You make excellant points and I agree with each of them.

Especially when you say "The problem is not Israel or Russia or the US or France or Palestine. The problem is us, all of us."

The response to t his thread has been disappointing, but not surprising. My hope had been to take the heat out of the debate by putting the situation into a larger context, and by getting away from the 'he started it she started it' hysteria.

But it hasn't worked. The most passionate arguers have not responded.They prefer  hysteria and shrieked hatred on this issue. They don't want discussion and understanding. They want to crush both. Ultimately, what they want is destruction - of the the other side, of their side.... of any side so long as it's destruction...

I'm afraid that's a fundamental characteristic of humanity. Much of religious thought arises from a need to deal with it so that problems can be settled. Unfortunately, too many of us, in all religions, simply twist that religious thought to encourage yet more hatred and destruction and, in particular, to destroy any discussion that might lead to peace.

graeme

I am agreeing with again Graeme. It's easier to repeat standard speaking points then in taking the risks involved in creatively looking to solve problems and find common goals.

But besides your point your original point is be read by others and even if others do not respond it makes a much bigger impact on the reader then some of those inane, I am right you are wrong disscussions. It might not be read by as many, but it makes a bigger impact. Just as reality TV is watch by many, it ultimatley has less impact on the world then a good book, or an intelligent TV show.

well, I'm  going to add to this because it helps me to think out loud. No need for anybody to read this. it's really for me.

What we have watched over the past century and more is a tremendous rise of nationalism accompanied by a rise of hatreds, and a manipulation of those hatreds. Interestingly, much of the manipulation is accompanied by tremendous improvements in the spread of information.

For example, by 1890 or so, it became possible to put newspapers together very, very cheaply. The price of a paper dropped dramatically and, for the first time, newspapers reached down into the mass market. you would think that would lead to more information for the public. but often the opposite was true.

In the US, it made possible the rise of a William Randolph Hearst who used his newspapers to spread misinformation that suited his purpose. For example, hearst wanted a war with Spain (as did leading figures in the US government.) Part of the reason was to grab the Spanish colony of The Phillipines to give the US a base to get into the China market. So when the USS Maine blew up in the harbour at Havana, the Hearst papers spread the story it was blown up  by a Spanish torpedo. In fact, it almost certainly blew up due to poor maintenance by the captain. But it didn't matter. Hearst got his war.

At the same time, the British were in a war with the Dutch in South Africa. One might have hoped for the  new mass press to use its power to explore what that war was really all about. But no. Something like that would not sell papers. So what the press did was to concentrate on finding a British hero because people would buy papers to read about that.

So it settled on a British colonel who was defending a town called Mafeking, and featured the story of the siege and his heroic leadership for months as a way to sell papers. What they did not explore was the real story - that he was not supposed to be defending Mafeking, that there was no reason to defend it, and his defence held out only because the Boer leader was even more incompetent than he was.

The British leadership was furious with the colonel and would have loved to court martial him. But they couldn't, because the press had made him an international hero. So the incompetent colonel was promoted to be an incompetent general and then a lord. But the army was careful never again to give him a command in keeping with his rank. - and turned  him down cold when he volunteered for service in WW1. So Lord Baden-Powell had to be content with his work as Chief of the Boy Scouts.

There is a story today of two children being killed in a Taliban rocket attack. And I can just imagine the newspaper columnists lined up to show this as typical Taliban behaviour. It is, of course. It's also typical behaviour of just about any side in any war of the last century. But the papers usually don't mention that.

Instead, they invent the story that when our side kills civilians it's only because the other side are cowards who are hiding behind the civilians. Funny how our news media never suggest that when the enemy kills civilians it's because our troops our hiding behind them.

The reality, of course, is that modern weapons, especially when used in urban fighting, kill an awful lot of innocent people. And they kill them no matter which side is doing it. Our leaders know that when they go to war, of course. But nobody says so.

Generally, nationalism has intensified hatreds, and hatreds  have intensified killing and assorted cruelties. And modern communications, instead of informing us about what is going on, have been used to make things worse.

Any war journalist knows that his real job is not to tell what is going on. it is to boost patriotism and morale. I well remember a beery night about ten years ago that I spent with several aging war correspondents (at least two of whose names would be well known to wondercafe readers) who talked about what they reported - and the contrast with what really happened. One of them was a journalist actually attached to the army and under military command. His job was to make sure that any pictures of Canadian soldiers which got into the press were to show them as cheerful and optimistic.

Did you know that in World War One, Canadian soldiers had a reputation for brutal and illegal treatment of prisoners - including the killing of many who had surrendered? I don't know whether the story is true. I don't know whether it might be true, but justified. - but that's not my point. My point is that the reputation did exist. It was spoken of publicly by people who were there, people on our side like Siegfried Sassoon. But, certainly, no word of it has ever appeared in any Canadian newspaper or, to my knowledge, in any Canadian history book.

I think an argument can be made that advances in communications have not made us better informed. In the case of war, they have not been used to explain to us what a war is about. Instead, they have largely been used to make us hate even more.

And there's only one place that can take us.

graeme

As an addendum, even the history books are commonly used to encourage myths. The theme you will find running through American history is the American dedication to the freedom of the individual right from the start.

How many mention that the leading men who wrote the constitution and who showed such concern for private property were men whose private property included slaves?

Has anyone ever read a history of the fight at the Alamo which mentioned that leading American figures in that battle were slave owners, that at least one of them (Bowie) was a major slave trader, that Americans in Texas at the time had at least 5,000 slaves with them, and that a major reason for their war against Mexico was that Mexico did not permit slavery?

Incidentally, it is estimated that at least 30% of all cowboys in the American west we black. Now, in terms of modern communications, think of all the western films you have ever seen. How many showed blacks as a prominent group? How many showed even one? and with the communications miracles of books and film and TV, we have a great many western heroes - Wyatt Earp, Bat Masterson, Wild Bill Hickock. How many can you name? How many are black?

With modern communications, the more we watch, the less we know.

graeme

Hi Graeme,

Interesting posts.

Can I go back to your original thoughts.  You talk about what perhaps we can call merceneries, and about the advent of the us verses them mentality , nationalism.....

But could you not also go back much further to tribalism and survival.  I mean at it's most basic level, people since the neanderthals and fought against those who have the land or the food or the women ......  Conqueror takes all.  Victors write history and all those trite sayimgs.

but they are true are they not.

Even to look back at the history of judaism through just the bible, without even taking any other books into consideration, it is a long history of tribalism and fiedom fighting.

Extend that into anglo saxons and normans and druids and britain.

All of Africa seems to be divided into massive levels of tribalism fights at a now country wide level.

Isn't our Nationalism just the same?

I think that wars in many ways are easier to get into now.  There is no more need for thousands of men treking across the country like Alexandrer the Great.

No more trenches filled with muddy, slimy, ill men fighting hand to hand.

Large ships sit off the coast and fire weapons.  Planes drop bombs,  Bombs are hidden in fields and roads to catch anyone to happens by.  Of course there are still guys on the ground and innocents everywhere.  But as you said, there have always been innocents.  Spoils of war in the days of acknowledges pillaging and raping a taking booty

Sometimes I just want to shake everyone and yell STOP.

lots of unpleasant truth, there. And, yes, nationalism has roots in tribalism,and all the problems that go with it.

You can see a weakening of tribalism - though it never quite disappears - in a very rough period of several centuries up to the early 1800s. It was a period in which the mercenary became almost the rule in armies - so the soldiers were people who had a lot in common with their opposite numbers, and so had no particular hatred for the other side. In fact, they might often change sides if it seemed a better deal.

We think of wars as always nations fighting each other. but often it was not. Though Joan of Arc is often a symbolism of nationalism, the war she fought in was a war of kings and nobility, a war to wh ich the  mass of the population was indifferent except inasmuch as it was a threat to them. Joan's private guard was made up of Scots. Most of the English lords were, in fact, French descended of William's conquerors and holders of land in France with serfs fighting for them who were French. Earlier, even the king of England, Richard 1, couldn't even speak English.

That certainly changes through the nineteenth century with the great increase in nationalism which was, as you say, a development of the older tribalism.

It took on greater force - partly because of the size of the unit, partly because of the development of science which was then adding racist theories to the mix, and partly because of the use of the press to fan nationalist feelings.

To that was added weaponry that was enormously more destructive.

Then there's the question of the soldier. Tribal warriors and mercenary soldiers certainly murdered civilians. Occasionally, it was deliberate. But more often it was a side effect of robbery and rape. For the most part,though, soldiers killed each other.

But the development of weapons changed that. By the late nineteenth century they were becoming so powerful, they could not discriminate in who they killed. It got worse with the submarine, poison gas, bombers, and then chemicals. That's what led to attempts to make use of those weapons illegal. But it has proved impossible to enforce rules. The only one (almost ) effectively banned was poison gas. But that was because there were too many problems in usinig it. Finally, we have the most indiscriminate weapon of all, the nuclear bomb.

In a related attempt, it was made illegal for civilians to take up arms. But that was never enforceable. Everybody has used them. The Germans used them in WW2. The Russians called them partisans. The British and Americans armed them and even led them, and called them resistance fighters. Today,they are called freedom fighters if on our side, and terrorists if on the other.

The result has been that armies - all armies - now accept the deliberate mass murder of civilians as normal in war. One needs only to read the written statements of RAF policy in WW2 to see that. Harris was quite clear. It was useful to kill civilians in order to destroy morale. Hitler's policy was exactly the same. ditto for Spaatz. They made no secret of it.

The result has been a spectacular rise in civilian deaths in war, sometimes reaching dozens of times those of military deaths. The US lost almost nobody in Cambodia. It killed well over half a million civilians. It lost 60,000 in Vietnam. The Vietnamese lost - who knows? - anywhere from one and a half million to over seven million, most of them civilians. That is simply the nature of modern war.

Modern weapons provide the means. Nationalism and modern communications provide the justification.

Whether your cause is just or unjust doesn't matter. Civilians have become the major target, and the majority,by far, of casualties.

And that makes your last sentence all the more compelling. 

I doubt there is any way to stop war though.  Man by nature seems to be greedy and always wants what the other has.  Even animals seem so inclined.  Territory is marked by so many species and they fight to the death to maintain that territory.

In fact animals seem to only fight for territory if they deem the holder of the area to be weaker.  So isn't what humans do just an extensioin of that?  We want something; land, oil, whatever, and if we think they are weak we take it.

The weak let it go, the strong fight back.

Hence the tribal wars in african nations that result in hundreds of thousands who are "weak" fleeing their land while the strong take over.  Or when the only slightly weaker fight back, there is some sort of genocide that results.  Because ultimately someone is always ready to take the extra step from being slightly brutal to all out brutality.

We should be nobler but we aren't.

But there is no solution to me.

If  a country deems themselves anti war and pacifist, they are most likely to just be over taken by those who figure they are an easy mark.

So you get the likes of Israel, who fights all and any with tremendous force.  For survival and for the image of one who cannot be taken.

I think in Canada we have some trouble understanding the years of "tribal hatred" that other countries live with .  My inlaws were Croatian.  Boy , it was a mistake to say Yugoslavia.  and as to their opinion of  serbs?  Whew! 

Ask a Turk about Armenia.  Get an ear full. 

Arabs and jews.  Man! 

Irish Catholics and Protestants, heavens they are all Irish but you wouldn't know it.  .

I don't think , in our millieu of cultures we really get it.

Some of these countries have such hatred for each other.  It's a real eye opener.

It does seem impossible. But we don't have much choice. It was bad enough with clubs and spears. But there were limits to how many you could kill before you got tired. Now, all the warrior has to do is push a button to kill tens of thousands.

We really don't have a choice. I don't think pacifism is the answer. If you are a pacifist, you just get pounded. We should have started on a real track to international law in 1945. but we didn't. Now, we don't have much time left to play.

graeme

Hi graeme

This is a very interesting informative food for thought topic. Wow! Your writing always sends my little brains into a spin!

it sends my little brains into a spin , too. but I find it helps me think more clearly when I have express my ideas to other people. There are things that sound very sensible - but then sound unconvincing when you write them out.

And there is an awful lot to this issue - as to most. We tend to look at such questions in simple black and white terms - one side is good, one side is bad. But sometimes both sides are good, sometimes both are bad, and sometimes good and bad  has nothing to do with it.

Much of the thinking of Jews, for example, was shaped by the experience of the holocaust. For a start, there were very, very few who lifted a finger for the Jews in that period. Certainly, canada and the US did not - and still did not even for a time after the war when we could not claim we didn't know about the holocaust.

That created an understandable bitterness among many Jews, and a determination they would trust nobody ever again - and would think of nobody but themselves. The feeling of isolation and vulnerability was rubbed in by generations of parochial schools which not only reminded children of the holocaust, but made it a uniquely Jewish experience, ignoring other genocides of Hitler and of other rulers. The lesson has been taught over and over again. Israel is alone. Israel is a victim. Israel has to think only of itself.

It's unfortunate that such could happen. but it's easy to see how it could.

Then you have the amoral game of international diplomacy. Why did Britain want an israel in the middle east? Despite the much touted promise of Balfour, it really didn't want an israel at first, not until very close to 1948. Did the change of heart have anything to do with dividing arab nations for easier control by countries like Britain that wanted their oil? That is certainly a common view among arabs.

Oh, then there's the strange sympathy of many north americans for ISrael. Does that have anything to do with helping us forget our own terrible record of anti-semitism? A record that was still evident at least into the 1960s?

there are so many factors to consider - the demand for oil spreading into asia, the declining economic and military power of the US, the power of the media in spreading both information and disinformation, fears both rational and irrational in every society (just today, obama said the US must stay in Afghanistan to stop Bin laden terrorists from attacking US cities - a stunningly alarmist statement in complete defiance of the whole history of this affair). There are our attitudes shaped as much by our guilts and fears as by any reality.

Out of all this complexity and ignorance and fear and unkowns, millions of us all over the world have to make decisions. In all that, to treat these matters as simple black and white, good and bad, right and wrong is a recipe for tragedy. And to assume we can solver the problemm simply by shooting people is not only wrong but disproven by thousands of years of history.

So, yeah, my little brains spin, too.

I could use an analogy for Israel.

They are like an adult with a baseball bat surrounded by young gang members.

When the kids attack one at a time, the adult attacks right back adn bludgeons the kid.  It causes the whole gang to step back.

But the adult knows that if the gang give it some thought they can all rush him at once and he will lose.  So he keeps it up, as visciously as he can and keeps them distracted enough so they don't regroup.

I think that is the problem of Israel.  They are afraid if they look weak for an instant the others will attack enmass.

Is that a reasonable fear?

Perhaps, as we have noted in our discusssions, mankind appears to follow a pretty primative "see it, want it, take it" methodology.  So it's not a totally groundless fear.

That may well be the fear. And, coming out of the Jewish experience, it's a reasonable one.

The weakness of it as a strategy is that ISrael cannot permanently take out the kid it bludgeons. So the bludgeoning,  at most, gains time. But time isn't good enough. It works against Israel. Eventually, it misses a swing, or one of the kids does get through - and then it's all over.

Israel is the one that most needs a peace (along with Palestine, of course) - and I don't see how they can do it all alone. They can wage even these bludgeoning wars alone. That can't do it without massive US aid. What they need now is an even bigger commitment from the world to enforce a peace. It's going to be difficult. But there is no other workable game on the table.

lastpointe wrote: 

"They are like an adult with a baseball bat surrounded by young gang members.

When the kids attack one at a time, the adult attacks right back adn bludgeons the kid.  It causes the whole gang to step back.

But the adult knows that if the gang give it some thought they can all rush him at once and he will lose.  So he keeps it up, as visciously as he can and keeps them distracted enough so they don't regroup."

I don't think this is an accurate analogy at all. The Arab world DID gang up on Israel numerous times - in 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973. When they finally realized that this wasn't going to work, a new tactic was adopted. Suddenly, instead of the all-powerful Arab world ganging up on tiny Israel, the world began to see all-powerful Israel bullying the poor little Palestinian. David had become Goliath - and the world fell for it in spades. It was brilliant propaganda and it continues to work.

You only have to consider your own post to realize the truth of this. You completely ignore the 8 years of constant rocket attacks that Israel endured before it finally tried to do something in Gaza in December last year. All you see is "nasty, brutish Israel beating up on poor Palestinians".

Trust me, if you lived in Sderot, you would see a lot more than a gang of kids trying to attack you one at a time. For a very quick overview of life in Sderot, please see this story. It's from the British Independent, a newspaper known for its anti-Israel views. It leaves out a lot - like the fact that kids in Sderot are all horribly traumatized, 17 people have been killed (and only miracles can account for the fact that the death toll isn't higher), but it does give you something of an idea.

http://tinyurl.com/yoj95p

graeme, on another thread last week, you wanted my response to reports that Israeli forces had killed Gaza citizens who were waving white flags. If true, I would condemn this action wholeheartedly. However, an article in the Hebrew newspaper Ma'ariv questions the credibility of the author of the report. I make no comment, but just provide an English translation for your information. The translation is by Noah Pollack.

AUTHOR OF REPORT AGAINST ISRAEL SUPPORTED MUNICH MASSACRE
By Ben-Dror Yemini, Ma’ariv, 16.8.09, p. 13

Joe Stork, a senior official in Human Rights Watch, which accuses the IDF of killing Palestinians who waved white flags, is a fanatical supporter of the elimination of Israel. He was a friend of Saddam, ruled out negotiations and supported the Munich Massacre, which “provided an important boost in morale among Palestinians.”

Last Thursday, many world media outlets covered the press conference in which a senior Human Rights Watch official, Joe Stork, presented the report accusing Israel of killing twelve Palestinians in the Gaza Strip who waved white flags during Operation Cast Lead. Stork, the person identified with the report, has a unique history of Israel-hating: He supported the murder of Israeli athletes in Munich, was an avid supporter of Saddam Hussein and more.

Several times in the past, Stork has called for the destruction of Israel and is a veteran supporter of Palestinian terrorism. Already as a student, Stork was amongst the founders of a new radical leftist group, which was formed based on the claim that other leftist groups were not sufficiently critical of Israel and of the United States’ support of it. Already in 1976, Stork participated in a conference organized by Saddam Hussein which celebrated the first anniversary of the UN decision that equated Zionism with racism. Stork, needless to say, arrived at the conference as a prominent supporter of Palestinian terrorism and as an opponent to the existence of the State of Israel.

He also labeled Palestinian violence against Israel as “revolutionary potential of the Palestinian masses”—language that was typical of fanatical Marxists.

In articles which he authored during the 1970’s, Stork stated that he was against the very existence of Israel as an “imperialistic entity” and, to this end, provided counsel to Arab regimes on how to eliminate the Zionist regime. He also was opposed to any negotiations since this meant recognizing its existence: “Zionism may be defeated only by fighting imperialism,” wrote Stork, “and not through deals with Kissingers.”

On other occasions, Stork expressed his position that the global Left must subordinate itself to the PLO in order to strengthen elements that opposed any accord with Israel. It would seem that he has not changed his ways since then. He is still conceptually subordinate to those who have maintained their opposition to the existence of the State of Israel. Once the world’s radical left supported the PLO. Today, part of the global Left supports Hamas.

Stork, of course, is not alone. The hate ships that arrive from time to time, or attempt to arrive, to the shores of Gaza, are full of radicals of his ilk. They do not identify with efforts towards compromise or peace. On the contrary, they identify with those who are continuing the old line that supports the elimination of Israel. And what would happen if the PLO should decide to enter the negotiations track? Stork already recommended years ago that the Palestinian left splinter in order to continue the resistance. Hamas obeyed. It is possible to guess where Stork’s heart lays.

Where does Stork stand regarding matters of objectivity and neutrality? He criticized Professor Ibrahim Abu-Lughod, himself a PLO figure, because he edited an anthology which tried, at least seemingly, to produce a balanced presentation. “Academic neutrality is deceitful,” wrote Stork. And what about factual accuracy? Stork claimed that Menachem Begin said that, ‘The Palestinians are two-legged animals.” In fact, Begin said that those who come to kill children are “two-legged animals.” The difference is, of course, huge. Stork, time after time, justifies his high standing in the industry of hate and lies against Israel.

Stork reached his peak in a statement published by the Middle East Research and Information Project, which dealt with gathering information on the Middle East conflict, and in which Stork was a leading figure. This was a statement that included explicit support for the murder of the eleven Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics:

“Munich and similar actions cannot create or substitute for a mass revolutionary movement,” the statement said, “But we should comprehend the achievement of the Munich action…It has provided an important boost in morale among Palestinians in the camps.”

Murder and terrorism, if so, are a matter of morale.

This is the man. A radical Marxist whose positions have not changed over the years. On the contrary. Objectivity, neutrality or sticking to the facts are not Stork’s strong suit. He even proudly exclaims that there is no need for neutrality.

Is it possible to relate seriously to a report against Israel which this man stands behind? Both Camera and Professor Gerald Steinberg have revealed worrying data on the leaders of Human Rights Watch and on the two people who head its Middle East Department—Sarah Leah Whitson and Joe Stork—even before its latest report and unconnected to it. The organization, as part of its false presentation, issued polite condemnations of Hamas rocket fire. But it seems that such blatant anti-Israel bias leaves room for doubt. A Stork-produced report on Israel is about as objective as a report by Baruch Marzel on Hebron.

Israel is called upon to provide explanations in the wake of Human Rights Watch reports. It is about time that Israel publicly exposed the ideological roots of several of this organization’s leaders and demands the dismissal of these supporters of terrorism and haters of Israel. Until then, Israel, justifiably, cannot seriously comment on criticism from such a body.

There's also interesting video evidence of a Hamas fighter (called a terrorist in this clip, but you'll note that I don't use that word) planting a bomb and then climbing into a house full of civilians. Later, he uses those civilians as white-flag-waving human shields in an attempt to escape. See:

as you have ignored years of constant Israeli blockade, incursions, kidnappings, murders,land grabs,expulsions, wall building.....

Can you please break out of this "he started  it, mummy" mode? Can we stop the juvenile "look at what he did to me ,but don't look at what I did to him?" rant?

What I'm trying to do here is to get away from the finger pointing and hatred mongering. There is no potential in that to settle the problem - unless you intend to massacre the whole arab world. Unless you do that, you simply extend the problems and the bitterness and the accusations and the hatred and the killing forever. And, eventually, Israel will lose. And, unlike the arab states, Israel cannot afford to lose, not even once.

What we're trying to do here is to get a grip on the whole problem to get some idea of how to end it. We're not interested in a schoolyard shouting match.

And, oh,yeah. This is not a court case. We are not accusing anybody or out to get anybody. So nobody needs a defence lawyer. This is not a battlefield of the Israeli Palestinian conflict. It is rather more like a hospital. Do you think you can manage that?

graeme, you continue to fling accusations - "constant Israeli blockade, incursions, kidnappings, murders,land grabs,expulsions, wall building .. massacre the entire Arab world" - and then you tell me that you want to stay away from finger pointing. All you want to stay away from is any kind of argument that goes against your firmly held convictions.

What you need to do is accept that fact that Palestinian hostility and rejectionism are at the root of this intractable war. As I've said time and time again, there will never be peace until the Palestinians accept Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, just as Israel has long accepted the Palestinian right to a state - an acceptance going back to the 1920s. You can theorize all you like about the world stepping in (Israel will never accept this because the world's record in "protecting" Israel and Jews is, to say the least, horrendous), but nothing is going to change until the Palestinians change their view.

I've given you evidence of the Palestinian world view time and time again. You either ignore it completely or tell me that my sources are suspect. You refuse to accept anything that proves a view that doesn't fit with yours. You browbeat any oppisition, silencing all critics with your sheer volubility - and you can't bear the fact that finally, you've more than met your match.

In other words, graeme, I'm not going away. You can ignore me, boycott the other threads I post on, but I will not ignore you or allow you to continue slandering Israel. You may as well get used to it.

Actually Stan in my analogy, i wasn't showing Israel as brutish. 

i depicted a man surrounded by a gang.  He is protecting himself from the gang and fights them off one by one.  He knows it is working only because the gang hasn't thought of working together.

In the animal kingdom, great hunters and predators like wolves hunt in packs.  The gang behaviour allows them to take out much more dangerous animals.

lastpointe, I apologize if I misunderstood your analogy. However, I just wanted to point out that I felt it wasn't quite apt. I still feel that way, for the reasons given. I honestly don't think "the gang" has refrained from attacking Israel because they haven't thought of it. They have, and they've tried. It hasn't worked - and it still won't work because of one major difference between Israel and the gang. For the gang, losing one war may mean losing a number of people. For Israel, losing one war will mean the end. Israel cannot afford to lose.

okay, STan, the secret's out. We are all anti-semites in a world wide conspiracy to destroy Israel.

Write on. I'm not responding to any more juvenilia.

I am glad, though, to see you quoting me (without Quotation marks) in your final line. Israel cannot afford to lose even one war.

Now, close your little eyes all scrunched up,and think really,really hard. Every war ISrael has to fight means one more chance of losing the one that is the end. Israel cannot afford that. But the current Israeli policy is based on precisely that military solution which cannot be attained. As things are, Israeli will lose. We're trying to understand so we can find ways to prevent that.

But have it your way. We're all anti-semites. It's easier for you to think that way.

graeme

Actually laspointe, there's something else that your analogy doesn't allow for: PR. In addition to taking physical shots at Israel, the Palestinians have developed an incredibly powerful public relations effort aimed at making Israel look unbelievably bad. Trouble is, people believe it! Your own view on the conflict proves it. The Palestinians have succeeded in making themselves the perpetual victims, always blameless and always persecuted.

It's kind of like my kids when they were younger. My son would be sitting quietly in the back of the car, minding his own business, when his younger sister would start needling him, very quietly so that nobody else noticed. He'd ignore her for as long as he could. Then finally, provoked beyond all patience, he would yell at her to leave him alone. She'd turn to us, eyes open wide in innocence and begin crying about her cruel and heartless brother. For quite a while, we fell for it, and my poor son got punished. It was only after repeated pleas from him that we finally saw what was really happening. We finally understood how he'd been provoked, and gave him credit for not bringing out the "big guns" (he never hit her, only used his voice). Unfortunately, the world is like we were as parents - too ready to yell at the biggest and seemingly most brutal party, without taking anything else into consideration.

Stan, I think that if all the various Hamas and Hezbollah, and anti Israeli groups and countries attacked at the same time Israel would be in trouble.

now of course, so would the world as the rest of the world couldn't stand by and watch it happen.

I worry about all the conflicts and strutting that is done around the globe.  It doesn't seem productive, it doesn't seem to solve anything and it doesn't seem at all creative.

Somehow , there needs to be a creative solution to the ongoing global battles.  But I have trouble seeing what it could be.

I think of Africa.  A continent with so much conflict and territorial issues,tribal issues, corrupt governments, poverty, malnutrition, starvation and I hope that somewhere there is a great mind who can figure out a way for all countries to end the arms build up and start building countries instead.

Actually laspointe, there's something else that your analogy doesn't allow for: PR. In addition to taking physical shots at Israel, the Palestinians have developed an incredibly powerful public relations effort aimed at making Israel look unbelievably bad. Trouble is, people believe it! Your own view on the conflict proves it. The Palestinians have succeeded in making themselves the perpetual victims, always blameless and always persecuted.

It's kind of like my kids when they were younger. My son would be sitting quietly in the back of the car, minding his own business, when his younger sister would start needling him, very quietly so that nobody else noticed. He'd ignore her for as long as he could. Then finally, provoked beyond all patience, he would yell at her to leave him alone. She'd turn to us, eyes open wide in innocence and begin crying about her cruel and heartless brother. For quite a while, we fell for it, and my poor son got punished. It was only after repeated pleas from him that we finally saw what was really happening. We finally understood how he'd been provoked, and gave him credit for not bringing out the "big guns" (he never hit her, only used his voice). Unfortunately, the world is like we were as parents - too ready to yell at the biggest and seemingly most brutal party, without taking anything else into consideration. Which is why graeme's theory of the world stepping in to make peace will not work right now.

lastpointe, your last post came up while I was writing mine. I have to agree with everything you say, except the bit about the world being unable to stand by. I think the world would be quite happy to stand by and allow Israel's enemies to attempt to destroy her. However, remember, Israel will be fighting for her life and won't go down easily.

As for finding solutions to war everywhere on the planet - that is beyond me. I wish there were answers, but I have none. The Bible tells us to love our neighbour (comes from Leviticus, so it applies to us Jews as well), but mankind doesn't do a very good job of that, does it? Will it ever change? Maybe with what the Jews believe will be the first coming of the Messiah, Christians believe will be the second coming of Jesus and Muslims believe will be the return of the hidden Imam.

Whoever he is, maybe he'd better come soon!

What do you mean my own view.  I haven't stated a view on Israel, at least I don't believe i have.

in fact  i said on some other thread, that if the UCC resolution passed i would be withdrawing my monetary support for M& S and encouraging my UCW to do the same.

As to parenting, in my opinion it parenting 101 to not punish a child for an infraction that you only "think" you see.  I never punished one child because I believed the other child.  Everyone always sees things from their own view point and can't see that perhaps they had a role in causing the issue in the first place

Hey, just like Israel .  I would never point a finger and say all is one sides fault.  but i would also never point a finger and say one side had no part in the dispute.

Everyone contributes to everything.  It takes two to fight. 

stan - palestine has a powerful PR effort going? Gee, and poor little Israel has nothing at all. It's so helpless. And Palestine has  homemeade rockets? Gee, and ISrael only has tanks and artillery and bombers and ships and stuff. oh, and 250 nuclear missiles.

And the rest of the world would just stand by. Yes - and the US isn't now supplying most of the ISraeli defence budget. And ISraeli doesn't have the most powerful lobby in the US.

Mummy - we're always victims.

At least,though, when you write a post which completely copies what I said in one shortly before it, you might have the honesty to acknowledge that you are saying exactly what I said.

Sorry. I didn't mean to intervene. I suppose the fact that your posts show such a refusal to grow up that I couldn't resist it. In future, I shall try harder to resist.

graeme

lastpointe, your analogy seemed to me to be providing your view on the conflict. That's what I was reacting to. If I misunderstood, I apologize.

graeme, why do you insist on trying to browbeat me with your hostility? Why do you insist on saying idiotic things like "we're all anti-Semites"?

To get down to brass tacks, you say "the current Israeli policy is based on precisely that military solution which cannot be attained"

But that isn't the current Israeli policy! Just last year, Israel offered the Palestinians 100% of the territory they're demanding. Israel offered the Palestinians control over East Jerusalem. Israel offered the Palestinians everything they've ever demanded, except the so called "right" to overwhelm Israel demographically with millions of Palestinians. This is what you call a "military" policy?

Abbas proudly rejected all of this, because he knows that the world is full of useful idiots like you who refuse to see the other side of the equation, who insist that Israel is a big bully and who can't wait to see the bully's downfall.

And what about Israel's withdrawal from Gaza? The only reason that turned into such a travesty was because the Palestinians began firing rockets into Israel the very next day. Had they chosen to build the instruments of a state instead, they'd have open borders, trade with Israel an their neighbours and the beginning of something special. Just who insisted on a "military policy" here?

graeme: "and ISraeli doesn't have the most powerful lobby in the US."

Despite the sarcasm, you're actually correct on this. Saudi Arabia has a far more powerful lobby. So does the tobacco industry.

graeme, I've just gone back and read the post that started this thread. I have some questions for you:

The Hundred Year War - middle ages, between France and England?

The Thirty Years War?

The Roman Conquest of most of the known world?

The Greek conquest before then, of most of the known world?

The expansion of the Muslim world in the 8th century and beyond?

How does all this square with your theory that until the rise of nationalism in the 1800s, the world was a pretty friendly place?

I never said the world was a friendly place. check. I agreed with lastpointe that tribalisms and other forces did stir up hatreds. I said there is a great rise of nationalism in the nineteenth century, and that it made things worse. Among other things, it encouraged the racist theories that seemed to give a scientific gloss to racists like Hitler (a racism that was far more acceptable in Canada about 1910 than we care to remember). And I said the combination of nationalism along with more powefrul weapons led to far,far greater civilians casualies in war.

There was little nationalism in the hundred years war. The kings and aristocracy of England were largely of French descent. They were at war with the KINGS of France because they held extensive estates in France, had held them for generations, and the Kiing of France wanted them. The war had very little to do with the people.

The Roman Conquests were not fully carried out by Romans. The armies were heavily mercenary. Islam is not a nation.

The theory about nationalism is scarcely mine. It is standard thought among historians all over the world. For openers, read Michael Glover, The Velvet Glove - the deline and fall of moderation in War.

Okay, you win. I have little to no interest in the origins of war. I won't interrupt your debate on this thread, unless it strays into demonizing Israel again.

Stan. nobody demonized Israel in the first place. demonizing anybody is precisely what we've been trying to get away from. You're quite welcome on the thread. Just don't come as a lawyer. What we're looking for is a doctor.

And you might be wise to develop an interest in the origins of war. You can never settle them unless you understand what causes them.

graeme, I only have an interest in one war and I understand perfectly well what caused it and what is causing its persistence.

As for "nobody demonized Israel", I can't believe that even you are that blind. You yourself did your fair bit of demonizing, but admittedly only after I joined this threat. However, let's keep the personal out of this. I'll agree to stay out of a debate that doesn't interest me and in which I have little to no knowledge, but I reserve the right to rejoin when it becomes necessary.

Toodle-oo.

You understand perfectly well what caused t his war.

You have little to no knowledge of this debate which concerns what caused this war.

Right.

I said that Israel has powerful armed forces. I agreed with you that we are all anti-semites.

That demonized Israel.

right.

Okay. I tried.

graeme

I guess i riled Stan up with my basball bat analogy, it was only then he came on.  but then Stan that was because you jumped to assuming i meant the adult was being mean .  Gee , I thought it quite relevant.

Would you not say Graeme that we are still in a time of merceneries?   (hired guns to fight )  It 's just now, some of those hired guns are countries?

yes, that's been a remarkable development.The last two major countries to use them were France with The Foreign Legion, and Britain with the Ghurkas (though they may have been within the Empire, and therefore not really mecenaries.

They have also, of course, been used in relatively small numbers in a range of wars and "security" operations.

The American use them recently is disturbing on many grounds. One is that they use so many - numbers far in excess of the whole Canadian armed forces. They have become much more than adjuncts to the regular army. They have become indispensable to the conduct of american war at all. It's disturbing when a country cannot produce  its own military. It was one of the signs of decline in rome.

It also makes the folks at home far less interested in what is done in their name. They don't care because their sons aren't being killled. It's rather like fighting a war using robots. Who cares how many robots gets destroyed? In fact, the news media have never bothered to report how many mercenaries have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Then, of course, you have the growth of another industry in the  US that wants war because its profits depend on war.

And, of course, you also imply, I guess, something else - the use of other countries - like Britain, Canada, Australia to fight wars that have nothing to do with them. Empires have always done that\, of course. But it seems to be stepped up lately, especially now that the US has been able to convert NATO into a sort of more pliable UN to give its wars respectability.

Poor Australia has no choice. It feels very isolated way out there in the Pacific. It needs a protector, and the UK is no longer up to the job. In Britain, Tony Blair wanted to ride to prosperity not with Europe, but with the US. And Canadian business wants access to the US market. Twas always thus. But it does seem to be getting worse.

graeme: "I agreed with you that we are all anti-semites."

Excuse me, when did I ever say that? Either find the exact quote from me and paste it here, or retract that accusation immediately.

graeme, you and I would have a far easier time of it if you pledged to stop attributing opinions to me that, in your words, "I do not hold and never said".

You asked other posters to do this for you, yet you refuse to observe the same courtesy to others. Stop fighting dirty graeme, grow up and be an adult.

08/19 THE WHOLE WORLD (of which we are part) would be quiTe happy To sTand bY and waTch IsraEl's EnEmies dEsTRoy heR. (sorry I;m having a pRoblEm WITh my kEYboaRd.)

You said it.

And I really don't care if you are offendEd.

gRaemE

Yes, I said that. Why should I be offended? We have a precedent, called the Holocaust. It taught us that we stand alone and die alone. That does not mean I accused you of being anti-Semitic. At worst, it's an accusation of apathy. The fact that you choose to see it the way you do says more about you than it does about me.

Thats interesting Graeme, i never thought about how many mercenaries have been killed in Iraq/ afghanistan.  I wonder.

I don't even know how many americans have been killed.  I am at least glad to see now that they are taking a page from Canada and recognising their war dead when they arrive home.

I think of all those families whose sons and daughters arrived home in a cloak of silence.  how sad that is.

Let me ask you.  In the Vietnam war we all read that the USA put forth an army of mostly poor , uneducated men.  The wealthy, educated had university to keep them safe.

what is the make up now?  Are they still predominantly an army of the poor?  Are we?

i know I have a niece who did RMC to become a pilot but she wasn't poorly off.  She just wanted to become a pilot.

I don't know the figures for Canada. But I do know you find the military coming strongly from poorer regions of the country - like the maritimes. We probably still have fairly strong middle class representation at the officer level. (I frequently taught military history to Canadian officers, and found them a good bunch.)

In the second world war, the American military was broadly representative of the whole nation. The draft had something to do with that - but in Korea there was still some breadth. However, things were quite different my Vietnam. Even with a draft, the children of the rich escaped like bush into the national guard or, like Clinton, to study overseas. It has actually become much worse - if only because it is now entirely a volunteer army. A recent study showed there was scarcely a congressman who had a family member in the service.

With recruiting unpopular and almost impossible in the middle class and above, army recruiters have concentrated their efforts in schools of poor districts. They also draw in the poor from other countries by offering American citizenship. And they have dramatically lowered standards with regard to criminal records and mental health.

So, yes, the American army has dropped to a pretty low social level. Canada, I suspect, is somewhat better - but I have never seen any figures on it.

just a little above, Stan made a point that is worth noting. during the holocaust, the world did nothing, he says. That is not quite true - but it's so close I wouldn't argue the point. The world did nothing.

A kid like Stan, born I should think just after the war, was immersed in this isolation and persecution of jews. So it has gone for generations since. And that has an effect.

Generations have been raised to believe the world abandoned them (as it did). Therefore, they don't give a damn for the world or for any other nation. They are justified in thinking only of themselves. They are justified in thinkinig in the racist terms that were used against them. So to hell with those racially inferior and evil palestinians..

These are not evil people. But the evils of hitler's racism (and not just his) have had a profound effect producing, as such barbarism often does, a barbarism that is a mirror image of the original. And so a Netanyahu is the heir of Hitler.

Read Stan well. The palestinians are racially evil and destructive and dangerous.And Stan is not an evil person. He is the natural product of the evil that was the holocaust.

To reinforce that, Jewish kids are raised to think of the holocaust as a uniquely Jewish experience. The gays and the blacks and the slavs who were slaughtered in it scarcely exist in the traditions. Nor do the many other genocides of human history. It was a uniquely Jewish experience. A friend of mine (Jewish) who wrote a history of genocides, was severely criticized in some Jewish circles simplly because he said there were other genocides.

We are products of our experiences.And we don't always get the right lessons from it. The Jews of the holocaust were people who suffered from the hatreds and ignorance of others. It is not surprising that the lesson some took away was the importance of being on the giving end of hatred and ignorance - just as some abusive parents learned to be abusive from their parents.

This isn't good guys and bad guys. This is people reacting to their own experiences and to the tales of their group experiences. That's part of why we have to get past the blame game.

For that to be workable the palestinians and for that matter Israels neighbors, all those who wish to destroy her, must be willing to accept peace. Do you believe that is realistic?

How is giving up an improvement over losing? The result is the same and at least with war Israel can survive as long as they win and thank GOD they have everytime so far. I think at least in part due to the blessing of GOD. You have yet to put forth any remotely realistic alternative, just vague notions of "they need peace" ignoring the extreme unlikelihood, if not impossibility of that ever happening.

I so relate. My younger brother had such a talent to "pester" to no end. After a while I'd often hit him or something. Luckily my parents did know what was going on. I never had the green light to just wail on him, nor should I have had that, but I think it was taken as a mitigating factor. Often we both got punished, him for pestering and me for hitting.

Demonizing Isreal is practically the only thing you do. Only the tiniest sliver of your writing has been anything else. It is always what Israel is doing wrong and how the palestinians are victims, blah, blah, blah.

graeme, I have said time and time again that the Israelis are more than willing to live in peace with the Palestinians and that it is up to the Palestinians to accept the fact of Israel's existence. There is nothing racist in those statements. Israel has also proved this, by accepting time and time again, the division of land, which was rejected by the Palestinians. To address your entire little rant about my "racism", you should know that I grew up in South Africa, unaffected by the war. I have no family who were in the Holocaust, although now, I do (my father in law). I was a staunch fighter against apartheid until I finally left all my friends and families when I realized that simply by staying there and paying taxes, I was supporting the system. The system was also none too pleased with me and was only too happy to see me go.

But I have no need to justify myself to you. Your rant most decidedly IS anti-semitic. Comparing Israel to the Nazis is anti-semitic. You are Jew hater.

You compound this when you say "Jewish kids are raised to think of the holocaust as a uniquely Jewish experience. The gays and the blacks and the slavs who were slaughtered in it scarcely exist in the traditions. Nor do the many other genocides of human history."

Show me another event in history where laws were promulgated specifically to wipe out one particular race. Show me another event in history where factories were set up to carry out those laws, where people were systematically "processed". Show me another event in history on the sheer scale of this (or do you deny the scale too?)

Graeme, you have finally shown your true colours. I have suspected it, you have loudly denied it, but graeme, no matter how much you protest, and no matter how many Jewish "friends" you have, you are a bigot and a pig and you disgust me.