Re: Not Good News From Israel
geez I hope she'll be OK. I'd be worried if my daughter was in that
Phantom said:
geez I hope she'll be OK. I'd be worried if my daughter was in that
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Palestine and Israel
- Thread starter the next big thing
- Start date
- Status
Re: Not Good News From Israel
if israel had not bombed the runways and airport terminal, forcing its closure, nor blocked the seaports nor shelled all highways out of the country to damascus they would be able to leave the country and return home wouldn't they?
Phantom said:
if israel had not bombed the runways and airport terminal, forcing its closure, nor blocked the seaports nor shelled all highways out of the country to damascus they would be able to leave the country and return home wouldn't they?
Re: Not Good News From Israel
no angst, just a question
its a valid question at this point in time. many australians are stranded in lebanon. 25000 they are saying. peak holiday season they are saying. its rather sad israel have closed every way in and out of the country. what if things get worse and living conditions worsen for the lebanese there are limited ways of getting food, water and first aid in the country
rosy23 said:
no angst, just a question
its a valid question at this point in time. many australians are stranded in lebanon. 25000 they are saying. peak holiday season they are saying. its rather sad israel have closed every way in and out of the country. what if things get worse and living conditions worsen for the lebanese there are limited ways of getting food, water and first aid in the country
Re: Not Good News From Israel
Obviously a rhetorical question then. There's no doubt if the hostilities hadn't happened the people wouldn't be stranded and in such concerning situations. It's very sad and I share Phantom's concerns for the families. Must be horrible for all involved. I'd be beyond myself if one of my kids was over there and hope Phantom's daughter and everyone else, whether Lebonese, Israeli, Australian or otherwise are as safe and comfortable as possible and that those who are stranded can getfood-shelter-first aid-food or back home safe and sound asap.
Obviously a rhetorical question then. There's no doubt if the hostilities hadn't happened the people wouldn't be stranded and in such concerning situations. It's very sad and I share Phantom's concerns for the families. Must be horrible for all involved. I'd be beyond myself if one of my kids was over there and hope Phantom's daughter and everyone else, whether Lebonese, Israeli, Australian or otherwise are as safe and comfortable as possible and that those who are stranded can getfood-shelter-first aid-food or back home safe and sound asap.
Re: Not Good News From Israel
Yes, it is a terrible situation.
I think the difference between us L&B, is that most of us here can see the tragedy on both sides, and I clearly acknowledge that. For you, the tragedy is only on one side.
I spoke to my daughter today, she visited the kibbutz on the israeli-lebanese border that was bombed 3 weeks ago. She clearly remembers meeting 3 of the people on that kibbutz who are no longer with us.
From the tone of your posts L&B, I don't believe that you'd have any sympathy at all for those 3 people. I take it, that as Israelis, in your eyes, they deserved to die? (This is NOT a rhetorical question.)
LidsandBling said:
Yes, it is a terrible situation.
I think the difference between us L&B, is that most of us here can see the tragedy on both sides, and I clearly acknowledge that. For you, the tragedy is only on one side.
I spoke to my daughter today, she visited the kibbutz on the israeli-lebanese border that was bombed 3 weeks ago. She clearly remembers meeting 3 of the people on that kibbutz who are no longer with us.
From the tone of your posts L&B, I don't believe that you'd have any sympathy at all for those 3 people. I take it, that as Israelis, in your eyes, they deserved to die? (This is NOT a rhetorical question.)
Re: Not Good News From Israel
Hopefully the Australian govt & the UN can work to evacuate these stranded people and to get much essential supplies to the area.
I know that my daughter has been evacuated from where she was to a safer area.
She has volunteered to help the paramedics.
Maybe L&B, we can work together hand in hand to form a PRE help the stranded Lebanese Australians effort. I'm not quite sure what form this could take but I am serious.
Do you have any ideas?
LidsandBling said:
Hopefully the Australian govt & the UN can work to evacuate these stranded people and to get much essential supplies to the area.
I know that my daughter has been evacuated from where she was to a safer area.
She has volunteered to help the paramedics.
Maybe L&B, we can work together hand in hand to form a PRE help the stranded Lebanese Australians effort. I'm not quite sure what form this could take but I am serious.
Do you have any ideas?
Re: Not Good News From Israel
i understand the worry you would be experiancing not having your daughter with you at this time, however she has the option of returning home whenever she pleases. some more unfortunate people dont really have the choice.
not sure if the people your daughter met were civilians or soldiers, sad as it may be, there is a difference because when a soldier wears the uniform of his country he is fair game, civilians are not. i hope they were not civilians as that is my biggest gripe about the events of this last week. this war is effecting the innocent people on both sides of the border more than it should
Phantom said:
i understand the worry you would be experiancing not having your daughter with you at this time, however she has the option of returning home whenever she pleases. some more unfortunate people dont really have the choice.
not sure if the people your daughter met were civilians or soldiers, sad as it may be, there is a difference because when a soldier wears the uniform of his country he is fair game, civilians are not. i hope they were not civilians as that is my biggest gripe about the events of this last week. this war is effecting the innocent people on both sides of the border more than it should
Re: Not Good News From Israel
Thank you for your concern regarding my daughter. She wishes to stay and help with the paramedics. My wife wants her home. She is an adult at 18yo. To me, the decision must lie with her.
Unfortunately the people she met were civilians, innocent civilians. Unfortunately this war is a grey one where, I believe, the Israeli army fight as soldiers in uniform, whereas their adversaries fight in civilian clothing and often can not be identified until guns are raised. This is not open battle, it is not noble, and the innocent are often the victims.
I just hope it ends quickly.
LidsandBling said:
Thank you for your concern regarding my daughter. She wishes to stay and help with the paramedics. My wife wants her home. She is an adult at 18yo. To me, the decision must lie with her.
Unfortunately the people she met were civilians, innocent civilians. Unfortunately this war is a grey one where, I believe, the Israeli army fight as soldiers in uniform, whereas their adversaries fight in civilian clothing and often can not be identified until guns are raised. This is not open battle, it is not noble, and the innocent are often the victims.
I just hope it ends quickly.
Re: Not Good News From Israel
G-8 Responds to Middle East Crisis
But leaders seem unable to reach a clear consensus
http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?no=305650&rel_no=1
It is traditional for the host of the G-8 summit meeting to decide on the focus of the annual gathering. This year's host, Russian President Vladimir Putin, placed his focus on three key points: bolstering energy, the fight against infectious disease, and the improvement of education. Hardly had the summit begun, however, before the attendees realized that they would also have to focus on something they never planned or wished for -- the increasing violence in the Middle East, which could not be discussed just in passing.
The leaders of the countries that make up the G-8 had hoped to have a quiet summit after the dramatic tragedy that occurred on the eve of last year's summit in the U.K., when terrorists staged spectacular attacks in London that left scores of people dead, and many more injured, thereby diverting the focus of the meeting. Now, it appears to be somewhat natural that the G-8 will each year have to dedicate some special agenda for a "must-be" unforeseen tragedy.
On Sunday, G-8 leaders held a four-hour discussion on the Middle East, agreeing and disagreeing, and in the end seemed not to have reached a clear consensus. In fact, their statement this weekend did not expressly call for an immediate ceasefire. Instead, while recognizing Israel's legitimate right of self-defense, G-8 leaders cautioned it to be "mindful of the strategic and humanitarian consequences of its actions." Israel must refrain from acts that could destabilize the Lebanese government, they said, and avoid civilian casualties and damage to infrastructure.
G-8 leaders also indirectly implicated Iran and Syria as being behind the attacks by Hezbollah and Hamas, the two extremist groups that have seized Israeli soldiers. Hezbollah and Hamas have vowed not to release their captives except through genuine talks, a condition rejected outright by Israel. For its part, Israel has since launched military strikes in Gaza and Lebanon, claiming a need to uproot terror. Without mentioning Iran and Syria by name, G-8 leaders released a statement condemning their actions:
"These extremist elements and those that support them cannot be allowed to plunge the Middle East into chaos and provoke a wider conflict... The extremists must immediately halt their attacks."
The statement called on Hezbollah and Hamas to return all Israeli soldiers in their custody. It also called on Israel to release all Palestinian ministers and deputies in their detention facilities.
Israel welcomed the G-8 statement.
"Israel ... sees the path to a solution through the release of the abducted soldiers, a cessation of rocket fire on Israel, and full implementation of resolution 1559," declared Tzipi Livni, Israel's foreign minister.
"Israel will cooperate with international parties to turn these principles into concrete diplomatic action," she added.
The countries that make up the G-8 are Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, and the United States.
Seems there might be a small opportunity for negotiation. Let's hope all parties take it.
G-8 Responds to Middle East Crisis
But leaders seem unable to reach a clear consensus
http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?no=305650&rel_no=1
It is traditional for the host of the G-8 summit meeting to decide on the focus of the annual gathering. This year's host, Russian President Vladimir Putin, placed his focus on three key points: bolstering energy, the fight against infectious disease, and the improvement of education. Hardly had the summit begun, however, before the attendees realized that they would also have to focus on something they never planned or wished for -- the increasing violence in the Middle East, which could not be discussed just in passing.
The leaders of the countries that make up the G-8 had hoped to have a quiet summit after the dramatic tragedy that occurred on the eve of last year's summit in the U.K., when terrorists staged spectacular attacks in London that left scores of people dead, and many more injured, thereby diverting the focus of the meeting. Now, it appears to be somewhat natural that the G-8 will each year have to dedicate some special agenda for a "must-be" unforeseen tragedy.
On Sunday, G-8 leaders held a four-hour discussion on the Middle East, agreeing and disagreeing, and in the end seemed not to have reached a clear consensus. In fact, their statement this weekend did not expressly call for an immediate ceasefire. Instead, while recognizing Israel's legitimate right of self-defense, G-8 leaders cautioned it to be "mindful of the strategic and humanitarian consequences of its actions." Israel must refrain from acts that could destabilize the Lebanese government, they said, and avoid civilian casualties and damage to infrastructure.
G-8 leaders also indirectly implicated Iran and Syria as being behind the attacks by Hezbollah and Hamas, the two extremist groups that have seized Israeli soldiers. Hezbollah and Hamas have vowed not to release their captives except through genuine talks, a condition rejected outright by Israel. For its part, Israel has since launched military strikes in Gaza and Lebanon, claiming a need to uproot terror. Without mentioning Iran and Syria by name, G-8 leaders released a statement condemning their actions:
"These extremist elements and those that support them cannot be allowed to plunge the Middle East into chaos and provoke a wider conflict... The extremists must immediately halt their attacks."
The statement called on Hezbollah and Hamas to return all Israeli soldiers in their custody. It also called on Israel to release all Palestinian ministers and deputies in their detention facilities.
Israel welcomed the G-8 statement.
"Israel ... sees the path to a solution through the release of the abducted soldiers, a cessation of rocket fire on Israel, and full implementation of resolution 1559," declared Tzipi Livni, Israel's foreign minister.
"Israel will cooperate with international parties to turn these principles into concrete diplomatic action," she added.
The countries that make up the G-8 are Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, and the United States.
Seems there might be a small opportunity for negotiation. Let's hope all parties take it.
Re: Not Good News From Israel
Thing is too...if the kidnapped Israeli soldiers were released, it would more or less force Israel to stop bombarding Lebanon.
The Hezballoh (and Hamas) wanted this type of conflict, and they've got it now.
All they have to do is hand over the soldiers, and I'm sure the international pressure on Israel to stop their bombing would be enough then.
The ball is in Hezballoh's (and Hamas') court....
Also, I see Iran are stepping-up their interference in this conflict:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/dont-attack-syria-iran-warns-israel/2006/07/16/1152988412337.html
...not surprising considering the Iranian leader saying this only last year:
Ahmadinejad: Wipe Israel off map
Wednesday 26 October 2005, 19:03 Makka Time, 16:03 GMT
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has openly called for Israel to be wiped off the map.
"The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world," the president told a conference in Tehran on Wednesday, entitled The World without Zionism.
"The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land," he said.
"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, referring to Iran's revolutionary leader Ayat Allah Khomeini.
His comments were the first time in years that such a high-ranking Iranian official has called for Israel's eradication, even though such slogans are still regularly used at government
rallies.
Addressing about 4000 students gathered in an Interior Ministry conference hall, Ahmadinejad also called for Palestinian unity, resistance and a point "where the annihilation of the Zionist regime will come".
"The Islamic umma (community) will not allow its historic enemy to live in its heartland," he said in the fiery speech that centred on a "historic war between the oppressor and the world of Islam".
The term "oppressor" is used by the clerical government to refer to the United States.
"We should not settle for a piece of land," he said of Israel's pullout from the Gaza Strip.
"Anyone who signs a treaty which recognises the entity of Israel means he has signed the surrender of the Muslim world," Ahmadinejad said.
"Any leaders in the Islamic umma who recognise Israel face the wrath of their own people."
Ahmadinejad, a veteran of Iran's hardline Revolutionary Guards, took office in August after scoring a landslide win in a June presidential election.
His tone represents a major change from that of former president Mohammad Khatami, whose favoured topic was "dialogue among civilisations" and who led an effort to improve Iran's relations with the West.
But Ahmadinejad instead spoke of a "historic war".
"It dates backs hundreds of years. Sometimes Islam has advanced. Sometimes nobody was winning. Unfortunately over the past 300 years, the world of Islam has been in retreat," he lamented.
"The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land"
"One hundred years ago the last trench of Islam fell, when the oppressors went towards the creation the Zionist regime. It is using it as a fort to spread its aims in the heart of the Islamic world."
In September, Bahrain announced it was ending a decades-old law banning trade ties with Israel. Earlier this month, Qatar said it was donating US$6 million to help build a soccer stadium for a mixed Arab-Jewish team, the first such financial assistance by an Arab state for any town inside Israel.
The modest but unprecedented steps were seen as a response to Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in September. Nevertheless, Ahmadinejad said, "There is no doubt that the new wave (of attacks) in Palestine will soon wipe off this disgraceful blot (Israel) from the face of the Islamic world."
"Ahmadinejad has clearly declared the doctrine of his government. He is returning Iran to the revolutionary goals it was pursuing in the 1980s," said Mohammad Sadeq Hosseini, an expert on Middle Eastern affairs.
"By these comments, Ahmadinejad is committing himself to those goals. He is also sending the message that his government won't back down."
Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev issued a vague response. "Today, Israelis heard two extremists speak openly about destroying the Jewish state. One was the new president of Iran, and the other was the leader of Hamas, Mahmoud Zahar.
"And it appears the problem with these extremists is that they followed through on their violent declarations with violent actions."
The United States said Ahmadinejad's remarks proved the accuracy of Washington's fears about Iran's contentious nuclear programme.
"I think it reconfirms what we have been saying about the regime in Iran. It underscores the concerns we have about Iran's nuclear intentions," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said.
Ebrahim Yazdi, a former Iranian foreign minister, said Ahmadinejad's remarks harmed Iran.
"Such comments provoke the international community against us. It's not to Iran's interests at all. It's harmful to Iran to make such a statement," he said.
He said the comments gave Israel justification for urging the world to take a tougher stand against Iran and refer its nuclear programme to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/15E6BF77-6F91-46EE-A4B5-A3CE0E9957EA.htm
While I commend people on this forum for hoping for a peaceful end to this conflict, through negotiation and understanding, I'm afraid we aren't dealing with a group of people who want to negotiate, who want to understand, or even want peace amongst many nations, creeds, or religions.
People also question why the USA has nuclear weapons, and how they should disarm to set a good example.
In a perfect world, it would be fantastic if that could be achieved, but when you have countries, and leaders like the ones of Iran and North Korea, then we should all be thanking the USA for "keeping things even" by holding on to their arms and weapons.
Thing is too...if the kidnapped Israeli soldiers were released, it would more or less force Israel to stop bombarding Lebanon.
The Hezballoh (and Hamas) wanted this type of conflict, and they've got it now.
All they have to do is hand over the soldiers, and I'm sure the international pressure on Israel to stop their bombing would be enough then.
The ball is in Hezballoh's (and Hamas') court....
Also, I see Iran are stepping-up their interference in this conflict:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/dont-attack-syria-iran-warns-israel/2006/07/16/1152988412337.html
...not surprising considering the Iranian leader saying this only last year:
Ahmadinejad: Wipe Israel off map
Wednesday 26 October 2005, 19:03 Makka Time, 16:03 GMT
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has openly called for Israel to be wiped off the map.
"The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world," the president told a conference in Tehran on Wednesday, entitled The World without Zionism.
"The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land," he said.
"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, referring to Iran's revolutionary leader Ayat Allah Khomeini.
His comments were the first time in years that such a high-ranking Iranian official has called for Israel's eradication, even though such slogans are still regularly used at government
rallies.
Addressing about 4000 students gathered in an Interior Ministry conference hall, Ahmadinejad also called for Palestinian unity, resistance and a point "where the annihilation of the Zionist regime will come".
"The Islamic umma (community) will not allow its historic enemy to live in its heartland," he said in the fiery speech that centred on a "historic war between the oppressor and the world of Islam".
The term "oppressor" is used by the clerical government to refer to the United States.
"We should not settle for a piece of land," he said of Israel's pullout from the Gaza Strip.
"Anyone who signs a treaty which recognises the entity of Israel means he has signed the surrender of the Muslim world," Ahmadinejad said.
"Any leaders in the Islamic umma who recognise Israel face the wrath of their own people."
Ahmadinejad, a veteran of Iran's hardline Revolutionary Guards, took office in August after scoring a landslide win in a June presidential election.
His tone represents a major change from that of former president Mohammad Khatami, whose favoured topic was "dialogue among civilisations" and who led an effort to improve Iran's relations with the West.
But Ahmadinejad instead spoke of a "historic war".
"It dates backs hundreds of years. Sometimes Islam has advanced. Sometimes nobody was winning. Unfortunately over the past 300 years, the world of Islam has been in retreat," he lamented.
"The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land"
"One hundred years ago the last trench of Islam fell, when the oppressors went towards the creation the Zionist regime. It is using it as a fort to spread its aims in the heart of the Islamic world."
In September, Bahrain announced it was ending a decades-old law banning trade ties with Israel. Earlier this month, Qatar said it was donating US$6 million to help build a soccer stadium for a mixed Arab-Jewish team, the first such financial assistance by an Arab state for any town inside Israel.
The modest but unprecedented steps were seen as a response to Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in September. Nevertheless, Ahmadinejad said, "There is no doubt that the new wave (of attacks) in Palestine will soon wipe off this disgraceful blot (Israel) from the face of the Islamic world."
"Ahmadinejad has clearly declared the doctrine of his government. He is returning Iran to the revolutionary goals it was pursuing in the 1980s," said Mohammad Sadeq Hosseini, an expert on Middle Eastern affairs.
"By these comments, Ahmadinejad is committing himself to those goals. He is also sending the message that his government won't back down."
Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev issued a vague response. "Today, Israelis heard two extremists speak openly about destroying the Jewish state. One was the new president of Iran, and the other was the leader of Hamas, Mahmoud Zahar.
"And it appears the problem with these extremists is that they followed through on their violent declarations with violent actions."
The United States said Ahmadinejad's remarks proved the accuracy of Washington's fears about Iran's contentious nuclear programme.
"I think it reconfirms what we have been saying about the regime in Iran. It underscores the concerns we have about Iran's nuclear intentions," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said.
Ebrahim Yazdi, a former Iranian foreign minister, said Ahmadinejad's remarks harmed Iran.
"Such comments provoke the international community against us. It's not to Iran's interests at all. It's harmful to Iran to make such a statement," he said.
He said the comments gave Israel justification for urging the world to take a tougher stand against Iran and refer its nuclear programme to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/15E6BF77-6F91-46EE-A4B5-A3CE0E9957EA.htm
While I commend people on this forum for hoping for a peaceful end to this conflict, through negotiation and understanding, I'm afraid we aren't dealing with a group of people who want to negotiate, who want to understand, or even want peace amongst many nations, creeds, or religions.
People also question why the USA has nuclear weapons, and how they should disarm to set a good example.
In a perfect world, it would be fantastic if that could be achieved, but when you have countries, and leaders like the ones of Iran and North Korea, then we should all be thanking the USA for "keeping things even" by holding on to their arms and weapons.
Re: Not Good News From Israel
Yes, thats true.
The USA and its Allies (Australia, UK, etc) were up against a fanatical enemy that used suicide-missions (kamikaze pilots flying planes laden with fuel and explosives)....sounds similar to now, doesn't it?
Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed thousands of people....but if the Yanks did NOT use the bomb, hundreds of thousands more civilians would have died in the invasion, as well as thousands of Australian, American, and British personnel...as well as thousands more Japanese military personnel.
Those two bombs stopped the World War in its tracks, and ultimately saved many, many more lives.
That is the only 2 atom-bombs the USA have used in anger in over 60 years.....would you have the same faith in Iran and Nth.Korea being so 'responsible' with their nuclear weapons...reminding you of the above speech from the Iranian leader, and similar threats from the North Korean leader to 'destroy the world'?
LidsandBling said:
Yes, thats true.
The USA and its Allies (Australia, UK, etc) were up against a fanatical enemy that used suicide-missions (kamikaze pilots flying planes laden with fuel and explosives)....sounds similar to now, doesn't it?
Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed thousands of people....but if the Yanks did NOT use the bomb, hundreds of thousands more civilians would have died in the invasion, as well as thousands of Australian, American, and British personnel...as well as thousands more Japanese military personnel.
Those two bombs stopped the World War in its tracks, and ultimately saved many, many more lives.
That is the only 2 atom-bombs the USA have used in anger in over 60 years.....would you have the same faith in Iran and Nth.Korea being so 'responsible' with their nuclear weapons...reminding you of the above speech from the Iranian leader, and similar threats from the North Korean leader to 'destroy the world'?
Re: Not Good News From Israel
I personally dont care about the blame game - this situation now has reached such a serious point in conflict that i just hope that level heads prevail. Unfortunately all sides are so pig headed in their thrust for power that i cant see this struggle end in the short term despite international pressure. God help the inocent people over there. :-[
I personally dont care about the blame game - this situation now has reached such a serious point in conflict that i just hope that level heads prevail. Unfortunately all sides are so pig headed in their thrust for power that i cant see this struggle end in the short term despite international pressure. God help the inocent people over there. :-[
Re: Not Good News From Israel
Actually, in this situation, the same that you describe, I always agreed with British foreign policy of the 18th & 19th century which was to maintain the Status Quo.
During this time, France, Prussia & the Hapsburgs all competed for supremacy over Europe. They all tried to dominate the weaker city-states such as Benelux, the Rhine, Bavaria, the Italian States, Poland & SE Europe.
British Foreign policy was not to allow any particular nation/empire to absolutely dominate Europe. So the British often went to war against any empire or coalition that upset the Status Quo, ie Balance Of Power. This was done in the War Of Spanish Succession, circa 1700, with the Hapsburgs against the French. Again, in the middle to late 1700s during the Seven Years War with Prussia against the French. This was where the British took control of the North American continent. Again against France during the Napoleonic Wars. So for over 100 years Britain was usually Prussia's ally against the French.
The 1830s to 70s saw Britain work to liberate SE Europe from Ottomon/Islamic control. Initially the war of Greek independence, in the 1830s. Then again during the Crimean War in the 1850s.
In the late-19th century, with the transformation of Prussia into the modern Germany, the British alliance system adjusted itself to counter the growing dominance of Germany over Europe. Britain sided with a much weakened France, post 1870 Franco-Prussian War, to counter German's European ambitions. The German's tried for European dominance in WWI, then again in WWII and failed due to Britain's, and consequently the USA's, position to maintain the Balance Of Power, ie Status Quo. This policy continued during the Cold War to counter both the USSR's & China's territorial ambitions.
The 1990s saw a new turn with the collapse of the Soviet Empire. With the return of religion to these areas, so the old racial/religious wars of previous centuries re-erupted. These occurred in SE Europe & Western Asia.
The policy of maintaining the Status Quo, ie Balance Of Power, requires the adherrent to seek & identify new counterparts. The rise of Islamic Fundamentalism at first in the 1980s, then more so in the 1990s, put it on a crash course with both Britain/USA foreign policy. Russia will go along for the ride because it has alot to lose from the growing Islamic empire.
The Ayatollah Khomeini and the Iranian crisis of the 1980s was a preview of what we have now.
The Iranian/Iraqi war of the 1980s served as the arena for maintaining the Status Quo in the 1980s. Saddam Hussein could have continued receiving USA support, except that he chose to try to dominate the arena by trying to build a nuclear reactor, with French assistance. This moved him directly into confrontation with the Britain/USA Status Quo policy. The confrontation came with the first Gulf War in the 1990s, and consequently the second Gulf War just a few years ago. Iran is now posing the next nuclear threat in the area.
So where does that put Israel & the Middle East?
My view is that the 20th century desire for Jews to create a homeland for the Jewish people in the Levant coincided with British/USA policy of Status Quo in the Middle East. Although Britain held a mandate over Palestine, it could not financially maintain its presence post-WWII. The creation of Israel allowed Britain to "have its cake and eat it", with Israel serving as a micro counterweight to the Arabic states.
Yes, the 1940s saw guerilla warfare between the pre-Israeli Zionists and the territorial British troops, but I believe this was a veil. In truth, behind the veil, Lord Wingate, the famous British General of Chindit fame during WWII, was training the first of the modern Israeli army. It was Chancellor Strauss of Bavaria who supplied Israel with the much needed weapons it required in both the 1948 & 1956 wars. Israel owes much to Bavaria/West German support in those early years.
Israel has never been a threat to Britain/USA policy of Status Quo. It has never sought to dominate the region. It has gladly handed back the Sinai to Egypt, Southern Lebanon to the Lebanese, Gaza to the Palestinians. It will hand back the West Bank eventually.
Israel moved in Lebanon, during the late 1970s & 80s, to protect its friends the oppressed Christians & Druze in southern Lebanon. Unfortunately it upset the Shi'ites who wanted nothing more than the extermination of the Druze, and this led to the Shi'ites creating the Hezbollah of today. Israel will not give up the Golan Heights. The position on the heights controls the strategic setup of the Israeli/Lebanese/Syrian/Jordanian border. It cost Israel plenty to gain it during the 6 Day War. Israel held it by a combination of a miracle and typical Syrian laziness during the 1973 Yom Kippur War. The Golan is strategically far too valuable to give up. The Golan is also home to the Druze.
Many Druze died in 1948 supporting the peaceful coexistance with the newly created Israel. They were killed by the Arabs who wanted to kill all Israelis & Israeli supporters. Hollywood imaged it well during the scene in the film Exodus where the Druze leader, Taha, played by John Derek, is discovered by Israeli troops hanging dead from a scaffold in the middle of his town with a 'Star Of David" cut into his chest, murdered by the controlling Arabs.
The Druze are a "special group". They broke away from mainstream Islam around the 12th century, and have felt the wrath of similar discrimination from mainstream Islam, that Catholics've shown towards Protestants during the Reformation and after. The Druze are not Palestinians, they have lived in the Levant centuries before Abraham & the ancient Hebrews, & the ancient Phillistines (Palestinians), ever arrived. In the old Bible it tells of how Abraham bought, by contract, property around the area of Hebron from the local warlords/chieftans.
Anyway, I digress.
What is the point? Just as there is action/reaction, positive/negative, good/bad, the Middle East is an arena where opposing forces come to meet. It is where the Status Quo for the rest of the world is maintained. It is a heavy burden that all the residents of the area, Jew, Muslim & Christian must carry.
PS, I recommend the film "Exodus" to everyone seeking to understand how the Israeli conflict begun. It is an excellent, very powerful film by Otto Preminger, made in 1960.
It is based on the book Exodus by Leon Uris, whom also wrote "The Haj" the same story but written from the side of the Arabs.
Tubytiger said:
Actually, in this situation, the same that you describe, I always agreed with British foreign policy of the 18th & 19th century which was to maintain the Status Quo.
During this time, France, Prussia & the Hapsburgs all competed for supremacy over Europe. They all tried to dominate the weaker city-states such as Benelux, the Rhine, Bavaria, the Italian States, Poland & SE Europe.
British Foreign policy was not to allow any particular nation/empire to absolutely dominate Europe. So the British often went to war against any empire or coalition that upset the Status Quo, ie Balance Of Power. This was done in the War Of Spanish Succession, circa 1700, with the Hapsburgs against the French. Again, in the middle to late 1700s during the Seven Years War with Prussia against the French. This was where the British took control of the North American continent. Again against France during the Napoleonic Wars. So for over 100 years Britain was usually Prussia's ally against the French.
The 1830s to 70s saw Britain work to liberate SE Europe from Ottomon/Islamic control. Initially the war of Greek independence, in the 1830s. Then again during the Crimean War in the 1850s.
In the late-19th century, with the transformation of Prussia into the modern Germany, the British alliance system adjusted itself to counter the growing dominance of Germany over Europe. Britain sided with a much weakened France, post 1870 Franco-Prussian War, to counter German's European ambitions. The German's tried for European dominance in WWI, then again in WWII and failed due to Britain's, and consequently the USA's, position to maintain the Balance Of Power, ie Status Quo. This policy continued during the Cold War to counter both the USSR's & China's territorial ambitions.
The 1990s saw a new turn with the collapse of the Soviet Empire. With the return of religion to these areas, so the old racial/religious wars of previous centuries re-erupted. These occurred in SE Europe & Western Asia.
The policy of maintaining the Status Quo, ie Balance Of Power, requires the adherrent to seek & identify new counterparts. The rise of Islamic Fundamentalism at first in the 1980s, then more so in the 1990s, put it on a crash course with both Britain/USA foreign policy. Russia will go along for the ride because it has alot to lose from the growing Islamic empire.
The Ayatollah Khomeini and the Iranian crisis of the 1980s was a preview of what we have now.
The Iranian/Iraqi war of the 1980s served as the arena for maintaining the Status Quo in the 1980s. Saddam Hussein could have continued receiving USA support, except that he chose to try to dominate the arena by trying to build a nuclear reactor, with French assistance. This moved him directly into confrontation with the Britain/USA Status Quo policy. The confrontation came with the first Gulf War in the 1990s, and consequently the second Gulf War just a few years ago. Iran is now posing the next nuclear threat in the area.
So where does that put Israel & the Middle East?
My view is that the 20th century desire for Jews to create a homeland for the Jewish people in the Levant coincided with British/USA policy of Status Quo in the Middle East. Although Britain held a mandate over Palestine, it could not financially maintain its presence post-WWII. The creation of Israel allowed Britain to "have its cake and eat it", with Israel serving as a micro counterweight to the Arabic states.
Yes, the 1940s saw guerilla warfare between the pre-Israeli Zionists and the territorial British troops, but I believe this was a veil. In truth, behind the veil, Lord Wingate, the famous British General of Chindit fame during WWII, was training the first of the modern Israeli army. It was Chancellor Strauss of Bavaria who supplied Israel with the much needed weapons it required in both the 1948 & 1956 wars. Israel owes much to Bavaria/West German support in those early years.
Israel has never been a threat to Britain/USA policy of Status Quo. It has never sought to dominate the region. It has gladly handed back the Sinai to Egypt, Southern Lebanon to the Lebanese, Gaza to the Palestinians. It will hand back the West Bank eventually.
Israel moved in Lebanon, during the late 1970s & 80s, to protect its friends the oppressed Christians & Druze in southern Lebanon. Unfortunately it upset the Shi'ites who wanted nothing more than the extermination of the Druze, and this led to the Shi'ites creating the Hezbollah of today. Israel will not give up the Golan Heights. The position on the heights controls the strategic setup of the Israeli/Lebanese/Syrian/Jordanian border. It cost Israel plenty to gain it during the 6 Day War. Israel held it by a combination of a miracle and typical Syrian laziness during the 1973 Yom Kippur War. The Golan is strategically far too valuable to give up. The Golan is also home to the Druze.
Many Druze died in 1948 supporting the peaceful coexistance with the newly created Israel. They were killed by the Arabs who wanted to kill all Israelis & Israeli supporters. Hollywood imaged it well during the scene in the film Exodus where the Druze leader, Taha, played by John Derek, is discovered by Israeli troops hanging dead from a scaffold in the middle of his town with a 'Star Of David" cut into his chest, murdered by the controlling Arabs.
The Druze are a "special group". They broke away from mainstream Islam around the 12th century, and have felt the wrath of similar discrimination from mainstream Islam, that Catholics've shown towards Protestants during the Reformation and after. The Druze are not Palestinians, they have lived in the Levant centuries before Abraham & the ancient Hebrews, & the ancient Phillistines (Palestinians), ever arrived. In the old Bible it tells of how Abraham bought, by contract, property around the area of Hebron from the local warlords/chieftans.
Anyway, I digress.
What is the point? Just as there is action/reaction, positive/negative, good/bad, the Middle East is an arena where opposing forces come to meet. It is where the Status Quo for the rest of the world is maintained. It is a heavy burden that all the residents of the area, Jew, Muslim & Christian must carry.
PS, I recommend the film "Exodus" to everyone seeking to understand how the Israeli conflict begun. It is an excellent, very powerful film by Otto Preminger, made in 1960.
It is based on the book Exodus by Leon Uris, whom also wrote "The Haj" the same story but written from the side of the Arabs.
- Status
