The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > George W is going to solve the Palestinian problem > Comments

George W is going to solve the Palestinian problem : Comments

By John Passant, published 6/3/2008

When it comes to a clash between Unites States' interests and democracy, democracy takes a back seat.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
While there is oil in the Middle East, there is no chance that the US will stand by and allow any group to destabilise the governments of their allies, no matter how unpopular they might be with the locals. They have given the Israelis the most up to date weapons to ensure that they have enough force to "take care of business" should it be necessary. No one in the US is the least bit concerned about the fate of the Palestinians. If they were, there would have been an outcry when GW and company refused to recognise that Hamas had legitimately won the election.

The US needs to tread warily in their dealings with Iran. If they don't they might suffer from a reduction in their supply of oil. In this regard, all the other oil states have the whip hand. Oil is what drives the politics of the area, humanitarianism or democracy have nothing to do with it.
Posted by VK3AUU, Thursday, 6 March 2008 9:33:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is the Arab world which does not want a peaceful solution to the Israel/Palestine problem. The Palestinians are pawns in a game which diverts attention from problems within several Middle Eastern countries.Iran is the best example.
Why else does no Middle Eastern country other than Jordan allow Palestinians to become citizens?
And why else does the rocket launching increase every time someone mentions peace?
Posted by Seneca, Thursday, 6 March 2008 11:16:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
THE ARTICLE IS SEDITIOUS. .. and possibly illegal.

Did anyone see the very last paragraph ?

"There is hope. The Left is quietly rebuilding its support among workers in the puppet countries, waiting for and helping to build the mass upsurges that could send Bush’s allies to the gallows and liberate Palestine."

POINT 1.. This author is confessing that a movement he supports 'The Left' is.. quietly white anting regimes which include Australia's allies by virtue of the Anzus treaty. The allies of OUR Allies are also our allies.

POINT 2. This author is clearly invisaging VIOLENT REVOLUTION. He is referring to the very thing that many of us are claiming is occurring among the Muslim community in Australia 'quietly building and waiting.....'

POINT 3. He is as close as it gets to advocating real genocide when he mentions 'liberate' Palestine. No one, even in their most irrational moments could think that the Radicals among Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Fatah etc would do anything other than mass slaughter of Israelis if they had half the chance.

POINT 4. He has no hesitation in stating the end game "Bush's allies to the GALLOWS"

It seems to me that this author is in reality glorifying terrorism, advocating violent revolution, and is thus infringing the anti terrorism laws.

LONDON 2006 "EXTERMINATE those who insult Islam." (Protest signs)

AUSTRALIA 2008 LIBERATE PALESTINE-allies to the GALLOWS"

ILLEGAL ? This article fosters hatred, incites violence and specifically connects socialist 'hope' with violent revolution and killings of political opponents.

If ever there was a case for the AFP under the terrorism laws, this would be it.

and OLO published it ?
Posted by BOAZ_David, Thursday, 6 March 2008 3:30:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anyone who says anything critical of Israel in Australia is a brave person. As Anthony Loewenstein found out, to suggest that Israel's policy of extra-judical assasination and collective punishment of a captive population may not be the right things to do, immediately earns one the label of "anti-semetic holocaust denier".

(When it is used in a middle east context "anti-semetic" must be one of the most oxymoronic pejorative terms of all time - given that the majority of semites in the world happen to be arabs).
Posted by mayrog, Thursday, 6 March 2008 4:16:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Boaz_david says the AFP should charge John for terrorism for his article. His logic is a bit unclear but I would remind him that John also wrote an article about the possible class forces that could overthrow the Chinese dictatorship. Presumably the AFP should prosecute John for that article too. Perhaps Boaz_david should have a cup of tea, a bex and a good lie down.

If people think the idea of democratically overthrowing the despots in the Middle East is madness, a strike at the biggest textile mill in the Middle east (27,000 workers) recently saw the workers demand not only an increase in the minimum wage (which hasn't changed since 1984) but also for Mubarak to go.

The day of reckoning for the US supported dictators will come.

The struggle for democracy is not a crime, Boaz_david.
Posted by Passy, Thursday, 6 March 2008 6:29:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Seneca says:

"It is the Arab world which does not want a peaceful solution to the Israel/Palestine problem. The Palestinians are pawns in a game which diverts attention from problems within several Middle Eastern countries.Iran is the best example.
"Why else does no Middle Eastern country other than Jordan allow Palestinians to become citizens?
"And why else does the rocket launching increase every time someone mentions peace?"

I think it is true that Arab and Muslim regimes in the region do use Israel to divert attention away from their own problems. I doubt in places like Egypt or Syria or Saudi Arabia that it cuts much ice - the regimes have no legitimacy so such bleatings about an enemy carry little weight.

Conversely Israel uses the so-called threat from poorly armed Palestinians to suppress a people and deny them their homeland.

Palestinians want to be citizens of Palestine, not Jordan or Lebanon or Syria or wherever they fled to or were driven to. They want their homes back.

Hamas offered an unconditional ceasefire to Israel. Israel rejected it. Israel now imposes collective punishment on the Gazans. The rockets are the pathetic response of a failed strategy.

Hamas is the democratically elected Government of the Palestinian people. Israel should accept their ceasefire offer. But the Israeli Government does not see it as being in its interests to do so. Far better to confine millions of Palestinians in Gaza so that Israel can send the clear message it rules the area, with US assistance and for long-term US interests (as well as for their own colonial settler state interests).
Posted by Passy, Thursday, 6 March 2008 6:45:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
boaz, you're sounding more hysterical than usual.

The mossadeq affair for instance, wasn't one of the west's finer moments.

I'll admit, that the first half of the article was the better part, with the latter half being conspicuously absent in its criticism of the Palestinians who are far from the innocent victims that Mr Passant indicates. It's also a bit of an unbalanced piece in terms of the criticism of the US, without the commensurate criticism of their opponents.

Thought I find your idea that it should be censored quite repugnant. There's nothing here that doesn't have a valid - nay, important - place in political discourse.

What bothers me more is your hypocrisy. You got so worked about about religious vilification laws when Danny Nalliah and the Catch The Fire zealots were targetted.

So the freedom to criticise is only valid when it's not directed at what you believe to be the way.

I don't believe in your conservative ideals. I don't believe your priorities are at all accurate in regard to the threats to Australia. Yes, the threat of islamic fascism is one threat, but no greater than governments clamping down on civil liberties.

I've no urge to live through an Australian version of McCarthyism. I hope articles like this are never censored.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Thursday, 6 March 2008 6:46:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes.. I'm being dramatic..I know.

But there is reason in my "hysteria".

We need to take a much closer look at our relationships with Allies and Enemies.

It's about time we knew who are our friends..and enemies and treated them as such. In the case of enemies, sure, we should take a just approach, but that does not in any way excuse people from among 'us' for supporting our enemies.

The concept of Alliances has a long history. By all means look up this to gain an insight as to 'why' I ranted as I did on this topic.

http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Articles/companion/19_ali_bin_talib.htm

But that's just one aspect. I cannot bring myself to support or advocate 'violent struggle' by Christians in Poso, though I would understand it if they did. I cannot encourage them in such a thing.

In this case. Passant is advocating violent overthrow of an allied state..and I find that treacherous.

In any response to my 'hysteria'.. (which I deliberately listed in point form) please respond to the POINTS, one by one, and declare them 'right/wrong' or more to it than that, and back it up. (please)
Posted by BOAZ_David, Thursday, 6 March 2008 8:12:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LOL! So it's fair to say, that we have not evolved at all. Its all about resources! Do you all really think old George gives a rats ass about these people! Give me a break! Sometimes I wonder what drug this world is on.
Posted by evolution, Thursday, 6 March 2008 9:13:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
i have watched the champions of the left in action with close attention for about 50 years, and have been forced to conclude that plutocrats can sleep soundly, they're in no danger. the writer is a just another 'lefty' fool, presumably content to throw a stone in the ocean and exclaim: "see the wave!".

he is, however, largely right about the sins of america. what to do about it is the hard part. i fear the answer is "nothing". humanity formed it's character when it was competing with baboons for the title of 'boss primate of the savannah'. we've moved on since then, but not very far. people and nations with power behave with arrogance and brutality. americans are the current 800 pound gorillas and we shouldn't be surprised at what they do.

i have been suggesting in posts to this site that the only cure for institutional arrogance and brutality, for endemic corruption and incompetence, is democracy: rule by the people. however right i may be, i have also long ago realized that a nation's culture may make democracy impossible. that is why mr passant and 'the left' are fools: they do not champion democracy as the legitimate means of social liberation. on the other hand, perhaps they understand better than i, that ozzies are born to be fore-lock tuggers, to whichever grifters have weaseled their way onto the government benches. who is more foolish, then....
Posted by DEMOS, Friday, 7 March 2008 7:01:47 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Boaz, you have a knack of reducing a discussion to a point where is becomes unarguable, simply because you present black in the deepest sable, and white as dazzlingly pristine. To you, shades of grey are unfortunate subversions, and the people who point them out to you simply "don't get it".

The reality of life is that it is in those shades of grey that we exist and live out our lives. Pretending there is always one single right answer is an intellectual cop-out.

Try this for size.

>>It's about time we knew who are our friends..and enemies and treated them as such.<<

Let's imagine you are a 70-year old Iranian, old enough to remember life under a democratically-elected government under Mossadegh. Then came the US-supported coup d'etat that installed the Shah - i.e., replaced a democracy with a dictatorship. You then watched the US align itself against you in the Iran-Iraq war, and then come running back to ask your country to be allies with them and Syria against Iraq. Now, it is once again making aggressive noises against you and your government.

Where, along that timeline, would you decide to "pick and stick" a decision on whether the US is your friend, or your enemy?

And on what evidence, given that 20:20 hindsight is not available to you?
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 7 March 2008 8:20:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Indeed, Pericles. I was also struck by this:

Boazy: "The allies of OUR Allies are also our allies"

It's so nice to learn that Australia is an ally of e.g. Colombia.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Friday, 7 March 2008 8:31:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Despite the rhetoric, the US has never been interested in democracy other than perpetrating the illusion of democracy even within it's own borders.

The article only reinforces what we already know and that is that US economic interests will always outweigh the interests of democracy and human rights.

Boaz how would you choose our allies. On their human rights record (as a good Christian) or on the WIFM principle?

Pericles and CJ have summed it up perfectly.
Posted by pelican, Friday, 7 March 2008 8:54:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George W is going to solve the Palestinian problem?

Here's how he's tried so far.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/04/gaza200804
Posted by Lev, Friday, 7 March 2008 1:42:08 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Demos

I must be a leftie fool for supporting democracy for all. This is especially the case for my support for the the Palestinians, who are enslaved so that others may be "free".

And so to BOAZ_David I say that the liberation of Palestine is the foundation for the liberation of the Jewish people, not their annihilation.

I doubt any peoples tug their forelocks. Australia for example has a proud tradition of struggle e.g. for the eight hour day, the vote for women, women's liberation and gay liberation, better wages and conditions - all against the ruling elite.

As to democracy, the foolish leftie that I am wants to see democracy spread into the workplace. A necessary concomitant of political democracy to my mind is economic democracy.

This is not just about throwing rocks into the water and watching the waves. The 20th century was the era of revolution - challenging the rule of capital in the market capitalist regimes of the West and in the state capitalist regimes of the East. As capitalism spreads and ages the 21st century will see the battles become more intense and frequent.
Posted by Passy, Friday, 7 March 2008 8:40:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Pericles and JOhn (Passy)

No, its not that ... me seeing only in the blackest of black and the whitest of white with nothing in between.

But I do highlight the extreme ends of the spectrum, to underline that 'they' are the ones calling the tune, and it is with them, ultimately that one has to deal, one way or the other.

JOhn's idea that sending the leaders of various Arab countries and presumbably Israel to the gallows is not exactly 'Liberation'.

The Socialist idea seems to be:

-Let the refugees return.
-Let it be a 'one state' solution where all have a say. (mixed Arab Jew)

-Doing this would solve the problem of who owns/controls Jerusalem.

I also saw a group called "Womens Peace Coalition" (something like that) calling for a 'shared' capital of Jerusalem.

Now.. please don't misunderstand me, when I suggest 'this aint gonna happen' I immediately refer to those who 'most' don't want it to happen, and that happens to be the Radical Islamists and the Settler type Jews.

Its pointless saying "I" see black and white..I'm just observing reality. (how many times have I quoted the Hamas Charter? note..its not the BD charter, is the 'hamas' one)

The other point most secularists don't fully appreciate, is the historical/theological fabric in both sides. Hegelian dialectic just does not apply here.

I can talk about 'grey' for Australia no problem.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Saturday, 8 March 2008 6:53:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Passy,
Following on the variations of grey theme …

I know it’s long been fashionable to point to US support for various ME “dictatorships” as all black.

But, an argument can be made that the Emirs of The UAE , The Hashemites of Jordan and even the house of Saud are more liberally inclined that many of their “democratic” opponents.

And, in societies where dogmatic acceptance of official history and mores have been deeply ingrained over centuries “days of reckoning” & “democratic struggles” (as envisaged by ‘foolish leftie(s)” ) all too often throw up Ayatollah Khomeini’s, long before they produce a Benjamin Franklins ( or Barak Obama )

[A little bit more Fabianism & a little bit less Leninism may work wonders -long term ]

I am also somewhat intrigued by your comment:
“Palestinians want to be citizens of Palestine, not Jordan or Lebanon or Syria or wherever they fled to or were driven to. They want their homes back.”
[ How many thousands of Palestinians did you interview to determine that? ]

And as for “ colonial settler state interests” . The most successful colonialists/imperialists in history were the ones that started from a small area in the Saudi desert and succeeded in homogenising most of the Middle East …
Posted by Horus, Sunday, 9 March 2008 3:06:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DAVID_Boaz says about the reference to gallows that it means hanging people in violence. I think you will find the reference is really to the historical gallows - the dustbin of history if you like.

DAVID_Boaz may also be misinterpreting the idea about the road the Jerusalem. That is a reference to the liberation of Palestine, a liberation for both Palestinians and Israelis. It is not a reference to a shared capital which accepts the two state solution.

I agree that we are a long way from John's vision. However the unrest in Cairo at the moment is class based. Whether it increases, and whether it continues in a working class direction or is sidetracked by the islamists, who knows? I suspect it is but one of many skirmishes before a bigger battle. We shall see.
Posted by Passy, Sunday, 9 March 2008 11:26:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Horus says:

"But, an argument can be made that the Emirs of The UAE , The Hashemites of Jordan and even the house of Saud are more liberally inclined that many of their “democratic” opponents."

Yes, an argument can be made. But factually for the House of Saud I think it is wrong. Wahabbism is the creature of these brutal dictators. They have however had a falling out with their ideological brother Bin Laden. That does not make them any better than him. But I prefer the democratic rule of the Saudi people as a starting point. As I do for all the peoples of the Middle East.

What if the Muslim Brotherhood comes to power in Egypt? (I think they may well have majority passive support.) Or the FIS in Algeria (which clearly at the 92 elections had majority support)?

They will all find an accommodation with the West. The Iranian regime balances between the medievalsim of its religious views and the modernism imposed on it by its oil and the desire of its people for better economic lives.

Horus then asks:

I am also somewhat intrigued by your comment:
“Palestinians want to be citizens of Palestine, not Jordan or Lebanon or Syria or wherever they fled to or were driven to. They want their homes back.”
[ How many thousands of Palestinians did you interview to determine that? "

Horus, Hamas was elected on a rejectionist ticket, expressing the desire of the Palestinian people for the right of return.

Interestingly the Palestinians could have taken power in Jordan in 1970 but did not do so because of their false political view that they should not interfere in the affairs of other Arab states. If they had taken power in the September revolution then the possibility of the liberation of the whole region may have been on the agenda.
Posted by Passy, Sunday, 9 March 2008 11:47:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Passy,
Re : “ the Palestinians could have taken power in Jordan in 1970 … If they had …then the possibility of the liberation of the whole region may have been on the agenda”

Considering that everywhere the militant groups ‘govern’ they need to be bank rolled by the donor nations (ie EU, USA, & The Saudis). The donor nations are probably mighty happy that the whole region wasn’t ‘liberated’ in the 1970s.

Re: “Hamas was elected on a rejectionist ticket, expressing the desire of the Palestinian people for the right of return.”

Considering the lack of alternatives the electors were offered , it is not surprising that Hama or something very like them was elected. They would likely to have been elected even in the absence of the ‘right of return’ policy, and any number of others policies.

Just where on the voting ticket did it say – tick either 1 or 2 :
1) If you want right of return .
2) If you want to emigrate to Saudi or Kuwait .

What might the result have been if they had a third party that had said,
vote for us & we’ll give you a green card to the USA?
Posted by Horus, Sunday, 9 March 2008 5:08:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Passy > “Hamas is the democratically elected Government of the Palestinian people. Israel should accept their ceasefire offer.”

Adolf Hitler’s Nazi party were able to achieve much of their success due to the democratic system. They were unarguably a party with majority support among the German people at their height. Should Chamberlain be the real hero of 1939 for his “peace in our time debacle”? Just because Hamas are democratically elected doesn’t mean that they should be accorded any legitimacy by the rest of the world. Slobodan Milosevic had popular support.

The problem with apologists like you is that you refuse to take the terrorists at their word. Have you not read the Hamas charter? Do you not understand that Hamas only wants a cease fire to rebuild strength in order to fight another day? The hamas charter refuses the possibility of ever sharing Palestine with the Jews. Cease fires and delays suit Hamas perfectly. The current fertility-rate among Palestinians is 5.09 births per woman. Among Israelis that number is 2.3. The required rate to sustain your existing population is between 2.1 and 2.2. 5.09 births per woman doubles your society every generation. Clearly the Palestinians have time on their side. The only peace Hamas are interested in is the peace of total victory and the expulsion or ethnic cleansing of all jews in Palestine.

Passy says> “Any peace deal would give at best 20 per cent of the pre-1948 Palestine to the Palestinians.”

But this is ignoring the offer given to Arafat at Camp David which would have included more than 95% of what, pre-1967, was referred to as Palestine.

What really stands out more than anything else is the failure of Marxist theory to explain modern muslim fundamentalism, or anthing much else for that matter. Marxist theory is for those who haven’t left the sandbox of university or academia.
Posted by Paul.L, Monday, 10 March 2008 4:32:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Paul.L. It appears that Israel has negotiated with Hamas - no Gaza rockets and Israel withdraws troops and stops bombing.

You say correctly that "Adolf Hitler’s Nazi party were able to achieve much of their success due to the democratic system." The failure of the German left to unite against their common enemy led to an opening for Hitler to attain power and smash the defensive and political organs of the working class before turning on Jews.

The rise of Hamas is in part a reaction to Zionism,a creed which is racist and wants to finish the job of driving the Palestinians out of greater Israel.

Zionism was not always the dominant trend in Jewish thought. The failure of the Russian revolution to spread, its degeneration, the collapse and/or destruction of the left in Western Europe and the rise of fascism saw Zionism gain mass support.

The rise of Hamas is in part a consequence of the failure of national secularism in the region. It is in part a consequence of the failure of humanity to move out of its backward phase of religiosity. It is in part a a result of US sponsorship of religious alternatives to counterbalance the USSR and left nationalists in the Arab world. For example Al-Qaeda is Uncle Sam's bastard baby.

Then you say:The problem with apologists like you is that you refuse to take the terrorists at their word.

I am not an apologist for Hamas. I condemn individual and state terrorism. I know that Hamas cannot succeed. Its terrorist actions are immoral. But so too is the strategy of Zionism in killing innocent Palestinians, in imposing collective punishment on the Gaza strip, in setting up settlements.

Hamas's strategy will only make the situation worse given the strength of Israel. The real alternative to me is the working class in the region. That is not going to happen tomorrow or the day after. But class is the way forward, not terrorism. If that puts me into the sandbox of academia, so be it.
Posted by Passy, Tuesday, 11 March 2008 6:08:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy