Political Cartoons

Both sides are going to have to admit fault, offer concessions, and do what they can to break 3000 years of barbaric behavior.

How simplistic and idealistic, and unrealistic.

From:

Shy of the option presented in the second cartoon, how do you see this ending? Do you think it's realistic that one side will peacefully admit defeat?

It's unrealistic because of the mindset of the people involved. It's simplistic because I don't have a vested interest, nor a desire to present a complex solution. I don't think any American (save maybe Native Americans) has the perspective needed, which is why we shouldn't be involved. It's a ridiculous, ancient fight that isn't and never should have involved the U.S.

From:

I am an American, I have discussed this at length, listened to different ideas for solutions- I just didn't do it so much here. If you have no vested interest, then why post the cartoons? Why pay attention at all?

Here is a thought for you, name one single time in world history when there has been no conflict and the whole world has been at peace. Bet you can't.

From:

I just didn't do it so much here. If you have no vested interest, then why post the cartoons? Why pay attention at all?

Fair enough, posting in haste at work caused a bad choice of words. We shouldn't, as U.S. citizens, have the level of interest we do. This fight is not ours, and is aggravated by our involvement. Our support of Israel also damages our reputation and complicates foreign policy.

Here is a thought for you, name one single time in world history when there has been no conflict and the whole world has been at peace. Bet you can't.

You'd win that bet if anyone took it. I'm not sure how that explains our unwarranted involvement in this conflict.

From:

I'm not sure how that explains our unwarranted involvement in this conflict.

My original comment to you was that your idea was simplistic and idealistic. I am telling you why. As for the fact that America should remain "uninvolved" because it is none of our business is also ridiculous. We are a super power in this world. We can't just stick our heads in the sand and pretend it doesn't exsist, like Africa.

From:

I'm not advocating "sticking our heads in the sand". We are more involved in the fight between these groups than we should, which is one of the reasons areas like Darfur get ignored. Arguing that we should step in because we're a super power is equally ridiculous. There are hundreds of horrible situations going on right now that we could choose to involve ourselves in. These areas little press and even less attention from our government.

From:

I am not saying that our gov't is doing right by picking and choosing which battles they are in because there are ports or oil or whatever at stake. YOU are the one who advocated we should stay out of it though, and that is just a naive way of thinking.

From:

We should stay out of it. Since 1949 economic aid to Israel has cost the U.S. more than 134 billion. Israel receives 50% of the FMF budget and over a third of the budget request for the ESF (more than 75% of what allocated for the near-east). Our involvement has been one sided and hasn't improved the situation at all. How do you propose our continued involvement will help?

From:

There comes a certain point where I feel the need to end ridiculous conversations. This one has in fact become quite ridiculous (and if you ask why, you will be talking to yourself from now on). Ta.

From:

A couple problems:

(1) I don't think Israel/Palestine has much to do with US gasoline problems.

(2) Framing the conflict as an eternal, 3,000 year old war is not productive or accurate. The conflict today did not start up until the 1940s.

And yes, both sides have to admit fault and offer concessions to move forward to achieve a just piece. But how can this be done without diplomacy, and how can diplomacy be carried out if Israel refuses to negotiate except on its own terms?

From:

Israel refuses to negotiate except on its own terms

Right. Because the "Palestinians" have been sooooo reasonable up till now. But I agree totally with you on point #1. I was going to mention that also.

From:

Hamas has been making overtures to Israel for years, and especially after winning the parliament.

From:

When Sharon was in office he laid out more than one plan for peace between the two. They never accepted because it was not on their terms. You cannot say it is all Israels fault.

From:

Hamas has laid out probably the most realistic deal that Israel could get. It offers a long-term truce of 10 or 15 years in exchange for Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza, with mutual land exchanges if wanted, along with a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem. Is this nota reasonable starting point for negotiations? Whereas Hamas does not preclude the possibility of negotiations, the Israelis, even under Sharon, offer the plan without the possibility of negotiation.

From:

You say it sounds reasonable, but it clearly didn't to the Israelis. I cannot debate for them and say what Sharon or anybody wanted because that I am not in his place. I cannot say way. But, if you are asking me personally, I say no also. I do not believe the Israel owes the palastinians anything.

From:

What do you mean "owes"? The United Nations passed a mandate in 1947 creating a Jewish state, Israel, and an Arab state, Palestine. Since 1967, Israel has occupied the land for both countries effectively preventing the establishment of a Palestinian state.

If you are trying to say that there shouldn't be a Palestinian state, fine. Israel can keep all the land and annex it all to Israel, under the condition that the Palestinian Arabs are patriated as Israelis with equal political, social, and economic rights as the Jewish citizens of Israel. I have no problem with Israel doing this. The alternative is either for Israel to exterminate the Palestinian Arabs to control the demography, or to keep them in a no-man's-land of rightless martial law, like it has done for the past 4 decades.

From:

Ok, maybe "owes" was not my best wording. However, I do like your solution a great deal.

I read a bit of your journal (I hope you don't mind). You are incredibly well spoken.

From:

I like my solution too. It's the one-stated eal. However, Israel would never accept such a thing. It raises some very serious existential questions for Israel. Israel has two options if it wants to patriate the Palestinian Arabs by annexing the entirety of mandate Palestine: (1) To remain a democratic state, and lose its Jewish majority by giving Arabs, which out number the Jews, the vote (2) to keep the Jewish nature of the state by allowing Arabs to live there, but limiting their power to vote, thus losing the democracy part.

Thus far Israel's policy has been to avoid dealing with this question. The realists have recently realized that a Palestinian state is necessary for keeping a democratic Jewish state. So much of Isreali politics and military moves has to do with controlling the demography of Israel, so that Jews are always ensured to be in power.

Thanks for the compliment, though I disagree!

From:

You are well spoken, unlike myself who is full of typos today!! :)

From:

What's more, the Israel government has been constantly charged with illegal human rights violations ever since the war - the only groups in the UN that constantly claim that no such violations have occurred are Israel and the US. Guess which of those two has the veto power to prevent any human rights issues from coming to the forefront in the UN?

The Palestinians have been undergoing a near constant war of extermination for the past couple decades - when you're trying to resist people with tanks, advanced war planes, and the backing of the largest superpower in the world you're (unfortunately) forced to resist using similarly illegal means. Not saying that two wrongs makes a right, but still...

From:

So, the Palastinians are just innocent sould being beaten down by big, bad Israel in your mind? Because I don't see that way. May be you are swayed more by propaganda then I am though.

From:

No, they're not innocent anymore. Both parties commit atrocities against each other - the difference is that Israel is well armed and protected by the US. Palestine has been systematically cut off from all "legitimate" sources of aid, and its people are universally treated as terrorists, rather than a minority being seen as terrorist.

If a series of bulldozers went though Timothy McVeigh's hometown because "terrorists were there," and in the process small children were killed and hundreds lost their homes without any compensation or aid, I suspect that US citizens would react differently than when the same happens in Palestinean refugee camps.

From:

So, you believe the US is only aiding Israel because they believe there is a terrorist threat there? I am just trying to understand you point of view, here.

From:

A large (though not the sole) reason that the US offers huge amounts of money to Israel is because Israel isn't constrained in their military actions like the US is; for example it's a big move for the US to return to supporting the Indonesian government and they've drawn criticism for working with that particular government again - there's been no such criticism for Israel having continually supporting the brutal Indonesian regimes. Israel is less restrained in their actions, have no fear of US punishments, and engages in illegal military operations all over the world without worrying about being penalized by the dominant Western partners. They can engage in "defensive" actions against powers in the middle east, provide airspace and tactical support to the US, and can train groups that the US would be killed in the media for training.

The US also supports Israel because there is a lot of money held by Jews in the US, and they have a lot of power throughout the US (and the rest of the world). This isn't a conspiracy idea, and isn't meant to denigrate the Jewish people - they just happen to have a decent chunk of change and political weight in the US and use it to protect their homeland. I understand their motivations and don't want to get into an argument about the validity of their actions - that would overextend my knowledge of the Jewish people and how certain members work with political organizations in the US. That said, as in all political processes, those with money get listened to, and this is manifested in the US.

There are, of course, a series of other reasons. American transnational corporations have a lot of very expensive manufacturing plants in Israel, and want those multibillion dollar factories and the workers in them kept safe. Also, the US does claim to be concerned for human rights and so they're ethically obligated to "defend" the Israelies. The US also claims to work towards world peace and the middle east peace process is an incredibly symbollic aspect of that process.

I've only listed a couple reasons; there are many, many, many more reasons why the US is invovled, and not all of them are negative at all. That said, the US only really works with the Israelies and never treats the Palestinians with a real degree of respect. But hey, when you're the biggest kid on the block, and no one else cares about the little guy, you can do pretty much whatever you want.

From:

That said, as in all political processes, those with money get listened to, and this is manifested in the US.

That is true of anybody holding the money- Japanese, Arabs, whoever. The fact that you believe it is the Jews lording their money over the gov't make me roll my eyes at this whole discussion now.

From:

They're not the only group, just one of the many influential ones. I'm not advocating a Jewish conspiracy, or anything like that. That said, how many rich Palestineans live in the US? They don't exactly have access to lobbyist groups..

From:

Oh, and I'll note that any particular ethnic groups is a lone thread in a multithreaded tapestry of why the US acts as it does with regards to Israel.

From:

There is also the imperial view, where people consider that the United States helped create and support Israel because it considers it its "agent" in the Middle East. I tend to think the relationship is more mutual than that, but okay.

From:

that sould be souls not sould. Typo.

From:

SHOULD be.....good grief.

From:

vlion.livejournal.com

There's a fair amount of "I AM GOD'S CHOSEN. YOU KILLED MY GREAT-GRANDFATHER. PREPARE TO DIE" stink about it from both sides.

/shrug.

Personally, I think it'll end when one group is wiped off the map.

From:

There is a fair amount of that from both sides. Nevertheless that point is moot and not helpful in framing a solution.

From:

(1) I don't think Israel/Palestine has much to do with US gasoline problems

Not directly. As I understand we only buy about 10% of our oil from the mid-east, but China buys A LOT of oil from the mid-east. Oil is our motivation for keeping a power base in the region, and that base is Israel.

(2) Framing the conflict as an eternal, 3,000 year old war is not productive or accurate. The conflict today did not start up until the 1940s.

I agree totaly, but that's somthing to explain to Israelis and Arabs. Israel reclaimed land that hadn't been theirs for thousands of years. Arabs beef with them goes back even longer.

From:

hadn't been theirs for thousands of years

That should be a thousand years. The 4th gives me a foggy head, sorry.

From:

evil-admiral.livejournal.com

Yadda-yadda-yadda. Anyone who knows how gas prices work know better than to fall for the straw-man argument that comic presents. There are many factors besides terrorists which impact gas prices.

From:

vlion.livejournal.com

I choose you, #2. The final solution. /sigh.

From: