Post by frenziewow David
you do know israely politics. thats from active interst. not from
casual t.v. newscasts
thank you for the interest.
To be honest, it's an interest in the global geopolitical game that
shapes our world and thus influences all of our lives. I care as much
about _internal_ Israeli politics as I do those of Chad (though for
those looking for a bit of geeky fun, taking a look at President Idriss
Deby and his increasingly desperate attempts to hold on to power will
provide some amusement). I couldn't name one of the coalition parties
in the current government aside from Kadima and Labour.
Post by frenziei hope the said outcome of fifty years hence will not come about and
that phalstine could call Gaza a capital but time will tell...
Bluntly, I think that's about as likely as your people agreeing to
relocate the Israeli government to Tel Aviv in fact as well as in
(international) name. On a practical level, the Palestinian's have
already lost a great deal; well over half the land first proposed in
the 1947 partition plan. Now granted, most of the land that's been lost
to present-day Israel was lost because they and the surrounding Arab
regimes wouldn't accept a Jewish presence in the region. In 1948, I
could even understand this mentality. The Jewish influx was displacing
the (by now indigenous) Arab residents, and, AIR, much Jewish land was
in fact leased from Arab owners. The Palestinian people are unlikely to
give in on such an important territorial issue.
More importantly, Jerusalem is a random, non-strategic piece of soil
that nonetheless has come to define both your national identities. For
the Jews, the city is the historical center of their culture,
stretching back to ancient times and even earlier, to the biblical
patriarchs, many of whom (if you believe modern archaeological
evidence), never even existed in the first place, at least not as
individual people. It's the reason the Israeli general public was, even
if your history books won't admit it (and not having seen an Israeli
history book, I don't know if they do or not), almost as pleased with
the prospect of the 1967 war as were the Arabs. Granted Israel didn't
_really_ want to fight three nations at once, and sought to convince
the Jordanians to keep out of the conflict, but Christ (expletive, not
messianic figure) man, look at Israeli popular culture of the time.
Look even at the hit songs. Then look at the lyrics. It was no Egyptian
"Death to Israel", but popular culture wanted those biblical sites
back. For the Palestinians on the other hand, Jerusalem is not only
their idealized capital city, but also one of Islam's major holy
sites, as for some reason all three of the world's major monotheistic
faiths have to be in some way centered around the damned place. Either
because of its past religious symbolism or because God can apparently
have a vicious, sadistic sense of humor (depending on whether one is a
theist or not), Mohammed just had to pick the Dome of the Rock/Temple
Mount/God Damned Random Outcropping as his starting out point as he
sauntered up to heaven to chat with everyone's favorite divine being.
The ensuing centuries have only magnified the place's importance in the
Palestinian, and now really Islamic mindset.
In other words, the Palestinians may give up some more West Bank
territory for peace. They'll have to give up the Right of Return. They
will never, and if I'm wrong please feel free to come to my house and
publicly mock me every day for a solid year, give up Jerusalem. That
city is either going to become internationally administered, as was
originally intended, or Israel and Palestine are going to have to
decide to play nice and share. Or, of course, we'll all continue with
the current fun, vitriol, and mayhem for another sixty years. The last
thing the Palestinian's will do is accept Gaza or Rafah, both
wretchedly poor cities along a tiny isolated coastline in a zone of
poverty and despair, as a capital.
...I suppose a fourth option is that eventually someone, somewhere will
snap, and it'll become a giant sheet of glass in the desert. That's not
really an option worth discussing though.
Post by frenzieand i being and adherer to Hienlien's so called "fashizm" call natinal
service- of any kind and including military service- buying my
citizenship.
i do not refer to it as conscription.
this too i think is for another thread i'll love to go into 4-5 days
from now
I'm not sure if I'd call myself an adherent to a political philosophy
that led to the genocide of my (in this case your) people, but I
suppose you can draw a distinction between Heinlein's idealized, if
somewhat dystopic future (no kids. The one in the book, not the one in
the Paul Verhoeven "shoot bugs and then get laid" '90s film... It
was a fun movie though.) and actual real-world fascist states... I
guess... I however would tend to fight fascism as hard as communism.
Both are extremely hostile to the liberal democratic tradition that has
evolved in the west and that the U.S. and most if not all other western
countries today represent. I'd also point out that fascism, at least
the real-world version, has as one of its central tenants not the oh so
tired communist class struggle, but the, in my view far more insidious,
race struggle. As we know that's an issue that's never caused any
national or international problems. I think age and sex struggles might
also play a part, but with fascism being about as dead as can be, I
haven't really kept current on the underlying tenants of the
philosophy.
While I may in theory approve of national service (as you defined it;
including not only military but any type of service) being a gateway to
some other type of reward, defining citizenship of ones nation by such
service, even if it is broadly based seems like an ivory tower exercise
in idealism rather than reality. Maybe that's because I believe
it'd be too easy to move to a position where only military service
proves acceptable, and rather liking my ability to vote and greet my
fellow men and women as, I don't know, _equals_, I'm somewhat loath
to surrender it, but I hope it's deeper than personal privilege.
I live in a nation where you're a citizen if you're born on the
nation's soil, and to become a citizen if you weren't born as one all
you must do is live in the country, not be a jackass, be able to speak
some basic English, support the principles of the Constitution, the
document underpinning the government and society that you after all
want to become a part of, have some basic comprehension of the
nation's history (for obvious reasons), and swear an oath of
allegiance to the nation. The day this country decides that arbitrary
service is required for Bob to be equal to Jim, or God forbid the day
we go all east Asian and start trying to define citizenship by
something even more ridiculous like ethnicity, is the day I pick up and
leave...But as you and I have both said, this is probably a discussion
for another time.
--
Dave Holman