Hamas vs. Fatah. What will this mean?

Parent Cafe
61

<p>International relations wasn’t exactly a high point of Carter’s administration. Actually, nothing was a high point of his administration. I wish he’d stick to Habitat for Humanity. He’s good at that.</p>

62

<p>Really? The Camp David Accords, the Panama Canal Treaties and SALT II.</p>

<p>Methinks you are describing the current administration.</p>

63

<p>“For much of history, Christians and Jews lived in peace in Arab states.”</p>

<p>Until they were persecuted, killed and/or kicked out.</p>

<p>“There’s enough blame to go around - Jews (ultra-orthodox, zionists), Palestinians (both Hamas and Fatah), the Brits, the US, etc.”</p>

<p>Only the Palestinians of the above groups blow up 100s of innocent civilians eating pizza or sitting on buses, etc etc etc.</p>

<p>You are trying to revise history to suit your viewpoint. Never again. There is a reason for the state of Israel, where else would the persecuted Jews from all over the world go? Only to a few places, and even the US turned many back during WWII. The US has been very good in general for the Jews who emigrated here, but there is no guarantee that every Middle Eastern and European Jew would have been allowed to be absorbed in the US.</p>

<p>How about a right of return with all property, rights and protection guaranteed for all of the Middle Eastern Jews and Christians forced to leave Syria, Iran, Iraq, etc due to persecution?</p>

64

<p>“The Camp David Accords, the Panama Canal Treaties and SALT II.”</p>

<p>You consider those successes??? Camp David led nowhere, the Panama Canal is now run by the Chinese, and SALT II merely kept the Soviet Union going a few more years and all of Eastern Europe in bondage. Carter was the worst president of the 20th century. At least the economy and unemployment have been low under W and inflation has been under control. That doesn’t make him a winner but that is three things that weren’t good under Carter.</p>

65

<p>higherlead –

</p>

<p>Hmmmm – I see that you come from the O’Reilly, Coulter, Rush, etc. school of knee-jerk, ignorant blowhards.</p>

<p>Let’s address these one by one.</p>

<ol>
<li> The Camp David Accords led to the 1979 Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty, which has led to, for the most part, generally good relations btwn Egypt and Israel (gee, I wonder what the relationship was bwtn the 2 nations prior to the Accords?). Egypt, btw, paid a price for making peace with Israel – with it being kicked out of the Arab League until it was allowed to rejoin in 1989.</li>
</ol>

<p>And… let’s see, Egypt has also been a partner in seeking a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, playing a significant role in negotiations leading to the Madrid Peace Conference in 1991 and hosting a number of summits on the peace process (contrast this to Israel’s relationship with say… Syria - yep, Camp David really did “lead to nowehere”).</p>

<ol>
<li> The Panama Canal is run by the Panama Canal Authority. The ports on either side of the canal, otoh, are run by a HK corporation, which won the contract to manage the canal through an international bidding process (you DO believe in capitalism/free-trade – don’t you?). The HK corporation, Hutchison Whampoa Limited, is an int’l corporation, which for much of its existence was led by a Brit, Douglas Clague, and manages ports throughout the world, including, the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Poland, Spain and the UK’s largest port, the Port of Felixstowe (gasp!!! Those darn Chinese!!!).</li>
</ol>

<p>And oh, btw, in 2006, the Bush Administration was finalizing terms with Hutchison Whampoa Limited to help detect nuclear materials inside cargo passing through the Bahamas in a no-bid contract. </p>

<p>Handing the Canal back to the Panama was the prudent thing to do (the handover didn’t occur until 2000) – it did much to alleviate the growing animosity of the Panamians and other Central Americans to the US (how would you feel if a foreign nation, say Russia, controlled the Mississippi?), and as for the security of the Canal and guaranteeing American access, under the Torrijos-Carter Treaties, the U.S. retained the permanent right to defend the canal from any threat that might interfere with its continued neutral service to ships of all nations.</p>

<ol>
<li> By your remarks – you obviously know little about why the Soviet Union “fell.” By your “logic” – Reagan also kept the Soviet Union going on for a few more years with START I.</li>
</ol>

<p>You, like your misinformed (right-wing) bretheren, probably thinks that Reagan was directly responsible for the fall of the Soviet Union. Yes - Reagan played his part (but not like how you probably think), but it was Gorbachev who primarily responsible for letting the Soviet Union dissolve.</p>

<p>Do you really think the Soviets were incapable of rolling tanks into its Eastern European satellite states as their communist govts. fell in elections or violent uprisings? Gorbachev and his reform-minded aides repudiated the “Brezhnev Doctrine” and elected to go with non-intervention (contrast this with how the Soviets initally dealt with the Baltic states declarations of independence – suppressing such movements with tanks and troops).</p>

<p>The reason why Gorby didn’t feel it was necessary (for the security of the Soviet Union) to militarily intercede was due to the RELATIONSHIP he and Reagan developed during the negotiations for START I. During their time together, Reagan was shocked to learn that the Soviets/Russians really did think that US would launch a 1st strike against the Soviet Union. Reagan assured Gorbachev that this was not the case and he and Gorby worked together to lessen the threat of MAD and to course a new relationship bwtn the two powers.</p>

<p>Reagan, (ironically) btw, during these negotiations, was blasted by the right-wing for “weakening America.”</p>

<p>Btw, all the progress Russia has made as a “democratic” nation has largely been rolled back by Putin (remember, the guy that Bush has stated that he had gotten a ”sense of his [Putin’s] soul”). Russia (like China today) is basically a facist state – a capitalistic economy tightly controlled by an oligarchical form of govt (which represses any opposition and has a firm grip over the nation’s media).</p>

<p>As for the economy, Presidents have little to do with a country’s economic standing – not that Carter dealt with domestic issues particularly well, but he hardly can be blamed for the economic repercussions of the oil embargo and the rampant inflation due to the huge debts run up by the Vietnam War.</p>

<p>Another President who suffered from the consequences of huge govt. debt was Bush I - who ended up bearing the brunt of the blame for Reagan’s deficit spending/”voodoo economics”).</p>

<p>Whoever is Bush II’s successor – Democrat or Republican, he (or she – god, I hope not) is likely going to face some tough times with regard to the economy as well.</p>

66

<p>collegialmom -

</p>

<p>That was totally wrong, but you can also say the same for Palestinians (with regard to “para-military groups” such as the Irgun and Lehi).</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Of course that’s TOTALLY WRONG – but you should read up on what groups such as the Irgun and Lehi have done (groups which don’t have the upper-hand militarily have always resorted to guerilla warfare, assassination, attacks against civilians, etc.). </p>

<p>collegialmom -

</p>

<p>What “revisionism”? Are events of the last 50 or 100 years “much of history” and what does the history of Jewish persecution have to do with my initial statement?</p>

<p>Yes – there has been a history of persecution of Jews, but guess what? </p>

<p>When Jews were expelled from France and Hungary during the 1300s and from Bavaria, Venice, Spain and Portugal during the 1400s – they ended up immigrating to North Africa, the Middle East and Asia Minor at the invite of the Ottoman sultans.</p>

<p>Sorry – but you seem to be doing exactly what you accuse me of doing.</p>

<p>collegialmom -

</p>

<p>I have absolutely no problem with that. However, would YOU be advocating the same thing for all the Palestinian refugees?</p>

67

<p>Jews lived as “dhimmi” in Arab nations, and were persecuted long before the state of Israel was created. It’s a bit disingenous to suggest that Jews and Arabs lived together peacefully.</p>

<p>Of course, before Intifada 1, things were certainly much more peaceful than they are now, and Palestinians could travel in and out of Israel for work. There was much more interaction between Israelis and Palestinians.</p>

<p>Those days are now long gone, and I don’t know when, or if, we will ever see them again.</p>

68

<p>

</p>

<p>Not saying that things were perfect for Jews in the Middle East, but there were times when Jews were treated BETTER than other groups of dhimmi - such as Christians.</p>

<p>Not surprising to see that the Israeli right is having a hard time with the new textbook approved for Arab Israelis.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

69

<p>It means another failed foreign policy of Cheney and Rumsfield. They didn’t like the Fatah and now Cheney got Hamas.</p>