In parts of Jordan I could be killed because I'm Palestinian. its everywhere here. Iraqi's, and Egyptians are hated too. mayceVas far as I know in Lebanon Palestinians are not allowed to get into certain professions. and I wonder , does hatred of Palestinians in Jordan have anything to do with Black September? so why does Israel get blamed for not giving enough rights to Israel Arabs? if Palestinains suffer more in the hand of other Arab countries.
Israel's Border's
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="wolverine_97"][QUOTE="m25105"] Dear God man, get an atlas.I lol'd so hard when i saw that why? all of those are cold hard facts. whats the humor in it? "Pakinstan is part of the area that surrounds Israel, Palistine."There has been many peace talks and Hamas have tried to push for peace. There is another thread that I posted, that pratically deconstructs your argument in words far better than I can put it. I'll give you a link to the thread and you can watch the video for yourself.
Here.
mayceV
Why do people have a problem with Israel taking over land? Plenty of other countries have done it.. With little to no outcry from the public.. I guess the popular thing is to hate Jews :|00-Riddick-00
It really is sad to me that the popular defense to Israel is to call any criticisms or concerns "anti-jewish".
It's almost as offensive as the idea that Israel represents the will and desire of all jews. Plenty of jews living in America do not blindly support Israel.
[QUOTE="wolverine_97"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Borders aren't the problem. Palestine needs to get rid of Hamas....and then maybe there can be real peace talks. But they aren't going to happen with the status quo.LJS9502_basicHamas was democraically elected. Just a fact I know. Doesn't mean they are not considered terrorist though. Just a fact. Why should they get rid of a government that one fairly in an election?
[QUOTE="mayceV"]In parts of Jordan I could be killed because I'm Palestinian. its everywhere here. Iraqi's, and Egyptians are hated too. Darkman2007as far as I know in Lebanon Palestinians are not allowed to get into certain professions. and I wonder , does hatred of Palestinians in Jordan have anything to do with Black September? so why does Israel get blamed for not giving enough rights to Israel Arabs? if Palestinains suffer more in the hand of other Arab countries. personally i've never heard of problems with isreal not giving rights to isreali arabs. Just to the occupied territories.
[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="mayceV"] welcome to arabia my friend. We're racist against ourselves, overexaturate everything and we're thick headed. If we're racist against ourselves how do you think our leaders are towards outsiders? also is it true tht in Judism yahweh(not sure about spelling but its God's name) created arabs by mistake?mayceVno , in Judaism , the Arabs are the children of Ishmael , half brother of Yitschak (ie my forefather), no mistake about it in that story Abraham's wife Sarah was unhappy with Ishmael because he was not her son , so she had them sent to the desert. however they are saved by an angel who informs Haggar her son will also be the forefather to a people. so no mistake or anything, in fact Arabs (or their forefathers) are refered to as Ishmaelim, unless you go to some of the late documents by people like Josephus who call Arabs just that (or Nabateans at worst) and I wouldnt say Arabs are thick headed, never knew they were racist against themselves though , I just thought there was racism against Jews and Iranians (or Persians as they get called in Israel occasionally) also what sect of judism are you? i know there are more than one. but what I hear here is that jews see themselves as the greats people and higher above the rest.
well I was born in Israel , and the only .....legal (yes you read that right) branch of Judaism in Israel is the orthodox one, so Im part of that.
that part is somewhat wrong, Judaism says god chose the Jews to be protected and the ones to follow him , it doesnt say Jews are any better then anyone else, in fact the Torah explicitly says to respect the rights of any "Ger" or non Jews who live among you.
also Judaism discourages conversions from other religions , which is somewhat different from other religions
[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="mayceV"]In parts of Jordan I could be killed because I'm Palestinian. its everywhere here. Iraqi's, and Egyptians are hated too. mayceVas far as I know in Lebanon Palestinians are not allowed to get into certain professions. and I wonder , does hatred of Palestinians in Jordan have anything to do with Black September? so why does Israel get blamed for not giving enough rights to Israel Arabs? if Palestinains suffer more in the hand of other Arab countries. personally i've never heard of problems with isreal not giving rights to isreali arabs. Just to the occupied territories. thing is , they do get rights, under the law they have full rights. heck , if you go into somewhere like Taiybe , Qalanswa , Umm El Fahem , and others during political rallies, you even see Hamas or Hezbollah flags being lifted. if they can do that in the middle of Israel , they are free. also , go to Haifa university especially and it has plenty of Arab students, and Israel has 12 (I think) Arab members of parliament. now wheter society always adheres to the law is something else, but that happens in every society. also , is it true , that under Jordanian law, a Jew cannot become a citizen? Ive seen that before.
why would it discourage it? 9 we're getting a bit of topic here though) so do only Jews go to heaven/paradise?mayceVno , it says everybody has a place in heaven , though it kind of says the non Jews go to their own heaven (if that makes sense) now of course, Judaism states following it is the best way to heaven , but every religion says that. though I will say this : Judaism isnt as focused on the afterlife as other religions, there is alot less text about it, despite Judaism being at least 1000 years older then Christianity and 1700 years older then Islam the reason conversions are discouraged has alot to do what reaction it might bring think about it, in the Middle Ages, if a Christian in Europe converted to Judaism , what would be the reaction of the Christians? they would slaughter the Jews like the did alot of times for much more trivial things, same might happen in the Muslim world. by law , if you went to a Rabbi and asked to convert, he is supposed to give you three reasons why you should not, just to make sure you are 100% commited.
no, it not citizenship its national jordanian between 1949-1954. they can apply its just that if they were jewish they wouold automatically be considered jordanian. mayceVI see, fair enough.
[QUOTE="mayceV"]why would it discourage it? 9 we're getting a bit of topic here though) so do only Jews go to heaven/paradise?Darkman2007no , it says everybody has a place in heaven , though it kind of says the non Jews go to their own heaven (if that makes sense) now of course, Judaism states following it is the best way to heaven , but every religion says that. though I will say this : Judaism isnt as focused on the afterlife as other religions, there is alot less text about it, despite Judaism being at least 1000 years older then Christianity and 1700 years older then Islam the reason conversions are discouraged has alot to do what reaction it might bring think about it, in the Middle Ages, if a Christian in Europe converted to Judaism , what would be the reaction of the Christians? they would slaughter the Jews like the did alot of times for much more trivial things, same might happen in the Muslim world. by law , if you went to a Rabbi and asked to convert, he is supposed to give you three reasons why you should not, just to make sure you are 100% commited. wait but that doesn't make sense, what about the time before christianity? Also in the time of christianity, maytrdom was huge in abrahamic religions. But wait you probably mean religions of the books go to heaven right? I mean hinduism nd buddhism have completly diffrent concepts than heaven. In Islam its said that any sane man who has heard of islam and doesn't believe in Allah is damned. it sounds a bit harsh but it would discredit religions made by man as anything other than a man made path.
[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="mayceV"]why would it discourage it? 9 we're getting a bit of topic here though) so do only Jews go to heaven/paradise?mayceVno , it says everybody has a place in heaven , though it kind of says the non Jews go to their own heaven (if that makes sense) now of course, Judaism states following it is the best way to heaven , but every religion says that. though I will say this : Judaism isnt as focused on the afterlife as other religions, there is alot less text about it, despite Judaism being at least 1000 years older then Christianity and 1700 years older then Islam the reason conversions are discouraged has alot to do what reaction it might bring think about it, in the Middle Ages, if a Christian in Europe converted to Judaism , what would be the reaction of the Christians? they would slaughter the Jews like the did alot of times for much more trivial things, same might happen in the Muslim world. by law , if you went to a Rabbi and asked to convert, he is supposed to give you three reasons why you should not, just to make sure you are 100% commited. wait but that doesn't make sense, what about the time before christianity? Also in the time of christianity, maytrdom was huge in abrahamic religions. But wait you probably mean religions of the books go to heaven right? I mean hinduism nd buddhism have completly diffrent concepts than heaven. In Islam its said that any sane man who has heard of islam and doesn't believe in Allah is damned. it sounds a bit harsh but it would discredit religions made by man as anything other than a man made path. yes and no. before christianity , apart from the Zoroastrians there really werent any one god faiths, but Judaism says to respect them too, it just warns not to follow them (ie not to worship idols) what Judaism essentially says is "let these people do what they want, its up to god to decide where they go" , like I said Judaism is not really as concerned as other faiths with the affterlife, its more concerned with life and how you live it. around 160BC , the last Jewish state was formed after the greeks were driven out, and this era was charictarised by alot of religious debate between different sects (mostly devided by wealth actually), and by the time there were wars with the Romans around 200 years later, all of this strife led to alot of fanaticism , to the point where we were fighting each other as much as we were fighting the Romans . after another revolt in 132-135AD , there were so many Jewish deaths and deportations (it was well over a million) the Jews basically became a minority in what was their own country might sound boring, but this was the time there was some rexamining of things such as maryterdom and the Messiah , because those two things are what ruined us at the time, and were quite common beforehand.
I think I'll let the Prime Minister of Israel's own works speak for him on this one. [quote="Bibi Netanyahu"] The Prime Minister and the Secretary agreed on the importance of continuing direct negotiations to achieve our goals. The Secretary reiterated that "the United States believes that through good-faith negotiations, the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state, based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements." Those requirements will be fully taken into account in any future peace agreement. Hmm. This is the Prime Minister of Israel, taken directly from Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Now, what seems familiar about this? Gee. The whole, "the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state, based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements." part of the above statement sounds almost exactly like the same damn position that President Obama took in his recent speech. So either Prime Minister Netanyahu was lying back in November or he's lying through his teeth now to try and bully a sitting American president because he knows that the usual clowns on the far-right will make a whole bunch of faux controversy over this. It's worth noting that the position that Obama laid out in his recent speech has been the U.S. position for DECADES now. It was the same position that was supported by Presidents Clinton and Bush.Why is the president of our great nation trying to force
Israel to give up land to nations that hate Israel?
These nations have called for the demise of Israel, because they are "inferior"
since time began.
Personally I think the president is being very illogical, and has to understand Israel's
current situation.
Let me know what you think about this.
All-Madden09
I think The Onion basically sums up my views on the whole situation.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/government-official-who-makes-perfectly-valid-well,20499/
^Link wouldn't work for some reason...
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] I did read your post, but what you wrote was self-refuting. If a border is indefensible then it is impossible to defend. If Israel is capable of defending those borders then those borders aren't indefensible. Moreover, groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah aren't going to invade Israel (and if they did they will be swiftly dealt with, regardless if Israel is defending the borders of the occupied territories or the 1967 borders). The worst they can do is, as I've already stated, execute terrorist attacks. CannedWormsThose borders ARE indefensible when you've got another army, more missiles and less land to use as a buffer WHEN (not if) Arabs attack. Israel might have the best trained army, advanced military equipment and intelligence but there is no way they'll be able to defend themselves if Palestine becomes a state, launch missiles and Arab states attack. It's the harsh reality. Furthermore, it won't be possible for Israel to sustain itself considering it is one of the smallest countries in the world. And of course they will attack. Maybe not now, but the minute Israeli's economy is unstable or they lose US support they'll attack no question. You seem to underestimate the Arab (and Sh'ia) determination to wipe Israel off the map. you don't seem to understand the notion of the 1967 borders. they are saying that these are the border of which negotiations should start not that "YO Isreal that land is palestian and you gotta bulldoze the cities you illeagally built on it" its a starting point it doesn't matter if those borders are indefensible because there'll be land swaps. How can you start negotiating and swaping land if you won't recognize what palestine is?
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="Darkman2007"] fine , so Israel gets out of the West Bank 100% , what happens then?Darkman2007
Palestine is founded under it again.. The fact of the matter is it has never been tried.. Every "plan" put forward pretty much states that Israel still controls the majority Palestine under martial lawlosing even more land to settling Israeli's.. And this is supported by a growing movement of Jews and Israeli's.. Men like Noam Chomsky has been extremely critical of the occupation for decades.. Its just the fact that Israel never really attemped to do this.. Eveyr agreement or compromise has been extremely in Israel's favor with little compromise.. The fact of the matter is, the US should not supporting Israel who has continued to show (even when they are in the clear advantage in the scenerio) of ever trying to relinquish any kind of control.
ok then , Palestine is founded as a state, then what? what does Israel get in return?Hopefully a peaceful neighbor. Seriously dude, nothing is guaranteed at all. Nothing is.
the new Palestine will be busy trying to build itself up. Don't expect 40+ years of bitterness to suddenly evaporate under a peace accord and the founding of Palestine. continued Israeli military enforced martial law on the West Bank as a future settlement isn't going to work, and no sovereign state would accept that. The no standing army wouldn't be accepted either.
Now you can go and point the finger at Iran, but as i recall, Jordan is no friend of Iran. Syrian government is shaking and parts are crumbling (some Baathists are defecting for the civilians), and if it falls (and it will, if not now, in the decade) that cuts Hezbollah's link with Iran. and Lebanon's coast line is watched by the Israeli navy anyways.
Palestine military would be the least of their worries for the new government. internal law and order would be the first on the agenda.
and virtually all Arab governments are busy with their own affairs. The gulf states are busy with their economic and infrastructure boom. Iraq, and Lebanon are still trying to get their **** together. Jordan is humming along. Libya will be rebuilding itself (hopefully sooner rather then later), Egypt and Tunisia (and possibly others over the next couple of years) will be trying to find stability.
Would that stop terrorism? in the immediate beginning no, over time yes there will be more to lose for the sovereign government of Palestine to allow for terrorism to continue, especially as a fledgling country. Does that mean that any military possible to stand or that Palestine could afford would be an existential threat to Israel's **** no. It's gonna be like the Kuwait or Qatar (at the very best).
Do not make the mistake of assuming Palestinians are like Yemeni's or Afghan's, where it will collapse in on itself and it's just tribal anarchy.
Obama set out the terms for the 1967 borders. This has been reiterated based on dialogs between Arab countries (Saudi, Qatar, Egypt and others) with American diplomats on the wikileaks. So when he stands up at AIPAC and says he was merely stating publicly which was already discussed and agreed upon privately, it should not be a surprise. Though apparently it is. Not to mention the caveat of "land swaps where necessary". Which everyone seems to forget.
The real hard issues will be what to do about Jerusalem and status of Palestinian refugees.
I seem to imagine that Israeli's hope that whatever peace accord that comes out after 40+ and growing occupation and bitter fanaticism to play out like the joke from Family Guy about the freed slaves.
Not much sympathy for the Pakistan, considering they had Bin Laden hiding in plain sight for years.
Pakistan is also one of the country's that dislikes Israel. To respond to an earlier post, the land they took was from a war that was
declared on them, and they responded and won. They should be able to keep their land.
All-Madden09
I'll take the opinion of someone who knows the difference between Pakistan and Palestine thanks.
You also GET that the LAST thing Israel wants is to have to incorporate the West Bank and Gaza into Israel (ie, the One State Solution) since it means Palestinians would outnumber Israeli Jews?
ok then , Palestine is founded as a state, then what? what does Israel get in return?[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]
Palestine is founded under it again.. The fact of the matter is it has never been tried.. Every "plan" put forward pretty much states that Israel still controls the majority Palestine under martial lawlosing even more land to settling Israeli's.. And this is supported by a growing movement of Jews and Israeli's.. Men like Noam Chomsky has been extremely critical of the occupation for decades.. Its just the fact that Israel never really attemped to do this.. Eveyr agreement or compromise has been extremely in Israel's favor with little compromise.. The fact of the matter is, the US should not supporting Israel who has continued to show (even when they are in the clear advantage in the scenerio) of ever trying to relinquish any kind of control.
SaudiFury
Hopefully a peaceful neighbor. Seriously dude, nothing is guaranteed at all. Nothing is.
the new Palestine will be busy trying to build itself up. Don't expect 40+ years of bitterness to suddenly evaporate under a peace accord and the founding of Palestine. continued Israeli military enforced martial law on the West Bank as a future settlement isn't going to work, and no sovereign state would accept that. The no standing army wouldn't be accepted either.
Now you can go and point the finger at Iran, but as i recall, Jordan is no friend of Iran. Syrian government is shaking and parts are crumbling (some Baathists are defecting for the civilians), and if it falls (and it will, if not now, in the decade) that cuts Hezbollah's link with Iran. and Lebanon's coast line is watched by the Israeli navy anyways.
Palestine military would be the least of their worries for the new government. internal law and order would be the first on the agenda.
and virtually all Arab governments are busy with their own affairs. The gulf states are busy with their economic and infrastructure boom. Iraq, and Lebanon are still trying to get their **** together. Jordan is humming along. Libya will be rebuilding itself (hopefully sooner rather then later), Egypt and Tunisia (and possibly others over the next couple of years) will be trying to find stability.
Would that stop terrorism? in the immediate beginning no, over time yes there will be more to lose for the sovereign government of Palestine to allow for terrorism to continue, especially as a fledgling country. Does that mean that any military possible to stand or that Palestine could afford would be an existential threat to Israel's **** no. It's gonna be like the Kuwait or Qatar (at the very best).
Do not make the mistake of assuming Palestinians are like Yemeni's or Afghan's, where it will collapse in on itself and it's just tribal anarchy.
Obama set out the terms for the 1967 borders. This has been reiterated based on dialogs between Arab countries (Saudi, Qatar, Egypt and others) with American diplomats on the wikileaks. So when he stands up at AIPAC and says he was merely stating publicly which was already discussed and agreed upon privately, it should not be a surprise. Though apparently it is. Not to mention the caveat of "land swaps where necessary". Which everyone seems to forget.
The real hard issues will be what to do about Jerusalem and status of Palestinian refugees.
I seem to imagine that Israeli's hope that whatever peace accord that comes out after 40+ and growing occupation and bitter fanaticism to play out like the joke from Family Guy about the freed slaves.
no, Israel doesnt expect its neighbours to suddenly like us, that would equal insanity. what Israel expects is that for giving these lands, it gets peace and normal relations with all other nations in the region. what does normal relations mean? certainly not what has happened with Jordan and Egypt. Israel was told that there would be all the normal aspects of peace - trade, tourism , and cooperation. instead, we get a cold peace, where trade is minimal , as is any kind of cooperation apart from a a few select issues, and where the population is highly skeptical of any peace with Israel , and in fact, still consider Israel the enemy and constantly call the treaty into question. what people are essentially telling me here is "Israel should withdraw , but it wont get real peace , the Mideast will be no different, just Israel getting weaker" and Im quite well aware of the Saudi initiative which calls for normal relations, but we were promised the same in 1979 with Egypt, and in 1994 with Jordan, so we have reason to be skeptical. of course, a cold peace is still better then war, but Israel doesn't fight the Gulf States, Israel doesnt fight North Africa, yet there are still no relations besides the occasional secret talks regarding Iran (and lets not joke ourselves, Saudi Arabia dislikes Iran , and in this case its the enemy of an enemy is a friend, at least on this issue) so there is little gain from a cold peace with them. and of course I know the Palestinians are different from the Afghans or Yeminis , I used to live 10km away from them.Having been to Egypt, the strangers i talked to about the peace with Israel. Nobody wanted to break it, but some felt it would break up because it was 'inevitable'. For whatever that is worth. This seems to be the same sentiment based on the Arab Spring protests in Egypt and even at least based on what the Youth led part of the Muslim Brotherhood has been saying (not the old guard, their official stance still stands.).
About normalizing relations, i would refer to the Saudi peace plan which was stated for normalizing relations with a peace treaty between Israel and Palestine. Brought up in 2005, rebrought up in 2007, and apparently is still on the table and offered according to dialog written between King Abdullah and US state department diplomats from wikileaks documents. Arab governments who are American allies seem to have come to this same conclusion. despite the chagrin of some Palestinian groups, and apparent Israeli encouraged but ignored response.
The great impediment for turning a cold peace into a warm one is still the occupation. Quite literally on a daily basis it's whatever injustice, or percieved injustice being done on the Palestinians in the occupied territories, whatever new weaponry system Israel has, whatever the latest bombing and the inevitble chaotic bloody scenes that come afterward are constantly brought online on Arab television. Yes some of it is exaggerations, sometimes it's racist even (i'd say speaking for myself at least). but a lot of it is the same news story being told by Western, and even Israeli media.
I don't believe Israel would be weaker without the occupied territories. But i'm of the opinion that one should take away the major issue to move things forward. Jordan gave up territory to get peace, Egypt gained territory to get it. Egypt's ministers at the time were interviewed in a documentary, and while the de-factor Arab leader got kicked out of the Arab League, some of the ministers argued that peace through negotiated land-for-peace could work.
At the core however, is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Egypt and Jordan acted unilaterally on their own and they are only PART of the peace process, they are not the core issue, the others Arab countries have not followed suit. But i do honostly believe a stable peace between Israel-Palestine, will lead to more Arab states to opening up to Israel. I can think of the smaller Gulf state of Qatar being one of the first countries to step up.
From my part of the world, i may hear something racist once in a while, but 90% of the time it's something to do with the occupation. So from my experience the occupation is the key to solving the relation problem. The racism bit will still be there, but one cannot overcome all problems overnight, and everyone is a little bit racist due to their own personal ethnocentrism. As hard as we may try, we will still come off as such to someone somewhere at sometime based on what we may say at the moment. Most racist commentary i've heard in Saudi is surprisingly about other Muslims, the 'lowly' Asians like Filipino's, Indonesians, Indians, or how much better they are then say Egyptians, Palestinians or Iraqi's. some comments i'd say are definently racist, others i'd say it's just ethnic/regional/patriotic/sectarian favoritism.
A dream of mine is to be able to travel throughout the Middle East - Israel included - by road, with little to no troubles. As a Saudi, i can't travel to Israel or Iraq (yet), and i expect to run into trouble if i wanted to go to Syria or Iran. Personally would like to see Palestine the cities of some of my friends like Ramallah, Bethlehem and Nablis. see Jeruslaem (divided physically or administratively or not), the cities of Ber' Sheva, Tel Aviv and Haifa of Israel.
But i'm not going anywhere until a peace and stability is established beforehand.
P.S.
If Egypt actually can be a relatively stable democracy, and the peace treaty is upheld, that will speak volumes. Because now it's not one autocrat unilaterally making agreement with a former enemy on his behalf/whim alone, but rather it will be by the will of the people of Egypt.
80 million Arabs (mostly Muslims) who maintain the peace treaty in a democratic country will send shockwaves through the rest of the Arab world in more ways then one. and i believe will get warmer with a real peace between the two main factions Israel and Palestinians.
Yes i know i'm being a bit rose-tinted about things, but with the newer generations i am more optimistic.
Obama's going to lose America's ally in the ME if he keeps up with this shenanigans. HellsAngel2c
And Israel is going to lose the billions of dollars we so kindly give them.
PS. did someone post something similar to what I wrote? I can't be arsed to read what everyone wrote.
Having been to Egypt, the strangers i talked to about the peace with Israel. Nobody wanted to break it, but some felt it would break up because it was 'inevitable'. For whatever that is worth. This seems to be the same sentiment based on the Arab Spring protests in Egypt and even at least based on what the Youth led part of the Muslim Brotherhood has been saying (not the old guard, their official stance still stands.).
About normalizing relations, i would refer to the Saudi peace plan which was stated for normalizing relations with a peace treaty between Israel and Palestine. Brought up in 2005, rebrought up in 2007, and apparently is still on the table and offered according to dialog written between King Abdullah and US state department diplomats from wikileaks documents. Arab governments who are American allies seem to have come to this same conclusion. despite the chagrin of some Palestinian groups, and apparent Israeli encouraged but ignored response.
The great impediment for turning a cold peace into a warm one is still the occupation. Quite literally on a daily basis it's whatever injustice, or percieved injustice being done on the Palestinians in the occupied territories, whatever new weaponry system Israel has, whatever the latest bombing and the inevitble chaotic bloody scenes that come afterward are constantly brought online on Arab television. Yes some of it is exaggerations, sometimes it's racist even (i'd say speaking for myself at least). but a lot of it is the same news story being told by Western, and even Israeli media.
From my part of the world, i may hear something racist once in a while, but 90% of the time it's something to do with the occupation. So from my experience the occupation is the key to solving the relation problem. The racism bit will still be there, but one cannot overcome all problems overnight, and everyone is a little bit racist due to their own personal ethnocentrism. As hard as we may try, we will still come off as such to someone somewhere at sometime based on what we may say at the moment. Most racist commentary i've heard in Saudi is surprisingly about other Muslims, the 'lowly' Asians like Filipino's, Indonesians, Indians, or how much better they are then say Egyptians, Palestinians or Iraqi's. some comments i'd say are definently racist, others i'd say it's just ethnic/regional/patriotic/sectarian favoritism.
A dream of mine is to be able to travel throughout the Middle East - Israel included - by road, with little to no troubles. As a Saudi, i can't travel to Israel or Iraq (yet), and i expect to run into trouble if i wanted to go to Syria or Iran. Personally would like to see Palestine the cities of some of my friends like Ramallah, Bethlehem and Nablis. see Jeruslaem (divided physically or administratively or not), the cities of Ber' Sheva, Tel Aviv and Haifa of Israel.
But i'm not going anywhere until a peace and stability is established beforehand.
SaudiFury
I really don't see what the Egyptians are worried about, Its not in Israel's interest to break up the peace treaty, Egypt has the Sinai, not sure where they get that from.
Im well aware of the peace initiative put forward by Saudia , and yes I will agree the terms in there are rather favourable (though the "just solution for the refugees" will have to be discussed as to what this solution actually is), but are you honestly telling me it wont lead to another cold peace? I don't expect every Arab to suddenly like me, but a treaty is a treaty, and I personally don't see an issue for most Arab states to dislike Israel besides the Palestinian issue, in particular the Gulf states and North Africa
Also , Iran is not a part of this initiative, what is your opinion of how to solve the Iranian problem?.
besides the nuclear issue, they are obviously trying to become a regional power. Now I personally could not care less what they do in Iraq, that is an internal Arab/Muslim problem , but when they try to encroach ony Israel's sphere of influence (which sounds selfish perhaps, but the Levant is Israel's sphere of influence due to simple facts on the ground) primarily through Hezbollah and Hamas, as well as Syria and by extention Lebanon.(my predictions is that Assad will survive this current crisis), we get worried, and understandably so, what could be done about them?
[QUOTE="SaudiFury"]I really don't see what the Egyptians are worried about, Its not in Israel's interest to break up the peace treaty,Egypt has the Sinai, not sure where they get that from. Im well aware of the peace initiative put forward by Saudia , and yes I will agree the terms in there are rather favourable (though the "just solution for the refugees" will have to be discussed as to what this solution actually is), but are you honestly telling me it wont lead to another cold peace? I don't expect every Arab to suddenly like me, but a treaty is a treaty, and I personally don't see an issue for most Arab states to dislike Israel besides the Palestinian issue, in particular the Gulf states and North Africa Also , Iran is not a part of this initiative, what is your opinion of how to solve the Iranian problem?. besides the nuclear issue, they are obviously trying to become a regional power. Now I personally could not care less what they do in Iraq, that is an internal Arab/Muslim problem , but when they try to encroach ony Israel's sphere of influence (which sounds selfish perhaps, but the Levant is Israel's sphere of influence due to simple facts on the ground), we get worried, and understandably so, what could be done about them?Having been to Egypt, the strangers i talked to about the peace with Israel. Nobody wanted to break it, but some felt it would break up because it was 'inevitable'. For whatever that is worth. This seems to be the same sentiment based on the Arab Spring protests in Egypt and even at least based on what the Youth led part of the Muslim Brotherhood has been saying (not the old guard, their official stance still stands.).
About normalizing relations, i would refer to the Saudi peace plan which was stated for normalizing relations with a peace treaty between Israel and Palestine. Brought up in 2005, rebrought up in 2007, and apparently is still on the table and offered according to dialog written between King Abdullah and US state department diplomats from wikileaks documents. Arab governments who are American allies seem to have come to this same conclusion. despite the chagrin of some Palestinian groups, and apparent Israeli encouraged but ignored response.
The great impediment for turning a cold peace into a warm one is still the occupation. Quite literally on a daily basis it's whatever injustice, or percieved injustice being done on the Palestinians in the occupied territories, whatever new weaponry system Israel has, whatever the latest bombing and the inevitble chaotic bloody scenes that come afterward are constantly brought online on Arab television. Yes some of it is exaggerations, sometimes it's racist even (i'd say speaking for myself at least). but a lot of it is the same news story being told by Western, and even Israeli media.
From my part of the world, i may hear something racist once in a while, but 90% of the time it's something to do with the occupation. So from my experience the occupation is the key to solving the relation problem. The racism bit will still be there, but one cannot overcome all problems overnight, and everyone is a little bit racist due to their own personal ethnocentrism. As hard as we may try, we will still come off as such to someone somewhere at sometime based on what we may say at the moment. Most racist commentary i've heard in Saudi is surprisingly about other Muslims, the 'lowly' Asians like Filipino's, Indonesians, Indians, or how much better they are then say Egyptians, Palestinians or Iraqi's. some comments i'd say are definently racist, others i'd say it's just ethnic/regional/patriotic/sectarian favoritism.
A dream of mine is to be able to travel throughout the Middle East - Israel included - by road, with little to no troubles. As a Saudi, i can't travel to Israel or Iraq (yet), and i expect to run into trouble if i wanted to go to Syria or Iran. Personally would like to see Palestine the cities of some of my friends like Ramallah, Bethlehem and Nablis. see Jeruslaem (divided physically or administratively or not), the cities of Ber' Sheva, Tel Aviv and Haifa of Israel.
But i'm not going anywhere until a peace and stability is established beforehand.
Darkman2007
when the blood stops spilling (peace treaty) and young men get tired of fighting their grandfather's war.yeah the warm peace will come.
Vast majority of 20 something Arabs i've dealt with in the Middle East have this sort of mindset, and is evident from the Arab Spring and the online Arab activism (cause you know... your likely to disappear for a while/forever in some of these countries if you actually protest.).
Iran isn't part of the Arab League, which was where the Saudi's have pushed their initiative. About what to do about Iran, no easy answers. But as evident from wikileaks documents there is a quid-pro-quo agreement between Israel-USA-Arab states when it comes to Iran. Arab states apparently want the US to do the work for them, Gulf states would have a real hard time actually destroying all of Iran's securities (not to mention risk to the largest oil supply line in the world). Israel itself would have a hard time (as evident again from internal wikileaks between Israeli defense and the US state department). the US does not want to get tied down into a third major war. and there is currently no casus bellum for war, there is just a lot of bellicose saber rattling.
Yes Iran has a history of supporting terrorism, Israel also has a history of unilateral airstrikes (Iraq in the 1980's one of them). So both sides have their valid worries. So no easy answers in this.
As for Syria. I believe if the Alawi rulers of Syria are overthrown and the 80% Sunni Arabs take over Syria (and inevitably they would through elections or by sheer likelihood of who could take over). That will cut off Hezbollah, and will break up whatever special arrangements Syria has with Iran. If you don't know, the Alawi are a sect within the Shiite Islam, so they have a lot more in common with Iran. That would leave Iranian influence cut off from the Levant area.
Only two countries in the Levant that would be 'competing' (economic, cultural, military, etc) would be Israel and Syria, and Syria is woefully behind in many regards. I mention Syria, as it's the only one with the size, resources and population that could compete on the same scale.
As far as Iraq, this bothers the hell out of the Gulf states, especially Saudi. as evident not only by wikileaks, but by diplomatic measures both by Gulf states and Iraqis. Iraq's prime minister spends more time flying to consult with Tehran, then he seems to bother with his fellow Arab neighbors.
I really don't see what the Egyptians are worried about, Its not in Israel's interest to break up the peace treaty,Egypt has the Sinai, not sure where they get that from. Im well aware of the peace initiative put forward by Saudia , and yes I will agree the terms in there are rather favourable (though the "just solution for the refugees" will have to be discussed as to what this solution actually is), but are you honestly telling me it wont lead to another cold peace? I don't expect every Arab to suddenly like me, but a treaty is a treaty, and I personally don't see an issue for most Arab states to dislike Israel besides the Palestinian issue, in particular the Gulf states and North Africa Also , Iran is not a part of this initiative, what is your opinion of how to solve the Iranian problem?. besides the nuclear issue, they are obviously trying to become a regional power. Now I personally could not care less what they do in Iraq, that is an internal Arab/Muslim problem , but when they try to encroach ony Israel's sphere of influence (which sounds selfish perhaps, but the Levant is Israel's sphere of influence due to simple facts on the ground), we get worried, and understandably so, what could be done about them?[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="SaudiFury"]
Having been to Egypt, the strangers i talked to about the peace with Israel. Nobody wanted to break it, but some felt it would break up because it was 'inevitable'. For whatever that is worth. This seems to be the same sentiment based on the Arab Spring protests in Egypt and even at least based on what the Youth led part of the Muslim Brotherhood has been saying (not the old guard, their official stance still stands.).
About normalizing relations, i would refer to the Saudi peace plan which was stated for normalizing relations with a peace treaty between Israel and Palestine. Brought up in 2005, rebrought up in 2007, and apparently is still on the table and offered according to dialog written between King Abdullah and US state department diplomats from wikileaks documents. Arab governments who are American allies seem to have come to this same conclusion. despite the chagrin of some Palestinian groups, and apparent Israeli encouraged but ignored response.
The great impediment for turning a cold peace into a warm one is still the occupation. Quite literally on a daily basis it's whatever injustice, or percieved injustice being done on the Palestinians in the occupied territories, whatever new weaponry system Israel has, whatever the latest bombing and the inevitble chaotic bloody scenes that come afterward are constantly brought online on Arab television. Yes some of it is exaggerations, sometimes it's racist even (i'd say speaking for myself at least). but a lot of it is the same news story being told by Western, and even Israeli media.
From my part of the world, i may hear something racist once in a while, but 90% of the time it's something to do with the occupation. So from my experience the occupation is the key to solving the relation problem. The racism bit will still be there, but one cannot overcome all problems overnight, and everyone is a little bit racist due to their own personal ethnocentrism. As hard as we may try, we will still come off as such to someone somewhere at sometime based on what we may say at the moment. Most racist commentary i've heard in Saudi is surprisingly about other Muslims, the 'lowly' Asians like Filipino's, Indonesians, Indians, or how much better they are then say Egyptians, Palestinians or Iraqi's. some comments i'd say are definently racist, others i'd say it's just ethnic/regional/patriotic/sectarian favoritism.
A dream of mine is to be able to travel throughout the Middle East - Israel included - by road, with little to no troubles. As a Saudi, i can't travel to Israel or Iraq (yet), and i expect to run into trouble if i wanted to go to Syria or Iran. Personally would like to see Palestine the cities of some of my friends like Ramallah, Bethlehem and Nablis. see Jeruslaem (divided physically or administratively or not), the cities of Ber' Sheva, Tel Aviv and Haifa of Israel.
But i'm not going anywhere until a peace and stability is established beforehand.
SaudiFury
when the blood stops spilling (peace treaty) and young men get tired of fighting their grandfather's war.yeah the warm peace will come.
Vast majority of 20 something Arabs i've dealt with in the Middle East have this sort of mindset, and is evident from the Arab Spring and the online Arab activism (cause you know... your likely to disappear for a while/forever in some of these countries if you actually protest.).
Iran isn't part of the Arab League, which was where the Saudi's have pushed their initiative. About what to do about Iran, no easy answers. But as evident from wikileaks documents there is a quid-pro-quo agreement between Israel-USA-Arab states when it comes to Iran. Arab states apparently want the US to do the work for them, Gulf states would have a real hard time actually destroying all of Iran's securities (not to mention risk to the largest oil supply line in the world). Israel itself would have a hard time (as evident again from internal wikileaks between Israeli defense and the US state department). the US does not want to get tied down into a third major war. and there is currently no casus bellum for war, there is just a lot of bellicose saber rattling.
Yes Iran has a history of supporting terrorism, Israel also has a history of unilateral airstrikes (Iraq in the 1980's one of them). So both sides have their valid worries. So no easy answers in this.
As for Syria. I believe if the Alawi rulers of Syria are overthrown and the 80% Sunni Arabs take over Syria (and inevitably they would through elections or by sheer likelihood of who could take over). That will cut off Hezbollah, and will break up whatever special arrangements Syria has with Iran. If you don't know, the Alawi are a sect within the Shiite Islam, so they have a lot more in common with Iran. That would leave Iranian influence cut off from the Levant area.
Only two countries in the Levant that would be 'competing' (economic, cultural, military, etc) would be Israel and Syria, and Syria is woefully behind in many regards. I mention Syria, as it's the only one with the size, resources and population that could compete on the same scale.
As far as Iraq, this bothers the hell out of the Gulf states, especially Saudi. as evident not only by wikileaks, but by diplomatic measures both by Gulf states and Iraqis. Iraq's prime minister spends more time flying to consult with Tehran, then he seems to bother with his fellow Arab neighbors.
Obviously the Gulf states would want the US to destroy Iran's nuclear plants. Im sure they would be quite happy if Israel did it, its not impossible ,and given the current US administration , id say the chance of the US doing anything is slim, Also I wonder, what are the Arabs more concerned or afraid of, Israel and its nuclear weapons, or Iran if it gets nuclear weapons?
the real question is retaliation , you know Israel destroyed an alleged nuclear site in Syria, and Syria did nothing, because if they declared war, they would lose. Iran doesnt have to face the Israeli army, and it will just be a question of launching their missiles into Israel (though if they attack Tel Aviv, the sky will fall for them),. thats our concern, and the US is holding Israel back while talks go on (lets be honest, Ahmadinajad is making a joke of any talks).
yes, I know full well of Assad's Alawi sect (I used to live in Israel , I kind of had to learn those things), though its not the only case in the Middle East of a minority rulling over a majority. But the question is wheter a real democracy will emerge, or will it be another Iran situation.
whatever the Arabs do , I would recommend them not to follow Israel's democracy to the letter, Israel is actually a bit too democratic (if that makes any sense, I could explain)
Again Iraq is considerd an internal Arab affair, though you would have to guess since Iraq is a majority Shia state, they would have to court Iran out of public opinion alone. though Iran has too much influence in Iraq (Ive been reading alot of places in Iraq use the Iranian currency as a secondary currency)
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment