Will the shit hit the fan in Israel?

If you want to be tedious about it you could try to create some kind of moral scorecard, but obviously the fact that generations have lived and died on both sides makes that a bit loony.

I don't like people that oversimplify this conflict, and I don't like people who cheerlead for one side or the other. It's a tangled up jumble of jungle of conflict, hatreds, blood debts and all the rest.

It is absurdly easy to pick a team and tally up all the wrongs done to it, all of its legitimate grievances, and make the other side out to be ruthless evil incarnate. What is the point? It turns decades of bloody war and strife and hundreds of thousands dead and turns it into a discussion only scarcely better (and more useful) than "Crossfire."

Democracy is not the problem in the Middle East. Holding snap elections in every Arab and Muslim country right now this instant might not yield very attractive results (and it might be the last time you see an election) but that is the symptom of the pre-existing problems, not a fault of democracy.

To put it another way, exercising and eating right is very important for your health - but if you try to implement a rigourous exercise regimin while suffering badly from cancer, it might have ill effects and few immediate good ones. That isn't because good fitness is bad, it's because it isn't a cure for cancer.

Thus, democratic elections might heighten the crises which decades of autocracy, conflict and injustice have created, but that wouldn't mean democracy is a menace. It just means that, with or without immediate democracy, other issues need to be addressed, and immediately. Further, I would almost never suggest that "democracy is a bad thing, such-and-such a country needs to wait for it." If democracy seems "dangerous" in a country, it means both that country's government and people and the rest of the world need to work at changing the reasons why it is dangerous, and in the meantime, a real (not shambolic) path to democracy is always a good thing.

Democracy isn't a panacea, but nothing else is ever better, in the long or even medium term.

It seems obvious to me that the idea of supporting Israel to the exclusion of Palestine is not a practical or even defensable answer however that's exactly what is happening at the moment in the US, arguably. The US state is of the opinions that most of the money that anyone has given to the Palestinians has been looted by corrupt thugs. However, the Fatah looted those funds, not the palestinian populace.

As I said earlier, trust, but verify, and all that. No money until they provide evidence that they are changing. Humanitarian aid--food and medicine--are one thing. But we should not bankroll a terrorist organization when there is no evidence that they are going to change their stripes.

The formal existence of elections in the absence of basic human rights is very as meaningless an exercise as dictatorial 99% plebicites. Basic, physical security. A functioning economy so that people can feed their families and have hopes and aspirations.

Why the Hamas government ever campaigned on the "destruction of Israel" and managed to get elected is beyond us, and LICKHERISH has suggested that I should "Start by informing yourself of the terrorist origins successive Israel leaders (hailed as statesmen despite their atrocious pasts) like Ben Gurion, Begin, Rabin, and Sharon" in hopes to uncover "the truth of the conflict".

As much as you might like the enactment of your preferred solution to all problems, exterminating them all is not an option.

Does this help clarify my fundamental views?

 

Fox is now claiming Hamas is in bed with al-Qaeda. Their segment today was entitled 'Hamas and al-Qaeda: The Secret Connection?'

There's no end to what the White House and corporate media will blame on al Qaeda.

.

 

The paradigm, as ive pointed out elesewhere, is now set and all events and issues are being filtered through it. "Ties to Al Qaeda" is new "the commies are coming!" mythology.

 

I agree with you Lick, the ‘war on terror’ is just the new ‘threat’ that the elite is trying to use to manipulate the American public.

But I’d like to ask you how you think people can help change things for the better?

I mean you tell people that there is no point voting, that political change is virtually impossible to achieve, and claim that the only way it will ever come is if a possible ‘collapse’ happens and that out of that just maybe there could possibly arise some type of ‘progressive’ system.

But don’t you think that such inaction would plays right into the hands of the elite, who if unopposed can accumulate more power?

 

Balbus, you are becoming a broken record.

To recognise that the system itself has been constructed to inherent safeguard elite control is not the same as inactivity. Each does what one can in one's immediate environment but that is all peaceful grassroots efforts can hope for.

Without a complete systemic overthrow or collapse, with summary eradication of the mechanisms and institutions of elite control (corporate owned and consolidated media empires, the military industrial complex, the corporate hijacking of and control over our very electoral processes - namely, vote gathering and more importantly counting - the covert spying and repression aspects of our governments via our "intelligence" sevices (read: black ops services), and the longtime domination of corporate interests over our legislatures, etc.) i am curious how YOU think viable sustainable reform could ever come about?

If these truths are not apparent to you, I fear you are placing too much faith on one party (I presume Socialists) to provide all the answers. I personally do not subscribe to one party platform as I believe the complexity of the individual alone, nevermind society in general, precludes the possibility of a one party/political theory answer.

I maintain that true comprehensive societal change will be possible only after the collapse of the present order precisely because the bulk of our Western populations have grown too smug and self concerned to even give more than passing attention to their civic duty to expect the necessary degree of mobilisation, without the loss of that comfort factor, for systemic change.

When that suffering comes though, sooner or later the elites who callously led us to that day will find no safe haven even in their gated communities.

 

Yes, giving back the Sinai, ending the occupation of Lebanon, handing over Gaza, negotiating for the creation of a Palestinian state in the west bank. This is "never wavering" from a "Greater Israel" plan?

Oh those crafty jews (I mean Zionists), so sneaky! Building a greater Israel by shrinking it. That and plotting 9/11, I tell you those jews (I mean Zionists) are just too sneaky!

I am also interested in the idea that everything is about Al Queda. How about the opposite ideology - Al Queda is so inconvenient to America haters that we must deny it exists. Or maybe you should go to formerly occupied Eastern Europe, and find out what happened when "the commies" really did come? Another reality too inconvenient for your ideology. I suppose there were no gulags, they existed only in mythology.

 

Your post is fine and I’ll come back to some of it’s points in a minute but I’m sorry but you still haven’t answered the question.

It’s not been a broken record, just wanting a straight answer. So once again.

You tell people that there is no point voting, that political change is virtually impossible to achieve, and claim that the only way it will ever come is if a possible ‘collapse’ happens and that out of that just maybe there could possibly arise some type of ‘progressive’ system.

But don’t you think that such inaction would plays right into the hands of the elite, who if unopposed can accumulate more power?

 

To recognise that the system itself has been constructed to inherent safeguard elite control is not the same as inactivity.

But you basically tell people to just wait around for ‘the collapse’ how is that different than being inactive?

Each does what one can in one's immediate environment but that is all peaceful grassroots efforts can hope for.

But according to an earlier reply you said people would have to work very hard and then they will only then achieve limited changes that only come in small increments in only limited areas, which even if achieved would anyway only be a useless patches.

Doesn’t sound like you have much faith in it?

Without a complete systemic overthrow or collapse, with summary eradication of the mechanisms and institutions of elite control

Yes I know you believe a ‘collapse’ is coming but you are unsure when and you don’t know that the ‘winners’ would be the people or the rich elite’s?

i am curious how YOU think viable sustainable reform could ever come about?

By opposing the elite, not giving in and hoping for a pipe dream ‘progressive’ phoenix arising from the ashes of a ‘collapse’ that may never come.

If these truths are not apparent to you, I fear you are placing too much faith on one party (I presume Socialists) to provide all the answers.

As I’ve said I’m a pragmatic socialist with strong environmental leanings, I don’t put my faith in ‘dogmas’.

I personally do not subscribe to one party platform as I believe the complexity of the individual alone, nevermind society in general, precludes the possibility of a one party/political theory answer.

So what is your way? Waiting for a possible collapse and hoping something good comes out of it?

You mention ‘civic duty’ again what do you mean by it?

When that suffering comes though, sooner or later the elites who callously led us to that day will find no safe haven even in their gated communities.

But on the other hand they may just be stronger and be able to have more control? Especially if we allow them to just have it unopposed.

 

As nebulous an answer as you accuse me of giving. HOW, Balbus? How will you propose to "oppose" the elites in such significant mass to undo their mechanisms of control and ensure a more broadbased, informed and participatory democratic future??

 

So Lick are you actually going to answer the question or just hope if you ask a few, people will forget you didn’t?

So

You tell people that there is no point voting, that political change is virtually impossible to achieve, and claim that the only way it will ever come is if a possible ‘collapse’ happens and that out of that just maybe there could possibly arise some type of ‘progressive’ system.

Why don’t you think that such inaction would plays right into the hands of the elite, who if unopposed can accumulate more power?

oh and please don’t come back with “you didn’t answer either…” I will and am very happy to do so (i'll begin a new thread so the issues can be explored) but can you get your finger out and fucking answer your question first and stop all this pissing around?

 

I answered that question Balbus.

Recognising that the system is inherently hijacked does not negate efforts to make a modicum of improvement in social conditions in one's immediate environs. But, as repeatedly asserted, unless the mechanisms which the elite few have established over the course of generations is brought down by the looming economic collapse or by violent revolt, you cannot expect it to be any different by just replacing one set of corporate selected faces for another set.

If you wish to continue asking the same question over and over, suggesting some form of psychosis, go right ahead. Nothing in what ive said equates to inactivity, just realistic assessment of the present order and the prevailing apathy and disregard from the broader public that only their personal loss of comfort and convenience will likely rouse them from.

Now, care to prove that you can do more than ask a repeatedly answered question and provide something more than "oppose the elite" as a viable plan from your point of view?

 

I answered that question Balbus.

No you haven’t

Recognising that the system is inherently hijacked does not negate efforts to make a modicum of improvement in social conditions in one's immediate environs.

Which means what exactly? You think the elite are just to powerful so we cannot do anything to oppose them? So we might as well do nothing?

But, as repeatedly asserted, unless the mechanisms which the elite few have established over the course of generations is brought down by the looming economic collapse or by violent revolt, you cannot expect it to be any different by just replacing one set of corporate selected faces for another set.

So we just wait for the collapse? Or hope for a violent revolution? Then hope that one of these might just maybe bring about some type of ‘progressive’ system?

If you wish to continue asking the same question over and over, suggesting some form of psychosis, go right ahead. Nothing in what ive said equates to inactivity,

You tell people that there is no point voting, that political change is virtually impossible to achieve, and that they should just wait around for 'the collapse' and you claim that you’re not suggesting inactivity?

**

But still the question remains unanswered, why?

What are you afraid of revealing Lick?

Why don’t you think that such inaction as you suggest would not just plays right into the hands of the elite, who if unopposed can accumulate more power?

 

Im not afraid of revealing anything. I see what you consider a manifesto from your new thread and have addressed your notions in full.

A list of what you would like see to see isnt a proposal for how to achieve those ends Balbus. Obviously you dont seem to make that connection so more power to you however you think youll ever overturn the present order.

{QUOTE]inaction as you suggest [/QUOTE]

And again, never suggested inaction. Thanks.

 

What?

That seemed like gibberish.

You have addressed my notions in full?

Are you saying that because you have commented on some things of mine - that were unrelated to the question I’ve asked here - you have in some way answered that question?

Look Lick that just seems like you’re trying to get out of answering this question AGAIN.

It is established that I prefer the democratic process and you prefer waiting around in the hope the system will collapse.

You claim that this is not calling for inaction but so far you have just claimed it isn’t, you haven’t shown it isn’t.

So what I’m asking is why don’t you think that such inaction (as just waiting around for a collapse that may never come while doing nothing to oppose the rich) would not plays right into the hands of the rich elite, who if unopposed can accumulate more wealth and power?

 

And I stated clearly that one can work to achieve a modicum of change in the immediate environ, but when the ovararcging system is already subjugated and insitutionalised to safeguard elite control, what deocratic process precisely are you suggesting you will use to oust the elites who deisgned and operate it to their advantage???

Really Balbus, are you that naive to think that simply voting for the candidate they parade before your tv screen you will achieve some set of ends that eliminate that same elite control??

Best you inform yourself on the US electoral system and who collects AND counts the votes (it may surprise you to learn that some 70-80% of all votes are processed by two lone companies whose top men happen to be brothers).

And how will you get enough candidates opposed to the elite system into office to achieve these sweeping changes to electoral finance, tax, military spending, etc.??

You are locked in some mode that refuses to see that I refer to the Federal/National infrastructure itself and the manner in which media, military, and other corporate interests have so co-opted it as to make sure progressive or alternative restructuring does not take hold.

Without the total elimination of these mechanisms first, you wont get your rewriting of the Constitution in the first place. So grassroots activity is fine for grassroots level results in the local area, but overall unless you have more than a list of what SHOULD be, it WONT be until the present order is overturned. Simple as.

You call that inactivity, I call it realism.

Do note that the present order IS on a collision course with collapse and one of proportions that will make the 1930's depression era seem like a dress rehearsal.

 

um. To be fair, the Hamas is an extremist Islamic organization.

You don't think Saudi Arabia would have any interest in their laws???

Don't be so naive to the thoughts that some countries are willing to support a Palestinian state upon religious-based values.

Not saying that Saudi Arabians are evil demons, but again, basic human rights and physical security of personhood are easily influenced when there are talks of war.

 

You are really on to something absoluetly. Comparing things to or "linking" things to Al Qauda is the new "this guy is just like Hitler" but coming from the Right.

The day after 9/11 I was on an other site and we were discussing the issue. I said at the time, "Wait, before you know it, there will be a "war on terror" which will be about as inane and about as fruitless as the "war on drugs. The Right HAS to have an "enemy" and now anyone they don't like will be "linked with terror." It's true.

 

ok.

The US actually did the right thing when they helped push Israel to disengage themselves out from Palestine and their settlements. The US backed a Palestinian state, a democratically elected one, and tried to make peace talks with Arafat. Little did they realize the people would elect an Islamic extremist government, instead of Arafat.

 

Now Fox is blaming the sinking of that ferry in the Red Sea on al Qaeda.

.

 

Actually, the Bush administration bypassed Arafat completely and tried to put its own person in control of Palestine but it didn't work. Arafat was essentially under house arrest in his final years. Israel even bombed Arafat's compound until nothing was left but one room with Arafat by candlelight and with his cell phone. Then Israel issued an ultimatum that it would bomb the last room if Arafat didn't leave in ten minutes. Arafat called their bluff and nothing happened.

When Bush was asked by the press what he was going to do about this crisis, he replied, "um, Arafat still has some battery power left on his cell phone."

.