Israel and NATO
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 24, 2024, 02:43:30 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Israel and NATO
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Poll
Question: Do you think that Israel should be admitted into NATO with the object of containing Iran should it acquire nuclear weapons?
#1
Democrat -Yes
 
#2
Democrat -No
 
#3
Republican -Yes
 
#4
Republican -No
 
#5
independent/third party -Yes
 
#6
independent/third party -No
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 27

Author Topic: Israel and NATO  (Read 3402 times)
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,840
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: March 19, 2006, 05:00:13 PM »

Second, there are diffent kinds of Palestinian refugees. Those that where driven from their homes in the 1948-49 war, those driven away in the 1967 war

Which brings up an important point (and one that hardly gets raised by anyone)... no one should be leaving in in a refugee camp (or shanty town) of some kind half a century after their family became refugees. Personally I think that that, not the usual hackneyed debate about who's land it "really" is, is the real disgrace of what's happend in the Middle East over the past century or so; Arab government's have a hell of a lot to answer for IMO.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,009


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: March 19, 2006, 05:26:52 PM »

...Arab government's have a hell of a lot to answer for IMO.

Why?  The Jewish theocracy caused the problem.  It seems a bit ridiculous to blame others for not cleaning up after them.
Logged
Jens
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,526
Angola


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: March 20, 2006, 02:44:08 AM »

Second, there are diffent kinds of Palestinian refugees. Those that where driven from their homes in the 1948-49 war, those driven away in the 1967 war

Which brings up an important point (and one that hardly gets raised by anyone)... no one should be leaving in in a refugee camp (or shanty town) of some kind half a century after their family became refugees. Personally I think that that, not the usual hackneyed debate about who's land it "really" is, is the real disgrace of what's happend in the Middle East over the past century or so; Arab government's have a hell of a lot to answer for IMO.
That is true, but I also understand the motives of the neighbouring governments. In Lebanon it would have tipped the delicate balance between Christians and Muslims (not that that happened anyway) and in Jordan it would have brought a whole new power into society (don't forget the Paletinians did try to coup the king).
If you again look at Germany the refugees and forcefully moved people seriously altered the cultural, political and social picture in many länder, fx Schleswig-Holstein where the population was nearly dobbled and the Danish and Frisian minorities were facing complete marginalisation. That didn't happen because of and agreement between the Danish and German governments, but it put serious pressure on no-german parts of the society in S-H
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,840
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: March 20, 2006, 07:47:37 AM »

In Lebanon it would have tipped the delicate balance between Christians and Muslims (not that that happened anyway)

Although it happend anyway o/c. And probably wouldn't have been so bad if they'd tried to integrate the refugees into society; besides it would have provided a lot of employment in construction and might have helped to stabilise the economy.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which is the reason why they didn't do it, but it's still a terrible thing to do (or not to do). And again, if integration had happend there would be less tension between the refugees (aren't they in a majority now?) and the Government.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well yes, refugees do change things. A lot in some cases. Same with immigration in general. But it's still no excuse to not integrate refugees.
Logged
Jens
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,526
Angola


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: March 20, 2006, 08:11:11 AM »

In Lebanon it would have tipped the delicate balance between Christians and Muslims (not that that didn't happened anyway)

Although it happend anyway o/c. And probably wouldn't have been so bad if they'd tried to integrate the refugees into society; besides it would have provided a lot of employment in construction and might have helped to stabilise the economy.
I forgot a "didn't" in that sentence
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Which is the reason why they didn't do it, but it's still a terrible thing to do (or not to do). And again, if integration had happend there would be less tension between the refugees (aren't they in a majority now?) and the Government.
True, but it is easy to understand the Jordanian government, and today it is to some extent too late. The Palestinian identity is firmly establised and it is going to take generations to integrate them into jordanian society


Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Well yes, refugees do change things. A lot in some cases. Same with immigration in general. But it's still no excuse to not integrate refugees.
True, but is isn't easy which was my point, not to you, more to Pym et.al. who apparently think that you just move 600.000 living breathing individuals
Logged
patrick1
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,865


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: March 20, 2006, 07:48:21 PM »
« Edited: March 20, 2006, 08:07:49 PM by patrick1 »

What is the point exactly?  Israel and their lobby already have plenty of influence in the American government.  Perhaps this move would save them a little procedural troubles in not having to hire guys like Pollard.  I'm being a bit sarcastic here, but who really thinks that the US would not immediately come to aid Israel? 
Logged
TeePee4Prez
Flyers2004
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,479


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: March 20, 2006, 08:08:40 PM »

No.  To controversial of a nation to allow into NATO.  I think both the Israelis and Palestinians have serious issues.  I realize there are plenty of American Jews who aren't all gung-ho Israel and maybe some Israelis should follow their lead.  I think there should be Palestinian autonomy and part of this mess we have in the Middle East would be avoided.  I believe in an Israeli state, but we have to tone down our imperialism in that region. 
Logged
Kevin
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,424
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: March 21, 2006, 11:59:12 AM »

No, because the problems in the Middle East would be made even worse by this.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.03 seconds with 11 queries.