My Pathetic Attempt At A Peace Plan
Otto Bahn
Saudi diplomatic efforts. I don't know if I posted
this back in September, but here's my idea of a
peace plan, which I will call Mohammad out of
respect to a common religious ancestor coming down
from the mountain with a list of rules taken out
of the obvious bag.
Premise: The middle east is fucked. They need
some kind of confederation that does not interfere
with sovereignty, but has the authority to use force
on bastards. I'll call this the Arab/Semitic League
(ASL), but you can call it Joe if you want.
Note: The arab-Israeli conflict is but one way in
which the region is fucked.
The Six Commandments Of Mutual Defense
1) Israel cedes all/most of the territory it seized
since 1947. Israel agrees to lend it's troops to
protect ASL countries invaded by whomever -- in real
terms this probably translates to air superiority
and tactical bombing.
2) Not-Israel countries cease and desist all efforts
aimed at Israel. ASL countries agree to deal with
countries like Iraq if it comes to that, and to
actively deal with internal terrorist groups. Iran,
which is funding Hezbollah, can either stop or be
bombed. Your call...
3) Forget about a new country called Palestine.
Syria and Jordan have the ability to stop the anti-
Israel violence, Yes-sir Arafat doesn't. There will
be no peace so long as exploding bozo's are allowed
to run free. And when Muslims are spanking Muslims,
it doesn't fan the Jihad flames nearly so much.
4) Should Russia, or whomever, turn out to be a threat
again, the ASL will stand as a united front. This
will mitigate all those cold war stupidities, hopefully
without creating more new ones.
5) The US gets the hell out of the region, with the
understanding that if we come back they'll be hell
to pay -- sort of a guarentee that the ASL won't
someday be used to gang up on Israel (or anyone else
for that matter (Really: anyone else with *oil*,
but such is American foreign policy)).
6) In exchange for removing the contentious American
presence, oil producing countries agree to keep the
pipelines flowing sans OPEC limits.
Not all arab countries are gonna buy this right away,
but a critical mass could work. As a libertarian I
certainly find some elements of this distastefull, but
that is probably necessary given the situation (plus,
I view this as mostly their problem, and they are
about as libertarian as Hitler).
Who gets what? Israel gets left alone, which is about
all they want. Countries like Saudi Arabia take the
wind out of the sails of Islamic extremists and may
continue living like kings. America saves a shitload
of money which it can spend on the guarenteed flow of
oil. Clowns like Saddam Hussein are isolated and
countered (many arab countries were quite thankful for
Desert Storm, whether they said so openly or not).
Most importantly, and the only reason I really care,
is that *I* get left alone.
No need to rip me a new asshole. I'm sure there's
flaws here which I'd love to remove. I figure the
stickiest item is how much territory Israel cedes,
and getting them to do it -- access to Jerusalem is
a key Muslim concern. Some arabs will remain pissed
simply because Israel still exists, but they won't
have the Islamic high ground anymore.
Yeah yeah yeah transitions and time tables and courts
and arbitration and all the sticky stuff. Fucking
deal with it and quit funding fucking assholes who
blow up civilians. All borders are hereby fixed; do
not even think about it...
--oTTo--
Matt McIrvin
Otto Bahn <JGAULT@C*C*IS10*25.mc.duke.edu> wrote:
[an unusual plan creating a NATO-like security entity in the
Middle East]
> 1) Israel cedes all/most of the territory it seized
> since 1947.
[...]
> 3) Forget about a new country called Palestine.
[...]
> No need to rip me a new asshole. I'm sure there's
> flaws here which I'd love to remove. I figure the
> stickiest item is how much territory Israel cedes,
And to whom. If it's to Jordan, that revives the whole "Palestinians
are/are not really Jordanians" business. Don't even go there.
Hmm... maybe the territories end up as a protectorate of the new
organization for a while. That provides the buffer-zone function that
Israel wants, keeps the zone identified as non-Israeli territory, and
doesn't require a credible local government that can keep down the bomb
loons to arise from nowhere.
> and getting them to do it -- access to Jerusalem is
> a key Muslim concern.
Jerusalem is a toughie; I haven't seen any grounds for reconciliation
between the various parties there.
And backing up a bit...
> 5) The US gets the hell out of the region, with the
> understanding that if we come back they'll be hell
> to pay -- sort of a guarentee that the ASL won't
> someday be used to gang up on Israel (or anyone else
> for that matter (Really: anyone else with *oil*,
> but such is American foreign policy)).
Since Israel would be overwhelmingly the most powerful member of the
alliance, the only one with nukes, and historically capable of whipping
all the adjoining Arab countries at the same time, I'd think the main
problem getting this started would be the worry in the Arab countries
that it'd amount to a Pax Israelica, which would be less acceptable to
them than American hegemony. The whole thing would have to be pitched
to play up the appearance of multilateralism as much as possible.
Maybe, eventually, enough people will get sick and tired enough...
--
Matt McIrvin http://world.std.com/~mmcirvin/
Joseph Michael Bay
>1) Israel cedes all/most of the territory it seized
>since 1947. Israel agrees to lend it's troops to
>protect ASL countries invaded by whomever -- in real
>terms this probably translates to air superiority
>and tactical bombing.
>2) Not-Israel countries cease and desist all efforts
>aimed at Israel. ASL countries agree to deal with
>countries like Iraq if it comes to that, and to
>actively deal with internal terrorist groups. Iran,
>which is funding Hezbollah, can either stop or be
>bombed. Your call...
So really after these two why do you need more plans?
1) Israel does nothing bad to its neighbors
2) Israel's neighbors do nothing bad to Israel.
Sounds like peace to me. Or at least "not-war".
--
Joseph M. Bay Lamont Sanford Junior University
Putting the "harm" in molecular pharmacology since 1998
The worst thing about censorship is ( deleted ) .
Do you like http://www.stanford.edu/~jmbay gladiator movies?
Otto Bahn
>
> Otto Bahn <JGAULT@C*C*IS10*25.mc.duke.edu> writes:
>
> >1) Israel cedes all/most of the territory it seized
> >since 1947. Israel agrees to lend it's troops to
> >protect ASL countries invaded by whomever -- in real
> >terms this probably translates to air superiority
> >and tactical bombing.
>
> >2) Not-Israel countries cease and desist all efforts
> >aimed at Israel. ASL countries agree to deal with
> >countries like Iraq if it comes to that, and to
> >actively deal with internal terrorist groups. Iran,
> >which is funding Hezbollah, can either stop or be
> >bombed. Your call...
>
> So really after these two why do you need more plans?
One the one hand, yes! But *sigh*
> 1) Israel does nothing bad to its neighbors
> 2) Israel's neighbors do nothing bad to Israel.
3) Israel not "stupid" enough to trade strategic
territory for piece of paper signed by Israel
and some Arab nations.
The difficult part is having good win-win odds
for everyone. There are never absolute guarentees,
but one thing Israel can offer the Arab leaders
(living people -- they feel pain if you prick
them) is increased protection from conventional
invasions. Other restrictions may or may not
apply.
I really think Israel needs US hand-holding.
This is going way out on a limb for an already
paranoid mindset <=== Not a judgement. The plus
side is that this *otherwise* gets the US out
of the Middle East in a honorable fashion, and
if we return it will at least (hopefully) be in
line with the treaty.
> Sounds like peace to me. Or at least "not-war".
As a libertarian I am personally willing to agree
to peace and walk away. IHYANTM!
--oTTo--
Otto Bahn
>
> In article <a5j5ev$31r$6...@news.duke.edu>,
> Otto Bahn <JGAULT@C*C*IS10*25.mc.duke.edu> wrote:
>
> [an unusual plan creating a NATO-like security entity in the
> Middle East]
>
> > 1) Israel cedes all/most of the territory it seized
> > since 1947.
> [...]
> > 3) Forget about a new country called Palestine.
> [...]
> > No need to rip me a new asshole. I'm sure there's
> > flaws here which I'd love to remove. I figure the
> > stickiest item is how much territory Israel cedes,
>
> And to whom. If it's to Jordan, that revives the whole "Palestinians
> are/are not really Jordanians" business. Don't even go there.
Whoops. Damn. Redact. Houston we have a problem.
> Hmm... maybe the territories end up as a protectorate of the new
> organization for a while. That provides the buffer-zone function that
> Israel wants, keeps the zone identified as non-Israeli territory, and
> doesn't require a credible local government that can keep down the bomb
> loons to arise from nowhere.
Good analysis but this sounds like a mess. Any
chance we can give it all to Syria?
I didn't think so. This is a big problem, but
maybe Saudi Arabia knows something I don't. Or
not.
> > and getting them to do it -- access to Jerusalem is
> > a key Muslim concern.
>
> Jerusalem is a toughie; I haven't seen any grounds for reconciliation
> between the various parties there.
Anyone know the latest policy? Both parties might
find a long term time table acceptable. Or, *IFF*
the bombings stop, *then* we'll open it up.
> And backing up a bit...
>
> > 5) The US gets the hell out of the region, with the
> > understanding that if we come back they'll be hell
> > to pay -- sort of a guarentee that the ASL won't
> > someday be used to gang up on Israel (or anyone else
> > for that matter (Really: anyone else with *oil*,
> > but such is American foreign policy)).
>
> Since Israel would be overwhelmingly the most powerful member of the
> alliance, the only one with nukes, and historically capable of whipping
> all the adjoining Arab countries at the same time, I'd think the main
> problem getting this started would be the worry in the Arab countries
> that it'd amount to a Pax Israelica, which would be less acceptable to
> them than American hegemony.
To a significant degree, we already have a Pax
Israelica. American hegemony is in addition to
that. Israeli military capability is not really
questionable, but they live in another universe
compared to us. They're pretty much at war all
the time, and they have no desire for a conventional
war with 6-7 arab countries. Their foreign policy
is centered around winning any wars before they
even start because the alternative is unnacceptable.
Meanwhile, non-fundamentalist rulers are in a
bit of a quandry. Islamic jihad amounts at best
to MAD (much less your dethroning), and at worse
to AD without the mutual part. It's kinda like the
Civil War. The South resisted for another 100 plus
years. Saudi Arabia threw up the flag of conditional
surrender in almost half that time (and were only
in the supply corps to begin with).
> The whole thing would have to be pitched
> to play up the appearance of multilateralism as much as possible.
I think that applies regardless of anything else.
Somebody said, "I'll trade X for Y." That is a
start. Nothing more.
Note that Saudi Arabia has virtually no direct stake
in either of the two items on the trading block.
Yes, Saudi Arabia has a big stake in the whole process,
and no I'd never trust them at face value alone, but
they have taken major risks to approach the general
problem.
They have pretty much done the right thing while hedging
their bets and choosing their own timing...
Paddy Smith
"Otto Bahn" <JGAULT@C*C*I*S*1025.mc.dook.edu> wrote in message
news:a5ke8c$md9$1...@news.duke.edu...
>
> I really think Israel needs US hand-holding.
> This is going way out on a limb for an already
> paranoid mindset <=== Not a judgement. The plus
> side is that this *otherwise* gets the US out
> of the Middle East in a honorable fashion, and
> if we return it will at least (hopefully) be in
> line with the treaty.
>
> > Sounds like peace to me. Or at least "not-war".
>
> As a libertarian I am personally willing to agree
> to peace and walk away. IHYANTM!
This is way too not-funny for teh posting to ark, but I feel moved to say.
Stop reading now.
I (personal opin1on!) suspect that any honest brokerage by the USA that is
wholly motivated by its need for an 'exit strategy' is probably not going to
work. Apologies if that's a traduction of what you meant. These things tend
to take a lot longer than you expect, or than they reasonably should, and
it's important that all the players are committed to the long haul - based
on experiences at the top end of this island. I don't think things would be
working there (to the arguable extent that they are working) if people felt,
for example, that the UK govt was simply moved by a desire to extricate
itself. An honourable exit might be an eventual happy consequence, is about
as far as it goes. Even then - less of the 'honourable'. Everyone has to
lose face in the process, that's part of the trick.
Sorry about that. Start reading again now.
Paddy
Otto Bahn
> This is way too not-funny for teh posting to ark, but I feel moved to say.
> Stop reading now.
Yeah, I was hesitant to post this here, but there ain't
no other forum I'm currently on to bounce it off, and
this didn't seem like something to argue/flame over. I
was pleased with the replies.
> > As a libertarian I am personally willing to agree
> > to peace and walk away. IHYANTM!
>
> This is way too not-funny for teh posting to ark, but I feel moved to say.
> Stop reading now.
>
> I (personal opin1on!) suspect that any honest brokerage by the USA that is
> wholly motivated by its need for an 'exit strategy' is probably not going to
> work. Apologies if that's a traduction of what you meant. These things tend
> to take a lot longer than you expect, or than they reasonably should, and
> it's important that all the players are committed to the long haul - based
> on experiences at the top end of this island. I don't think things would be
> working there (to the arguable extent that they are working) if people felt,
> for example, that the UK govt was simply moved by a desire to extricate
> itself. An honourable exit might be an eventual happy consequence, is about
> as far as it goes. Even then - less of the 'honourable'. Everyone has to
> lose face in the process, that's part of the trick.
>
> Sorry about that. Start reading again now.
No problem. Timelines were one thing I purposely
avoided. An exit strategy for the US is pretty
looney of me per official US foreign policy, but
this is in one situation where they might actually
consider it, if their goal really is only to win
the war on terrorism (hmmm....). Unfortunately I
think Bush et al. are hell bent on a military
solution for terrorism.
Conventional policy would leave US troops there as
a guarantor or peacekeeper -- both for the peace
accord and the 'axis of evil' dudes, but those same
troops are one of two main reasons for Al Qaeda[1].
They also make good targets. No one can say for sure
if a return to 1967 borders alone will cease the
terrorism and the fundamentalist bozos, but my guess
is that the anti-American ideology will linger for
a long time. I think everyone but the tiny arab
nations would benefit from US withdrawal (and they
can replace the US troops with the ASL for the tiny
countries).
On the flip side, though the Saudis may well be
sincere, they may also know there's no chance in
hell of this working. Despite the peace offering
coming with a price[2], there may be things other
than peace that the Saudis hope to get out of this.
1. Never trust what anyone says completely,
especially crazy people.
2. Slightly increased odds of losing your head
from more radical bozocity.
--oTTo--
Otto Bahn
> Matt McIrvin wrote:
> >
> > Hmm... maybe the territories end up as a protectorate of the new
> > organization for a while. That provides the buffer-zone function that
> > Israel wants, keeps the zone identified as non-Israeli territory, and
> > doesn't require a credible local government that can keep down the bomb
> > loons to arise from nowhere.
>
> Good analysis but this sounds like a mess. Any
> chance we can give it all to Syria?
My initial gut feeling was that Israel would never
again agree to let Arabs police/rule over Palestine
and trust them to stop the bomb loons. This would
then require joint Israeli-Arab rule which is a
minefield. (Respecting each other's sovereignty is
about all we can hope for right now.)
But now that I think some more, Israel might trust
a specific few countries to do the job, with Turkey
and Egypt coming to mind.
> I didn't think so. This is a big problem, but
> maybe Saudi Arabia knows something I don't. Or
> not.
If nothing else, Prince Abdullah, let he who opened
his mouth accept responsibility for what it implies.
STEP RIGHT UP! Welcome to the show that never ends.
--oTTo--
Conmidhe
Give war a chance!!
-Con
PS If we dont like who wins, we reserve the right to nuke their ass.
The Peccantly Mr. Hole
> Nobody's perfect, but I remain impressed with the
> Saudi diplomatic efforts. I don't know if I posted
> this back in September, but here's my idea of a
> peace plan, which I will call Mohammad out of
> respect to a common religious ancestor coming down
> from the mountain with a list of rules taken out
> of the obvious bag.
>
> Premise: The middle east is fucked. They need
> some kind of confederation that does not interfere
> with sovereignty, but has the authority to use force
> on bastards. I'll call this the Arab/Semitic League
> (ASL), but you can call it Joe if you want.
>
Call me goofball, but something tells me the folks with Lou Gehrig's
disease aren't going to like you, or the people of the Middle East
taking their name away.
Rest of post left in for aft-s. No further comments. That's all.
&&
Mr. Hole
Matt McIrvin
Otto Bahn <JGAULT@C*C*IS10*25.mc.duke.edu> wrote:
> But now that I think some more, Israel might trust
> a specific few countries to do the job, with Turkey
> and Egypt coming to mind.
Egypt, probably not. Turkey... hey, now, there's an idea.
I wasn't even imagining them in on it.
Talysman the Ur-Beatle
> In article <a5lr0b$5jt$8...@news.duke.edu>,
> Otto Bahn <JGAULT@C*C*IS10*25.mc.duke.edu> wrote:
>
> > But now that I think some more, Israel might trust
> > a specific few countries to do the job, with Turkey
> > and Egypt coming to mind.
>
> Egypt, probably not. Turkey... hey, now, there's an idea.
> I wasn't even imagining them in on it.
in a way, they'd be pretty good about it. turkey had no problems
with U.S. in the gulf war or afghanistan.
but even if israel can trust turkey, can the rest of the world?
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_532764.html?menu=
the story points out turkey's own racial/ethnic issues. in case
you haven't noticed, the turks treat the kurds about the same
way as the israelis treat the palestinians.
Talysman the Ur-Beatle
> aimed at Israel. ASL countries agree to deal with
> countries like Iraq if it comes to that, and to
> actively deal with internal terrorist groups. Iran,
> which is funding Hezbollah, can either stop or be
> bombed. Your call...
is iran really funding hezbollah, in the same sense that
the U.S. funded the contras? or are (some) iranians funding
hezbollah in the same sense that (some) americans are still
funding the IRA?
and no, I'm not talking about retirement accounts.
Otto Bahn
>
> Matt McIrvin <mmci...@world.std.com> wrote in message news:<mmcirvin-5CB1A4.20413428022002@[192.168.123.1]>...
> > In article <a5lr0b$5jt$8...@news.duke.edu>,
> > Otto Bahn <JGAULT@C*C*IS10*25.mc.duke.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > But now that I think some more, Israel might trust
> > > a specific few countries to do the job, with Turkey
> > > and Egypt coming to mind.
> >
> > Egypt, probably not. Turkey... hey, now, there's an idea.
> > I wasn't even imagining them in on it.
>
> in a way, they'd be pretty good about it. turkey had no problems
> with U.S. in the gulf war or afghanistan.
>
> but even if israel can trust turkey, can the rest of the world?
Probably.
> http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_532764.html?menu=
>
> the story points out turkey's own racial/ethnic issues. in case
> you haven't noticed, the turks treat the kurds about the same
> way as the israelis treat the palestinians.
The US wouldn't take a secessionist movement very
kindly either. Turkey is sorta like Saudi Arabia;
I don't agree with their internal policies but their
foreign policy is relatively reasonable. They
balance pro-western modernism with a very Islamic
society, and that's not easy.
They have their differences with Greece. Otherwise,
they've been a key member of NATO, sent troops to
Korea, and are not shy about sending peacekeeping
troops to UN brokered truces. I don't necessarily
agree with it all, but they do play nice on the
international scene.
Turkey would (IMO) be predisposed to take the job
in general. The fact that they have their own
internal strife might make middle eastern peace
all the more attractive. I don't see Turkey being
dumb enough to aspire to oTToman empire delusions,
but they are close to a major power and the ego boo
might do them wonders.
Plus in a previous post I neglected to mention that
Turkey could be a counterbalance to a Pax Israelica.
Turkey doesn't threaten Israel directly, but vice
versa too. They would be a bastion of credibility
which no other arab country can match.
--oTTo--
Otto Bahn
Good questions, and no I don't condone the hypocrisy,
much less the acts themselves. A relatively few cases
of private funding for the IRA does not seem comparable
to state funded terrorism -- we've got individuals who
help the mafia too. The issue of Iranian funding can
be settled by the ASL as they dismantle Hezbollah.
The important part is to get the majority of the Arab
world to recognize Israel has a right to do something
about it (and guess what, you are going to HELP Israel
do something about it). Plus, tit for tat on Israel's
part. Not to mention plain old tits...
--oTTo--
In 100 years you can have your solitude back
Joseph Michael Bay
>Talysman the Ur-Beatle wrote:
>> http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_532764.html?menu=
>>
>> the story points out turkey's own racial/ethnic issues. in case
>> you haven't noticed, the turks treat the kurds about the same
>> way as the israelis treat the palestinians.
>The US wouldn't take a secessionist movement very
>kindly either.
Yeah, we'd totally jail people for speaking Spanish.
>Turkey is sorta like Saudi Arabia;
>I don't agree with their internal policies but their
>foreign policy is relatively reasonable. They
>balance pro-western modernism with a very Islamic
>society, and that's not easy.
It's simple as long as you're willing to put people
with inconvenient opinions in prison ... Turkish prison.
(ewwww)
Otto Bahn
>
> Otto Bahn <JGAULT@C*C*IS10*25.mc.duke.edu> writes:
>
> >Talysman the Ur-Beatle wrote:
>
> >> http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_532764.html?menu=
> >>
> >> the story points out turkey's own racial/ethnic issues. in case
> >> you haven't noticed, the turks treat the kurds about the same
> >> way as the israelis treat the palestinians.
>
> >The US wouldn't take a secessionist movement very
> >kindly either.
>
> Yeah, we'd totally jail people for speaking Spanish.
More like for speaking arabic and not having their
immigration papers in order. The Supremes did at
least make it verbotten to jail furriners whose
papers *are* in order, even if it did take two tries
to get it right.
> >Turkey is sorta like Saudi Arabia;
> >I don't agree with their internal policies but their
> >foreign policy is relatively reasonable. They
> >balance pro-western modernism with a very Islamic
> >society, and that's not easy.
>
> It's simple as long as you're willing to put people
> with inconvenient opinions in prison ... Turkish prison.
> (ewwww)
All true. Plus, we could torture some second-class-
citizen arab suspects in Israel, behead some Saudis
for adultery (which head?), drop chemical weapons on
the Iraqi Kurds, and use unarmed Iranian teenagers
as mine detectors.
Fuck, I mean yeah, it's a fucked up region. T'aint
none of my business though. As an armchair quarterback
I think about the only thing we can adress here is
how the sovereigns relate to each other, because,
well, sovereigns insist that is their very definition.
--oTTo--
Joseph Michael Bay
>> >The US wouldn't take a secessionist movement very
>> >kindly either.
>> Yeah, we'd totally jail people for speaking Spanish.
>More like for speaking arabic and not having their
>immigration papers in order. The Supremes did at
>least make it verbotten to jail furriners whose
>papers *are* in order, even if it did take two tries
>to get it right.
Yeah. You know, after I sent that I was thinking
"gee, we actually *are* suspending a lot of civil
liberties and constitutional type laws and stuff".
>> It's simple as long as you're willing to put people
>> with inconvenient opinions in prison ... Turkish prison.
>> (ewwww)
>All true. Plus, we could torture some second-class-
>citizen arab suspects in Israel, behead some Saudis
>for adultery (which head?), drop chemical weapons on
>the Iraqi Kurds, and use unarmed Iranian teenagers
>as mine detectors.
They really should arm those kids.
Seriously though it's just a matter of doing your
fucked-up shit in someone else's place instead of
your own, which still means you're doing fucked up shit.
>Fuck, I mean yeah, it's a fucked up region. T'aint
>none of my business though. As an armchair quarterback
>I think about the only thing we can adress here is
>how the sovereigns relate to each other, because,
>well, sovereigns insist that is their very definition.
Yeah.
Otto Bahn
> > use unarmed Iranian teenagers as mine detectors.
>
> They really should arm those kids.
I always picture a bunch of happless kids wobbling
zig-zag like across the cratered terrain (because
it is hard to keep your balance with no arms).
One theory says they barely survived the previous
mine detection mission...
--oTTo--
Matt McIrvin
taly...@globalsurrealism.com (Talysman the Ur-Beatle) wrote:
> the story points out turkey's own racial/ethnic issues. in case
> you haven't noticed, the turks treat the kurds about the same
> way as the israelis treat the palestinians.
Well, we're being all ruthless and realpolitiky here.
The advantage from the perspective of mollifying Israel is that they've
managed to squelch radical Islamism pretty effectively, but through
techniques that would be considered unacceptable suppression of
religious expression in the West.
Ted Frank
Otto Bahn <JGAULT@C*C*I*S*1025.mc.dook.edu> wrote:
>Note that Saudi Arabia has virtually no direct stake
>in either of the two items on the trading block.
>Yes, Saudi Arabia has a big stake in the whole process,
>and no I'd never trust them at face value alone, but
>they have taken major risks to approach the general
>problem.
>
>They have pretty much done the right thing while hedging
>their bets and choosing their own timing...
Saudi Arabia's stake is that they're scared as hell that
the US public is on to their funding of Wahhabism and
terrorism. Their "peace proposal" was a PR bluff, and
when Israel called them on the bluff and offered to meet
with SA officials to discuss it, SA immediately backed off
and demanded Israeli unilateral concessions before negotiations
could begin.
Israel withdrawing to pre-1947 territory isn't going to happen.
That ship has sailed.
Pre-1967 territory is conceivable and close to inevitable, with
the possible exception of the Golan Heights.
But it's hard for Israel to have peace when only one side in
the dispute wants peaceful coexistence, and the other is teaching
its schoolchildren that Jews are evil and should be expelled from
the Middle East entirely.
--
"Contestants have always been dumb, and they have remained
dumb for 46 years." -- Bob Barker
Glenn Knickerbocker
>"Contestants have always been dumb, and they have remained
> dumb for 46 years." -- Bob Barker
I just heard Bob Barker take down his pants on radio. IANMTU. If I
called in a pledge right now, I could have hear taking down his pants on
CD. https://www.global2000.net/wamc/support.html
ŹR http://www.bestweb.net/~notr/arkville.html /// I look down my
nose at people who think they are better than other people. --Kibo
Otto Bahn
>
> In article <a5khc6$md9$2...@news.duke.edu>,
> Otto Bahn <JGAULT@C*C*I*S*1025.mc.dook.edu> wrote:
> >Note that Saudi Arabia has virtually no direct stake
> >in either of the two items on the trading block.
> >Yes, Saudi Arabia has a big stake in the whole process,
> >and no I'd never trust them at face value alone, but
> >they have taken major risks to approach the general
> >problem.
> >
> >They have pretty much done the right thing while hedging
> >their bets and choosing their own timing...
>
> Saudi Arabia's stake is that they're scared as hell that
> the US public is on to their funding of Wahhabism and
> terrorism.
The State Deptartment et al. have been onto that
for quite some time, and so has John Q. Public
since about 9/13. Whether it is any different
from US funding (pulic or private) of Contras or
the IRA is anyone's guess. Not that the Saudi
gov't has been directly implicated, but they do
seem to be willing to outlaw the funding of groups
like Hezbollah.
The Saudis appear somewhat genuinely concerned
about the Palestinians, and as devout Muslims they
are certainly pissed over a Jewish nation in Israel.
Still, their prime steak [sic!] is preserving their
own hide and way of life.
> Their "peace proposal" was a PR bluff, and
It's a possibility. It comes with some very real
risks though. For Saudi Arabia to even bluff about
*all* arab nations recognizing Israel is a tangible
good thing for peace. One theory says they know
this.
> when Israel called them on the bluff and offered to meet
> with SA officials to discuss it, SA immediately backed off
> and demanded Israeli unilateral concessions before negotiations
> could begin.
I haven't heard about that (other than no offer to
meet yet), but I've only read BBC/CNN stuff so far.
It could just be that they dance differently over
there -- getting all the arab states on board is no
simple feat. The good news is that some states have
more clout (and meccas -- do you have any idea what
kind of destabilizing force that can be?) than others.
> Israel withdrawing to pre-1947 territory isn't going to happen.
> That ship has sailed.
>
> Pre-1967 territory is conceivable and close to inevitable, with
> the possible exception of the Golan Heights.
It's 1967. My bad.
> But it's hard for Israel to have peace when only one side in
> the dispute wants peaceful coexistence, and the other is teaching
> its schoolchildren that Jews are evil and should be expelled from
> the Middle East entirely.
That's just phrasing the core issue in a pro-Israeli
way. It took the South a while to get over the Civil
War too. Lemmee guess, we should colonize a region,
wage a world war over much of it, then hand over some
holy lands to a group of foreigners of another religion
while double crossing some other agreements, and then
expect all concerned to coexist peacefully...
Don't worry, the Arabs will get over it eventually.
Oh, wait, some more of them might be doing that now.
"Yup, we got butt fucked, but the West is willing to
prop us up so long as we pump oil. If things get too
dicey the West is also willing to toss bombs, kinda
like the radical extremists who've sworn to over throw
the Saudi Government too. Damn, there must be some
way out of this mess."
--oTTo--
John D Salt
[Snips]
> War too. Lemmee guess, we should colonize a region,
> wage a world war over much of it, then hand over some
> holy lands to a group of foreigners of another religion
> while double crossing some other agreements, and then
> expect all concerned to coexist peacefully...
When did "we" colonize the Middle East?
Or are we Turkish today?
Salaaaaaam Aleikum,
John.
Otto Bahn
>
> Otto Bahn <JGAULT@C*C*IS10*25.mc.duke.edu> wrote in
> news:a60ai1$ff4$5...@news.duke.edu:
>
> [Snips]
> > War too. Lemmee guess, we should colonize a region,
> > wage a world war over much of it, then hand over some
> > holy lands to a group of foreigners of another religion
> > while double crossing some other agreements, and then
> > expect all concerned to coexist peacefully...
>
> When did "we" colonize the Middle East?
The end of WWI, for appropriate uses of "we".
> Or are we Turkish today?
Never side with the Germans.
--oTTo--
Joseph Michael Bay
>Israel withdrawing to pre-1947 territory isn't going to happen.
>That ship has sailed.
Ruh?
>Pre-1967 territory is conceivable and close to inevitable, with
>the possible exception of the Golan Heights.
For real? Some Sharon advisor was saying yesterday that they
considered the pre-1967 borders "indefensible", right after talking
about how when Israel was attacked at that time they repelled the
invasion and took over that land, which was an odd bit of cognitive
dissonance.
Ted Frank
Joseph Michael Bay <jm...@Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>For real? Some Sharon advisor was saying yesterday that they
>considered the pre-1967 borders "indefensible", right after talking
>about how when Israel was attacked at that time they repelled the
>invasion and took over that land, which was an odd bit of cognitive
>dissonance.
I don't see any dissonance: in 1967, the technology possessed by the
anti-Israeli nations was considerably less powerful than that possessed
today. The pre-1967 borders make something like 95% of the Israeli
population vulnerable to shelling -- a not insubstantial concern when you
consider that Israel was regularly losing 10% of its agricultural crops to
Palestinian shelling before it invaded Lebanon in the early 1980's.
Brian 'Jarai' Chase
> I don't see any dissonance: in 1967, the technology possessed by the
> anti-Israeli nations was considerably less powerful than that possessed
> today. The pre-1967 borders make something like 95% of the Israeli
> population vulnerable to shelling -- a not insubstantial concern when you
> consider that Israel was regularly losing 10% of its agricultural crops to
> Palestinian shelling before it invaded Lebanon in the early 1980's.
I've got an idea how we can solve this... but it involves Noam Chomsky.
-jarai.
--
--- Brian Chase | b...@world.std.com | http://world.std.com/~bdc/ -----
DOUBLE YOU AITCH WHY
Joseph Michael Bay
>In article <a6157q$hl7$1...@usenet.Stanford.EDU>,
>Joseph Michael Bay <jm...@Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>>For real? Some Sharon advisor was saying yesterday that they
>>considered the pre-1967 borders "indefensible", right after talking
>>about how when Israel was attacked at that time they repelled the
>>invasion and took over that land, which was an odd bit of cognitive
>>dissonance.
>I don't see any dissonance: in 1967, the technology possessed by the
>anti-Israeli nations was considerably less powerful than that possessed
>today. The pre-1967 borders make something like 95% of the Israeli
>population vulnerable to shelling -- a not insubstantial concern when you
>consider that Israel was regularly losing 10% of its agricultural crops to
>Palestinian shelling before it invaded Lebanon in the early 1980's.
Well, even now there are armaments that could be shot into any
part of Israel from any adjacent country, are there not? Not
shelling as such, but something like a Shahab-3 has a range of
two Israels (long dimension). I figure a determined attacker
would be using something like that, not Katyusha rockets.
I suppose, though, that defensibility against more common things
(like a small group of crazed assholes with rockets) is maybe a
more important concern than defensibility against less likely
things (you'd have to be pretty self-destructive to go to war
with Israel, and it would be surprising for anything other than
a real army to have long-range missiles). But could there be
a wide enough buffer zone at all?
Ted Frank
Brian 'Jarai' Chase <tel...@TheWorld.com> wrote:
>In article <a617vh$g0l$1...@saltmine.radix.net>, Ted Frank <m...@Radix.Net> wrote:
>
>> I don't see any dissonance: in 1967, the technology possessed by the
>> anti-Israeli nations was considerably less powerful than that possessed
>> today. The pre-1967 borders make something like 95% of the Israeli
>> population vulnerable to shelling -- a not insubstantial concern when you
>> consider that Israel was regularly losing 10% of its agricultural crops to
>> Palestinian shelling before it invaded Lebanon in the early 1980's.
>
>I've got an idea how we can solve this... but it involves Noam Chomsky.
The Palestinians can live in his house. That'll work.
Or, give Saudi Arabia to the Jordanians and Jordan to the Palestinians.
The two can then split Iraq with the Kurds, who can take southern Turkey,
and Turkey can have Iran, Syria, and Lebanon as compensation. The US
gets 20% of the oil fields as a finders' fee. Then everyone's happy,
except the Saudi royal family, but they can live off the proceeds of
Citibank stock for a few generations, so long as they can stand to
stop beating their maids ever so briefly.
Joseph Michael Bay
>Or, give Saudi Arabia to the Jordanians and Jordan to the Palestinians.
>The two can then split Iraq with the Kurds, who can take southern Turkey,
>and Turkey can have Iran, Syria, and Lebanon as compensation. The US
>gets 20% of the oil fields as a finders' fee. Then everyone's happy,
>except the Saudi royal family, but they can live off the proceeds of
>Citibank stock for a few generations, so long as they can stand to
>stop beating their maids ever so briefly.
Getting better, but you need to Think Big:
http://www.theonion.com/onion3723/west_bank.html
Otto Bahn
> But could there be a wide enough buffer zone at all?
Sure, if it were highly radioactive.
--oTTo--
Otto Bahn
>
> In article <a617vh$g0l$1...@saltmine.radix.net>, Ted Frank <m...@Radix.Net> wrote:
>
> > I don't see any dissonance: in 1967, the technology possessed by the
> > anti-Israeli nations was considerably less powerful than that possessed
> > today. The pre-1967 borders make something like 95% of the Israeli
> > population vulnerable to shelling -- a not insubstantial concern when you
> > consider that Israel was regularly losing 10% of its agricultural crops to
> > Palestinian shelling before it invaded Lebanon in the early 1980's.
>
> I've got an idea how we can solve this... but it involves Noam Chomsky.
Buried up to his neck and watered every morning.
--oTTo--
Brian 'Jarai' Chase
-> LOS ANGELES, Feb 27 (AFP) - The Church of Scientology on
-> Wednesday denounced the detention of two of its members in Egypt on
-> charges of religious contempt as a gross human rights violation and
-> urged Cairo to free the pair.
-> Egyptian authorities arrested a Palestinian woman and her
-> Israeli husband belonging to the church on December 24 for allegedly
-> trying to damage the principles of Islam and Christianity by the
-> spread of a new religious doctrine.
-> Mahmud Massarwa, 28, and his wife Wafaa Ahmed, 26, are also
-> suspected of spreading the doctrine "with the aim of sparking
-> riots."
-> "The charge of contempt of religion against the two
-> Scientologists is false and devoid of facts," the Los Angeles-based
-> church said in a statement.
-> "Their prolonged detention, based solely on suspicion and
-> rumour, is a gross violation of human rights," the church said
-> calling for the immediate release of the pair and denying that
-> Scientology was in any way opposed to Islam.
-> The church said the couple had been in Egypt to establish an
-> office to promote two books by church founder L. Ron Hubbard and
-> that the works had been cleared by the Egyptian censors.
-> Prosecutors in Cairo said the pair entered Egypt as
-> representatives of an Italian publishing firm to spread
-> Scientology.
-> The Church of Scientology was founded in the United States in
-> 1954 by late science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard and counts
-> several US celebrities, including actors Tom Cruise and John
-> Travolta, among its followers.
Leo Sgouros
"Brian 'Jarai' Chase" <b...@world.std.com> wrote in message
news:GsICv...@world.std.com...
Well then, lets get them organimized and kitted out in black and fire up
those fog machines and dance tracks.
I say , release the OT's.
Joseph Michael Bay
Caveats here - I think to really discuss this you should
have studied history and politics, which I haven't really.
So my pathetic attempt requires just as much stuff that
just ain't gonna happen as Otto's. Plus I'm not really
sure that it would establish any meaningful change, but
it is a set of compromises that at least means everyone
is making some concessions:
* Israel keeps its borders -- the post-1967 borders. The
West Bank sux anyway, so there's no legitimate reason for
anyone to want to live there. Right?
* Everyone who lives in Israel now who has been there for
some modest amount of time (say five years) or who has lived
there in the past for a total of say ten years or whatever
gets citizenship automatically if they want.
* Israel immigration policy ignores religion. They can work
it out themselves. Certainly they'd still beable to accept
immigrants who are Jewish and are seeking political asylum
or whatever, provided they adopt a consistent (and this is key)
political asylum policy. Because how democratic can you be
when you explicitly favor one religion? Also rights have to
be consistent for Jews, Muslims, and even crazed Southern Baptists
who got "Jerusalem Syndrome" while visiting.
Now, I've been told that I'm critical of Israel (which is true,
because they're at least mostly a democracy and they have to
act like it). I haven't said much about the neighbors of Israel,
which are pretty much not democratic. So:
* Okay, there are like fourth-generation "refugees" now. Do
you care about these people or are they political pawns? I'm
looking at you, Jordan. Offer citizenship.
* Were you born in Syria? Jordan? Do you live there? Do you really
so much want to live in a run-down slum in a desert? No? Then
why do you want to live in the West Bank? It's not a better place.
* Oh, yeah. Kings? Kings suck. It's 2002, or 1422 if you want.
Get with the program and either get rid of these monarchs or turn
them into embarrassing figureheads like the real world has.
* Muslim leaders agree to back off of the whole "kill all the Jews"
thing, satisfy themselves with a plan to have a better standard of
living so that the Jews will want to move into *their* countries and
then they can go "neener neener". This will keep them occupied for
decades, and if they do manage it I figure most Israeli Jews would
rather stay in Israel anyway, because hey, Israel.
* The US acknowledges that if Israel gets invaded, whoever invades
Israel will be invaded by the US, and plus we will make them listen
to country music and watch drunk topless women barbecueing pork.
The cost of this invasion will be recouped in tourism as millions flock
to watch drunk topless women barbecueing pork.
Now, the place that's really significant, and not just for launching
rockets from, but on a religious and personal level to many people, is
Jerusalem. It's the third holiest city for Muslims, but it's the
first holiest city for Jews, innit? Two possibilities here:
1) Israel controls Jerusalem, with Muslim holy sites granted some
sort of extraterritoriality, like embassies. Chicken wire or cyclone
fencing prevents the throwing of objects at peaceful worshippers of
either side.
2) Jerusalem is administered by none of those countries. Maybe the
UN would be sufficiently neutral, but they couldn't keep peace anywhere
else in the world so there's no reason to suppose they could do it there.
So we look to who's responsible for sticking all these people who don't
like each other in artificially separated countries -- which is to say
England, and Germany for making it necessary in the first place. With
funding from the Swiss.
I'd really be interested in criticism of this from someone more
knowledgable. My feeling is that Israel is generally more in the
right in most of this conflict, but is sometimes using means that are
not acceptable. And in any case, compromise means everyone has to
give up certain things.
Matt McIrvin
tel...@TheWorld.com (Brian 'Jarai' Chase) wrote:
> In article <a617vh$g0l$1...@saltmine.radix.net>, Ted Frank <m...@Radix.Net> wrote:
>
> > I don't see any dissonance: in 1967, the technology possessed by the
> > anti-Israeli nations was considerably less powerful than that possessed
> > today. The pre-1967 borders make something like 95% of the Israeli
> > population vulnerable to shelling -- a not insubstantial concern when you
> > consider that Israel was regularly losing 10% of its agricultural crops to
> > Palestinian shelling before it invaded Lebanon in the early 1980's.
>
> I've got an idea how we can solve this... but it involves Noam Chomsky.
Chomsky-enriched warheads are forbidden by several international
treaties.
Otto Bahn
> have studied history and politics, which I haven't really.
Fuck that. You got time to study history *AND* politics?
And exactly how much better are the "experts" doing as
compared to three above average geeks? We aren't amatures,
we're a frickin' bargain.
Plus, my news server lost a lot of posts, including this
one, which I had to google, and that is making me extremely
irritable.
> * Israel keeps its borders
Too many arabs require concessions or blood is
my gut reaction.
> * Everyone who lives in Israel now who has been there for
> some modest amount of time (say five years) or who has lived
> there in the past for a total of say ten years or whatever
> gets citizenship automatically if they want.
That might help some, don't know how much though.
> * Israel immigration policy ignores religion. They can work
> it out themselves. Certainly they'd still beable to accept
> immigrants who are Jewish and are seeking political asylum
> or whatever, provided they adopt a consistent (and this is key)
> political asylum policy. Because how democratic can you be
> when you explicitly favor one religion? Also rights have to
> be consistent for Jews, Muslims, and even crazed Southern Baptists
> who got "Jerusalem Syndrome" while visiting.
This could defeat the whole purpose of Israel in
the first place, or "not happening anytime soon"
(NHAS).
> Now, I've been told that I'm critical of Israel (which is true,
> because they're at least mostly a democracy and they have to
> act like it). I haven't said much about the neighbors of Israel,
> which are pretty much not democratic. So:
I'm critical of everyone.
> * Okay, there are like fourth-generation "refugees" now. Do
> you care about these people or are they political pawns? I'm
> looking at you, Jordan. Offer citizenship.
What does Jordan get in return?
> * Were you born in Syria? Jordan? Do you live there? Do you really
> so much want to live in a run-down slum in a desert? No? Then
> why do you want to live in the West Bank? It's not a better place.
Hey, now. It's *their* slum.
> * Oh, yeah. Kings? Kings suck. It's 2002, or 1422 if you want.
> Get with the program and either get rid of these monarchs or turn
> them into embarrassing figureheads like the real world has.
At least make them dance to Benny Hill music.
> * Muslim leaders agree to back off of the whole "kill all the Jews"
> thing, satisfy themselves with a plan to have a better standard of
> living so that the Jews will want to move into *their* countries and
> then they can go "neener neener". This will keep them occupied for
> decades, and if they do manage it I figure most Israeli Jews would
> rather stay in Israel anyway, because hey, Israel.
And while you're at it, Islamic law could use a
few changes. Baaa...
> * The US acknowledges that if Israel gets invaded, whoever invades
> Israel will be invaded by the US, and plus we will make them listen
> to country music and watch drunk topless women barbecueing pork.
> The cost of this invasion will be recouped in tourism as millions flock
> to watch drunk topless women barbecueing pork.
I agree some kind of escape clause is needed.
But we shouldn't invade unless it's necessary,
which it probably won't be.
> Now, the place that's really significant, and not just for launching
> rockets from, but on a religious and personal level to many people, is
> Jerusalem. It's the third holiest city for Muslims, but it's the
> first holiest city for Jews, innit?
Do it for the Christians!
How about time sharing? 1/2 to the Jews, 1/3 to
the Christians, and 1/6 to the Muslims.
>Two possibilities here:
>
> 1) Israel controls Jerusalem, with Muslim holy sites granted some
> sort of extraterritoriality, like embassies. Chicken wire or cyclone
> fencing prevents the throwing of objects at peaceful worshippers of
> either side.
I'll take door number one (because Israel just
explodiated door number two).
> 2) Jerusalem is administered by none of those countries. Maybe the
> UN would be sufficiently neutral, but they couldn't keep peace anywhere
> else in the world so there's no reason to suppose they could do it there.
> So we look to who's responsible for sticking all these people who don't
> like each other in artificially separated countries -- which is to say
> England, and Germany for making it necessary in the first place. With
> funding from the Swiss.
>
> I'd really be interested in criticism of this from someone more
> knowledgable.
Whoops, I've been wasting my time. But I can tell you
one thing you aren't doing: a peace plan. More like,
let's drop Joe Bay's world view on the middle east and
see what happens. Not that I wouldn't prefer that, I
just doubt your powers of mesmerization go beyond cute
fan chyks on usenet.
PROVE ME WRONG JOE BAY I BEG OF YOU.
> My feeling is that Israel is generally more in the
> right in most of this conflict, but is sometimes using means that are
> not acceptable.
I agree with that once I get over the problems with
Israel's creation in the first place.
> And in any case, compromise means everyone has to
> give up certain things.
Da. But expecting Kings to abdicate etc. takes this
from negotiated compromise to WWIII. Don't make me
say, "Hitler."
--oTTo--
I TOLD you not to do that
Chris Franks
"Joseph Michael Bay" <jm...@Stanford.EDU> wrote >
> UN would be sufficiently neutral, but they couldn't keep peace anywhere
> else in the world so there's no reason to suppose they could do it there.
> So we look to who's responsible for sticking all these people who don't
> like each other in artificially separated countries -- which is to say
> England, and Germany for making it necessary in the first place. With
> funding from the Swiss.
This has to be made to work. You are correct that the UN so far has
been inept, but it is time to change that. If you don't, then Bush gets to
act like he is the UN, and he is not. The USA has to force the UN to be
an effective peacekeeper, so that we don't have to keep the peace ourselves.
If Jersusalem cannot belong to everyone, then it must be nuked so it will
belong to noone.
Otto Bahn
> If Jersusalem cannot belong to everyone, then it must be nuked so it will
> belong to noone.
Heh. Moving the Muslim shrines a few miles east might
be easier. Are shrines beholden to a particular location
for their magic powers?
--oTTo--
Joseph Michael Bay
> This has to be made to work. You are correct that the UN so far has
>been inept, but it is time to change that. If you don't, then Bush gets to
>act like he is the UN, and he is not. The USA has to force the UN to be
>an effective peacekeeper, so that we don't have to keep the peace ourselves.
>If Jersusalem cannot belong to everyone, then it must be nuked so it will
>belong to noone.
I don't think the USA should force the UN to be an effective peacekeeper.
There are other countries that can do that, at least cooperatively. The
EU might be able to handle it, but the whole point of the UN is that it
should be multilateral, not dominated by one country.
Joseph Michael Bay
>> Caveats here - I think to really discuss this you should
>> have studied history and politics, which I haven't really.
>Fuck that. You got time to study history *AND* politics?
Well, no.
>> * Israel keeps its borders
>Too many arabs require concessions or blood is
>my gut reaction.
I think Jerusalem would be a sticking point but I really doubt
many people care personally about the West Bank. It's got
strategic value but that's different.
>> * Okay, there are like fourth-generation "refugees" now. Do
>> you care about these people or are they political pawns? I'm
>> looking at you, Jordan. Offer citizenship.
>What does Jordan get in return?
Well, Jordanians could emigrate to Israel at some rate, which
they would go for. I figure Israel could maintain a Jewish
(or at least non-Muslim) majority without a huge problem, while
still being kind of open.
>> * Were you born in Syria? Jordan? Do you live there? Do you really
>> so much want to live in a run-down slum in a desert? No? Then
>> why do you want to live in the West Bank? It's not a better place.
>Hey, now. It's *their* slum.
Not if they don't live there.
>> * Muslim leaders agree to back off of the whole "kill all the Jews"
>> thing, satisfy themselves with a plan to have a better standard of
>> living so that the Jews will want to move into *their* countries and
>> then they can go "neener neener". This will keep them occupied for
>> decades, and if they do manage it I figure most Israeli Jews would
>> rather stay in Israel anyway, because hey, Israel.
>And while you're at it, Islamic law could use a
>few changes. Baaa...
>> * The US acknowledges that if Israel gets invaded, whoever invades
>> Israel will be invaded by the US, and plus we will make them listen
>> to country music and watch drunk topless women barbecueing pork.
>> The cost of this invasion will be recouped in tourism as millions flock
>> to watch drunk topless women barbecueing pork.
>I agree some kind of escape clause is needed.
>But we shouldn't invade unless it's necessary,
>which it probably won't be.
Exactly -- it's meant to be a deterrent. I don't know if an
understanding like this exists now BECUASE I AM TEH DUMB.
>> Now, the place that's really significant, and not just for launching
>> rockets from, but on a religious and personal level to many people, is
>> Jerusalem. It's the third holiest city for Muslims, but it's the
>> first holiest city for Jews, innit?
>Do it for the Christians!
>How about time sharing? 1/2 to the Jews, 1/3 to
>the Christians, and 1/6 to the Muslims.
And the Ba'ha'a'a'ais? They've got something there too. But
they never ever riot or blow anything up as far as I know.
>> 2) Jerusalem is administered by none of those countries. Maybe the
>> UN would be sufficiently neutral, but they couldn't keep peace anywhere
>> else in the world so there's no reason to suppose they could do it there.
>> So we look to who's responsible for sticking all these people who don't
>> like each other in artificially separated countries -- which is to say
>> England, and Germany for making it necessary in the first place. With
>> funding from the Swiss.
>>
>> I'd really be interested in criticism of this from someone more
>> knowledgable.
>Whoops, I've been wasting my time. But I can tell you
>one thing you aren't doing: a peace plan. More like,
>let's drop Joe Bay's world view on the middle east and
>see what happens. Not that I wouldn't prefer that, I
>just doubt your powers of mesmerization go beyond cute
>fan chyks on usenet.
>PROVE ME WRONG JOE BAY I BEG OF YOU.
BOW DOWN NOW BEFORE ME! BOW DOWWWWN!
"My" world view is needed, to the extent that it contains
ideas like "Killing all Jews is bad" and "People should
be treated as people" and "you don't have to take it upon
yourself to avenge every injustice by blowing up or shooting
people".
>> My feeling is that Israel is generally more in the
>> right in most of this conflict, but is sometimes using means that are
>> not acceptable.
>I agree with that once I get over the problems with
>Israel's creation in the first place.
I think that probably Israel should have been created
as a more or less secular state rather than a predominantly
Jewish one, although (a) that wouldn't mollify the
"kill-all-the-Jews" Muslims and (b) it didn't happen that
way and nothing that happens now can change that, and (c)
it wouldn't be "Israel" then, I guess.
>> And in any case, compromise means everyone has to
>> give up certain things.
>Da. But expecting Kings to abdicate etc. takes this
>from negotiated compromise to WWIII. Don't make me
>say, "Hitler."
Okay, we make it appear as if King Abdullah II has
had an affair outside of marriage, which, if made public,
would require him to step down. UNLESS, that is, they
give us ... one - MILLION - dollars.
Rose Marie Holt
jm...@Stanford.EDU wrote on 3/6/02 2:19 PM:
> "Chris Franks" <chris_...@agilent.com> writes:
>
>> This has to be made to work. You are correct that the UN so far has
>> been inept, but it is time to change that. If you don't, then Bush gets to
>> act like he is the UN, and he is not. The USA has to force the UN to be
>> an effective peacekeeper, so that we don't have to keep the peace ourselves.
>> If Jersusalem cannot belong to everyone, then it must be nuked so it will
>> belong to noone.
>
> I don't think the USA should force the UN to be an effective peacekeeper.
> There are other countries that can do that, at least cooperatively. The
> EU might be able to handle it, but the whole point of the UN is that it
> should be multilateral, not dominated by one country.
>
The only reason Muslim religious shrines are in Jerusalem was because
Mohammaed considered Jews and Arabs to have the same God and to both be
people of the Book.
So if the current day Muslims want Jerusalem shrines back, they should
resume thinking of the Jews as brothers. Otherwise, they should stick to the
ground that Ismail founded and stay the h*ll away from Jerusalem, the Jewish
city. All Muslim shrines that are not also Jewish can be removed to any
place the Muslims want in Ismail's territory
Of course, this is not a practical solution, given the juvenile nature of
this dispute
Otto Bahn
> >> * Israel keeps its borders
>
> >Too many arabs require concessions or blood is
> >my gut reaction.
>
> I think Jerusalem would be a sticking point but I really doubt
> many people care personally about the West Bank. It's got
> strategic value but that's different.
What I think a lot of Arabs care about is the
perception that Israel was stolen from them
outright. Some feel like they've been used
and/or imposed upon by the West in general.
They also want to save face/honor (or maybe
just have something to dance in the streets
over). To justify the recognition of Israel,
I think it would help immensely to go back
closer to it's original borders.
> >> * Okay, there are like fourth-generation "refugees" now. Do
> >> you care about these people or are they political pawns? I'm
> >> looking at you, Jordan. Offer citizenship.
>
> >What does Jordan get in return?
>
> Well, Jordanians could emigrate to Israel at some rate, which
> they would go for. I figure Israel could maintain a Jewish
> (or at least non-Muslim) majority without a huge problem, while
> still being kind of open.
We haven't done a good job distinguishing twixt
governments and its people. The former won't
offer citizenship for free, I'm guessing.
> >> * Were you born in Syria? Jordan? Do you live there? Do you really
> >> so much want to live in a run-down slum in a desert? No? Then
> >> why do you want to live in the West Bank? It's not a better place.
>
> >Hey, now. It's *their* slum.
>
> Not if they don't live there.
Oh, I was thinking of independence for the ones
that do.
> "My" world view is needed, to the extent that it contains
> ideas like "Killing all Jews is bad" and "People should
> be treated as people" and "you don't have to take it upon
> yourself to avenge every injustice by blowing up or shooting
> people".
Well, you say you want a rev-o-lu-tion....
I just think the first step is a lot smaller, like
getting the Arabs to accept Israeli sovereignty,
in exchange for getting the US out of the region
and non-Israeli control of the contentious areas.
To actually make that work, I had to throw in some
Turkey and other defense stuff.
> >> My feeling is that Israel is generally more in the
> >> right in most of this conflict, but is sometimes using means that are
> >> not acceptable.
>
> >I agree with that once I get over the problems with
> >Israel's creation in the first place.
>
> I think that probably Israel should have been created
...only in an alternate universe or a Heinlein book.
--oTTo--
Brian 'Jarai' Chase
Joseph Michael Bay <jm...@Stanford.EDU> wrote:
> I don't think the USA should force the UN to be an effective peacekeeper.
> There are other countries that can do that, at least cooperatively. The
> EU might be able to handle it, but the whole point of the UN is that it
> should be multilateral, not dominated by one country.
See, I think the U.S. should be spending its billions more wisely.
Instead of this whole War on Terrorism thing, we could be developing a
giant robotic "Father Abraham". Japan would help us. Once completed,
we'd send the ABRA-1 robot into the Middle East to put everything right.
It's so obvious. I don't know what the big deal is about this being such
a hard problem to solve.
-jarai.
--
--- Brian Chase | b...@world.std.com | http://world.std.com/~bdc/ -----
,-._|\
/ \
Los Angeles-> *_,--._/
v
Matt McIrvin
b...@world.std.com (Brian 'Jarai' Chase) wrote:
> See, I think the U.S. should be spending its billions more wisely.
> Instead of this whole War on Terrorism thing, we could be developing a
> giant robotic "Father Abraham". Japan would help us. Once completed,
> we'd send the ABRA-1 robot into the Middle East to put everything right.
This could solve the Japanese financial crisis too. The giant robot
consortium could sell giant robots to the US for an obscene markup and
provide the banks some return on investment for once so they wouldn't
have to keep lending out money at zero interest and trying to make it
up in volume. If that didn't work then the giant robots would crush
the banks.
Jacob W. Haller
> Instead of this whole War on Terrorism thing, we could be developing a
> giant robotic "Father Abraham".
Brunching sez:
A.B.R.A.H.A.M.: Artificial Biomechanical Replicant Assembled for
Hazardous Assassination and Mathematics
-jwgh
--
"My childhood dream was to spend hours upon hours every day posting
messages to talk.bizarre, telling everyone how frickin smart I am."
- jsday at dragon.achilles.net on talk.bizarre, 1 Jan 2002
Jim Vandewalker
Otto Bahn <JGAULT@C*C*IS10*25.mc.duke.edu> wrote:
> Joseph Michael Bay wrote:
>
> > >> * Israel keeps its borders
> >
> > >Too many arabs require concessions or blood is
> > >my gut reaction.
> >
> > I think Jerusalem would be a sticking point but I really doubt
> > many people care personally about the West Bank. It's got
> > strategic value but that's different.
>
> What I think a lot of Arabs care about is the
> perception that Israel was stolen from them
> outright. Some feel like they've been used
> and/or imposed upon by the West in general.
>
> They also want to save face/honor (or maybe
> just have something to dance in the streets
> over). To justify the recognition of Israel,
> I think it would help immensely to go back
> closer to it's original borders.
>
You wouldn't ordinarily think of Clint Eastwood as a deep and subtle
thinker but there was some interesting stuff in 'The Unforgiven'.
A hooker gets cut up by a drunk cowboy and then a whole bunch of OTHER
people decide what to do about it.
Brutal peacekeeper Gene Hackman decides that the drunk cowboy and his
pal hafta give the saloonkeeper for whom the hooker works a string of
horses to make up for the hooker's loss of value.
The hookers' shop steward, really pissed off at the hookers being
treated like cattle, makes all the other hookers kick in their savings
to get up enough money to hire somebody to kill the cowboys.
The cowboys do show up with the string of horses for the saloonkeeper
and a special horse for the cut-up hooker, which the hooker shop steward
won't let her accept. The cut-up hooker looks like maybe she kinda likes
the cowboy who wanted to give her a horse, but the shop steward is not
about to allow any compromise. There's even a horsecrap and mud
throwing scene that looked a lot like Palestinians throwing rocks.
Anyway the whole thing is about the actual victim getting overlooked
while events spin out of control. Sheriff Hackman doesn't want a range
war over a cut-up hooker, but the hooker shop steward spreads the word
about the reward. Brutal sheriff Hackman has to kick the crap out of
bounty hunter Richard "English Bob" Harris to deter other bounty hunters
from showing up. Hog farmer Eastwood doesn't want to go back to vicious
killing, but Weasley Kid talks him into it because all his hogs are
sick. Old pal Morgan Freeman DEFINATELY doesn't want to get involved
but somehow does.
Weasley Kid finally gets to kill someone and realizes he doesn't like
it, old pal Morgan Freeman gets killed, and brutal sheriff Hackman gets
killed, along with five or six of his henchbeings. Vicious killer
Eastwood goes back and collects his kids at the hog farm and goes to
California to run a dry goods store maybe. Before that there was a
really good scene where an offhand remark by Eastwood really hurts the
cut-up hooker and he doesn't have a clue why or what to do about it.
Anyway the whole notion of the cut-up hooker's alleged grievance being
used by everybody else brought back to me a phrase I'd heard about the
Middle East: "men of hate", and what was said elsewhere in this thread
about the Palestinians being kept for generations in refugee camps as
pawns for Jordan, and the animosity against Israel being whipped up for
the benefit of Syria and Jordan and them, and the crazy notion of
Israeli settlements in the occupied territories.
Without having to invoke any secret conspiracies, there are now a LOT of
people with a Big Stake in Middle Eastern conflict.
One commentator told a little story about some street-level Palestinians
watching Israeli and Palestinian cabinet-level negotiators on TV and
pointing out how the Israeli was wearing a cheap watch and the
Palestinian was wearing an expensive Rollex and remarking how maybe this
was something of a corruption indicator.
--
Jim the Qrnq Thl
Otto Bahn
> > What I think a lot of Arabs care about is the
> > perception that Israel was stolen from them
> > outright. Some feel like they've been used
> > and/or imposed upon by the West in general.
> >
> > They also want to save face/honor (or maybe
> > just have something to dance in the streets
> > over). To justify the recognition of Israel,
> > I think it would help immensely to go back
> > closer to it's original borders.
> >
> You wouldn't ordinarily think of Clint Eastwood as a deep and subtle
> thinker but there was some interesting stuff in 'The Unforgiven'.
[snip cool synopsis]
> Without having to invoke any secret conspiracies, there are now a LOT of
> people with a Big Stake in Middle Eastern conflict.
Unfortunately, this Fucked Up World has included
you and I in the list of people who have a Big
Steak in the conflict. I say, let them eat the
vegetarians.
--oTTo--
Actually my steak is about average size
Otto Bahn
>
> In article <a6615i$2g4$1...@usenet.Stanford.EDU>,
> Joseph Michael Bay <jm...@Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>
> > I don't think the USA should force the UN to be an effective peacekeeper.
> > There are other countries that can do that, at least cooperatively. The
> > EU might be able to handle it, but the whole point of the UN is that it
> > should be multilateral, not dominated by one country.
>
> See, I think the U.S. should be spending its billions more wisely.
> Instead of this whole War on Terrorism thing, we could be developing a
> giant robotic "Father Abraham". Japan would help us. Once completed,
> we'd send the ABRA-1 robot into the Middle East to put everything right.
The problem is that we don't know which country
Abraham would sacrifice to god.
--oTTo--
Joseph Michael Bay
>One commentator told a little story about some street-level Palestinians
>watching Israeli and Palestinian cabinet-level negotiators on TV and
>pointing out how the Israeli was wearing a cheap watch and the
>Palestinian was wearing an expensive Rollex and remarking how maybe this
>was something of a corruption indicator.
I got about a dozen Rollex watches -- they cost like five bucks each.
Rolex is the expensive one.
Joe
PS I am also corrupt.
Joseph Michael Bay
>Brian 'Jarai' Chase wrote:
>> See, I think the U.S. should be spending its billions more wisely.
>> Instead of this whole War on Terrorism thing, we could be developing a
>> giant robotic "Father Abraham". Japan would help us. Once completed,
>> we'd send the ABRA-1 robot into the Middle East to put everything right.
>The problem is that we don't know which country
>Abraham would sacrifice to god.
What's that in the bag? Oh, it's several gigs of inexpensive RAM that
the giant robot could use instead.
Stupid bag.
Otto Bahn
>
> Otto Bahn <JGAULT@C*C*IS10*25.mc.duke.edu> writes:
>
> >Brian 'Jarai' Chase wrote:
>
> >> See, I think the U.S. should be spending its billions more wisely.
> >> Instead of this whole War on Terrorism thing, we could be developing a
> >> giant robotic "Father Abraham". Japan would help us. Once completed,
> >> we'd send the ABRA-1 robot into the Middle East to put everything right.
>
> >The problem is that we don't know which country
> >Abraham would sacrifice to god.
>
> What's that in the bag? Oh, it's several gigs of inexpensive RAM that
> the giant robot could use instead.
>
> Stupid bag.
I hate that bag.
--oTTo--