[extropy-chat] Middle East

[David Lubkin]

Paul Grant wrote:

>their is MOST DEFINATELY a pro-israel bias in US Foreign Policy; and its not
         :
>you open your ignorant mouth on the subject.
         :
>before that stupid declaration in 1948, Palestinians and Israeli's

Your arguments would be more persuasive with spelling and grammar checking, 
basic fact checking, and the absence of ad hominem attacks and rudeness.

The UN vote partitioning Palestine was in 1947. Israel was formed in 1948, 
prior to which the residents were all Palestinians, most Jews or Moslem 
Arabs, although many other groups were (and are) present, including Arab 
and non-Arab Christians, Ba'hai, Druze, and Bedouin.

The "ignorant mouth" remark is certainly an ad hominem attack on Mike, in 
violation of list rules.

>stupid declaration ... anally raped ... rats ass ... stupid conflict

I'm not sure whether your offensive language and tone is a violation as 
well, but I don't find it acceptable.

>justify the blood on your hands.

I think this would qualify as a direct attack on me if you had known of my 
de facto Israeli nationality and other connections I've discussed on-list 
in the past.

>were living side-by-side quite fine.

Mike addressed this pretty well.

>Europe and US involvement have led to nothing but strife and misery for 
>that region, and I'm referring to the Middle East as a WHOLE, not just 
>Palestine and Israel.

For the Middle East, I'd rank home-grown strife and misery (from tribal and 
Moslem-denominational hatred and native dictatorships) first, followed by 
European state manufacture, with US missteps third.

>most Arab's could give a rats ass about Jews and Judiasm

The historic record, up to the most recent opinion polls in the Arab world, 
profoundly refutes this assertion.

 >> (counting the hours until his daughter returns safely from her current 
trip to Israel)

>Just a suggestion, but sending anyone to Israel (or Palestine) at this
>stage of the game is like playing russian roulette (with bad odds).
>You should think twice about that, if *you* care about your child
>(common sense aside, the US state dept. will tell you the same thing).

I agree completely, although it is a lot safer right now than it was prior 
to the Iraqi invasion, the construction of the security fence, Sharon's 
latest policies, and Saddam's capture. There have been *no* successful 
terrorist attacks since she arrived.

But it's not my choice. Before she turned 18, I could say no. Now I can 
help a little, and worry a lot.

Most of the time, her group has been in places terrorists don't attack, 
like the Negev Desert, the Dead Sea, and the Golan Heights. Terrorists go 
where people congregate that are not tourist attractions. But they've had 
occasional stops at malls, restaurants, and discos, which *are* targets.

Of course, once she's home safely, I can go back to anxiously scanning 
newspaper casualty lists to see which of my friends were murdered.


-- David Lubkin.