News Newt Gingrich declares: This is WWIII

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around a recent statement by Newt Gingrich, who claimed that current global tensions signify the early stages of World War III. Participants express skepticism about Gingrich's credibility and question the motivations behind ongoing conflicts. Some highlight the historical context of violence in the Middle East, suggesting that the situation is not unprecedented and may not warrant the alarm Gingrich raises. There is a call for more constructive U.S. foreign policy, emphasizing the need for engagement rather than confrontation with countries like Syria and Iran. The conversation also touches on the complexities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with opinions divided on the effectiveness of military action versus diplomatic solutions. Concerns about the potential for escalation into broader conflict, including nuclear threats from Iran, are voiced, alongside critiques of U.S. leadership and its role in the region's instability. Overall, the thread reflects a mix of frustration with political rhetoric and a desire for a more nuanced understanding of international relations.
  • #51
SOS2008, if you can point me to a resource that shows US leadership in the creation of Israel, I would be thankful.

Also, I would like to know your view on Arab-Israeli conflict in the 20th century before 1948. How does that conflict relate to what you say is the "root" of Arab-Israeli conflict?

SOS2008 said:
The UN is valuable for providing a global position, and most of all international peace-keeping efforts. Why not get to work on a permanent solution to the Israeli/Arab conflict?

What was the UN working on in 1947?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #53
Hans, I think most people are familiar with the existence of Wikipedia articles by now. On any subject. :)
 
  • #54
Mickey said:
SOS2008, if you can point me to a resource that shows US leadership in the creation of Israel, I would be thankful.

Also, I would like to know your view on Arab-Israeli conflict in the 20th century before 1948. How does that conflict relate to what you say is the "root" of Arab-Israeli conflict?

What was the UN working on in 1947?
Research on Truman (e.g., "Harry S. Truman and the Founding of Israel"
By Michael T Benson) who held a literal belief in the Bible (think Rapture) shows he was a factor in the U.S. role toward the creation of Israel as a nation state at the time Israel was formed (which had further been fueled by the unfortunate occurrence of the Holocaust and sympathy therefore). Though Wiki usually is considered a reliable and certainly the most up-to-date source, here are other sources:

U.S. support for Israel began when President Harry S. Truman extended U.S. recognition to the Jewish state immediately after its 1948 declaration of independence. Continued U.S. support for Israel has varied in form and intensity over time, but this support has remained a pillar of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. U.S. support for Israel is based on several factors: a commitment to one of the few democratic states in the region, a need for stable allies, a sense of a shared Judeo-Christian religious tradition, and as a market for the products of the American defense industry.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/globalconnections/mideast/questions/uspolicy/

Sure efforts initiated by Zionists were originally championed by the British...until violence ensued, and sure a UN partition plan followed in hopes of alleviating the violence, but it was the U.S. that announced its recognition of Israel as a new nation--to be precise 11 minutes after Israel proclaimed statehood. And it has been the U.S. who has championed Israel ever since:

The US & Israel

Since the founding of a Jewish homeland in 1948, America's unique friendship with Israel has weathered war and crises. It is now drawing more public scrutiny than it has in a generation.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/1026/p1s1-uspo.html

Ultimately, however, something like the creation of a new nation state could not take place without support of the current world leader, hegemony, superpower (or whatever term preferred) and U.S. hegemony began during WWII.

Further on the issue of Arab-Israeli conflict before 1948 (e.g.,
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761588322/Arab-Israeli_Conflict.html
), as I've stated (maybe in another thread on the topic) historical movement of peoples in the region only show that the land belongs to no one people, so I prefer to discuss the present and possible solutions going forward. IMO the Palestinians must have their own country, which needs to be recognized just as Israel has been recognized.

For this to happen, the U.S. needs to understand Mideast culture and give up the notion that democracy, particularly modeled on the U.S. and western culture, is not the only acceptable form of government (among other things). But back to the topic of the thread, governments that are engaged usually become more moderate because they develop "skin in the game" and don't want to jeopardize that. Invasions such as that in 1982 tend to produce leaders like Nasrallah.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #55
Thank you very much! I think I see what you mean now.

--- Edit: I deleted some text here. I thought I knew what you meant. See, I was reading one Wiki page that made it seem like Israel was defying the UN Partition Plan, but another said that it declared a state in accordance with the plan, and that appears to be correct. The plan was developed under no US leadership whatsoever in a special committee of smaller nations. The whole point was to exclude larger countries so that they would not have influence... why aren't you blaming those smaller countries for developing a plan that all the Arabs hated? ----

Ultimately, however, something like the creation of a new nation state could not take place without support of the current world leader, hegemony, superpower (or whatever term preferred) and U.S. hegemony began during WWII.

--- The creation of a new nation state immediately following WWII was what the UN was designed to handle, wasn't it? Why do you put responsibility on the US when it was the UN's? ---

However, I still don't think US support is at the root of the conflict. The start of the Arab-Israeli war in 1948 was not affected by US decisions. It would have happened whether the US supported Israel or not. You place far too much responsibility on the US, and not enough on other nations, and especially not enough on Israel or the Arabs.

For this to happen, the U.S. needs to understand Mideast culture and give up the notion that democracy, particularly modeled on the U.S. and western culture, is not the only acceptable form of government.

It sounds like you're saying that we should give up the notion that *any* sort of democracy is necessary in the ME. If so, I don't understand how you can say that, frankly. I am convinced that either I read this wrong or that you worded it poorly. You know that Arabs in the ME don't talk about real democracy because they're afraid of the secret police, right?

Please help me understand what you meant a little better.Also,

... and sure a UN partition plan followed in hopes of alleviating the violence

I'm pretty sure it was meant as work towards a permanent solution! You think the UN has the power to work on a permanent solution today, when it started work on one 60 years ago. You can't get out of this one. :redface:
 
Last edited:
  • #56
I swear to God!1 I NEVER thought I'd actually miss NIXON! :smile:
 
  • #57
kyleb said:
Just in America, in Europe their media reports openly on Israel's nearly 40 year occupation and contentious expansion onto Palestinian land which is holding back their culture.

You clearly aren't familiar with American reporting on the subject.
 
  • #58
Middle East Conflict

What do you think of Obadiah Shoher's views on the Middle East conflict? One can argue, of course, that Shoher is ultra-right, but his followers are far from being a marginal group. Also, he rejects Jewish moralistic reasoning - that's alone is highly unusual for the Israeli right. And he is very influential here in Israel. So what do you think?
 
  • #59
lolllllllllll
 
Back
Top