Dennis prager explains the middle east in 5 minutes

you can't list all the players in 5 minutes, much less explain it!
 
True....ok, I'll try again.
The Middle East suffers from a combination of delusions of adequacy compounded by a lack of respect for the other which is multiplied by an intense case of mass cranial-rectal inversion.

:D
 
Bob Hubbard said:
True....ok, I'll try again.
The Middle East suffers from a combination of delusions of adequacy compounded by a lack of respect for the other which is multiplied by an intense case of mass cranial-rectal inversion.

:D
Click to expand...

I stand corrected and bow to your Greatness!
:asian:
:bow:
 
Bob Hubbard said:
True....ok, I'll try again.
The Middle East suffers from a combination of delusions of adequacy compounded by a lack of respect for the other which is multiplied by an intense case of mass cranial-rectal inversion.

:D
Click to expand...

You have a way with words :)
 
I'm sorry, you thought I meant Bob, no, I actually meant that Dennis did a great job. Bob, eh, you know.
 
I doubt its something that can be explained in five months, let alone five minutes.

That is obvious when university offers 3 month courses on the middle eastern problems alone....

Mohandas (mahatma) k. gandhi opposed the creation of isreal (and pakistan, created at about the same time) he felt it would create more problems that it solved. And seeing how this is going on, seems like he was right.

http://www.riazhaq.com/2009/01/gandhi-opposed-creation-of-israel.html

I'd like to hear opinions from tez and canuckma on this, seeing as how they are jewish. And if there are any muslims on MT, them too.

Prager, Imo, seems to make it more simplistic than it actually is. No war is that simplistic as that clip makes it sound. "the arabs just want em dead" Come on. Gimmie a king size break.
 
I'm staying out of those threads as much as possible. It's better for my blood pressure.
 
Last edited:
Blade96 said:
I doubt its something that can be explained in five months, let alone five minutes.

That is obvious when university offers 3 month courses on the middle eastern problems alone....

Mohandas (mahatma) k. gandhi opposed the creation of isreal (and pakistan, created at about the same time) he felt it would create more problems that it solved. And seeing how this is going on, seems like he was right.

http://www.riazhaq.com/2009/01/gandhi-opposed-creation-of-israel.html

I'd like to hear opinions from tez and canuckma on this, seeing as how they are jewish. And if there are any muslims on MT, them too.

Prager, Imo, seems to make it more simplistic than it actually is. No war is that simplistic as that clip makes it sound. "the arabs just want em dead" Come on. Gimmie a king size break.
Click to expand...

How convenient.

A Hindu, from an overwhelmingly Hindu-majority country opposed the idea of countries where non-Hindus would be the majority. :rolleyes:
 
If only it was so simple. Perhaps one step towards a solution would be to halt settlements in the occupied territories. This is an area that the UN designates as not belonging to Israel. Other contentous spots include East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights and the blockade of the Gaza Strip.

Now I watched in 1967 as it looked as though the Arab states would crush Israel and in fairness they got what they deserved when Israel took over all the territory in the vicinity. If you start a war for the wrong reasons you deserve a bloody nose. But that doesn't automatically mean that the victor can keep that territory and exclude the prior inhabitants.

Sure Israel did a land for peace deal with Egypt but I'm not sure that the reason is as clear as Dennis Prager suggests. It is far more complex. The outcome was land returned for the acknowledgement of Israel's right to exist, not for peace as such. For Egypt it was a no brainer. They didn't want to fight in the first place, they lost a heap of oil rich territory and the provision of Palestinian Territory for the creation of the State of Israel didn't take an inch of Egyptian territory. Egypt was duped into the alliance with Syria for a start. The irony is then that the Eyptian President Nasser encouraged the others involved, including Arafat, not to do a deal, so the rest of the land, the Israel had agreed to return, was never relinquished. Some sort of convoluted logic at work here.

Prior to the 1967 war, Israel sent a large force into Jordan which undermined the agreement that the US had with President Hussain thus making the conflict almost inevitable.

In fairness the Palestinians also want acknowledgement that they also have the right to exist. In 2009, Benjamin Netanyahu accepted an eventual Palestinian state which must:
"clearly and unambiguously recognise Israel as the state of the Jewish people", meaning that Palestinian refugees must be settled outside of Israel's borders, since resettlement within Israel would undermine its existence as Jewish. The Palestinian state must be "demilitarised, namely, without an army, without control of its airspace, and with effective security measures to prevent weapons smuggling into the territory". The state would not be allowed to forge military pacts with other countries. Other "positions" included Israel's need for "defensible borders" and Jerusalem would remain as the united capital of Israel
Click to expand...
Is this fair and reasonable?

Both sides are to blame and both sides have a grievance against the other. Prager is happy to blame the arabs but the fault is equally shared IMHO. :asian:
 
Carol said:
How convenient.

A Hindu, from an overwhelmingly Hindu-majority country opposed the idea of countries where non-Hindus would be the majority. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

you saying he wanted only countries where hindu would be majority? I dont think he thought like that.
 
It really isn't that simple. Treating it like it is is just riding for a fall.
 
It's a complex situation requiring a complex solution. It may look simple, but as they say, the devil's in the details.
 
Prager explains in 5 mins the problem. I wish he could solve the problem in 5 mins.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

The Dangerous Gun

Previous Thread

Ann coulter, Blood libel, Palin and the media

Next Thread

Latest Discussions

Back
Top