Galt's Gulch
10

The Middle East Problem

Posted by mkozicki 10 years, 3 months ago to Video
35 comments | Share | Flag

Easy to understand video I think sums it all up.

SOURCE URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EDW88CBo-8

Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • 10
    Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 3 months ago
    The fact that Dennis identifies that studying this issue in college takes so long, is that the liberal professors need to use all sorts of obfuscation to shroud this simple fact. Praeger hits the issue straight on.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by LarryHeart 10 years, 3 months ago
    Dennis - the Arab State was to be Trans-Jordan not Judea and Samaria. Trans-Jordan illegally occupied those territories and changed it's name to Jordan, and Judea and Samaria to "the west bank of Jordan".

    There will never be peace as long as Islam exists. The faux "Palestinian" Muslims do not need another State. They already have Trans-Jordan, which did not let them in and caused the so-called refugee problem. Let them move to Jordan and re-claim their state.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by strugatsky 10 years, 3 months ago
      The Palestinians did try that. In the early '70's they tried to repay Jordanian hospitality by attempting to take over Jordan. The Jordanians didn't much care for public opinion and killed tens of thousands of Palestinians. Problem solved.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by LarryHeart 10 years, 3 months ago
        The PLO (Palestinian Liberation organization) was formed, in the 60's., to combat Jordanian occupation of Judea and Samaria (the so called "west bank" of the Jordan River but not of a non existent country called Jordan. Only Trans-Jordan was created) since 1948 and oppression of the "Refugees".

        The king put down their rebellion by killing 10 thousand and exiling Yassar Arafat.

        ISRAEL LIBERATED the Arabs (they did not yet take on the fake name of "Palestinians") in 1967 and eventually Jordan ceded the "west bank" territory they stole and occupied, back to Israel.

        Israel brought back Yassar Arafat and the PLO to run Judea and Samaria (West bank). In return the PLO launched the intifada, suicide bombing and war on Israel.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LesEolides 10 years, 3 months ago
    Touche, Larry! At last, someone who knows some history! Gaza was part of Egypt until - 1967? Judea and Samaria were conquered fair and square in a war Israel didn't ask for... Survival of the fittest, I say! Besides; Judea and Samaria were, as you say, part of Jordan. There's no such thing as a "Palestinian" - it's all a brilliant fiction created by Yasser Arafat to give the dewy eyed cry-babies in the west something new to whine about. So now that next of rats (Gaza) lives on European-supplied "welfare." They even destroyed all the greenhouses the Israeli's left for them when Israel pulled out of Gaza...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Notperfect 10 years, 3 months ago
    Those fighting Israel over there have been doing so since and before Christ. Wars and rumors of wars. Prager is most definitely right. PLO was a faction intense on destroying Israel, but not by themselves. Just like a Mafia boss or Union boss i.e. BO. They all have one thing in common keep the little man who believes in freedom down or dead.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jimslag 10 years, 3 months ago
    Very concise. Having spent considerable time in the Middle East, I understand the concepts, I am just sorry our sad leadership (the politicians in charge this cycle) does not and cannot see any problems that cannot be fixed without Israel giving up more land and making themselves less safe. The biggest problem is most of our leaders were educated in the liberal colleges instead of the school of hard knocks (the REAL World).
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by BradA 10 years, 3 months ago
    Here's a thought experiment. In the interest of balance, suppose Israel were to adopt the same tenets as Hamas. Specifically that Hamas and the Palestinians have no right to exist and should be pushed into the sea.

    How long do you think it would take for this ongoing conflict to be resolved ?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 3 months ago
    Very well put. The problem is simple, the solution not so much. And I would contend that based on its own intolerance of other philosophies, anyone who believes that anything short of a world takeover by Islam would actually bring peace ignores the very mindset and theological writings and policies of that religion.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • -2
    Posted by strugatsky 10 years, 3 months ago
    Israel is a socialist state that is to a great extent dependent on donations of Jewish socialists around the world. That is why they trade lives for public opinion. If Israel was to cut its dependence on charities and donations, eliminate the socialist corruption within, along with socialist non-productivity, it would be able to eliminate this cancer completely, just like any other country would have done. But most everyone there is feeding at the public trough which is refilled through public opinion.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by LarryHeart 10 years, 3 months ago
      It is Socialist, but not as much as before. They have competition in their Medical insurance and encouraged free enterprise. Most IPO's are in Israel. The economy is booming and most of our technology and medical breakthroughs come from Israel.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by plusaf 10 years, 3 months ago
      Most of your accusations have been invalid due to changes in economic and social policies in Israel over the past few decades at least.

      Check more current sources for evidence. I've got friends and relatives from and 'in' there and I spent a week there last year.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by strugatsky 10 years, 3 months ago
        I am not making accusations. I am not a citizen of Israel and have no right of accusing Israelis of choosing an economic and political system that they have chosen. But the fact remains that they have socialism – government control / regulation of almost all aspects of the economy. This, in Israel as well as everywhere else, leads to corruption and lower productivity. The corruption in Israel has permeated every level of social and economic life. But this habit is difficult to eliminate due to so many people feeding at the government trough (the same pattern as in every socialist state). If Israel were to be self-sufficient and did not have to rely on donations from around the world, whether private or from other governments, it could (and should) have taken the same actions as any other country in fact takes when attacked – destroyed the attackers, which Israel could have easily done. Most Jews outside of Israel, especially in America and Europe, are socialists and have a much stronger allegiance to socialism and progressive policies than to Israel or, for that matter, to common sense. Since they provide much of the donations, Israel has to restrain its policies almost to a point of suicide in order to appease the donors. I see that some people on this site are not comfortable with the facts that I’ve stated – how about, instead of the Facebook-style voting down release of frustration, refute my statements with facts, should you find them.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          -
        • Posted by LarryHeart 10 years, 3 months ago
          Your premise, that Israeli restraint is due to donor's views is questionable.

          In the first place, I have not seen any proof that their donors are all socialists and that Israel could ever know what their donors views are or what actions or non actions result in more or less contributions. Nor that the contributions are essential to the economy and that Israel could not operate without them and therefore they are of no consequence to their policies.

          The greater influence IMO is foreign sentiment and the influence that foreign aid by the USA has on Israel.

          Further Israeli restraint comes also from Judaism which values all life even that of the enemy. Jesus the Jew said it well, love even your enemy.

          Israel minimizes civilian casualties by not going to war if there is any other alternative and dropping leaflets, texting , phone calls and loud sounds of warning. That's why Israel bargains away hundreds of terrorist prisoners for one life or even a body to bury.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            -
          • Posted by strugatsky 10 years, 3 months ago
            First, my premise is that donations from individuals and foreign aid from governments (US specifically, as it is a major donor) are related. Second, my premise that the majority of American and Western European Jews are socialists / progressives is a well established fact based on voting statistics and opinion polls. (As to why this is so is perhaps an enigma, but it is so nevertheless). Third, my premise that the restraint is tied to public opinion in other countries and, therefore to funding, is based on the only apparent explanation of Israeli actions or, rather, inaction. I can think of no other country on Earth that, when attacked and while having the means to defend itself by destroying the enemy, refrains to do so and over a protracted period. Your explanation of restraint based on religion does not seem to tie in with facts - the Bible and the Torah clearly teach eye for an eye and the concept of self-defense. As to "civilian casualties", just because a fighter does not wear a uniform or has taken it off temporarily does not make him a civilian. When American, British and Russian bombs were falling on Germany and Japan there never was a question of who was "civilian". I am not advocating a war nor would I support a country that starts a war, but once a war is brought upon you, fighting to win is the only moral option; fighting to prolong the war is not moral toward your own citizens.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              -
            • Posted by LarryHeart 10 years, 3 months ago
              We agree that US aid controls Israel, just as the US government controls its States and people with granting or withholding funding and tax breaks.

              We agree that world opinion is a controlling factor.

              IMO Charitable Donations from Socialists plays a minor part compared with these other two factors.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                -
              • Posted by strugatsky 10 years, 3 months ago
                We agree. And, furthermore, my point is that Israeli restraint is counterproductive in the long run. The could and should have ended this problem long ago.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by LarryHeart 10 years, 2 months ago
                  That Israel was shown to be weak and not invincible encouraged its enemies. It is the same situation with American restraint and weakness.

                  Ideally, Israel just takes back its territory, kills all the Jihadis, stops the Anti-Semitic Nazi propaganda and blood libels, re-educates the population and lets the Arabs live peacefully in Israel under Democratic rule.

                  Except that then, in the flawed Israeli system of multiple party governance instead of direct representation by district, the Arabs would have a majority in the Knesset and rule the country.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by LarryHeart 10 years, 3 months ago
              An eye for an eye does not apply to war. It is an injunction to compensate a victim properly.

              The meaning is as follows: The value of an eye for an eye and the value of a leg for a leg e.g. not the value of a leg in compensation for an eye.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo