Greetings !
Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
Obviously the spite of the Jews is older
than Christianity. If Israel believes in
democracy, why can't she live with palestine
under one democratic government?
Because niether side wants to.
And, what's democracy got to do with it ?
Why would one country want to merge with another,
aspecially since both sides dislike each other ?
The problem is that the palestinian leadership
is mostly made of ex-terrorists. These palestinian
activists fought for decades and they believe they
should get the whole country or nothing (otherwise
they would've had at least a decade old state by now).
Encouraged and supported by other arab countries
they introduced this hate to many of their people
through their once only organized institution - Islam.
Now that they have a central rule they teach their
school children that they must hate and kill Israelis,
Americans and all non-muslims and flood them
with constant propoganda.
The main growth of arab nationalism and the naturally
connected to it faith of Islam began almost a century
ago. Trying to free themselves from any foreign
colonial forces and rules like mainly the British and
also the French, the newly formed arab countries
supported Hitler in WW2. Only they miscalculated
and Hitler was defeated. Through Hitler they first
came to hate the Jews with whom they co-existed in
peace since Islam was first born in the beginning
of the 8th century.
After WW2 the amount of Jews in palestine grew
steeply as many of the survivors of the Holocoust
fled from the continent. Now the arabs hated them
even more because it seemed like it came closer
to a state.
In the several decades that followed the many
relativly enlightened arab countries that showed
early signs of democracy were transformed by the
USSR. As a communist state and a superpower that
controlled most of Europe and much of Asia the
USSR had only one real opposition force - the US.
The US and the USSR fought each other "behind the
scenes" in almost every country in the world.
Seeing the Arab countries right "next door"
to it and knowing they are a very important
energy source for the "west" the USSR knew it
had to have much influence there and the new
democratic and semi-democratic rules were a
severe problem.
Like in so many countries around the world where
these two powers clashed the USSR knew the way
to control was through encouragement and
support of their favorite side. The "wind
in the sails" of arab nationalism was weaker
now and the USSR came up with a much "better"
solution - support the fanatics of the main
religion in these countries and many other around
the world.
Although communism is the lack of any religion,
they didn't care much about that part (the US
also supported Islamic extrimists in some
places where they thought it may be usefull).
Due to the undemocratic nature of the USSR
they were able to provide wide support in
all areas, unlike the US which had to
rely on public support or covert ops.
Sometimes they directly interfered using
their own forces.
The new Islamic fundumentalism spread like
fire through many countries. The local
governments were overthrown. Some
managed to escape that fate, but since
the pressure was great - the countries
that managed to do this were ruled by
the more powerful non-democratic leaders
and they too had to accept the USSR's influence
(aspecially since it meant a lot of money,
weapons and resources for them)and couldn't
totally escape Islamic fundumentalism.
(Like the "peaceful" Egypt you mentioned
Zurgawee, which still often has multi-million
Islamic extremists' demonstarations on the streets.
Today they are mostly peaceful and few violent
actions take place, perhaps, it is because in
the fairly recent past they were disperesed by
live fire from tank columns right on the streets
of Cairo and because Egypt did accept the USSR's
influence.)
Like in many other cases with other religions
throughout history the Islamic fundumentalists
made an emphasis on the violent parts of their
beliefs and forgot the more peaceful sides
of it. (Which was not very difficult because
Islam like Jewdaism is originally a religion
that does support some forms of violence in
some cases, and more than that - because
since the fall of the Roman Empire and
except a relativly short period of control
by the Mongols who respected other religions,
the arab tribes and kingdoms were strongly
independent and it was still part of their "spirit".
The legacy from the Crusades also "helped".)
As the arab countries were transformed their
attitude towards the "west" and Israel in
particular - as a state they already hated
and was right on the "step door" of many of
these countries became even worse. With Soviey
weapons and technology they could attack
Israel and each time they did they were
beaten and naturally very angry about it.
The "west" and the US became the enemy as the
USSR wanted. The US support for Israel made
things even worse.
Today, even though the USSR is gone, the fire
they egnited half a century ago is still here
(and now it hurts the Russians too). The problem
is not Islam, the problem is the interpretation of
Islam by Islamic fundumentalists which, having
controlled so many arab countries for 2-3
generations, they spread and taught a great
many people.
Now, for people who lived throughout their
lives in democratic countries it all may seem
very strange. But, people are not that smart
and not that independent and not that capable
as one might think by constantly seeing the power
of an individual in a democratic society.
(It took humanity phousands of years and countless
mistakes and bloody conflicts to achieve this.)
When, since you are born, you are told something
you will believe it. When you are only introduced
one way of life by everyone who surrounds you -
you'll ussualy live the same way. When your
an intellectual that is no escape - before
WW2 racism and anti-semitism were rampant in almost
every educational institution in Europe and many
"scientific" work & writings were writtem to justify
it. (The possible new Palestinian prime minister -
Abu-Mazen is a university graduate and one
of the works that allowed him to graduate was
a "scientific" denial of the Holocoust).
One of the clear signs of superficial judgement
is believing slogans like "the majority can't
be extreme", which is rampant when the absense
of true knowledge is present. Another relevant
slogan for this case is the "middle ground" one.
Middle ground is as often as not - not the solution.
If the Iraqi info minister says there are no tanks
on the streets of Baghdad when he himself can
see them - there is no middle ground. If the
Palestinians shout to a camera they were butchered
(knowing full well how such pictures can have
great impact on international news chanells) and
the Israelis say they killed a terrorist through
a direct hit by a missile, the truth is not
in between, aspecialy since the Israelis ussualy
do admit their mistakes if and when they happen
(and fighting with terrorism is a risky business
because there are always civilians in the way and
terrorists, by definition, are always hiding
behind and amongst them).
So, boys and gals, what I sincerely ask you to do
(since this is an educational forum) is not just
view this as a short history lesson but also view
this as a lesson for those of you who forge their
opinions on subjects based upon superficial
views of some random pieces of information and
the evening news. Like many of you wouldn't
argue here about the validity of Special
Relativity despite the fact that when you learn
it - it seems counter-intuative, I ask you not
to argue about political issues that you have
a poor understanding of their background, here.
I realize that often the "hot" issues are something
you find it hard not to respond to. But, if you
know as little about them as of the president of
the nearby country for example, then, despite
the "heat" of the subject, is it not better not
to publicly insult your intellegence by posting
irresponsible and shallow opinions ?
Peace and long life.
)
you will piss a lot of people off and get yelled at, but there isn't much personal animosity. Actually there is a sort of admiring fascination with America and Americans, at the same time there is resentment against the US government and its actions.
