic civilisation. North African Jewry for instance merged deeply with the Islamic population so as to be indistinguishable from them (indeed many North African Jews descend from converts of the indigenous Berber tribes) thus the concept of Jewishness may not in itself have provided a justification of a national state. However it was the impression of the Palestinian and the Arab world in general, so keen to destroy Israel, that provided the hardening of the national identity and awareness of the existential threat to Israeli nationhood. Indeed if the Arabs had merely stepped back and allowed for the internal dynamics of Israeli life to play itself it could have been more advantageous. Hindu India provides a further collorary to this example. The threat of the Muslim minority, who at both times are considered pampered vote banks and fifth columns, is conjured by the BJP to harden the Hindu vote bloc. Irrespective of the fact that in many ways the term "Hindu" is a legal fiction, defined by the Supreme Court in the 70s, borrowed from the Persians by the British and that caste & regional affiliations provide a more consolidating influence than Hinduism. These two peoples had their national identity and sense of peoplehood hardened by the interaction and myth of the Muslim alien. Both these religions, owing to historical and doctrinal creed, had lacked the ember of unity to form a single nation. It was the introduction of the "Other", in the form of the Muslim, that provided the necessary adhesive. Thus it's reasonable to suppose that the civic identity of India and Israel traces it roots to democratic institutions and threat of Islam. I will update this post later since I've just stood up a friend, who I'm supposed in 5 minutes (and I'm still at home). Zachary Latif 14:32 latif.blogspot.com