The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I watched Threads last night, which, if you know me, you'll know is not a good idea. Threads is a British film made in the mid 80's which deals with the impact of nuclear war on society (the 'impact' being that it wipes society and most of humanity off the map). The first half deals with the build up to the war (a series of incidents in the middle east provide the flashpoint, and they are inter-cut with various news items and government announcements heavy on phrases such as 'precautionary measure' and 'international condemnation') whilst the second half looks at the aftermath. Anyway, a friend of mine asked to watch it and, in much the same way as people enjoy going on rollercoasters, I enjoy watching a film which infuses me with extraordinary terror. So it was with the mingled sensations of fear, excitement, and anticipation that I pressed the Play button on the VCR. A little over 2 hours later and the shell-shocked face of my friend indicated that the film had had it's desired effect and that she now had the futility of war impressed quite firmly upon her. So I stopped the tape.
On came the news, and on came a number of items dealing with the ongoing violence in Israel and the coming war in Iraq. We watched for a short while until we realised that perhaps listening to various people from the Middle East discussing 'precautionary measures' whilst shrugging off 'international condemnation' was not the best thing for us to do post film.
And so it is that I find myself thinking once more of Israel. It's a place that is occupying the thoughts and minds of many right now. Admittedly, a fair few of them only think of it in terms of "Why should I care what happens in Israel?” and should you be one of them then I would advise you to find a copy of Threads, watch it, and then take a few days off work to recover. But the fact remains that the current situation in Israel is very, VERY bad, and whether we like it or not it may well all end up having to care what happens there whether we like it or not.
Before I go any further, I should declare my own personal biases. I despise Ariel Sharon. I believe him to be a warmongering nazi of a man who is sacrificing peace in order to play out his own personal bigotry. I'm also sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, by which I mean their right to self ruled homeland that is free of Israeli interference and in turn does not seek to interfere with the running of Israel. All straight forward so far.
That said, certain things should also be borne in mind before leaping to the conclusion that Israel is bad and Palestine is good. We have been hearing a lot recently about suicide bombers and Palestinian terrorists. They have been active long before now, with fanatical bombers and terrorists having waged war on Israel for decades. Whilst we tot up the daily death toll of Palestinian people due to Sharon's butchery, we should never forget that Israeli's have lived in the shadow of Palestinian and Arab sponsored terrorism for a long, long time.
Not only that, but since it's creation Israel has found itself in a position of fighting for it's very existence. The Arab and Palestinian states surrounding Israel swore to destroy it. They didn't succeed. But they tried (and in some cases, tried again). When that failed, some saw sense and sued for peace (Egypt, although recently it has severed most diplomatic links) whilst others sought to fund those who wanted to continue the violence. Thus Hamas, the PLO etc found that they had a source of money, which would enable them to wage a war of terror against Israel.
So all in all, it's becoming increasingly clear to see where the Israeli siege mentality comes in. It's easy for the rest of the world to condemn the actions of Israel, but can you think of many reasons why Israel should pay any attention? What did the international community do for Jews before and during WWII? Oh, that's right; there were various statements of condemnation at best, tacit approval at worst. How about during the various short and bloody conflicts of the past 40 years? The international community condemned the actions of Syria, Egypt, Jordan etc in the strongest possible terms...and did nothing more. What about the numerous terrorist attacks that have been aimed at Israel? Yes, more condemnation. No, no real action taken. And currently? Well, Israel is now facing much condemnation. Does Ariel Sharon think that anything will really be done to stop any of the military action? No. Do the Israeli people trust the international community to bring those responsible for the terror attacks on them to justice? No. Can anyone really blame them for thinking this way, under the weight of their short and bloody history? No.
So when I say that I condemn the actions of the Israeli military over the last few weeks, I'm not (as those conservatives such as Belldandy who support what Israel is doing would have you think) a simpering liberal who thinks that the Palestinians are on the side of the angels. I'm not (as certain members of the Israeli government would have you believe) an anti-Semite who wants to see Israel wiped from the map. And however much I sympathise with the Palestinian cause, I'm certainly not praising the actions of those bombers and fanatics who have caused carnage in Israel. I feel the need to make that clear as it seems that we have a tendency to assume that by condemning one we support the other. In other words, their is a tendency to see the world in black and white.
That isn't the case of course; there are shades of grey in any dispute, and this one is no different. Yet we are still quick to try and assign the roles of good guy and bad guy. Perhaps this makes things simpler for us. Perhaps we're still hungover from WWII, where one side was clearly in the right and one was clearly in the wrong (and yet even there, a few moral ambiguities existed; try asking a member of the UK Military about the fate of the Karen people in Burma...). Perhaps there are a lot more anti-Semites in the world than I realised. Whatever it is, most people seem anxious to lay the blame with one side or other. Each side has it's apologists who deplore the atrocities committed against them whilst justifying or downplaying those committed against the other side. All perfectly understandable given human nature, but not exactly likely to bring hostilities to an end.
(As a side note, I realise that by saying how much I dislike the Israeli leader, apologists for Israel would say that I am a supporter of Yasser Arafat. For the record, Arafat is, in my opinion, a corrupt old man who is in too deep with the various Palestinian terrorist factions to function as an effective leader of his people. He cannot be regarded by Israel as a man to negotiate with, or a man who can stop the terrorism whilst he is in hock to it's perpetrators. And yet, who else is there?)
The problem lies in self-interest. Actually, that's wrong; the problem lies in the fact that we are refusing to acknowledge our self-interest. The US are currently particularly interested in solving the problems in Israel. Isn't it funny how they only became interested in a solution involving both sides when it became clear that Middle Eastern support for it's little Boy's Own war against Iraq was approximately nil due to their speed in condemning Palestinian terror and sloth in condemning that which originates from Israel. The same can be said of the UK and, to a lesser degree, Europe. Various Moslem nations (particularly Saudi Arabia) are now seeking a resolution of the Israeli conflict, offering recognition of Israel and normalised relationships (i.e. the official position will no longer be "Death to Israel!"). Yet they were much less interested before their own people made uneasy mutterings about their leaders supporting the US who in turn support Israel who in turn oppress Palestinians. So are the Moslem nations interested in peace for the Palestinians, or are they only interested in holding on to their power?
We only act when it benefits ourselves; that is human nature. But we create high-minded rhetoric (such as 'international condemnation') to make that human nature seem like so much more than it is. I do believe that many people do want to see an end to killing in Israel for humanitarian reasons, but I wouldn't count our leaders among them. Nor would I condemn them for acting in the best interests of their own countries (human nature remember; although I do dislike the fact that we are still at evolutiononary stage where the most important thing in our lives is our own little fief). But I do condemn the fact that we all seem so determined to find somewhere to cast the blame, because that is what justifies the high minded rhetoric and disguises our own self-interest. In Threads, that led to a nuclear exchange. In Israel, it leads to further violence, which may spread beyond what we are currently seeing.
My point is this; it doesn't matter who started the violence, who is historically to blame, or who is a darker shade of grey up to now on the moral scale. What matter is that it needs to stop; Ariel Sharon knows he will not stop the suicide bombs using his current tactics. Whether you support him or not, I think that this is pretty much irrefutable. Nor will Yasser Arafat ever have sufficient authority to be able to stop the suicide bombers. It is in our interests for the violence to stop because it could spread far beyond the borders of Israel, especially when Dubya stamps on the Iraqi's whilst allowing the Israeli army to butcher the Palestinians. I'm getting tired of seeing people argue over semantics about the terror in Israel; pro-Israeli, pro-Palestinian, those who seek a secular solution, those who use religion to justify the violence, etc. None of it really matters I'm afraid. The only thing that matters is stopping the cycle of violence and terror. The only thing stopping us is that we don't see how it benefits us. So go and watch Threads. You'll start to get an idea of why I think stopping the violence in the Middle East benefits every living being on the planet.
On came the news, and on came a number of items dealing with the ongoing violence in Israel and the coming war in Iraq. We watched for a short while until we realised that perhaps listening to various people from the Middle East discussing 'precautionary measures' whilst shrugging off 'international condemnation' was not the best thing for us to do post film.
And so it is that I find myself thinking once more of Israel. It's a place that is occupying the thoughts and minds of many right now. Admittedly, a fair few of them only think of it in terms of "Why should I care what happens in Israel?” and should you be one of them then I would advise you to find a copy of Threads, watch it, and then take a few days off work to recover. But the fact remains that the current situation in Israel is very, VERY bad, and whether we like it or not it may well all end up having to care what happens there whether we like it or not.
Before I go any further, I should declare my own personal biases. I despise Ariel Sharon. I believe him to be a warmongering nazi of a man who is sacrificing peace in order to play out his own personal bigotry. I'm also sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, by which I mean their right to self ruled homeland that is free of Israeli interference and in turn does not seek to interfere with the running of Israel. All straight forward so far.
That said, certain things should also be borne in mind before leaping to the conclusion that Israel is bad and Palestine is good. We have been hearing a lot recently about suicide bombers and Palestinian terrorists. They have been active long before now, with fanatical bombers and terrorists having waged war on Israel for decades. Whilst we tot up the daily death toll of Palestinian people due to Sharon's butchery, we should never forget that Israeli's have lived in the shadow of Palestinian and Arab sponsored terrorism for a long, long time.
Not only that, but since it's creation Israel has found itself in a position of fighting for it's very existence. The Arab and Palestinian states surrounding Israel swore to destroy it. They didn't succeed. But they tried (and in some cases, tried again). When that failed, some saw sense and sued for peace (Egypt, although recently it has severed most diplomatic links) whilst others sought to fund those who wanted to continue the violence. Thus Hamas, the PLO etc found that they had a source of money, which would enable them to wage a war of terror against Israel.
So all in all, it's becoming increasingly clear to see where the Israeli siege mentality comes in. It's easy for the rest of the world to condemn the actions of Israel, but can you think of many reasons why Israel should pay any attention? What did the international community do for Jews before and during WWII? Oh, that's right; there were various statements of condemnation at best, tacit approval at worst. How about during the various short and bloody conflicts of the past 40 years? The international community condemned the actions of Syria, Egypt, Jordan etc in the strongest possible terms...and did nothing more. What about the numerous terrorist attacks that have been aimed at Israel? Yes, more condemnation. No, no real action taken. And currently? Well, Israel is now facing much condemnation. Does Ariel Sharon think that anything will really be done to stop any of the military action? No. Do the Israeli people trust the international community to bring those responsible for the terror attacks on them to justice? No. Can anyone really blame them for thinking this way, under the weight of their short and bloody history? No.
So when I say that I condemn the actions of the Israeli military over the last few weeks, I'm not (as those conservatives such as Belldandy who support what Israel is doing would have you think) a simpering liberal who thinks that the Palestinians are on the side of the angels. I'm not (as certain members of the Israeli government would have you believe) an anti-Semite who wants to see Israel wiped from the map. And however much I sympathise with the Palestinian cause, I'm certainly not praising the actions of those bombers and fanatics who have caused carnage in Israel. I feel the need to make that clear as it seems that we have a tendency to assume that by condemning one we support the other. In other words, their is a tendency to see the world in black and white.
That isn't the case of course; there are shades of grey in any dispute, and this one is no different. Yet we are still quick to try and assign the roles of good guy and bad guy. Perhaps this makes things simpler for us. Perhaps we're still hungover from WWII, where one side was clearly in the right and one was clearly in the wrong (and yet even there, a few moral ambiguities existed; try asking a member of the UK Military about the fate of the Karen people in Burma...). Perhaps there are a lot more anti-Semites in the world than I realised. Whatever it is, most people seem anxious to lay the blame with one side or other. Each side has it's apologists who deplore the atrocities committed against them whilst justifying or downplaying those committed against the other side. All perfectly understandable given human nature, but not exactly likely to bring hostilities to an end.
(As a side note, I realise that by saying how much I dislike the Israeli leader, apologists for Israel would say that I am a supporter of Yasser Arafat. For the record, Arafat is, in my opinion, a corrupt old man who is in too deep with the various Palestinian terrorist factions to function as an effective leader of his people. He cannot be regarded by Israel as a man to negotiate with, or a man who can stop the terrorism whilst he is in hock to it's perpetrators. And yet, who else is there?)
The problem lies in self-interest. Actually, that's wrong; the problem lies in the fact that we are refusing to acknowledge our self-interest. The US are currently particularly interested in solving the problems in Israel. Isn't it funny how they only became interested in a solution involving both sides when it became clear that Middle Eastern support for it's little Boy's Own war against Iraq was approximately nil due to their speed in condemning Palestinian terror and sloth in condemning that which originates from Israel. The same can be said of the UK and, to a lesser degree, Europe. Various Moslem nations (particularly Saudi Arabia) are now seeking a resolution of the Israeli conflict, offering recognition of Israel and normalised relationships (i.e. the official position will no longer be "Death to Israel!"). Yet they were much less interested before their own people made uneasy mutterings about their leaders supporting the US who in turn support Israel who in turn oppress Palestinians. So are the Moslem nations interested in peace for the Palestinians, or are they only interested in holding on to their power?
We only act when it benefits ourselves; that is human nature. But we create high-minded rhetoric (such as 'international condemnation') to make that human nature seem like so much more than it is. I do believe that many people do want to see an end to killing in Israel for humanitarian reasons, but I wouldn't count our leaders among them. Nor would I condemn them for acting in the best interests of their own countries (human nature remember; although I do dislike the fact that we are still at evolutiononary stage where the most important thing in our lives is our own little fief). But I do condemn the fact that we all seem so determined to find somewhere to cast the blame, because that is what justifies the high minded rhetoric and disguises our own self-interest. In Threads, that led to a nuclear exchange. In Israel, it leads to further violence, which may spread beyond what we are currently seeing.
My point is this; it doesn't matter who started the violence, who is historically to blame, or who is a darker shade of grey up to now on the moral scale. What matter is that it needs to stop; Ariel Sharon knows he will not stop the suicide bombs using his current tactics. Whether you support him or not, I think that this is pretty much irrefutable. Nor will Yasser Arafat ever have sufficient authority to be able to stop the suicide bombers. It is in our interests for the violence to stop because it could spread far beyond the borders of Israel, especially when Dubya stamps on the Iraqi's whilst allowing the Israeli army to butcher the Palestinians. I'm getting tired of seeing people argue over semantics about the terror in Israel; pro-Israeli, pro-Palestinian, those who seek a secular solution, those who use religion to justify the violence, etc. None of it really matters I'm afraid. The only thing that matters is stopping the cycle of violence and terror. The only thing stopping us is that we don't see how it benefits us. So go and watch Threads. You'll start to get an idea of why I think stopping the violence in the Middle East benefits every living being on the planet.
Page:
On the point of a peaceful resolution you might find the following page interesting:
http://www.angelfire.com/ok/mafazal/peace.html
It's written by a guy I met briefly last summer, he's a law lecturer at Nottingham uni and (I think) has a doctorate in philosophy.
He's had quite a lot of stuff published, books and stuff, some listed on his homepage:
www.angelfire.com/ok/mafazal
A lot of the article (first link) is a bit technical and irrelivant to general political bilge, and if you thought this post was long...
Well, you can take a look anyway
http://www.angelfire.com/ok/mafazal/peace.html
It's written by a guy I met briefly last summer, he's a law lecturer at Nottingham uni and (I think) has a doctorate in philosophy.
He's had quite a lot of stuff published, books and stuff, some listed on his homepage:
www.angelfire.com/ok/mafazal
A lot of the article (first link) is a bit technical and irrelivant to general political bilge, and if you thought this post was long...
Well, you can take a look anyway
Goatboy wrote:
> And this was posted on the same day a post won about swimming.
>
> *shakes head*
> Swimming...
It may be an un-written rule that SR don't award GADs to political posts?
> And this was posted on the same day a post won about swimming.
>
> *shakes head*
> Swimming...
It may be an un-written rule that SR don't award GADs to political posts?
And this was posted on the same day a post won about swimming.
*shakes head*
Swimming...
*shakes head*
Swimming...
I can't even pretend to understand the reasons for this conflict anymore.
I just see retarded behaviour on both sides.
"We blow up a bus of your people in retaliation for your attack"
"Then we shoot at a crowd with missiles in return"
"Then we shall suicide bomb your church"
"In which case we shall bomb you"
Eventually, there's going to be 1 person left and he'll attack the mirror.
I just see retarded behaviour on both sides.
"We blow up a bus of your people in retaliation for your attack"
"Then we shoot at a crowd with missiles in return"
"Then we shall suicide bomb your church"
"In which case we shall bomb you"
Eventually, there's going to be 1 person left and he'll attack the mirror.
I think the first steps in any kind of peace settlement is to guarantee the security of the Israeli's and the Palestinians in an effective way. All too often the same pattern is repeated;
Peace talks, suicide bombing because of past attack, retaliation for suicide bombing, peace talks fail.
Someone - I forget who - has the rather silly idea of a huge steel fence to seperate the two, obviously the guy had never heard of ladders, but the idea is, I think valid in some way, except use UN forces drawn from a variety of nations - not just America or Arab nations - and establish a safe zone with clear rules of engagement for the UN troops. Then start talking.
This leaves the obvious problem of when to withdraw the UN forces, they may well be there for some time, and also the matter of those living in the UN area, but if it can stop the cycle of violence for long enough then people on both sides are bound to start seeing the benefits because, ultimately, I believe most people on either side want the same thing - peace for their people.
Peace talks, suicide bombing because of past attack, retaliation for suicide bombing, peace talks fail.
Someone - I forget who - has the rather silly idea of a huge steel fence to seperate the two, obviously the guy had never heard of ladders, but the idea is, I think valid in some way, except use UN forces drawn from a variety of nations - not just America or Arab nations - and establish a safe zone with clear rules of engagement for the UN troops. Then start talking.
This leaves the obvious problem of when to withdraw the UN forces, they may well be there for some time, and also the matter of those living in the UN area, but if it can stop the cycle of violence for long enough then people on both sides are bound to start seeing the benefits because, ultimately, I believe most people on either side want the same thing - peace for their people.
allardini wrote:
> The problem cannot be solved internally: Sharon and Arafat are both
> gimps. The problem cannot be solved externally: Blair and Bush countries.
If any sort of fair outcome is going to happedn then definately Blair and Bush would be out of the question. Do you realistically think that the USA, a country that gives $3-5 billion per year to the Israeli government?
> The problem cannot be solved internally: Sharon and Arafat are both
> gimps. The problem cannot be solved externally: Blair and Bush countries.
If any sort of fair outcome is going to happedn then definately Blair and Bush would be out of the question. Do you realistically think that the USA, a country that gives $3-5 billion per year to the Israeli government?
HalloHowArtThou wrote:
Although, yes
> there are the odd loonies around, but there are those sort of people
> everywhere
Odd loonies? Do you actually know how many suicide bombs there have been in Israel in the past two years? Considering the organisation of this sort of thing and their number, if Arafat was keeping things under control, there would barely be any bombs.
The problem cannot be solved internally: Sharon and Arafat are both gimps. The problem cannot be solved externally: Blair and Bush, the most powerful people with a hope in stopping it, are obsessed with Iraq and fall into the same category as Arafat and Sharon.
It would have to be solved by electing new leaders for the countries.
Although, yes
> there are the odd loonies around, but there are those sort of people
> everywhere
Odd loonies? Do you actually know how many suicide bombs there have been in Israel in the past two years? Considering the organisation of this sort of thing and their number, if Arafat was keeping things under control, there would barely be any bombs.
The problem cannot be solved internally: Sharon and Arafat are both gimps. The problem cannot be solved externally: Blair and Bush, the most powerful people with a hope in stopping it, are obsessed with Iraq and fall into the same category as Arafat and Sharon.
It would have to be solved by electing new leaders for the countries.
To clarify: The leader should be chosen by the Palestinian people. Not the Israeli's, Americans, Arabs, Persians, Europeans, or any external group.
HalloHowArtThou wrote:
> As I've mentioned before, should Arafat be stripped of
> his position and the Israelis/Americans (these days there are near
> enough the same thing) choose somebody else to take his position, all
> hell will break loose.
I don't disagree with you there (look at the last sentence of the paragraph of mine you quoted). However, I believe that his visible ties to terror mean that anyone in the Israeli government opposed to peace will have ample excuse to say "We won't negotiate".
What would be wrong with a more acceptable figurehead as the leader of the Palestinians? After all, the real power structure doesn't have to change. As you rightly say, the media has a lot of say in how the public perceive things, so why not take away their favourite stick used to beat the Palestinian cause?
> As I've mentioned before, should Arafat be stripped of
> his position and the Israelis/Americans (these days there are near
> enough the same thing) choose somebody else to take his position, all
> hell will break loose.
I don't disagree with you there (look at the last sentence of the paragraph of mine you quoted). However, I believe that his visible ties to terror mean that anyone in the Israeli government opposed to peace will have ample excuse to say "We won't negotiate".
What would be wrong with a more acceptable figurehead as the leader of the Palestinians? After all, the real power structure doesn't have to change. As you rightly say, the media has a lot of say in how the public perceive things, so why not take away their favourite stick used to beat the Palestinian cause?
Very good post there Light, I have one main quibble with your argument;
> (As a side note, I realise that by saying how much I dislike the
> Israeli leader, apologists for Israel would say that I am a supporter
> of Yasser Arafat. For the record, Arafat is, in my opinion, a corrupt
> old man who is in too deep with the various Palestinian terrorist
> factions to function as an effective leader of his people. He cannot
> be regarded by Israel as a man to negotiate with, or a man who can
> stop the terrorism whilst he is in hock to it's perpetrators. And yet,
> who else is there?)
My disagreement with this paragraph is not only because of me being an arab and my dad being a palestinian refugee from the early 50s (he wasn't even ten yet) but also because of how you describe him. But in some cases you can't be blamed for your perception of him, it's the media. The media plays a massive part in these things. In turn what the media says about someone basically sets what the rest of the country thinks of that person.
Being also a close follower of the arabic media I can assure you I have heard both sides of the argument and both perceptions of the sitatuion there.
Although Arafat is indeed percieved as a 'a corrupt
old man who is in too deep with the various Palestinian terrorist
factions to function as an effective leader of his people' as you say, I can assure he isn't. Although he is deep vithin various Palestinian terrorist groups this is a good thing. He may be an old, frail man but he is respected and looked up to around Palestine. His involvement within these factions is good because he manages to hold the groups together and stop them from doing irrational things (Although, yes there are the odd loonies around, but there are those sort of people everywhere). As I've mentioned before, should Arafat be stripped of his position and the Israelis/Americans (these days there are near enough the same thing) choose somebody else to take his position, all hell will break loose.
> (As a side note, I realise that by saying how much I dislike the
> Israeli leader, apologists for Israel would say that I am a supporter
> of Yasser Arafat. For the record, Arafat is, in my opinion, a corrupt
> old man who is in too deep with the various Palestinian terrorist
> factions to function as an effective leader of his people. He cannot
> be regarded by Israel as a man to negotiate with, or a man who can
> stop the terrorism whilst he is in hock to it's perpetrators. And yet,
> who else is there?)
My disagreement with this paragraph is not only because of me being an arab and my dad being a palestinian refugee from the early 50s (he wasn't even ten yet) but also because of how you describe him. But in some cases you can't be blamed for your perception of him, it's the media. The media plays a massive part in these things. In turn what the media says about someone basically sets what the rest of the country thinks of that person.
Being also a close follower of the arabic media I can assure you I have heard both sides of the argument and both perceptions of the sitatuion there.
Although Arafat is indeed percieved as a 'a corrupt
old man who is in too deep with the various Palestinian terrorist
factions to function as an effective leader of his people' as you say, I can assure he isn't. Although he is deep vithin various Palestinian terrorist groups this is a good thing. He may be an old, frail man but he is respected and looked up to around Palestine. His involvement within these factions is good because he manages to hold the groups together and stop them from doing irrational things (Although, yes there are the odd loonies around, but there are those sort of people everywhere). As I've mentioned before, should Arafat be stripped of his position and the Israelis/Americans (these days there are near enough the same thing) choose somebody else to take his position, all hell will break loose.
Page: