Will Israel eventually have a pre-emptive strike on Iran?
When I first asked him what he thought about nuclear Iran, My Dad told me that this had happened before. I forget which country he said it was, but a while back another nation in the middle east where Islam was the dominant religion had a Jew-hating leader and was gong nuclear. The Isreali air force flattened his nation and he abandoned his ambition.
I see no need to assume history will not repeat itself.
I see no need to assume history will not repeat itself.
Your needs may not be sufficient.
I see no need to assume history will not repeat itself.
I think it was Iraq back in the '70s or something.
I don't think the situation is at all analogous to that. Even if a majority of Iranians are no longer all that crazy about their theocracy, there is still a large minority that supports the mullahs in charge, vs. the fact that the Romanov monarchy had no support .
Speaking of Russia/the USSR, the day after Trotsky squashed the Krondstadt Uprising they celebrated the 50th anniversary of the Paris Commune. Apparently with no irony of any kind. He also certainly had no problem getting the Red Army to open fire, did he?
_________________
"The man who has fed the chicken every day throughout its life at last wrings its neck instead, showing that more refined views as to the uniformity of nature would have been useful to the chicken." ? Bertrand Russell
not entirely correct, the monarchy had plenty of support in both the Black Hundreds and amongst the higher echelons of the officer corps of the military - and there were plenty of monarchists besides these; Kornilov for one, as well as Generals Krasnov and Denikin amongst many others. Thugh you would be correct in that the paricular Romanov in question at the time of the February revolution had no support in continuing his rule, it does not necessarily follow that there was no support for a monarchy (or even a pseudo-constitutional monarchy) - the bourgeois parties were all to happy to accomodate themselves to a monarchy/dictator - the Kornilov affair springs to mind here.
The key word here also is minority against majority.
Russia 1905 may be a better analogy though, that said all analogies are in themselves false as compared to a proper analysis of the material conditions of the day.
well, comparing Paris to Kronstadt is to do a major disservice to the Communards - and I'm not entirely sure why you would bring it up other than to attack my political position. Both Lenin and Trotsky have put forward answers to these attacks. Also, though I can't find it now (and I don't expect you to accept it on faith alone) I read a couple of months ago that when the old soviet archives were opened a report on the Kronstadt revolt was found - in it it told of how a 13 year old boy questioned the sailors who had seized the fortress why they had put themselves as a higher priority for food rations, denying the other inhabitants of the island grain rations etc (this at a time when some parts of the country had resorted to eating rats and even, I believe, cannibalism) - the sailors hung him. Like I said I can't find where i read this in my pile of books etc but I'm still looking and I'm fairly certain it is in one of my Zizek books.
edit: while this isn't a source for the above incident it is entirely relevant to accusations around Kornstadt - Trotsky was right
SilverPikmin
Deinonychus
Joined: 1 Aug 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 360
Location: Merseyside, England, UK
And besides, there's at least one group of Arabs who are counted as such but are also staunchly pro-Israel: the Druze.
Pro-Israel Arabs exist? That sounds like an oxymoron to be. Even Mahmoud Abbas whom the US calls "moderate" is really critical of Israel's policies. It's just that he decided not to use violence against Israel.
Please tell me you're not thinking that Arab = Muslim and Muslim = Arab.
In any event, the Druze consider themselves Muslim, but most other Muslims do not, probably in the same way Mormons consider themselves Christian, but a lot of Christians do not think they are. This is because both Mormons and Druze have made additions to these faiths (extra prophets, new holy books) that orthodox followers consider both unacceptable and heretical. But in the West "heretical" means one thing, and in the Islamic world quite another. As in, the Druze historically got slaughtered in pogroms from time to time and the Mormons run one state (Utah) and arguably two more (Arizona and Idaho).
Anyway, the Druze are ethnically Arab, and the Druze serve in Israel's military and die on her behalf. And have been doing so since the 1950s, when they requested that their exemption to the military draft be lifted.
http://www.jcpa.org/jl/hit06.htm
A Minority Within a Minority
The Druze are a minority within a minority in the State of Israel, an Arab-speaking community loyal to the state that has suffered hundreds of casualties in its defense, and whose men serve today in high-ranking and sensitive positions within the Israeli military and security forces. Their willingness to accept the burdens of compulsory military service have led to parallel demands for equal rights within Israeli society.
In their struggle to obtain those rights, various problems and conflicts have surfaced from within the community. Some have called for identification with Arab nationalism, partly in reaction to a perception that the Israeli government takes them for granted and now prefers to court the Palestinian Arabs. Most, however, seek full integration within the Jewish state.
I knew that not all Arabs were Muslim. But what group of Arabs LOVE being occupied by Israel and LOVE the siege and LOVE having their homes evicted because Jewish settlers "need to move in"?
The Druze were always a minority though in the Arab countries; Israel is a sort of haven for them too as it is for the Jews.
What trend and what religious totalitarianism? What are you talking about, and what do you know about Israel that I don't?
I see no need to assume history will not repeat itself.
That was Saddam Hussein from Iraq, who got it from the French. Later everyone condemned Israel, and later said the IDF was probably right, when they found out who Saddam was.
Nevertheless, it's a different story now.
Some Druze insist they're not arabs.
They weren't "brothers" of the arabs. They actually were neutral at the beginning, and later on joined the Israeli forces in the war of independence.
Identity politics is not so simple as it sometimes look...
What trend and what religious totalitarianism? What are you talking about, and what do you know about Israel that I don't?
http://www.counterpunch.org/cook02162010.html
What trend and what religious totalitarianism? What are you talking about, and what do you know about Israel that I don't?
http://www.counterpunch.org/cook02162010.html
That's not religious totalitarianism. That's perhaps racism. Israel is racist, it always was.
But since I know the Jaffa and South Tel-Aviv situation a bit - the arabs there don't have to be paranoid, Jews are evicted as well. It's not against their nationality, it's against their poverty. New houses are built for rich people. That's another different problem. I wish they would fight together (some do).
Anyway, even if it's racist, what does it have to do with religious totalitarianism? The new owners will be secular...
And besides, there's at least one group of Arabs who are counted as such but are also staunchly pro-Israel: the Druze.
Pro-Israel Arabs exist? That sounds like an oxymoron to be. Even Mahmoud Abbas whom the US calls "moderate" is really critical of Israel's policies. It's just that he decided not to use violence against Israel.
Please tell me you're not thinking that Arab = Muslim and Muslim = Arab.
In any event, the Druze consider themselves Muslim, but most other Muslims do not, probably in the same way Mormons consider themselves Christian, but a lot of Christians do not think they are. This is because both Mormons and Druze have made additions to these faiths (extra prophets, new holy books) that orthodox followers consider both unacceptable and heretical. But in the West "heretical" means one thing, and in the Islamic world quite another. As in, the Druze historically got slaughtered in pogroms from time to time and the Mormons run one state (Utah) and arguably two more (Arizona and Idaho).
Anyway, the Druze are ethnically Arab, and the Druze serve in Israel's military and die on her behalf. And have been doing so since the 1950s, when they requested that their exemption to the military draft be lifted.
http://www.jcpa.org/jl/hit06.htm
A Minority Within a Minority
The Druze are a minority within a minority in the State of Israel, an Arab-speaking community loyal to the state that has suffered hundreds of casualties in its defense, and whose men serve today in high-ranking and sensitive positions within the Israeli military and security forces. Their willingness to accept the burdens of compulsory military service have led to parallel demands for equal rights within Israeli society.
In their struggle to obtain those rights, various problems and conflicts have surfaced from within the community. Some have called for identification with Arab nationalism, partly in reaction to a perception that the Israeli government takes them for granted and now prefers to court the Palestinian Arabs. Most, however, seek full integration within the Jewish state.
I like your analogy of the Druze with the Mormons. But you're wrong when you say that "heresy means different things" in Islam and in Christiandom.
They mean very similiar things.
How do you think the Mormons got control of Utah?
it was because in the 1800's they were forced to flee the civilized world and ended up in that worst lunar landscape desert region of North America because- in New England and in the mid-west they kept getting raped and murdered in porgroms by mainstream Christian Amricans!
Much like the Sunni's and Shiites putting aside thier animosity to vent their even greater common hatred of the Druze the often mutualy hostile Protestants and Catholics in 19th centurey America were given to forget their differences to express their greater common hatred of the Mormons.
Just to add a little further information about the Druze (as much as I know and studied) - the Palestinian identity didn't exist for always. They were arab-speaking Ottoman subjects, mostly muslim. After an Arab nationalism started, it was based on religion, largely (in contrast to Turkish nationalism, after the Ottoman Empire collapsed, which was based on secularism, not religion and not ethnicity).
Some favoured a pan-Syrian identity, and at least some Muslim Syrian leaders thought that Palestine is "theirs", and that the Arabs in Palestine are Syrian. The region was known as Syria-Palaestina after Judeans were evicted, and that's were the name Palestinian comes from - it referred to both Jews and Arabs living here, until the creation of the state of Israel. The original Palaestina was the area of Gaza, and named so for the Phillistines who lived there in biblical times. After Israelites were exiled at most, the Judah tribed expanded north apparently, and Judea was used as a general name for the land of Israel. After the revolt, the Romans changed the name of the land.
Of course, when Druze living in Palestine had to choose between Palestinian Jews and Palestinian Muslims, they didn't automatically join the people of the same language, because they persecuted them. They hoped the Jews would treat them better, and decided to live together with them eventually. On the other hand, Druze who live in the occupied territories don't tend to trust the Israeli side, naturally.
Interesting enough, the Arab revolts were led by a religious leader who seeked help from the Nazis themselves, and new researches show that it's not even sure that all Arabs and Muslims supported his leadership and crazy ideas.
The whole identity issue is very complex and interesting here. What I write here is what I know. You are free to contradict me if you know other claims.
